Hermitization and the Poisson bracket-commutator correspondence as a consequence of averaging

Hermitization and the Poisson bracket-commutator correspondence as a consequence of averaging
INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS PUBLISHING
J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 39 (2006) 789–803
JOURNAL OF PHYSICS A: MATHEMATICAL AND GENERAL
doi:10.1088/0305-4470/39/4/005
Hermitization and the Poisson bracket-commutator
correspondence as a consequence of averaging
Adriana I Pesci1, Raymond E Goldstein1,2 and Hermann Uys1
1
2
Department of Physics, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA
Program in Applied Mathematics, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA
E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] and [email protected]
Received 18 March 2005, in final form 27 October 2005
Published 11 January 2006
Online at stacks.iop.org/JPhysA/39/789
Abstract
Here we present a study of the solutions and mathematical structure of
the momentum-averaged Liouville (or Collisionless Boltzmann) equation in
Fourier space. We show that the averaging procedure leads to a formalism
identical to that of the density matrix of quantum mechanics. This mathematical
mapping leaves the averages of all quantities unaltered and provides a unique
way to construct the Hermitian version of a given operator. This seems to be
the only method that resolves the ambiguity of Hermitization of operators that
contain products of non-commuting variables. We also present a systematic
perturbation scheme to evaluate correctly the classical solutions from the
quantum ones and a formal proof of the approximate correspondence between
the Poisson brackets and commutators.
PACS numbers: 03.65.Ta, 05.20.Dd, 45.05.+x, 03.65.Sq
1. Introduction
Taking the classical limit of an arbitrary quantum system is more an art than a systematic
procedure. Even apparently simple problems present serious difficulties [1]. For example,
when showing the correspondence between commutators and Poisson brackets it is necessary
to deal with the ambiguity present in the construction of a Hermitian operator. Then, there is
the passage from quantum probabilities to probabilities in phase space which has seen through
the years a wealth of attempts to create a suitable representation of the quantum distribution
function in phase space. The best known and most successful example of such an attempt is the
Wigner function, even though it is a well-known fact that it gives rise to negative probabilities
in many cases [2]. As if all these difficulties were not enough, taking the limit h̄ → 0 in
Schrödinger’s equation is at best a singular procedure, rendering very difficult any attempt to
construct a perturbation theory.
0305-4470/06/040789+15$30.00 © 2006 IOP Publishing Ltd Printed in the UK
789
790
A I Pesci et al
There are other rather intriguing facts that do not seem to have a very good explanation.
For linear systems the time evolution of observables in quantum mechanics can be described
by the corresponding average values obtained from the probability density function in phase
space calculated from Liouville’s equation [3, 4]. Furthermore, the equation that governs
the Wigner function corresponds exactly to the Liouville equation for all potentials with
vanishing derivatives of order three or larger [2]. This remarkable connection between the
Wigner function and its classical counterpart has lead to its widespread use within so-called
decoherence theory. The aim of such theories is to describe the process by which a system
existing in a coherent quantum mechanical superposition of states loses its coherence so that it
comes to obey classical probability distributions. This is often phrased as ‘the transition from
quantum to classical world’. A widely accepted picture, views this process of ‘decoherence’ as
the result of entanglement between the system under study and an environment not monitored
by the observer (for extensive reviews see [5–7]). The aim of the present paper is not to
contradict such theories, for indeed many of their predictions have been the subject of careful
experimental scrutiny [8–11]. What connections there exist between these theories and our
interpretation of the ‘transition from classical to quantum’ is not entirely clear. We do wish
to note, however, that the point of view described below would see as distinct the processes of
‘loss of coherence’ and the ‘transition from quantum to classical’. For example, an electron
in a hydrogen atom might exist in a superposition of the first and second excited states.
Decoherence theory will describe the process by which the electron will come to be in one
state or the other with classical probabilities. On the other hand, one may want to explore
the possibility that there is a way in which the solutions to the Schrödinger equation can
be adjusted as one scales the problem to the macroscopic level, that is, the transition from
quantum orbitals to an ensemble of particles following deterministic trajectories.
Here, we propose an unorthodox way to think about these problems which sheds some
light on the issues discussed above. The procedure that we outline is based on the previous
work which describes a map of the first two moments of the non-relativistic Boltzmann
equation onto the quantum fluid equations [12–14] that lead to either the Schrödinger or Pauli
equations for irrotational or vortical flows, respectively, [15, 16]. An analogous mapping
was introduced for the relativistic Boltzmann equation and in this case one obtains either the
Klein–Gordon or the second-order Dirac equation [17].
We start by performing the mapping using only the first moment of the Boltzmann
equation. Note that this mapping would give the same result if applied to the Liouville
equation because taking averages of the first two moments in the momentum coordinate
cancels out the collision integral of the Boltzmann equation, rendering the results identical to
those obtained in the collisionless case. Through this procedure, we obtain a series expansion
in the variable y conjugate to the momentum. In the limit y → 0, we obtain the equation that
governs the evolution of the Wigner function and hence the standard Schrödinger equation for
the wavefunction and its conjugate, thus establishing an unequivocal relationship between the
classical and Wigner distribution functions. From this derivation, it becomes clear why the
probability distribution must be the product of the wavefunction and its conjugate, why
the linear combinations of wavefunctions that correspond to coherent states are the closest
to the classical picture, and also why the Wigner function looks like a symmetrized Fourier
anti-transform. This expansion also sets the stage for a perturbation theory that allows us to
recover the classical limit up to the order of approximation desired.
