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

A Galilei-invariant Version of the Modal-Hamiltonian Interpretation

Olímpia Lombardi

Published Feb 19, 2026• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Abstract Although it is usual to read that non-relativistic quantum mechanics is covariant, and even invariant, under the Galilei transformations, this topic has scarcely been addressed in the standard literature on the theory. This fact has, at least, two undesirable consequences. On the one hand, the meanings of the concepts of covariance and invariance are not precisely elucidated. On the other hand, one is left without a clear idea about in what sense the covariance and/or invariance of quantum mechanics can be asserted. This situation has its counterpart in the field of the interpretation of quantum mechanics: the relevance of the Galilei group is rarely discussed in the impressive amount of literature on the subject. The general premise underlying the present chapter is that the relationship between interpretation and Galilei transformations deserves to be seriously analyzed: the fact that the theory is covariant under the Galilei group does not guarantee the same property for the interpretation because, in general, interpretations add interpretative postulates to the formal structure of the theory. On this basis, and after clarifying the concepts of covariance and invariance, this chapter considers in what sense quantum mechanics is covariant and under what conditions it is invariant under the transformations of the Galilei group. This conceptual framework will provide the tools to study the result of the application of the Galilei transformations to the Modal-Hamiltonian interpretative postulates.

DOI
10.1093/9780198951407.003.0007

Related papers

The role of symmetry in the interpretation of quantum mechanics

Olímpia Lombardi, Sebastián Fortín

Despite the impressive amount of literature on the foundations of quantum mechanics, the relevance of symmetry in interpretation is not properly acknowledged. In fact, although it is usually said that quantum mechanics is invariant under the Galilean group, the invariance is usually not discussed in the case of the interpretation of the theory. This situation is particularly pressing for realist positions, which want to know how reality would be if quantum mechanics were true. From a realist perspective, it seems reasonable to require that an interpretation of quantum mechanics, to be admissible, preserves the same symmetries of the theory. In this paper we will take a realist standpoint in order to study what physical constraints the Galilean group imposes on interpretation, and we will extrapolate the conclusions drawn for quantum mechanics to the case of quantum field theory.

arXiv:1602.07160•Feb 23, 2016•6 citations

Theories and Interpretations

Olímpia Lombardi

Abstract The purpose of this book is to present an interpretation of quantum mechanics. But what are we talking about when we speak of “quantum mechanics?” Are we talking about a single theory or about many related theories? And what do we mean by “interpretation” here? In this chapter, I will address these questions in an introductory way. Of course, I do not intend to take part in the extensive discussions about what a scientific theory is, what is meant by interpreting a theory, in what situation we encounter equivalent theories, and many other questions related to or derived from these. My aim here is to present some preliminary ideas in a way that I hope will be sufficient to avoid misunderstandings in the following chapters. But, above all, I will state my position as to why, after so many years and so much literature on the subject, the interpretation of quantum mechanics deserves further discussion.

•Feb 19, 2026•0 citations

Galilean Covariance and the Schrödinger Equation

M. Omote, S. Kamefuchi, Yasushi Takahashi +1 more

Galilei transformations are formulated in a 5-dimensional form and on such basis the non-relativistic quantum mechanics is reconstructed. Our approach has the following advantages over others'. (1) The Schrödinger wavefunctions are taken to be vector (not projective) representations of the Galilei group, so that (2) the problem here is considerably simplified. (3) The formulation proceeds in a way quite parallel to that of relativistic quantum mechanics, and what is most important, (4) Galilei covariance is manifest throughout.

Fortschritte der Physik/Progress of Physics•Jan 1, 1989•59 citations

The Modal-Hamiltonian Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics as a Kind of “Atomic” Interpretation

Juan Sebastián Ardenghi, Olímpia Lombardi

Modal interpretations are non-collapse interpretations, where the quantum state of a system describes its possible properties rather than the properties that it actually possesses. Among them, the atomic modal interpretation (AMI) assumes the existence of a special set of disjoint systems that fixes the preferred factorization of the Hilbert space. The aim of this paper is to analyze the relationship between the AMI and our recently presented modal-hamiltonian interpretation (MHI), by showing that the MHI can be viewed as a kind of “atomic” interpretation in two different senses. On the one hand, the MHI provides a precise criterion for the preferred factorization of the Hilbert space into factors representing elemental systems. On the other hand, the MHI identifies the atomic systems that represent elemental particles on the basis of the Galilei group. Finally, we will show that the MHI also introduces a decomposition of the Hilbert space of any elemental system, which determines with precision what observables acquire definite actual values.

