<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">JAMP</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Journal of Applied Mathematics and Physics</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2327-4352</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/jamp.2018.66115</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">JAMP-85644</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Physics&amp;Mathematics</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  About an Ambiguity Appearing on the Hamiltonian Formulation of Quantum Mechanics
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Gustavo</surname><given-names>V. López</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Ana</surname><given-names>Griselda</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Carlos</surname><given-names>R. Martínez-Prieto</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Departamento de Física, Universidad de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Mexico</addr-line></aff><author-notes><corresp id="cor1">* E-mail:<email>gulopez@cencar.udg.mx(GVL)</email>;</corresp></author-notes><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>06</day><month>06</month><year>2018</year></pub-date><volume>06</volume><issue>06</issue><fpage>1382</fpage><lpage>1387</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>25,</day>	<month>April</month>	<year>2018</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>25,</day>	<month>June</month>	<year>2018</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>28,</day>	<month>June</month>	<year>2018</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  We study classical and quantum dynamics of the symmetric harmonic oscillator and the symmetric bouncer defined in 2-D. For these systems we get each of them 
  for 
  two different constants of motion, two Lagrangians and two Hamiltonians which describe the same classical dynamics. However, the quantization of these systems (using Schr&amp;#246;dinger equation), using their two equivalents Hamiltonian, describe
  s
   different quantum dynamics for each of them. This represent
  s
   an ambiguity on the Hamiltonian formulation of the Quantum Mechanics.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Harmonic Oscillator</kwd><kwd> Quantum Bouncer</kwd><kwd> Ambiguities in Quantum Mechanics Theory</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>Modern Physics is based on Lagrangian or Hamiltonian [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.85644-ref1">1</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.85644-ref2">2</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.85644-ref3">3</xref>] as mathematical objects to formulate and study the correspondent behavior of the natural systems. In particular, Quantum Mechanics has its foundations based on the Hamilton operator (generated from the Hamilton function of Classical Mechanics) and the Schr&#246;dinger’s equation, which describes the linear evolution of the wave function. It is known that for most of the systems (conservative or including electromagnetic interaction) there is no problem to get a well unique Hamiltonian formulation [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.85644-ref4">4</xref>] for the system. However, when one is dealing with dissipative systems, it has several problems [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.85644-ref5">5</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.85644-ref6">6</xref>] , and one of the main problems, which we are concerned, is that there can be two different Hamiltonian having the same classical behavior but different quantum behavior [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.85644-ref7">7</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.85644-ref8">8</xref>] . In this paper, we want to point out that this type of ambiguity not only appears on dissipative systems, but it can also appear on conservative systems, and we focus on two conservative symmetric systems with two degrees of freedom: the harmonic oscillator and the bouncer. Firstly, we make the deduction of a pair of Hamiltonian for both systems, and this pair of Hamiltonians for each system describes the same classical dynamics. Then, we show that the associated quantum dynamics of each pair of Hamiltonian is different for each system.