A discussion is given of the structure of a physical theory and an ``ideal form'' for such a theory is proposed. The essential feature is that all concepts should be defined in operational terms. Quantum (and classical) mechanics is then formulated in this way (the formulation being, however, restricted to the kinematical theory). This requires the introduction of the concept of a mixed test, related to a pure test (or ``question'') just as a mixed state is related to a pure state. In the new formulation, the primitive concepts are not states and observables but certain operationally accessible mixed states and tests called physical. The notion of a C*-system is introduced; each such system is characterized by a certain C*-algebra. The structure of a general C*-system is then studied, all concepts being defined in terms of physical states and tests. It is shown first how pure states and tests can be so defined. The quantum analog of the phase space of classical mechanics is then constructed and on it is built a mathematical structure, called a q-topology, which is a quantum analog of the topology of classical phase space. Mathematically, a q-topology is related to a noncommutative C*-algebra as an ordinary topology is related to a commutative C*-algebra. Some properties of the q-topology of a C*-system are given. An appendix contains some physically motivated examples illustrating the theory.
A discussion is given of the structure of a physical theory and an ideal form'' for such a theory is proposed. The essential feature is that all concepts should be defined in operational terms. Quantum (and classical) mechanics is then formulated in this way (the formulation being, however, restricted to the kinematical theory). This requires the introduction of the concept of a mixed test, related to a pure test (or question'') just as a mixed state is related to a pure state. In the new formulation, the primitive concepts are not states and observables but certain operationally accessible mixed states and tests called physical. The notion of a C*-system is introduced; each such system is characterized by a certain C*-algebra. The structure of a general C*-system is then studied, all concepts being defined in terms of physical states and tests. It is shown first how pure states and tests can be so defined. The quantum analog of the phase space of classical mechanics is then constructed and on it is built a mathematical structure, called a q-topology, which is a quantum analog of the topology of classical phase space. Mathematically, a q-topology is related to a noncommutative C*-algebra as an ordinary topology is related to a commutative C*-algebra. Some properties of the q-topology of a C*-system are given. An appendix contains some physically motivated examples illustrating the theory.
The objective of this thesis is to describe the fundamental concepts relating to the reformulation of quantum mechanics in phase space. It is assumed that the interested reader is familiar with the principles and techniques of ordinary quantum mechanics. In classical statistical mechanics the expectation values of physical quantities are calculated as averages over phase space distribution functions. It is possible to obtain a similar procedure in quantum mechanics. However, phase space is a classical concept and thus has no quantum mechanical equivalent, owing to the non-commutability of the operators p and q. A sensible basic requirement for the formulation of quantum mechanics in phase space is a linear one-one mapping between quantum operators and classical functions. This was achieved by the pioneering work of Weyl, Wigner and Moyal. The phase space that they devised we shall call "pseudo phase space". It is completely quantum. The pseudo phase space variables are represented by commuting c-numbers of momentum, p, and position, q; they are the result of applying the Weyl correspondence rule to the operators p and q, respectively. In some ways the pseudo phase space formulation of quantum mechanics appears to return us to an "almost" classical arena, since we dispense with the calculus of non-commuting operators for purely algebraic methods. The pseudo phase space formulation of quantum mechanics is self-contained. That is, there is no need, in principle, to switch to the Schroedinger or Heisenberg pictures when solving physical problems, although it may often be convenient to do so. The classical appearance of the pseudo phase space scheme is especially useful when considering the semi-classical limit of quantum mechanics. In fact, for potentials up to and including the harmonic oscillator the equations represent classical motion. The structure of the thesis is such that it takes the reader steadily through the major concepts of pseudo phase space theory. The mathematical techniques that shall be needed are developed early in Chapter 1. These are used throughout the thesis. This presents the advantage that the reader is not faced with learning new mathematical methods as the thesis proceeds. The pseudo phase space formulation of quantum mechanics as found applications in all areas of mathematical physics. Hence, there is a considerable amount of specialist literature available on the subject. Itis hoped that this thesis serves has an introduction.
Familiar formulations of classical and quantum mechanics are shown to follow from a general theory of mechanics based on pure states with an intrinsic probability structure. This theory is developed to the stage where theorems from quantum logic enable expression of the state geometry in Hilbert space. Quantum and classical mechanics are then elaborated and applied to subsystems and the measurement process. Consideration is also given to space-time geometry and the constraints this places on the dynamics. Physics and Mathematics, it is argued, are growing apart; the inadequate treatment of approximations in general and localisation in quantum mechanics in particular are seen as contributing factors. In the description of systems, the link between localisation and lack of knowledge shows that quantum mechanics should reflect the domain of applicability. Restricting the class of states provides a means of achieving this goal. Localisation is then shown to have a mathematical expression in terms of compactness, which in turn is applied to yield a topological theory of bound and scattering states. Finally, the thesis questions the validity of classical limits and quantisations in intertheoretic reduction, and demonstrates that a widely accepted classical limit does not constitute a proof of reduction. It proposes a procedure for determining whether classical and quantum mechanics are weakly equivalent over a domain of applicability, and concludes that, in this restricted sense, classical mechanics reduces to quantum mechanics.
