SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2202.07838

Quantization: History and Problems

Abstract

In this work, I explore the concept of quantization as a mapping from classical phase space functions to quantum operators. I discuss the early history of this notion of quantization with emphasis on the works of Schr\"odinger and Dirac, and how quantization fit into their overall understanding of quantum theory in the 1920's. Dirac, in particular, proposed a quantization map which should satisfy certain properties, including the property that quantum commutators should be related to classical Poisson brackets in a particular way. However, in 1946, Groenewold proved that Dirac's mapping was inconsistent, making the problem of defining a rigorous quantization map more elusive than originally expected. This result, known as the Groenewold-Van Hove theorem, is not often discussed in physics texts, but here I will give an account of the theorem and what it means for potential "corrections" to Dirac's scheme. Other proposals for quantization have arisen over the years, the first major one being that of Weyl in 1927, which was later developed by many, including Groenewold, and which has since become known as Weyl Quantization in the mathematical literature. Another, known as Geometric Quantization, formulates quantization in differential-geometric terms by appealing to the character of classical phase spaces as symplectic manifolds; this approach began with the work of Souriau, Kostant, and Kirillov in the 1960's. I will describe these proposals for quantization and comment on their relation to Dirac's original program. Along the way, the problem of operator ordering and of quantizing in curvilinear coordinates will be described, since these are natural questions that immediately present themselves when thinking about quantization.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Andrea Carosso. 2022-02-16. Quantization: History and Problems. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2022.09.001

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Scientific Promise

Scientists constantly face decisions about what lines of research to pursue. This Element introduces the philosophical debate about scientific pursuitworthiness. It explains how it can be rational to pursue a theory even if the theory is less well supported than its rivals, and it discusses existing philosophical frameworks for guiding pursuit decisions. The Element also develops a new perspective. Existing accounts focus predominantly on theories, while experiments are largely neglected. This is an important shortcoming. Theoretical promise depends on experimental promise, and experimental promise raises questions of its own. Drawing on the epistemology of experimentation, the Element advances an account of experimental pursuitworthiness. It is argued that such pursuitworthiness depends on experimental virtues like a clear signal and simplicity of design. Moreover, the kinds of uncertainty that constrain the assessment of scientific pursuits are examined. Finally, the Element highlights open questions in the philosophy of scientific pursuitworthiness.

physics.hist-ph

Is Black Hole Evaporation Prediction Friendly?

Manchak and Weatherall (2018) formulate the black hole information paradox as a failure of predictability in black hole evaporation spacetimes, diagnosed by non-global hyperbolicity. I offer a strategy for resolving this paradox. I argue that failures of predictability in black hole evaporation are not well diagnosed by non-global hyperbolicity. I then consider two weakenings of global hyperbolicity: prediction and retrodiction friendliness, the failure of which could ground a new paradox. However, deidealized black hole evaporation models can be prediction and retrodiction friendly. Therefore, the information paradox cannot be based upon failures of global hyperbolicity, nor either retrodiction or prediction unfriendliness.

physics.hist-ph

The Crab Nebula progenitor: recovering the 1054 AD supernova event as galactic Gamma-ray burst

In 1054 AD a daytime star appeared in the constellation of Taurus, for three weeks, and it was reported in various sources from Europe to China/Japan: it was one of the few documented galactic supernovae of the last two millenia. This paradigm has been established about sixty years ago, as the comprehension of the physics of supernovae progressed with enough observational data. The Gamma-ray bursts were discovered in the same period, but only in the past few years have their observations become daily and their distances have been fully understood as cosmological. After the explosion, the exponential decay of the luminosity in gamma-rays and X-rays has been followed with telescopes onboard dedicated satellites. Also the exponential decay of the afterglow's optical and radio frequencies have been observed with the largest optical and radio telescopes. Within the binary-driven hypernova framework, successful in explaining all the observed phases of the Gamma-ray bursts, the universal exponential decay can be extended to 1000 years after the burst, to account for the present values of Gamma and X-rays as well as optical and radio frequencies of the Crab Nebula. Both the daytime visibility of the burst, and the simultaneous radiation plagues appeared in Constantinople and Cairo is a strong evidence of the presence of Gamma-rays in the lower atmosphere, coming from the same source originating the Crab nebula. The association to the daytime visibility of that star and the following plague meets exactly the etymology of the word dis-aster, bad star.

physics.hist-ph