A quantization scheme based on the extension of phase space with application of constrained quantization technique is considered. The obtained method is similar to the geometric quantization. For constrained systems the problem of scalar product on the reduced Hilbert space is investigated and a possible solution to this problem is given. Generalization of the Gupta–Bleuler-like conditions is done by minimization of quadratic fluctuations of quantum constraints. The scheme for the construction of generalized coherent states is considered and relation with Berezin quantization is found. The quantum distribution functions are introduced and their physical interpretation is discussed.
A quantization scheme based on the extension of phase space with application of constrained quantization technique is considered. The obtained method is similar to the geometric quantization. For constrained systems the problem of scalar product on the reduced Hilbert space is investigated and a possible solution to this problem is given. Generalization of the Gupta–Bleuler-like conditions is done by minimization of quadratic fluctuations of quantum constraints. The scheme for the construction of generalized coherent states is considered and relation with Berezin quantization is found. The quantum distribution functions are introduced and their physical interpretation is discussed.
The constrained Hamiltonian systems admitting no gauge conditions are considered. The methods to deal with such systems are discussed and developed. As a concrete application, the relationship between the Dirac and reduced phase space quantizations is investigated for spin models belonging to the class of systems under consideration. It is traced out that the two quantization methods may give similar, or essentially different physical results, and, moreover, a class of constrained systems, which can be quantized only by the Dirac method, is discussed. A possible interpretation of the gauge degrees of freedom is given.
In this paper we try to formulate the Berezin quantization on projective Hilbert space P(H) and use its geometric structure. It will be shown that the star product in Berezin quantiza- tion is equivalent to the Poisson bracket on P(H) and the Berezin method to construction a correspondence between a given classical theory and a given quantum theory is used to define a classical limit for geometric quantum mechanics. the covariant symbols. These symbols are expectation values of the observables in terms of coherent states: the holomorphic functions on classical phase space M that is assumed to be aKmanifold. Berezin (2) showed that the covariant symbols form a ∗-algebra which in limit � → 0l eads to the Poisson algebra between the corresponding classical observables: The functions on the phase space M. In this paper we will see that the Berezin ∗-algebra is in fact a Poisson algebra which is induced by the Fubini-Study 2-form on space of coherent states. This space is defined as follows: coherent states span a dense subspace H of Hilbert space H. P( H), which is denoted by M, is aKmanifold with induced symplectic structure from P(H). Therefore the covariant symbols can be considered as functions on M. It is shown (13) that there exists an embedding mapping between the classical phase space M and M, by which to any point z ∈ M is associated ap ointZ ∈M. With this construction to all of the quantum observables are associated their covariant symbols, which form a Poisson algebra on M and since the corresponding classical observables form a Poisson algebra on M , the Berezin quantization is a systematic procedure to relate these two Poisson algebras. Also the relation of Berezin quantization and geometric for- mulation of quantum mechanics will be evident as follows. The geometric quantum mechanics is a formulation of quantum mechanics in projective Hilbert spaces. With our construction one sees that the Berezin quantization is an equivalent formulation and in addition gives a prescription as classical limit for geometric quantum mechanics (9).
The constrained Hamiltonian systems admitting no gauge conditions are considered. The methods for dealing with such systems are discussed and developed. As a concrete application, the relationship between the Dirac and reduced phase space quantizations is investigated for spin models belonging to the class of systems under consideration. It is found that the two quantization methods may give similar, or essentially different, physical results, and moreover a class of constrained systems, which can be quantized only by the Dirac method, is discussed. A possible interpretation of the gauge degrees of freedom is given.
We examine the quantization of pseudoclassical dynamical systems, models that have classically anticommuting variables, in the Schrödinger picture. We quantize these systems, which can be viewed as classical models of particle spin, using the generalized Gupta–Bleuler method as well as the reduced phase space method in even dimensions. With minimal modifications, the standard constructions of Schrödinger quantum mechanics of constrained systems work for pseudoclassical systems. We generalize the standard Schrödinger norm and implement the correct adjointness properties of observables and constraints. We construct the state space corresponding to spinors as physical wave functions of anticommuting variables, finding that there are superselection sectors in both the physical and ghost subspaces. The physical states are isomorphic to those of the Dirac–Kähler formulation of fermions, though the inner product in Dirac–Kähler theory is not equivalent to ours.
We present a detailed discussion of a general theory of phase-space distributions, introduced recently by the authors [J. Phys. A 31, L9 (1998)]. This theory provides a unified phase-space formulation of quantum mechanics for physical systems possessing Lie-group symmetries. The concept of generalized coherent states and the method of harmonic analysis are used to construct explicitly a family of phase-space functions which are postulated to satisfy the Stratonovich-Weyl correspondence with a generalized tracing condition. The symbol calculus for the phase-space functions is given by means of the generalized twisted product. The phase-space formalism is used to study the problem of the reconstruction of quantum states. In particular, we consider the reconstruction method based on measurements of displaced projectors, which comprises a number of recently proposed quantum-optical schemes and is also related to the standard methods of signal processing. A general group-theoretic description of this method is developed using the technique of harmonic expansions on the phase space.
The relationship between the Dirac and reduced phase space quantizations is investigated for spin models belonging to the class of Hamiltonian systems having no gauge conditions. It is traced out that the two quantization methods may give similar, or essentially different physical results, and, moreover, it is shown that there is a class of constrained systems, which can be quantized only by the Dirac method. A possible interpretation of the gauge degrees of freedom is given. Introduction There are two main methods to quantize the Hamiltonian systems with first class constraints: the Dirac quantization [1] and the reduced phase space quantization [2], whereas two other methods, the path integral method [3, 2] and the BRST quantization [4] being the most popular method for the covariant quantization of gauge-invariant systems, are based on and proceed from them [2, 5]. The basic idea of the Dirac method consists in imposing quantum mechanically the first class constraints as operator conditions on the states for singling out the physical ones [1]. The reduced phase space quantization first identifies the physical degrees of freedom at the classical level by the factorization of the constraint surface with respect to the action of the gauge group, generated by the constraints. Then the resulting Hamiltonian system is quantized as a usual unconstrained system [2]. Naturally, the problem of the relationship of these two methods arises. It was discussed in different contexts in literature [6], and there is an opinion that the differences between the two quantization methods can be traced out to a choice of factor ordering in the construction of various physical operators.