Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Physical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D. Particles and fields

Periodic Coordinates in Quantum Mechanics

William Silvert

Published Dec 15, 1970• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Zak has recently pointed out apparent inconsistencies in the formulation of problems involving periodic systems, and he has questioned whether the commonly accepted correspondence between quantum mechanical and classical variables holds for such systems. We show that the difficulties found with periodic systems arise equally in nonperiodic systems, and that the problems encountered in defining certain quantum-mechanical observables are related to the ill-defined nature of the corresponding classical variables.

DOI
10.1103/physrevd.2.3079

Related papers

Quantum Mechanics

Hitoshi Kitada

I consider in this book a formulation of Quantum Mechanics. Usually QM is formulated based on the notion of time and space, both of which are thought a priori given quantities or notions. However, when we try to define the notion of velocity or momentum, we encounter a difficulty as we will see in chapter 1. The problem is that if the notion of time is given a priori, the velocity is definitely determined when given a position, which contradicts the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg. We then set the basis of QM on the notion of position and momentum operators as in chapter 2. Time of a local system then is defined approximately as a ratio $|x|/|v|$ between the space coordinate $x$ and the velocity $v$. In this formulation of QM, we can keep the uncertainty principle, and time is a quantity that does not have precise values unlike the usually supposed notion of time has. The feature of local time is that it is a time proper to each local system, which is defined as a finite set of quantum mechanical particles. We now have an infinite number of local times that are unique and proper to each local system. Based on the notion of local time, the motion inside a local system is described by the usual Schrödinger equation. We investigate such motion in a given local system in part II. This is a usual quantum mechanics. After some excursion of the investigation of local motion, we consider in part III the relative relation or motion between plural local systems. In the final part IV, we will prove that there is at least one Universe wave function $ϕ$ in which all local systems have local motions and thus local times. This concludes our formulation of Quantum Mechanics.

arXiv:quant-ph/0410061•Oct 8, 2004•0 citations

Quantum Mechanics

Hitoshi Kitada

I consider in this book a formulation of Quantum Mechanics. Usually QM is formulated based on the notion of time and space, both of which are thought a priori given quantities or notions. However, when we try to define the notion of velocity or momentum, we encounter a difficulty as we will see in chapter 1. The problem is that if the notion of time is given a priori, the velocity is definitely determined when given a position, which contradicts the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg. We then set the basis of QM on the notion of position and momentum operators as in chapter 2. Time of a local system then is defined approximately as a ratio $|x|/|v|$ between the space coordinate $x$ and the velocity $v$. In this formulation of QM, we can keep the uncertainty principle, and time is a quantity that does not have precise values unlike the usually supposed notion of time has. The feature of local time is that it is a time proper to each local system, which is defined as a finite set of quantum mechanical particles. We now have an infinite number of local times that are unique and proper to each local system. Based on the notion of local time, the motion inside a local system is described by the usual Schrodinger equation. We investigate such motion in a given local system in part II. This is a usual quantum mechanics. After some excursion of the investigation of local motion, we consider in part III the relative relation or motion between plural local systems. In the final part IV, we will prove that there is at least one Universe wave function $\phi$ in which all local systems have local motions and thus local times. This concludes our formulation of Quantum Mechanics.

