Abstract According to quantum mechanics, all the dynamical information about a system is contained in its °wave function. The outcome of an observation of a particular property can be predicted by performing the appropriate mathematical operation on the wave function. Each physical observable is therefore represented by an operator, a mathematical action such as multiplication or differentiation. The operator corresponding to the observable Q is often denoted fi, but we shall not make that distinction here. Different choices of operators for observables correspond to the different representations of quantum mechanics.
Abstract According to quantum mechanics, all the dynamical information about a system is contained in its °wave function. The outcome of an observation of a particular property can be predicted by performing the appropriate mathematical operation on the wave function. Each physical observable is therefore represented by an operator, a mathematical action such as multiplication or differentiation. The operator corresponding to the observable Q is often denoted fi, but we shall not make that distinction here. Different choices of operators for observables correspond to the different representations of quantum mechanics.
Quantum mechanics has been enormously successful in explaining the behavior of microsystems such as molecules, atoms, and nuclei. We have seen that quantum mechanics describes a quantum system by the wave function ψ, which is the solution of the Schro¨dinger equation. The wave function determines the probability amplitudes (whose modulus squared gives the probability) for all possible outcomes of a measurement corresponding to an observable on the system. In general, the wave function does not uniquely predict the result of a measurement; it only provides a probability distribution for all possible results of the measurement on a quantum system. Only if the system happens to be in an eigenstate corresponding to the observable being measured, is the result of a measurement of this observable completely predictable. On the other hand, the results of measurements corresponding to a conjugate or non-commuting observable, on the same system in the same state, are indeterminate. Quantum mechanical description of physical systems raises profound questions: How are the wave function and the probabilities for different outcomes of a measurement to be interpreted? Does the wave function represent a single system or an ensemble of systems? Does the physical system actually have the attribute corresponding to the measurement in question or does the measurement itself create the attribute? These questions led to different interpretations of quantum mechanics, which were vigorously debated during the years of its discovery as also in the following decades. The new idea of indeterminacy was especially difficult to reconcile with the long-held view that a physical theory should aim at predicting accurately, and without ambiguity, the result of any measurement on any system, big or small. These debates not only gave us a deeper understanding of quantum mechanics but also changed profoundly the way we view the micro-world.
The quantities in physics that can be measured are conventionally denoted observables : entities that can be observed (directly or indirectly) and to which a value in appropriate units can be assigned. Examples include position, momentum, and energy. Unlike in classical physics, the concept of an observable in quantum theory possesses a significance beyond that of the measurable: to each observable there corresponds a unique operator in an abstract, linear vector space. These operators (and others) govern all aspects of quantum systems. Quantum operators act on abstract vectors in the linear space. Especially important are the eigenvectors and eigenvalues of these operators, in particular because some of the eigenvectors are the quantum states mentioned in the preceding chapters. Furthermore, for any operator that is the mathematical image of an observable, its eigenvalues constitute the entire set of values that measurement of the observable can yield . Finally, from the quantum states one can obtain the probabilities for the occurrence of events in the microscopic world, for example, the most likely value that measurement of an observable will yield. The concepts of operators and eigenvalue problems, as well as those of quantal probabilities, of Hermiticity, and of complete sets, were encountered and exemplified in the preceding chapter using the language of differential equations. While much of quantum mechanics could be presented in terms of this language alone, certain fundamental concepts (spin, for instance) cannot be, and it eventually becomes necessary to consider quantum mechanics as a theoretical framework embedded in that abstract linear vector space known as a Hilbert space.
According to quantum mechanics, the information with respect to any measurement on a physical system is contained in a mathematical object, the wave function. In this chapter we become familiar with the mathematical objects that represent the measured properties themselves, namely the quantum mechanical operators. We start from a brief introduction into operators and their properties, emphasizing linear operators, and noncommuting operators. Then we introduce the canonical position and momentum operators. Defining functions of operators, we derive different quantum mechanical operators that correspond to different physical observables, including angular momentum, kinetic energy, and the scalar potential energy. Finally, we introduce the quantum mechanical total energy operator (the Hamiltonian) and demonstrate its explicit generic form for nanoscale building blocks such as atoms and molecules.
Quantum mechanics is based on Schrodinger’s wave function with linear superposition of vectors in a Hilbert space. Due to superposition, multiple physical states are considered simultaneously for the same time point, but when the corresponding quantum mechanical experiments are realized, there is only one outcome and not a superposition of pointer positions. This observation characterizes the quantum mechanical measurement problem, which for about a century found multiple interpretations, which can be classified as potentiality, as proposed by Heisenberg, or as real physical entities, for instance fields. Potentialities are yet inexistent in reality and unobservable in the present, since they represent a possible future. Thus, they can only be an intra-mental representation of a future process and not a physical extra-mental process ongoing in the present. There is coexistence of a physical object observable in reality and a mental prediction by an observer concerning the future behavior of this object. The characterization of quantum mechanical formalism by some physicists corresponds to a prediction and therefore to a mental representation of the future behavior of elementary particles and not to a description of an ongoing extra-mental process. Prediction in life and science has some characteristics, which resemble the measurement problem, since it undergoes a “multiple to one” reduction of mental potentialities to only one observable real outcome. Besides quantum mechanics, such reductions can also be found with many kinds of predictions, in classical physics for regular and irregular dynamical processes and in humans for programming future actions. Superposition in classical physics only concerns variable effects, but in quantum mechanics includes variable effects and non-localizable causes. Quantum mechanics, interpreted as prediction of future outcomes with multiple potentialities but only one realization, would resemble the general prediction problem in life and science and thereby loos its weird aspects.
The work can be considered as an essay on mathematical and conceptual structure of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics (QM) which is related here to some other (more general, but also to more special and “approximative”) theories. QM is here primarily reformulated in an equivalent form of a Poisson system on the phase space consisting of density matrices, where the “observables”, as well as “symmetry generators” are represented by a specific type of real valued (densely defined) functions, namely the usual quantum expectations of corresponding selfadjoint operators. It is shown in this paper that inclusion of additional (“nonlinear”) symmetry generators (i.e. “Hamiltonians”) into this reformulation of (linear) QM leads to a considerable extension of the theory: two kinds of quantum “mixed states” should be distinguished, and operator ‐ valued functions of density matrices should be used in the r ˆ ole of “nonlinear observables”. A general framework for physical theories is obtained in this way: By different choices of the sets of “nonlinear observables” we obtain, as special cases, e.g. classical mechanics on homogeneous spaces of kinematical symmetry groups, standard (linear) QM, or nonlinear extensions of QM; also various “quasiclassical approximations” to QM are all subtheories of the presented extension of QM - a version of the extended quantum mechanics (EQM). A general interpretation scheme of EQM extending the usual statistical interpretation of QM is also proposed. Eventually, EQM is shown to be (included into) a C -algebraic (hence linear) quantum theory. Mathematical formulation of these theories is presented. The presentation includes an analysis of problems connected with differentiation on infinite ‐ dimensional manifolds, as well as a solution of some problems connected with the work with only densely defined unbounded real‐valued functions on the (infinite dimensional) “phase space” which correspond to unbounded operators (generators) and to their nonlinear generalizations. Also “nonlinear deformations” of unitary representations of kinematical symmetry Lie groups are introduced. Possible applications are briefly discussed, and some specific examples are presented. The text contains also brief reviews of Hamiltonian classical mechanics, as well as of QM. Mathematical appendices make the paper nearly selfcontained.