Classical Energy vs Quantum Energy

Click For Summary
The discussion explores the relationship between classical and quantum energy expressions, questioning whether classical observables can be directly replaced with quantum operators to yield energy eigenvalues. While there is skepticism about this approach due to potential unaccounted quantum effects, examples like the rigid rotor suggest it may be valid. The Hamiltonian in quantum mechanics is noted to be derived using this method, indicating a connection between the two frameworks. Additionally, the conversation highlights the possibility of ordering ambiguities that can be addressed through experimental comparison. Overall, the dialogue emphasizes the complexities and nuances in transitioning from classical to quantum mechanics.
eep
Messages
225
Reaction score
0
Hi,
If we find an expression for the total energy of a system in terms of classical mechanics, can we replace the observables with their quantum-mechanical operators and state that this new equation acting on the wave function should give you the energy eigenvalues? My gut reaction is to say no, because there must be some quantum mechanical effects which just simply can't be accounted for in classical mechanics, however I noticed when working on solving a rigid rotor that it is indeed the case. Moreover, isn't the Hamiltonian in QM derived by following this prescription?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
eep said:
Hi,
If we find an expression for the total energy of a system in terms of classical mechanics, can we replace the observables with their quantum-mechanical operators and state that this new equation acting on the wave function should give you the energy eigenvalues? My gut reaction is to say no, because there must be some quantum mechanical effects which just simply can't be accounted for in classical mechanics, however I noticed when working on solving a rigid rotor that it is indeed the case. Moreover, isn't the Hamiltonian in QM derived by following this prescription?


I've seen some arguments about your question in the Dirac's classic QM textbook.

Any more opinions?
 
If there is a dynamical variable on classical phase space \omega(x, p) then we can make the replacement

x\rightarrow X, p \rightarrow P,

where X, P are the position and momentum operators, to get the quantum operator

\Omega(X, P).

There may be ordering ambiguities etc. which can be resolved by comparison with experiment.
 
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
8K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K