2019-03-11 09:00:50 8 Comments

When we go from the classical many-body hamiltonian

$$H = \sum_i \frac{\vec{p}_i^2}{2m_e} - \sum_{i,I} \frac{Z_I e^2 }{|\vec{r}_i - \vec{R}_I|} + \frac{1}{2}\sum_{i,j} \frac{ e^2 }{|\vec{r}_i - \vec{r}_j|} + \sum_I \frac{\vec{p}_I^2}{2M_I}+ \frac{1}{2}\sum_{I,J} \frac{Z_IZ_J e^2 }{|\vec{R}_I - \vec{R}_J|}$$

to the quantum many-body hamiltonian

$$H = -\sum_i \frac{\hbar^2}{2m_e}\nabla_i^2 - \sum_{i,I} \frac{Z_I e^2 }{|\vec{r}_i - \vec{R}_I|} + \frac{1}{2}\sum_{i,j} \frac{ e^2 }{|\vec{r}_i - \vec{r}_j|} - \sum_I \frac{\hbar^2}{2M_I} \nabla_I^2+ \frac{1}{2}\sum_{I,J} \frac{Z_IZ_J e^2 }{|\vec{R}_I - \vec{R}_J|}$$

only the kinetic energy parts turn into operators. I mean the other parts are also operators but merely numbers.

Why is this the case? My guess is, it has to be with the representation we are working with, but that's as far as I go, I don't know how it affects.

Can someone give a heuristic explanation also?

### Related Questions

#### Sponsored Content

#### 1 Answered Questions

### Why do we think that the relation $\vec{\mu}_L=\frac{e}{2m_e}\vec{L}$ will be valid in quantum mechanics?

**2019-02-25 06:22:46****mithusengupta123****68**View**0**Score**1**Answer- Tags: quantum-mechanics electromagnetism angular-momentum operators magnetic-moment

#### 0 Answered Questions

### Quantum numbers $n$ and $\ell$ relation in many electrons atom

**2018-12-26 09:21:32****amilton moreira****77**View**0**Score**0**Answer- Tags: quantum-mechanics atomic-physics approximations orbitals

#### 1 Answered Questions

### [SOLVED] Dimensions in the Second Quantization of an Operator

**2018-04-12 18:14:35****Quantum spaghettification****55**View**0**Score**1**Answer- Tags: hamiltonian dimensional-analysis second-quantization

#### 0 Answered Questions

### Do we chose an operator ordering (explicit or implicit) all the time?

**2017-10-16 21:58:15****Quantumwhisp****31**View**1**Score**0**Answer- Tags: operators quantum-electrodynamics hamiltonian

#### 2 Answered Questions

### [SOLVED] Can we always express the EM-Field Hamiltonian as (possibly time dependent) pair of annihilation and creation operators?

**2017-09-29 10:01:21****Quantumwhisp****380**View**8**Score**2**Answer- Tags: quantum-field-theory operators hamiltonian quantum-optics

#### 1 Answered Questions

### [SOLVED] The central field approximation and the quantum number $n$

**2016-10-21 17:32:48****Quantum spaghettification****899**View**2**Score**1**Answer- Tags: quantum-mechanics atomic-physics

#### 0 Answered Questions

### Many-particle operators in the occupation number representation

**2016-01-12 21:41:58****user2582713****185**View**1**Score**0**Answer- Tags: quantum-mechanics condensed-matter solid-state-physics

#### 6 Answered Questions

### [SOLVED] Why does time evolution operator have the form $U(t) = e^{-itH}$?

**2015-07-30 14:35:50****Minethlos****4405**View**9**Score**6**Answer- Tags: quantum-mechanics mathematical-physics operators hamiltonian time-evolution

#### 1 Answered Questions

### [SOLVED] System of two harmonic oscillators and its quantum partition function

**2015-04-17 12:15:13****Permian****734**View**1**Score**1**Answer- Tags: quantum-mechanics homework-and-exercises statistical-mechanics

#### 0 Answered Questions

### Notation in a paper on quantum mechanics and gravitation (2)

**2014-08-31 12:47:32****Artemisia****43**View**0**Score**0**Answer- Tags: quantum-mechanics

## 2 comments

## @Qmechanic 2019-03-11 10:07:12

OP's hunch is exactly right: In QM they are all operators. However each operator may become a multiplication operator in certain representations. E.g. position operators become multiplication operators in the Schrödinger position representation, while momentum operators become multiplication operators in the momentum representation, and so forth.

## @ZeroTheHero 2019-03-11 10:06:57

Actually the potential is also an operator. It just so happens that, in the position representation, $\hat x\psi(x)=x\psi(x)$, so that the potential energy operator $V(\hat x)$ acts by multiplication: $V(\hat x)\psi(x)=V(x)\psi(x)$.

Even though it acts “by simple multiplication”, it doesn’t commute with the momentum, a sign that it is still a legitimate operator.

In the momentum representation $\hat x$ acts by differentiation so in this case the potential energy operator becomes a (usually quite complicated) differential operator since one needs to use the formal expansion of potential to convert it to a polynomial.

## @yuggib 2019-03-11 12:30:53

Pseudodifferential operators are not complicated, since they are conveniently defined by Fourier transform. And acting on $L^2$, as in quantum mechanics, they can even be defined directly by spectral calculus. No power expansion (formal or not) of the function is needed, only measurability (essentially with respect to the Lebesgue measure).