What is normally meant by quantizing a classical theory, versus Hardy's axioms

In summary, Loop and Paden discuss Hardy's axioms of quantum theory and the concept of quantizing a classical theory. Quantizing involves turning classical functions into operators on a Hilbert space and selecting a set of elementary observables. However, the procedure of quantization is not always unambiguous and can be seen as an art rather than an algorithm. On the other hand, second quantization is more straightforward and routine. There have been attempts to find a geometric meaning for quantization, but it is not widely used in modern physics. In the case of QCD, the modern method of turning classical Lagrangian into field operators bypasses the process of quantization, but it still has some ambiguities and issues
  • #1
marcus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
24,775
792
Loop and Paden have brought up Hardy's axioms of quantum theory

what do you think is usually meant by quantizing a classical (non-quantum) theory? And how does this connect to these axioms of what a quantum theory ought to be

Here is a mainstream summary description of what quantizing means:

(just quoting from a June 2002 paper by Bojowald)

"Quantization consists in turning functions on the phase space of a given classical system into operators acting on a Hilbert space associated with the quantized system.

To construct this map one selects a set of 'elementary' observables, like (q,p) in quantum mechanics, which
generate all functions on the phase space and form a subalgebra
of the classical Poisson algebra. This subalgebra has to be
mapped homomorphically into the quantum operator algebra, turning real observables into selfadjoint operators..."
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The quote you give is indeed the usual meaning of 'first quantisation', i.e., finding a quantum mechanical analogue to a classical theory. (This is distinct from 'second quantisation', which is passing from a quantum mechanical theory to a quantum field theory by quantising again.)
You understand what you quoted? A simple example is the classical harmonic oscillator has
$H=p^2+q^2$ on the Euclidean plane coordinatised by $p$ and $q$, so this is a function of two variables. To quantise this, you simply take the same equation but now interpret $p$ as the operator on square integrable functions of the p-variable, i.e., one-variable functions, and the operator is multiplication by the coordinate function $p$. Then $q$ is $-i\frac\del{\del p}$ and $H$ now describes a quantum system with state space $L^2(p$-axis).

It is not always so easy to figure out how to pick the formula for $H$...if $H$ could be written in different ways that were the same when $p$ and $q$ commute, for example, $H=p^2 + 2pq + q^2$ which of course equals $H=(p+q)^2$, then one would not be sure which quantisation to pick, because if these two formulas are interpreted as operators, they no longer agree. So the procedure of quantisation is not unambiguous. Quantisation is an art, not an algorithm. (Second quantisation is routine and unambiguous.)

Souriau, Kostant, and Michelle Vergne devoted a good deal of attention to trying to find a geometric meaning and procedure for quantisation, but they were mathematicians and I never heard that many physicists took it up. They basically agree with what you quote but try to define it more abstractly, without a choice of coordinates, i.e., they did not mind their p's and q's.

I have looked some at Hardy's papers and don't quite see that he is doing anything like this, although I might be mistaken. In fact, I do not even think he has quite reconstructed orthodox Quantum Mechanics except in the finite dimensional case, so I do not quite see how he can do anything like quantisation. See the answer on stack exchange to a related query, http://physics.stackexchange.com/qu...ity-distribution-the-wave-function-or-the-den
 
  • #3
andrebourbaki said:
(This is distinct from 'second quantisation', which is passing from a quantum mechanical theory to a quantum field theory by quantising again.)
Historically and as an introduction to QFT this is OK, but it does not reflect modern physical methods. Looking at QCD (in canonical quantization) as an example there is no such thing as first quantization. You take a classical Lagrangian, derive the canonical fields and turn them into field operators. There is no quantum mechanical system that is quantized a second time.

andrebourbaki said:
(Second quantisation is routine and unambiguous.)
Definitly not! It is plagued by ordering ambiguities, violation of classical operator algebras (anomalies, look at quantum gravity where off-shell closure has not been proven), missing global definition of physical fields (gauge fixing issues and Gribov ambiguities, look at QCD again), infinities (strictly speaking non-existence of the quantum field theory!), ...
 
  • #4
Dear Tom:
In the procedure you mention, which is more modern, you are of course right that it bypasses what the questioner and I call quantisation, or 'first quantisation', which is all that is really relevant to Hardy and the question, anyway. Precisely since it bypassed this step, and, as you point out, there is no QM system being re-quantised, the order ambiguities that would have been solved in that step are still there. All I said was that second quantisation in the sense I meant it, the older-fashioned sense, was free from such ambiguities and doing it as a process was routine. (I of course didn't mean to imply that the system you got as a result of that process was a system whose solution would be cut and dried, I was only talking about the decisions needed to appy that process.) Do QIT people ever consider the differences between the QM they seem to work with and QFT anyway? Do you think those differences might be important for what they are trying to do?
 
  • #5
@andrebourbaki: we agree regarding QFT / quantization of fields in general; regarding QIT I can't make any reasonable comments
 

What is quantizing a classical theory?

Quantizing a classical theory refers to the process of applying principles from quantum mechanics to a classical physical theory. This involves replacing classical variables with quantum operators and using quantum equations to describe the dynamics of the system.

What are Hardy's axioms?

Hardy's axioms, also known as the Hardy postulates, are a set of axioms proposed by physicist Lucien Hardy that define the basic principles of quantum theory. These axioms include the existence of a quantum state, the superposition principle, and the collapse of the wave function upon measurement.

How is quantizing a classical theory different from applying Hardy's axioms?

Quantizing a classical theory involves using quantum mechanics to describe a classical system, while applying Hardy's axioms involves defining the basic principles of quantum theory. Essentially, quantizing a classical theory is a specific application of Hardy's axioms.

Why is quantizing a classical theory important?

Quantizing a classical theory allows us to better understand and describe physical phenomena that cannot be explained by classical physics. It has led to many important developments in fields such as particle physics, condensed matter physics, and cosmology.

What challenges are involved in quantizing a classical theory?

Quantizing a classical theory is a difficult and ongoing process that involves reconciling the principles of quantum mechanics with those of classical physics. Some of the challenges involved include the measurement problem, the interpretation of quantum mechanics, and the mathematical complexity of quantum equations.

Similar threads

  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
0
Views
1K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
36
Views
3K
  • Quantum Physics
3
Replies
75
Views
7K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
36
Views
4K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
145
Views
36K
Back
Top