Professional Documents
Culture Documents
AmJPhys72 1370
AmJPhys72 1370
1370 Am. J. Phys. 72 共11兲, November 2004 http://aapt.org/ajp © 2004 American Association of Physics Teachers 1370
and noted that these frequencies, which characterize the ra-
diation emitted in the transition n→n⫺ ␣ , depend on two 关 x 共 t 兲兴 2 ⫽ 兺␣ 兺 X ␣ 共 n 兲 X ␣ ⬘ 共 n 兲 e i( ␣ ⫹ ␣ ⬘ ) (n)t . 共5兲
variables. An example of a quantity he wished to exclude ␣ ⬘
from the new theory is the time-dependent position coordi- We set  ⫽ ␣ ⫹ ␣ ⬘ , and rewrite Eq. 共5兲 as
nate x(t). In considering what might replace it, he turned to
the probabilities for transitions between stationary states.
Consider a simple one-dimensional model of an atom con-
关 x 共 t 兲兴 2 ⫽ 兺 Y 共 n 兲 e i  (n)t , 共6兲
sisting of an electron undergoing periodic motion, which is
where
the type of system studied by Heisenberg. For a state char-
acterized by the label n, the fundamental frequency (n),
and the coordinate x(n,t), we can represent x(n,t) as a Fou- Y 共 n 兲 ⫽ 兺␣ X ␣共 n 兲 X  ⫺ ␣共 n 兲 . 共7兲
rier series
Thus 关 x(t) 兴 2 is represented classically 共via a Fourier series兲
⬁
by the set of quantities Y  (n)exp关i(n)t兴, the frequency
x 共 n,t 兲 ⫽ 兺
␣ ⫽⫺⬁
X ␣ 共 n 兲 e i ␣ (n)t , 共2兲  (n) being the simple combination 关 ␣ (n)⫹( 
⫺ ␣ ) (n) 兴 . In quantum theory, the corresponding represen-
where ␣ is an integer.24 According to classical theory, the tative quantities must be written as Y (n,n⫺  )exp关i(n,n
energy emitted per unit time 共the power兲 in a transition cor- ⫺)t兴, and the question is what is the analogue of Eq. 共7兲?
responding to the ␣th harmonic ␣ (n) is25 The crucial difference in the quantum case is that the fre-
冉 冊
quencies do not combine in the same way as the classical
dE e2 harmonics, but rather in accordance with the Ritz combina-
⫺ ⫽ 关 ␣ 共 n 兲兴 4 兩 X ␣ 共 n 兲 兩 2 . 共3兲
dt ␣
3 ⑀ 0c 3 tion principle:
共 n,n⫺ ␣ 兲 ⫹ 共 n⫺ ␣ ,n⫺  兲 ⫽ 共 n,n⫺  兲 , 共8兲
In the quantum theory, however, the transition frequency cor-
responding to the classical ␣ (n) is, in general, not a simple which is consistent with Eq. 共1兲. Thus in order to end up with
multiple of a fundamental frequency, but is given by Eq. 共1兲, the particular frequency (n,n⫺  ), it seems ‘‘almost nec-
so that ␣ (n) is replaced by (n,n⫺ ␣ ). Correspondingly, essary’’ 共in Heisenberg’s words30兲 to combine the quantum
Heisenberg introduced the quantum analogue of X ␣ (n), writ- amplitudes in such a way as to ensure the frequency combi-
ten 共in our notation兲 as X(n,n⫺ ␣ ). 27 Furthermore, the left- nation Eq. 共8兲, that is, as
hand side of Eq. 共3兲 has to be replaced by the product of the
transition probability per unit time, P(n,n⫺ ␣ ), and the Y 共 n,n⫺  兲 e i (n,n⫺  )t ⫽ 兺␣ X 共 n,n⫺ ␣ 兲 e i (n,n⫺ ␣ )t
emitted energy ប (n,n⫺ ␣ ). Thus Eq. 共3兲 becomes
⫻X 共 n⫺ ␣ ,n⫺  兲 e i (n⫺ ␣ ,n⫺  )t ,
2
e
P 共 n,n⫺ ␣ 兲 ⫽ 关 共 n,n⫺ ␣ 兲兴 3 兩 X 共 n,n⫺ ␣ 兲 兩 2 . 共9兲
3 ⑀ 0 បc 3
共4兲 or
It is the transition amplitudes X(n,n⫺ ␣ ) which Heisenberg Y 共 n,n⫺  兲 ⫽ 兺␣ X 共 n,n⫺ ␣ 兲 X 共 n⫺ ␣ ,n⫺  兲 , 共10兲
took to be ‘‘observable;’’ like the transition frequencies, they
depend on two discrete variables.28 which is Heisenberg’s rule for multiplying transition ampli-
Equation 共4兲 refers, however, to only one specific transi- tudes. Note particularly that the replacements X ␣ (n)
tion. For a full description of atomic dynamics 共as then con- →X(n,n⫺ ␣ ), and similarly for Y  (n) and X  ⫺ ␣ (n) in Eq.
ceived兲, we need to consider all the quantities X(n,n 共7兲, produce a quite different result.
