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

Journal of Mathematical Physics

State spaces for classical and quantal, relativistic and nonrelativistic elementary particles

N. Giovannini

Published Nov 1, 1981• 2 citations
Publisher

Abstract

We apply a recently developed mathematical formalism to the kinematical classification of elementary physical systems, more precisely to the derivation of the possible state spaces for single (massive) particles and to their corresponding group theoretical interpretation. We show in particular that in all considered cases, relativistic or not, we find in a unified way two solutions, a quantal one and a classical one.

DOI
10.1063/1.524822

Related papers

Kinematical formalism of elementary spinning particles

M. Rivas

The concept of elementary particle rests on the idea that it is a physical system with no excited states, so that all possible kinematical states of the particle are just kinematical modifications of any one of them. The way of describing the particle attributes is equivalent to describe the collection of consecutive inertial observers who describe the particle in the same kinematical state. The kinematical state space of an elementary particle is a homogeneous space of the kinematical group. By considering the largest homogeneous spaces of both, Galilei and Poincaré groups, it is shown how the spin structure is related to the different degrees of freedom. The formalism is quantized by means of Feynman's path integral approach and special attention is paid to the classical model which satisfies Dirac's equation. Dirac's algebra is related to the classical observables, in particular to the orientation variables. Several spin effects are also analyzed.

arXiv:physics/0509131•Sep 15, 2005•5 citations

Group-theoretical foundations of classical and quantum mechanics. II. Elementary systems

Luis Martı́nez Alonso

Classical and quantum elementary systems are investigated from the point of view of invariance under a connected Lie group. The classification and characterization of elementary systems are considered in a unified way. The representation theory of symmetric and enveloping algebras is used as a tool in order to characterize the observables physically and also to analyze the analogies between classical and quantum mechanics. The results obtained are applied to the Galilei, Poincaré, and Weyl Lie groups.

Journal of Mathematical Physics•Feb 1, 1979•10 citations

Classical approximations of relativistic quantum physics

G.E. Johnson

A correspondence of classical to quantum physics studied by Schrö\-dinger and Ehrenfest applies without the necessity of technical conjecture that classical observables are associated with Hermitian Hilbert space operators. This correspondence provides appropriate nonrelativistic classical interpretations to realizations of relativistic quantum physics that are incompatible with the canonical formalism. Using this correspondence, Newtonian mechanics for a $1/r$ potential provides approximations for the dynamics of nonrelativistic classical particle states within unconstrained quantum field theory (UQFT).

arXiv:1604.07654•Apr 25, 2016•1 citation

Quantum mechanics

Carlo Rovelli C

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.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Nov 15, 2004•0 citations

Remark on a Group-Theoretical Formalism for Quantum Mechanics and the Quantum-to-Classical Transition

Jarosław K. Korbicz, Maciej Lewenstein

We sketch a group-theoretical framework, based on the Heisenberg–Weyl group, encompassing both quantum and classical statistical descriptions of unconstrai-ned, non-relativistic mechanical systems. We redefine in group-theoretical terms a kinematical arena and a space of statistical states of a system, achieving a unified quantum-classical language and an elegant version of the quantum-to-classical transition. We briefly discuss the structure of observables and dynamics within our framework. KEY WORDS: quantum mechanics; classical limit; Heisenberg–Weyl group. 1.