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Classical Hamiltonians</title><p>For the symmetric harmonic oscillator with two degrees of freedom, it is well known that a constant of motion and Hamiltonian can be given by</p><p>K 1 = m 2 ( v x 2 + v y 2 ) + 1 2 m ω 2 ( x 2 + y 2 ) (1)</p><p>and</p><p>H 1 = p x 2 + p y 2 2 m + 1 2 m ω 2 ( x 2 + y 2 ) , (2)</p><p>where m is the mass of the particle, and ω its angular frequency, being the same in both directions. However, it is not difficult to see that</p><p>K 2 = m v x v y + m ω 2 x y (3)</p><p>is also a constant of motion ( d K 2 / d t = 0 ) since it leads us to the equations of motion m v ˙ x + m ω 2 x = 0 and m v ˙ y + m ω 2 y = 0 . Once we have this constant of motion, we use the known expression [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.85644-ref9">9</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.85644-ref10">10</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.85644-ref11">11</xref>] ,</p><p>L 2 = v x ∫ v x K 2 ( x , y , v x , c v x ) v x 2 d v x , (4)</p><p>to get the Lagrangian knowing the constant of motion. By substituting (3) in (4), one gets</p><p>L 2 = m v x v y − m ω 2 x y , (5)</p><p>and the associated Hamiltonian ( H 2 = v x p x + v y p y − L 2 ) is [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.85644-ref12">12</xref>]</p><p>H 2 = p x p y m + m ω 2 x y . (6)</p><p>In this way, we have obtained two different Hamiltonians which describe the same classical dynamics.</p><p>Consider now a symmetric bouncer with two degrees of freedom, characterized by the equations of motion</p><p>m x &#168; = − f       and       m y &#168; = − f , (7)</p><p>where f is a constant force, and m is the mass of the particle. The well known constant of motion and Hamiltonian for this system are [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.85644-ref13">13</xref>]</p><p>K ˜ 1 = m 2 ( v x 2 + v y 2 ) + ( x + y ) f (8)</p><p>and</p><p>H ˜ 1 = p x 2 + p y 2 2 m + ( x + y ) f . (9)</p><p>Now, it is not difficult to see that</p><p>K ˜ 2 = m v x v y + ( x + y ) f (10)</p><p>is also a constant of motion of the system (7). Then, using (4), one gets the Lagrangian</p><p>L ˜ 2 = m v x v y − ( x + y ) f , (11)</p><p>and therefore, the new Hamiltonian of the system</p><p>H ˜ 2 = p x p y m + ( x + y ) f . (12)</p><p>So, once again we have obtained two different Hamiltonian which describe the same classical dynamics.</p></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Quantization</title><p>The symmetric 2-D harmonic oscillator and symmetric 2-D bouncer represent autonomous systems (Hamiltonians do not depend explicitly on time). So, solving the Schr&#246;dinger’s equation [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.85644-ref14">14</xref>] ,</p><p>i ℏ ∂ | Ψ 〉 ∂ t = H ^ | Ψ 〉 , (13)</p><p>for the associated Hermitian Hamiltonian operator H ^ , is reduced through the transformation</p><p>| Ψ 〉 = e − i E t / ℏ | Φ 〉 , (14)</p><p>to an eigenvalue problem</p><p>H ^ | Φ 〉 = E | Φ 〉 . (15)</p><p>Therefore, it is enough to know the eigenvalues of each pair of Hamiltonians to see whether or not the quantum dynamics described by these Hamiltonian are different.</p><sec id="s3_1"><title>3.1. 2-D Harmonic Oscillator</title><p>The solution of the 2-D symmetric harmonic oscillator eigenvalue problem is well known, and it is given by</p><p>E n 1 n 2 ( 1 ) = ℏ ω ( n + 1 ) ,   〈 x | n 1 n 2 〉 = ∏ i = 1 2   c n i e − α x 2 / 2 H n i ( α x i ) , (16)</p><p>where n is a non negative integer, n = n 1 + n 2 ∈ Z + , c n i is a constant, c n i = α / π 2 n i n i ! , and α is the constant defined as α = m ω / ℏ . The full solution is</p><p>| Ψ 〉 = ∑ n 1 , n 2 = 0 C n 1 n 2 e − i ω ( n + 1 ) t | n 1 n 2 〉 ,       with     ∑ n 1 , n 2 = 0 | C n 1 n 2 | 2 = 1 , (17)</p><p>where the coefficient C n 1 n 2 represents the amplitude of probability and can be determined by the initial conditions. The system is degenerated because of the symmetry, and the ground state is the state | 00 〉 .