•Oct 8, 2004•2 citations

Relational Quantum Cosmology

Francesca Vidotto

Conceptual Problems in Quantum Cosmology The application of quantum theory to cosmology raises a number of conceptual questions, such as the role of the quantum-mechanical notion of “observer” or the absence of a time variable in the Wheeler–DeWitt equation. I point out that a relational formulation of quantum mechanics, and more in general the observation that evolution is always relational, provides a coherent solution to this tangle of problems. A number of confusing issues appear when we try to apply quantum mechanics to cosmology. Quantum mechanics, for instance, is generally formulated in terms of an observer making measurements on a system. In a laboratory experiment, it is easy to identify the system and the observer: but what is the observer in quantum cosmology? Is it part of the same universe described by the cosmological theory, or should we think of it as external to the universe? Furthermore, the basic quantum dynamical equation describing a system including gravity is not the Schrödinger equation, but rather the Wheeler–DeWitt equation, which has no time parameter: is this related to the absence of an observer external to the universe? How do we describe the quantum dynamics of the universe without a time variable in the dynamical equation and without an observer external to the universe? I suggest that clarity on these issues can be obtained by simply recognizing the relational nature of quantum mechanics and more in general the relational nature of physical evolution. In the context of quantum theory, this nature is emphasized by the so-called relational interpretation of quantum mechanics (Rovelli, 1996). The relational nature of evolution, on the other hand, has been pointed out by the partial-observable formulation of general covariant dynamics (Rovelli, 2002). A central observation is that there is a common confusion between two different meanings of the expression “cosmology”. This is discussed below, in Section 15.1.1. A considerable amount of the difficulties mentioned above stems, I argue, from this confusion. The discussion clarifies on the role of the quantum mechanical observer in cosmology, which is considered in Section 15.1.2. In Section 15.2, I briefly describe the relational interpretation of quantum mechanics and some related aspects of quantum theory.

arXiv:1508.05543•Cambridge University Press eBooks•Jan 1, 2017•14 citations

Consistent measurement of a quantum dynamical variable using classical apparatus

E. C. G. Sudarshan

The claim that there is an inconsistency of quantum-classical dynamics [1] is investigated. We point out that a consistent formulation of quantum and classical dynamics which can be used to describe quantum measurement processes is already available in the literature [2]. An example in which a quantum system is interacting with a classical system is worked out using this formulation.

arXiv:quant-ph/0402134•Feb 18, 2004•4 citations

Quantum and Classical Variance in the Quantum Realm

Mario Rabinowitz

This paper examines the variance of quantum and classical predictions in the quantum realm, as well as unexpected presence and absence of variances. Some features are found that share an indirect commonality with the Aharonov-Bohm and Aharonov-Casher effects in that there is a quantum action in the absence of a force. Variances are also found in the presence of a force that are more subtle as they are of higher order. Significant variances related to the harmonic oscillator and particle in a box periods are found. This paper raises the question whether apparent quantum self-inconsistency may be examined internally, or must be empirically ascertained. These inherent variances may either point to inconsistencies in quantum mechanics that should be fixed, or that nature is manifestly more non-classical than expected. For the harmonic oscillator it is proven that the second spatial moment is the same in QM and CM.

arXiv:0707.1152•Jul 8, 2007•0 citations

Response to ‘‘Comment on: ‘A quantum analog to the classical quasiperiodic motion’’’

Gabriel Hose, Howard S. Taylor

The comments Mukamel2 on a previous paper by the authors1, regarding the quantum analog to quasiperiodic motion in classical mechanics are answered. The effective Hamiltonian is defined for each state and yields the quasiconstants of the motion for the state of interest. This is not the Heff given by Mukamel2. (AIP)

