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

Cambridge University Press eBooks

Groups and their applications to quantum mechanics

Salvatore Esposito

Published Dec 11, 2014• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Among the very few books owned by Majorana (fewer than 30 volumes) we find Weyl's Gruppentheorie und Quantenmechanik in its first German edition (1928) [16]. Indeed, as we have already recalled, the clear group-theoretical approach pioneered by Weyl greatly influenced the scientific thought and work of Majorana. Group theory was revealed to be the appropriate mathematical framework for treating symmetries in quantum mechanics, as established in the books by Weyl [16], Wigner [263], and van der Waerden [264], but, despite its recognized relevance, the group-theoretical description of quantum mechanics in terms of symmetries was ignored by almost all theoretical physicists of the time (see Section 7.1), and only in recent times has it been included in physics textbooks. As a matter of fact, although almost every physicist had a copy of Weyl's book in the 1950s, the extensive use of group theory in physics research started, during those years, only in nuclear and particle physics. Remarkably, such indifference did not apply at all to Majorana: the brilliant works on group theory and its applications of that mathematician, as well as those of Wigner, left an unambiguous and fruitful impression on the work of our author. Although this impression is recognizable on any technical page of the present book, in this chapter we will discuss in some detail several studies performed by Majorana on this subject, ranging from exquisitely mathematical results to genuinely physical applications, as was customary for him. Most of these results are not original, as Majorana reproduced what had been obtained by others (mainly by Weyl), but it is nevertheless interesting to see how Majorana obtained those results, and how he used group theory in order to obtain new physical results. As explained in Ref. [265], Majorana can be considered a faithful follower (probably, the only follower) of Weyl's thinking who went well beyond the path taken by Weyl himself, the main difference being in the approach adopted: mathematical for Weyl, physical for Majorana.

DOI
10.1017/cbo9781107358362.007

Related papers

Group Theory and Quantum Mechanics

Alan Cottey

B L van der Waerden Berlin: Springer 1974 pp vii + 211 price DM 56 This is a belated translation plus revision of the 1932 German edition. The substantial revision of the introductory chapter on fundamental notions of quantum mechanics should succeed in its stated aim of making the book more accessible to mathematicians.