⫺ ␣ )exp关i(n,n⫺␣)t兴. In the classical case, the terms Heisenberg indicated the simple extension of the rule
X ␣ (n)exp关i␣(n)t兴 may be combined to yield x(t) via Eq. given in Eq. 共10兲 to higher powers 关 x(t) 兴 n , but noticed at
共2兲. But in the quantum theory, Heisenberg wrote29 that a once31 that a ‘‘significant difficulty arises, however, if we
‘‘similar combination of the corresponding quantum- consider two quantities x(t),y(t) and ask after their product
theoretical quantities seems to be impossible in a unique x(t)y(t)... Whereas in classical theory x(t)y(t) is always
manner and therefore not meaningful, in view of the equal
equal to y(t)x(t), this is not necessarily the case in quantum
weight of the variables n and n⫺ ␣ 关that is, in the amplitude
theory.’’ Heisenberg used the word ‘‘difficulty’’ three times
X(n,n⫺ ␣ ) and frequency (n,n⫺ ␣ )] ... However, one in referring to this unexpected consequence of his multipli-
may readily regard the ensemble of quantities X(n,n cation rule, but it very quickly became clear that the non-
⫺ ␣ )exp关i(n,n⫺␣)t兴 as a representation of the quantity commutativity 共in general兲 of kinematical quantities in quan-
x(t)... .’’ This way of representing x(t), that is, as we would tum theory was the essential new idea in the paper.
now say, by a matrix, is the first of Heisenberg’s ‘‘magical Born recognized Eq. 共10兲 as matrix multiplication 共some-
jumps,’’ and surely a very large one. Representing x(t) in thing unknown to Heisenberg in July 1925兲, and he and Jor-
this way seems to be the sense in which Heisenberg consid- dan rapidly produced the first paper4 to state the fundamental
ered that he was offering a ‘‘reinterpretation of kinematic commutation relation 共in modern notation兲
relations.’’
Heisenberg immediately posed the question: how is the x̂ p̂⫺p̂x̂⫽iប. 共11兲
quantity x(t) 2 to be represented? In classical theory, the an- 5
Dirac’s paper followed soon after, and then the paper of
swer is straightforward. From Eq. 共2兲 we obtain Born, Heisenberg, and Jordan.6
1371 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 72, No. 11, November 2004 Aitchison, MacManus, and Snyder 1371
The economy and force of Heisenberg’s argument in ⬁
reaching Eq. 共10兲 is remarkable, and it is at least worth con- h⫽4 m 兺
␣ ⫽0
关 兩 X 共 n⫹ ␣ ,n 兲 兩 2 共 n⫹ ␣ ,n 兲 ⫺ 兩 X 共 n,n
sidering whether presenting it to undergraduates might help
them to understand the ‘‘almost necessity’’ of non- ⫺ ␣ 兲 兩 2 共 n,n⫺ ␣ 兲兴 , 共16兲
commuting quantities in quantum theory.
which is Eq. 共H16兲 in our notation. As he later recalled, he
34
had noticed that ‘‘if I wrote down this 关presumably Eq. 共15兲兴
and tried to translate it according to the scheme of dispersion
B. Quantum dynamics theory, I got the Thomas-Kuhn sum rule 关Eq. 共16兲35,36兴. And
that is the point. Then I thought, That is apparently how it is
Having identified the transition amplitudes X(n,n⫺ ␣ ) done.’’ 37
and frequencies (n,n⫺ ␣ ) as the observables of interest in By ‘‘the scheme of dispersion theory,’’ Heisenberg re-
the new theory, Heisenberg then turned his attention to how ferred to what Jammer38 calls Born’s correspondence rule,
they could be determined from the dynamics of the system. namely39
In the old quantum theory, this determination would have
been done in two stages: by integration of the equation of ⌽共 n 兲
␣ ↔⌽ 共 n 兲 ⫺⌽ 共 n⫺ ␣ 兲 , 共17兲
motion n
ẍ⫹ f 共 x 兲 ⫽0, 共12兲 or rather to its iteration to the form40
冖
⬁
mẋ 2 dt⫽2 m 兺
␣ ⫽⫺⬁
兩 X ␣ 共 n 兲 兩 2 ␣ 2 共 n 兲 ⫽nh, 共14兲 III. HEISENBERG’S CALCULATIONAL METHOD
AND ITS APPLICATION TO THE ANHARMONIC
using X ␣ (n)⫽ 关 X ⫺ ␣ (n) 兴 * . Heisenberg argued that Eq. 共14兲 OSCILLATOR
appeared arbitrary in the sense of the correspondence prin-
ciple, because the latter determined J only up to an additive A. Recursion relations in the quantum case
constant 共times h). He therefore replaced Eq. 共14兲 by the The classical equation of motion is
derivative form 关Eq. 共H15兲兴
ẍ⫹ 20 x⫹x 2 ⫽0. 共19兲
⬁
d
h⫽2 m 兺
␣ ⫽⫺⬁
␣
dn
共 ␣ 兩 X ␣ 共 n 兲 兩 2 共 n 兲兲 . 共15兲
We depart from the order of Heisenberg’s presentation and
begin by showing how—as he stated—Eq. 共19兲 leads to re-
cursion relations for the transition amplitudes X(n,n⫺ ␣ ).
The summation can alternatively be written as over positive The (n,n⫺ ␣ ) representative46 of the first two terms in Eq.
values of ␣, replacing 2 m by 4 m. In another crucial 共19兲 is straightforward, being
jump, Heisenberg then replaced the differential in Eq. 共15兲
by a difference, giving 关 ⫺ 2 共 n,n⫺ ␣ 兲 ⫹ 20 兴 X 共 n,n⫺ ␣ 兲 e i (n,n⫺ ␣ )t , 共20兲
1372 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 72, No. 11, November 2004 Aitchison, MacManus, and Snyder 1372
while that of the third term is, by Eq. 共10兲, 共 ⫺4 2 ⫹ 20 兲 a 2 ⫹ 21 a 21 ⫽0, 共28c兲
1373 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 72, No. 11, November 2004 Aitchison, MacManus, and Snyder 1373
guessed how to ‘‘translate,’’ ‘‘reinterpret,’’ or ‘‘reformulate’’ The case ␣ ⫽0 is clearly special, with X(n,n)⫽a(n,n).