The Journal of Chemical Physics•May 1, 1983•5 citations
Zak has recently pointed out apparent inconsistencies in the formulation of problems involving periodic systems, and he has questioned whether the commonly accepted correspondence between quantum mechanical and classical variables holds for such systems. We show that the difficulties found with periodic systems arise equally in nonperiodic systems, and that the problems encountered in defining certain quantum-mechanical observables are related to the ill-defined nature of the corresponding classical variables.
I consider in this book a formulation of Quantum Mechanics. Usually QM is formulated based on the notion of time and space, both of which are thought a priori given quantities or notions. However, when we try to define the notion of velocity or momentum, we encounter a difficulty as we will see in chapter 1. The problem is that if the notion of time is given a priori, the velocity is definitely determined when given a position, which contradicts the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg. We then set the basis of QM on the notion of position and momentum operators as in chapter 2. Time of a local system then is defined approximately as a ratio ∣x∣/∣v∣|x|/|v|∣x∣/∣v∣ between the space coordinate xxx and the velocity vvv. In this formulation of QM, we can keep the uncertainty principle, and time is a quantity that does not have precise values unlike the usually supposed notion of time has. The feature of local time is that it is a time proper to each local system, which is defined as a finite set of quantum mechanical particles. We now have an infinite number of local times that are unique and proper to each local system. Based on the notion of local time, the motion inside a local system is described by the usual Schrödinger equation. We investigate such motion in a given local system in part II. This is a usual quantum mechanics. After some excursion of the investigation of local motion, we consider in part III the relative relation or motion between plural local systems. In the final part IV, we will prove that there is at least one Universe wave function ϕϕϕ in which all local systems have local motions and thus local times. This concludes our formulation of Quantum Mechanics.
I consider in this book a formulation of Quantum Mechanics. Usually QM is formulated based on the notion of time and space, both of which are thought a priori given quantities or notions. However, when we try to define the notion of velocity or momentum, we encounter a difficulty as we will see in chapter 1. The problem is that if the notion of time is given a priori, the velocity is definitely determined when given a position, which contradicts the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg. We then set the basis of QM on the notion of position and momentum operators as in chapter 2. Time of a local system then is defined approximately as a ratio ∣x∣/∣v∣|x|/|v|∣x∣/∣v∣ between the space coordinate xxx and the velocity vvv. In this formulation of QM, we can keep the uncertainty principle, and time is a quantity that does not have precise values unlike the usually supposed notion of time has. The feature of local time is that it is a time proper to each local system, which is defined as a finite set of quantum mechanical particles. We now have an infinite number of local times that are unique and proper to each local system. Based on the notion of local time, the motion inside a local system is described by the usual Schrodinger equation. We investigate such motion in a given local system in part II. This is a usual quantum mechanics. After some excursion of the investigation of local motion, we consider in part III the relative relation or motion between plural local systems. In the final part IV, we will prove that there is at least one Universe wave function ϕ\phiϕ in which all local systems have local motions and thus local times. This concludes our formulation of Quantum Mechanics.
Conceptual Problems in Quantum Cosmology The application of quantum theory to cosmology raises a number of conceptual questions, such as the role of the quantum-mechanical notion of “observer” or the absence of a time variable in the Wheeler–DeWitt equation. I point out that a relational formulation of quantum mechanics, and more in general the observation that evolution is always relational, provides a coherent solution to this tangle of problems. A number of confusing issues appear when we try to apply quantum mechanics to cosmology. Quantum mechanics, for instance, is generally formulated in terms of an observer making measurements on a system. In a laboratory experiment, it is easy to identify the system and the observer: but what is the observer in quantum cosmology? Is it part of the same universe described by the cosmological theory, or should we think of it as external to the universe? Furthermore, the basic quantum dynamical equation describing a system including gravity is not the Schrödinger equation, but rather the Wheeler–DeWitt equation, which has no time parameter: is this related to the absence of an observer external to the universe? How do we describe the quantum dynamics of the universe without a time variable in the dynamical equation and without an observer external to the universe? I suggest that clarity on these issues can be obtained by simply recognizing the relational nature of quantum mechanics and more in general the relational nature of physical evolution. In the context of quantum theory, this nature is emphasized by the so-called relational interpretation of quantum mechanics (Rovelli, 1996). The relational nature of evolution, on the other hand, has been pointed out by the partial-observable formulation of general covariant dynamics (Rovelli, 2002). A central observation is that there is a common confusion between two different meanings of the expression “cosmology”. This is discussed below, in Section 15.1.1. A considerable amount of the difficulties mentioned above stems, I argue, from this confusion. The discussion clarifies on the role of the quantum mechanical observer in cosmology, which is considered in Section 15.1.2. In Section 15.2, I briefly describe the relational interpretation of quantum mechanics and some related aspects of quantum theory.
This paper examines the variance of quantum and classical predictions in the quantum realm, as well as unexpected presence and absence of variances. Some features are found that share an indirect commonality with the Aharonov-Bohm and Aharonov-Casher effects in that there is a quantum action in the absence of a force. Variances are also found in the presence of a force that are more subtle as they are of higher order. Significant variances related to the harmonic oscillator and particle in a box periods are found. This paper raises the question whether apparent quantum self-inconsistency may be examined internally, or must be empirically ascertained. These inherent variances may either point to inconsistencies in quantum mechanics that should be fixed, or that nature is manifestly more non-classical than expected. For the harmonic oscillator it is proven that the second spatial moment is the same in QM and CM.