Physics Bulletin•Sep 1, 1975•100 citations

Quantum Mechanics

Peter E. Hodgson

The difficulties of the old quantum theory were largely dispelled by the development of quantum mechanics in the 1920s. First Heisenberg (1925) developed the rather abstract matrix mechanics and soon after Schro¨dinger (1926; see also Eckart, 1926) developed the physically more appealing wave mechanics. Subsequently he showed them to be mathematically equivalent. The physicists were greatly relieved; now they had once again a mathematical formalism that enabled the results of experiments to be calculated. It was possible to move forward. It is certainly a very elegant and indeed beautiful formalism, and does enable the results of many physical measurements to be calculated with great accuracy. It is used daily by atomic and nuclear physicists; there is no other way to make calculations. From the earliest days there has been intense debate about the interpretation of quantum mechanics, and it shows no signs of being settled; if anything it is becoming more intense over the years. As Penrose has remarked, no one understands quantum mechanics. Feynman (1967; see also Sykes, 1994) also admitted that ‘nobody understands quantum mechanics’, and Einstein once remarked: ‘I have thought a hundred times as much about the quantum problems as I have about general relativity theory’ (Pais, 1994, p. 57). It should therefore be evident that the most that can be done here is to try to show where the real difficulties lie, and how the failure to recognize that quantum mechanics is an essentially statistical theory has led to a series of confusing quantum paradoxes. It is just these paradoxes that have often been used to support theological speculations. It is useful to ask what ‘understanding quantum mechanics’ actually means. Certainly it means being able to calculate the results of many measurements. The same applies to Newton’s theory of gravitation, which we understand in the sense that we can use it as a basis of calculation, although we do not really understand the gravitational force itself. Very often, especially in modern physics, the mathematical formalism does not give us the sort of intuitive physical feeling for what is going on that we often obtain from classical mechanics. Perhaps we can never achieve more than this for quantum mechanics. In classical mechanics we can assume that a property that is measured objectively exists prior to the interaction of the measuring apparatus with the observed system. Quantum mechanics, however, ‘is incompatible with the proposition that measurement discovers some unknown but pre-existing property’ (Peres, 1997, p. 14). There is an important distinction between mysteries and absurdities. We may be forced to live with mysteries, but there is no reason why we should put up with absurdities such as the wave-particle duality, tunnelling through potential barriers, acausal events and the collapse of the wave function. These are the quantum paradoxes that will be discussed later on. They arise within the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and are solved by other interpretations. These alternative interpretations enable us to make conjectures about what is going on, even though we cannot understand it in detail. This is acceptable and a stimulus to further research. It is certainly difficult enough to understand quantum mechanics, but there is no need to try to visualize logical absurdities in the effort to do so. Quantum mechanics is a mathematical formalism that makes it possible to calculate the results of some experiments. Anything more than this, such as questions about the interpretation of what is measured and whether it tells us what is actually going on in the system being studied, belongs to philosophy. Thus we are concerned here with what is essentially a philosophical debate; if it were just a matter of physics the debate would have been settled long ago. One of the difficulties is that it invokes the results of experiments and uses the language of quantum mechanics. Inevitably this language uses philosophical terms and then it is easy to give the impression that the philosophical propositions are in some way entailed by the physical results. These in turn can influence theological thinking. In order to be quite clear which arguments are justified and which are not, it is essential to separate the three levels of discourse: physical, philosophical and theological. Our task is to relate these together, and this immediately raises the traditional problems of the philosophy of science, including the relation of experiment to theory, and of theory to explanation. We begin by discussing experiments, distinguishing between those that are real and those that are imaginary.

Routledge eBooks•Sep 8, 2017•0 citations

Lectures on Quantum Mechanics for Mathematics Students

L. D. Faddeev, O. Yakubovskiĭ

This book is based on notes from the course developed and taught for more than 30 years at the Department of Mathematics of Leningrad University. The goal of the course was to present the basics of quantum mechanics and its mathematical content to students in mathematics. This book differs from the majority of other textbooks on the subject in that much more attention is paid to general principles of quantum mechanics. In particular, the authors describe in detail the relation between classical and quantum mechanics. When selecting particular topics, the authors emphasize those that are related to interesting mathematical theories. In particular, the book contains a discussion of problems related to group representation theory and to scattering theory. This book is rather elementary and concise, and it does not require prerequisites beyond the standard undergraduate mathematical curriculum. It is aimed at giving a mathematically oriented student the opportunity to grasp the main points of quantum theory in a mathematical framework.

Student mathematical library•Mar 9, 2009•54 citations

From Weyl quantization to modern algebraic index theory

Markus J. Pflaum

Introduction One of the most influencial contributions of H ermann W eyl to mathematical physics has been his paper Gruppentheorie und Quantenmechanik [W e 27] from 1927 and its extended version, the book [W e 28] which was published a year later and carries the same title. The main topic of this part of H ermann W eyl's work is the mathematics of quantum mechanics. After the fundamental papers by H eisenberg and S chrödinger on the foundations of quantum mechanics had appeared in the twenties of the last century this was the central question studied in mathematical physics at that time and which to a certain degree still is present in all attempts to construct mathematically rigorous theories unifying quantum mechanics and general realtivity. In his article Gruppentheorie und Quantenmechanik , H ermann W eyl essentially introduced two novel aspects to the mathematics of quantum mechanics, namely the following: (i) The representation theory of (compact) Lie groups on Hilbert spaces was applied to mathematically determine atomic spectra. (ii) A conceptually clear quantization method was proposed which associates quantum mechanical operators to classical observables which mathematically are represented by appropriate functions of the space and momentum variables. Nowadays, this quantization scheme is named after his inventor Weyl quantization. In this paper I will elaborate only on the second aspect, since the representation theory of compact Lie groups has already been covered in detail in other contributions to these proceedings.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Oct 16, 2008•0 citations

Group Theory and Its Application to Physical Problems

Morton Hamermesh

This excellent text, long considered one of the best- written, most skillful expositions of group theory and its physical applications, is directed primarily to advanced undergraduate and graduate students in physics, especially quantum physics. No knowledge of group theory is assumed, but the reader is expected to be familiar with quantum mechanics.