To understand the nature of quantum averages we introduce classical averages and then
transform them according to the prescription of the mapping. In the limit y → 0, we
find that the transformed averages coincide exactly with the averages prescribed by the
postulates of quantum mechanics up to the accuracy of the wavefunction. In fact, in the
Hermitization, Poisson brackets, and commutators
791
new representation, the classical momentum has acquired the form of the momentum operator
of quantum mechanics (!). The only exception to this correspondence occurs in situations
in which the quantities to be averaged involve products of conjugate variables (e.g., xpx ), in
which case the corresponding quantum average has a new ‘operator’ that happens to be one of
the many possible Hermitian versions [1] of the original quantity. This method establishes a
preferred way to perform the Hermitization procedure. The equality between the quantum and
the classical averages is as exact as the wavefunction, i.e. there are no further approximations
introduced beyond the limit y → 0 to obtain the wavefunction.
Finally, we map the Poisson brackets onto the commutators. In this case we show that
the correspondence between these two quantities is far from exact and in particular deviates
considerably for any operators that have a dependence on the momentum of higher degree than
a second power. This also agrees with the known fact that the Poisson brackets correspond to
commutators up to powers of h̄2 [1]. This discrepancy and its correction are illustrated in a
detailed example presented.
2. The mapping
It is well known that the motion of an ensemble of N classical particles governed by Liouville’s
equation can be recast in a hierarchy of non-linear partial differential equations (PDEs) for the
reduced probability functions defined as follows:
fN (x1 , p1 , . . . , xN , pN ) = D
,
D d
(1)
and for 1 j < N
fj (x , p ) =
j
j
N
N
fN (x , p )
N
dxl dpl ,
(2)
l=j +1
where D represents the number density of points in phase space, is the volume in phase
space and (xN , pN ) = (x1 , p1 , . . . , xN , pN ). These functions correspond
j to the probability
of finding the subsystem of j < N particles in the phase volume l=1 dxl dpl about the
state (x1 , p1 , . . . , xj , pj ) . The N PDEs generated are known as the BBKGY hierarchy [18],
the first two members of which (i.e., the equations for f1 and f2 ) are used to determine
the kinetic and potential energy of an aggregate of particles, and have a crucial role in fluid
dynamics. One way to solve these equations is to decouple them through an ansatz with regard
to the properties of the functions fj . When this Bogoliubov ansatz is imposed, the resulting
equation for f1 = f1 (x1 , p1 , t) is the Boltzmann equation
∂f1 p1 ∂f1
∂f1
+
·
+ F(x1 , p1 ) ·
= dx2 dp2 [f1 (p1 )f1 (p2 ) − f1 (p1 )f1 (p2 )],
(3)
∂t
m ∂x1
∂p1
where F is the external force averaged over all other coordinates.
Suppose now that we do not have a good way to obtain the exact initial conditions of
particle 1. We can only tell that the area of phase space must be conserved so that the system
will remain a Hamiltonian one. We can try to perform an average over the coordinates while
at the same time enforcing the constraint of area conservation. The hope is that this procedure
would lead to an averaged equation of motion with a consistent statistics as is the case with
the equations of fluid mechanics where the concept of particle trajectories is replaced by that
of streamlines. Nothing would be new in this scheme were it not that we propose to do all the
792
A I Pesci et al
work in Fourier space. This is not done in the usual way by transforming in x1 , but instead by
transforming in p1 as if we were anti-transforming back to an original coordinate y. This set
of transformations will be faithful to the original problem only if we can reintroduce the two
central properties of area preservation and of conjugate character of position and momentum.
Without them the system would lose its Hamiltonian nature. In what follows we will see that
this seems to be possible.
We first write formally the average of the Boltzmann equation over the coordinates in
phase space. It is of interest to note that when the Boltzmann equation is integrated over the
momentum coordinate p1 it produces the conservation law for the number of particles, when
multiplied by p1 and integrated over p1 it gives the momentum balance equation, and when
multiplied by p21 it gives the energy balance equation after integration over the momentum.
Moreover, the collision integral cancels out in all three cases [18]. Thus, the result for our first
balance equation reads
+∞
p ∂f
∂V (x) ∂f
∂f
+ ·
−
·
= 0,
(4)
dx dp
∂t m ∂x
∂x
∂p
−∞
where we have dropped the subindex 1 from f1 , x1 and p1 and also have assumed only
conservative forces and used the identity F = −∂V /∂x derived from Hamilton’s equations
of motion. It should be pointed out here that the integration over the x variable is in reality
unnecessary, however it will be useful later on to motivate a canonical change of variables
necessary for the transformation.
We now introduce into (4) the following representation for f :
+∞
p·y ˆ
1
f (x, y, t) dy,
(5)
exp
−i
f (x, p, t) =
(2π η)3 −∞
η
where fˆ(x, y, t) is of course given by
+∞
p·y
ˆ
f (x, p, t) dp.
(6)
f (x, y, t) =
exp i
η
−∞
The constant η is the only free parameter of the theory. In principle it could be adjusted
through experimental measurement. It will become clear that enforcing η = h̄ leads to
quantum mechanics, however for the sake of generality we will keep the notation η. With
these definitions and some straightforward algebra, equation (4) can be written as [15]
+∞
∂V ˆ
i η ∂ fˆ η2 ∂ ∂ fˆ
−
·
+y·
f =0
(7)
dx dy δ(y)
η i ∂t
m ∂x ∂y
∂x
−∞
where we have made use of the convergence of the function fˆ to discard the surface terms
resulting from an integration by parts.
