Canonical Operator Formalism of Quantum Mechanics

Kazuhiko Nishijima, Масуд Чайчиан, Anca Tureanu

Gin-yih Tsaur, Jyhpyng Wang

Gerard ’t Hooft

Discrete quantum mechanics is here defined to be a quantum theory of wave functions defined on integers P_i and Q_i, while canonical quantum mechanics is assumed to be based on wave functions on the real numbers, R^n. We study reversible mappings from the position operators q_i and their quantum canonical operators p_i of a canonical theory, onto the discrete, commuting operators Q_i and P_i. In this paper we are particularly interested in harmonic oscillators. In the discrete system, these turn into deterministic models, which is our motivation for this study. We regard the procedure worked out here as a "canonical formalism" for discrete dynamics, and as a stepping stone to handling discrete deterministic systems in a quantum formalism.

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.

F. Cannata, L. Ferrari