Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Physica Scripta

Canonical commutation relations and special relativity

F. R. Tangherlini

Published Jun 1, 2008• 1 citation
Publisher

Abstract

As a way of studying the consequences of a possible breakdown of Lorentz invariance, the canonical commutation relations are enlarged to include time and energy as additional conjugate variables, and with this enlargement, they are shown to be invariant under the Lorentz transformation under the assumption that commutators of non-conjugate operators vanish. Although time does not commute with the energy operator, it does commute with the Hamiltonian. It is also shown that the invariance of the enlarged commutation relations holds for arbitrary non-singular linear transformations that describe a velocity boost to another uniformly moving frame, under the same assumptions about non-conjugate commutators. A covariant enlargement of the Poisson brackets, together with Dirac's interpretation, that would predict this invariance of the commutators is presented. There is a discussion of improper coordinate transformations, and a canonical time-reversal operator is introduced, and compared with the standard time-reversal operator T. It is concluded that even if the Lorentz transformation were to fail, and were to be replaced by another linear transformation, the enlarged canonical commutation relations could still hold.

DOI
10.1088/0031-8949/77/06/065008

Related papers

Derivation of the coordinate-momentum commutation relations from canonical invariance

Moshe Shapiro

Based on (i) the spectral resolution definition of the momentum operator, (ii) the linearity of correspondence between physical observables and quantum Hermitian operators, (iii) the definition of conjugate coordinate-momentum variables in classical mechanics, and (iv) the invariance of the classical Hamiltonian to canonical transformations (transformations that change from one set of conjugate variables to another), we show that the $[\stackrel{\ifmmode \hat{}\else \^{}\fi{}}{x},\stackrel{\ifmmode \hat{}\else \^{}\fi{}}{p}]$ coordinate-momentum commutator must have the value $ih$ where $h$ is a real nonzero number (which we can identify with the experimentally determined $\ensuremath{\hbar}$). The results are then extended to include all generalized coordinates and their conjugate momenta as well as the Cartesian special-relativistic case.

Physical Review A•Oct 31, 2006•5 citations

Time and energy operators in the canonical quantization of special relativity

C A Aguillón, M Bauer, G E García

Abstract Based on Lorentz invariance and Born reciprocity invariance, the canonical quantization of special relativity is shown to provide a unified origin for (i) the complex vector space formulation of quantum mechanics; (ii) the momentum and space commutation relations and the corresponding representations; (iii) the Dirac Hamiltonian in the formulation of relativistic quantum mechanics; (iv) the existence of a self adjoint time operator that circumvents Pauli’s objection.

arXiv:1911.03371•European Journal of Physics•Jan 6, 2020•6 citations

Analytical Mechanics for Relativity and Quantum Mechanics

Oliver Davis Johns

Abstract This book provides an innovative and mathematically sound treatment of the foundations of analytical mechanics, and of the relation of classical mechanics to relativity and quantum theory. A distinguishing feature is its integration of special relativity into the teaching of classical mechanics. After a thorough review of the traditional theory, Part II of the book introduces extended Lagrangian and Hamiltonian methods that treat time as a transformable coordinate rather than the fixed parameter of Newtonian physics. Advanced topics such as covariant Langrangians and Hamiltonians, canonical transformations, and Hamilton-Jacobi methods are simplified by the use of this extended theory. The definition of canonical transformation no longer excludes the Lorentz transformation of special relativity. This is also a book for those who study analytical mechanics to prepare for a critical exploration of quantum mechanics since comparisons to quantum mechanics appear throughout the text. The extended Hamiltonian theory with time as a coordinate is compared to Dirac's formalism of primary phase space constraints. The chapter on relativistic mechanics shows how to use covariant Hamiltonian theory to write the Klein-Gordon and Dirac equations. The chapter on Hamilton-Jacobi theory includes a discussion of the closely related Bohm hidden variable model of quantum mechanics. Classical mechanics itself is presented with an emphasis on methods such as linear vector operators and dyadics that will familiarise the student with similar techniques in quantum theory. Several of the current fundamental problems in theoretical physics require a rethinking of the quantum–classical connection.

