Evere molecule consists of atoms that vibrate around their equilibrium positions. This can be viewed from a classical or a quantum perspective. However, I found a seeming inconsistency between these two approaches: in the first approach the particle is moving, but in the second approach (the expected value of) its position is constant in time.
In the classical approach, let $Q(t)$ be the deviation of an atom around its equilibrium position. Using Hooke's law one can derive the formula
$$Q(t)=\cos(2\pi\nu t)\tag{*}$$ for some constant $\nu$. This means that the position of the particle varies with time.
In the quantum approach, you can approximate the atom by a quantum harmonic oscillator. The QHO has Hamiltonian
$$\hat{H}= \frac{1}{2m}\hat{p}^2+\frac12\omega^2\hat{x}^2$$
We can not speak about the 'exact position' because that does not exist in quantum mechanics; however, the wavefunction may be sharply peaked around a central position. Therefore the quantum analogue for position is $\langle \hat{x}(t)\rangle=\int_{space}x(t)|\psi(x,t)|^2$. For the QHO you can derive that $\frac{d}{dt}\langle \hat{x}(t)\rangle = 0$ for all eigenstates. That means that the (expected value of the) position of the particle does not change in time. The expected position is 'standing still'.
In certain situations, the quantum analogue reduces to the classical version. For example, Ehrenfest's theorem implies that $\frac{d}{d t}\langle x\rangle=\frac{1}{m}\langle p\rangle$. Replacing $\langle x\rangle$ by the 'classical' position and $\langle p\rangle$ by the 'classical' momentum, we obtain the usual relation. I would have expected that for molecular vibrations, you can replace $\langle \hat{x}(t)\rangle $ by $Q(t)$ to retrieve Equation (*). Why does this not work? Does this mean that the classical approach gives an 'incorrect' formula for $Q(t)$ and only the quantum approach is correct?