共their words兲 the classical equation 共28兲 into the quantum We may now write out the recurrence relations Eq. 共22兲
ones, Eqs. 共33兲–共36兲, in a way that was consistent with his explicitly for ␣ ⫽0,1,2,..., in terms of a(n,n⫺ ␣ ) rather than
multiplication rule, Eq. 共10兲. Although such ‘‘inspired guess- X(n,n⫺ ␣ ). We shall include terms up to and including
work’’ was undoubtedly necessary in the stages leading up to terms of order 2 . For ␣ ⫽0 we obtain
Heisenberg’s paper,1 it seems more plausible to us that by the
time of the paper’s final formulation, Heisenberg realized 兵 20 a 共 n,n 兲 ⫹ 41 关 a 2 共 n⫹1,n 兲 ⫹a 2 共 n,n⫺1 兲兴 ⫹ 2 关 a 2 共 n,n 兲
that he had a calculational method in which guesswork was
no longer necessary, and in which Eqs. 共33兲–共36兲, in particu- ⫹ 14 共 a 2 共 n⫹2,n 兲 ⫹a 2 共 n,n⫺2 兲兲 ] 其 ⫽0. 共43兲
lar, could be derived.
Unfortunately, we know of no documentary evidence that We note the connection with Eq. 共27a兲, and that Eq. 共43兲
directly proves 共or disproves兲 this suggestion, but we think reduces to Eq. 共33兲 when the 2 term is dropped and an
there is some internal evidence for it. In the passage to which overall factor of is canceled. Similarly, for ␣ ⫽1 we obtain
attention was drawn earlier,44 Heisenberg asserted that his 共 ⫺ 2 共 n,n⫺1 兲 ⫹ 20 兲 a 共 n,n⫺1 兲 ⫹ 2 兵 a 共 n,n 兲 a 共 n,n⫺1 兲
formalism constituted a complete method for calculating ev-
erything that needs to be calculated. It is difficult to believe ⫹a 共 n,n⫺1 兲 a 共 n⫺1,n⫺1 兲 ⫹ 21 关 a 共 n,n⫹1 兲
that Heisenberg did not realize that his method led directly to
Eqs. 共33兲–共36兲, without the need for any ‘‘translations’’ of ⫻a 共 n⫹1,n⫺1 兲 ⫹a 共 n,n⫺2 兲 a 共 n⫺2,n⫺1 兲兴 其 ⫽0 共44兲
the classical relations.
To apply the ansatz of Eq. 共29兲 to Eq. 共22兲, we need to 关see Eq. 共27b兲兴. For ␣ ⫽2 we have
relate the amplitudes X(n,n⫺ ␣ ) to the corresponding quan- 兵 共 ⫺ 2 共 n,n⫺2 兲 ⫹ 20 兲 a 共 n,n⫺2 兲 ⫹ 21 a 共 n,n⫺1 兲
tities ␣ ⫺1 a(n,n⫺ ␣ ). We first note that in the classical
case, ⫻a 共 n⫺1,n⫺2 兲 ⫹ 2 关 a 共 n,n 兲 a 共 n,n⫺2 兲 ⫹a 共 n,n⫺2 兲
X ␣ 共 n 兲 ⫽X ⫺
* ␣共 n 兲 , 共37兲 ⫻a 共 n⫺2,n⫺2 兲 ⫹ 21 a 共 n,n⫹1 兲 a 共 n⫹1,n⫺2 兲
because x(t) in Eq. 共2兲 has to be real. Consider, without loss
⫹ 12 a 共 n,n⫺3 兲 a 共 n⫺3,n⫺2 兲 ] 其 ⫽0 共45兲
of generality, the case ␣ ⬎0. Then the quantum-theoretical
analogue of the left-hand side of Eq. 共37兲 is X(n,n⫺ ␣ ), and 关see Eq. 共27c兲兴. For ␣ ⫽3 关see Eq. 共27d兲兴 we obtain
that of the right-hand side is X * (n⫺ ␣ ,n) 共see Ref. 27兲.
Hence the quantum-theoretical analogue of Eq. 共37兲 is 2 兵 共 ⫺ 2 共 n,n⫺3 兲 ⫹ 20 兲 a 共 n,n⫺3 兲 ⫹ 21 关 a 共 n,n⫺1 兲
共24兲 and the corresponding quantum terms in Eq. 共29兲, the to Eqs. 共33兲–共36兲. This appears to be the first published deri-
X(n,n⫺ ␣ )’s should be chosen to be real, so that Eq. 共38兲 vation of the latter equations.
becomes In addition to these recurrence relations which follow
from the equations of motion, we also need the perturbative
X 共 n,n⫺ ␣ 兲 ⫽X 共 n⫺ ␣ ,n 兲 , 共39兲 version of the quantum condition Eq. 共16兲.52 We include
that is, the matrix with elements 兵 X(n,n⫺ ␣ ) 其 is symmetric. terms of order 2 , consistent with Eqs. 共43兲–共46兲, so that Eq.