•May 19, 2011•41 citations

Derivation of the relativistic ‘proper-time’ quantum evolution equations from canonical invariance

Moshe Shapiro

Based on (1) the spectral resolution of the energy operator; (2) the linearity of correspondence between physical observables and quantum self-adjoint operators; (3) the definition of conjugate coordinate–momentum variables in classical mechanics; and (4) the fact that the physical point in phase space remains unchanged under (canonical) transformations between one pair of conjugate variables to another, we are able to show that , the proper-time rest-energy transformation matrices, are given as a exp(−i E s t s /ℏ), from which we obtain the proper-time rest-energy evolution equation . For special relativistic situations this equation can be reduced to the usual dynamical equations, where t is the 'reference time' and E is the total energy. Extension of these equations to accelerating frames is then provided.

arXiv:0802.1063•Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical•Apr 15, 2008•4 citations

Algebra of quantum mechanics via classical phonons. II: Klein-Gordon dynamics, the Heisenberg formalism, the Dirac canonical commutation rule and the Poincare algebra through the continuous Poisson bracket formalism

Emmanuel Giner

In the first part of this series we have shown how the Schrodinger equation for a single particle and the corresponding non relativistic quantum observables can be obtained from a purely classical phonon model through the Newtonian equations of motion. In this work we focus instead on how the classical Hamiltonian formalism applied to the same phonon system allows to recover the feature of relativistic quantum mechanics for a single spinless particle. Using the classical nature of the phonon model, we naturally define continuous Poisson brackets between classical observables, which allows to recover the dynamics of such observables, i.e. the Ehrenfest relations associated to real-valued Klein-Gordon fields. The Poisson brackets also permits to obtain the generic form of constants of motions, thus generalizing the concept of inner products and momentum on Klein-Gordon fields. We then connect the formalism of real-valued classical functionals with that of hermitian operators and complex-valued wave functions. This is done through the introduction of a non-local complex-valued change of variables which allows to rewrite the real-valued Klein-Gordon equation in a form akin to the Schrodinger equation, and the classical observables as quantum expectation values. Then, we show how this change of variables allows to rewrite the classical Poisson brackets as commutators of hermitian operators. This points out the strict equivalence between the Heisenberg formalism and the formalism of classical Poisson bracket. Eventually, we illustrate how the Poisson brackets allows to recover the transformations of Poincare group in 1+1 dimension together with its algebra. The latter makes the link between the Lorentz invariant inner product of Mostafazadeh and the Casimir invariant associated to the mass of particle.

quant-pharXiv:2607.03909•Jul 7, 2026•0 citations

Speculation on the Inter-relation between Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics

Ruggeri, Francesco R.

