Journal of Mathematical Physics

Rigorous bra-ket formalism and wave function operator for one particle quantum mechanics

Hervé Bergeron

Published Feb 1, 2006• 3 citations

Abstract

Following previous works dedicated to the mathematical meaning of the “bra-ket” formalism [I. M. Gel’fand and G. E. Shilov, Generalized Functions (Academic, New York, 1964), Vol. I; J. P. Antoine, J. Math. Phys. 10, 53 (1969); Yu. M. Berezanskii, Expansions of Self-adjoint Operators (American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI 1968); E. Prugovečki, J. Math. Phys. 14, 1410 (1973); J. P. Antoine and A. Grossmann, J. Funct. Anal. 23, 369 (1976); 23, 379 (1976)], we develop a new rigorous mathematical approach, based on an operator representation of bras and kets. This leads to a formalism very similar to second quantization. Well-defined operators associated with local observables can be exhibited, intimately related to previous works of E. Prugovečki [Stochastic Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Space-Time (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1986)].

DOI: 10.1063/1.2157053

Related papers

Mathematical surprises and Dirac's formalism in quantum mechanics

François Gieres B

By a series of simple examples, we illustrate how the lack of mathematical concern can readily lead to surprising mathematical contradictions in wave mechanics. The basic mathematical notions allowing for a precise formulation of the theory are then summarized and it is shown how they lead to an elucidation and deeper understanding of the aforementioned problems. After stressing the equivalence between wave mechanics and the other formulations of quantum mechanics, i.e. matrix mechanics and Dirac's abstract Hilbert space formulation, we devote the second part of our paper to the latter approach: we discuss the problems and shortcomings of this formalism as well as those of the bra and ket notation introduced by Dirac in this context. In conclusion, we indicate how all of these problems can be solved or at least avoided. Dedicated to the memory of Tanguy Altherr (1963-94). I dedicate these notes to the memory of Tanguy Altherr who left us very unexpectedly in the mountains which he loved so much (and where I had some pleasant trips with him). As to the subject of these notes (which I had the pleasure to discuss with him), Tanguy greatly appreciated Dirac's formalism and certainly knew how to apply it to real physical problems (such as the ones he worked on with an impressive enthusiasm, energy and productivity). Even if he did not share my preoccupations in this field, he liked to discuss the problems related to the general formalism of quantum physics.

arXiv:quant-ph/9907069Reports on Progress in PhysicsNov 3, 200085 citations

REPRESENTATION THEORY

Vishnu S. Mathur, Surendra Singh

The bra and ket vectors, as well as linear operators, are somewhat abstract mathematical quantities. Although the logic behind representing physical states and observables, respectively, by ket (or bra) vectors and self adjoint linear operators is perfect and, having developed the algebra for these quantities, we have been able to deduce therefrom some general results, identities and corollaries, yet these abstract quantities are not the ones in terms of which we can carry out numerical calculations and arrive at numbers to be compared with the experimental results. So we ask if it is possible to find more convenient mathematical quantities to represent ket vectors and linear operators that can be handled more conveniently. The answer is in the affirmative.

Chapman & Hall/CRC eBooksDec 12, 20082 citations

From classical to quantum mechanics: “How to translate physical ideas into mathematical language”

Hervé Bergeron

Following previous works by E. Prugovečki [Physica A 91A, 202 (1978) and Stochastic Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Space–time (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1986)] on common features of classical and quantum mechanics, we develop a unified mathematical framework for classical and quantum mechanics (based on L2-spaces over classical phase space), in order to investigate to what extent quantum mechanics can be obtained as a simple modification of classical mechanics (on both logical and analytical levels). To obtain this unified framework, we split quantum theory in two parts: (i) general quantum axiomatics (a system is described by a state in a Hilbert space, observables are self-adjoints operators, and so on) and (ii) quantum mechanics proper that specifies the Hilbert space as L2(Rn); the Heisenberg rule [pi,qj]=−iℏδij with p=−iℏ∇, the free Hamiltonian H=−ℏ2Δ/2m and so on. We show that general quantum axiomatics (up to a supplementary “axiom of classicity”) can be used as a nonstandard mathematical ground to formulate physical ideas and equations of ordinary classical statistical mechanics. So, the question of a “true quantization” with “ℏ” must be seen as an independent physical problem not directly related with quantum formalism. At this stage, we show that this nonstandard formulation of classical mechanics exhibits a new kind of operation that has no classical counterpart: this operation is related to the “quantization process,” and we show why quantization physically depends on group theory (the Galilei group). This analytical procedure of quantization replaces the “correspondence principle” (or canonical quantization) and allows us to map classical mechanics into quantum mechanics, giving all operators of quantum dynamics and the Schrödinger equation. The great advantage of this point of view is that quantization is based on concrete physical arguments and not derived from some “pure algebraic rule” (we exhibit also some limit of the correspondence principle). Moreover spins for particles are naturally generated, including an approximation of their interaction with magnetic fields. We also recover by this approach the semi-classical formalism developed by E. Prugovečki [Stochastic Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Space–time (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1986)].

arXiv:quant-ph/0102084Journal of Mathematical PhysicsSep 1, 200112 citations

Mathematical Formulation of Quantum Mechanics

Rocco Schiavilla

The state space of a quantum system is defined; kets and bras are introduced, and their inner and outer products are defined; adjoint, hermitian , and unitary operators are introduced; representations of states and operators on discrete and/or continuous bases are discussed; the properties of commuting hermitian operators are examined; tensor products are defined.

Cambridge University Press eBooksDec 5, 20240 citations

Rigorous bra-ket formalism and wave-function opérator

Hervé Bergeron

Jan 1, 20060 citations

Basic formalism

Bipin R. Desai

We summarize below some of the postulates and definitions basic to our formalism, and present some important results based on these postulates. The formalism is purely mathematical in nature with very little physics input, but it provides the structure within which the physical concepts that will be discussed in the later chapters will be framed. State vectors It is important to realize that the Quantum Theory is a linear theory in which the physical state of a system is described by a vector in a complex, linear vector space. This vector may represent a free particle or a particle bound in an atom or a particle interacting with other particles or with external fields. It is much like a vector in ordinary three-dimensional space, following many of the same rules, except that it describes a very complicated physical system. We will be elaborating further on this in the following. The mathematical structure of a quantum mechanical system will be presented in terms of the notations developed by Dirac. A physical state in this notation is described by a “ket” vector, |〉, designated variously as |α〉 or |ψ〉 or a ket with other appropriate symbols depending on the specific problem at hand. The kets can be complex. Their complex conjugates, |〉 * , are designated by 〈| which are called “bra” vectors. Thus, corresponding to every ket vector there is a bra vector. These vectors are abstract quantities whose physical interpretation is derived through their so-called “representatives” in the coordinate or momentum space or in a space appropriate to the problem under consideration.

Cambridge University Press eBooksDec 3, 20090 citations