Given the knowledge of its kinematical class, a quantum system is completely characterized by the specification of a ground state. This provides a quantum formulation more general than the potential-based approach, handling situations where the ground state is a smooth function whereas the potential would be singular. Many results may be obtained directly from the ground state without needing to reconstruct the associated potential. Representations of the quantum algebra, generated by the ground state, describe all quantum states of the system and this approach is also useful as a tool to model observed physical phenomena and to find out what interactions are at play. The basic formalism and a variety of examples are included to illustrate the power of the ground state approach as a modelling tool for quantum systems.
Given the knowledge of its kinematical class, a quantum system is completely characterized by the specification of a ground state. This provides a quantum formulation more general than the potential-based approach, handling situations where the ground state is a smooth function whereas the potential would be singular. Many results may be obtained directly from the ground state without needing to reconstruct the associated potential. Representations of the quantum algebra, generated by the ground state, describe all quantum states of the system and this approach is also useful as a tool to model observed physical phenomena and to find out what interactions are at play. The basic formalism and a variety of examples are included to illustrate the power of the ground state approach as a modelling tool for quantum systems.
This chapter gives a summary of the mathematical formalism used in quantum mechanics, with a short bibliography put directly at its end. It should be seen as a complement, to be used by readers who wish to know more than what has been recalled about the mathematical tools in the other chapters. Some results are given without explicit proofs; they can be found for instance in Chapters II and IV of [1] . Many quantum mechanics textbooks introduce its general formalism in a more complete way, for instance Chapter VII of [2] , Chapter 3 of [3] , or Chapter 2 of [4] . We first summarize the general formalism of quantum mechanics for any physical system (§11.1), with the Dirac notation; we then study how this formalism treats the grouping of several physical systems into one single quantum system (§11.2); finally, we study a few simple special cases (§11.3), for instance a single particle in an external potential, with or without spin; the reader who prefers wave functions to more abstract reasonings in spaces of states may begin with this section. General physical system The general formalism of quantum mechanics applies to all physical systems, whether they contain a single particle, many particles of various sorts, one or several fields, etc. Quantum space of states The physical state of a system at each time is defined in quantum mechanics by a state vector which, in Dirac notation, is written ∣ ψ 〈 – or ∣ ψ(t) 〈 if one wishes to make the time dependence explicit.
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.
It is difficult to incorporate the concept of interacting physical particles in the frame of conventional quantum mechanics. It comes from the fact that in this formalism the Hamiltonian plays a dual role as the generator of motion and as the observable associated with the energy. As a result it is easy to define either a representation in which particles interact but are not well defined (a representation in which the Hamiltonian is not diagonal) or a representation in which the units are well defined but do not interact. We expect that in the search for a representation in which we may speak of both well defined and still interacting particles, the distinction between reversible and irreversible processes should play a basic role. Certainly we do not want to eliminate irreversible processes such as scattering, production or decay which are basically related to the mechanisms through which we observe particles. To distinguish between reversible and irreversible processes we have to work in a representation such that a Liapounov function (the entropy) may be ascribed to the time evolution of the system. The introduction of such a representation through a specific class of non-unitary transforms is described. We then propose newmore » quantum rules directly applicable to dissipative systems with a Liapounov function. For systems with a discrete spectrum these new quantum rules reduce trivially to the usual quantum rules as formulated by Born, Jordan and Heisenberg. The theory is applied to a simple field theoretical model - the so-called Friedrichs model-for which all calculations can be performed exactly.« less
In classical physics, the ‘state’ of a particle, at any particular time, is taken to involve a definite position in space and a definite motion; and the state of a system of particles is taken to involve a definite position in space and a definite motion for each of the particles. The situation in relation to quantum mechanics is completely different. As in classical physics, calculations can be made concerning the position and motion of a particle. However, this representation is not by means of symbols for scalar or vector quantities: it is by a more complex mathematical object. This quantum state does not indicate or represent position or motion in any direct way: what it does in substance is to enable calculation of the probability of the particle in question being found to have a position or momentum if an appropriate measurement is made.
