DOCSLIB.ORG

Why Do the Quantum Observables Form a Jordan Operator Algebra?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Why Do the Quantum Observables Form a Jordan Operator Algebra? Why do the quantum observables form a Jordan operator algebra? Gerd Niestegge Zillertalstrasse 39, D-81373 Muenchen, Germany Abstract. The Jordan algebra structure of the bounded real quantum observables was recognized already in the early days of quantum mechanics. While there are plausible reasons for most parts of this structure, the existence of the distributive non-associative multiplication operation is hard to justify from a physical or statistical point of view. Considering the non-Boolean extension of classical probabilities, presented in a recent paper, it is shown in the present paper that such a multiplication operation can be derived from certain properties of the conditional probabilities and the observables, i.e. from postulates with a clear statistical interpretation. The well-known close relation between Jordan operator algebras and C*-algebras then provides the connection to the quantum-mechanical Hilbert space formalism, thus resulting in a novel axiomatic approach to general quantum mechanics that includes the type II, III von Neumann algebras. Key Words: Foundations of quantum mechanics, quantum probability, quantum logic, Jordan operator algebras 1. Introduction A non-Boolean extension of classical probabilities was presented in [10]. The main purpose of [10] was to elaborate on the interpretation of the model and on some applications to quantum measurement. For that purpose, it was sufficient to consider finitely-additive probabilities. In the present paper, countably-additive probabilities are needed to study observables which are defined in an abstract way as the analogue of the classical random variables. It is shown that, under certain conditions, a multiplication operation exists on the system of bounded real-valued observables which form a Jordan operator algebra then. The associativity of the multiplication operation is equivalent to the classical case. Since almost all Jordan operator algebras can be represented on a Hilbert space, the non-Boolean extension of the classical probabilities thus provides an axiomatic access to quantum mechanics. Other axiomatic approaches to quantum mechanics start from different postulates including either an orthomodular partial ordering on the system of events (called propositions in the quantum logical approaches; e.g. [3,11,12,16]) or a distributive multiplication operation on the system of bounded real observables (e.g. [8,14,15]) or both (e.g. [13]). Postulating the existence of the distributive multiplication operation is hard to justify from a physical or statistical point of view (when using the so-called Segal product[13,14], the distributivity becomes a problem as pointed out in [15]), and the purely logical approaches are neither able to rule out some physically irrelevant cases [9] nor to cover the physically relevant type II,III von-Neumann 1 Gerd Niestegge Why do the quantum observables form a Jordan operator algebra? algebras (which do not contain the minimal events needed for the geometrical methods these approaches use). The approach of the present paper assumes a rather weak structure for the system of events (with a simple orthogonality relation instead of an orthomodular partial ordering); more important are certain statistically interpretable properties, postulated for the conditional probabilities and the observables, where the distributive multiplication operation can be derived from. This approach is closer to Kolmogorov's measure-theorectic access to classical probability theory than the other approaches. Moreover, the type II,III cases are included and the physically irrelevant cases discovered in [9] are excluded. 