</p><p>For the Hamiltonian (6), let us make the following change of variables</p><p>ξ = 1 2 ( x + y )       and       η = 1 2 ( x − y ) . (18)</p><p>So, the Hermitian Hamiltonian becomes</p><p>H ^ 2 = p ^ ξ 2 − p ^ η 2 2 m + 1 2 m ω 2 ( ξ 2 − η 2 ) , (19)</p><p>where the operators p ^ ξ and p ^ η are defined as p ^ ξ = − i ℏ ∂ / ∂ ξ and p ^ η = − i ℏ ∂ / ∂ η . This Hamiltonian is just the difference of two 1-D symmetric harmonic oscillators, H ^ 2 = H ^ ξ ( h o ) − H ^ η ( h o ) . This means that one has the following solution for the eigenvalue problem</p><p>E n 1 n 2 ( 2 ) = ℏ ω ( n 1 − n 2 ) ,   〈 x | n 1 n 2 〉 = Φ n 1 ( x + y 2 ) Φ n 2 ( x − y 2 ) , (20)</p><p>where the function Φ n ( z ) is defined as Φ n ( z ) = c n e − α x 2 / 2 H n ( α z ) , with the constants c n and α defined as before. Denoting the state defined by the product of the function of (20) as | n 1 n 2 〉 2 , the full solution is written as</p><p>| Ψ 〉 = ∑ n 1 , n 2 = 0 D n 1 n 2 e − i ω ( n 1 − n 2 ) t | n 1 n 2 〉 2 ,     with     ∑ n 1 , n 2 = 0 | D n 1 n 2 | 2 = 1. (21)</p><p>The degeneration is infinity and there is not ground state of the system. Therefore, the quantum dynamics describe by (17) and (21) are completely different.</p></sec><sec id="s3_2"><title>3.2. 2-D Bouncer</title><p>For the usual Hamiltonian associated to the bouncer (9), one sees that this one can be written of the form</p><p>H ˜ 1 = H ˜ x + H ˜ y , (22)</p><p>where H ˜ x and H ˜ y are defined as</p><p>H ˜ x = p x 2 / 2 m + f x     and     H ˜ y = p y 2 / 2 m + f y , (23)</p><p>corresponding to the symmetric bouncer on each direction. The quantum bouncer eigenvalues are given in terms of the zeros of the Airy function [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.85644-ref13">13</xref>] . Therefore, the solution of the eigenvalue problem H ˜ 1 | Φ 〉 = E | Φ 〉 is given by</p><p>E ˜ n 1 n 2 ( 1 ) = f l f ( z n 1 + z n 2 ) ,   A i ( − z n i ) = 0 ,   l f = ( ℏ 2 2 m f ) 1 / 3 . (24)</p><p>The eigenfunctions are</p><p>Φ ˜ n 1 n 2 = 〈 x | n 1 n 2 〉 = A i ( z 1 − z n 1 ) | A ′ i ( − z n 1 ) | ⋅ A i ( z 2 − z n 2 ) | A ′ i ( − z n 2 ) | , (25)</p><p>where z 1 and z 2 are defined as z 1 = x / l f and z 2 = y / l f , A ′ i represents the differentiation of the Airy function. The full Scr&#246;dinger solution is</p><p>| Ψ 〉 = ∑ n 1 , n 2 C ˜ n 1 n 2 e − i f l f ( z n 1 + z n 2 ) t / ℏ | n 1 n 2 〉 ,     with     ∑ n 1 n 2 | C n 1 n 2 | 2 = 1. (26)</p><p>The spectrum is discrete, there is degeneration (because of the symmetry), and there is a ground state for the system.</p><p>Now, for the bouncer Hamiltonian (12), we make the same change of variables (18), bringing about the Hamiltonian operator</p><p>H ^ 2 = p ^ ξ 2 − p ^ η 2 2 m + f 2 ξ . (27)</p><p>This Hamiltonian represents a quantum bouncer in the variable ξ , and a free particle motion in the variable η . The eigenvalues of this Hamiltonian are</p><p>E ˜ n k ( 2 ) = 2 f l f * z n + ℏ 2 k 2 2 m ,     with     l f * = ( ℏ 2 2 2 m f ) 1 / 3 , (28)</p><p>where z n is the zero of the Airy function, and k is a continuous real constant. Its eigenfunctions are</p><p>Φ ˜ n k ( x ) = 〈 x | n k 〉 = A i ( z − z n ) | A ′ i ( − z n ) | e i k ( x − y ) / 2 , (29)</p><p>where the variable z is z = ξ / l f * = ( x + y ) / l f * 2 , and the full solution of the Schr&#246;dinger's equations is</p><p>| Ψ 〉 = ∑ n ∫   d k C n ( k ) e − i E ˜ n k ( 2 ) | n k 〉 ,     with     ∑ n ∫   d k | C n ( k ) | 2 = 1. (30)</p><p>The spectrum has a discrete component and a continuous component, and there is a ground state of the system for k = 0 and n = 1 . As one can see from (26) and (30) the quantum dynamics is totally different, and this result was unknown until now.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Conclusion</title><p>We have shown that for two conservative 2-D symmetrical systems (harmonic oscillator and bouncer), we can find for each of them at least two different Hamiltonians describing the same classical dynamics. However, their quantum dynamics associated to each equivalent Hamiltonian is totally different, representing an ambiguity in the Hamiltonian formulation of the Quantum Mechanics. It is our guess that this type of ambiguity is intrinsic of the Hamiltonian theory, and it could be present on any quantum system.