The mathematical structure of Quantum Mechanics is usually introduced as a calculus of non-commuting self-adjoint (unbounded) operators, the “observables,” on a Hilbert space of “states” (cf. [ 15 ]). There is no doubt that Quantum Mechanics is consistent and describes correctly many experiments, but we are supposed to renounce completely the visualization of quantum phenomena in space-time.
The mathematical structure of Quantum Mechanics is usually introduced as a calculus of non-commuting self-adjoint (unbounded) operators, the “observables,” on a Hilbert space of “states” (cf. [ 15 ]). There is no doubt that Quantum Mechanics is consistent and describes correctly many experiments, but we are supposed to renounce completely the visualization of quantum phenomena in space-time.
Programm (1) Classical mechanics: Principle of the least action. Lagrangian mechanics. Symmetries and Noether’s theorem. The Kepler problem. The Legendre transform. Hamiltonian mechanics. The classical action. Poisson brackets. Canonical transformations and generating functions. Symplectic manifolds. Hamilton’s and Liouville’s representations. [1][Chapter 1] (2) Hilbert spaces: Basic denitions. Bounded operators. Compact operators. The spectral theorem for self-adjoint compact operators. Trace-class and HilbertSchmidt operators. Closed operators. Symmetric and self-adjoint operators. Resolvent and spectrum. The spectrum of self-adjoint operators. The spectral theorem for (bounded and unbounded) self-adjoint operators. Stone’s theorem. [2, 3] (3) Basic principles of quantum mechanics: Observables, states, and dy
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.
Although• quantum mechanics has achieved great success in the explanation of physical phenomena, the mathematics used in quantum mechanics is not rigorous.Unrigorous treatments occur in the case of continuous spectrum.In a Hilbert • space, let A be a self-adjoint operator.When we define the eigenvalue and the eigenelement by the ' ' relation Af=J.f, (1) ' ' h d -. -f(q)=).f(q)2m dq has solutions 2,ri f(q)=ce"Aq for any ;.., But these are not quadratically integrable.E. Hellinger and H. Weyi< 0 have already investigated the problem of continuous spectrum and introduced the " eigendifferential."But they are concerned with a special problem, i. e. bounded quadratic forms and solutions of differential equation.In respect of generality, they do not satisfy.< 2 > E. Fues< 3 > and some other writers<" have used this conception " eigendifferential " in quantum mechanics.But the treatments are either complicated or not rigorous.J. v. Neumann< 5 > has proved that in Hilbert space, for any selfadjoint operator A, there exists a resolution of identity E(;..) such that Af= J:and he has applied this theory to quantum mechanics.Although his theory gave a rigorous mathematical foundation to quantum mechanics, it did not give any interpretation to the representation theory of Dirac's form.Recently I investigated the "theory of vector-valued set functions."This theory removes the difficulties in the treatement of continuous spectrum, and gives a rigorous interpretation to the representation theory.< 5 > The vector-valued set function q(U) is a function of set U, and its functional value is an element (vector) in the Hilbert ,space, (1) E. Hellinger [l], 231-271.H. Weyl [1], 238-251.(2) T. Carlemann used this conception "eigendifferential" in the treatise of singular integral equations.Cf.T. Carlemann [1].(3) E. Fues [1], 295-303.(4) For example, L. de Broglie [2], 140-159.(5) J. v. Neumann [1], 53-121.(6) F. Maeda [2], [5], [6].A summary of the theory of vector-valued set functions is given in the first part Qf the present paper.(1) G. Temple has formulated a principle of quantum theory in which projective operators are given priority over self-adjoint operators.(C(.G. Temple [1)).But. the .whole discussion differs from that of my present paper.
Quantum theory is the soul of contemporary physics. It was discovered in an adventurous way, under the urge to solve the puzzles posed by atomic spectra and blackbody radiation. But after its invention, it immediately became clear that it was not just a theory of specific physical systems: it was rather a new language of universal applicability. Already in 1928, the theory had received solid mathematical foundations by Hilbert, von Neumann, and Nordheim, and this work was brought to completion in the monumental work of von Neumann, in the form that we still study nowadays. The theory is extraordinarily successful, and its predictions have been confirmed to an astonishing level of precision in a large spectrum of experiments. However, almost 90 years after von Neumann's book, quantum theory remains mysterious. Its mathematical formulation – based on Hilbert spaces and self-adjoint operators – is far from having an intuitive interpretation. The association of physical systems to Hilbert spaces whose unit vectors represent pure states, the representation of transformations by unitary operators and of observables by self-adjoint operators – all such postulates look artificial and ad hoc . A slightly more operational approach is provided by the C * -algebraic formulation of quantum theory – still, this formulation relies on the assumption that observables form an algebra , where the physical meanings of the multiplication and the sum are far from clear. In short, the postulates of quantum theory impose mathematical structures without providing any simple reason for this choice: the mathematics of Hilbert spaces is adopted as a magic blackbox that “works well” at producing experimental predictions. However, in a satisfactory axiomatization of a physical theory the mathematical structures should emerge as a consequence of postulates that have a direct physical interpretation. By this we mean postulates referring, e.g., to primitive notions like physical system, measurement, or process, rather than notions like, e.g., Hilbert space, C * -algebra, unit vector, or selfadjoint operator. The crucial question thus remains unanswered: why quantum theory? Which are the principles at the basis of the theory? A case that is often invoked in contrast is that of Special Relativity theory, which directly follows from the simple understandable principle of relativity.
In single Hilbert space, Pauli's well–known theorem implies that the existence of a self–adjoint time operator canonically conjugate to a given Hamiltonian requires the Hamiltonian to possess completely continuous spectra spanning the entire real line. Thus the conclusion that there exists no self–adjoint time operator conjugate to a semibounded or discrete Hamiltonian despite some well–known illustrative, implicit counterexamples. In this paper we evaluate Pauli's theorem against the single Hilbert space formulation of quantum mechanics, and consequently show the consistency of assuming a bounded, self–adjoint time operator canonically conjugate to a Hamiltonian with an unbounded, or semibounded, or finite point spectrum. We point out Pauli's implicit assumptions and show that they are not consistent. We demonstrate our analysis by giving two explicit examples. Moreover, we clarify issues surrounding the different solutions to the canonical commutation relations, and, consequently, expand the class of acceptable canonical pairs beyond the solutions required by Pauli's theorem.