Despite the fact that it has been known since the time of Heisenberg that quantum operators obey a quantum version of Newton's laws, students are often told that derivations of quantum mechanics must necessarily follow from the Hamiltonian or Lagrangian formulations of mechanics. Here, we first derive the existing Heisenberg equations of motion from Newton's laws and the uncertainty principle using only the equations $F=\frac{dP}{dt}$, $P=m\frac{dV}{dt}$, and $\left[X,P\right]=i$. Then, a new expression for the propagator is derived that makes a connection between time evolution in quantum mechanics and the motion of a classical particle under Newton's laws. The propagator is solved for three cases where an exact solution is possible 1) the free particle 2) the harmonic oscillator 3) a constant force, or linear potential in the standard interpretation. Such a picture may be useful for students as they make the transition from classical to quantum mechanics and help solidify the equivalence of the Hamiltonian, Lagrangian, and Newtonian formulations of physics in their minds.
Despite the fact that it has been known since the time of Heisenberg that quantum operators obey a quantum version of Newton's laws, students are often told that derivations of quantum mechanics must necessarily follow from the Hamiltonian or Lagrangian formulations of mechanics. Here, we first derive the existing Heisenberg equations of motion from Newton's laws and the uncertainty principle using only the equations F=dtdP, P=mdtdV, and [X,P]=i. Then, a new expression for the propagator is derived that makes a connection between time evolution in quantum mechanics and the motion of a classical particle under Newton's laws. The propagator is solved for three cases where an exact solution is possible 1) the free particle 2) the harmonic oscillator 3) a constant force, or linear potential in the standard interpretation. Such a picture may be useful for students as they make the transition from classical to quantum mechanics and help solidify the equivalence of the Hamiltonian, Lagrangian, and Newtonian formulations of physics in their minds.
Abstract The equation of motion in the standard formulation of non-relativistic quantum mechanics, the Schrödinger equation, is based on the Hamiltonian. In contrast, in Feynman’s path-integral formulation of quantum mechanics, the equation of motion is the propagation equation, which is based on the Lagrangian. That these two different equations of motion are equivalent was shown by Feynman, who provided a derivation of the Schrödinger equation from the propagation equation. Surprisingly, however, while in classical mechanics there exists a simple relationship between the Hamiltonian and the Lagrangian, there is nothing in Feynman’s derivation that gives any indication of this relationship. Here I show that the equations of motion in the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian formulations of quantum mechanics are, in fact, simply related to each other.
Classical mechanics of a free particle is based on Newtonian mechanics and Lagrangian/Hamilton theories. A single frame of reference is chosen (the lab) and particles with the same mass mo (for example) moving at different velocities are considered in the free particle scenario (i.e in the absence of force (potentials)). We argue that the above is identical to considering a single particle with mass mo at time=to and x=0 viewed by various frames moving at different constant velocities -v. From the point of view of each frame, the particle moves at a velocity v. Thus the Newtonian picture of an mo particle moving at different speeds may be considered as a problem of special relativity. We argue (as in (1)) that (x,t)=(0,t) transforms to (x’,t’) such that x’/t’=v. If one uses a metric (1 0) (first row) (0 -1) second row, one may derive special relativistic relationships. In particular, one may obtain the Lorentz invariant -Et + px if (p,E) and (x,t) transform in the same manner. We argue that the relationships obtained from special relativity pertain to classical mechanics and so one may mathematically obtain a function L(v) such that p=dL/dv and E=pv - L for a free particle. In other words, special relativity governs Lagrangian results in the free particle case and is not really needed (in this special case). More importantly, it is special relativity which links E with t and p with x. As noted above, if one considers Netwonian mechanics in a single frame, the notion of special relativity does not arise, but the scaling of time by E and of x by p does i.e. A= -Et+px is the classical action both relativistically and nonrelativistically. It is just not written in this way usually (i.e. A = -mo t sqrt(1-vv) (c=1) relatiivstically and A =t .5mo vv nonrelativistically) We argued in (2) that scaling must manifest itself physically and that it accounts for the physical wavelength in quantum mechanics. We argue that the quantum mechanics of a free particle ultimately follows from special relativity. As a result, ideas of quantum mechanics would not have appeared in Newtonian mechanics nor Lagrangian or Hamiltonian theories. When special relativity was developed it focused on transformations related to different frames, but these are equivalent to describing one frame with many different velocities (same mo). Thus the physics in one frame is governed by special relativity even if it is nonrelativistic. We argue that the notion of the wavelength which appears even in the Schrodinger formalism follows from scaling of x by p which ultimately originates from special relativity. In other words, both the Lagrangian formalism and quantum mechanics follow from special relativity in the free particle case. We argue that free particle quantum mechanics is the starting point of overall quantum mechanics.
