DOCSLIB.ORG

A Geometric Look at the Objective Gravitational Wave Function Reduction

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Geometric Look at the Objective Gravitational Wave Function Reduction Pramana – J. Phys. (2020) 94:163 © Indian Academy of Sciences https://doi.org/10.1007/s12043-020-02032-6 A geometric look at the objective gravitational wave function reduction FARAMARZ RAHMANI1,2,∗, MEHDI GOLSHANI2,3 and GHADIR JAFARI4 1Department of Physics, School of Sciences, Ayatollah Boroujerdi University, Boroujerd, Iran 2School of Physics, Institute for Research in Fundamental Science (IPM), Tehran, Iran 3Department of Physics, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran 4School of Particles and Accelerators, Institute of Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM), Tehran, Iran ∗Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] MS received 17 March 2020; revised 4 July 2020; accepted 8 September 2020 Abstract. There is a famous criterion for objective wave function reduction which is derived by using the Shrödinger–Newton equation [L Diosi, Phys. Lett. A 105(4–5), 199 (1984)]. In this regard, a critical mass for the transition from quantum world to the classical world is determined for a particle or an object. In this paper, we shall derive that criterion by using the concept of Bohmian trajectories. This study has two consequences. The first is, it provides a geometric framework for the problem of wave function reduction. The second is, it represents the role of quantum and gravitational forces in the reduction process. Keywords. Gravitational reduction of the wave function; Bohmian quantum potential; Bohmian geodesic deviation equation; Bohmian trajectories. PACS Nos 03.65.Ca; 03.65.Ta; 04.20.Cv; 03.65.w 1. Introduction mass distribution of a particle or a body is ρ =|ψ(x, t)|2 which can be used to define self-gravity. In other words, One of the questions that has always been raised is the we can consider a particle in different locations simulta- boundary between quantum and classical mechanics. neously with the distribution ρ =|ψ(x, t)|2 (see figure There is a critical mass for the transition from quantum 1). This is a quantum mechanical concept which refers domain to the classical world [1,2]. Such critical mass to the uncertainty in the position of the particle and is determines the macroscopicity or microscopicity of an not obvious in our classical world. object. By knowing the density of an object, the macro- The Schrödinger–Newton equation for a single parti- scopicity is directly determined in terms of the size of cle with distribution ρ =|ψ(x, t)|2 is the body [2]. We expect that macroscopic bodies obey ∂ψ( , ) ¯ 2 |ψ( , )|2 the rules of classical mechanics, i.e. definite position and x t = − h ∇2 − 2 x t 3 ih¯ GM d x momentum, determinism, etc. But, microscopic bodies ∂t 2M |x − x| obey the rules of quantum mechanics, like the uncer- × ψ(x, t). (1) tainty in position and momentum of the particle. One iEt/h¯ of the approaches to determine the boundary between By using the stationary state ψ = ψ(x)e ,forthe quantum mechanics and classical mechanics is the grav- classical limit, which satisfies the above equation, and itational approach. The outstanding gravitational studies using the variational method, a relation between the for determining the boundary between the quantum mass of a particle and the width of its associated sta- world and the classical world started by Karolyhazy [2]. tionary wave packet is obtained. That relation, which is Diosi’s work, based on the Schrödinger–Newton equa- h¯ 2 σ( ) = tion, is a remarkable work that was done after that (see min 3 (2) refs [1,3,4]). In that equation, there is a term due to the Gm self-gravity of the particle or body. Here, self-gravity is provides a criterion for the transition from the quantum due to the quantum distribution of matter and is definable world to the classical world or the breakdown of quan- even for a point-particle. According to the Born rule, tum superposition in terms of universal constants and 0123456789().: V,-vol 163 Page 2 of 9 Pramana – J. Phys. (2020) 94:163 be explained by taking into account the self-gravity of the particle (object, body). We shall prove this in the Bohmian context. After Diosi, the most significant work which has been done, is the gravitational approach of Penrose which is Figure 1. An imagination for the self-gravity of a particle or body in the context of quantum mechanics. The particle has based on two essential concepts in physics: the princi- no exact location due to the uncertainty principle. ple of equivalence in general relativity and the principle of general covariance [6–8]. The overview of Penrose’s the mass of the particle (objective property) [1]. For a work is as follows: Consider a body in two different body with radius R, the minimum wave packet width is locations with their associated states |φi , i = 1, 2. Each (R) (1/4) 3/4 σ = (σ(min)) R . The critical size of a body for state satisfies the Schrödinger equation separately as a the transition from quantum domain to classical domain stationary state, with a unique Killing vector. The super- −5 |ψ=α|φ +β|φ is about Rc = 10 cm. For details, see [2,4]. posed state 1 2 is also a stationary The works of Karolyhazy and Diosi are conceptually state with the unique Killing vector K = ∂/∂t.When the same. In fact, in the both works, the main con- the self-gravity of the body (the curvature of the space– cept is the existence of uncertainty in the structure of time due to the mass of the object itself) is considered, space–time. But their different results (different charac- the quantum state of the gravitational field of the body teristic