Consider a typical term of Eq. 共29兲, 共16兲 becomes
␣ ⫺1 a 共 n,n⫺ ␣ 兲 cos关 共 n,n⫺ ␣ 兲 t 兴 h
⫽a 2 共 n⫹1,n 兲 共 n⫹1,n 兲 ⫺a 2 共 n,n⫺1 兲 共 n,n⫺1 兲
m
␣ ⫺1
⫽ a 共 n,n⫺ ␣ 兲关 e i (n,n⫺ ␣ )t ⫹e ⫺i (n,n⫺ ␣ )t 兴 ⫹ 2 关 a 2 共 n⫹2,n 兲 共 n⫹2,n 兲 ⫺a 2 共 n,n⫺2 兲
2
␣ ⫺1 ⫻ 共 n,n⫺2 兲兴 . 共47兲
⫽ a 共 n,n⫺ ␣ 兲关 e i (n,n⫺ ␣ )t ⫹e i (n⫺ ␣ ,n)t 兴 , 共40兲
2 We are now ready to obtain the solutions.
using (n,n⫺ ␣ )⫽⫺ (n⫺ ␣ ,n) from Eq. 共1兲. If we assume
that a(n,n⫺ ␣ )⫽a(n⫺ ␣ ,n) as discussed for Eq. 共39兲, we C. The lowest-order solutions for the amplitudes and
see that it is consistent to write frequencies
1374 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 72, No. 11, November 2004 Aitchison, MacManus, and Snyder 1374
so that assuming a (0) (n,n⫺1)⫽0, we obtain
(0)
共 n,n⫺1 兲 ⫽ 0 共49兲
a (0) 共 n,n⫺ ␣ 兲 ⫽A ␣
␣
2(
0
␣ ⫺1) 冑 n!
共 n⫺ ␣ 兲 !
, 共63兲
for all n. If we substitute Eq. 共49兲 into the lowest-order ver- where A ␣ is a numerical factor depending on ␣; Eq. 共63兲 is
sion of Eq. 共47兲, we find equivalent to Eq. 共H21兲.
h It is instructive to comment on the relation of the above
⫽ 关 a (0) 共 n⫹1,n 兲兴 2 ⫺ 关 a (0) 共 n,n⫺1 兲兴 2 . 共50兲 results to those that would be obtained in standard quantum-
m0 mechanical perturbation theory. At first sight, it is surprising
The solution of this difference equation is to see nonzero amplitudes for two-quantum 关Eq. 共61兲兴, three-
quantum 关Eq. 共62兲兴, or ␣-quantum 关Eq. 共63兲兴 transitions ap-
h pearing at lowest order. But we have to remember that in
关 a (0) 共 n,n⫺1 兲兴 2 ⫽ 共 n⫹constant兲 , 共51兲
m0 Heisenberg’s perturbative ansatz, Eq. 共29兲, the ␣-quantum
amplitude appears multiplied by a factor ␣ ⫺1 . Thus, for
as given in Eq. 共H20兲.53 To determine the value of the con-
stant, Heisenberg used the idea that in the ground state there example, the lowest order two-quantum amplitude is really
can be no transition to a lower state. Thus a (0) (n,n⫺2), not just a (0) (n,n⫺2). Indeed, such a transi-
tion is to be expected precisely at order 1 in conventional
关 a (0) 共 0,⫺1 兲兴 2 ⫽0, 共52兲 perturbation theory. The amplitude is 具 n⫺2 兩 x̂ 兩 n 典 where, to
and the constant in Eq. 共51兲 is determined to be zero. Equa- order ,
tion 共51兲 then gives 共up to a convention as to sign兲
0 具 k 兩 x̂ 兩 n 典 0
3
1
a (0)
共 n,n⫺1 兲 ⫽  冑n, 共53兲 兩 n 典 ⫽ 兩 n 典 0 ⫹ m
3 兺
k⫽n 共 n⫺k 兲 ប 0
兩k典0 . 共64兲
where
The operator x̂ 3 connects 兩 n 典 0 to 兩 n⫹3 典 0 , 兩 n⫹1 典 0 , 兩 n
 ⫽ 共 h/ m 0 兲 . 1/2
共54兲 ⫺1 典 0 , and 兩 n⫺3 典 0 , and similar connections occur for 0 具 n
Equations 共49兲 and 共53兲 were Heisenberg’s first results, ⫺2 兩 , so that a nonzero O() amplitude is generated in 具 n
and they pertain to the simple 共unperturbed兲 oscillator. We ⫺2 兩 x̂ 兩 n 典 .
can check Eq. 共53兲 against the usual quantum mechanical It is straightforward to check that Eq. 共61兲 is indeed cor-
calculation via rect quantum-mechanically, but it is more tedious to check
Eq. 共62兲, and distinctly unpromising to contemplate checking
a (0) 共 n,n⫺1 兲 ⫽2X (0) 共 n,n⫺1 兲 ⫽2 0 具 n⫺1 兩 x̂ 兩 n 典 0 , 共55兲 Eq. 共63兲 by doing a conventional perturbation calculation to
where the states 兩 n 典 0 are unperturbed oscillator eigenstates. order ␣ ⫺1. For this particular problem, the improved pertur-
It is well known that54 bation theory represented by Eq. 共29兲 is clearly very useful.
