Abstract The Paradigms introduced in philosophy of science one century ago are shown to be quite more satisfactory of that introduced by Galileo. This is particularly evident in the physics based on Hilbert Spaces and related mathematical structures that we apply in this paper to Quantum Mechanics and to Theory of Images. An exhaustive discussion, that include the algebraic analysis of the operators acting on them, exhibits that the Hilbert Spaces-that have fixed dimension-must be generalized to the Rigged Hilbert Spaces that contain spaces with continuous and discrete dimensions. This is the property of Rigged Hilbert Spaces that allows a consistent formal description of the physics we are considering. Theory of Quantum Mechanics and of Images are similar and the fundamental difference between them comes from the definition of measure that is outside the theory of the spaces: while in Quantum Mechanics the measure is a probabilistic action, in Images it is a classical functional.
Abstract The Paradigms introduced in philosophy of science one century ago are shown to be quite more satisfactory of that introduced by Galileo. This is particularly evident in the physics based on Hilbert Spaces and related mathematical structures that we apply in this paper to Quantum Mechanics and to Theory of Images. An exhaustive discussion, that include the algebraic analysis of the operators acting on them, exhibits that the Hilbert Spaces-that have fixed dimension-must be generalized to the Rigged Hilbert Spaces that contain spaces with continuous and discrete dimensions. This is the property of Rigged Hilbert Spaces that allows a consistent formal description of the physics we are considering. Theory of Quantum Mechanics and of Images are similar and the fundamental difference between them comes from the definition of measure that is outside the theory of the spaces: while in Quantum Mechanics the measure is a probabilistic action, in Images it is a classical functional.
This chapter, based on the background information of the previous chapter, will review the formalism of quantum mechanics – its fundamental mathematical structure (the basic contents of Hilbert space representation and operator algebra representation) and physical assumptions (kinematics, dynamics, and measurement theory). These are the premise and foundation for discussing the quantum histories interpretation. Then, in combination with the viewpoints of some literature in recent years, we will explore what is the interpretation of quantum mechanics, analyze the relationship between the theory of quantum mechanics and its interpretation, and declare the author’s basic stance on these two issues. These two are the primary issues that all interpretive work in the philosophy of physics will face (not limited to the interpretation of quantum mechanics), and the necessary clarification here is also conducive to the subsequent discussion. Three common terms – theory, formalism, and interpretation – are explicated and differentiated by offering the necessary definitions of their meanings, based on the works of Acuña and Ruetsche. The clarification will help to make the subsequent related discussions more precise.
There is compelling evidence that, when a continuous spectrum is present, the natural mathematical setting for quantum mechanics is the rigged Hilbert space rather than just the Hilbert space. In particular, Dirac's bra-ket formalism is fully implemented by the rigged Hilbert space rather than just by the Hilbert space. In this paper, we provide a pedestrian introduction to the role the rigged Hilbert space plays in quantum mechanics, by way of a simple, exactly solvable example. The procedure will be constructive and based on a recent publication. We also provide a thorough discussion on the physical significance of the rigged Hilbert space.
Abstract. There is compelling evidence that, when continuous spectrum is present, the natural mathematical setting for Quantum Mechanics is the rigged Hilbert space rather than just the Hilbert space. In particular, Dirac’s bra-ket formalism is fully implemented by the rigged Hilbert space rather than just by the Hilbert space. In this paper, we provide a pedestrian introduction to the role the rigged Hilbert space plays in Quantum Mechanics, by way of a simple, exactly solvable example. The procedure will be constructive and based on a recent publication. We also provide a thorough discussion on the physical significance of the rigged Hilbert space. PACS numbers: 03.65.-w, 02.30.HqThe RHS in Quantum Mechanics 2 1.
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.
A consistent description of images on the disk and of their transformations is given as elements of a vector space and of an operators algebra. The vector space of images on the disk is the Hilbert space L 2 ( ) that has as a basis the Zernike functions. To construct the operator algebra that transforms the images, L 2 ( ) must be complemented and the full rigged Hilbert space RHS ( ) considered. Only this rigged Hilbert space allows indeed to write the operators of different cardinality we need to build the ladder operators on the Zernike functions that by inspection, belong to the representation of the algebra su (1, 1) ⊕ su (1, 1). Consequently the transformations of images are operators contained inside the universal enveloping algebra UEA [ su (1, 1) ⊕ su (1, 1)]. Because of limited precision of experimental measures, physical states can be always described by vectors of the Schwartz space ( ), dense in the L 2 ( ) space where the manipulation of images is performed.
In this paper a didactic approach is described which immediately leads to an understanding of those postulates of quantum mechanics used most frequently in quantum computation. Moreover, an interpretation of quantum mechanics is presented which is motivated by retaining the point of view of classical mechanics as much as possible, and which is consistent with relativity theory. Everything can be written down in terms of well-known mathematical formulations that can be found in every textbook about quantum mechanics. Therefore, in this version, almost no formulas are used.