width, collapse time etc.) for extensive objects, at different locations, i.e., |Gi , i = 1, 2, must also be are due to the different mathematical approaches [5]. taken into account. This changes the state |ψ to the state For a point particle, their results are identical. We shall |ψG=α|φ1|G1+β|φ2|G2 which is not a stationary show that our Bohmian analysis is also consistent with state in the sense that it does not have a unique Killing their results, i.e., in obtaining the characteristic width vector. Thus, the total state decays to one of the states similar to the work of Karolyhazy and Diosi for a point to get a stationary state with definite Killing vector of particle. We shall not do Bohmian investigation for an space–time. In this approach, the decay time for tran- extended object in this paper. sition from the quantum domain to classical domain is The self-gravity of a body or a particle would localise obtained [6]. the position distribution of the particle or body. It The gravitational considerations of Penrose which reduces the uncertainty in the position of the particle. It were stated above can be used for justifying the wave seems that our classical world is the product of a gravi- function reduction through the measurement process. tational reduction [6–8]. Usually, in a measurement process we have an appa- Wave function reduction also takes place through a ratus and a microscopic system with their associated measurement process. In a measurement process, the wave functions. The quantum state of the apparatus, wave function of a quantum system reduces instan- as a macroscopic body, is entangled with the micro- taneously to one of its eigenvectors (wave function scopic or quantum system (an electron for example) collapse). This is one of the postulates of orthodox or during the measurement [6,9,12]. As the apparatus is standard quantum mechanics, known as collapse postu- a macroscopic body, its self-gravity is significant. Then, late. Thus, there is no room for justifying the collapse according to the previous statements, the total entangled phenomena in the standard quantum mechanics. In a state (|ψG) is not stationary and it decays to a specific measurement process, a pure state which is governed state for having a definite unique Killing vector. Conse- by the linear Schrödinger equation, evolves to a mixed quently, the microscopic system which is entangled with state after measurement, through a non-unitary evolu- the apparatus also goes to a specific eigenstate. Here, the tion [9–14]. Some physicists modify the Schrödinger role of gravity is obvious [6–8]. equation by adding non-Hamiltonian terms for justify- Why do we want to study this topic in the Bohmian ing the non-unitary evolution of the wave function and framework? Because, relativistic Bohmian quantum its reduction process [5,15–18]. mechanics can be represented geometrically [19–22]. In this paper, we do not study what is happening in On the other hand, gravity is described geometrically. the measurement processes. Our aim is to study the Thus, we were persuaded to study the objective gravita- objective gravitational wave function reduction in the tional wave function reduction in the Bohmian context. Bohmian context. Against the collapse theories, there is a different If quantum mechanics is universal, our classical world approach known as ‘many-words interpretation’ or in should be in a superposition. But, it seems that our short ‘MWI’. In this approach, the wave function is a classical world is not in a superposition. For example, real entity and it does not collapse through a measure- a chair in a room is not in its different states of its ment [23–26]. Rather, any outcome of the measurement different degrees of freedom simultaneously. This can is in a different real word. These different real worlds Pramana – J. Phys. (2020) 94:163 Page 3 of 9 163 or branches of our Universe do not interfere with each other.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Emergence of a Classical World in Bohmian Mechanics
    The Emergence of a Classical World in Bohmian Mechanics Davide Romano Lausanne, 02 May 2014 Structure of QM • Physical state of a quantum system: - (normalized) vector in Hilbert space: state-vector - Wavefunction: the state-vector expressed in the coordinate representation Structure of QM • Physical state of a quantum system: - (normalized) vector in Hilbert space: state-vector; - Wavefunction: the state-vector expressed in the coordinate representation; • Physical properties of the system (Observables): - Observable ↔ hermitian operator acting on the state-vector or the wavefunction; - Given a certain operator A, the quantum system has a definite physical property respect to A iff it is an eigenstate of A; - The only possible measurement’s results of the physical property corresponding to the operator A are the eigenvalues of A; - Why hermitian operators? They have a real spectrum of eigenvalues → the result of a measurement can be interpreted as a physical value. Structure of QM • In the general case, the state-vector of a system is expressed as a linear combination of the eigenstates of a generic operator that acts upon it: 퐴 Ψ = 푎 Ψ1 + 푏|Ψ2 • When we perform a measure of A on the system |Ψ , the latter randomly collapses or 2 2 in the state |Ψ1 with probability |푎| or in the state |Ψ2 with probability |푏| . Structure of QM • In the general case, the state-vector of a system is expressed as a linear combination of the eigenstates of a generic operator that acts upon it: 퐴 Ψ = 푎 Ψ1 + 푏|Ψ2 • When we perform a measure of A on the system |Ψ , the latter randomly collapses or 2 2 in the state |Ψ1 with probability |푎| or in the state |Ψ2 with probability |푏| .