Special relativity seems to be associated with linking physical relations as seen in one frame with those as seen in a frame moving at a speed relative to such a frame. A constant speed is often used for the moving frame. This suggests that classically there is a special frame for a particle with rest mass called a rest frame. In such a case, one simply introduces a parameter for rest mass and does not worry about the complicated motion and interactions which actually create the rest mass. It seems that even quantum mechanics, which considers a particle to be moving as one does not know its location, one uses the idea of a potential V(x) which in principle is associated with a very large rest mass, presumably at rest as no variables of such a rest mass appear in the Klein-Gordon or Dirac equations. It seems that one uses a preferred frame when solving relativistic quantum mechanical equations. Furthermore, given V(x) and a bound state with exp(-i E bound t), E applies to the overall bound system, not to a possible exp(ipx) constituent. The special relativistic invariant equation seems to exist at the system level, like with the rest mass and one may apparently calculate E in the special rest frame of the large mass and hence find a rest mass of the bound system, i..e large rest mass*cc + mo cc + E, mo is the rest mass of the single bound particle. As a result of the use of the special rest mass frame for the V(x) producing large rest mass, it seems that one does not have to worry about special relativistic constraints on the interaction with V(x), as only one frame is involved. In other words, a bound calculation is about finding a new rest mass for an overall new system. Then this system may be used in Lorentz boosts. One simplifies by working in the rest frame of the mass creating V(x). Perhaps surprisingly then, we note that exp(-iEt+ipx) for a free particle is Lorentz invariant and in fact must be Lorentz invariant for the following reason. Imagine that one wishes to create a probability for free particles which is linked with conservation of momentum. Any p must have the same real value weight because for free particles there is no bias for one p or the other. There is, however, a bias for a p1 and p2. It should have the same probability as a p3 and p4, if p1+p2 = p3+p4. (We use one dimension for simplicity.) As a result, exp(ip) seems to be a probability which respects these conditions. The problem is that one may have p=m1v1=m2v2 hence (E1,p) and (E2,p). With respect to momentum, it is irrelevant if one particle has E1 and the other E2, but not if one does a Lorentz boost. Then, in one case: p→ g(v) p + g(v) v E1 and in the second, p→ g(v) p + g(v)vE2. Here g(v) =1/sqrt(1-vv/cc). In other words, p is the same for each particle in one frame and not in the other which violates conservation of momentum because in frame 1 both particles can complete the same conservation of momentum equation, but in the second frame this is not the case, because each has a different momentum. Thus, exp(ip) cannot hold. One requires a linear form in p which is Lorentz invariant, i.e. exp(-iEt+ipx), we argue (and have done so in previous notes). We see now that momentum probability is linked with space in exp(ipx). The idea seems to be that for free colliding particles there is no preferred frame and the probabilities used must reflect this Lorentz invariance. As a result, we argue that a free particle probability in E,p arises because of Lorentz invariance, but then apply it to a V(x) problem and no longer worry about Lorentz invariance at the interaction level. V(x) with no associated rest mass variables assumes a rest frame for the V(x) producing mass. A Lorentz boost which then invalidates exp(ip), would only apply to the total rest mass of the bound particle system which has no overall momentum. It seems that one does apply the Lorentz transformation to the interaction of exp(ipx)’s with V(x). One is only interested in the overall bound system as a single entity for special relativity. As a result, one may only impose momentum considerations as V(x) is a spatial function and one must link it with exp(ipx). In fact, one may write V(x) = Sum over k Vk exp(ikx) to associate it with momentum hits linked with Vk energies, which already moves away from the idea of special relativity as Vk and k are not linked as a 4-vector. The idea of exp(ip1x)exp(i k1x) = exp(ip2x)exp(ik2x), however, seems to still hold (as it does for free particles), linking these two values (i.e. Vk1 and Vk2) with (p1+k)(p1+k) exp(i (p1+k)x). Lorentz invariance for a particle with rest mass seems to be linked with the idea that one ultimately has a rest frame for the particle. One then establishes a relation between the rest mass in one frame and its new E and p as seen by another frame. One does not, however, need to impose Lorentz invariance conditions on the interaction which creates the rest mass it seems. For example, exp(-iEt+ipx) is the Lorentz form used to describe a free particle, but exp(ipx) is the only portion used to describe its interaction with V(x) in the rest frame of the large mass creating V(x). Furthermore, exp(-iEt+ipx) ensures conservation of energy and p for a free particle, but in an interaction case, that does not happen as the potential may absorb energy.

