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

Birkhäuser Boston eBooks

The General Mathematical Framework of Euclidean Quantum Mechanics, an Outline

Torbjörn Kolsrud, Jean-Claude Zambrini

Published Jan 1, 1991• 7 citations
Publisher

Abstract

In Quantum Physics, the term “Euclidean” means that one, compared to the conventional formulation, works in “imaginary time.” It is a general fact that objects associated with Euclidean as opposed to Minkowski space are easier to deal with; this is seen for instance when comparing the usual Laplacian, an elliptic operator, with its Minkowski space counterpart, the hyperbolic d’Alembertian. In Quantum Mechanics, the term “Euclidean” is usually associated with approaches based on the so-called Feynman-Kac formula. The latter originates in attempts to give Feynman’s ideas [10, 11] on path integrals a solid mathematical founding.

DOI
10.1007/978-1-4612-0447-3_9

Related papers

4. Euclidean spaces

Arnold Neumaier

There is a notational discrepancy in how mathematicians and physicists treat Hilbert spaces. In physics, one often works with finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces treated as ℂ n , and hence wants to write the Hermitian inner product as (x, y) = x ∗ y. This definition dictates the use of a Hermitian inner product that is antilinear in the first argument, the convention followed, for example, in Reed & Simon [246]. This is also the choice adopted in Dirac’s bracket notation, whose usage in quantum mechanics is very widespread. Our notation is chosen to extend-as closely as possible-the traditional notation of standard finite-dimensional matrix algebra to arbitrary complex inner product spaces and associated linear operators. In matrix algebra, column vectors and the corresponding matrices with one column are identical objects, row vectors are the linear functionals, and the adjoint is the conjugate transpose. For example, ℍ = ℍ × = ℂ n is the space of column vectors of size n, the dual space ℍ ∗ is the space of row vectors of size n, and the operator product ϕ ∗ ψ of a row vector ϕ ∗ and a column vector ψ is the standard Hermitian inner product of the column vectors ϕ and ψ. We use Greek lower case letters to write vectors, thus emphasizing their intended use as quantum state vectors in quantum mechanics. On the other hand, mathematicians working on reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces use an inner product (x, y) antilinear in the second argument, related to the physicist’s inner product (x, y) by (x, y) =( ). This is the convention followed, for example, in Rudin [252]. Although the two ways of defining the inner product lead to fully equivalent theories, all details look a bit different, a fact that has to be taken into account when reading the literature on the subject. For example, in the description based on the physical tradition, it is preferable to work with the antidual space in place of the dual space used in the mathematical tradition. In functional analysis, linear operators in Hilbert spaces are usually considered each with their own domain. But many computations in quantum mechanics require the consideration of algebras of operators with a common domain. The latter is a Euclidean space, a dense subspace of a Hilbert space. This space and its antidual play in many respects a more basic role in quantum physics than the Hilbert space itself. Therefore, and to avoid possible confusion caused by the different traditions, we give in the present chapter a self-contained introduction to Euclidean spaces and their associated spaces. All proofs are carried out in detail.

De Gruyter eBooks•Oct 24, 2019•0 citations

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

Introduction to Elementary Quantum Mechanics and Stability of the First Kind

Élliott H. Lieb, Robert Seiringer

In this second chapter we will review the basic mathematical and physical facts about quantum mechanics and establish physical units and notation. Those readers already familiar with the subject can safely jump to the next chapter. An attempt has been made to make the presentation in this chapter as elementary as possible, and yet present the basic facts that will be needed later. There are many beautiful and important topics which will not be touched upon such as self-adjointness of Schrödinger operators, the general mathematical structure of quantum mechanics and the like. These topics are well described in other works, e.g.. Much of the following can be done in a Euclidean space of arbitrary dimension, but in this chapter the dimension of the Euclidean space is taken to be three-which is the physical case-unless otherwise stated. We do this to avoid confusion and, occasionally, complications that arise in the computation of mathematical constants. The interested reader can easily generalize what is done here to the R d , d > 3 case. Likewise, in the next chapters we mostly consider N particles, with spatial coordinates in R 3 , so that the total spatial dimension is 3 N . A Brief Review of the Connection Between Classical and Quantum Mechanics Considering the range of validity of quantum mechanics, it is not surprising that its formulation is more complicated and abstract than classical mechanics. Nevertheless, classical mechanics is a basic ingredient for quantum mechanics. One still talks about position, momentum and energy which are notions from Newtonian mechanics.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Nov 5, 2009•0 citations

Path integral for the Dirac equation in two space-time dimensions

Takashi Ichinose

Introduction.With his physical postulates Feynman ([4], [5]) conceived the eminent idea of path integral in quantum mechanics.Kac [6] has given a rigorous realization of Feynman's idea for pure- imaginary-time quantum mechanics.Namely, he has represented the

Proceedings of the Japan Academy Series A Mathematical Sciences•Jan 1, 1982•28 citations

Euclidean quantum mechanics

Jean-Claude Zambrini

Euclidean quantum mechanics is not limited to an analytical continuation in time from the Schr\"odinger equation to the heat equation. It is a new classical statistical theory founded on a new probabilistic interpretation of the heat equation and constitutes the closest classical analogy of quantum mechanics.