From the outset statistical mechanics will be framed in the language of quantum theory. The typical macroscopic system is composed of multiple constituents, and hence described in some many-particle Hilbert space. In general, not much is known about such a system, certainly not the precise preparation of all its microscopic details. Thus, its description requires a more general notion of a quantum state, a so-called mixed state. This chapter begins with a brief review of the basic axioms of quantum theory regarding observables, pure states, measurements, and time evolution. Particular attention is paid to the use of projection operators and to the most elementary quantum system, a two-level system. The chapter then motivates the introduction of mixed states and examines in detail their mathematical representation and properties. It also dwells on the description of composite systems, introducing, in particular, the notions of statistical independence and correlations.
The physical content of a theory is not intrinsically tied to any single mathematical formalism. Both classical and quantum mechanics admit equivalent representations, notably in phase space and in Hilbert space, related by the Wigner-Weyl correspondence. While this correspondence has long been studied in mathematical physics, its foundational and operational implications are often left implicit. Here we give a systematic account of what changes, and what does not, when classical and quantum theories are expressed in each other's native language. This representational viewpoint separates artifacts (such as the appearance of non-positivity or negativity under certain maps) from robust structural distinctions that persist across representations, in particular noncommutativity and its ℏ-dependent ⋆-deformation of the classical algebra. We develop the comparison at the level of states, kinematics, and dynamics, and extend it to measurement by formulating both outcome statistics and state-update rules within the same framework.
Quantum mechanics is among the most important and successful mathematical model for describing our physical reality. The traditional formulation of quantum mechanics is linear and algebraic. In contrast classical mechanics is a geometrical and non-linear theory that is defined on a symplectic manifold. However, after invention of general relativity, we are convinced that geometry is physical and effect us in all scale. Hence the geometric formulation of quantum mechanics sought to give a unified picture of physical systems based on its underling geometrical structures, e.g., now, the states are represented by points of a symplectic manifold with a compatible Riemannian metric, the observables are real-valued functions on the manifold, and the quantum evolution is governed by a symplectic flow that is generated by a Hamiltonian function. In this work we will give a compact introduction to main ideas of geometric formulation of quantum mechanics. We will provide the reader with the details of geometrical structures of both pure and mixed quantum states. We will also discuss and review some important applications of geometric quantum mechanics.
Quantum physics consists of a formal core that is universally agreed upon (basically being a piece of mathematics with suggestive names for concepts matching related concepts of experimental culture) and an interpretational halo (trying to make this relation more precise) that remains highly disputed even after more than 90 years of modern quantum physics. The latter is the subject of the interpretation of quantum mechanics (see Part II), where many interpretations coexist and compete for the attention of those interested in what quantum physics really means. In this chapter, an axiomatic introduction to the undisputed formal core of quantum physics is given. The axioms described present nonrelativistic quantum statistical mechanics in the Schrödinger picture. The relativistic case is outside the scope of these axioms, as it must be treated by quantum field theory; see Chapter 7. As in any axiomatic setting (necessary for a formal discipline), there are a number of different but equivalent sets of axioms or postulates that can be used to define formal quantum physics. Since they are equivalent, their choice is a matter of convenience. The choice presented here is a formulation featuring three aspects: It emphasises the similarity of quantum mechanics and classical mechanics, gives most direct access to statistical mechanics, and is free from allusions to measurement. The reason for the first is that this similarity serves as a guide to meaning. From the axiomatic setting for quantum mechanics presented below, classical mechanics (in the Koopman setting discussed in Section 7.10) is obtained by simply restricting the operators to be diagonal, so that all operations happen pointwise on the diagonal elements. Thus, multiplication is commutative, and one can identify operators and functions. In particular, the density operator degenerates into a probability density. Therefore, the quantum case appears as a generalization of the classical case allowing for noncommutativity, so that both q-observables and the density operator are (usually infinite-dimensional) operators. The reason for the second is that statistical mechanics is the main tool for applications of quantum physics to the macroscopic systems we are familiar with. The reason for the third is that realistic measurements constitute a complex process involving macroscopic detectors, hence should be explained by quantum statistical mechanics rather than be part of the axiomatic foundations themselves. (This is in marked contrast to other foundations, and distinguishes the present system of axioms.)