This study examines integrating the Schrödinger equation with classical mechanics using a virtual axis-to-dimensional expansion. One-dimensional material fluctuations are viewed in a two-dimensional plane, explaining the random nature of these fluctuations and their spatial and temporal trajectories. A quantum-consistent force field is proposed, with its strength determined by the Planck constant and inversely proportional to the distance from the stationary point. Newton's second law is applied to establish a second-order linear differential equation for material fluctuations, from which the standard one-dimensional Schrödinger equation is derived, showing their equivalence. The study extends the three-dimensional Schrödinger equation to include external forces and explains quantum phenomena like energy levels and transitions through particle trajectory changes. This approach connects classical mechanics and quantum mechanics, offering a concise and intuitive formulation with clear physical significance.
Classical mechanics is introduced in order to lay the foundation for quantum mechanics. Newton's laws are given and used to develop various equations of motion. The modern concept of energy is introduced and used to develop the equation of motion. Generalised coordinates are detailed and used to illustrate the usefulness of the appropriate coordinate system for the problem at hand. Brief introductions to the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian alternatives to Newtonian mechanics are given, primarily to show where it is that the quantum mechanical Hamiltonian comes from. Classical angular momentum mechanics is developed and the parallels between linear and rotational quantities is drawn.
Newton’s force law [Formula: see text] is derived from the Schrödinger equation for isolated macroscopic bodies, composite states of e.g. [Formula: see text] atoms and molecules, at finite body temperatures. We first review three aspects of quantum mechanics (QM) in this context: (i) Heisenberg’s uncertainty relations for their center of mass (CM), (ii) the diffusion of the CM wave packet, and (iii) a finite body temperature which implies a metastable (mixed-) state of the body: photon emissions and self-decoherence. They explain the origin of the classical trajectory for a macroscopic body. The ratio between the range [Formula: see text] over which the quantum fluctuations of its CM are effective, and the body’s (linear) size [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text] or [Formula: see text], tells whether the body’s CM behaves classically or quantum mechanically, respectively. In the first case, Newton’s force law for its CM follows from the Ehrenfest theorem. We illustrate this for weak gravitational forces, a harmonic-oscillator potential, and for constant external electromagnetic fields slowly varying in space. The derivation of the canonical Hamilton equations for many-body systems is also discussed. Effects due to the body’s finite size such as the gravitational tidal forces appear in perturbation theory. Our work is consistent with the well-known idea that the emergence of classical physics in QM is due to the environment-induced decoherence, but complements and completes it, by clarifying the conditions under which Newton’s equations follow from QM, and by deriving them explicitly.
This chapter explores the Schrödinger and Heisenberg pictures in quantum mechanics, emphasizing their mathematical equivalence and physical consistency. The two formulations are shown to be connected by a unitary transformation. The Heisenberg equation of motion is derived, and the time evolution of operators—particularly those not explicitly dependent on time—is expressed in terms of their initial values. It is demonstrated that scalar products, expectation values, matrix elements, and commutation relations remain invariant under the change of picture. Drawing a close analogy with classical mechanics, Dirac's insight is presented: the quantum mechanical counterpart of the classical Poisson bracket is the operator commutator divided by iℏ . The chapter concludes by deriving the Lorentz force law within the quantum framework using commutator algebra. Metadata/Keywords: Schrödinger picture, Heisenberg picture, unitary transformation, Heisenberg equation of motion, Poisson bracket, Lorentz force, time evolution, expectation values