Operators represent physically observable quantities, as discussed in Section 2.5. The structure and property of operators depend on the nature of the degree of freedom; operators act on the state space and in particular on the state vector of a given degree of freedom. The significance of operators in the interpretation of quantum mechanics has been discussed in Baaquie (2013e). The operators discussed in this chapter are mostly based on the continuous degree of freedom, which is analyzed in Section 3.1. Hermitian operators represent physically observable properties of a degree of freedom and their mathematical properties are defined in Section 3.3. The coordinate and momentum operators are the leading exemplar of a pair of noncommuting Hermitian operators and these are studied in some detail in Section 3.4. The Weyl operators yield, as in Section 3.5, a finite-dimensional example of the shift and scaling operators; Section 3.8 provides a unitary representation of the coordinate and momentum operators. The term self-adjoint operator is used for Hermitian operators when there is a need to emphasize the importance of the domain of the Hilbert space on which the operators act – a topic not usually discussed in most books on quantum mechanics. Sections 3.10 and 3.11 discuss the concept of self-adjoint operators, in particular the crucial role played by the domain for realizing the property of self-adjointness. It is shown in Section 3.12 how the requirement of self-adjointness yields a non-trivial extension of Hamiltonians that include singular interactions.
The classical system is usually quantized using the canonical formalism, i.e., in the language of coordinates and momenta. In addition to this “purely algebraic” ambiguity, there is also an ambiguity in the choice of realization of the operators p^ and q^: the commutation relations do not determine it uniquely, but up to a unitary equivalence (the well known uniqueness theorem of von Neumann pertains only to the Weyl form of the commutation relations). The realization must be chosen on the basis of additional considerations regarding the nature of the canonical variables p and q. In this book the term “theory” is used in various ways: in a broad sense (quantum field theory, relativistic theory) and in a narrow sense, to refer to a particular system or class of systems with certain dynamics. In quantum theory there are also systems whose operators corresponding to canonical variables satisfy not commutation relations, but anticommutation relations.
In the first two chapters we have examined the basic principles – superposition (p. 18), complementarity (p. 19), quantization (p. 44), statistical algorithm (p. 57), and correspondence (p. 72) (see also Subsec. 2.3.4) – and the basic entities, observables and states, of quantum mechanics, as well as the main differences with respect to classical mechanics. While what we have discussed so far is rather a static picture of observables and states, in this chapter we shall deal with quantum dynamics, i.e. with the time evolution of quantum-mechanical systems. Historically, after Bohr had provided a quantized description of the atom (see Subsec. 1.5.4), Einstein showed the quantized nature of photons (see Subsec. 1.2.1), and de Broglie hypothized the wave-like nature of matter (see Subsec. 1.5.5), the first building block of quantum mechanics was provided by the commutation relations, proposed by Heisenberg in 1925, whose consequence is represented by the uncertainty relation (see Subsec. 2.2.7 and Sec. 2.3). This was the subject of the previous chapters. The dynamical part of the theory was proposed by Schrödinger in 1926, and is known as the Schrödinger equation. It is also known as wave mechanics (see Subsec. 1.5.7). In this chapter we shall show that Heisenberg's and Schrödinger's formulations are only two different aspects of the same theory. We shall also come back to this point in Sec. 8.1.1. Here, first we shall derive the fundamental equation which rules quantum dynamics (Sec. 3.1), and, in Sec. 3.2, we shall summarize the main properties of the Schrödinger equation.
