arXiv:1708.08326

Why do we need Hilbert spaces?

Luca Curcuraci

Published Aug 23, 2017• 0 citations

Abstract

These are the notes written for the talk given at the workshop Rethinking foundations of physics 2016. In section 2, a derivation of the the quantum formalism starting from propositional calculus (quantum logic) is reviewed, pointing out which are the basic requirements that lead to the use of Hilbert spaces. In section 3, a similar analysis is done following for the reconstruction of quantum theory using an operational approach. In both cases, non-commutativity plays a crucial role. Finally, in section 4a toy model which try to motivate non-commutativity is proposed. Despite this last section is interesting to read, the analysis performed there is not complete. This toy model will be re-formulated in a rigorous way (and extended) in future works.

DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.1708.08326

Related papers

Quantum Logic and Its Role in Interpreting Quantum Theory

Gelo Noel, M. Tabia

Summary Foundational studies in quantum theory have consisted in large part of attempts to avoid paradoxical situations in describing properties of a physical system. Quantum logic addresses some of the perplexing problems that plague interpretations of quantum theory by invoking a non-classical propositional calculus for the set of propositions of a quantum system. Historically, quantum logic derives from von Neumann’s observation that the set of projection operators on a Hilbert space constitute a ‘logic’ of experimental propositions. More than two decades passed from the pioneering work of Birkho and von Neumann before interest in quantum logic was re-ignited by Mackey’s probabilistic analysis of quantum theory. Piron’s axiomatization provided a signicant

Jan 1, 20100 citations

Hilbert space refresher

Teiko Heinosaari, Mário Ziman

Quantum theory, in its conventional formulation, is built on the theory of Hilbert spaces and operators. In this chapter we go through this basic material, which is central for the rest of the book. Our treatment is mainly intended as a refresher and a summary of useful results. It is assumed that the reader is already familiar with some of these concepts and elementary results, at least in the case of finite-dimensional inner product spaces. We present proofs for propositions and theorems only if the proof itself is considered to be instructive and illustrative. This gives us the freedom to present the material in a topical order rather than in the strict order of mathematical implication. Good references for this chapter are the functional analysis textbooks by Conway [45], Pedersen [113] and Reed and Simon [121]. These books also contain the proofs that we skip here. Hilbert spaces As an introduction, before a formal definition is given, one may think of a Hilbert space as the closest possible generalization of the inner product spaces c d to infinite dimensions. Actually, there are no finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces (up to isomorphisms) other than c d spaces. The crucial requirement of completeness becomes relevant only in infinite-dimensional spaces. This defining property of Hilbert spaces guarantees that they are well-behaved mathematical objects, and many calculations can be done almost as easily as in c d .

Cambridge University Press eBooksDec 15, 20110 citations

Do we understand quantum mechanics – finally?

Jürg Martin Fröhlich, Baptiste Schubnel

This paper reviews some of our understanding of general quantum mechanics. It starts with the exposition of an abstract algebraic formalism useful to formulate classical and quantum-mechanical models of physical systems. It then highlights the essential differences between classical models (commutative algebra) and quantum-mechanical models (non-commutative algebra) of physical systems. It is explained in which sense classical models are “realistic” and deterministic, while quantum-mechanical models are intrinsically probabilistic – in spite of the fact that the Heisenberg time-evolution of operators representing physical quantities is “deterministic”. The quantum theory of time-ordered sequences of measurements is developed in some detail, and the crucial role of “decoherence” in the emergence of facts – or “(almost) consistent histories” – is explained. Some technical matters (Bell inequalities, quantum marginal problem) are discussed in appendices.

ESI lectures in mathematics and physicsApr 11, 20139 citations

Possible a priori motivations for the use of Hilbert spaces in Quantum Mechanics

Carlo Franchetti

In this note we try to show that some a priori justifications can be given for the use of Hilbert spaces in Quantum Mechanics.

Note di matematica/Note di matematica - Università degli studi di LecceFeb 6, 20120 citations

QUANTUM MECHANICS EXPLAINED

ULRICH MOHRHOFF

The physical motivation for the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics is made clear and compelling by starting from an obvious fact — essentially, the stability of matter — and inquiring into its preconditions: what does it take to make this obvious fact possible?

arXiv:quant-ph/0607005International Journal of Quantum InformationFeb 1, 20096 citations

Conventional Quantum Theory: Fundamentals

Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

The aim of this chapter is to present (in a compact way) the fundamentals of conventional quantum theory. We select the for- mulation of QM as an axiomatic theory in the complete accordance with the Hilbert’s program on axiomatization of physical theories. We remark that the ﬁrst step toward the present formulation of QM was done in the seminal work of Hilbert, Nordheim, and von Neumann [112]. This work was substantially extended, completed, and clariﬁed in the book of von Neumann [296]. Another version of the rigorous mathematical approach to QM was presented in the book of Dirac [74]. From the mathematical viewpoint, the main diﬀerence between the approaches of von Neumann and Dirac is that the ﬁrst one is based on the theory of self-adjoint operators in complex Hilbert space and the second one is based on the theory of self-adjoint operators acting (by using the modern mathematical terminology) in rigged Hilbert spaces. This theory operates with generalized eigenvectors belonging to the spaces of distributions. Although the von Neumann’s formalization of QM became dominant in quantum mathematical physics, the Dirac’s formalization is widely used in the works on the physical level of rigorousness. Moreover, the Dirac’s terminology, bra-and ket- vectors, became the standard for quantum information theory. However, since quantum information is based on the castrated version of QM, namely, QM in ﬁnite-dimensional Hilbert spaces, the so-called n-qubit spaces, the basic tool of the Dirac’s formalism, usage of generalized eigenvectors, is useless (since in the ﬁnite- dimensional case everything is reduced to manipulation with matrices). During the last 80 years, there were written hundreds of books on QM enlightening its foundational aspects. Unfortunately, the majority of these writings advertise exotic (and some of them really esoteric) views on QM and, in particular, on interpretation of the wave function. They are full of such terms as the collapse of the wave function, quantumnonlocality, manyworlds, thewave function of universe, the preparation of Schro¨dinger cats, inﬂuence of the future on the past, quantum teleportation. Of course, manipulations with such terminology create an atmosphere of mystery and a feeling that something unusual and impossible can happen. And this atmosphere plays a positive role in attracting young people to QM and especially to quantum foundations.

Mar 19, 20140 citations