1

As an interesting exercise, I was wondering whether we could reformulate classical mechanics in such a way that we could use the same mathematical paradigm we use in quantum mechanics. I'll expose it here since I want to know whether this procedure is of any interest, or if it is correct.

For simplicity, I chose a classical particle with mass $m$ subject to a simple harmonic potential. Then, I assigned it a probability density function $P(x)$. Therefore, my goal now is to calculate said probability density so that I can know the probability of my particle being in an interval $x\in[x_0,x_1]$.

I begin by assuming that the probability distribution is inversely proportional to velocity. This seems quite natural to me, since the faster the particle goes, the less likely it will be for it to be in a given position when we measure it. Therefore, I have:

$$P(v) = \frac{N}{v}, \ \ N \in \mathbb{R}$$

where, of course, the probability density must fullfil the normalization condition:

$$\int_{-L}^LPdx = 1$$

Naturally, the classical particle is only allowed to move in the interval $x \in [-L,L]$, which means it has a mechanical energy:

$$E=\frac{1}{2}kL^2$$

where $k$ is the spring constant, or whatever other constant the harmonic potential might have depending on the system.

What I need to do now is to find an expression of $P$ in terms of $x$. This is easily done by using the conservation of energy:

$$E=K+U\Longrightarrow v = \sqrt{\frac{2E-kx^2}{m}}$$

or more concisely, dividing by the particle's mass:

$$v = \sqrt{2\varepsilon-\omega^2x^2}$$

where $\varepsilon=E/m$. Now, introducing the expression I found for $v(x)$ in my probability density, I finally have it as a function of $x$.

$$P(x)=\frac{N}{\sqrt{2\varepsilon-\omega^2x^2}}$$

All that is left to do is to calculate the normalization constant, $N$. Imposing the probability density fullfils the normalization condition:

$$\int_{-L}^L\frac{N}{\sqrt{2\varepsilon-\omega^2x^2}}dx = 1$$

$$\frac{N}{\sqrt{2\varepsilon}}\int_{-L}^L\frac{dx}{\sqrt{1-\omega^2 x^2/2\varepsilon}}=1$$

This is the integral of an arcsine, which yields the result:

$$N=\frac{\omega}{2\arcsin(\frac{\omega}{\sqrt{2\varepsilon}}L)}$$

Recalling that $\varepsilon=\frac{E}{m}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{k}{m}L^2 = \frac{1}{2}\omega^2L^2$, the arcsine vanishes and yields $\pi/2$. Therefore, I end up with:

$$P(x) = \frac{\omega}{2\frac{\pi}{2}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\varepsilon-\omega^2x^2}}$$

Again, the term relative to the particle's velocity can be simplified, and I finally get:

$$\boxed{P(x)=\frac{1}{\pi\sqrt{L^2-x^2}}}$$

Probability density associated to classical particle

AlanFox86
  • 682
  • 2
    You may want to check the Koopman-Von Neumann formalism for classical mechanics: link – Aschkal Mar 30 '24 at 16:40
  • @Aschkal brilliant, this is just what I was looking for, many thanks! – AlanFox86 Mar 30 '24 at 16:49
  • The harmonic oscillator is so stereotypically the playground of theoretical physics that the specific thing you are looking for is necessarily already explored. Every aspect of it is sorted out. "I begin by assuming that the probability distribution is inversely proportional to velocity." is not actually acceptable as a basic assumption. – naturallyInconsistent Mar 30 '24 at 16:52
  • @naturallyInconsistent thanks for your answer! That's precisely what I don't understand, why is it not acceptable that the probability is inversely proportional to speed? – AlanFox86 Mar 30 '24 at 17:02
  • I am trying to say that is not a sensible input. It should be something you get out of more basic assumptions as an output of the theory rather than an input. – naturallyInconsistent Mar 30 '24 at 17:06
  • @naturallyInconsistent truth be told, I did make that assumption out of pure physical intuition. I tried to make my proposal broader by considering the dependence on any power of velocity, rather than just $v^1$, but then my calculations got considerably harder and I ended up with integrals I could only solve numerically. Nonetheless, I don't think we can derive the dependence of the probability density with respect to velocity from a basic principle, since it's essentially a made up tool – AlanFox86 Mar 30 '24 at 17:09
  • 2
    Anyway, what I was really trying to get across, is that if you wanted to bring classical mechanics closer to quantum mechanics, you should be doing stuff similar to KvN, and obtaining the intuitive result you are trying to cover. In fact, quite many quantum mechanics textbooks cover a reduced subset and obtain the semi-classical probability distribution that looks like what you obtained. – naturallyInconsistent Mar 30 '24 at 17:15

0 Answers0