This thesis addresses aspects of quantum phase and sets out to draw attention to a collection of new and extend some not so new techniques utilizing Weyl's correspondence rule and its inverse. The phase formulation of quantum mechanics is as old as quantum mechanics itself and evolved over a period of two decades due to the contributions of H. Weyl \cite{Weyl1950}, E. P. Wigner \cite{Wigner1932}, H. Groenewold \cite{Groenewold1946} and J. E. Moyal \cite{Moyal1949}. Over the ensuing years the phase picture has matured into a practical analytical tool, and has generated a multitude of technical papers, reports, reviews, and expositions from many authors and commentators. One reason for its success is that it offers an intuitive picture of quantum mechanics owing to its \it{classical look and feel}, and it has made an impression, in one way or another, in many fields such as mathematical physics, quantum optics, and physical chemistry.The thesis opens with a brief history of classical phase space, tracing the possible origin of the term ``phase space itself, and chronicles the events leading to the conceptualization (and generalization) of quantum phase space. In Chapter 2 the Weyl correspondence is recast in terms of von Neumann's integral kernel transform and a heuristic analysis is given from this perspective. A characteristic of Weyl's correspondence rule and its inverse is that there are two inherent representations of the same operator. These have been referred to as the Weyl representation and Wigner representation and are related by a symplectic Fourier transform. For an arbitrary outer dyadic operator it is shown that the Weyl representation leads to the \it{modified} Gabor transform (known to Signal Processing), while the Wigner representation specializes to the Bargmann transform and a representation in terms of analytic functions. Calculating Weyl-Wigner (WW) transforms of products of
n operators, from first principles, has proved to be a technically difficult problem. However, with the machinery developed in Chapter 2 the problem is reduced to a straightforward algebraic exercise. Finally, forming an
s-parametrized generalization of Weyl's correspondence rule and focusing on the Weyl representation it is shown to lead to an intimate relationship with the relative state formalism \cite{Ban1998}. Weyl's correspondence rule is only applicable to operators and consequently state vectors
∣ψ⟩ are not represented in the usual formulation of quantum phase space. This problem is circumvented in Chapter 3 by introducing the notion of a normalized fixed state (or window) vector
∣φ0⟩ to form an outer dyadic product $\wh{\Psi} = |\psi\rangle\langle\varphi_0|$. The WW transform of this product under the action of the Weyl's rule is a complex valued function of real variables called a phase amplitude and denoted by the symbol
Ψ. The phase amplitudes have many (and sometimes surprising) properties. For example they: \begin{itemize} \item form the building blocks of Wigner functions
W by admitting a generalized Born rule
W=Ψ⋆Ψˉ, and as such can be considered to be a more fundamental objects than Wigner functions; \item superpose and interfere like the state vectors they represent; \item specialize to the Bargmann and Gabor transforms when a Gaussian window is chosen; \end{itemize} \ni In Chapter 4 further aspects of phase amplitudes are explored and discussed. For example it is shown that they: \begin{itemize} \item define phase state vectors which form an over complete set and are elements of a reproducing kernel Hilbert space; \item allow unitary ray representations of the group symmetries of translation, rotation and time reversal; \item evolve in phase under the influence of a propagator
R which is intimately related to the Wigner propagator
P. \end{itemize} Chapter 5 considers an extension of phase amplitudes to include systems with finitely many degrees of freedom. These are called spin amplitudes and are obtained by first forming the outer dyadic product of a spin state vector with an arbitrary fixed spin state vector, and then applying a finite-dimensional analogue of the WW transform. The spin amplitude operator is represented as an
n×n matrix, whose elements are products of the spin components of the spin and fixed state vectors. Two kinds of spin amplitudes are considered, arising on the sphere
S2 or on a
(2j+1) dimensional lattice. In the special case of spin-$\half$ systems it is shown that the spin amplitudes transform as spinors under rotations on both the sphere and lattice. As a physical application the spin amplitudes for a spin-$\half$ magnetic dipole are found for a Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) environment. Chapter 6 considers Schwinger's abstract approach to quantum mechanics which takes into account the inability to indefinitely compensate for fluctuations in the measurement process. The resulting measurement algebra provides a symbolic representation of the physical laws as opposed to the mathematical abstraction (of von Neumann and Dirac) that was justified \it{\'a posteriori} by being in agreement with experiment. Despite Schwinger's prolific work on the subject of measurement algebra, its interpretation in quantum phase remained an open issue. It is shown that the key to formulating a quantum phase in terms of the measurement operators and transformation functions is the determination of a suitable set of basis operators for an arbitrary measurement operator. Many new results follow as a consequence of expanding an arbitrary measurement operator in this basis. In Chapter 7 the quantum-classical interface is explored by considering Hamilton's principal function or action
S(q,v,t). Starting from a purely heuristic classical argument, a phase function
U(p,q,t) is derived in terms of the classical action and is shown to be proportional to the WW transform of the quantum evolution operator. This association leads to the transform \be U(p,q,t) = A(t) \int e^{ipv/\hbar} e^{iS(q,v,t)/\hbar} \; \rm{d}v, \ee which enables one, in principle, to deduce the Wigner functions of a given system when only the classical action is known. Simple physical systems are used to provide examples illustrating this approach.
Abstract Chapter 9 begins laying a foundation for quantum statistical mechanics with a discussion of relevant topics in quantum mechanics. The fundamental postulates of quantum mechanics are reviewed, beginning with the definition of a quantum state and the introduction of the concept of a state vector in a Hilbert space. The representation of observables as Hermitian operators on Hilbert space vectors is described; it is shown that the eigenvalues of Hermitian operators are real and, therefore, constitute possible outcomes of measurements made on these observables. The notions compatible and non-compatible observables and implication for the measurement problem are presented. The time-dependent Schrödinger equation is introduced as generating the time-evolution of the state vector, and it is shown how to cast the Schrödinger equation into a coordinate basis to yield the wave equation of quantum mechanics. Coordinate and momentum bases and their properties are desribed. Several analytically solvable quantum systems are presented as illustrative examples. The chapter concludes with a discussion of spin and the treatment identical particles
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.