Following previous works by E. Prugovečki [Physica A 91A, 202 (1978) and Stochastic Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Space–time (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1986)] on common features of classical and quantum mechanics, we develop a unified mathematical framework for classical and quantum mechanics (based on L2-spaces over classical phase space), in order to investigate to what extent quantum mechanics can be obtained as a simple modification of classical mechanics (on both logical and analytical levels). To obtain this unified framework, we split quantum theory in two parts: (i) general quantum axiomatics (a system is described by a state in a Hilbert space, observables are self-adjoints operators, and so on) and (ii) quantum mechanics proper that specifies the Hilbert space as L2(Rn); the Heisenberg rule [pi,qj]=−iℏδij with p=−iℏ∇, the free Hamiltonian H=−ℏ2Δ/2m and so on. We show that general quantum axiomatics (up to a supplementary “axiom of classicity”) can be used as a nonstandard mathematical ground to formulate physical ideas and equations of ordinary classical statistical mechanics. So, the question of a “true quantization” with “ℏ” must be seen as an independent physical problem not directly related with quantum formalism. At this stage, we show that this nonstandard formulation of classical mechanics exhibits a new kind of operation that has no classical counterpart: this operation is related to the “quantization process,” and we show why quantization physically depends on group theory (the Galilei group). This analytical procedure of quantization replaces the “correspondence principle” (or canonical quantization) and allows us to map classical mechanics into quantum mechanics, giving all operators of quantum dynamics and the Schrödinger equation. The great advantage of this point of view is that quantization is based on concrete physical arguments and not derived from some “pure algebraic rule” (we exhibit also some limit of the correspondence principle). Moreover spins for particles are naturally generated, including an approximation of their interaction with magnetic fields. We also recover by this approach the semi-classical formalism developed by E. Prugovečki [Stochastic Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Space–time (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1986)].
Following previous works by E. Prugovečki [Physica A 91A, 202 (1978) and Stochastic Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Space–time (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1986)] on common features of classical and quantum mechanics, we develop a unified mathematical framework for classical and quantum mechanics (based on L2-spaces over classical phase space), in order to investigate to what extent quantum mechanics can be obtained as a simple modification of classical mechanics (on both logical and analytical levels). To obtain this unified framework, we split quantum theory in two parts: (i) general quantum axiomatics (a system is described by a state in a Hilbert space, observables are self-adjoints operators, and so on) and (ii) quantum mechanics proper that specifies the Hilbert space as L2(Rn); the Heisenberg rule [pi,qj]=−iℏδij with p=−iℏ∇, the free Hamiltonian H=−ℏ2Δ/2m and so on. We show that general quantum axiomatics (up to a supplementary “axiom of classicity”) can be used as a nonstandard mathematical ground to formulate physical ideas and equations of ordinary classical statistical mechanics. So, the question of a “true quantization” with “ℏ” must be seen as an independent physical problem not directly related with quantum formalism. At this stage, we show that this nonstandard formulation of classical mechanics exhibits a new kind of operation that has no classical counterpart: this operation is related to the “quantization process,” and we show why quantization physically depends on group theory (the Galilei group). This analytical procedure of quantization replaces the “correspondence principle” (or canonical quantization) and allows us to map classical mechanics into quantum mechanics, giving all operators of quantum dynamics and the Schrödinger equation. The great advantage of this point of view is that quantization is based on concrete physical arguments and not derived from some “pure algebraic rule” (we exhibit also some limit of the correspondence principle). Moreover spins for particles are naturally generated, including an approximation of their interaction with magnetic fields. We also recover by this approach the semi-classical formalism developed by E. Prugovečki [Stochastic Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Space–time (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1986)].
In a previous article [H. Bergeron, J. Math. Phys. 42, 3983 (2001)], we presented a method to obtain a continuous transition from classical to quantum mechanics starting from the usual phase space formulation of classical mechanics. This procedure was based on a Koopman-von Neumann approach where classical equations are reformulated into a quantumlike form. In this article, we develop a different derivation of quantum equations, based on purely classical stochastic arguments, taking some elements from the Bohm-Fenyes-Nelson approach. This study starts from a remark noticed by different authors [M. Born, Physics in My Generation (Pergamon Press, London, 1956); E. Prugovecki, Stochastic Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Spacetime (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1986)], suggesting that physical continuous observables are stochastic by nature. Following this idea, we study how intrinsic stochastic properties can be introduced into the framework of classical mechanics. Then we analyze how the quantum theory can emerge from this modified classical framework. This approach allows us to show that the transition from classical to quantum formalism (for a spinless particle) does not require real postulates, but rather soft generalizations.