冉 冊
After having calculated the amplitudes for this problem to
ប 1/2
2
a (0) 共 n,n⫺2 兲 ⫽
6 20
冑n 共 n⫺1 兲 . 共61兲 ⫽ 兺 共 n,n⫺  兲 共 n⫺ ␣ ,n⫺  兲 X 共 n,n⫺  兲
A similar treatment of Eq. 共46兲 yields ⫻X 共 n⫺  ,n⫺ ␣ 兲 e i (n,n⫺ ␣ )t , 共67兲
3 using (n,m)⫽⫺ (m,n). The total energy is represented
a (0) 共 n,n⫺3 兲 ⫽ 冑n 共 n⫺1 兲共 n⫺2 兲 . 共62兲
48 40 by the matrix with elements
Consideration of the lowest-order term in Eq. 共22兲 leads to W 共 n,n⫺ ␣ 兲 e i (n,n⫺ ␣ )t . 共68兲
1375 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 72, No. 11, November 2004 Aitchison, MacManus, and Snyder 1375
It follows that if energy is to be conserved 共that is, time- through the apparent device of introducing a perturbation,
independent兲 the off-diagonal elements must vanish: and then retaining only those parts of the solution that sur-
vive as the perturbation vanishes?
W 共 n,n⫺ ␣ 兲 ⫽0. 共 ␣ ⫽0 兲 . 共69兲
For the simple harmonic oscillator, the equation of motion
The term ␣ ⫽0 is time-independent, and may be taken to be is ẍ⫹ 20 x⫽0, which yields
the energy in the state n. The crucial importance of checking
关 20 ⫺ 2 共 n,n⫺ ␣ 兲兴 X 共 n,n⫺ ␣ 兲 ⫽0 共71兲
the condition Eq. 共69兲 was clearly appreciated by Heisen-
berg. for the amplitudes X and frequencies . It is reasonable to
To lowest order in , the last term in Eq. 共65兲 may be retain the quantum condition, Eq. 共16兲, because this condi-
dropped. Furthermore, referring to Eq. 共29兲, the only tion is supposed to hold for any force law. If we assume that
-independent terms in the X-amplitudes are those involving the only nonvanishing amplitudes are those involving adja-
one-quantum jumps such as n→n⫺1, corresponding in low- cent states 共because, for example, in the classical case only a
est order to amplitudes such as X (0) (n,n⫺1)⫽ 21 a (0) (n,n single harmonic is present56兲, then because X(n,n⫺1)
⫺1). It then follows from Eqs. 共66兲 and 共67兲 that the ele- ⫽ 12 a(n,n⫺1), Eqs. 共16兲 and 共71兲 reduce to Eqs. 共50兲 and
ments W(n,n), W(n,n⫺2) and W(n,n⫹2), and only these 共48兲, respectively, and we quickly recover our previous re-
elements, are independent of when evaluated to lowest sults. This is indeed an efficient way to solve the quantum
order. In Appendix B we show that W(n,n⫺2) vanishes to simple harmonic oscillator.57 For completeness, however, it
lowest order, and W(n,n⫹2) vanishes similarly. Thus, to would be desirable not to have to make the adjacent states
lowest order in , the energy is indeed conserved 共as Heisen- assumption. Born and Jordan4 showed how this could be
berg noted兲, and is given 关using Eq. 共66兲 and Eq. 共67兲 with done, but their argument is somewhat involved. Soon there-
␣ ⫽0 and  ⫽⫾1] by after, of course, the wave mechanics of Schrödinger and the
operator approach of Dirac provided the derivations used
W 共 n,n 兲 ⫽ 21 m 关 (0) 共 n,n⫺1 兲兴 2 关 X (0) 共 n,n⫺1 兲兴 2 ever since.
1376 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 72, No. 11, November 2004 Aitchison, MacManus, and Snyder 1376
11 3 for this term in the energy. If we combine Eqs. 共85兲, 共86兲,
a (2) 共 n,n⫺1 兲 ⫽ n 冑n. 共81兲 and 共88兲, we obtain the energy up to order 2 ,
72 40
We now find the higher order corrections to a(n,n) by
considering Eq. 共43兲. We obtain a (1) (n,n)⫽0 and
冉 冊
W 共 n,n 兲 ⫽ n⫹
1
2
ប 0⫺
5 2 ប 2 2
12m 40
共 n ⫹n⫹11/30兲 , 共89兲
冎 冋 冉 冊
The fact is that Heisenberg’s ‘‘amplitude calculus’’ works,
1 2 1 at least for the simple one-dimensional problems to which he
⫹ 共 a (0) 共 n,n⫹2 兲兲 2 兴 ⫽ m 20 n⫹
2 2 2 applied it. It is an eminently practical procedure, requiring no
册
sophisticated mathematical knowledge to implement. Be-
5  4 2 cause it uses the correct equations of motion and incorpo-
⫹ 共 n 2 ⫹n⫹11/30兲 . 共85兲
12 40 rates the fundamental commutator, Eq. 共11兲, via the quantum
condition, Eq. 共16兲, the answers obtained are correct, in
Similarly, using Eq. 共67兲 up to order 2 , with ␣ ⫽0, the agreement with conventional quantum mechanics.
