Quantum and classical mechanics share a common algebraic formalism which is expressed naturally in the language of category theory. A third realization of this formalism is the so-called hyperbolic quantum mechanics where split-complex numbers replace the usual complex numbers. We introduce and explore the corresponding generalization of C*-algebras and prove that hyperbolic quantum mechanics is not a viable candidate for describing Nature. Quantum and classical mechanics are the only acceptable theories of Nature which are invariant under tensorial composition.
Quantum and classical mechanics share a common algebraic formalism which is expressed naturally in the language of category theory. A third realization of this formalism is the so-called hyperbolic quantum mechanics where split-complex numbers replace the usual complex numbers. We introduce and explore the corresponding generalization of C*-algebras and prove that hyperbolic quantum mechanics is not a viable candidate for describing Nature. Quantum and classical mechanics are the only acceptable theories of Nature which are invariant under tensorial composition.
We demonstrated that classical mechanics have, besides the well known quantum deformation, another deformation -- so called hyperbolic quantum mechanics. The classical Poisson bracket can be obtained as the limit h→0 not only of the ordinary Moyal bracket, but also hyperbolic analogue of the Moyal bracket. Thus there are two different deformations of classical phase-space: complex Hilbert space and hyperbolic Hilbert space (module over a so called hyperbolic algebra -- the two dimensional Clifford algebra). To prove the correspondence principle we use the calculus over the hyperbolic algebra similar to functional superanalysis of Vladimirov-Volovich. Ordinary (complex) and hyperbolic quantum mechanics are characterized by two types of interference perturbation of the classical formula of total probability: ordinary cos-interference and hyperbolic cosh-interference.
Quantum mechanics (QM) provides a variety of ideas that can assist in developing Artificial Intelligence for healthcare, and opens the possibility of developing a unified system of Best Practice for inference that will embrace both QM and classical inference. Of particular interest is inference in the hyperbolic-complex plane, the counterpart of the normal i-complex plane of basic QM. There are two reasons. First, QM appears to rotate from i-complex Hilbert space to hyperbolic-complex descriptions when observations are made on wave functions as particles, yielding classical results, and classical laws of probability manipulation (e.g. the law of composition of probabilities) then hold, whereas in the i-complex plane they do not. Second, i-complex Hilbert space is not the whole story in physics. Hyperbolic complex planes arise in extension from the Dirac-Clifford calculus to particle physics, in relativistic correction thereby, and in regard to spinors and twisters. Generalization of these forms resemble grammatical constructions and promote the idea that probability-weighted algebraic elements can be used to hold dimensions of syntactic and semantic meaning. It is also starting to look as though when a solution is reached by an inference system in the hyperbolic-complex, the hyperbolic-imaginary values disappear, while conversely hyperbolic-imaginary values are associated with the un-queried state of a system and goal seeking behavior.
Quantum mechanics (QM) is not just a theory of micro-objects: it is our current fundamental theory of motion. It expresses a deeper understanding of Nature than classical mechanics. Precisely as classical mechanics, the conventional formulation of QM describes evolution of states and observables in time. Precisely as classical mechanics, this is not sufficient to deal with general relativistic systems, because these systems do not describe evolution in time; they describe correlations between observables. Therefore, a formulation of QM slightly more general than the conventional one – or a quantum version of the relativistic classical mechanics discussed in the previous chapter – is needed. In this chapter I discuss the possibility of such a formulation. In the last section I discuss the general physical interpretation of QM. QM can be formulated in a number of more or less equivalent formalisms: canonical (Hilbert spaces and self-adjoint operators), covariant (Feynman's sum-over-histories), algebraic (states as linear functionals over an abstract algebra of observables) and others. Generally, but not always, we are able to translate these formalisms into one another, but often what is easy in one formulation is difficult in another. A generalrelativistic sum-over-histories formalism has been developed by Jim Hartle. Here I focus on the canonical formalism, because the canonical formalism has provided the mathematical completeness and precision needed to explicitly construct the mathematical apparatus of quantum gravity. Later I will consider alternative formalisms.