Physical Review A•May 1, 1987•56 citations

TIME CONTINUATION THEORY IN PATH INTEGRAL QUANTIZATION

Hyegsoon An, Ang M

In this paper we present the concept of time continuation to develop the path integral quantization given in Ref, [1—2] into a time continuation theory, which can deal with the Minkowski and the Euclidean formulation of path integral quantization in an unified description, and give the general effective Lagrangian and the convergence factor for functional integral. Especially, the convergence factors in the Feynman and the Lee-Yang cases in the Minkowski space are proved to be the positive definite Hamiltonian. But in the Euclidean space, it is the effective Lagrangian which is equivalent to the Hamiltonian, no damping factor is needed, so mathematically the Euclidean formulation has some advantages. It is pointed out that when Hamiltonian involves a high order of momentum P, there appears singular term in the effective Lagrangian.

Science China Mathematics•Jan 1, 1983•0 citations
In Quantum Physics, the term “Euclidean” means that one, compared to the conventional formulation, works in “imaginary time.” It is a general fact that objects associated with Euclidean as opposed to Minkowski space are easier to deal with; this is seen for instance when comparing the usual Laplacian, an elliptic operator, with its Minkowski space counterpart, the hyperbolic d’Alembertian. In Quantum Mechanics, the term “Euclidean” is usually associated with approaches based on the so-called Feynman-Kac formula. The latter originates in attempts to give Feynman’s ideas [10, 11] on path integrals a solid mathematical founding.
There is a notational discrepancy in how mathematicians and physicists treat Hilbert spaces. In physics, one often works with finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces treated as ℂ n , and hence wants to write the Hermitian inner product as (x, y) = x ∗ y. This definition dictates the use of a Hermitian inner product that is antilinear in the first argument, the convention followed, for example, in Reed & Simon [246]. This is also the choice adopted in Dirac’s bracket notation, whose usage in quantum mechanics is very widespread. Our notation is chosen to extend-as closely as possible-the traditional notation of standard finite-dimensional matrix algebra to arbitrary complex inner product spaces and associated linear operators. In matrix algebra, column vectors and the corresponding matrices with one column are identical objects, row vectors are the linear functionals, and the adjoint is the conjugate transpose. For example, ℍ = ℍ × = ℂ n is the space of column vectors of size n, the dual space ℍ ∗ is the space of row vectors of size n, and the operator product ϕ ∗ ψ of a row vector ϕ ∗ and a column vector ψ is the standard Hermitian inner product of the column vectors ϕ and ψ. We use Greek lower case letters to write vectors, thus emphasizing their intended use as quantum state vectors in quantum mechanics. On the other hand, mathematicians working on reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces use an inner product (x, y) antilinear in the second argument, related to the physicist’s inner product (x, y) by (x, y) =( ). This is the convention followed, for example, in Rudin [252]. Although the two ways of defining the inner product lead to fully equivalent theories, all details look a bit different, a fact that has to be taken into account when reading the literature on the subject. For example, in the description based on the physical tradition, it is preferable to work with the antidual space in place of the dual space used in the mathematical tradition. In functional analysis, linear operators in Hilbert spaces are usually considered each with their own domain. But many computations in quantum mechanics require the consideration of algebras of operators with a common domain. The latter is a Euclidean space, a dense subspace of a Hilbert space. This space and its antidual play in many respects a more basic role in quantum physics than the Hilbert space itself. Therefore, and to avoid possible confusion caused by the different traditions, we give in the present chapter a self-contained introduction to Euclidean spaces and their associated spaces. All proofs are carried out in detail.
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.
In this second chapter we will review the basic mathematical and physical facts about quantum mechanics and establish physical units and notation. Those readers already familiar with the subject can safely jump to the next chapter. An attempt has been made to make the presentation in this chapter as elementary as possible, and yet present the basic facts that will be needed later. There are many beautiful and important topics which will not be touched upon such as self-adjointness of Schrödinger operators, the general mathematical structure of quantum mechanics and the like. These topics are well described in other works, e.g.. Much of the following can be done in a Euclidean space of arbitrary dimension, but in this chapter the dimension of the Euclidean space is taken to be three-which is the physical case-unless otherwise stated. We do this to avoid confusion and, occasionally, complications that arise in the computation of mathematical constants. The interested reader can easily generalize what is done here to the R d , d > 3 case. Likewise, in the next chapters we mostly consider N particles, with spatial coordinates in R 3 , so that the total spatial dimension is 3 N . A Brief Review of the Connection Between Classical and Quantum Mechanics Considering the range of validity of quantum mechanics, it is not surprising that its formulation is more complicated and abstract than classical mechanics. Nevertheless, classical mechanics is a basic ingredient for quantum mechanics. One still talks about position, momentum and energy which are notions from Newtonian mechanics.
In this paper we present the concept of time continuation to develop the path integral quantization given in Ref, [1—2] into a time continuation theory, which can deal with the Minkowski and the Euclidean formulation of path integral quantization in an unified description, and give the general effective Lagrangian and the convergence factor for functional integral. Especially, the convergence factors in the Feynman and the Lee-Yang cases in the Minkowski space are proved to be the positive definite Hamiltonian. But in the Euclidean space, it is the effective Lagrangian which is equivalent to the Hamiltonian, no damping factor is needed, so mathematically the Euclidean formulation has some advantages. It is pointed out that when Hamiltonian involves a high order of momentum P, there appears singular term in the effective Lagrangian.