•Dec 8, 2025•0 citations
As a way of studying the consequences of a possible breakdown of Lorentz invariance, the canonical commutation relations are enlarged to include time and energy as additional conjugate variables, and with this enlargement, they are shown to be invariant under the Lorentz transformation under the assumption that commutators of non-conjugate operators vanish. Although time does not commute with the energy operator, it does commute with the Hamiltonian. It is also shown that the invariance of the enlarged commutation relations holds for arbitrary non-singular linear transformations that describe a velocity boost to another uniformly moving frame, under the same assumptions about non-conjugate commutators. A covariant enlargement of the Poisson brackets, together with Dirac's interpretation, that would predict this invariance of the commutators is presented. There is a discussion of improper coordinate transformations, and a canonical time-reversal operator is introduced, and compared with the standard time-reversal operator T. It is concluded that even if the Lorentz transformation were to fail, and were to be replaced by another linear transformation, the enlarged canonical commutation relations could still hold.
Based on (i) the spectral resolution definition of the momentum operator, (ii) the linearity of correspondence between physical observables and quantum Hermitian operators, (iii) the definition of conjugate coordinate-momentum variables in classical mechanics, and (iv) the invariance of the classical Hamiltonian to canonical transformations (transformations that change from one set of conjugate variables to another), we show that the $[\stackrel{\ifmmode \hat{}\else \^{}\fi{}}{x},\stackrel{\ifmmode \hat{}\else \^{}\fi{}}{p}]$ coordinate-momentum commutator must have the value ihihih where hhh is a real nonzero number (which we can identify with the experimentally determined $\ensuremath{\hbar}$). The results are then extended to include all generalized coordinates and their conjugate momenta as well as the Cartesian special-relativistic case.
Abstract This book provides an innovative and mathematically sound treatment of the foundations of analytical mechanics, and of the relation of classical mechanics to relativity and quantum theory. A distinguishing feature is its integration of special relativity into the teaching of classical mechanics. After a thorough review of the traditional theory, Part II of the book introduces extended Lagrangian and Hamiltonian methods that treat time as a transformable coordinate rather than the fixed parameter of Newtonian physics. Advanced topics such as covariant Langrangians and Hamiltonians, canonical transformations, and Hamilton-Jacobi methods are simplified by the use of this extended theory. The definition of canonical transformation no longer excludes the Lorentz transformation of special relativity. This is also a book for those who study analytical mechanics to prepare for a critical exploration of quantum mechanics since comparisons to quantum mechanics appear throughout the text. The extended Hamiltonian theory with time as a coordinate is compared to Dirac's formalism of primary phase space constraints. The chapter on relativistic mechanics shows how to use covariant Hamiltonian theory to write the Klein-Gordon and Dirac equations. The chapter on Hamilton-Jacobi theory includes a discussion of the closely related Bohm hidden variable model of quantum mechanics. Classical mechanics itself is presented with an emphasis on methods such as linear vector operators and dyadics that will familiarise the student with similar techniques in quantum theory. Several of the current fundamental problems in theoretical physics require a rethinking of the quantum–classical connection.
Based on (1) the spectral resolution of the energy operator; (2) the linearity of correspondence between physical observables and quantum self-adjoint operators; (3) the definition of conjugate coordinate–momentum variables in classical mechanics; and (4) the fact that the physical point in phase space remains unchanged under (canonical) transformations between one pair of conjugate variables to another, we are able to show that , the proper-time rest-energy transformation matrices, are given as a exp(−i E s t s /ℏ), from which we obtain the proper-time rest-energy evolution equation . For special relativistic situations this equation can be reduced to the usual dynamical equations, where t is the 'reference time' and E is the total energy. Extension of these equations to accelerating frames is then provided.
In the first part of this series we have shown how the Schrodinger equation for a single particle and the corresponding non relativistic quantum observables can be obtained from a purely classical phonon model through the Newtonian equations of motion. In this work we focus instead on how the classical Hamiltonian formalism applied to the same phonon system allows to recover the feature of relativistic quantum mechanics for a single spinless particle. Using the classical nature of the phonon model, we naturally define continuous Poisson brackets between classical observables, which allows to recover the dynamics of such observables, i.e. the Ehrenfest relations associated to real-valued Klein-Gordon fields. The Poisson brackets also permits to obtain the generic form of constants of motions, thus generalizing the concept of inner products and momentum on Klein-Gordon fields. We then connect the formalism of real-valued classical functionals with that of hermitian operators and complex-valued wave functions. This is done through the introduction of a non-local complex-valued change of variables which allows to rewrite the real-valued Klein-Gordon equation in a form akin to the Schrodinger equation, and the classical observables as quantum expectation values. Then, we show how this change of variables allows to rewrite the classical Poisson brackets as commutators of hermitian operators. This points out the strict equivalence between the Heisenberg formalism and the formalism of classical Poisson bracket. Eventually, we illustrate how the Poisson brackets allows to recover the transformations of Poincare group in 1+1 dimension together with its algebra. The latter makes the link between the Lorentz invariant inner product of Mostafazadeh and the Casimir invariant associated to the mass of particle.
