3
$\begingroup$

On p. 87 of Dirac's Quantum Mechanics he introduces the quantum analog of the classical Poisson bracket$^1$

$$ [u,v]~=~\sum_r \left( \frac{\partial u}{\partial q_r}\frac{\partial u}{\partial p_r}- \frac{\partial u}{\partial p_r}\frac{\partial u}{\partial q_r}\right) \tag{1}$$

as

$$uv-vu ~=~i~\hbar~[u,v]. \tag{7}$$

I'm not worried about the $\hbar$ but if there is an (alternative) explanation of why the introduction of $i$ is unavoidable that might help.


$^1$ Note that Dirac uses square brackets to denote the Poisson bracket.

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Note that "QM Poisson bracket" is not a term that is in use today. The symbol $[u,v]$ is called a commutator, and while it is connected to the Poisson brackets of hamiltonian mechanics (see this question for the connection, and also possibly this one), no one calls it a Poisson bracket because it isn't really one. $\endgroup$ – Emilio Pisanty May 12 '17 at 17:35
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ OK, I'll bite--why the downvote? There are two upvoted answers with +2 and +3. Can the question have been so devoid of interest? Really? $\endgroup$ – daniel May 13 '17 at 13:11
5
$\begingroup$

The imaginary unit $i$ is there to turn quantum observables/selfadjoint operators into anti-selfadjoint operators, so that they form a Lie algebra wrt. the commutator.

Or equivalently, consider the Lie algebra of quantum observables/selfadjoint operators with the commutator divided with $i$ as Lie bracket.

The latter Lie algebra corresponds in turn to the Poisson algebra of classical functions, cf. the correspondence principle.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Is it unavoidable: No.

Is it convenient: Yes.

Why: because given two hermitian operators $A,B$, their commutator is anti-hermitian.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ This answer would be a lot more helpful if it explained why it's convenient to turn the anti-hermitian thing into a hermitian thing. $\endgroup$ – DanielSank May 12 '17 at 17:38
  • $\begingroup$ @DanielSank yep. $\endgroup$ – AccidentalFourierTransform May 12 '17 at 18:47

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.