Journal of Modern Physics
Vol.07 No.15(2016), Article ID:72339,14 pages
10.4236/jmp.2016.715191
Classical and Quantum Behavior of Generalized Oscillators in Terms of Linear Canonical Transformations
Akihiro Ogura
Laboratory of Physics, Nihon University, Matsudo, Japan

Copyright © 2016 by author and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY 4.0).
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/



Received: October 21, 2016; Accepted: November 26, 2016; Published: November 29, 2016
ABSTRACT
The quantum mechanical relationships between time-dependent oscillators, Hamilton- Jacobi theory and an invariant operator are clarified by making reference to a system with a generalized oscillator. We introduce a linear transformation in position and momentum, and show that the correspondence between classical and quantum transformations is exactly one-to-one. We found that classical canonical transformations are constructed from quantum unitary transformations as long as we are concerned with linear transformations. We also show the relationship between the invariant operator and a linear transformation.
Keywords:
Quantum Canonical Transformation, Linear Transformation, Generalized Oscillators, Invariant Operator

1. Introduction
Canonical transformations are a highlight in classical mechanics. They give not only solutions to classical mechanical systems, but also an insight into the quantization of them. However, the idea of canonical transformations has so far not been fully utilized in quantum systems. This issue was raised by Dirac [1] [2] [3] just after the birth of quantum mechanics. There, he only discussed the case of a time-independent canonical transformation. Recently, there has been renewed interest coming in this field in the context of Hamilton-Jacobi theory [4] [5] and action-angle variables [6] . While these articles were focused on time-independent transformations, time-dependent ones were also discussed [7] . Moreover, the introduction of an invariant operator to construct solutions for time-dependent Hamiltonian systems has also been proposed [8] [9] [10] . This invariant operator was constructed by means of a time-dependent quantum canonical transformation [11] [12] .
These various methods have been investigated for various purposes. However, there has been no unification of these various methods. The purpose of the present paper is to provide a unified description of these methods in terms of a linear transformation for position and momentum by referring to the system of a generalized oscillator. Since we are concerned with a linear canonical transformation, the classical and quantum correspondence is one-to-one. We also show that the invariant operator can be considered as part of a linear canonical transformation.
The organization of the paper is as follows. In Section 2, we define a linear canonical transformation in position and momentum and apply this to a genelarized oscillator. Moreover, we show two special cases of linear canonical transformations. One is the transformation to a time-dependent oscillator, and the other is to construct a Hamilton- Jacobi theory. In Section 3, we introduce a unitary operator that generates a linear transformation in position and momentum in quantum mechanics. We apply this unitary operator to a genelarized oscillator and obtain the same results as the classical cases mentioned in Section 2. In Section 4, we introduce an invariant operator. We show that this is also derived from a unitary operator that generates a linear transformation. We give two special cases for the coefficients of the linear transformation. The foregoing research is just one special case of a linear canonical transformation. Section 5 is devoted to a summary.
2. Classical Linear Canonical Transformations
A linear canonical transformation is defined by a transformation from old position and momentum variables
to new ones
as
, (1a)
, (1b)
where A, B, C and D are real functions of time t.
is needed in order that
are canonical, that is, the Poisson bracket must satisfy
. The condition
is kept throughout this paper. This transformation is generated by the generating function
, (2)
with
, (3)
which is known from classical mechanics [13] .
Now the Hamiltonian which we consider in this paper is
, (4)
where
,
and
are real functions of time t. The equation of motion of this system is given by
, (5)
where
. (6)
The dot above the variables denotes the time derivatives of the variables. For later use, we derive the equation of motion for p from the Hamiltonian (4),
, (7)
where
. (8)
We will see these equations in later sections.
The transformed Hamiltonian K is derived from the classical mechanics [13]

From the linear canonical transformation (1), we obtain

and

Collecting these equations together, we obtain the transformed Hamiltonian K as follows

Up till now, we have placed no constraint on the coefficients A, B, C and D, except
2.1. Case 1: Time-Dependent Oscillator
We assign the coefficients of (1) [7] [11] as

Substituting these coefficients and their time derivatives


into (12), we obtain the transformed Hamiltonian

where

and 

2.2. Case 2: Hamilton-Jacobi Theory
Next let us consider another constraint. We impose the additional condition on the coefficients.


