2
$\begingroup$

In section $9.5$ of Weinberg's Lectures on Quantum Mechanics, he uses an example to explain the clasification of constraints. The Lagrangian for a non-relativistic particle that is constrained to remain on a surface described by

$$f(\vec x)=0\tag{1}$$

can be taken as

$$L=\frac 12 m \dot{\vec x}^2-V(\vec x)+\lambda f(\vec x).\tag{2}$$

Apart from the primary constraint $(1)$ there is also a secondary one, arising from the imposition that $(1)$ is satisfied during the dynamics $$\dot {\vec x}\cdot\vec \nabla f(\vec x)=0.\tag{3}$$

Then he states that imposing $[x_i,p_j]=i\hbar\delta_{ij}$ would be inconsistent with the constraints $(1)$ and $(3)$ (which reads $\vec{p}\cdot\vec{\nabla}f=0$ in the Hamiltonian formalism). How can I see this inconsistency?

$\endgroup$
0
4
$\begingroup$

Would an example suffice? If so, consider the case $f(\vec x) = x_1$. Then (1) says $x_1=0$, which is already inconsistent with the commutation relation, and (3) says $p_1=0$, which is again inconsistent with the commutation relation. If $x_1$ or $p_1$ is zero, then we can't have $[x_1,p_1]\neq 0$.

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

On one hand, $$ 0~=~[0,0]~=~[f(x),\vec{p}\cdot\vec{\nabla}f]~=~i\hbar (\vec{\nabla}f)^2.$$ On the other hand, a constraint function $f$ typically satisfies a regularity condition $$ \left .\vec{\nabla}f \right|_{f=0}~\neq~\vec{0}.$$

$\endgroup$

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.