3
$\begingroup$

If $X$ and $P$ commute, then the rate of change of expectation value of $X$ becomes zero, assuming $$\frac{d}{dt} \langle X \rangle= \langle [X, P^2+V(x)] \rangle=0.$$

This is not what classical mechanics says, is it?

$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You seem to have a very simplistic view of how a "classical limit" is supposed to work. See e.g. physics.stackexchange.com/q/56151/50583, physics.stackexchange.com/q/457601/50583 for discussion of what the $\hbar\to 0$ or "everything commutes" limit of QM is really supposed to mean. $\endgroup$
    – ACuriousMind
    Commented Dec 31, 2021 at 11:25
  • $\begingroup$ No, it is not, of course. You compared apples with oranges: operators with phase-space functions; but you broke all the rules! The vanishing of ℏ→0 is just the icing on the cake. Are you familiar with the KvN operator description of classical mechanics? As @ZeroTheHero points out, you could instead translate everything to phase-space language and then the limit is less ill-defined. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 31, 2021 at 16:03
  • $\begingroup$ The expression you wrote is a 0/0 chimera, based on a non-existent Heisenberg equation of motion and Ehrenfest theorem! Recall that, "in real life", the rhs is $2 \frac{i\hbar}{i\hbar} \langle P \rangle=2 \langle P \rangle$ ... $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 31, 2021 at 16:33

3 Answers 3

2
$\begingroup$

One has to be careful in discussing the transition from quantum to classical mechanics. First, by Dirac quantization (see also this post): $$ [\hat A,\hat B]\to i\hbar \{A,B\}_{PB} +{\cal O}(\hbar^2) \tag{1} $$ where $\{A,B\}_{PB}$ is the Poisson bracket. Thus, if you naively set $\hbar\to 0$, you get nonsense. In particular you have no dynamics as this comes out of the Poisson bracket of a function and the Hamiltonian. Note that, in (1), the left hand side refers to the commutator of operators whereas the right hand side refers to the PB of functions in phase space (of $p$ and $q$).

Within the formalism of Wigner quasidistributions, which is probably the most natural to investigate the quantum-classical transition, the classical limit is not obtained by setting $\hbar=0$ but by ignoring higher powers of $\hbar$ past the Poisson bracket in the expansion of the Moyal bracket.

Even in the WKB formalism (which is an expansion in $\hbar$), the leading term, from which we extract the lowest order WKB approximation, still contains one power of $\hbar$.

Thus recovering classical mechanics from quantum mechanics is a subtle business it is misleading to suggest that the classical mechanics is obtained by simply setting $\hbar\to 0$.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Assuming $X$ is the position operator, we cannot interpret $P$ as a canonical momentum operator conjugate to $X$ because they commute. Therefore, the quantity $P^2 + V(x)$, which I assume is your Hamiltonian, has no kinetic term for the $X$ direction, so no dynamics in $X$.

This argument applies to classical mechanics too if you use the Poisson bracket instead. So if we let $\{x,p\} = 0$, then

$$ \frac{dx}{dt}= \{x,H\} = \{x,p^2 + v(x)\} = 0 $$

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

I got it

The formula $i\frac{d}{dt} \langle X\rangle =\langle [X,H]\rangle $ is arrived at using the schrodinger equation, and hence is only valid in quantum mechanics. The equivalent formula for classical mechanics would be derived using the matrixified version of Hamilton's equations.

$\endgroup$
5
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ No ! This is only arrived at from $i\hbar ~ dX/dt = [X,H]$ when you set $\hbar=1$. To go to the classical limit you'd need to set $\hbar\to 0$, but then both sides would be 0, that is 0=0. It is a correct but empty statement. You took the wrong limit. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 1, 2022 at 17:05
  • $\begingroup$ @CosmasZachos I wrote the equation in natural units, so $h=1$. And the other way to go classical is to assume the commutator 0. Look in the "Derivation from operator axioms" section of the KvN mechanics article you linked. They only assume the commutator is 0 and derive classical mechanics. The reason it didn't work in my post is that I started with a equation that relies on the axioms of quantum mechanics in the first place. This is what I wrote in the answer. If you start with the general "operator axioms" as done in the article, $[X,P]=0$ derives classical mechanics. $\endgroup$
    – Ryder Rude
    Commented Jan 5, 2022 at 3:46
  • $\begingroup$ @CosmaaZachos In the post, I started with a formula that is derived by assuming $[X,P]=i$, and I then set $[X,P]=0$ in it. $\endgroup$
    – Ryder Rude
    Commented Jan 5, 2022 at 3:53
  • $\begingroup$ Natural units and the classical limit don’t mix. The point is the commutator does not collapse in that limit: it devolves to the PB. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 5, 2022 at 3:54
  • $\begingroup$ @CosmasZachos What you're saying is fine. But that's not what's wrong with the post. I was not trying the limit approach. One other way to get classical mechanics is by assuming $[X,P]=0$. This way, you get the Hilbert space formulation of classical mechanics, so there's no Poisson bracket. In the post, I assumed $[X,P]=0$ in an equation where I couldn't assume it. The wiki article on KvN mechanics does it the right way $\endgroup$
    – Ryder Rude
    Commented Jan 5, 2022 at 3:58

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.