</p></sec><sec id="s5"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>L&#243;pez, G.V., Griselda, A. and Mart&#237;nez-Prieto, C.R. (2018) About an Ambiguity Appearing on the Hamiltonian Formulation of Quantum Mechanics. Journal of Applied Mathematics and Physics, 6, 1382-1387. https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2018.66115</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.85644-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Cohen-Tannoudji, C., Diu, B. and Laloe, F. (1997) Quantum Mechanics, I, II. John Wiley &amp; Sons, New York.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.85644-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Huang, H. (1963) Statistical Mechanics. John Wiley, New York.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.85644-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Schweber, S.S. (2005) An Introduction to Relativistic Quantum Field Theory. Dover Publications Inc., New York.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.85644-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Dirac, P.A.M. (1976) The Principles of Quantum Mechanics. Oxford University Press, Oxford.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.85644-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Glauber, R. and Man’ko, V.I. (1984) Damping and Fluctuations in Couple Quantum Oscillator Systems. Soviet Physics JETP, 60, 450.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.85644-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Lopez, G. (1998) Ambiguities Appearing in the Study of Time-Dependent Constants of Motion for the One-Dimensional Harmonic Oscillator. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 37, 1617-1623. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026628221912</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.85644-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Dodonov, V.P., Man’ko, V.I. and Skarzhinsky, V.D. (1981) Classically Equivalent Hamiltonians and Ambiguities of Quantization: A Particle in a Magnetic Field. Hadronic Journal, 4, 1734.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.85644-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Lopez, G., Lopez, P. and Lopez, X.E. (2011) Ambiguities on the Hamiltonian Formulation of the Free Falling Particle with Quadratic Dissipation. Advanced Studies in Theoretical Physics, 5, 253.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.85644-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kobusen, J.A. (1979) Some Comments on the Lagrangian Formalism for Systems with General Velocity Dependent Forces. Acta Physica Austriaca, 51, 193.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.85644-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Leubner, C. (1987) Inequivalent Lagrangians from Constants of the Motion. Physical Review A, 86, 9.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.85644-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Lopez, G. (1996) One-Dimensional Autonomous Systems and Dissipative Systems. Annals of Physics, 251, 372. https://doi.org/10.1006/aphy.1996.0118</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.85644-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Montesinos, M. and Torres del Castillo, G.F. (2004) Symplectic Quantization, Inequivalent Quantum Theories, and Heisenberg’s Principle of Uncertainty. Physical Review A, 70, 032104-1. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.70.032104</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.85644-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Lopez, G. and Gonzalez, G. (2004) Quantum Bouncer with Dissipation. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 43, 1999-2008. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:IJTP.0000049005.73750.c0</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.85644-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Messiah, A. (1967) Quantum Mechanics, I, II. North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam.</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>