Special relativity seems to be associated with linking physical relations as seen in one frame with those as seen in a frame moving at a speed relative to such a frame. A constant speed is often used for the moving frame. This suggests that classically there is a special frame for a particle with rest mass called a rest frame. In such a case, one simply introduces a parameter for rest mass and does not worry about the complicated motion and interactions which actually create the rest mass. It seems that even quantum mechanics, which considers a particle to be moving as one does not know its location, one uses the idea of a potential V(x) which in principle is associated with a very large rest mass, presumably at rest as no variables of such a rest mass appear in the Klein-Gordon or Dirac equations. It seems that one uses a preferred frame when solving relativistic quantum mechanical equations. Furthermore, given V(x) and a bound state with exp(-i E bound t), E applies to the overall bound system, not to a possible exp(ipx) constituent. The special relativistic invariant equation seems to exist at the system level, like with the rest mass and one may apparently calculate E in the special rest frame of the large mass and hence find a rest mass of the bound system, i..e large rest mass*cc + mo cc + E, mo is the rest mass of the single bound particle. As a result of the use of the special rest mass frame for the V(x) producing large rest mass, it seems that one does not have to worry about special relativistic constraints on the interaction with V(x), as only one frame is involved. In other words, a bound calculation is about finding a new rest mass for an overall new system. Then this system may be used in Lorentz boosts. One simplifies by working in the rest frame of the mass creating V(x). Perhaps surprisingly then, we note that exp(-iEt+ipx) for a free particle is Lorentz invariant and in fact must be Lorentz invariant for the following reason. Imagine that one wishes to create a probability for free particles which is linked with conservation of momentum. Any p must have the same real value weight because for free particles there is no bias for one p or the other. There is, however, a bias for a p1 and p2. It should have the same probability as a p3 and p4, if p1+p2 = p3+p4. (We use one dimension for simplicity.) As a result, exp(ip) seems to be a probability which respects these conditions. The problem is that one may have p=m1v1=m2v2 hence (E1,p) and (E2,p). With respect to momentum, it is irrelevant if one particle has E1 and the other E2, but not if one does a Lorentz boost. Then, in one case: p→ g(v) p + g(v) v E1 and in the second, p→ g(v) p + g(v)vE2. Here g(v) =1/sqrt(1-vv/cc). In other words, p is the same for each particle in one frame and not in the other which violates conservation of momentum because in frame 1 both particles can complete the same conservation of momentum equation, but in the second frame this is not the case, because each has a different momentum. Thus, exp(ip) cannot hold. One requires a linear form in p which is Lorentz invariant, i.e. exp(-iEt+ipx), we argue (and have done so in previous notes). We see now that momentum probability is linked with space in exp(ipx). The idea seems to be that for free colliding particles there is no preferred frame and the probabilities used must reflect this Lorentz invariance. As a result, we argue that a free particle probability in E,p arises because of Lorentz invariance, but then apply it to a V(x) problem and no longer worry about Lorentz invariance at the interaction level. V(x) with no associated rest mass variables assumes a rest frame for the V(x) producing mass. A Lorentz boost which then invalidates exp(ip), would only apply to the total rest mass of the bound particle system which has no overall momentum. It seems that one does apply the Lorentz transformation to the interaction of exp(ipx)’s with V(x). One is only interested in the overall bound system as a single entity for special relativity. As a result, one may only impose momentum considerations as V(x) is a spatial function and one must link it with exp(ipx). In fact, one may write V(x) = Sum over k Vk exp(ikx) to associate it with momentum hits linked with Vk energies, which already moves away from the idea of special relativity as Vk and k are not linked as a 4-vector. The idea of exp(ip1x)exp(i k1x) = exp(ip2x)exp(ik2x), however, seems to still hold (as it does for free particles), linking these two values (i.e. Vk1 and Vk2) with (p1+k)(p1+k) exp(i (p1+k)x). Lorentz invariance for a particle with rest mass seems to be linked with the idea that one ultimately has a rest frame for the particle. One then establishes a relation between the rest mass in one frame and its new E and p as seen by another frame. One does not, however, need to impose Lorentz invariance conditions on the interaction which creates the rest mass it seems. For example, exp(-iEt+ipx) is the Lorentz form used to describe a free particle, but exp(ipx) is the only portion used to describe its interaction with V(x) in the rest frame of the large mass creating V(x). Furthermore, exp(-iEt+ipx) ensures conservation of energy and p for a free particle, but in an interaction case, that does not happen as the potential may absorb energy.