These constraints show that the coefficients are the solution to the equation of motion (5) and (7), that is,


where 

We substitute (18) into the transformed Hamiltonian (12). For the time-derivative parts in (12), we obtain



so that the transformed Hamiltonian becomes zero;

which means that the new variables 
3. Quantum Linear Canonical Transformations
Since we are concerned with linear canonical transformations, the classical and quantum correspondence is exactly one-to-one [14] . Let us consider the following unitary operator:

where 







Next we show a “normal-ordering” of the unitary operator (24). For this we introduce the operators [15]

which form the SU(1, 1) Lie algebra

We rewrite the unitary operator (24) in the “normal-ordered” form as


where

and
Corresponding to the classical linear transformation (1), the new quantum variables 


we obtain


where from (28), 




To recognize this statement, let us consider the generalized oscillator. The quantum counterpart of the Hamiltonian (4) is

and the quantum counterpart of the transformed Hamiltonian 

Substituting (27b) and (31) into (32), we obtain

and using (A.18),

Collecting these equations together, we obtain the transformed Hamiltonian 

The time derivative of the condition 



Then we recover the same form of the transformed Hamiltonian

with (12) in the classical transformed Hamiltonian. It is realized that the linear transformation in position and momentum gives the same transformed Hamiltonian (12) and (39). So, the same constraints (13) and (18) give the same results for the time- dependent oscillator and the Hamilton-Jacobi relations, as mentioned in section 2. As long as we are concerned with linear canonical transformations, the correspondence between the canonical transformation in classical mechanics and the unitary transformation in quantum mechanics is one-to-one. Referring to the generalized oscillator, the quantum unitary transformation is constructed in parallel with the classical canonical transformation.
4. Invariant Operator
An invariant operator 


This was first investigated for the time-dependent harmonic oscillator [10] . For the generalized oscillator (31), we assume that the form of 

where x, y and z are real functions of time t. The time derivative of 

In order to satisfy (40), we demand for the coefficients x, y and z, that



On the other hand, the invariant operator 

whose eigenvalues and eigenfunctions are well known in elementary quantum mechanics.
We see that this unitary operator is also a linear canonical transformation [12] . Using (27b) and (44), we obtain from (A.18),


To satisfy (41), we assign



for x, y and z. In other words, the coefficients A, B, C and D in the unitary operator 
The Hamiltonian (44) can be written down in terms of annihilation and creation operators (

whose eigenvalues and eigenstates are given by [16]

where 

This implies that we define the time-dependent operators by


and the invariant operator 

and its eigenstates are

These are the same eigenvalues as for the time-independent case
When we choose the squeezing coefficients

then we construct the same results as in [11] [17] [18] .
The invariant operator is classified according to an auxiliary equation. We will see two cases below.
4.1. Case 1
There are some kinds of invariant function that are classified as auxiliary equations. One example is [7]

where

Equation (47a) means

and from the derivative of 

which fulfills the condition (47b). Equation (43b) gives


where

and 
With the initial condition (


This is the auxiliary equation [11] [12] . From (57) and (58), z becomes

which is identical with (47c).
4.2. Case 2
Another kind of invariant function [19] is

From (43a) and (47a), we obtain

then,

which fulfills the condition (47b). Eq.(43b) gives


where

and 
With the initial condition (


This is the auxiliary equation [19] [20]