This new version of Boltzmann’s equation, in which we have taken the average over p,
has introduced in the system an important change. The original equation had to be solved in
conjunction with Hamilton’s equations in order to find meaningful solutions. Of particular
importance is dpj /dt = −∂H /∂xj for each j component of the momentum, which can be
written with finite differences as pj xj = −H t. Now, due to the introduction of the
Fourier transform we have enforced a lower bound, equal to η/2, to the product pj xj
which is the area in phase space. Thus the equations of motion in finite differences can be
written as
η
(8)
pj xj = −H t = ,
2
leading to the conclusion that of all possible solutions we might be able to generate for
our averaged Boltzmann equation in Fourier space, the only ones faithful to the classical
Hamiltonian system will be those for which the equality is enforced.
Hermitization, Poisson brackets, and commutators
793
With this in mind, following Fröhlich [19–21], we now introduce the canonical change of
variables y = x − x and x = (x + x )/2, in order to find an expression of (7) more amenable
to solution. This change of variables satisfies
y
y
x = x + ,
x = x − ,
2
2
(9)
∂
1 ∂
∂
∂
∂
∂
,
.
=
=
−
+
∂y
2 ∂x
∂x
∂x
∂x ∂x
Equation (7) then becomes
+∞
η2 ∂ 2 fˆ
η ∂ fˆ
∂ 2 fˆ
−
dx dx δ(x − x )
− 2 + (V (x ) − V (x ))fˆ
i ∂t
2m ∂x 2
∂x
−∞
+ O((x − x )3 ) = 0,
(10)
where we have used the identity
∞
∂V
y ∂ n1 +n2 +n3 V y1 n1 y2 n2 y3 n3
2
y
y·
−V x−
−
,
=V x+
∂x
2
2
n !n !n ! ∂x1n1 ∂x2n2 ∂x3n3 2
2
2
{n } 1 2 3
i
(11)
and (x1 , x2 , x3 ) ≡ x, (y1 , y2 , y3 ) ≡ y and {ni } indicates the set of indices n1 , n2 , n3 which are
constrained so that n1 + n2 + n3 = 2n + 1 3 is an odd number. Note that we have chosen to
use a symmetrized difference to replace the derivative. The reason for this choice is twofold:
first, as is well known from numerical analysis, errors in derivatives are smaller when the
centre difference is used. Second and more important, as we have shown elsewhere [15, 16]
and pointed out in introduction, there is an alternative way to obtain Schrödinger’s equation
and both methods should be compatible with each other. That other procedure consists of
taking the first three moments of the Boltzmann (or Liouville) equation. The first two moments
(conservation of points density and momentum) lead to the Schrödinger equation, and the last
moment (conservation of energy) is automatically satisfied because the equation is enslaved to
the other two. As a result of this calculation, any corrections must be of order O(y3 ) or higher,
such that the second and third order moments, which involve two derivatives with respect to
y, will not require any more information about fˆ and the potential than that included in the
previous moments.
If now we evaluate the integrals in (10) the corrections vanish and we are left with two
possible choices for the zeroth order term: either we take the limit x → x ≡ x which leads to
the trivial solution, or we find a function fˆ that satisfies the equation inside the square brackets
in (10). Here we choose the second route, and since the equation to solve is linear we propose
using the separation of variables fˆ = ψ(x )φ(x ). As intuitive a form as this may be, it should
be emphasized that it is by no means the most general form of the solution. As with any
partial differential equation, initial conditions and boundary conditions may invalidate such
solutions. The results discussed in the remainder of this paper hold only under this restrictive
form of solution. This leads to the following pair of equations:
−
η ∂ψ(x )
η2 ∂ 2 ψ(x )
+ V (x )ψ(x ) = −
2
2m ∂x
i ∂t
(12)
and
η2 ∂ 2 φ(x )
η ∂φ(x )
+
V
(x
)φ(x
)
=
,
(13)
2m ∂x 2
i ∂t
where we have set the separation constant equal to zero, a choice which corresponds to
fixing a particular zero of the potential. Since (13) is the conjugate of (12) it follows that,
−
794
A I Pesci et al
in the limit x → x ≡ x, φ(x) = ψ † (x) and then fˆ = ψ † ψ where († ) stands for complex
conjugation. Any general solution can now be written as a linear combination of these basis
functions. Finally, to obtain the approximate solution to the original equation in phase space
we anti-transform fˆ. For the case of a particular basis function product, the anti-transform
yields:
+∞
i
d(x − x ) e− η p·(x −x ) fˆ(x , x , t)
f (x, p, t) =
−∞
+∞
i
y
y † ψ x+
,
(14)
dy e− η p·y ψ x −
=
2
2
−∞
where we have made use of the relationships (9) and fˆ(x , x , t) = ψ(x )ψ † (x ). This is
the well-known Wigner function of a pure state. This first approximation to the one-particle
distribution function may be a very poor one because we have never enforced the constraint
(8). However, since we are dealing with a partial differential equation that is linear, it is
possible, in principle, to construct a linear combination of the basis functions such that it will
satisfy equation (8) at all times. A function fˆ so constructed will be a first approximation to
a proper solution of Liouville’s equation, defining a positive definite probability distribution
function moving along a classical trajectory. These linear combinations are known in quantum
mechanics as coherent states.
By enforcing a condition on the distribution function which only holds in the limit x → x ,
the behaviour of the function elsewhere is at best ambiguous, rendering the limiting operation
irreversible. From the derivation above, it is clear that the classical result can only be recovered
if we forgo the y → 0 limit and devise a perturbation scheme in powers of y for the function
fˆ. The simplest such scheme consists of proposing for fˆ a series expansion in powers of y.