(n,n) element of 21 mx̂˙ 2 is found to be We believe that Heisenberg’s approach, as applied to
冋 冉 冊 册
simple dynamical systems, has much pedagogical value, and
1 2 1 5  4 2 2 could usefully be included in undergraduate courses on quan-
m 20 n⫹ ⫺ 共 n ⫹n⫹11/30兲 . 共86兲 tum mechanics. The multiplication rule, Eq. 共10兲, has a con-
2 2 2 24 40
vincing physical rationale, even for those who 共like Heisen-
Finally we consider the (n,n) element of the potential energy berg兲 do not recognize it as matrix multiplication. Indeed,
3 mx̂ . To obtain the result to order , we need to calculate
1 3 2 this piece of quantum physics could provide an exciting ap-
the (n,n) element of x̂ only to order . If we use
3 plication for those learning about matrices in a concurrent
mathematics course. The simple examples of Eq. 共10兲, in
equations such as Eq. 共22兲 or the analogous one for the x̂ 3
x̂ 3 共 n,n 兲 ⫽ 兺␣ 兺 X 共 n,n⫺ ␣ 兲 X 共 n⫺ ␣ ,n⫺  兲 term, introduce students directly to the fundamental quantum
idea that a transition from one state to another occurs via all
⫻X 共 n⫺  ,n 兲 , 共87兲 possible intermediate states, something that can take time to
emerge in the traditional wave-mechanical approach. The so-
we find that there are no zeroth-order terms, but twelve terms
lution of the quantum simple harmonic oscillator, sketched at
of order 关recall that amplitudes such as X(n,n) and the end of Sec III D, is simple in comparison with the stan-
X(n,n⫺2) each carry one power of 兴. We evaluate these dard methods. Finally, the type of perturbation theory em-
terms using Eqs. 共53兲, 共57兲, and 共61兲, and obtain ployed here provides an instructive introduction to the tech-
5m 2  4 nique, being more easily related to the classical analysis than
⫺ 共 n 2 ⫹n⫹11/30兲 共88兲 is conventional quantum-mechanical perturbation theory
24 20 共which students tend to find very formal兲.
1377 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 72, No. 11, November 2004 Aitchison, MacManus, and Snyder 1377
It is true that many important problems in quantum me- will contribute, because the amplitudes X(n,n⫺ ␣ ) are sup-
chanics are much more conveniently handled in the wave- pressed by increasing powers of as ␣ increases. In fact, for
mechanical formalism: unbound problems are an obvious ex- ␣ ⭓2 the leading power of in W(n,n⫺ ␣ ) is ␣ ⫺2 , which
ample, but even the Coulomb problem required a famous arises from terms such as X(n,n⫺1)X(n⫺1,n⫺ ␣ ) and
tour de force by Pauli.64 Nevertheless, a useful seed may be X(n,n⫺1)X(n⫺1,n⫺2)X(n⫺2,n⫺ ␣ ). Thus to order ,
sown, so that when students meet problems involving a finite we need to calculate only W(n,n⫺1),W(n,n⫺2),W(n,n
number of discrete states—for example, in the treatment of
⫺3).
spin—the introduction of matrices will come as less of a
shock. And they may enjoy the realization that the somewhat 共a兲 W(n,n⫺1). There are four O() contributions to the
mysteriously named ‘‘matrix elements’’ of wave mechanics (n,n⫺1) element of 21 m 20 x̂ 2 :
are indeed the elements of Heisenberg’s matrices. 1
4 m 20 兵 a (0) 共 n,n 兲 a (0) 共 n,n⫺1 兲 ⫹a (0) 共 n,n⫺1 兲
APPENDIX A: THE QUANTUM CONDITION, EQ. ⫻a (0) 共 n⫺1,n⫺1 兲 ⫹ 21 关 a (0) 共 n,n⫹1 兲 a (0) 共 n⫹1,n⫺1 兲
„16…, AND x̂p̂Àp̂x̂Äiប
⫹a (0) 共 n,n⫺2 兲 a (0) 共 n⫺2,n⫺1 兲兴 其
Consider the (n,n) element of (x̂x̂˙ ⫺x̂˙ x̂), which is
⫽⫺ 5
24 m  3 n 冑n. 共B1兲
兺␣ X 共 n,n⫺ ␣ 兲 i 共 n⫺ ␣ ,n 兲 X 共 n⫺ ␣ ,n 兲 There are two O() contributions to the (n,n⫺1) element
of 12 mx̂˙ 2 :
⫺ 兺␣ i 共 n,n⫺ ␣ 兲 X 共 n,n⫺ ␣ 兲 X 共 n⫺ ␣ ,n 兲 . 共A1兲
⫺ 18 m 兵 (0) 共 n,n⫹1 兲 (0) 共 n⫹1,n⫺1 兲 a (0) 共 n,n⫹1 兲
In the first term of Eq. 共A1兲, the sum over ␣ ⬎0 may be ⫻a (0) 共 n⫹1,n⫺1 兲 ⫹ (0) 共 n,n⫺2 兲 (0) 共 n⫺2,n⫺1 兲
rewritten as
⫻a (0) 共 n,n⫺2 兲 a (0) 共 n⫺2,n⫺1 兲 其 ⫽ 1
12 m  3 n 冑n. 共B2兲
⫺i 兺 共 n,n⫺ ␣ 兲 兩 X 共 n,n⫺ ␣ 兲 兩
␣ ⬎0
2
共A2兲
There are three O() contributions to the (n,n⫺1) element
using (n,n⫺ ␣ )⫽⫺ (n⫺ ␣ ,n) from Eq. 共1兲 and X(n of 13 mx̂ 3 :
⫺ ␣ ,n)⫽X * (n,n⫺ ␣ ) from Eq. 共38兲. Similarly, the sum over 1
m 兵 a (0) 共 n,n⫺1 兲 a (0) 共 n⫺1,n 兲 a (0) 共 n,n⫺1 兲
24
␣ ⬍0 becomes
⫹a (0) 共 n,n⫺1 兲 a (0) 共 n⫺1,n⫺2 兲 a (0) 共 n⫺2,n⫺1 兲
i 兺
␣ ⬎0
共 n⫹ ␣ ,n 兲 兩 X 共 n⫹ ␣ ,n 兲 兩 2 共A3兲 ⫹a (0) 共 n,n⫹1 兲 a (0) 共 n⫹1,n 兲 a (0) 共 n,n⫺1 兲 其
⫺ 共 n,n⫺ ␣ 兲 兩 X 共 n,n⫺ ␣ 兲 兩 2 兴 1
8 m 20 a (0) 共 n,n⫺1 兲 a (0) 共 n⫺1,n⫺2 兲 , 共B4兲
⫽2ih/ 共 4 m 兲 , 共A4兲
which is canceled by the corresponding term from 21 mx̂˙ 2 .