•Jan 1, 1989•202 citations

Why is Group Theory Useful in Quantum Mechanics?

WORLD SCIENTIFIC eBooks•Aug 1, 2009•0 citations
Among the very few books owned by Majorana (fewer than 30 volumes) we find Weyl's Gruppentheorie und Quantenmechanik in its first German edition (1928) [16]. Indeed, as we have already recalled, the clear group-theoretical approach pioneered by Weyl greatly influenced the scientific thought and work of Majorana. Group theory was revealed to be the appropriate mathematical framework for treating symmetries in quantum mechanics, as established in the books by Weyl [16], Wigner [263], and van der Waerden [264], but, despite its recognized relevance, the group-theoretical description of quantum mechanics in terms of symmetries was ignored by almost all theoretical physicists of the time (see Section 7.1), and only in recent times has it been included in physics textbooks. As a matter of fact, although almost every physicist had a copy of Weyl's book in the 1950s, the extensive use of group theory in physics research started, during those years, only in nuclear and particle physics. Remarkably, such indifference did not apply at all to Majorana: the brilliant works on group theory and its applications of that mathematician, as well as those of Wigner, left an unambiguous and fruitful impression on the work of our author. Although this impression is recognizable on any technical page of the present book, in this chapter we will discuss in some detail several studies performed by Majorana on this subject, ranging from exquisitely mathematical results to genuinely physical applications, as was customary for him. Most of these results are not original, as Majorana reproduced what had been obtained by others (mainly by Weyl), but it is nevertheless interesting to see how Majorana obtained those results, and how he used group theory in order to obtain new physical results. As explained in Ref. [265], Majorana can be considered a faithful follower (probably, the only follower) of Weyl's thinking who went well beyond the path taken by Weyl himself, the main difference being in the approach adopted: mathematical for Weyl, physical for Majorana.
The difficulties of the old quantum theory were largely dispelled by the development of quantum mechanics in the 1920s. First Heisenberg (1925) developed the rather abstract matrix mechanics and soon after Schro¨dinger (1926; see also Eckart, 1926) developed the physically more appealing wave mechanics. Subsequently he showed them to be mathematically equivalent. The physicists were greatly relieved; now they had once again a mathematical formalism that enabled the results of experiments to be calculated. It was possible to move forward. It is certainly a very elegant and indeed beautiful formalism, and does enable the results of many physical measurements to be calculated with great accuracy. It is used daily by atomic and nuclear physicists; there is no other way to make calculations. From the earliest days there has been intense debate about the interpretation of quantum mechanics, and it shows no signs of being settled; if anything it is becoming more intense over the years. As Penrose has remarked, no one understands quantum mechanics. Feynman (1967; see also Sykes, 1994) also admitted that ‘nobody understands quantum mechanics’, and Einstein once remarked: ‘I have thought a hundred times as much about the quantum problems as I have about general relativity theory’ (Pais, 1994, p. 57). It should therefore be evident that the most that can be done here is to try to show where the real difficulties lie, and how the failure to recognize that quantum mechanics is an essentially statistical theory has led to a series of confusing quantum paradoxes. It is just these paradoxes that have often been used to support theological speculations. It is useful to ask what ‘understanding quantum mechanics’ actually means. Certainly it means being able to calculate the results of many measurements. The same applies to Newton’s theory of gravitation, which we understand in the sense that we can use it as a basis of calculation, although we do not really understand the gravitational force itself. Very often, especially in modern physics, the mathematical formalism does not give us the sort of intuitive physical feeling for what is going on that we often obtain from classical mechanics. Perhaps we can never achieve more than this for quantum mechanics. In classical mechanics we can assume that a property that is measured objectively exists prior to the interaction of the measuring apparatus with the observed system. Quantum mechanics, however, ‘is incompatible with the proposition that measurement discovers some unknown but