Classical systems and observables in quantum mechanics

Dirk Aerts

We analyze the difference between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics. We come to the conclusion that this difference can be found in the nature of the observables that are considered for the physical system under consideration. Classical mechanics can only describe a certain kind of what we called ‘‘classical observable.’’ Quantum mechanics can only describe another kind of observable; it cannot describe, however, classical observables. To perform this analysis, we use a theory where every kind of observable can be treated and which is in a natural way a generalization of both classical and quantum mechanics. If in a study of a physical system in this theory we restrict ourselves to the classical observables, we rediscover classical mechanics as a kind of first study of the physical system, where all the nonclassical properties are hidden. If we find that this first study is too rough we can also study the nonclassical part of the physical system by a theory which is eventually quantum mechanics.

Pavel Bóna

Erik Deumens

Shabnam Siddiqui

This chapter discusses the mathematical formalism of the theory of quantum mechanics and present the differences between the theory of classical mechanics and quantum mechanics. The mathematics that is used to account for the indeterminacy of quantum mechanics renders the mathematical approach of quantum mechanics distinct from that of classical mechanics. In quantum mechanics, any dynamical variable that is an observable that can be measured experimentally is described as a linear Hermitian operator. In quantum mechanics, it is not only necessary to define an observable, but it is also necessary to define the states associated with it. When a system is in a linear superposition of states of an observable, the number of different values of an observable observed in an experiment is equal to the number of states that a quantum mechanical system can jump into upon measurement of an observable.

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.

Holger Neumann