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.
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.
The generator aspect of observables in classical mechanics leads naturally to a generalized classical mechanics, of which quantum mechanics is shown to be a particular case. Basic features of quantum mechanics follow, such as the identification of observables with self-adjoint operators, and canonical quantization rules. This point of view also gives a new insight on the geometry of quantum theory: Planck's constant is related for instance to the curvature of the quantum-mechanical space of states, and the uniqueness of quantum mechanics can be proved. Finally, the origin of the probabilistic interpretation is discussed.
The objective of this thesis is to describe the fundamental concepts relating to the reformulation of quantum mechanics in phase space. It is assumed that the interested reader is familiar with the principles and techniques of ordinary quantum mechanics. In classical statistical mechanics the expectation values of physical quantities are calculated as averages over phase space distribution functions. It is possible to obtain a similar procedure in quantum mechanics. However, phase space is a classical concept and thus has no quantum mechanical equivalent, owing to the non-commutability of the operators p and q. A sensible basic requirement for the formulation of quantum mechanics in phase space is a linear one-one mapping between quantum operators and classical functions. This was achieved by the pioneering work of Weyl, Wigner and Moyal. The phase space that they devised we shall call "pseudo phase space". It is completely quantum. The pseudo phase space variables are represented by commuting c-numbers of momentum, p, and position, q; they are the result of applying the Weyl correspondence rule to the operators p and q, respectively. In some ways the pseudo phase space formulation of quantum mechanics appears to return us to an "almost" classical arena, since we dispense with the calculus of non-commuting operators for purely algebraic methods. The pseudo phase space formulation of quantum mechanics is self-contained. That is, there is no need, in principle, to switch to the Schroedinger or Heisenberg pictures when solving physical problems, although it may often be convenient to do so. The classical appearance of the pseudo phase space scheme is especially useful when considering the semi-classical limit of quantum mechanics. In fact, for potentials up to and including the harmonic oscillator the equations represent classical motion. The structure of the thesis is such that it takes the reader steadily through the major concepts of pseudo phase space theory. The mathematical techniques that shall be needed are developed early in Chapter 1. These are used throughout the thesis. This presents the advantage that the reader is not faced with learning new mathematical methods as the thesis proceeds. The pseudo phase space formulation of quantum mechanics as found applications in all areas of mathematical physics. Hence, there is a considerable amount of specialist literature available on the subject. Itis hoped that this thesis serves has an introduction.
The thesis divides naturally into two parts. Part I raises, and in some cases answers, questions concerning symmetry in classical mechanics. The main result (Theorem 6.4) shows that the assumption of the existence of a realization puts an upper limit on the rank of the algebra. \n \n The heart of the thesis (covering three-quarters of the volume) is section II on the quantization of classical systems. §1 lists axioms desirable in any quantization rule for the 'functions of the q's'. The momentum observables are introduced in §2 prior to their quantization in §4. §5 essentially shows how conventional quantum mechanics fits into this scheme of things. By progressive specialization from a general manifold to a vector space, from a general quantization scheme to one which is linear on the linear momentum functions, and finally to an entirely well-behaved (admissible) quantization rule, into which conventional quantum mechanics fits nicely, we obtain in §7-§9 results which become progressively more and more powerful. The final theorem (Theorem 9.2) is perhaps the most significant of all. This result states that there exists a class of functions, which contains all functions of the q's and functions of the p's and all momentum observables and which is closed with respect to any linear canonical transformation L; a rule A assigning a unique self-adjoint operator to each such function f; a unitary operator WL corresponding to L and an equation \n \n𝛬(𝑓 ∘ 𝐿) = 𝑊[sub]𝐿⁻ 𝛬 𝑓 𝑊[sub]𝐿