This is an inhomogeneous differential equation of (5). From (61) and (62), z becomes

which is identical with (47c).
5. Summary
We investigated a linear transformation in position and momentum by referring to a generalized oscillator. We found that the correspondence between the classical canonical transformation and the quantum unitary transformation is one-to-one, that is, as long as we are concerned with linear transformations, all classical transformations can be constructed as quantum ones. As examples of this, the transformation to a time- dependent oscillator and the construction of Hamilton-Jacobi theory are derived both for the classical and quantum cases. The notion of linear transformations is also applicable to the invariant operator. On choosing the coefficients for the linear transformation, we were able to repeat the results obtained in previous work.
Cite this paper
Ogura, A. (2016) Classical and Quantum Behavior of Generalized Oscillators in Terms of Linear Canonical Transformations. Journal of Modern Physics, 7, 2205-2218. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2016.715191
References
- 1. Dirac, P.A.M. (1927) Proceedings of the Royal Society (London), A113, 621.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1927.0012 - 2. Dirac, P.A.M. (1933) Phys. Zeitschr. Sowjetunion, 3, 64. (Reprinted in: Quantum Electrodynamics. Edited by Schwinger, J. (1958) Dover, New York.)
- 3. Dirac, P.A.M. (1945) Review of Modern Physics, 17, 195.
https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.17.195 - 4. Lee, H. and l’Yi, W.S. (1995) Physical Review, A51, 982.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.51.982 - 5. Kim, J.H. and Lee, H.W. (1999) Canadian Journal of Physics, 77, 411.
https://doi.org/10.1139/p99-048 - 6. Lewis, H.R., Lawrence, W.E. and Harris, J.D. (1996) Physical Review Letter, 77, 5157.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.5157 - 7. Cervero, J.M. and Rodriguez, A. (2002) International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 41, 503.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014201406034 - 8. Lewis Jr., H.R. (1967) Physical Review Letter, 18, 510.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.18.510 - 9. Lewis Jr., H.R. (1968) Journal of Mathematical Physics, 9, 1976.
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1664532 - 10. Lewis Jr., H.R. and Riesenfeld, W.B. (1969) Journal of Mathematical Physics, 10, 1458.
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1664991 - 11. Cervero, J.M. and Lejarreta, J.D. (1990) Quantum Optics, 2, 333.
https://doi.org/10.1088/0954-8998/2/5/001 - 12. Cervero, J.M. (1999) International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 38, 2095.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026614021448 - 13. Goldstein, H. (1950) Classical Mechanics. Addison-Wesley, Boston.
- 14. Ogura, A. (2009) Journal of Physics, B42, 145504.
https://doi.org/10.1088/0953-4075/42/14/145504 - 15. Lo, C.F. (1991) Physical Review, A43, 404.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.43.404 - 16. Messiah, A. (1999) Quantum Mechanics. Dover.
- 17. Hartley, J.G. and Ray, J.R. (1982) Physical Review, D25, 382.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.25.382 - 18. Pedrosa, I. A. (1987) Physical Review, D36, 1279.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.36.1279 - 19. Kim, S. P. and Page, D. N. (2001) Physical Review, A64, 012104.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.64.012104 - 20. Gao, X.-C., Xu, J.-B. and Qian, T.-Z. (1990) Annals of Physics (N.Y.), 204, 235.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4916(90)90128-B - 21. Truax, D.R. (1985) Physical Review, D31, 1988.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.31.1988
Appendix
In this Appendix, we derive the “normal-ordering” of (27a). To accomplish this program, we apply the idea of Truax [21] straightforwardly. We define a operator


where 


subject to the constraint





where primes indicate differentiation with respect to

we obtain

From the theorem (29) and the commutation relations (26), we obtain

We identify the coefficients of the respective basis elements of the Lie algebra and obtain a system of coupled nonlinear equations [15] ,



with initial conditions

Together, Equations ((A.7a), (A.7c), and (A.8)) imply

a Riccati equation for



with constant coefficients. Subject to the initial conditions, this equation has the solution

where 



Substituting (A.12) into (A.8) for 

We can integrate the differential Equation (A.7a) to get the following

To obtain the final result, choose 

where A, B, C and D are defined by (28). This is the desired expression for the “normal ordering” of the unitary operator. We decompose this unitary operator in three parts and assign



The following equations


and


are helpful.



