In this paper, we will explore some of the basic elements of the mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics. In the first section, I will list the motivations for introducing a probability model that is quite different from that of the classical probability theory, but still shares quite a few significant commonalities. Later in the paper, I will discuss the quantum probability theory in detail, while paying a brief attention to some of the axioms (by Birkhoff and von Neumann) that illustrate both the commonalities and differences between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics. This paper will end with a presentation of two theorems that form the core of quantum mechanics.
In this paper, we will explore some of the basic elements of the mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics. In the first section, I will list the motivations for introducing a probability model that is quite different from that of the classical probability theory, but still shares quite a few significant commonalities. Later in the paper, I will discuss the quantum probability theory in detail, while paying a brief attention to some of the axioms (by Birkhoff and von Neumann) that illustrate both the commonalities and differences between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics. This paper will end with a presentation of two theorems that form the core of quantum mechanics.
Quantum mechanics is usually described in the terminology of probability theory even though the properties of the probability spaces associated with it are fundamentally different from the standard ones of probability theory. For example, Kolmogorov's axioms are not general enough to encompass the non-commutative situations that arise in quantum theory. There have been many attempts to generalise these axioms to meet the needs of quantum mechanics. The focus of these attempts has been the observation, first made by Birkhoff and von Neumann (1936), that the propositions associated with a quantum-mechanical system do not form a Boolean σ-algebra. There is almost universal agreement that the probability space associated with a quantum-mechanical system is given by the set of subspaces of a separable Hilbert space, but there is disagreement over the algebraic structure that this set represents. In the most popular model for the probability space of quantum mechanics the propositions are assumed to form an orthocomplemented lattice (Mackey (1963), Jauch (1968)). The fundamental concept here is that of a partial order, that is a binary relation that is reflexive and transitive but not symmetric. The partial order is interpreted as embodying the logical concept of implication in the set of propositions associated with the physical system. Although this model provides an acceptable mathematical expression of the probabilistic structure of quantum mechanics in that the subspaces of a separable Hilbert space give a representation of an ortho-complemented lattice, it has several deficiencies which will be discussed later.
The mathematical formalism of quantum theory in terms of vectors and operators in infinite-dimensional complex vector spaces is very abstract. The definitions of many mathematical quantities used do not seem to have an intuitive meaning, which makes it difficult to appreciate the mathematical formalism and understand quantum mechanics. This book provides intuition and motivation to the mathematics of quantum theory, introducing the mathematics in its simplest and familiar form, for instance, with three-dimensional vectors and operators, which can be readily understood. Feeling confident about and comfortable with the mathematics used helps readers appreciate and understand the concepts and formalism of quantum mechanics. This book is divided into four parts. Part I is a brief review of the general properties of classical and quantum systems. A general discussion of probability theory is also included which aims to help in understanding the probability theories relevant to quantum mechanics. Part II is a detailed study of the mathematics for quantum mechanics. Part III presents quantum mechanics in a series of postulates. Six groups of postulates are presented to describe orthodox quantum systems. Each statement of a postulate is supplemented with a detailed discussion. To make them easier to understand, the postulates for discrete observables are presented before those for continuous observables. Part IV presents several illustrative applications, which include harmonic and isotropic oscillators, charged particle in external magnetic fields and the Aharonov–Bohm effect. For easy reference, definitions, theorems, examples, comments, properties and results are labelled with section numbers. Various symbols and notations are adopted to distinguish different quantities explicitly and to avoid misrepresentation. Self-contained both mathematically and physically, the book is accessible to a wide readership, including astrophysicists, mathematicians and philosophers of science who are interested in the foundations of quantum mechanics.
Quantum probability and quantum mechanics The formalism of quantum probability theory Discussions of quantum mechanics are often confused by a lack of clarity about what exactly constitutes ‘quantum mechanics’. It is therefore useful to try at the start to isolate a consistent mathematical core of quantum mechanics, and consider anything that goes beyond this core to be ‘interpretation’. For us, this core is quantum probability theory. Quantum probability is a generalization of classical probability, and therefore I begin with a brief review of the latter. I assume that the reader has some familiarity with the ideas of probability theory. What follows is just to provide a quick review, and to establish some notation and terminology. In modern classical probability theory, probabilities are defined over algebras of events. The motivation is straightforward: we begin with a set of ‘primitive’, or ‘simple’, events (the ‘sample space’), and form an algebra of events by taking all logical combinations of the simple events. For example, let us take the simple events to be the possible results of rolling a six-sided die one time, so that the sample space is the set {1,2,3,4,5,6}. We then form an algebra of events from the sample space by taking all possible logical combinations of the simple events. Logical combinations include, for example, ‘either 3 or 5’ and ‘not 3 and not 2’.
The list of basic axioms of quantum mechanics as it was formulated by von Neumann includes only the mathematical formalism of the Hilbert space and its statistical interpretation. We point out that such an approach is too general to be considered as the foundation of quantum mechanics. In particular in this approach any finite-dimensional Hilbert space describes a quantum system. Though such a treatment might be a convenient approximation it can not be considered as a fundamental description of a quantum system and moreover it leads to some paradoxes like Bell's theorem. I present a list from seven basic postulates of axiomatic quantum mechanics. In particular the list includes the axiom describing spatial properties of quantum system. These axioms do not admit a nontrivial realization in the finite-dimensional Hilbert space. One suggests that the axiomatic quantum mechanics is consistent with local realism.
To my friend and mentor, Professor Attilio Rigamonti. Unperformed experiments have no results. Asher Peres Introduction More than a century after its birth, quantum mechanics (QM) remains mysterious. We still don't have general principles from which to derive its remarkable mathematical framework, as happened for the amazing Lorentz transformations, which were rederived by Einstein from the invariance of physical laws in inertial frames and from the constancy of the speed of light. Despite the utmost relevance of the problem of deriving QM from operational principles, research efforts in this direction have been sporadic. The deepest of the early attacks on the problem were the works of Birkhoff, von Neumann, Jordan, and Wigner, attempting to derive QM from a set of axioms with as much physical significance as possible. The general idea in Ref. is to regard QM as a new kind of prepositional calculus , a proposal that spawned the research line of quantum logic , which is based on von Neumann's observation that the two-valued observables – represented in his formulation of QM by orthogonal projection operators – constitute a kind of “logic” of experimental propositions. After a hiatus of two decades of neglect, interest in quantum logic was revived by Varadarajan, and most notably by Mackey, who axiomatized QM within an operational framework, with the single exception of an admittedly ad hoc postulate, which represents the propositional calculus mathematically in the form of an orthomodular lattice. The most significant extension of Mackey's work is the general representation theorem of Piron.
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.