    [Show full text]
  • Aspects of Loop Quantum Gravity
    Aspects of loop quantum gravity Alexander Nagen 23 September 2020 Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science of Imperial College London 1 Contents 1 Introduction 4 2 Classical theory 12 2.1 The ADM / initial-value formulation of GR . 12 2.2 Hamiltonian GR . 14 2.3 Ashtekar variables . 18 2.4 Reality conditions . 22 3 Quantisation 23 3.1 Holonomies . 23 3.2 The connection representation . 25 3.3 The loop representation . 25 3.4 Constraints and Hilbert spaces in canonical quantisation . 27 3.4.1 The kinematical Hilbert space . 27 3.4.2 Imposing the Gauss constraint . 29 3.4.3 Imposing the diffeomorphism constraint . 29 3.4.4 Imposing the Hamiltonian constraint . 31 3.4.5 The master constraint . 32 4 Aspects of canonical loop quantum gravity 35 4.1 Properties of spin networks . 35 4.2 The area operator . 36 4.3 The volume operator . 43 2 4.4 Geometry in loop quantum gravity . 46 5 Spin foams 48 5.1 The nature and origin of spin foams . 48 5.2 Spin foam models . 49 5.3 The BF model . 50 5.4 The Barrett-Crane model . 53 5.5 The EPRL model . 57 5.6 The spin foam - GFT correspondence . 59 6 Applications to black holes 61 6.1 Black hole entropy . 61 6.2 Hawking radiation . 65 7 Current topics 69 7.1 Fractal horizons . 69 7.2 Quantum-corrected black hole . 70 7.3 A model for Hawking radiation . 73 7.4 Effective spin-foam models .
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Mechanics As a Limiting Case of Classical Mechanics
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE Quantum Mechanics As A Limiting Case provided by CERN Document Server of Classical Mechanics Partha Ghose S. N. Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences Block JD, Sector III, Salt Lake, Calcutta 700 091, India In spite of its popularity, it has not been possible to vindicate the conven- tional wisdom that classical mechanics is a limiting case of quantum mechan- ics. The purpose of the present paper is to offer an alternative point of view in which quantum mechanics emerges as a limiting case of classical mechanics in which the classical system is decoupled from its environment. PACS no. 03.65.Bz 1 I. INTRODUCTION One of the most puzzling aspects of quantum mechanics is the quantum measurement problem which lies at the heart of all its interpretations. With- out a measuring device that functions classically, there are no ‘events’ in quantum mechanics which postulates that the wave function contains com- plete information of the system concerned and evolves linearly and unitarily in accordance with the Schr¨odinger equation. The system cannot be said to ‘possess’ physical properties like position and momentum irrespective of the context in which such properties are measured. The language of quantum mechanics is not that of realism. According to Bohr the classicality of a measuring device is fundamental and cannot be derived from quantum theory. In other words, the process of measurement cannot be analyzed within quantum theory itself. A simi- lar conclusion also follows from von Neumann’s approach [1].