Physics Research International•Oct 30, 2011•11 citations

Quantum mechanics

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.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Nov 15, 2004•0 citations

Applications of the Modal-Hamiltonian Interpretation

Olímpia Lombardi

Abstract Standard Quantum Mechanics is a theory that has been applied to many concrete physical situations and by means of which an impressive amount of experimental evidence has been accounted for. Therefore, a “good” interpretation must not only meet the traditional interpretative challenges of the theory, but must also show its agreement with the orthodox practice of physics. This chapter is devoted to argue for the physical relevance of the MHI by applying it to well-known models and experimental results, which will be presented in the usual physical language. In particular, it is applied to the free particle, free particle with spin, harmonic oscillator, free hydrogen atom, Zeeman effect, fine structure, decoherence, the Born-Oppenheimer approximation, the problem of symmetry in quantum chemistry.

•Feb 19, 2026•0 citations
Abstract Although it is usual to read that non-relativistic quantum mechanics is covariant, and even invariant, under the Galilei transformations, this topic has scarcely been addressed in the standard literature on the theory. This fact has, at least, two undesirable consequences. On the one hand, the meanings of the concepts of covariance and invariance are not precisely elucidated. On the other hand, one is left without a clear idea about in what sense the covariance and/or invariance of quantum mechanics can be asserted. This situation has its counterpart in the field of the interpretation of quantum mechanics: the relevance of the Galilei group is rarely discussed in the impressive amount of literature on the subject. The general premise underlying the present chapter is that the relationship between interpretation and Galilei transformations deserves to be seriously analyzed: the fact that the theory is covariant under the Galilei group does not guarantee the same property for the interpretation because, in general, interpretations add interpretative postulates to the formal structure of the theory. On this basis, and after clarifying the concepts of covariance and invariance, this chapter considers in what sense quantum mechanics is covariant and under what conditions it is invariant under the transformations of the Galilei group. This conceptual framework will provide the tools to study the result of the application of the Galilei transformations to the Modal-Hamiltonian interpretative postulates.
Despite the impressive amount of literature on the foundations of quantum mechanics, the relevance of symmetry in interpretation is not properly acknowledged. In fact, although it is usually said that quantum mechanics is invariant under the Galilean group, the invariance is usually not discussed in the case of the interpretation of the theory. This situation is particularly pressing for realist positions, which want to know how reality would be if quantum mechanics were true. From a realist perspective, it seems reasonable to require that an interpretation of quantum mechanics, to be admissible, preserves the same symmetries of the theory. In this paper we will take a realist standpoint in order to study what physical constraints the Galilean group imposes on interpretation, and we will extrapolate the conclusions drawn for quantum mechanics to the case of quantum field theory.
Abstract The purpose of this book is to present an interpretation of quantum mechanics. But what are we talking about when we speak of “quantum mechanics?” Are we talking about a single theory or about many related theories? And what do we mean by “interpretation” here? In this chapter, I will address these questions in an introductory way. Of course, I do not intend to take part in the extensive discussions about what a scientific theory is, what is meant by interpreting a theory, in what situation we encounter equivalent theories, and many other questions related to or derived from these. My aim here is to present some preliminary ideas in a way that I hope will be sufficient to avoid misunderstandings in the following chapters. But, above all, I will state my position as to why, after so many years and so much literature on the subject, the interpretation of quantum mechanics deserves further discussion.
Galilei transformations are formulated in a 5-dimensional form and on such basis the non-relativistic quantum mechanics is reconstructed. Our approach has the following advantages over others'. (1) The Schrödinger wavefunctions are taken to be vector (not projective) representations of the Galilei group, so that (2) the problem here is considerably simplified. (3) The formulation proceeds in a way quite parallel to that of relativistic quantum mechanics, and what is most important, (4) Galilei covariance is manifest throughout.
Modal interpretations are non-collapse interpretations, where the quantum state of a system describes its possible properties rather than the properties that it actually possesses. Among them, the atomic modal interpretation (AMI) assumes the existence of a special set of disjoint systems that fixes the preferred factorization of the Hilbert space. The aim of this paper is to analyze the relationship between the AMI and our recently presented modal-hamiltonian interpretation (MHI), by showing that the MHI can be viewed as a kind of “atomic” interpretation in two different senses. On the one hand, the MHI provides a precise criterion for the preferred factorization of the Hilbert space into factors representing elemental systems. On the other hand, the MHI identifies the atomic systems that represent elemental particles on the basis of the Galilei group. Finally, we will show that the MHI also introduces a decomposition of the Hilbert space of any elemental system, which determines with precision what observables acquire definite actual values.
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.
Abstract Standard Quantum Mechanics is a theory that has been applied to many concrete physical situations and by means of which an impressive amount of experimental evidence has been accounted for. Therefore, a “good” interpretation must not only meet the traditional interpretative challenges of the theory, but must also show its agreement with the orthodox practice of physics. This chapter is devoted to argue for the physical relevance of the MHI by applying it to well-known models and experimental results, which will be presented in the usual physical language. In particular, it is applied to the free particle, free particle with spin, harmonic oscillator, free hydrogen atom, Zeeman effect, fine structure, decoherence, the Born-Oppenheimer approximation, the problem of symmetry in quantum chemistry.