As an example, for a one-dimensional case, we can write
fˆ = fˆ0 + y 4 fˆ4 + · · · ,
(15)
where the first correction is of fourth order in y because the transformation is, as we have
mentioned before, exact up to order y3 as a consequence of the symmetrization we chose when
approximating the potential. We must point out that fˆ0 itself depends on y in a non-trivial
manner; it is as if we would have summed up a class of terms into fˆ0 and we are now trying
to calculate the corrections to those terms. An alternative point of view on the form of these
corrections comes from the mapping of kinetic equations onto the hydrodynamic formulation
of quantum mechanics [15–17]. That mapping utilizes only the first three moments of the
underlying kinetic distribution function, and therefore corrections naturally start at fourth
order. When the expression (15) is replaced into (10) without the truncation at third order,
i.e. including all the terms in expression (11), we obtain for the zeroth order the usual pair of
equations (12) and (13), after using separation of variables. For the first-order correction in
the one-dimensional case, we obtain
∂ 3
x + x ∂
16(3!)η2 ∂ fˆ4 ∂ fˆ4
ψ † (x )ψ(x ) = 0,
+
+
V
+
m
∂x ∂x ∂x ∂x 2
which is, in principle, non-separable. This lack of separability is also true at all other orders,
making the task of solving the hierarchy all the more difficult. Another difficulty is the
dissimilarity between the equations generated for each successive order (see appendix A). It
is possible, in principle, to find the corrections up to the order desired in a systematic way.
Hermitization, Poisson brackets, and commutators
795
3. Averages and the Hermitization procedure
As has been shown previously by Kaniadakis [22] and subsequently verified using a different
approach [15], the classical averages reduce to the quantum ones in quite a natural manner for
quantities of the form h(x) + g(p), where h and g are analytic functions. In general,
xn f (x, p, t) dx dp
x = f (x, p, t) dx dp
n
x (limy→0 fˆ) dx
= (limy→0 fˆ) dx
† n
ψ x ψdx
= †
ψ ψ dx
n
(16)
and
p =
n
=
pn f (x, p, t) dx dp
f (x, p, t) dx dp
ψ † (−iη∇)n ψ dx
,
ψψ † dx
(17)
where it is possible to make the correspondence p ≡ p̂ = −iη∇ [15, 22]. Since any analytic
function can be expressed as a unique power series expansion, any expression of the form
 = h(x) + g(p) where h and g are analytic will have an average given by [15]
Âf (x, p, t) dx dp
 = f (x, p, t) dx dp
†
ψ Â(x, p̂)ψ dx
=
.
ψψ † dx
(18)
This is also true for cases in which the variables x and p are mixed in products in such a way that
there are no products of conjugate pairs, as with Lz = xpy −ypx . These kinds of combinations
have the property that their quantum counterparts are Hermitian and it is possible to make the
direct correspondence Acl (x, p) → Â(x, −iη∇). On the other hand, combinations involving
products of variables that are conjugate in phase space produce non-Hermitian operators when
the correspondence is applied directly. It is possible to produce a Hermitian version of any
such operator, but there is no unique way to do it and different Hermitizations will produce
different results for the averages [1]. Here, instead of applying this ‘correspondence’ directly,
we apply the mapping to the original classical quantity. For the sake of simplicity, we consider
a single pair of conjugate variables, let us say x and
px ≡ p. Then, a typical analytic function
of these variables can be written as B(x, p) = n,m Bnm x n pm . After some lengthy algebra
(see appendix B), we find
B(x, p)f (x, p, t) dx dp
B(x, p) =
f (x, p, t) dx dp
†
ψ B̂ H (x̂, p̂)ψ dx
=
,
(19)
ψψ † dx
796
A I Pesci et al
where
B̂ H
m 1 m k n m−k
p̂ (x̂ p̂
=
Bnm m
)
2 k=0 k
n,m
n 1 n n−k m k
x̂ (p̂ x̂ ).
=
Bnm n
2 k=0 k
n,m
(20)
Here, we have used the notation x̂ = x and p̂ ≡ −iη∂/∂x, together with the identity proven by
McCoy [23] (see also appendix B). The quantity B̂ H happens to be Hermitian, and is the only
possible choice that satisfies the requirement of being equal to the classical average up to the
accuracy of the wavefunction. Thus, this method of approaching the Hermitization procedure
has the advantage of uniqueness and gives us the correspondence
n 1 n n−k m k
x̂ (p̂ x̂ ),
Bnm n
(21)
x n pm ↔
2 k=0 k
n,m
which is the correspondence obtained by using the operator ordering rule first introduced by
Weyl [24].
We should keep in mind that the classical and ‘quantum’ averages are identical up to the
accuracy of the separability of fˆ. Given the connection between the operations ∂/∂y and
multiplication by p it is clear that the separability of fˆ will only hold for averages involving
powers of p less than or equal to three. In such cases, since the corrections to fˆ0 are order
O(y4 ) or higher, as indicated in (15), taking at most three derivatives with respect to y leaves
a correction O(y) to the average which vanishes as y → 0. For any special cases, where
all corrections fˆk (k 4) to fˆ0 vanish independent of the value of y, expression (19) is
exact for any power of p. This could be an explanation of the shortcomings of Weyl’s rule.
Shewell [25] found that following Weyl’s rule the operator Ĥ 2 corresponding to H 2 , where
H = p2 /2m + (1/4)ax 4 , does not commute with the energy H, thus it is not a constant of
the motion. This result erroneously implies energy dispersion for energy characteristic states.