2. Non-Boolean probabilities An orthospace[10] is a set * with distinguished elements 0 and 1I , a relation ⊥ and a partial binary operation + such that for D,E,F∈*: (OS1) E⊥F ⇒ F⊥E (OS2) E+F is defined for E⊥F, and E+F=F+E (OS3) D⊥E, D⊥F, E⊥F ⇒ D⊥E+F, F⊥D+E and D+(E+F)=(D+E)+F (OS4) 0⊥E and E+0=E for all E∈* (OS5) For every E∈* there exists a unique E'∈* such that E⊥E' and E+E'=1I (OS6) E⊥F' ⇔ There exists a D∈* such that E⊥D and E+D=F We say "E and F are orthogonal" for E⊥F. (OS2,4,5) imply that 0'=1I and E''=E for E∈*. A further relation % is defined on * via: E % F :⇔ E⊥F' (E,F∈*). Then E % F if and only if * contains an element D such that D⊥E and F=E+D. Moreover, we have 0 % E % 1I for all E∈*. The relation % is reflexive by (OS4) or (OS5), but is not a partial ordering since it is neither anti-symmetric nor transitive in general. Therefore, the orthospace structure is far away from what is usually considered a quantum logic and is a rather weak structure the only purpose of which is to provide the opportunity to define states as an analogue of the classical probability measures. Further postulates concerning the states and conditional probabilities will be considered below and will then provide a sufficiently rich structure. A state on an orthospace* is a map µ:* → []0,1 such that µ()1I = 1 and µ()()()E +F = µE + µ F for all orthogonal pairs E,F∈*. Then µ()0 = 0 , and µ is additive for each finite family of pairwise orthogonal elements in *. (OS6) ensures that µ()()E ≤ µ F for E % F . σ Σ ∞ Definition 2.1: (i) A -orthospace is an orthospace * such that n=1 En is defined in * for every sequence of mutually orthogonal events En. µ σ σ µ Σ ∞ Σ ∞ µ (ii) A state on a -orthospace * is called -additive if ( n=1 En)= n=1 (En) for every sequence of mutually orthogonal events En. The elements E∈* are interpreted as events and will be called so in the following. Orthogonality means that the events exclude each other. The (only partially defined) operation + is interpreted as the or connection of mutually exclusive events, E′ is the negation of E. For a state µ, the interpretation of the real number µ(E) is that of the probability of the event E in the state µ. If µ is a state on an orthospace * and E∈* with µ(E)>0 and if ν is another state such that ν(F) = µ(F) µ(E) holds for all F∈* with F % E, then ν is called a conditional probability of µ , 2 Gerd Niestegge Why do the quantum observables form a Jordan operator algebra? under E. Essential shortcomings of this conditional probability are that such a state ν may not exist at all and that, if such a state exists, it may not be unique. The requirement that unique conditional probabilities must exist guides us to the following definition of σ-UCP spaces (which is the adaptation of the UCP spaces considered in [10] to σ-additive states). Definition 2.2: A σ-UCP space is a σ-orthospace * satisfying the following two axioms: (UC1) If E,F∈* and E≠F, then there is a σ-additive state µ with µ()()E ≠ µ F . (UC2) For each σ-additive state µ and E∈* with µ(E)>0, there exists one and only one σ- additive conditional probability µE of µ under E. µE(F) is the probability of the event F in the state µ after the event E has been observed. Using the same terminology as in mathematical probability theory, we will also write µ(F|E) for µE(F) in the sequel. If µ(E)=1, then µE=µ and µ(F|E)=µ(F) for all F∈*. There is a σ-additive state µ with µ(E)=1 for each element E≠0 in a σ-UCP space, since from (UC1) we get a σ-state ν with ν(E)>0, and then choose µ=νE. (UC1) implies the uniqueness of D in (OS6): E+D1=F=E+D2, then µ(E)+µ(D1)=µ(F)= µ(E)+µ(D2) for all σ-additive states µ, hence µ(D1)=µ(D2) for all σ-additive states µ and D1=D2. Moreover, if E % F and F % E for E,F∈*, then E=F; i.e. the relation % is anti-symmetric: If F=E+D1 and E=F+D2, then µ(F)=µ(E)+µ(D1)=µ(F)+µ(D2)+µ(D1), therefore µ(D1)=µ(D2)=0 for all σ-additive states µ, and D1=D2=0 by (UC1). Note that the relation % need not be transitive so far. Furthermore: E⊥E ⇔ E⊥1I ⇔ E=0 (If E⊥E, then E⊥E+E'=1I by (OS3,5). If E⊥1I , then E⊥0' and E'⊥0, i.e. E % 0 and 0 % E, hence E=0.). In [10], the concepts of statistical predictability (state-independence of the conditional probability) and compatibility have been introduced. The adaptation of these concepts to σ-UCP spaces is straight forward, but not needed for the purpose of the present paper. 