3

Everyone who has taken a course in Quantum Mechanics has at some point derived a quantum Hamiltonian from a Lagrangian. However, I can't seem to find any reference on the topic. My question is regarding the product $p_i x_i$ in the Legendre transform: $$H = \sum_i p_i \dot x_i - KE+ PE.\tag{1}$$ Is this the correct order or does the order not matter? At what point does one make the upgrade from classical variables to quantum variables and introduce the commutation relations?

Connor Behan
  • 10,659

1 Answers1

3

Normally, one quantizes a theory in the following order:

$$\begin{align} \text{classical}& \text{ Lagrangian} \cr \downarrow&\text{ Legendre transformation} \cr \text{classical}& \text{ Hamiltonian}\cr \downarrow&\text{ quantization} \cr \text{quantum}& \text{ Hamiltonian}\end{align}\tag{I}$$

see e.g. this, this & this Phys.SE posts.

However, OP apparently wants to quantize in the opposite order:

$$\begin{align} \text{classical}& \text{ Lagrangian} \cr \downarrow&\text{ quantization ??} \cr \text{quantum}& \text{ Lagrangian ??}\cr \downarrow&\text{ quantum Legendre transformation ??} \cr \text{quantum}& \text{ Hamiltonian}\end{align}\tag{II}$$

There are several issues with OP's proposal (II) before one could address OP's question about a quantum Legendre transformation: E.g. how do we define CCR using only Lagrangian variables $q$ and $v$? Of course, one could in principle work backwards using the conventional method (I).

OP's eq. (1) has related issues, as OP already seems to be aware of: How should one order the $p\dot{q}$ term to ensure that the quantum Hamiltonian is Hermitian? It seems easier to just use the conventional quantization scheme (I).

Qmechanic
  • 220,844