Understanding Superposition Physically and Mathematically

  • Thread starter Thread starter jambaugh
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Superposition
Click For Summary
Superposition is explored through both classical and quantum mechanics, emphasizing the transition from classical logic, represented by set algebra, to quantum logic. The discussion highlights the representation of classical states as vectors on an n-dimensional sphere and suggests using probability distributions as a bridge to quantum mechanics. A Markov chain example illustrates the complexity of transitioning from classical to quantum states, leading to the need for a complex state definition. The application of modern interpretations of Gleason's Theorem is proposed as a foundation for developing quantum mechanics. Overall, the conversation underscores the importance of applying mathematical formalism to real-world problems in quantum theory.
jambaugh
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
Messages
2,376
Reaction score
348

Attachments

  • Superposition.jpg
    Superposition.jpg
    590 bytes · Views: 282
  • Superposition.jpg
    Superposition.jpg
    590 bytes · Views: 276
  • Superposition.jpg
    Superposition.jpg
    590 bytes · Views: 397
  • Superposition.jpg
    Superposition.jpg
    590 bytes · Views: 409
  • Superposition.jpg
    Superposition.jpg
    590 bytes · Views: 338
  • Superposition.jpg
    Superposition.jpg
    590 bytes · Views: 146
  • Superposition.jpg
    Superposition.jpg
    590 bytes · Views: 137
  • Superposition.jpg
    Superposition.jpg
    590 bytes · Views: 161
  • Superposition.jpg
    Superposition.jpg
    590 bytes · Views: 152
  • Superposition.jpg
    Superposition.jpg
    590 bytes · Views: 161
  • Superposition.jpg
    Superposition.jpg
    590 bytes · Views: 158
  • Superposition.jpg
    Superposition.jpg
    590 bytes · Views: 157
  • Superposition.jpg
    Superposition.jpg
    590 bytes · Views: 145
  • Superposition.jpg
    Superposition.jpg
    590 bytes · Views: 156
  • Superposition.jpg
    Superposition.jpg
    590 bytes · Views: 112
  • Superposition.jpg
    Superposition.jpg
    590 bytes · Views: 100
  • Superposition.jpg
    Superposition.jpg
    590 bytes · Views: 96
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes bhobba, Mentz114, fresh_42 and 1 other person
Physics news on Phys.org
Classical logic is concretely expressed using the algebra of sets.
Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/understanding-superposition/

As I remember the article Quantum mechanics made transparent. by Richard C. Henry, it makes the argument that probability distributions for classical states can be conveniently represented by vectors that lie on the surface of an n-dimensional sphere (or equivalence classes of rays that pass through such points).

Perhaps there is a way to present the transistion between classical logic and quantum mechanics in a more gradual manner instead of the jump from the logic of sets to the methods of QM. The properties of probability distributions on classical states could be an intermediate step.
 
After thinking about this for a number of years now I finally decided on the following as a reasonable motivation for QM. Consider a simple Markov chain for turning a coin over each second. Its matrix, A, is dead simple, 0's on the main diagonal and 1's otherwise. Now we ask a simple question - what happens if we want to generalise this to what's going on at 1/2 second. We need to find the matrix B such that B^2 = A. Thats not a hard exercise in linear algebra, but low and behold, it's complex. Apply it to the starting state of the Markov chain and what do you get - a complex state. How are we to make sense of this? Well we define this thing called a POV and apply the modern easier version of Gleason's Theorem. From that you basically get the two axioms in Ballentine and QM can be developed from that. But - and this is a key point - you need to show how to apply the formalism to problems just like anything in applied math. The following is a good start along those lines:
https://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec9.html

Thanks
Bill
 
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
903