We discuss an alternative version of non- relativistic Newtonian mechanics in terms of a real Hilbert space mathematical framework. It is demonstrated that the physics of this scheme correspondent with the standard formulation. Heisenberg-Schrodinger non-relativistic quantum mechanics is considered adequate and complete. Since the suggested theory is dispersion free, linear superposition principle is not violated but cannot affect results of measurements due to spectral decomposition theorem for self-adjoint operators (the collapse of wave function).
We discuss an alternative version of non- relativistic Newtonian mechanics in terms of a real Hilbert space mathematical framework. It is demonstrated that the physics of this scheme correspondent with the standard formulation. Heisenberg-Schrodinger non-relativistic quantum mechanics is considered adequate and complete. Since the suggested theory is dispersion free, linear superposition principle is not violated but cannot affect results of measurements due to spectral decomposition theorem for self-adjoint operators (the collapse of wave function).
We discuss an alternative version of non-relativistic Newtonian mechanics in terms of real Hilbert space mathematical framework. It is demonstrated that the physics of this scheme is in accordance with the standard formulation. Heisenberg-Schrodinger non-relativistic quantum mechanics is considered adequate and complete. Since the suggested theory is dispersion free, linear superposition principle is not violated but cannot affect results of measurements due to spectral decomposition theorem for self-adjoint operators (the collapse of wave function).
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.
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)].
Within an algebraic framework of non-associative quantum mechanics, a Hilbert space and the corresponding Schroedinger equation have been introduced into the theory as follows. The underlying non-associative operator algebra A is assumed to be flexible and Lie-admissible so that it is compatible with the Heisenberg equation of motion and quantization. A Hilbert space can be introduced into the theory as a faithful representation of the associated Lie algebra A/sup -/ of the Lie-admissible algebra A. However, if A/sup -/ is the standard Heisenberg algebra, and if the representation is irreducible, then it is shown that A must be associative, reproducing the standard associative quantum mechanics. Some discussions to circumvent this No-Go theorem are discussed. Especiallyyu if we are interested in the formulation of infinite component wave equations, then this difficulty can be avoided.
The main distinction between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics is the lack in the latter of a full mechanical determinism: different final states can arise from the same physical state, after the measurement. No hidden variable is supposed to exist, nothing can discriminate two apparently identical states even if they give a different result. In this paper we try to put the basis for a more fundamental theory that (approximately) coincides with quantum mechanics when comparing statistics, but it is more fundamental, since it mathematically describes measurement processes giving an explicit time evolution of the wave function during the collapse. The theory is deterministic even if the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is still valid. The theory distinguishes physical states that collapse and physical states that do not collapse. The theory can be made compatible with all experiments done in the past, but new phenomena such as violations of the Born law or the superposition principle could transpire. However, even if we have probably shown that it is possible to build ad hoc a theory that can describe both the wave function collapse and the Schrödinger linear evolution, a simple and unified construction is still missing.
Non-relativistic quantum mechanics is shown to emerge from classical mechanics through the requirement of a relativity principle based on special transformations acting on position and momentum uncertainties. These transformations keep the Heisenberg inequalities invariant and form a group. They are related to dilatations of space variables provided the quantum potential is added to the classical Hamiltonian functional. The Schrödinger equation appears to have a nonunitary and nonlinear companion acting in another time variable. Evolution in this time seems related to the state vector reduction.