If we accept for the moment that quantum mechanics can be considered as a third moment
kinetic theory for p, and since Ĥ 2 involves a fourth power of p through an average, it seems
reasonable that Weyl’s rule does not give the exact result.
It is noteworthy that within this scheme it is possible to obtain a different Hermitian
operator, the one corresponding to the symmetrization rule
x n pm ↔ 12 (x̂ n p̂m + p̂m x̂ n ).
(22)
To obtain this other Hermitization rule we must use for the potential term a different
approximation than (11). In fact, rule (22) results from using a biased difference (x = x, x =
x − y) instead of the centre difference used in (9). The error for the biased difference, which
of course vanishes in the limit y → 0, is O(y2 ). Since we want a theory exact up to the third
moment, so that it will be compatible with the results we found for the hydrodynamic picture,
we need the lowest corrections to be O(y3 ) or higher. This makes the Weyl rule the better
choice.
Unlike the path integral formalism and other standard methods [26, 27], the kinetic theory
approach reveals that the different Hermitization rules are associated with the different levels
of accuracy of approximations in the underlying theory.
We conjecture that within this scheme it is also possible to obtain the Born–Jordan
Hermitization rule [28], although we have not yet been able to do so. Thus, we cannot make
any comparisons between it and Weyl’s rule and the statement that Weyl’s rule is the better
choice is conditional.
Hermitization, Poisson brackets, and commutators
797
4. Poisson brackets
In this last section we apply the averaging procedure to the Poisson bracket of any two functions
of x and p and study its connection to the commutator between the corresponding operators.
The average of the Poisson bracket of any two quantities u and v is
{u, v} = dx dp{u, v}f (x, p, t).
(23)
We can now write f in terms of fˆ using equation (5) to obtain
dx dp dy
p·y ˆ
{u, v} =
f (x, y, t).
(24)
{u,
v}
exp
−i
(2π η)3
η
For the trivial case in which the Poisson bracket is zero, the equivalence between the
commutator and the bracket is obvious and of little interest. A clearly more interesting
case occurs when the functions produce a non-zero bracket. To illustrate our results we will
calculate the bracket for the one-dimensional case, i.e. for functions which depend only on
x, px ≡ p and t, and in particular we choose u = u(x, t) and v = pn . This choice may seem
quite restrictive, but it will allow us to build the framework for the more general case. For
these choices, equation (24) reads
dx dp dy ∂u ∂v
py ˆ
f (x, y, t).
(25)
{u, v} =
exp −i
2π η ∂x ∂p
η
After an integration by parts in p, replacing v = pn and observing that pn e(−ipy/η) =
(−η/i)n (∂ n e(−ipy/η) /∂y n ), we obtain
i
dx dp dy ∂u η n ˆ ∂ n (−ipy/η)
y
−
{u, v} =
f ne
.
(26)
η
2π η
∂x
i
∂y
Now we symmetrize the term y(∂u/∂x) in the same way we did with the potential. Substituting
into the expression for the average, integrating by parts n times in y, and making use of the
change of variables (9), equation (26) becomes
∂
1
dp
p(x − x )
∂ n
ˆ
{u, v} =
−
[u(x
)
−
u(x
)]
f
dx dx exp −i
2π η
η
2n ∂x ∂x ∂ 2k+1 u ∂ n 2k+1 ˆ
1
dp
py n
f ).
(y
− 2(−iη)
dx dy exp −i
2π η
η
(2k + 1)! ∂x 2k+1 ∂y n
k
(27)
Using the binomial expression to calculate the derivatives inside the first integral, replacing
fˆ(x , x , t) = ψ † (x )ψ(x ), and observing that the integral over p in the first term reduces to
a delta function with argument x − x , we can calculate two of the integrals, leaving only the
one over x ≡ x. Finally, integrating by parts so that ψ † multiplies the expression from the
left and ψ is operated on from the left by the same expression, we obtain
∂ n
i
∂ n
†
{u, v} =
− −iη
u ψ
dx ψ u −iη
η
∂x
∂x
n
∂ 2k+1 u ∂ n 2k+1 ˆ
1
i
f ).
(28)
−2
(y
dx dyδ (y)(−iη)n
η
(2k + 1)! ∂x 2k+1 ∂y n
k=1
It is useful to rewrite the derivative inside the sum by use of the binomial expansion,
n n
∂ 2k+1 u n ∂ 2k+1 ∂ n− ˆ
1
f.
y
(2k + 1)! ∂x 2k+1 =0 ∂y ∂y n−
k=1
(29)
798
A I Pesci et al
Since the index k starts at k = 1, for n 2 the sum is O(y), thus the integral vanishes. On the
other hand, if n > 2 there is non-vanishing contribution proportional to η2 . With this in mind
and noting that the first integral in (28) can be written as
{u, v} = dx
dp{u, v}f (x, p, t)
i
†
n
2
[û, p̂ ] + O(η ) ψ
= dx ψ
η
i
†
2
(30)
= dx ψ
[û, v̂] + O(η ) ψ,
η
we can make the correspondence
i
dp{u, v}f (x, p, t) ≡ ψ † [û, v̂] ψ + O(η2 ).
(31)
η
The correction vanishes for cases in which the variable p only enters as a power less than or
equal to 2, and û and v̂ are the functions u and v where the momentum p has been replaced by
p̂ ≡ −iη(∂/∂x).
