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

arXiv:quant-ph/0409086

A geometric approach to the canonical reformulation of quantum mechanics

Mohammad Mehrafarin

Published Sep 15, 2004• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

The measure of distinguishability between two neighboring preparations of a physical system by a measurement apparatus naturally defines the line element of the preparation space of the system. We point out that quantum mechanics can be derived from the invariance of this line element in the canonical formulation. The canonical formulation of quantum statistical mechanics is also discussed.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/0409086

Related papers

Quantum mechanics from two physical postulates

Mehrafarin, M

For an arbitrary preparation, quantum mechanical descriptions refer to the complementary contexts set by incompatible measurements. We argue that an arbitrary preparation, therefore, should be described with respect to such a context by its degrees of disturbance (represented by real numbers) and their probability distribution (postulate 1). Measurement contexts thus provide reference frames for the preparation space of a physical system; a preparation being described by a point in this space with the aforementioned as its coordinates relative to a given measurement apparatus. However, all measurement contexts are equivalent with regard to the description of a given preparation; there is no preferred measurement (postulate 2). In the framework provided by the preparation space, we show that quantum mechanics emerges naturally from the above postulates in a new formulation which is manifestly canonical; provided the degrees of disturbance are identified with the quantum phases of the preparation with respect to (the basis furnished by) the measurement apparatus.

•Feb 20, 2004•6 citations

Statistical distance and the geometry of quantum states

Samuel L. Braunstein, Carlton M. Caves

By finding measurements that optimally resolve neighboring quantum states, we use statistical distinguishability to define a natural Riemannian metric on the space of quantum-mechanical density operators and to formulate uncertainty principles that are more general and more stringent than standard uncertainty principles.

Physical Review Letters•May 30, 1994•3,176 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

Boundary Quantum Mechanics ∗

A reformulation of a physical theory in which measurements at the initial and final moments of time are treated independently is discussed, both on the classical and quantum levels. Methods of the standard quantum mechanics are used to quantize boundary phase space to obtain boundary quantum mechanics — a theory that does not depend on the distinction between the initial and final moments of time, a theory that can be formulated without reference to the causal structure. As a supplementary material, the geometrical description of quantization of a general (e.g. curved) configuration space is presented.

•Jan 1, 2001•0 citations

Geometrical description of quantum mechanics—transformations and dynamics

Giuseppe Marmo, G. F. Volkert

In this paper, we review a proposed geometrical formulation of quantum mechanics. We argue that this geometrization makes available mathematical methods from classical mechanics to the quantum framework. We apply this formulation to the study of separability and entanglement for states of composite quantum systems.

arXiv:1006.0530•Physica Scripta•Aug 18, 2010•28 citations

Convexity, colours and statistics

Ingemar Bengtsson, Karol Życzkowski

What picture does one see, looking at a physical theory from a distance, so that the details disappear? Since quantum mechanics is a statistical theory, the most universal picture which remains after the details are forgotten is that of a convex set. Bogdan Mielnik Convex sets Our object is to understand the geometry of the set of all possible states of a quantum system that can occur in nature. This is a very general question, especially since we are not trying to define ‘state’ or ‘system’ very precisely. Indeed we will not even discuss whether the state is a property of a thing, or of the preparation of a thing, or of a belief about a thing. Nevertheless we can ask what kind of restrictions are needed on a set if it is going to serve as a space of states in the first place. There is a restriction that arises naturally both in quantum mechanics and in classical statistics: the set must be a convex set . The idea is that a convex set is a set such that one can form ‘mixtures’ of any pair of points in the set. This is, as we will see, how probability enters (although we are not trying to define ‘probability’ either). From a geometrical point of view a mixture of two states can be defined as a point on the segment of the straight line between the two points that represent the states that we want to mix. We insist that given two points belonging to the set of states, the straight line segment between them must belong to the set too. This is certainly not true of any set.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•May 11, 2006•0 citations
The measure of distinguishability between two neighboring preparations of a physical system by a measurement apparatus naturally defines the line element of the preparation space of the system. We point out that quantum mechanics can be derived from the invariance of this line element in the canonical formulation. The canonical formulation of quantum statistical mechanics is also discussed.
For an arbitrary preparation, quantum mechanical descriptions refer to the complementary contexts set by incompatible measurements. We argue that an arbitrary preparation, therefore, should be described with respect to such a context by its degrees of disturbance (represented by real numbers) and their probability distribution (postulate 1). Measurement contexts thus provide reference frames for the preparation space of a physical system; a preparation being described by a point in this space with the aforementioned as its coordinates relative to a given measurement apparatus. However, all measurement contexts are equivalent with regard to the description of a given preparation; there is no preferred measurement (postulate 2). In the framework provided by the preparation space, we show that quantum mechanics emerges naturally from the above postulates in a new formulation which is manifestly canonical; provided the degrees of disturbance are identified with the quantum phases of the preparation with respect to (the basis furnished by) the measurement apparatus.
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.
A reformulation of a physical theory in which measurements at the initial and final moments of time are treated independently is discussed, both on the classical and quantum levels. Methods of the standard quantum mechanics are used to quantize boundary phase space to obtain boundary quantum mechanics — a theory that does not depend on the distinction between the initial and final moments of time, a theory that can be formulated without reference to the causal structure. As a supplementary material, the geometrical description of quantization of a general (e.g. curved) configuration space is presented.
What picture does one see, looking at a physical theory from a distance, so that the details disappear? Since quantum mechanics is a statistical theory, the most universal picture which remains after the details are forgotten is that of a convex set. Bogdan Mielnik Convex sets Our object is to understand the geometry of the set of all possible states of a quantum system that can occur in nature. This is a very general question, especially since we are not trying to define ‘state’ or ‘system’ very precisely. Indeed we will not even discuss whether the state is a property of a thing, or of the preparation of a thing, or of a belief about a thing. Nevertheless we can ask what kind of restrictions are needed on a set if it is going to serve as a space of states in the first place. There is a restriction that arises naturally both in quantum mechanics and in classical statistics: the set must be a convex set . The idea is that a convex set is a set such that one can form ‘mixtures’ of any pair of points in the set. This is, as we will see, how probability enters (although we are not trying to define ‘probability’ either). From a geometrical point of view a mixture of two states can be defined as a point on the segment of the straight line between the two points that represent the states that we want to mix. We insist that given two points belonging to the set of states, the straight line segment between them must belong to the set too. This is certainly not true of any set.