    [Show full text]
  • Statistics of a Free Single Quantum Particle at a Finite
    STATISTICS OF A FREE SINGLE QUANTUM PARTICLE AT A FINITE TEMPERATURE JIAN-PING PENG Department of Physics, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China Abstract We present a model to study the statistics of a single structureless quantum particle freely moving in a space at a finite temperature. It is shown that the quantum particle feels the temperature and can exchange energy with its environment in the form of heat transfer. The underlying mechanism is diffraction at the edge of the wave front of its matter wave. Expressions of energy and entropy of the particle are obtained for the irreversible process. Keywords: Quantum particle at a finite temperature, Thermodynamics of a single quantum particle PACS: 05.30.-d, 02.70.Rr 1 Quantum mechanics is the theoretical framework that describes phenomena on the microscopic level and is exact at zero temperature. The fundamental statistical character in quantum mechanics, due to the Heisenberg uncertainty relation, is unrelated to temperature. On the other hand, temperature is generally believed to have no microscopic meaning and can only be conceived at the macroscopic level. For instance, one can define the energy of a single quantum particle, but one can not ascribe a temperature to it. However, it is physically meaningful to place a single quantum particle in a box or let it move in a space where temperature is well-defined. This raises the well-known question: How a single quantum particle feels the temperature and what is the consequence? The question is particular important and interesting, since experimental techniques in recent years have improved to such an extent that direct measurement of electron dynamics is possible.1,2,3 It should also closely related to the question on the applicability of the thermodynamics to small systems on the nanometer scale.4 We present here a model to study the behavior of a structureless quantum particle moving freely in a space at a nonzero temperature.
    [Show full text]
  • Coherent States and the Classical Limit in Quantum Mechanics
    Coherent States And The Classical Limit In Quantum Mechanics 0 ħ ¡! Bram Merten Radboud University Nijmegen Bachelor’s Thesis Mathematics/Physics 2018 Department Of Mathematical Physics Under Supervision of: Michael Mueger Abstract A thorough analysis is given of the academical paper titled "The Classical Limit for Quantum Mechanical Correlation Functions", written by the German physicist Klaus Hepp. This paper was published in 1974 in the journal of Communications in Mathematical Physics [1]. The part of the paper that is analyzed summarizes to the following: "Suppose expectation values of products of Weyl operators are translated in time by a quantum mechanical Hamiltonian and are in coherent states 1/2 1/2 centered in phase space around the coordinates ( ¡ ¼, ¡ »), where (¼,») is ħ ħ an element of classical phase space, then, after one takes the classical limit 0, the expectation values of products of Weyl operators become ħ ¡! exponentials of coordinate functions of the classical orbit in phase space." As will become clear in this thesis, authors tend to omit many non-trivial intermediate steps which I will precisely include. This could be of help to any undergraduate student who is willing to familiarize oneself with the reading of academical papers, but could also target any older student or professor who is doing research and interested in Klaus Hepp’s work. Preliminary chapters which will explain all the prerequisites to this paper are given as well. Table of Contents 0 Preface 1 1 Introduction 2 1.1 About Quantum Mechanics . .2 1.2 About The Wave function . .2 1.3 About The Correspondence of Classical and Quantum mechanics .
    [Show full text]
  • The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle*
    OpenStax-CNX module: m58578 1 The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle* OpenStax This work is produced by OpenStax-CNX and licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 Abstract By the end of this section, you will be able to: • Describe the physical meaning of the position-momentum uncertainty relation • Explain the origins of the uncertainty principle in quantum theory • Describe the physical meaning of the energy-time uncertainty relation Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is a key principle in quantum mechanics. Very roughly, it states that if we know everything about where a particle is located (the uncertainty of position is small), we know nothing about its momentum (the uncertainty of momentum is large), and vice versa. Versions of the uncertainty principle also exist for other quantities as well, such as energy and time. We discuss the momentum-position and energy-time uncertainty principles separately. 1 Momentum and Position To illustrate the momentum-position uncertainty principle, consider a free particle that moves along the x- direction. The particle moves with a constant velocity u and momentum p = mu. According to de Broglie's relations, p = }k and E = }!. As discussed in the previous section, the wave function for this particle is given by −i(! t−k x) −i ! t i k x k (x; t) = A [cos (! t − k x) − i sin (! t − k x)] = Ae = Ae e (1) 2 2 and the probability density j k (x; t) j = A is uniform and independent of time. The particle is equally likely to be found anywhere along the x-axis but has denite values of wavelength and wave number, and therefore momentum.
