We propose a geometric setting of the axiomatic mathematical formalism of quantum theory. Guided by the idea that understanding the mathematical structures of these axioms is of similar importance as was historically the process of understanding the axioms of geometry, we complete the spaces of observables and of states in a similar way as in classical geometry linear or affine spaces are completed by projective spaces. In this sense, our theory can be considered as a "completion of usual linear quantum theory" , such that the usual theory appears as the special case where a reference frame is fixed once and for all. In the present first part, this general setting is explained. Dynamics (time evolution) will be discussed in subsequent work.
We propose a geometric setting of the axiomatic mathematical formalism of quantum theory. Guided by the idea that understanding the mathematical structures of these axioms is of similar importance as was historically the process of understanding the axioms of geometry, we complete the spaces of observables and of states in a similar way as in classical geometry linear or affine spaces are completed by projective spaces. In this sense, our theory can be considered as a "completion of usual linear quantum theory" , such that the usual theory appears as the special case where a reference frame is fixed once and for all. In the present first part, this general setting is explained. Dynamics (time evolution) will be discussed in subsequent work.
A geometric framework for quantum mechanics arose during the mid 1970s when authors such as Cantoni explored the notion of generalized transition probabilities, and Kibble promoted the idea that the space of pure quantum states provides a natural quantum mechanical analogue for classical phase space. This central idea can be seen easily since the projection of Schrödinger's equation from a Hilbert space into the space of pure spaces is a set of Hamilton's equations. Over the intervening years considerable work has been carried out by a variety of authors and a mature description of quantum mechanics in geometric terms has emerged with many applications. This current offering would seem ideally placed to review the last thirty years of progress and relate this to the most recent work in quantum entanglement. Bengtsson and Zyczkowski's beautifully illustrated volume, Geometry of Quantum States (referred to as GQS from now on) attempts to cover considerable ground in its 466 pages. Its topics range from colour theory in Chapter 1 to quantum entanglement in Chapter 15—to say that this is a whirlwind tour is, perhaps, no understatement. The use of the work 'introduction' in the subtitle of GQS , might suggest to the reader that this work be viewed as a textbook and I think that this interpretation would be incorrect. The authors have chosen to present a survey of different topics with the specific aim to introduce entanglement in geometric terms—the book is not intended as a pedagogical introduction to the geometric approach to quantum mechanics. Each of the fifteen chapters is a short, and mostly self-contained, essay on a particular aspect or application of geometry in the context of quantum mechanics with entanglement being addressed specifically in the final chapter. The chapters fall into three classifications: those concerned with the mathematical background, those which discuss quantum theory and the foundational aspects of the geometric framework, and applications of the geometric approach. The first four chapters contain the standard mathematics required to understand the rest of the material presented: specific areas in colour theory, set theory, probability theory, differential geometry and projective geometry are all covered with an eye to the material that follows. Chapter 5 starts the first real discussion of quantum theory in GQS and serves as an elegant, succinct introduction to the geometry which underlies quantum theory. This may be the most worthwhile chapter for the casual reader who wants to understand the key ideas in this field. Chapter 6 builds on the discussion in Chapter 5, introducing a group theoretic approach to understand coherent states and Chapter 7 describes a geometric tool in the form of an approach to complex projective geometry called 'the stellar representation'. Chapter 8 returns to a more purely quantum mechanical discussion as the authors turn to study the space of density matrices. This chapter completes the discussion which started in Chapter 5. Chapter 9 begins the part of the book concerned with applications of the geometric approach. From this point on the book aims, specifically, to prepare the reader for the material in Chapter 15 beginning with a discussion on the purification of mixed quantum states. In the succeeding chapters a definite choice has been made to present a geometric approach to certain quantum information problems. For example, Chapter 10 contains an extremely well formulated discussion of measurement and positive operator-valued measures with several well illustrated examples and Chapter 11 reopens the discussion of density matrices. Entropy and majorization are again revisited in Chapter 12 in much greater detail than in previous chapters. Chapters 13 and 14 concern themselves with a discussion of various metrics and their relation to the problem of distinguishing between probability distributions and their suitability as probability measures.
The purpose of this dissertation is to construct a radically new type of mathematics whose underlying logic differs from the ordinary classical logic used in standard mathematics, and which we feel may be more natural for applications in quantum mechanics. Specifically, we begin by constructing a first order quantum logic, the development of which closely parallels that of ordinary (classical) first order logic --- the essential differences are in the nature of the logical axioms, which, in our construction, are motivated by quantum theory. After showing that the axiomatic first order logic we develop is sound and complete (with respect to a particular class of models), this logic is then used as a foundation on which to build (axiomatic) mathematical systems --- and we refer to the resulting new mathematics as "quantum mathematics." As noted above, the hope is that this form of mathematics is more natural than classical mathematics for the description of quantum systems, and will enable us to address some foundational aspects of quantum theory which are still troublesome --- e.g. the measurement problem --- as well as possibly even inform our thinking about quantum gravity.\n\nAfter constructing the underlying logic, we investigate properties of several mathematical systems --- e.g. axiom systems for abstract algebras, group theory, linear algebra, etc. --- in the presence of this quantum logic. In the process, we demonstrate that the resulting quantum mathematical systems have some strange, but very interesting features, which indicates a richness in the structure of mathematics that is classically inaccessible. Moreover, some of these features do indeed suggest possible applications to foundational questions in quantum theory. \n\nWe continue our investigation of quantum mathematics by constructing an axiomatic quantum set theory, which we show satisfies certain desirable criteria. Ultimately, we hope that such a set theory will lead to a foundation for quantum mathematics in a sense which parallels the foundational role of classical set theory in classical mathematics. One immediate application of the quantum set theory we develop is to provide a foundation on which to construct quantum natural numbers, which are the quantum analog of the classical counting numbers. It turns out that in a special class of models, there exists a 1-1 correspondence between the quantum natural numbers and bounded observables in quantum theory whose eigenvalues are (ordinary) natural numbers. This 1-1 correspondence is remarkably satisfying, and not only gives us great confidence in our quantum set theory, but indicates the naturalness of such models for quantum theory itself. We go on to develop a Peano-like arithmetic for these new "numbers," as well as consider some of its consequences. Finally, we conclude by summarizing our results, and discussing directions for future work.
We attempt to contribute some novel points of view to the "foundations of quantum mechanics", using mathematical tools from "quantum probability theory" (such as the theory of operator algebras). We first introduce an abstract algebraic framework for the formulation of mathematical models of physical systems that is general enough to encompass classical and quantum mechanical models. After a short discussion on the properties of classical systems (realism and determinism), we move on to the study of a general class of quantum-mechanical models of physical systems and explain what some of the key problems in a quantum theory of observations and measurements are. In the last part of our essay, we attempt to elucidate the roles played by entanglement between a system and its environment and of information loss in understanding "decoherence" and "dephasing", which are key mechanisms in a quantum theory of measurements and experiments. We also discuss the problem of "time in quantum mechanics" and sketch an answer to the question when an experiment can be considered to have been completed successfully.
Usually one uses completely different mathematical descriptions to formulate classical and quantum mechanics. Classical theory may be nicely formulated in terms of symplectic geometry, and the quantum one in terms of algebraic objects related to a complex Hilbert space. However, it turns out that standard, nonrelativistic quantum mechanics possesses natural geometric structure that is even richer than that found in classical mechanics. This section reveals the beauty of the geometric approach to quantum theory and stands as a basis for the elegant geometrical ideas of Pancharatnam and, later on, of Aharonov and Anandan. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
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.