I am currently trying to understand a set of lecture notes, where the notation is very poorly defined, unfortunately. In a "proof" that canonical quantisation works, the following Hamiltonian (operator) is defined: \begin{equation} H = e\Phi + \frac{(\mathbf{p}-e\mathbf{A})\cdot (\mathbf{p}-e\mathbf{A})}{2m} \end{equation} where $\mathbf{A}$ is a vector potential and $\mathbf{p} = -i\hbar\nabla$. Then, Hamilton's equations are being applied: \begin{aligned} \dot{\mathbf{x}} &= \frac{\partial H}{\partial \mathbf{p}} \stackrel{(*)}{=} \frac{1}{m}(\mathbf{p}-e\mathbf{A}) \\ \dot{\mathbf{p}} &= -\frac{\partial H}{\partial \mathbf{x}} \stackrel{(*)}{=} -e\frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial \mathbf{x}} + \frac{e}{m}(\mathbf{p}-e\mathbf{A}) \cdot \frac{\partial}{\partial \mathbf{x}} \mathbf{A} \end{aligned}

where the dot product in the final term is between the outer two vectors, in a sad indictment of the notation.

I do not really understand the steps marked with (*).

For the first equation, I get how to do this if you treat the $\mathbf{p}$ as a scalar and the derivative as a "scalar" derivative. However, the result would be different if I treat it as a vector, and the derivative as the corresponding divergence. But even then, it is clearly an operator, so how do I think about this correctly? For the second equation, I don't really have an idea about what's going on.

I hope this question is suitable for Physics SE.

  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Are you sure this isn't supposed to take place prior to the quantization? It doesn't make a lot of sense to define ${\bf{p}}=-i\hbar \nabla$ and then to turn around and start talking about $\dot{\bf{p}}$. $\endgroup$
    – J. Murray
    May 11 '18 at 13:24
  • $\begingroup$ The notes do talk about quantization first, and after that this calculation appears, without any notice that this happens prior to quantization. But it makes a lot more sense, you are right! Thanks! The issue with the second equation will probably be resolved using index notation in that case. $\endgroup$
    – scaphys
    May 11 '18 at 13:45
  • $\begingroup$ Which lecture notes? $\endgroup$
    – Qmechanic
    May 11 '18 at 15:52
  • $\begingroup$ They are unpublished lecture notes on Quantum Mechanics. $\endgroup$
    – scaphys
    May 11 '18 at 16:00

Agreed, the notation is confusing.

Strictly speaking, there is no such a thing as a "derivative wrt an operator". Here the instruction is simply to take the derivative of $H=H(p ,q)$ as if it was a classical function of $p$ and $q$, and then set $p$ and $q$ equal to the corresponding operators in the Hilbert space.

Without entering into a boring discussion (basicly on notation), the physical message is that the time-derivatives of the quantum operators in the Heisenberg picture, that is: $$\dot q \equiv \frac{i}{\hbar}[H,q],\qquad \dot p \equiv \frac{i}{\hbar} [H,p],$$agree with the RHSs of the hamiltonian equations of motion. More precisely, one has the Ehrenfest theorem: $$m \ddot q = e [E+\frac{1}{2}(\dot q \wedge B - B\wedge \dot q)],$$ where all objects are operators.

A boring discussion. Now, the notation may be somewhat clarified as follows. If you consider an arbitrary polynomial $P(p)$ in the $p$s, then you can easily prove that: $$[q,P]=i\hbar\frac{\partial P}{\partial p},$$where again the RHS is defined by taking the usual derivative of $P$ with respect to $p$, and then setting $p$ equal to the momentum operator. This follows from the (trivial) identity: $$[A,BC]=[A,B]C+B[A,C].$$

To understand what's going on, notice that the operation $X\mapsto [A,X]$ satisfies the Leibnitz rule of ordinary differentiation:$$\text d(fg)=(\text d f)g+ f(\text d g).$$ In particular, for an operator $B$ satisfying $[A,X]=1$, this implies that $A$ acts on polynomials in $X$ as an ordinary derivative.

Things are however a bit more complicated for operators involving a product of $p$s and $q$s. Consider, for instance: $$F=pqp,\qquad G=qp^2.$$ Classically, these functions are the same, $F=G$. However: $$\frac{1}{i\hbar}[q,F]=qp+pq,\qquad \frac{1}{i\hbar}[q,G] = 2 qp.$$

It is clear that if you don't make any particular conventions for the ordering of $p$s and $q$s, you can't naively equate a commutator with the corresponding derivative.

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much! Even if J. Murray is probably right in his comment, this was helpful. $\endgroup$
    – scaphys
    May 11 '18 at 14:53
  • $\begingroup$ Glad to help :-) If I understand correctly J. Murray's comment, he is pointing out that the position $\boldsymbol p = -i\nabla$ refers to a Schrödinger picture, while the time dependence in operators refers to the Heisenberg picture. To be precise, the Ehrenfest theorems refer to the operators: $$\mathbf x (t) = e^{iHt}\mathbf x e^{-iHt},\qquad \mathbf p (t) = e^{iHt}(-i\nabla)e^{-iHt}$$(I'm assuming that the electromagnetic potentials do not depend explicitly on time) $\endgroup$
    – pppqqq
    May 12 '18 at 8:45
  • $\begingroup$ If I understood correctly, he meant that the Hamiltonian is supposed to be the Hamiltonian function of a classical particle, which is used to demonstrate that it leads to the correct equations of motion (i.e. Lorentz force, ...). This Hamiltonian can then be turned into a QM operator using canonical quantization. $\endgroup$
    – scaphys
    May 12 '18 at 18:04

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.