pre-existing property’ (Peres, 1997, p. 14). There is an important distinction between mysteries and absurdities. We may be forced to live with mysteries, but there is no reason why we should put up with absurdities such as the wave-particle duality, tunnelling through potential barriers, acausal events and the collapse of the wave function. These are the quantum paradoxes that will be discussed later on. They arise within the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and are solved by other interpretations. These alternative interpretations enable us to make conjectures about what is going on, even though we cannot understand it in detail. This is acceptable and a stimulus to further research. It is certainly difficult enough to understand quantum mechanics, but there is no need to try to visualize logical absurdities in the effort to do so. Quantum mechanics is a mathematical formalism that makes it possible to calculate the results of some experiments. Anything more than this, such as questions about the interpretation of what is measured and whether it tells us what is actually going on in the system being studied, belongs to philosophy. Thus we are concerned here with what is essentially a philosophical debate; if it were just a matter of physics the debate would have been settled long ago. One of the difficulties is that it invokes the results of experiments and uses the language of quantum mechanics. Inevitably this language uses philosophical terms and then it is easy to give the impression that the philosophical propositions are in some way entailed by the physical results. These in turn can influence theological thinking. In order to be quite clear which arguments are justified and which are not, it is essential to separate the three levels of discourse: physical, philosophical and theological. Our task is to relate these together, and this immediately raises the traditional problems of the philosophy of science, including the relation of experiment to theory, and of theory to explanation. We begin by discussing experiments, distinguishing between those that are real and those that are imaginary.
This book is based on notes from the course developed and taught for more than 30 years at the Department of Mathematics of Leningrad University. The goal of the course was to present the basics of quantum mechanics and its mathematical content to students in mathematics. This book differs from the majority of other textbooks on the subject in that much more attention is paid to general principles of quantum mechanics. In particular, the authors describe in detail the relation between classical and quantum mechanics. When selecting particular topics, the authors emphasize those that are related to interesting mathematical theories. In particular, the book contains a discussion of problems related to group representation theory and to scattering theory. This book is rather elementary and concise, and it does not require prerequisites beyond the standard undergraduate mathematical curriculum. It is aimed at giving a mathematically oriented student the opportunity to grasp the main points of quantum theory in a mathematical framework.
Introduction One of the most influencial contributions of H ermann W eyl to mathematical physics has been his paper Gruppentheorie und Quantenmechanik [W e 27] from 1927 and its extended version, the book [W e 28] which was published a year later and carries the same title. The main topic of this part of H ermann W eyl's work is the mathematics of quantum mechanics. After the fundamental papers by H eisenberg and S chrödinger on the foundations of quantum mechanics had appeared in the twenties of the last century this was the central question studied in mathematical physics at that time and which to a certain degree still is present in all attempts to construct mathematically rigorous theories unifying quantum mechanics and general realtivity. In his article Gruppentheorie und Quantenmechanik , H ermann W eyl essentially introduced two novel aspects to the mathematics of quantum mechanics, namely the following: (i) The representation theory of (compact) Lie groups on Hilbert spaces was applied to mathematically determine atomic spectra. (ii) A conceptually clear quantization method was proposed which associates quantum mechanical operators to classical observables which mathematically are represented by appropriate functions of the space and momentum variables. Nowadays, this quantization scheme is named after his inventor Weyl quantization. In this paper I will elaborate only on the second aspect, since the representation theory of compact Lie groups has already been covered in detail in other contributions to these proceedings.