As an example, we take u = sin x and v = p3 . After a simple calculation we obtain for
the commutator [û, v̂] = (−iη)2 (3 sin x(∂/∂x) − 3 cos x(∂ 2 /∂x 2 ) + cos x). If now we replace
the value of the Poisson bracket {u, v} = 3 cos xp2 into the average (24) and perform the
integrals in p and y as usual, we find (−iη)2 (3 sin x(∂/∂x) − 3 cos x(∂ 2 /∂x 2 ) + (3/4) cos x).
The discrepancy is due to the fact that p enters in the calculation with a power larger than 2.
The correction as calculated from (28) is given by
1 ∂ 3u
1
i
(32)
= −(−iη)2 cos x.
− (−iη)3
η
4 ∂x 3
4
When this correction is added to the commutator we obtain the exact same result as with the
Poisson bracket.
In the general case, the transformation follows identical lines except that the algebra is
rather lengthy and cumbersome. We will start with two functions u and v dependent on all
variables x, p and t. If u and v are analytic functions in the variable p then they can be
expressed as two-power series of p with coefficients that depend on x and t
u=
∞
n=0
un (x, t)pn
v=
∞
vn (x, t)pn .
(33)
n=0
The Poisson bracket of such a pair of functions is
∂un
∂vm
vm − n
un .
{u, v} =
pn+m−1 m
∂x
∂x
nm
(34)
The average then reduces to the sum of the averages of each term. For a suitable choice
of a sequence of functions gn , each one of these terms can be expressed in the form
npn−1 (∂g(x, t)/∂x) which happens to be the Poisson bracket {g, pn }.
As we saw in the previous section (see also appendix B), when we calculate the average
of a non-separable function of x and p the result in Fourier space is the average of the
corresponding Hermitian operator. The average of a Poisson bracket is no exception to the
rule. This leads to a general correspondence between the Poisson bracket and the commutator
of two quantities,
i
(35)
dp{u, v}f (x, p, t) ≡ ψ † [ûH , v̂H ] ψ + O(η2 ),
η
Hermitization, Poisson brackets, and commutators
799
where ûH and v̂H are the Hermitian operator versions of the original functions u and v. The
order of the correction depends on the powers of p involved. Commutators for which the
highest power of p is less than or equal to 2 have a vanishing correction. The coefficients of
the three highest powers of p obtained from the average of the Poisson bracket always coincide
with the ones obtained from the commutator of the Hermitian operators. For all other powers
of p, there are corrections that can be calculated as we have shown. This discrepancy suggests,
one more time, that quantum mechanics can be thought of as a third-moment kinetic theory in
the same way that classical hydrodynamics can be viewed as a second-moment kinetic theory.
It is remarkable that the most important Poisson brackets relate to functions each of which
do not involve products of conjugate variables and that, moreover, involve p with powers less
than or equal to 2, which as we saw cancels out all corrections. Examples of this type are
brackets between the angular momenta, or the canonical variables. Of particular interest is
the Poisson bracket of the density matrix (which only depends on x) and the Hamiltonian (for
which x and p enter as a sum of two functions, one of p2 only, and the other of x only) because
it corresponds in commutator language to the von Neumann–Liouville equation.
5. Conclusions
In this work we establish the existence of a clear mathematical connection between Liouville’s
and Schrödinger’s equations. We also provide a perturbative method to obtain corrections to
the solutions to Schrödinger’s equation so that it is possible to calculate the ‘classical limit’
in a systematic way. The same procedure applies to the Poisson brackets with relation to the
commutators. We have shown that the averages of all quantities remain unchanged by the map
and that as a result the Fourier representation of the original quantities provides a unique way
of making the corresponding operator Hermitian.
A possible conclusion that can be drawn from our calculations is, simply stated, that
Schrödinger’s equation can be viewed as the equation that describes the Fourier space
representation of the momentum-averaged behaviour of a set of initial conditions for a
single-classical deterministic particle. If we accept that statement as the only logical
consequence of the mathematical derivation we have presented in this paper, then many
of the curious idiosyncrasies of quantum mechanics are revealed as a natural consequence
of the transformations undergone by Liouville’s equation in its reincarnation as a ‘quantum’
entity.
• The mysterious nature of the momentum operator as an imaginary unit times a gradient
becomes an obvious consequence of working in Fourier space.
• The curious symmetrization of the density matrix that leads to the Wigner function is
just the only logical and mathematically correct approximate inversion of the original
transformation capable of fulfilling the constraints of conservation of points in phase
space, momentum and energy.
• The ‘uncertainty’ principle is merely a consequence of the fact that averages undermine
determinism.
• The apparent non-locality of quantum mechanics can be explained as a consequence of
the averaging over all possible values of p, since averages are, by definition, non-local.
• The averaging of initial conditions would also explain the loss of chaotic behaviour in the
‘quantum’ system.
• The need for Hermitization is due to the requirement of faithfulness to the classical
average, with the added advantage that by following the rules derived from the classical
800
A I Pesci et al
origin all ambiguities are eliminated and the central role played by the Weyl ordering rule
is now explained.
• As with all proper mappings, this one should preserve the mathematical structure of the
original space. This explains the striking similarity between the density matrix representation of quantum mechanics and Liouville’s equation in phase space, and also the ‘miraculous’ correspondence between the mathematical structures of classical and quantum
mechanics.
• The central role of coherent states can now be understood from the constraints imposed
on conjugate variables through the Fourier transform; the combinations of solutions that
satisfy the equality px = η/2 are the only ones that should be considered as faithful
transformations of the solution of Liouville’s equation, and are the only ones capable of
following closely the ‘classical path’. All other choices will deviate considerably from
the equations of motion (recall equation (8)).