They have analytically tested several quantum transitions in molecular dynamics. In addition, they have introduced applications of theoretical formalism in physics to economics. First, they have completed the semiclassical theory of nonadiabatic transitions in the exponential potential model. They treated a two-state quantum system, which commonly appears as a subsystem in many-state problems. They were concerned with one-dimensional Schroedinger equation, although the type or semiclassical approach which they used can be applied to higher-dimension potential surfaces by means of Fourier transform. In particular, they solved the case of repulsive exponentially growing potentials, that is the forward-back scattering. They re-expressed the nonadiabatic transition matrix, which describes the transition between the two states for one-direction passage, in terms of contour integrals in the complex coordinate plane. The integrands are adiabatic momenta derived from the eigenvalues of potential matrix. Such type of concept has the advantage that it can be applied to other models than just the exponential potential model. Based on this, they have obtained an analytical tool for describing one-transition point class of potential curve systems. Examples are Rosen-Zener-Demkov model and Landau-Zener-Stueckelberg model. The formalism, which they contributed to, is useful in describing physical processes such as the charge transfer, and it is suitable for shaping external fields or modulating their frequencies in order to achieve a desired state or a product with the theoretical 100% probability. Second, they have derived the first exact analytical solution for a diabatically avoided crossing model. The physical system is described with one-dimensional coupled potential well and barrier which do not intersect in the whole coordinate range. On the basis of special mathematical functions they derived the complete quantum mechanical solution for the wave functions and the transmission coefficient. They also analyzed this model semiclassically and compared it with the exact results. This comparison yields interesting implications on the validity and accuracy of semiclassical approximation. In particular, they solved the case of dramatically avoided crossing with exponentially steep potential curves, and obtained the probability of one-way passage through the interaction region. The overall behavior corresponds to the probability of tunneling through the single potential barrier. In addition, there are complete reflection resonances at discrete energies, resulting from the trapping of a wave in the potential well. The formalism of diabatically avoided crossing model is useful in laser control of molecular reactions. This is because the potential energy curves in realistic molecular systems can be shifted by the photon energy; the curves are coupled by the field intensity via the dipole moment. That is why the new topology of potential energy curves, which was so far broadly omitted, becomes practically interesting due to the development in lasers techniques. Third, they treated several two-state quantum systems common in molecular physics. The semiclassical conditions for the complete transmission and the complete reflection in one-dimensional scattering were given analytically. They discovered the possibility of these phenomena in energy ranges in which the complete reflection or the complete transmission are not commonly expected to occur. In particular, they have made use of the broadly shared assumption that the transitions between the states are localized phenomena. This enables them to separate the whole coordinate region into distinct subsets and to analyze the physics in each subset separately. Applying this approach, they obtained a fully algebraic problem, which can be treated e.g. by diagrammatic techniques. Let them also mention that the complete transmission or complete reflection conditions simplify the wave function, and hence the mathematical solution. The formalism which they used while deriving the semiclassical conditions for the resonant phenomena mentioned above can be further generalized. This will probably yield a whole spectrum of tools in the laser control of molecular processes. Fourth, they developed a powerful technique for solving integral equations with singular kernel. One of the physical formulations of scattering is the time-independent approach based on the Lippmann-Schwinger equation for the Green operator. They have developed a detailed technique how to treat the singularity in this equation. In particular, any scattering problem can be divided into two parts. The first one is the geometry of the system and the static interaction of its components. The second one is more dynamical: the singular equation for the Green operator including the variable energy of the scattering. They fix the most costly calculations in the static part. Then they solve the singularity analytically and thus obtain the cross section as a function of energy. The so far common approach is quite opposite: to fix the singularity first and then to recalculate heavily all the static part for any new value of energy. Obviously, their approach saves a considerable amount of computational time; therefore it is a good standpoint for treating large systems. The formalism above was proved to be extremely efficient taking the example of dissociative recombination H2+ + e- → H + H* because this is a diatomic system, quantum chemical data are easily available in the literature and they could demonstrate the superiority of their approach to the other approaches. Fifth, they suggested applications of basic physical concepts to economics. They introduced aggregate quantities in financial markets and interpreted these quantities as potential energy surfaces. They also formalized interactions between cyclic processes in terms of state to state transitions. Summarizing, they treated the exponential potential model of nonadiabatic transitions, introduced a new exactly solvable model of diabatically avoided crossing, discussed the semiclassical conditions for complete transmission and complete reflection from the viewpoint of laser control, contributed to scattering calculations, and introduced some interdisciplinary applications.
Abstract Quantum mechanics is written in the language of linear algebra. On the Schrodinger picture the theory represents quantum-mechanical states using the elements of a Hilbert space and represents observable physical properties and the standard dynamics using the linear operators on the state space. We consider the mathematical notions for understanding and working with the standard formulation of quantum mechanics. Each mathematical notion is characterized geometrically, algebraically, and physically. The mathematical representation of quantum-mechanical superpositions is discussed.