3. Observables An observable is supposed to be the analogue of a classical random variable which is a measurable point function f between two measurable spaces. With the σ-UCP space model, there are no points, but only events. A closer look at classical probability theory shows that the map X allocating the event f -1(E) to the event E is more essential to the theory than f itself. The map X is a homomorphism between the σ-algebras of events. An observable is therefore defined as a homomorphism between two σ-orthospaces; similar but less general definitions of observables can be found in [4,12,16]. Definition 3.1: A map X from a σ-orthospace + to a σ-orthospace * is called an observable if (i) X(1I )=1I , (ii) X(E)⊥X(F) in * for all pairs E,F∈+ with E⊥F, and ∞ ∞ (iii) X ()∑F = ∑ X ()F for every sequence of mutually orthogonal events F in +.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Arxiv:2009.05574V4 [Hep-Th] 9 Nov 2020 Predict a New Massless Spin One Boson [The ‘Lorentz’ Boson] Which Should Be Looked for in Experiments
    Trace dynamics and division algebras: towards quantum gravity and unification Tejinder P. Singh Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Homi Bhabha Road, Mumbai 400005, India e-mail: [email protected] Accepted for publication in Zeitschrift fur Naturforschung A on October 4, 2020 v4. Submitted to arXiv.org [hep-th] on November 9, 2020 ABSTRACT We have recently proposed a Lagrangian in trace dynamics at the Planck scale, for unification of gravitation, Yang-Mills fields, and fermions. Dynamical variables are described by odd- grade (fermionic) and even-grade (bosonic) Grassmann matrices. Evolution takes place in Connes time. At energies much lower than Planck scale, trace dynamics reduces to quantum field theory. In the present paper we explain that the correct understanding of spin requires us to formulate the theory in 8-D octonionic space. The automorphisms of the octonion algebra, which belong to the smallest exceptional Lie group G2, replace space- time diffeomorphisms and internal gauge transformations, bringing them under a common unified fold. Building on earlier work by other researchers on division algebras, we propose the Lorentz-weak unification at the Planck scale, the symmetry group being the stabiliser group of the quaternions inside the octonions. This is one of the two maximal sub-groups of G2, the other one being SU(3), the element preserver group of octonions. This latter group, coupled with U(1)em, describes the electro-colour symmetry, as shown earlier by Furey. We arXiv:2009.05574v4 [hep-th] 9 Nov 2020 predict a new massless spin one boson [the `Lorentz' boson] which should be looked for in experiments.
    [Show full text]
  • Part I. Origin of the Species Jordan Algebras Were Conceived and Grew to Maturity in the Landscape of Physics
    1 Part I. Origin of the Species Jordan algebras were conceived and grew to maturity in the landscape of physics. They were born in 1933 in a paper \Uber VerallgemeinerungsmÄoglichkeiten des Formalismus der Quantenmechanik" by the physicist Pascual Jordan; just one year later, with the help of John von Neumann and Eugene Wigner in the paper \On an algebraic generalization of the quantum mechanical formalism," they reached adulthood. Jordan algebras arose from the search for an \exceptional" setting for quantum mechanics. In the usual interpretation of quantum mechanics (the \Copenhagen model"), the physical observables are represented by Hermitian matrices (or operators on Hilbert space), those which are self-adjoint x¤ = x: The basic operations on matrices or operators are multiplication by a complex scalar ¸x, addition x + y, multipli- cation xy of matrices (composition of operators), and forming the complex conjugate transpose matrix (adjoint operator) x¤. This formalism is open to the objection that the operations are not \observable," not intrinsic to the physically meaningful part of the system: the scalar multiple ¸x is not again hermitian unless the scalar ¸ is real, the product xy is not observable unless x and y commute (or, as the physicists say, x and y are \simultaneously observable"), and the adjoint is invisible (it is the identity map on the observables, though nontrivial on matrices or operators in general). In 1932 the physicist Pascual Jordan proposed a program to discover a new algebraic setting for quantum mechanics, which would be freed from dependence on an invisible all-determining metaphysical matrix structure, yet would enjoy all the same algebraic bene¯ts as the highly successful Copenhagen model.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1106.4415V1 [Math.DG] 22 Jun 2011 R,Rno Udai Form