Following previous works by E. Prugovečki [Physica A 91A, 202 (1978) and Stochastic Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Space–time (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1986)] on common features of classical and quantum mechanics, we develop a unified mathematical framework for classical and quantum mechanics (based on L2-spaces over classical phase space), in order to investigate to what extent quantum mechanics can be obtained as a simple modification of classical mechanics (on both logical and analytical levels). To obtain this unified framework, we split quantum theory in two parts: (i) general quantum axiomatics (a system is described by a state in a Hilbert space, observables are self-adjoints operators, and so on) and (ii) quantum mechanics proper that specifies the Hilbert space as L2(Rn); the Heisenberg rule [pi,qj]=−iℏδij with p=−iℏ∇, the free Hamiltonian H=−ℏ2Δ/2m and so on. We show that general quantum axiomatics (up to a supplementary “axiom of classicity”) can be used as a nonstandard mathematical ground to formulate physical ideas and equations of ordinary classical statistical mechanics. So, the question of a “true quantization” with “ℏ” must be seen as an independent physical problem not directly related with quantum formalism. At this stage, we show that this nonstandard formulation of classical mechanics exhibits a new kind of operation that has no classical counterpart: this operation is related to the “quantization process,” and we show why quantization physically depends on group theory (the Galilei group). This analytical procedure of quantization replaces the “correspondence principle” (or canonical quantization) and allows us to map classical mechanics into quantum mechanics, giving all operators of quantum dynamics and the Schrödinger equation. The great advantage of this point of view is that quantization is based on concrete physical arguments and not derived from some “pure algebraic rule” (we exhibit also some limit of the correspondence principle). Moreover spins for particles are naturally generated, including an approximation of their interaction with magnetic fields. We also recover by this approach the semi-classical formalism developed by E. Prugovečki [Stochastic Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Space–time (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1986)].
We start by rewriting classical mechanics in a quantum mechanical fashion and point out that the only difference with quantum theory re- sides at one point. There is a classical analogon of the collapse of the wavefunction and an extension of the usual Born rule is proposed which might solve this problem. We work only with algebra’s over the real (com- plex) numbers, general number fields of finite characteristic allowing for finite dimensional representations of the commutation relations are not considered given that such fields are not well ordered and do not give rise to a well defined probability interpretation. Our theory generalizes however to discrete spacetimes and finite dimensional algebra’s. Looking at physics this way, spacetime itself distinguishes itself algebraically by means of well chosen commutation relations and there is further nothing special about it meaning it has also a particle interpretation just like any other dynamical variable. Likewise, there is no reason for the dynamics to be Hamiltonian and therefore we have a nonconservative formulation of quantum physics at hand. The harmonic oscillator (amongst few oth- ers) distinguishes itself because the algebra forms a finite dimensional Lie algebra; the classical and quantum (discrete) harmonic oscillator are stud- ied in a some more generality and examples are given which are neither classical, nor quantum.
This work introduces the Tensor Diagrammatic Calculus (TDC), a graphical-mathematical language for representing multi-scale tensorial structures through networks of contractions, transformations, and emergence operators. Building on Penrose’s graphical tensor notation, TDC defines four primitive entities: Glyphons (elementary tensorial units), Morphons (transformation operators), Symbions (emergent relational structures), and Indices (connection channels). The framework provides a formal correspondence between algebraic tensor expressions and diagrammatic networks, and introduces two operators—emergence (E) and immersion (I)—to represent transitions between microscopic and macroscopic levels of description. We show that every TDC diagram admits an algebraic translation and that contraction rules preserve index compatibility. The formalism is compatible with existing tensor network notation and category-theoretic approaches to physical processes. Workedexamples from quantum mechanics, statistical mechanics, and classical field theory are provided. TDC is proposed as a representational tool for symbolic physics, not as a replacement for existing formalisms.