where the last step follows from Eq. 共16兲. We set p̂⫽mx̂˙ and The next terms are O( 2 ), for example from the leading
find term in the (n,n⫺2) element of 31 mx̂ 3 .
共c兲 W(n,n⫺3). There are two O() contributions from
共 x̂p̂⫺p̂x̂ 兲共 n,n 兲 ⫽iប 共A5兲
2 m 0 x̂ :
1 2 2
1378 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 72, No. 11, November 2004 Aitchison, MacManus, and Snyder 1378
1
ma (0) 共 n,n⫺1 兲 a (0) 共 n⫺1,n⫺2 兲 a (0) 共 n⫺2,n⫺3 兲
28
Conventional notation, subsequent to Ref. 4, would replace n⫺ ␣ by a
24
second index m, say. We prefer to remain as close as possible to the
⫽ 1
24 m  3 冑n 共 n⫺1 兲共 n⫺2 兲 . 共B7兲 29
notation of Heisenberg’s paper.
Reference 2, p. 264.
The sum of Eqs. 共B5兲–共B7兲 vanishes, as required.
30
Reference 2, p. 265.
31
Reference 2, p. 266.
32
a兲 Reference 2 p. 267.
Electronic mail: i.aitchisonl@physics.oxford.ac.uk 33
1 This step apparently did not occur to him immediately. See Ref. 11, p. 231.
W. Heisenberg, ‘‘Über quantentheoretische Umdeutung kinematischer und 34
Actually not quite. We have taken the liberty of changing the order of the
mechanischer Beziehungen,’’ Z. Phys. 33, 879– 893 共1925兲.
2
This is the title of the English translation, which is paper 12 in Ref. 3, pp. arguments in the first terms in the braces; this 共correct兲 order is as given in
261–276. We shall refer exclusively to this translation, and to the equa- the equation Heisenberg wrote before Eq. 共H20兲.
35
tions in it as 共H1兲, 共H2兲, ... . W. Thomas, ‘‘Über die Zahl der Dispersionelektronen, die einem station-
3
Sources of Quantum Mechanics, edited by B. L. van der Waerden 共North- ären Zustande zugeordnet sind 共Vorläufige Mitteilung兲,’’ Naturwissen-
Holland, Amsterdam, 1967兲. A collection of reprints in translation. schaften 13, 627 共1925兲.
36
4
M. Born and P. Jordan, ‘‘Zur Quantenmechanik,’’ Z. Phys. 34, 858 – 888 W. Kuhn, ‘‘Über die Gesamtstärke der von einem Zustande ausgehenden
共1925兲, paper 13 in Ref. 3. Absorptionslinien,’’ Z. Phys. 33, 408 – 412 共1925兲, paper 11 in Ref. 3.
37
5
P. A. M. Dirac, ‘‘The fundamental equations of quantum mechanics,’’ W. Heisenberg, as discussed in Ref. 11, pp. 243 ff.
Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 109, 642– 653 共1926兲, paper 14 in Ref. 3.
38
Reference 9, p. 193; ⌽ is any function defined for stationary states.
6
M. Born, W. Heisenberg, and P. Jordan, ‘‘Zur Quantenmechanik II,’’ Z.
39
M. Born, ‘‘Über Quantenmechanik,’’ Z. Phys. 26, 379–395 共1924兲, paper
Phys. 35, 557– 615 共1926兲, paper 15 in Ref. 3. 7 in Ref. 3.
40
7
S. Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory 共Pantheon, New York, 1992兲, pp. Reference 9, p. 202.
41
53–54. Weinberg goes on to say that ‘‘Perhaps we should not look too H. A. Kramers and W. Heisenberg, ‘‘Über die Streuung von Strahlen durch
closely at Heisenberg’s first paper ... .’’ We will not follow his suggestion Atome,’’ Z. Phys. 31, 681–707 共1925兲, paper 10 in Ref. 3.
42
here. For considerable further detail on dispersion theory, sum rules, and the
8
S.-I. Tomonaga, Quantum Mechanics: Old Quantum Theory 共North- ‘‘discretization’’ rules, see Ref. 8, pp. 142–147, 206 –208, and Ref. 9, Sec.
Holland, Amsterdam, 1962兲, Vol. 1. 4.3.
43
9
M. Jammer, The Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics See Ref. 3, p. 37.
44
共McGraw–Hill, New York, 1966兲. Reference 2, p. 268.
45
10
E. MacKinnon, ‘‘Heisenberg, models and the rise of matrix mechanics,’’ For an interesting discussion of the possible reasons why he chose to try
Hist. Stud. Phys. Sci. 8, 137–188 共1977兲. out his method on the anharmonic oscillator, see Ref. 11, pp. 232–235;
11
J. Mehra and H. Rechenberg, The Historical Development of Quantum and Ref. 3, p. 22. Curiously, most of the commentators—with the notable
Theory 共Springer-Verlag, New York, 1982兲, Vol 2. exception of Tomonaga 共Ref. 8兲—seem to lose interest in the details of the
12
J. Hendry, The Creation of Quantum Mechanics and the Bohr-Pauli Dia- calculations at this point.
logue 共Reidel, Dordrecht, 1984兲.
