Limit of quantum mechanics as h -> 0

In summary, the Heisenberg equation of motion can be approximated by the classical Poisson bracket. The equation you attempted to derive is actually$$\frac{d\hat{p}}{dt}=F(\hat{x})$$where $$F(x)=-\frac{\partial V(x)}{\partial x}$$Note that ##\hat{p}## and ##\hat{x}## are quantum operators, so the first equation is not yet classical. To get something classical-like you have to take the quantum average of it$$\frac{d\langle\psi|\hat{p}|\psi\rangle}{dt}=
  • #1
offscene
7
2
TL;DR Summary
I recently saw an explanation for how quantum mechanics approaches classical mechanics at the limit of Planck's constant becoming 0 using the Heisenberg equation of motion but am confused about what it is about this limit that reduces the equation of motion to its classical limit.
Starting from the Heisenberg equation of motion, we have

$$ih \frac{\partial p}{\partial t} = [p, H]$$
which simplifies to $$ih \frac{\partial p}{\partial t} = -ih\frac{\partial V}{\partial x}$$
but this just results in ## \frac{\partial p}{\partial t} = -ih\frac{\partial V}{\partial x}## and I'm not sure where the limit of the Planck's constant was even used. Can anyone point out my mistake or help me understand?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
offscene said:
I recently saw an explanation f

where?
 
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50 and topsquark
  • #3
offscene said:
but this just results in ## \frac{\partial p}{\partial t} = -ih\frac{\partial V}{\partial x}##
No, it results in ## \frac{\partial p}{\partial t} = -\frac{\partial V}{\partial x}##.
 
  • Like
Likes hutchphd, topsquark and malawi_glenn
  • #4
Classical Poisson bracket { } , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_bracket, corresponds with quantum commutator [ ] with
[tex] \frac{[\ \ ]}{i\hbar} \rightarrow \{\ \ \}[/tex]
in classical limit. ##\frac{\partial V}{\partial x}## comes from classical Poisson bracket.
 
  • Like
Likes topsquark
  • #5
The equation you attempted to derive is actually
$$\frac{d\hat{p}}{dt}=F(\hat{x})$$
where
$$F(x)=-\frac{\partial V(x)}{\partial x}$$
Note that ##\hat{p}## and ##\hat{x}## are quantum operators, so the first equation is not yet classical. To get something classical-like you have to take the quantum average of it
$$\frac{d\langle\psi|\hat{p}|\psi\rangle}{dt}=\langle\psi|F(\hat{x})|\psi\rangle$$
which is called the Ehrenfest theorem. But this is still not the classical equation. The classical equation is obtained if the right-hand side can be approximated as
$$\langle\psi|F(\hat{x})|\psi\rangle \approx F(\langle\psi|\hat{x}|\psi\rangle)$$
It is this last approximation that requires the small ##\hbar## limit, which I leave as an exercise for you. (Hint: Assume that ##\langle x|\psi(t)\rangle=\psi(x,t)## is a narrow wave packet, thus resembling a classical particle with well defined position.)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes topsquark and malawi_glenn
  • #6
offscene said:
TL;DR Summary: I recently saw an explanation for how quantum mechanics approaches classical mechanics at the limit of Planck's constant becoming 0 using the Heisenberg equation of motion but am confused about what it is about this limit that reduces the equation of motion to its classical limit.

Starting from the Heisenberg equation of motion, we have

$$ih \frac{\partial p}{\partial t} = [p, H]$$
which simplifies to $$ih \frac{\partial p}{\partial t} = -ih\frac{\partial V}{\partial x}$$
but this just results in ## \frac{\partial p}{\partial t} = -ih\frac{\partial V}{\partial x}## and I'm not sure where the limit of the Planck's constant was even used. Can anyone point out my mistake or help me understand?
I wrote an insight about it. I believe I called it: The classical limit of commutators, or something similar
 
  • Like
Likes offscene, anuttarasammyak and malawi_glenn

FAQ: Limit of quantum mechanics as h -> 0

1. What does the limit of quantum mechanics as h -> 0 imply?

The limit of quantum mechanics as Planck's constant (h) approaches zero suggests a transition from quantum mechanics to classical mechanics. In this limit, the effects of quantum phenomena become negligible, and the behavior of systems can be described by classical physics, where particles follow deterministic trajectories rather than probabilistic wave functions.

2. How does the behavior of particles change in this limit?

As h approaches zero, the uncertainty principle becomes less significant, leading to a situation where the position and momentum of particles can be known with arbitrarily high precision. This results in classical trajectories for particles, where they move in predictable paths without the inherent randomness associated with quantum behavior.

3. What are the implications for quantum systems in the classical limit?

In the classical limit, quantum systems lose their wave-like properties and exhibit particle-like behavior. This means that phenomena such as superposition and entanglement diminish, and systems can be described using classical variables, making it easier to apply classical mechanics to understand their dynamics.

4. Are there any physical systems where this limit is relevant?

This limit is particularly relevant in macroscopic systems where quantum effects are negligible, such as everyday objects. For example, the motion of a baseball can be accurately described using classical mechanics, as the effects of quantum mechanics are not observable at this scale due to the large values of action compared to h.

5. Can the limit of h -> 0 be experimentally realized?

While it is not feasible to physically reduce Planck's constant to zero, the limit can be conceptually explored in experiments by considering systems with large quantum numbers or by examining macroscopic systems where quantum effects are suppressed. These scenarios help illustrate the transition from quantum to classical behavior without altering the fundamental constants of nature.

Similar threads

Back
Top