    [Show full text]
  • The S-Matrix Formulation of Quantum Statistical Mechanics, with Application to Cold Quantum Gas
    THE S-MATRIX FORMULATION OF QUANTUM STATISTICAL MECHANICS, WITH APPLICATION TO COLD QUANTUM GAS A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Pye Ton How August 2011 c 2011 Pye Ton How ALL RIGHTS RESERVED THE S-MATRIX FORMULATION OF QUANTUM STATISTICAL MECHANICS, WITH APPLICATION TO COLD QUANTUM GAS Pye Ton How, Ph.D. Cornell University 2011 A novel formalism of quantum statistical mechanics, based on the zero-temperature S-matrix of the quantum system, is presented in this thesis. In our new formalism, the lowest order approximation (“two-body approximation”) corresponds to the ex- act resummation of all binary collision terms, and can be expressed as an integral equation reminiscent of the thermodynamic Bethe Ansatz (TBA). Two applica- tions of this formalism are explored: the critical point of a weakly-interacting Bose gas in two dimensions, and the scaling behavior of quantum gases at the unitary limit in two and three spatial dimensions. We found that a weakly-interacting 2D Bose gas undergoes a superfluid transition at T 2πn/[m log(2π/mg)], where n c ≈ is the number density, m the mass of a particle, and g the coupling. In the unitary limit where the coupling g diverges, the two-body kernel of our integral equation has simple forms in both two and three spatial dimensions, and we were able to solve the integral equation numerically. Various scaling functions in the unitary limit are defined (as functions of µ/T ) and computed from the numerical solutions.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Theory and the Structure of Space-Time
    Quantum theory and the structure of space-time Tejinder Singh Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Homi Bhabha Road, Mumbai 400005, India ABSTRACT We argue that space and space-time emerge as a consequence of dynamical collapse of the wave function of macroscopic objects. Locality and separability are properties of our approximate, emergent universe. At the fundamental level, space-time is non-commutative, and dynamics is non-local and non-separable. I. SPACE-TIME IS NOT THE PERFECT ARENA FOR QUANTUM THEORY Space-time is absolute, in conventional classical physics. Its geometry is determined dy- namically by the distribution of classical objects in the universe. However, the underlying space-time manifold is an absolute given, providing the arena in which material bodies and fields exist. The same classical space-time arena is carried over to quantum mechanics and to quantum field theory, and it works beautifully there too. Well, almost! But not quite. In this essay we propose the thesis that the troubles of quantum theory arise because of the illegal carry-over of this classical arena. By troubles we mean the quantum measurement problem, the spooky action at a distance and the peculiar nature of quantum non-locality, the so-called problem of time in quantum theory, the extreme dependence of the theory on its classical limit, and the physical meaning of the wave function [1]. We elaborate on these in the next section. Then, in Section III, we propose that the correct arena for quantum theory is a non-commutative space-time: here there are no troubles. Classical space-time emerges as an approximation, as a consequence of dynamical collapse of the wave function.
    [Show full text]
  • Path Integrals in Quantum Mechanics
    Path Integrals in Quantum Mechanics Emma Wikberg Project work, 4p Department of Physics Stockholm University 23rd March 2006 Abstract The method of Path Integrals (PI’s) was developed by Richard Feynman in the 1940’s. It offers an alternate way to look at quantum mechanics (QM), which is equivalent to the Schrödinger formulation. As will be seen in this project work, many "elementary" problems are much more difficult to solve using path integrals than ordinary quantum mechanics. The benefits of path integrals tend to appear more clearly while using quantum field theory (QFT) and perturbation theory. However, one big advantage of Feynman’s formulation is a more intuitive way to interpret the basic equations than in ordinary quantum mechanics. Here we give a basic introduction to the path integral formulation, start- ing from the well known quantum mechanics as formulated by Schrödinger. We show that the two formulations are equivalent and discuss the quantum mechanical interpretations of the theory, as well as the classical limit. We also perform some explicit calculations by solving the free particle and the harmonic oscillator problems using path integrals. The energy eigenvalues of the harmonic oscillator is found by exploiting the connection between path integrals, statistical mechanics and imaginary time. Contents 1 Introduction and Outline 2 1.1 Introduction . 2 1.2 Outline . 2 2 Path Integrals from ordinary Quantum Mechanics 4 2.1 The Schrödinger equation and time evolution . 4 2.2 The propagator . 6 3 Equivalence to the Schrödinger Equation 8 3.1 From the Schrödinger equation to PI’s . 8 3.2 From PI’s to the Schrödinger equation .