46
The (n,n⫺ ␣ ) matrix element, in the standard terminology.
13
T.-Y. Wu, Quantum Mechanics 共World Scientific, Singapore, 1986兲.
47
Equation 共22兲 is not in Heisenberg’s paper, although it is given by To-
14
M. Taketani and M. Nagasaki, The Formation and Logic of Quantum monaga, Ref. 8, Eq. (32.20⬘ ).
Mechanics 共World Scientific, Singapore, 2002兲, Vol. 3. 48
Note that this means that, in x(t), all the terms which are of order p arise
15
G. Birtwistle, The New Quantum Mechanics 共Cambridge U.P., Cambridge, from many different terms in Eq. 共24兲.
49
1928兲. Except that Heisenberg relabeled most of the a ␣ ’s as a ␣ (n).
16
M. Born, Atomic Physics 共Dover, New York, 1989兲. 50
Because of an oversight, he wrote a 0 (n) in place of a(n,n) in Eq. 共33兲.
17
J. Lacki, ‘‘Observability, Anschaulichkeit and abstraction: A journey into 51
MacKinnon 共Ref. 10兲 suggests how, in terms of concepts from the ‘‘virtual
Werner Heisenberg’s science and philosophy,’’ Fortschr. Phys. 50, 440– oscillator’’ model, Eq. 共28兲 may be transformed into Eqs. 共33兲–共36兲. We
458 共2002兲. do not agree with MacKinnon 共Ref. 10, footnote 62兲 regarding ‘‘mistakes’’
18
J. Mehra, The Golden Age of Theoretical Physics 共World Scientific, Sin- in Eqs. 共35兲 and 共36兲.
gapore, 2001兲, Vol. 2. 52
In the version of the quantum condition that Heisenberg gave just before
19
Of these the most detailed are Ref. 3, pp. 28 –35, Ref. 8, pp. 204 –224, Eq. 共H20兲, he unfortunately used the same symbol for the transition am-
Ref. 10, pp. 161–188, and Ref. 11, Chap. IV. plitudes as in 共H16兲–see Eq. 共16兲—but replaced 4 m by m, not ex-
20
Reference 7, p. 53. plaining where the factor 1/4 came from 关see Eq. 共42兲兴; he also omitted the
21
Reference 2, p. 262. ’s.
22
All quotations are from the English translation of Ref. 2. 53
Heisenberg omitted the superscripts.
23
We use rather than Heisenberg’s . 54
See, for example, L. I. Schiff, Quantum Mechanics 共McGraw–Hill, New
24
We depart from the notation of Refs. 1 and 2, preferring that of Ref. 8, pp. York, 1968兲, 3rd ed., p. 72.
204 –224. Our X ␣ (n) is Heisenberg’s a ␣ (n). 55
Reference 2, p. 272.
25
The reader may find it helpful at this point to consult Ref. 26, which 56
This is the justification suggested in Ref. 4, p. 297 of paper 13 in Ref. 3.
provides a clear account of the connection between the classical analysis 57
It is essentially that given by L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Quantum
of an electron’s periodic motion and simple quantum versions. See also J. Mechanics 共Pergamon, Oxford, 1977兲, 3rd ed., pp. 67– 68.
D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics 共Wiley, New York, 1975兲, 2nd ed., 58
L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Mechanics 共Pergamon, Oxford, 1976兲,
Sec. 9.2. 3rd ed., pp. 86 – 87.
26
W. A. Fedak and J. J. Prentis, ‘‘Quantum jumps and classical harmonics,’’ 59
This equation corresponds to Eq. 共88兲 of Ref. 4, in which there appears to
Am. J. Phys. 70, 332–344 共2002兲. be a misprint of 17/30 instead of 11/30.
27
The association X ␣ (n)↔X(n,n⫺ ␣ ) is generally true only for non- 60
See Ref. 4, p. 305.
negative ␣. For negative values of ␣, a general term in the classical Fou- 61
Reference 57, p. 136.
rier series is X ⫺ 兩 ␣ 兩 (n)exp关⫺i(n)兩␣兩t兴. If we replace ⫺ (n) 兩 ␣ 兩 by 62
Reference 2, pp. 272–3.
⫺ (n,n⫺ 兩 ␣ 兩 ), which is equal to (n⫺ 兩 ␣ 兩 ,n) using Eq. 共1兲, we see that 63
See W. Heisenberg, Physics and Beyond 共Allen & Unwin, London, 1971兲,
X ⫺ 兩 ␣ 兩 (n)↔X(n⫺ 兩 ␣ 兩 ,n). The association X ⫺ 兩 ␣ 兩 ↔X(n,n⫹ 兩 ␣ 兩 ) would not p. 61.
be correct because (n,n⫹ 兩 ␣ 兩 ) is not the same, in general, as (n 64
W. Pauli, ‘‘Über das Wasserstoffspektrum vom Standpunkt der neuen
⫺ 兩 ␣ 兩 ,n). Quantenmechanik,’’ Z. Phys. 36, 336 –363 共1926兲, paper 16 in Ref. 3.
1379 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 72, No. 11, November 2004 Aitchison, MacManus, and Snyder 1379