Everyone who has taken a course in Quantum Mechanics has at some point derived a quantum Hamiltonian from a Lagrangian. However, I can't seem to find any reference on the topic. My question is regarding the product $p_i x_i$ in the Legendre transform: $$H = \sum_i p_i \dot x_i - KE+ PE.\tag{1}$$ Is this the correct order or does the order not matter? At what point does one make the upgrade from classical variables to quantum variables and introduce the commutation relations?
-
3$\begingroup$ Actually (at least in my perception) this is pretty rare. Quantum Mechanics (at least introductory) doesn't even mention Lagrangians. What often happens is that a classical lagrangian is legendre transformed to yield a classical hamiltonian (which then can be used in QM). Instead of postulating a lagrangian and using it, you could as well just use a hamiltonian from the start. $\endgroup$– QuantumwhispCommented Dec 9, 2021 at 8:02
-
$\begingroup$ @Quantumwhisp You are correct! Except in some cases where the intuition fails, it is a good idea to start from the lagrangian and then follow the prescription to get the Hamiltonaian. $\endgroup$– SlothForevaCommented Dec 9, 2021 at 21:41
1 Answer
Normally, one quantizes a theory in the following order:
$$\begin{align} \text{classical}& \text{ Lagrangian} \cr \downarrow&\text{ Legendre transformation} \cr \text{classical}& \text{ Hamiltonian}\cr \downarrow&\text{ quantization} \cr \text{quantum}& \text{ Hamiltonian}\end{align}\tag{I}$$
see e.g. this, this & this Phys.SE posts.
However, OP apparently wants to quantize in the opposite order:
$$\begin{align} \text{classical}& \text{ Lagrangian} \cr \downarrow&\text{ quantization ??} \cr \text{quantum}& \text{ Lagrangian ??}\cr \downarrow&\text{ quantum Legendre transformation ??} \cr \text{quantum}& \text{ Hamiltonian}\end{align}\tag{II}$$
There are several issues with OP's proposal (II) before one could address OP's question about a quantum Legendre transformation: E.g. how do we define CCR using only Lagrangian variables $q$ and $v$? Of course, one could in principle work backwards using the conventional method (I).
OP's eq. (1) has related issues, as OP already seems to be aware of: How should one order the $p\dot{q}$ term to ensure that the quantum Hamiltonian is Hermitian? It seems easier to just use the conventional quantization scheme (I).
-
$\begingroup$ Thank you for your answer. I see what you mean about commutation relations. However, there has to be a more formal way to do everything in terms of quantized coordinates and momenta. I will keep looking. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 9, 2021 at 21:45