Finally, looking back at the way in which the classical limit is usually obtained, we can
say that taking the limit px = η/2 → 0 is equivalent to the crude reinstatement of the
original equations of motion. It almost seems that within the scheme presented here rather than
finding the classical limit of quantum mechanics the proper question to ask should be: What
corrections to quantum mechanics would reinstate the classical behaviour? The answer to that
question involves calculating the correction terms that appear in the form of a perturbation
theory in equation (15).
As we have pointed out, we have previously shown that it is possible to recast the first
two moments of Boltzmann’s equation into the corresponding quantum fluid equations that
lead to Schrödinger or Pauli’s equations in the non-relativistic case and to Klein–Gordon
and the second-order Dirac equations in the relativistic case [15–17]. These mappings
are a mathematical fact and we did not venture to guess about their possible meaning or
interpretation, stubbornly clinging to the notation η introduced by Kaniadakis [22], as opposed
to h̄. It seems that there is already too much interpretation surrounding quantum mechanics.
However, every one of the referees for our earlier works asked the same questions: Why are
we doing this mapping? and What does this mean? At the time we gave no answers, since we
are not philosophers. Yet, since it seems that we cannot escape being asked these questions,
we reluctantly offer the following speculation.
One possible conclusion is to consider the averages performed in the original Liouville
equation as the mathematical expression of the inability to create a measurement instrument
made out of parts smaller than the object to be measured, a fact for which, unfortunately,
there seems to be no way around. Since the measurement apparatus causes a perturbation at
length scales comparable to the size of the object we have to live with the fact that averages
of the initial conditions are all we will ever know, even if the particles have themselves a
deterministic behaviour. This line of thought leads us to the speculation that Schrödinger’s
equation contains within itself the statistics of the measurement apparatus.
Appendix A
Here we present the first few orders of the perturbation theory that produces the classical limit.
For simplicity, we present the calculation in the one-dimensional case. It is readily extended
to higher dimensions.
The starting point is the one-dimensional version of the integrand of equation (7), where
we substitute the identity (11)
Hermitization, Poisson brackets, and commutators
y
η ∂ fˆ η2 ∂ ∂ fˆ
y
−V x−
lim
−
+ V x+
y→0 i ∂t
m ∂x ∂y
2
2
2n+1
2n+1
∂
1
V y
fˆ = 0.
−2
2n+1
(2n
+
1)!
∂x
2
n=1
801
(A.1)
The term with the sum is the same one first calculated by Wigner [2]. Now, we propose for fˆ
an expansion of the form
fˆ = fˆ0 + y 4 fˆ4 + y 5 fˆ5 + · · · ,
which, when substituted into (A.1) produces the following hierarchy:
η2 ∂ 2 fˆ0 y
y ˆ
η ∂ fˆ0
−
+ V x+
−V x−
f0 = 0
O(y 0 ) :
i ∂t
m ∂x∂y
2
2
1 ∂ 3V ˆ
4η2 ∂ fˆ4
=−
f
O(y 3 ) :
m ∂x
4(3!) ∂x 3 0
η ∂ fˆ4 y
y ˆ
5η2 ∂ fˆ5
=
+ V x+
−V x−
f4
O(y 4 ) :
m ∂x
i ∂t
2
2
y
y ˆ
1 ∂ 5V ˆ
6η2 ∂ fˆ6
η ∂ fˆ5
= V x+
−V x−
f5 +
−
f
O(y 5 ) :
m ∂x
2
2
i ∂t
16(5!) ∂x 5 0
η ∂ fˆ6 y
y ˆ
7η2 ∂ fˆ7
=
+ V x+
−V x−
f6
O(y 6 ) :
m ∂x
i ∂t
2
2
y ˆ
8η2 ∂ fˆ8
η ∂ fˆ7
y
−V x−
f7 +
O(y 7 ) :
= V x+
m ∂x
2
2
i ∂t
1 ∂ 7V ˆ
1 ∂ 3V ˆ
f −
f .
− 6
2 (7!) ∂x 7 0 22 (3!) ∂x 3 4
(A.2)
(A.3)
Note that the left-hand side of the equations for the successive orders is very simple. However,
to take the limit y → 0, it is necessary to introduce the usual change of variables (9), and
because of this the right-hand side is separable in x and x only for the zeroth order.
Appendix B
In this appendix we calculate the average of a mixed operator in Fourier space.
Let B(x, p, t)
be an analytic function of the variables x and px ≡ p. Then B(x, p, t) = n,m Bnm x n pm ,
where we have abbreviated Bnm (t) = Bnm . The standard average of B reads
n m
n,m Bnm x p f (x, p, t) dx dp
B(x, p, t) =
.
(B.1)
f (x, p, t) dx dp
Introducing f written as a function of fˆ as in equation (5), we obtain for the integral in the
numerator the expression
i
1
x n pm f dx dp =
dx dp x n pm dy e− η py fˆ(x, y, t)
2π η
i
dx dp n η m
∂ m fˆ
=
x
(B.2)
dy e− η py m ,
2π η
i
∂y
where we have integrated by parts m times to obtain the last expression. The integral over p
reduces to a delta function in y, and (∂ m fˆ/∂y m ) can be replaced by its expression as a function
802
A I Pesci et al
of ψ and ψ †
y y ∂ m fˆ
∂m † ψ
x
−
ψ
x
+
=
∂y m
∂y m
2
2
k † m−k
m
1
m ∂ ψ ∂
ψ
= m
(−1)k
,
k ∂x k ∂x m−k
2 k=0
(B.3)
where x and x are given by the one-dimensional version of (9). Then, the average reduces to
k † m−k
m
η m 1 ψ
n m
n
k m ∂ ψ ∂
x p f dx dp = dx x
(−1)
.
