Programs Graduate Program in QM: Researching Foundations of Quantum Mechanics

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on strong graduate programs focused on the foundations of quantum mechanics, highlighting that while the foundational aspects are well-established, there remains active research, particularly in interpretations and mathematical frameworks. Participants note that foundational research includes topics like projective geometry and C*-algebraic approaches, which diverge from traditional interpretations. Recommendations for further reading include two key texts on C*-algebras and operator theory, as well as a book linking quantum mechanics to projective geometry. A graduate student from UT Austin shares their background in string theory and quantum information, expressing interest in the recommended literature. The conversation emphasizes the importance of a solid understanding of quantum mechanics and mathematics before delving into these advanced topics.
Kiki
Messages
21
Reaction score
1
What are strong graduate programs for researching foundations of quantum mechanics?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What do you mean? The foundations of quantum mechanics are pretty well established. Do you mean quantum field theory? String theory?
 
Atomic, molecular, and optical physics

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Dishsoap said:
What do you mean? The foundations of quantum mechanics are pretty well established.

The foundations of mathematics or of GR are very well established too. But there is still research on those things.
 
  • Like
Likes S.G. Janssens
Dishsoap said:
What do you mean?
The stuff people argue about incessantly in our Quantum Physics forum? :rolleyes: (Interpretations; Bell's Theorem and related things)
 
jtbell said:
The stuff people argue about incessantly in our Quantum Physics forum? :rolleyes:

Those silly discussions are about interpretations, which is foundations too of course. But there is other stuff. For example, you can do projective geometry and its relation to quantum mechanics, or you can do the C*-algebraic approach to quantum theory. Those are all very interesting foundational stuff that don't go into interpretations.
 
micromass said:
Those silly discussions are about interpretations, which is foundations too of course. But there is other stuff. For example, you can do projective geometry and its relation to quantum mechanics, or you can do the C*-algebraic approach to quantum theory. Those are all very interesting foundational stuff that don't go into interpretations.
I would love to read about such notions. Although google might help me out, but what references do you recommend?
 
Ravi Mohan said:
I would love to read about such notions. Although google might help me out, but what references do you recommend?

First I need to tell you that before reading such books, you should be acquainted with QM already, and also with the mathematics. Anyway, as an introduction, there are two very good books with surprisingly little overlap, so they're both important:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/9812835229/?tag=pfamazon01-20 This deals with C*-algebras and a bit of quantum logic.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1489993622/?tag=pfamazon01-20 Very good book from an operator theory perspective.

Then there's also Varadarajan for the link with projective geometry. https://www.amazon.com/dp/0387493859/?tag=pfamazon01-20

If you tell me the math and physics you're comfortable with, I might be able to give you a quick introductin to thee books.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes Ravi Mohan
micromass said:
If you tell me the math and physics you're comfortable with, I might be able to give you a quick introductin to thee books.
(Sorry for hijacking but I really find this interesting). I am a graduate student at UT Austin and my field of research is String Theory. In mathematics, I am quite familiar with rigged Hilbert Space formalism, differential geometry, topology and algebra. In physics I am comfortable with quantum mechanics, quantum field theory and general relativity (coordinate dependent/independent formalisms). I have taken graduate courses in physics topics I mentioned.

I have research experience in quantum information and algorithms (if that helps). Currently, I am also learning tensor networks and emerging spacetime geometry.
 
  • #10
Ravi Mohan said:
(Sorry for hijacking but I really find this interesting). I am a graduate student at UT Austin and my field of research is String Theory. In mathematics, I am quite familiar with rigged Hilbert Space formalism, differential geometry, topology and algebra. In physics I am comfortable with quantum mechanics (had 2 graduate courses in it), quantum field theory and general relativity (coordinate dependent/independent formalisms).

Cool! You should have no problems with the books then. The books don't do the rigged Hilbert space formalism though, although it is the best formalism for QM.

Anyway, Strocchi starts off immediately with the C*-algebraic approach. The idea is to make operators/observables the primary object of QM, and not the states. This results in a very natural approach to quantum mechanics. You basically see that QM is the exact same thing as classical mechanics, but only "made noncommutative". The usual Hilbert space formalism (and the rigged Hilbert space formalism actually) can be derived from the more natural C*-algebraic formalism. This is known as the Gelfand-Naimark-Segal construction.

As for quantum logic. The idea is that observables in QM are measurable functions to the Borel sigma-algebra of the reals. Quantum logic then approaches the subject by replacing this measurable function/sigma algebra by a more general structure. This structure essentially is projective geometry, which is quite surprising.

In Hall, quantum mechanics is derived from scratch but rigorously. Functional analysis is applied rigorously to the theory.
 
  • #11
micromass said:
Anyway, Strocchi starts off immediately with the C*-algebraic approach. The idea is to make operators/observables the primary object of QM, and not the states. This results in a very natural approach to quantum mechanics. You basically see that QM is the exact same thing as classical mechanics, but only "made noncommutative". The usual Hilbert space formalism (and the rigged Hilbert space formalism actually) can be derived from the more natural C*-algebraic formalism. This is known as the Gelfand-Naimark-Segal construction.

Interesting. I wonder how it pans out in CFTs where we have state-operator correspondence.

micromass said:
As for quantum logic. The idea is that observables in QM are measurable functions to the Borel sigma-algebra of the reals. Quantum logic then approaches the subject by replacing this measurable function/sigma algebra by a more general structure. This structure essentially is projective geometry, which is quite surprising.

In Hall, quantum mechanics is derived from scratch but rigorously. Functional analysis is applied rigorously to the theory.

Again, seems interesting. I will certainly try to read these texts. Thank you very much.
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
785
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
32
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
81
Back
Top