•Jan 1, 2007•0 citations

Annex: Basic mathematical tools of quantum mechanics

Franck Laloë

This chapter gives a summary of the mathematical formalism used in quantum mechanics, with a short bibliography put directly at its end. It should be seen as a complement, to be used by readers who wish to know more than what has been recalled about the mathematical tools in the other chapters. Some results are given without explicit proofs; they can be found for instance in Chapters II and IV of [1] . Many quantum mechanics textbooks introduce its general formalism in a more complete way, for instance Chapter VII of [2] , Chapter 3 of [3] , or Chapter 2 of [4] . We first summarize the general formalism of quantum mechanics for any physical system (§11.1), with the Dirac notation; we then study how this formalism treats the grouping of several physical systems into one single quantum system (§11.2); finally, we study a few simple special cases (§11.3), for instance a single particle in an external potential, with or without spin; the reader who prefers wave functions to more abstract reasonings in spaces of states may begin with this section. General physical system The general formalism of quantum mechanics applies to all physical systems, whether they contain a single particle, many particles of various sorts, one or several fields, etc. Quantum space of states The physical state of a system at each time is defined in quantum mechanics by a state vector which, in Dirac notation, is written ∣ ψ 〈 – or ∣ ψ(t) 〈 if one wishes to make the time dependence explicit.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Aug 30, 2012•0 citations
We apply a recently developed mathematical formalism to the kinematical classification of elementary physical systems, more precisely to the derivation of the possible state spaces for single (massive) particles and to their corresponding group theoretical interpretation. We show in particular that in all considered cases, relativistic or not, we find in a unified way two solutions, a quantal one and a classical one.
The concept of elementary particle rests on the idea that it is a physical system with no excited states, so that all possible kinematical states of the particle are just kinematical modifications of any one of them. The way of describing the particle attributes is equivalent to describe the collection of consecutive inertial observers who describe the particle in the same kinematical state. The kinematical state space of an elementary particle is a homogeneous space of the kinematical group. By considering the largest homogeneous spaces of both, Galilei and Poincaré groups, it is shown how the spin structure is related to the different degrees of freedom. The formalism is quantized by means of Feynman's path integral approach and special attention is paid to the classical model which satisfies Dirac's equation. Dirac's algebra is related to the classical observables, in particular to the orientation variables. Several spin effects are also analyzed.
Classical and quantum elementary systems are investigated from the point of view of invariance under a connected Lie group. The classification and characterization of elementary systems are considered in a unified way. The representation theory of symmetric and enveloping algebras is used as a tool in order to characterize the observables physically and also to analyze the analogies between classical and quantum mechanics. The results obtained are applied to the Galilei, Poincaré, and Weyl Lie groups.
A correspondence of classical to quantum physics studied by Schrö\-dinger and Ehrenfest applies without the necessity of technical conjecture that classical observables are associated with Hermitian Hilbert space operators. This correspondence provides appropriate nonrelativistic classical interpretations to realizations of relativistic quantum physics that are incompatible with the canonical formalism. Using this correspondence, Newtonian mechanics for a 1/r1/r1/r potential provides approximations for the dynamics of nonrelativistic classical particle states within unconstrained quantum field theory (UQFT).
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.
We sketch a group-theoretical framework, based on the Heisenberg–Weyl group, encompassing both quantum and classical statistical descriptions of unconstrai-ned, non-relativistic mechanical systems. We redefine in group-theoretical terms a kinematical arena and a space of statistical states of a system, achieving a unified quantum-classical language and an elegant version of the quantum-to-classical transition. We briefly discuss the structure of observables and dynamics within our framework. KEY WORDS: quantum mechanics; classical limit; Heisenberg–Weyl group. 1.
This chapter gives a summary of the mathematical formalism used in quantum mechanics, with a short bibliography put directly at its end. It should be seen as a complement, to be used by readers who wish to know more than what has been recalled about the mathematical tools in the other chapters. Some results are given without explicit proofs; they can be found for instance in Chapters II and IV of [1] . Many quantum mechanics textbooks introduce its general formalism in a more complete way, for instance Chapter VII of [2] , Chapter 3 of [3] , or Chapter 2 of [4] . We first summarize the general formalism of quantum mechanics for any physical system (§11.1), with the Dirac notation; we then study how this formalism treats the grouping of several physical systems into one single quantum system (§11.2); finally, we study a few simple special cases (§11.3), for instance a single particle in an external potential, with or without spin; the reader who prefers wave functions to more abstract reasonings in spaces of states may begin with this section. General physical system The general formalism of quantum mechanics applies to all physical systems, whether they contain a single particle, many particles of various sorts, one or several fields, etc. Quantum space of states The physical state of a system at each time is defined in quantum mechanics by a state vector which, in Dirac notation, is written ∣ ψ 〈 – or ∣ ψ(t) 〈 if one wishes to make the time dependence explicit.