    JORDAN STRUCTURES IN MATHEMATICS AND PHYSICS Radu IORDANESCU˘ 1 Institute of Mathematics of the Romanian Academy P.O.Box 1-764 014700 Bucharest, Romania E-mail: [email protected] FOREWORD The aim of this paper is to offer an overview of the most important applications of Jordan structures inside mathematics and also to physics, up- dated references being included. For a more detailed treatment of this topic see - especially - the recent book Iord˘anescu [364w], where sugestions for further developments are given through many open problems, comments and remarks pointed out throughout the text. Nowadays, mathematics becomes more and more nonassociative (see 1 § below), and my prediction is that in few years nonassociativity will govern mathematics and applied sciences. MSC 2010: 16T25, 17B60, 17C40, 17C50, 17C65, 17C90, 17D92, 35Q51, 35Q53, 44A12, 51A35, 51C05, 53C35, 81T05, 81T30, 92D10. Keywords: Jordan algebra, Jordan triple system, Jordan pair, JB-, ∗ ∗ ∗ arXiv:1106.4415v1 [math.DG] 22 Jun 2011 JB -, JBW-, JBW -, JH -algebra, Ricatti equation, Riemann space, symmet- ric space, R-space, octonion plane, projective plane, Barbilian space, Tzitzeica equation, quantum group, B¨acklund-Darboux transformation, Hopf algebra, Yang-Baxter equation, KP equation, Sato Grassmann manifold, genetic alge- bra, random quadratic form. 1The author was partially supported from the contract PN-II-ID-PCE 1188 517/2009. 2 CONTENTS 1. Jordan structures ................................. ....................2 § 2. Algebraic varieties (or manifolds) defined by Jordan pairs ............11 § 3. Jordan structures in analysis ....................... ..................19 § 4. Jordan structures in differential geometry . ...............39 § 5. Jordan algebras in ring geometries . ................59 § 6. Jordan algebras in mathematical biology and mathematical statistics .66 § 7.
    [Show full text]
  • Structure and Representations of Noncommutative Jordan Algebras
    STRUCTURE AND REPRESENTATIONS OF NONCOMMUTATIVE JORDAN ALGEBRAS BY KEVIN McCRIMMON(i) 1. Introduction. The first three sections of this paper are devoted to proving an analogue of N. Jacobson's Coordinatization Theorem [6], [7] for noncom- mutative Jordan algebras with n ^ 3 "connected" idempotents which charac- terizes such algebras as commutative Jordan algebras £)CD„,y) or split quasi- associative algebras £>„(;i).The proof proceeds by using certain deformations of the algebra and the base field which reduce the theorem to the special cases when the "indicator" 0 is ^ or 0, and then using the Peirce decomposition to show that in these cases the algebra is commutative or associative respectively. Next we develop the standard structure theory, using the Coordinatization Theorem to classify the simple algebras. The usual approach of A. A. Albert [2], [3] and R. H. Oehmke [9] proceeds by constructing an admissable trace function on the algebra 31 to show that ÎI + is a simple Jordan algebra, and then characterizing the possible multiplications in 31 yielding a given such 3I+. Our approach is in some sense more intrinsic, and has the advantage of dealing simul- taneously with all characteristics different from 2 ; the results for characteristic 3 seem to be new. Another advantage of using the Coordinatization Theorem is that it furnishes a representation theory (in the sense of Eilenberg [4]) for the class of noncom- mutative Jordan algebras. The usual theorems hold only for birepresentations involving algebras of degree _ 3 ; counterexamples are given to show they fail spectacularly for algebras of degree 1 or 2. In this paper 2t will always denote a noncommutative Jordan algebra (not necessarily finite-dimensional) over a field 3> of characteristic ^ 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Pre-Jordan Algebras
    MATH. SCAND. 112 (2013), 19–48 PRE-JORDAN ALGEBRAS DONGPING HOU, XIANG NI and CHENGMING BAI∗ Abstract The purpose of this paper is to introduce and study a notion of pre-Jordan algebra. Pre-Jordan algebras are regarded as the underlying algebraic structures of the Jordan algebras with a nondegen- erate symplectic form. They are the algebraic structures behind the Jordan Yang-Baxter equation and Rota-Baxter operators in terms of O-operators of Jordan algebras introduced in this paper. Pre-Jordan algebras are analogues for Jordan algebras of pre-Lie algebras and fit into a bigger framework with a close relationship with dendriform algebras. The anticommutator of a pre- Jordan algebra is a Jordan algebra and the left multiplication operators give a representation of the Jordan algebra, which is the beauty of such a structure. Furthermore, we introduce a notion of O-operator of a pre-Jordan algebra which gives an analogue of the classicalYang-Baxter equation in a pre-Jordan algebra. 1. Introduction 1.1. Motivations Jordan algebras were first studied in the 1930s in the context of axiomatic quantum mechanics ([6]) and appeared in many areas of mathematics like differential geometry ([30], [19], [35], [37], [44]), Lie theory ([31], [34]) and analysis ([37], [48]). A Jordan algebra can be regarded as an “opposite” of a Lie algebra in the sense that the commutator of an associative algebra is a Lie algebra and the anticommutator of an associative algebra is a Jordan algebra, although not every Jordan algebra is isomorphic to the anticommutator of an associative algebra (such a Jordan algebra is called special, otherwise, it is called exceptional).
    [Show full text]
  • Smarandache Non-Associative Rings
    SMARANDACHE NON-ASSOCIATIVE RINGS W. B. Vasantha Kandasamy Department of Mathematics Indian Institute of Technology, Madras Chennai – 600036, India e-mail: [email protected] web: http://mat.iitm.ac.in/~wbv Definition: Generally, in any human field, a Smarandache Structure on a set A means a weak structure W on A such that there exists a proper subset B ⊂ A which is embedded with a stronger structure S. These types of structures occur in our everyday's life, that's why we study them in this book. Thus, as a particular case: A Non-associative ring is a non-empty set R together with two binary operations '+' and '.' such that (R, +) is an additive abelian group and (R, .) is a groupoid. For all a, b, c ∈ R we have (a + b) . c = a . c + b . c and c . (a + b) = c . a + c . b. A Smarandache non-associative ring is a non-associative ring (R, +, .) which has a proper subset P ⊂ R, that is an associative ring (with respect to the same binary operations on R). 2 CONTENTS Preface 5 1. BASIC CONCEPTS 1 .1 B a sic s o f v e c to r sp a c e a n d b ilin e a r fo rm s 7 1 .2 S m a ra n d a c h e v e c to r sp a c e s 8 1 .3 B a sic d e fin itio n s o f o th e r a lg e b ra ic stru c tu re s 1 1 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Non-Associative Rings and Algebras
    AIJREAS VOLUME 3, ISSUE 2(2018, FEB) (ISSN-2455-6300) ONLINE ANVESHANA’S INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN ENGINEERING AND APPLIED SCIENCES NON-ASSOCIATIVE RINGS AND ALGEBRAS S. LALITHA Mr. SRINIVASULU Mr. MALLIKARJUN Research Scholar Supervisor REDDY Lecturer in mathematics, Sk University Co-Supervisor Govt Degree College Sk university yerraguntla, kurnool (dist) [email protected] ABSTRACT: before that time. By now a pattern is Non associative algebras can be applied, either emerging, for certain finite-dimensional directly or using their particular methods, to many algebras at least, and this paper is an other branches of Mathematics and other Sciences. exposition of some of the principal results Here emphasis will be given to two concrete applications of non associative algebras. In the first achieved recently in the structure and one, an application to group theory in the line of the representation of finite-dimensional non Restricted Burnside Problem will be considered. The associative algebras. A. A. Albert has been second one opens a door to some applications of non- the prime mover in this study. The depth and associative algebras to Error correcting Codes and scope of the results, at least for one class of Cryptography. I. INTRODUCTION non associative algebras, may be judged by By a non-associative algebra is meant a the fact that N. Jacobson will give the vector space which is equipped with a Colloquium lectures at the Summer Meeting bilinear multiplication. If the multiplication of the Society on the topic of Jordan is associative, we have the familiar notion of algebras. Except for this reference to these an associative algebra.
    [Show full text]
  • John Von Neumann and the Theory of Operator Algebras *
    John von Neumann and the Theory of Operator Algebras * D´enes Petz 1 and Mikl´os R´edei 2 After some earlier work on single operators, von Neumann turned to families of operators in [1]. He initiated the study of rings of operators which are commonly called von Neumann algebras today. The papers which constitute the series “Rings of operators” opened a new field in mathematics and influenced research for half a century (or even longer). In the standard theory of modern operator algebras, many concepts and ideas have their origin in von Neumann’s work. Since its inception, operator algebra theory has been in intimate relation to physics. The mathematical formalism of quantum theory was one of the motivations leading naturally to algebras of Hilbert space operators. After decades of relative isolation, again physics fertil- ized the operator algebra theory by mathematical questions of quantum statistical mechanics and quantum field theory. The objective of the present article is two-fold. On the one hand, to sketch the early development of von Neumann algebras, to show how the fundamental classi- fication of algebras emerged from the lattice of projections. These old ideas of von Neumann and Murray revived much later in connection with Jordan operator al- gebras and the K-theory of C*-algebras. On the other hand, to review briefly some relatively new developments such as the classification of hyperfinite factors, the index theory of subfactors and elements of Jordan algebras. These developments are con- nected to the programs initiated by von Neumann himself. The last part of the paper is devoted to those topics of operator algebra theory which are closest to physical applications.
    [Show full text]
  • Geometric and Algebraic Approaches to Quantum Theory
    Geometric and algebraic approaches to quantum theory A. Schwarz Department of Mathematics University of California Davis, CA 95616, USA, schwarz @math.ucdavis.edu Abstract We show how to formulate quantum theory taking as a starting point the set of states (geometric approach). We discuss the equations of motion and the formulas for probabilities of physical quantities in this approach. A heuristic proof of decoherence in our setting is used to justify the formulas for probabili- ties. We show that quantum theory can be obtained from classical theory if we restrict the set of observables. This remark can be used to construct models with any prescribed group of symmetries; one can hope that this construc- tion leads to new interesting models that cannot be build in the conventional framework. The geometric approach can be used to formulate quantum theory in terms of Jordan algebras, generalizing the algebraic approach to quantum theory. The scattering theory can be formulated in geometric approach. 1 Introduction arXiv:2102.09176v3 [quant-ph] 3 Jul 2021 Let us start with some very general considerations. Almost all physical theories are based on the notion of state at the moment t. The set of states will be denoted C0. We can consider mixtures of states: taking states ωi with probabilities pi we obtain the mixed state denoted piωi. Similarly if we have a family of states ω(λ) labeled by elements of a set Λ andP a probability distribution on Λ ( a positive measure µ on Λ obeying µ(Λ) = 1) we can talk about the mixed state Λ ω(λ)dµ.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Free Jordan Algebras
    On the Free Jordan Algebras Iryna Kashuba† and Olivier Mathieu‡ †IME, University of Sao Paulo, Rua do Mat˜ao, 1010, 05586080 S˜ao Paulo, [email protected] ‡Institut Camille Jordan du CNRS, Universit´ede Lyon, F-69622 Villeurbanne Cedex, [email protected] October 16, 2019 Abstract A conjecture for the dimension and the character of the homogenous components of the free Jordan algebras is proposed. As a support of the conjecture, some numerical evidences are generated by a computer and some new theoretical results are proved. One of them is the cyclicity of the Jordan operad. arXiv:1910.06841v1 [math.RT] 15 Oct 2019 Introduction. Let K be a field of characteristic zero and let J(D) be the free Jordan algebra with D generators x1,...xD over K. Then J(D)= ⊕n≥1 Jn(D) where Jn(D) consists of all degree n homogenous Jordan polynomials in the variables x1,...xD. The aim of this paper is a conjecture about the character, as a GL(D)-module, of each homogenous component Jn(D) of J(D). In the introduction, only the conjecture for dim Jn(D) will be described, see Section 1.10 for the whole Conjecture 1. 1 Conjecture 1 (weakest version). Set an = dim Jn(D). The sequence an is the unique solution of the following equation: ∞ n −1 2n an (E) Rest=0 ψ Qn (1 − z (t + t )+ z ) dt =0, where ψ = Dzt−1 + (1 − Dz) − t. It is easy to see that equation E provides a recurrence relation to uniquely determine the integers an, but we do not know a closed formula.
    [Show full text]
  • Non-Associative Algebras and Quantum Physics
    Manfred Liebmann, Horst R¨uhaak, Bernd Henschenmacher Non-Associative Algebras and Quantum Physics A Historical Perspective September 11, 2019 arXiv:1909.04027v1 [math-ph] 7 Sep 2019 Contents 1 Pascual Jordan’s attempts to generalize Quantum Mechanics .............. 3 2 The 1930ies: Jordan algebras and some early speculations concerning a “fundamental length” ................................................... .. 5 3 The 1950ies: Non-distributive “algebras” .................................. 17 4 The late 1960ies: Giving up power-associativity and a new idea about measurements ................................................... .......... 33 5 Horst R¨uhaak’s PhD-thesis: Matrix algebras over the octonions ........... 41 6 The Fundamental length algebra and Jordan’s final ideas .................. 47 7 Lawrence Biedenharn’s work on non-associative quantum mechanics ....... 57 8 Recent developments ................................................... ... 63 9 Acknowledgements ................................................... ..... 67 10 References ................................................... .............. 69 Contents 1 Summary. We review attempts by Pascual Jordan and other researchers, most notably Lawrence Biedenharn to generalize quantum mechanics by passing from associative matrix or operator algebras to non-associative algebras. We start with Jordan’s work from the early 1930ies leading to Jordan algebras and the first attempt to incorporate the alternative ring of octonions into physics. Jordan’s work on the octonions from 1932
    [Show full text]
  • Representation of Jordan and Lie Algebras
    REPRESENTATION OF JORDAN AND LIE ALGEBRAS BY GARRETT BIRKHOFF AND PHILIP M. WHITMAN« 1. Introduction. In a linear associative algebra A one can introduce a new product B(x, y) in terms of the given operations by setting (1) 6(x, y) = axy + ßyx, where a and ß are scalars independent of x and y, a and ß not both zero. Albert [3] observes(2) that if a linear subset 5 of A is closed under 0 (in par- ticular, if 5 is A itself) then 5 is of one of three types: 5 is an associative algebra, closed under the given multiplication xy; or 5 is a Lie algebra with product obtained by setting a = l and ß= — 1 in (1): (2) [x, y] = yx - xy; or 5 is a Jordan algebra with product obtained by setting a=ß = l/2 in (1): (3) x-y = (xy + yx)/2. We propose to study various generalizations, properties, and representa- tions of Lie and Jordan algebras. 2. Definitions and problems. We begin with a generalization of the idea of equation (1) of the previous section. Let 21 be any set of abstract algebras (3) closed under given M¿-ary basic operations /,-, and let 9 be any set of operations 0x, • • • , 0n obtained by compounding the/,-. If A G21, then the elements of A together with the opera- tions di, • • • , 6n form an algebra 0(^4). All algebras which can be obtained in this manner for fixed 0 [and hence fixed 21] are called 0-algebras. Clearly the definition of ©(.4) is also applicable to the case where A is closed under the 0i but not under the/,-; we consider examples of this in Theorems 8-10 Presented to the Society, August 23, 1946, under the title Representation theory for certain non-associative algebras; received by the editors December 8, 1947.
    [Show full text]