(B.4)
dy δ(y)
m
k
m−k
k ∂x ∂x
i
2 k=0
Integrating over y sets x = x = x. Once again we can integrate by parts k times so that ψ †
appears as a multiplicative factor to the left
k m−k m m
∂
∂
1
−iη
x n pm f dx dp = dx ψ † m
ψ
x n −iη
2 k=0 k
∂x
∂x
m 1 m k n m−k
†
= dx ψ
p̂ x̂ p̂
ψ,
(B.5)
2m k=0 k
where we have introduced the notation x̂ = x and p̂ = −iη(∂/∂x).
Finally, replacing
expression (B.5) into (B.1) and making use of the identity f dx dp = ψ † ψdx, we obtain
B(x, p)f (x, p, t) dx dp
B(x, p) =
f (x, p, t) dx dp
†
ψ B̂ H (x̂, p̂)ψ dx
=
,
(B.6)
ψψ † dx
where
B̂ H =
n,m
Bnm
m 1 m k n m−k
p̂ (x̂ p̂
).
2m k=0 k
(B.7)
The quantity B̂ H is now a Hermitian operator. This last expression can also be written as
n 1 n n−k m k
x̂ (p̂ x̂ ).
B̂ H =
Bnm n
(B.8)
2 k=0 k
n,m
To show this we go back to equation (42). If instead of directly integrating over y we perform
the change of variables (9)
k † m−k
m
ψ
x + x n η m 1 n m
k m ∂ ψ ∂
x p f dx dp = dx dx δ(x − x )
(−1)
.
2
i
2m k=0
k ∂x k ∂x m−k
(B.9)
n
n−j
†
k
Using the binomial expansion of (x + x ) and the fact that x
(∂ ψ /∂x ) =
j
∂ k (x n−j ψ † )/∂x k and also x j (∂ m−k ψ † /∂x m−k ) = ∂ m−k (x ψ † )/∂x m−k we can rewrite the
average as the double sum
η m (−1)k
x n pm f dx dp = dx dx δ(x − x )
i
2n+m
k,j =0
k
m−k
m n ∂
n−j † ∂
×
(x
ψ
)
(x j ψ).
(B.10)
∂x m−k
k
j ∂x k
k
Hermitization, Poisson brackets, and commutators
803
Now we can perform the
x which sets x = x ≡ x. After integrating k times
m over
nintegral
m
by parts and replacing k=0 k = 2 , we obtain
n n n−j
∂m
n m
† 1
x
x p f dx dp = dx ψ n
(−iη)m m (x j ψ)
2 j =0 j
∂x


n 1 n n−j m j 
x̂ p̂ x̂ ψ.
= dx ψ †  n
(B.11)
2 j =0 j
The equality of the terms in between the square brackets of (B.5) and (B.11) was first proven
by McCoy [23].
References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
Bohm D 1989 Quantum Theory (New York: Dover)
Wigner E 1932 Phys. Rev. 40 749–59
Wagner R, Peverly P, Su Q and Grobe R 2000 Phys. Rev. A 61 035402
Kim H, Lee M, Yi J and Kim J 1996 Phys. Rev. A 53 3767–72
Zurek W H 2003 Rev. Mod. Phys. 75 715–75
Zurek W H 1991 Phys. Today 44 36–44
Guilini D, Joos E, Kiefer C, Kupsch J, Stamatescu I O and Zeh H D 1996 Decoherence and the Appearance of
a Classical World in Quantum Theory (New York: Springer)
Chapman M S, Hammond T D, Lenef A, Schmiedmayer J, Rubenstein R R, Smith E and Pritchard D E 1995
Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 3783–6
Kokorowski D A, Cronin A D, Roberts T and Pritchard D 2001 Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 2191–4
Hornberger K, Uttenthaler S, Brezger B, Hackermuller L, Arndt M and Zeilinger A 2003 Phys. Rev.
Lett. 90 160401
Hackermuller L, Hornberger K, Brezger B, Zeilinger A and Arndt M 2004 Nature 427 711–4
Madelung E 1926 Z. Phys. 40 322–6
Takabayasi T 1955 Prog. Theor. Phys. 14 238–302
Halbwachs F 1960 Théorie Relativiste des Fluids à Spin (Paris: Gauthier-Villars)
Pesci A I and Goldstein R E 2005 Nonlinearity 18 211–26
Pesci A I, Goldstein R E and Uys H 2005 Nonlinearity 18 227–35
Pesci A I, Goldstein R E and Uys H 2005 Nonlinearity 18 1295–304
Liboff R L 1998 Kinetic Theory: Classical, Quantum and Relativistic Descriptions (New York: WileyInterscience)
Fröhlich H 1967 Physica 37 215–26
Fröhlich H 1973 Riv. Nuovo Cimento 3 490–534
Kreuzer H J 1981 Nonequilibrium Thermodynamics and its Statistical Foundations (New York: Oxford
University Press)
Kaniadakis G 2002 Physica A 307 172–84
McCoy N H 1932 Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 18 674–6
Weyl H 1927 Z. Phys. 46 1–46
Shewell J R 1959 Am. J. Phys. 27 16–21
Cohen L 1970 J. Math. Phys. 11 3296–7
Dowker J S 1976 J. Math. Phys. 17 1873–4
Born M and Jordan P 1925 Z. Phys. 34 858–88
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement