Acta Physica Polonica B

Internal geometry of n-body systems and one-particle states

Z. Chyliński, Edward Obryk

Published Jan 1, 1993• 0 citations

Abstract

The nonrelativistic (NR) shell model of nuclei based on one-particle states results in a «surprise» pointed out by Peierls, which consists in the accelerated motion of «free» nucleus impossible to eliminate by the standard perturbation theory. The NR mechanics solves the puzzle by indicating a geometrically privileged position of the absolute configuration space generated by the three-dimensional space R 3 spanned on the relative coordinate «y». This converts the «n-body» problem into the «(n − 1)-relational-object» problem with absolute (frame-independent) structures

Related papers

Spacetime Localization Without a Global Frame: Quantum Reference Frames, Relational Observables, and Domain-Restricted Covariance for Localizing Records

Tomoyuki Uchida

This paper is the thirty-first in a sequence developing an interpretive framework that redescribes physical reality as a causally consistent history of information updates rather than as a collection of independently existing objects. It is the third panel — the capstone — of the eighth grouping, a foundational-physics trilogy. Its subject is spacetime localization: where and when a record or system is — its position, orientation, relative phase, and time. The claim is that localization is real but not authoritatively global. There is no Global Frame: no physically privileged reference system that fixes absolute location and orientation, a privileged global simultaneity, a classical frame standing outside quantum theory, and one physically privileged, globally valid perspectival gauge-fixing. Localization is relational: positions and times are defined relative to a declared quantum reference frame (QRF), itself a quantum system that may be superposed and entangled with what it localizes (Giacomini, Castro-Ruiz, & Brukner, 2019; Loveridge, Miyadera, & Busch, 2018). What keeps this objective rather than subjective is a strict typing of cross-frame comparison: a single gauge-invariant relational (Dirac) observable has one invariant prediction, its perspectival representations intertwined by a frame-change map (case A); distinct relational observables form a relationally consistent web (case B); and where two frames share no common refinement their claims are declared incomparable (case C). "Objective" means invariance of the physical predictions under the declared symmetry group and the frame-change groupoid over the admissible frame family, to a declared tolerance — never frame-independence in an absolute sense. The flagship R-A is a dynamics-independent kinematic existence witness: a finite-dimensional discrete-ring model exhibits one physical state and two admissible ideal QRFs under which the localization profile and the entanglement structure differ — a sharp product relative to one particle; an entangled state with a delocalized, mixed marginal relative to another — while the distribution of the same relational observable is preserved. R-B splits into a domain covariance on shared refinements (ideal QRFs compose and agree on shared Dirac predictions) and a model-dependent global-perspective obstruction: where a globally valid relational gauge-fixing fails, as in known Gribov-type models (Vanrietvelde, Höhn, & Giacomini, 2023), no single perspective covers the whole physical state space — which is neither the same as, nor a consequence of, the absence of a privileged frame, and does not preclude a perspective-neutral description. R-C places Paper 8's relational time as the time-translation special case, with its finite-resolution-clock, conditional-covariance, and record–clock qualifications, separating the retired claim (no global clock) from the deferred one (relativistic foliation with dynamical geometry). R-D identifies and transports the frame-representable localization sector of certain Paper-30 grains, partially discharging that paper's grain-coherence deferral while leaving interaction, fragmentation, redundancy, and history-family structure grain-relative. This completes the trilogy's dismantling of the Global Bookkeeper while keeping geometry fixed: the quantum-mechanics–gravity interface is prepared, not entered. Localization is frame-relative but objective: no absolute frame, no globally gauge-fixed perspective claimed beyond what models establish, and no anarchy. ALAC Paper 31. Third panel (capstone) of the eighth grouping — a foundational-physics trilogy (29 Public Quantum Records -> 30 Classicality Without a Global Classicalizer -> 31 Spacetime Localization Without a Global Frame). Part of the Consistency-Constrained Information History (Akashic Ledger Architecture Cosmology) series. Presents no new quantum mechanics; results are interpretive (L2) on imported physics (L1).

Jun 30, 20261 citation

Internal coordinates of quantum-mechanical systems

I. Mayer, Tibor András Rokob

It is demonstrated that the Hamiltonian for the internal motion of a nonrelativistic quantum mechanical system can be obtained just from the requirement of its overall translational momentum to be zero. Some particular cases relevant to an atomic system are also considered in some detail.

Physical Review AApr 9, 20123 citations

Inclusion of Pauli principle constraints in equations-of-motion methods for the nuclear many-body problem

Pranab K. Chattopadhyay, Abraham Klein

The effort to isolate and study the dominant collective modes of a nuclear many-body system by generalized equations-of-motion methods (algebraic methods) confronts the inherent difficulty that such modes are correlated with each other and with noncollective modes by kinematic constraints traceable to the Pauli principle. This problem has previously been solved for simplified nuclear models. A solution is proposed for the general shell model problem of a number of interacting levels.

Physical Review CFeb 1, 19750 citations

Self-interacting Electron as Gauge Field under Separation of Absolute Quantum Motions

Peter Leifer

The problem of the reason of physical motion needs a review in the framework of quantum theory. The Aristotle's mistake, Galileo-Newton progress, Einstein physical geometry established the fundamental role of the spacetime geometry in the motion of fields and bodies. Quantum theory poses a new question about the motion of the quantum states and its reason in the quantum state space. The standard approach of quantum theory uses so-called method of the classical analogy where the action functional contains in the additive manner three terms: matter (free particles) + free fields + interaction term. Such approach leads to the quantum state space as some space of functions defined on the spacetime.I think if one tries to understand the peculiarity of the self-interacting quantum particles together with its ``field shell" then the classical scheme should be replaced. Then the role of the spacetime should be revised: the space of the unlocated pure quantum degrees of freedom and its geometry will play the fundamental role and the local dynamical spacetime arises as representation of the internal quantum motions (inverse representation).

Prespacetime journalFeb 1, 20190 citations

The solution of the quantum mechanical many-body problem bound by harmonic forces as a translationally invariant basis for nuclear structure calculations

Bernd Schwesinger

The European Physical Journal AJun 1, 19776 citations

Classical Mechanics

Gennaro Auletta, Shang-Yung Wang

The aim of this chapter is to present some very basic principles of classical mechanics. They can help us understand the novelty of quantum theory. Classical mechanics was founded by Newton and contemporary 17th-century natural philosophers, and further developed in the 18th and 19th centuries by many physicists and mathematicians, as a result of the search for a rational, causal, and scientiﬁc explanation of the universe. In classical mechanics, real-world objects are modeled as a collection of point particles, i.e., objects with negligible size. The motion of a point particle is characterized by a small number of parameters such as its position, mass, velocity, and the forces applied to it. The position of a point particle is deﬁned with respect to an arbitrary ﬁxed reference point in the three- dimensional Euclidean space, which is usually chosen as the origin of some coordinate system. The velocity of a point particle is the rate of change of its position with time. The force applied to a point particle (called the external force) is the cause for the point particle x y z A to undergo a certain change in its velocity, i.e., an acceleration (Newton’s second law of motion). For the sake of simplicity, here we shall refer to a point particle or a collection of point particles simply as an object. Newton’s ﬁrst law of motion states that if an object experiences no net external force, then its velocity is constant, i.e., the object is either at rest or it moves in a straight line with a constant speed. The ﬁrst law of motion postulates the existence of a certain set of frames of reference called inertial reference frames, relative to which the motion of an object not subject to external forces is a straight line at a constant speed. For this reason, Newton’s ﬁrst law is also referred to as the law of inertia.

Jun 20, 20140 citations