Weyl ordering of the hamiltonian

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jack2013
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Hamiltonian Weyl
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the complexities of Weyl ordering of the Hamiltonian as presented in Srednicki's field theory book. It highlights that the ordering of operators is a quantization ambiguity without a classical counterpart, meaning different schemes can yield different physical results. The Laplace-Beltrami operator is suggested as a reasonable choice for kinetic energy in curved manifolds, providing a unique operator ordering. The Weyl ordering aims for complete symmetrization in operator formulation. Ultimately, the challenges of operator ordering have contributed to a preference for path integrals over Lagrangian formulations in theoretical physics.
Jack2013
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Hi , I can't understand the general formula for weyl ordering of the hamiltonian . It is written in Srednicki field theory book in page 68 . Can someone explain how to derive this formula ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You can't derive a specific ordering of the Hamiltonian; the ordering of operators is a quantization ambiguity which has no classical counterpart. Usually you have p²/2m for the kinetic energy of a particle but there is no qm principle which tells you that (px)(p/x)/2m is wrong. Different ordering schemes may result in different physics and you have to use an additional, independent physical principle in orer to select the "correct" one.

In case of a curved manifold with a free particle moving on that manifold one reasonable idea is to use the Laplace-Beltrami operator as kinetic energy; this results in a unique operator ordering.

Perhaps Srednicki explains something like that ...
 
The Weyl ordering tries to define a general prescription for operator ordering: complete symmetrization.

O(qn pm) ≡ 2-n Σ qn−i pm qi where the sum runs i=0 to n.

But difficult questions like operator ordering are a reason that people turned away from Langrangian formulation and were led instead to path integrals.
 
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 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
617
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K