    [Show full text]
  • 2. Classical Gases
    2. Classical Gases Our goal in this section is to use the techniques of statistical mechanics to describe the dynamics of the simplest system: a gas. This means a bunch of particles, flying around in a box. Although much of the last section was formulated in the language of quantum mechanics, here we will revert back to classical mechanics. Nonetheless, a recurrent theme will be that the quantum world is never far behind: we’ll see several puzzles, both theoretical and experimental, which can only truly be resolved by turning on ~. 2.1 The Classical Partition Function For most of this section we will work in the canonical ensemble. We start by reformu- lating the idea of a partition function in classical mechanics. We’ll consider a simple system – a single particle of mass m moving in three dimensions in a potential V (~q ). The classical Hamiltonian of the system3 is the sum of kinetic and potential energy, p~ 2 H = + V (~q ) 2m We earlier defined the partition function (1.21) to be the sum over all quantum states of the system. Here we want to do something similar. In classical mechanics, the state of a system is determined by a point in phase space.Wemustspecifyboththeposition and momentum of each of the particles — only then do we have enough information to figure out what the system will do for all times in the future. This motivates the definition of the partition function for a single classical particle as the integration over phase space, 1 3 3 βH(p,q) Z = d qd pe− (2.1) 1 h3 Z The only slightly odd thing is the factor of 1/h3 that sits out front.
    [Show full text]
  • How Classical Particles Emerge from the Quantum World
    Foundations of Physics manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) Dennis Dieks and Andrea Lubberdink How Classical Particles Emerge From the Quantum World Received: date / Accepted: date Abstract The symmetrization postulates of quantum mechanics (symmetry for bosons, antisymmetry for fermions) are usually taken to entail that quantum parti- cles of the same kind (e.g., electrons) are all in exactly the same state and therefore indistinguishable in the strongest possible sense. These symmetrization postulates possess a general validity that survives the classical limit, and the conclusion seems therefore unavoidable that even classical particles of the same kind must all be in the same state—in clear conflict with what we know about classical parti- cles. In this article we analyze the origin of this paradox. We shall argue that in the classical limit classical particles emerge, as new entities that do not correspond to the “particle indices” defined in quantum mechanics. Put differently, we show that the quantum mechanical symmetrization postulates do not pertain to particles, as we know them from classical physics, but rather to indices that have a merely for- mal significance. This conclusion raises the question of whether the discussions about the status of identical quantum particles have not been misguided from the very start. Keywords identical quantum particles ¢ indistinguishability ¢ classical particles ¢ emergence ¢ classical limit of quantum mechanics PACS 03.65+b 1 Introduction In classical physics, particles are the example par excellence of distinguishable individuals. No two classical particles can be in exactly the same physical state: in D. Dieks Institute for the History and Foundations of Science, Utrecht University P.O.Box 80.010, 3508 TA Utrecht, The Netherlands E-mail: [email protected] 2 Newtonian spacetime different particles will at least occupy different spatial po- sitions at any moment, because of their impenetrability.
    [Show full text]
  • Weyl Quantization and Wigner Distributions on Phase Space
    faculteit Wiskunde en Natuurwetenschappen Weyl quantization and Wigner distributions on phase space Bachelor thesis in Physics and Mathematics June 2014 Student: R.S. Wezeman Supervisor in Physics: Prof. dr. D. Boer Supervisor in Mathematics: Prof. dr H. Waalkens Abstract This thesis describes quantum mechanics in the phase space formulation. We introduce quantization and in particular the Weyl quantization. We study a general class of phase space distribution functions on phase space. The Wigner distribution function is one such distribution function. The Wigner distribution function in general attains negative values and thus can not be interpreted as a real probability density, as opposed to for example the Husimi distribution function. The Husimi distribution however does not yield the correct marginal distribution functions known from quantum mechanics. Properties of the Wigner and Husimi distribution function are studied to more extent. We calculate the Wigner and Husimi distribution function for the energy eigenstates of a particle trapped in a box. We then look at the semi classical limit for this example. The time evolution of Wigner functions are studied by making use of the Moyal bracket. The Moyal bracket and the Poisson bracket are compared in the classical limit. The phase space formulation of quantum mechanics has as advantage that classical concepts can be studied and compared to quantum mechanics. For certain quantum mechanical systems the time evolution of Wigner distribution functions becomes equivalent to the classical time evolution stated in the exact Egerov theorem. Another advantage of using Wigner functions is when one is interested in systems involving mixed states. A disadvantage of the phase space formulation is that for most problems it quickly loses its simplicity and becomes hard to calculate.
    [Show full text]