"Physical system" in quantum mechanics ?

microsansfil
Messages
325
Reaction score
43
Hello

In the usual Hibert-space formulation of quantum mechanics, to each physical system is attached a separable Hilbert Space (generally infine-dimentionnal) over complex field.

A crucial ingrediant in the description of a physical system is the notion of state and evolution of state, however what is a physical system ? Moreover, cutting physical system in "physical quantum object + environment" is arbitrary ?

Behind is the question about Quantum decoherence between physical quantum object and environment. This division into physical sub-system is it always trivial to do ?

Patrick
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This is a very good question!

In practice, I would say, one can say "what is a physical system" when one has the Hamiltonian. The Hamiltonian is a function of the form H(Q,P), and the system is essentially Q, that is, the set of all dynamical configuration variables.

The object/environment cut is arbitrary, but decoherence depends on this cut.
 
Last edited:
Here is one case where the subsystem seems difficult to define because the Hilbert space is not a tensor product of the Hilbert space of the subsystems: http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.7304. Donnelly is discussing the entanglement entropy which does depend on the reduced density matrix, just like decoherence.

Another place where it seems more natural to talk about the operators associated with subsystems is in strict quantum field theory, where one talks about operators at spacelike separation. When the Hilbert space is infinite dimensional, it seems that the full extent to which quantum mechanics violates the Bell inequalities is still unknown: http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.1142.
 
Last edited:
Demystifier said:
The object/environment cut is arbitrary, but decoherence depends on this cut.

This is the so called factoring problem.

It has led to a bit of debate on this forum.

A search will bring up the gory detail.

Thanks
Bill
 
bhobba said:
This is the so called factoring problem.

It has led to a bit of debate on this forum.

A search will bring up the gory detail.

Thanks
Bill

To find the debates on this interrogation, I use the filter "factoring problem" in my search on this forum ?

Patrick
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top