Can Newton's Laws Be Quantized for Modern Physics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter quantumdude
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Newton
AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the potential quantization of Newton's laws, particularly focusing on the simple harmonic oscillator. It highlights the limitations of Newton's second law in the context of quantum mechanics, specifically regarding the uncertainty principle. The author proposes a new approach by expressing Newton's law in terms of momentum and attempting to derive a wavefunction from it. Initial attempts to solve the resulting equation yield unexpected results, raising questions about the validity of the method and its relationship to established quantum mechanics. The conversation emphasizes the need for further exploration of this approach and its implications for modern physics.
quantumdude
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
5,560
Reaction score
24
Many moons ago, when I used to teach Modern Physics to engineering undergrads, I told them that to get to quantum mechanics from classical mechanics, we had to start from the Hamiltonian as opposed to Newton's laws. I told them that the reason was that Newton's second law for a particle, namely:

ΣF=m(d2x/dt2)

presupposed that we could know the trajectory x(t) of a particle, which violates the uncertainty principle. However, lately I am thinking that that is not the reason at all. The Hamiltonian is expressed in terms of the coordinates and momenta, which we are also not allowed to know simultaneously.

So why not try to quantize Newton?

I want to look at an example first, and then go into generalities later. Let's look at the simple harmonic oscillator in 1D along the x axis.

Writing the RHS in terms of momentum, Newton sez:

-kx=(dp/dt)

Now quantize:

-kx=(d/dt)(-i*hbar)(d/dx)
-(i*hbar)(d/dt)(d/dx)+kx=0

Now we have an operator. Let it act on a wavefunction Φ(x,t)

-(i*hbar)(d/dt)(dΦ(x,t)/dx)+kxΦ(x,t)=0

I just thought of this like 5 minutes ago, so I haven't worked it out yet. But what I want to explore is:

1. Is this mathematically valid?
2. If so, what is the relationship between this wavefunction and the Schrodinger wavefunction?
3. Has this been worked out before?
4. Might there be some advantage to this approach?

edit: fixed an omission, and a typo
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
an interesting idea.

i no of no explanation why you have to start from hamilton s equations instead of Newton s equations.

however, i tried solving your equation by separation of variables, and i got something that looked completely unlike what i know the correct solution shuold look like. i got the time component goes as exp(kt), which is odd, and i did get a gaussian for the space component, which is what the ground state looks like. i only get one solution, and no quantization.

but still, i m not sure why it should make a difference. after all, classically, the two approaches are equivalent, right? they encode the same information...
 
Okay, how does this grab you:

We know that because the harmonic oscillator is a conservative system, it's states are determined by the value of a single observable, and anyone of position, momentum or energy will do. By taking P=-ihd/dx you've chosen to work in the x-representation.

So what's the action of d/dt on Φ in this representation? Not the hamiltonian H(x)=-(1/2m)d2/dx2+(1/2)kx2, because Φ doesn't satisfy the shrodinger equation. Yet the evolution of all quantum mechanical systems are governed by their hamiltonians.
 
Last edited:
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top