3
$\begingroup$

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?

$\endgroup$
2
  • 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. $\endgroup$ Commented 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. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 9, 2021 at 21:41

1 Answer 1

3
$\begingroup$

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).

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ 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

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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