1. Introduction
The traditionally view of
quantization (TQ) is as follows:
Thus, quantization, as traditionally understood, depends on the assumption that
ℏ is fundamental to what constitutes quantum mechanics, and the limit
is referred to as the "classical limit."
ℏ being a constant of nature, the limit
means that
ℏ is small compared to other quantum numbers. In this sense, quantum mechanics is related to classical mechanics in the sense of physicist’s reductionism [
1]. This is the same way that Galilean relativity is derived from special relativity at velocities small enough compared to the speed of light, i.e. in the
limit. Given this reductionist perspective, it is therefore easy to accept the traditional view of quantization, with
ℏ being a crucial part of what constitutes quantum mechanics.
Even if ignoring the question of whether
can be considered a properly defined mathematical limit [
2,
3], the reductionist view of what constitutes the essence of quantum mechanics is still plagued by a major problem. This problem is that
ℏ is not inherent to the formalism of quantum mechanics.
In the modern account of quantum mechanics it is viewed as a purely probabilistic incorporating the concept of contextuality, i.e an observables inherent dependence on the actual context of measurement. As an example of contextuality, consider the double-slit experiment. A measurement of A—determining which slit the electron passed through—necessarily involves closing one of the slits. If a flash appears on the fluorescent screen, the electron must have passed through the open slit. The act of closing one slit is part of what constitutes the measurement of A, and therefore the measurement is not realized in the context of both slits being open. This by itself does not mean that A has no meaning without an actual measurement being performed. Rather, it means that A is manifested in a specific way through measurement, and that the way in which it is manifested matters. The way that it matters is that it turns up as an actual observable phenomenon. This is the phenomenon of quantum interference.
In [
4], Feynman showed that quantum interference can be viewed as a ’violation’ of the formula of total probability as known from classical probability theory. He not only suggested that this is the quantum phenomenon, but also that it is the sense in which the double-slit experiment is non-classical. That is, he claimed it to be ’non-classical’ because it violates classical probability theory. In contrast, he noted that the formalism of quantum mechanics can account for the interference phenomenon. From this, he concluded that the formalism of quantum mechanics corresponds not only to a probability theory, but also to a ’non-classical’ probability theory.
However, as Ballentine [
5] and Koopman [
6] have both correctly pointed out, there is no violation of the formula of total probability, as it is not expected to hold in the first place. Feynman overlooked the fact that in the double-slit experiment, three different measurement contexts were considered: first slit covered, second slit covered, and both open. Taking these into account, the formula of total probability is not expected to hold. The relevance of the different measurement contexts—contextuality—is not a violation of classical probability theory, but rather an inherent part of probability, as emphasized by Kolmogorov [
7]. There is no ’classical’ or ’non-classical’ probability theory, only probability theory, and the formalism of quantum mechanics is in complete agreement with it.
Remark 1. Note, this is not saying classical mechanics can account for the double-slit experiment. In fact, it cannot. It is just saying, that it does not violate ’classical’ probability theory. So it is not ’non-classical’ in the probabilistic sense.
Feynman was, however, correct in his assessment of the significance of the ’violation’ of the formula of total probability with regards to its relevance to quantum mechanics. In [
8,
9], within the framework of contextual probability theory, the ’violation’ of the formula of total probability—more appropriately referred to as the
interference term—is formalized as a measure of contextuality. In this formalism, when there is contextuality, it is manifested in the quantum formalism through the occurrence of non-commuting quantum observables.
Remark 2. It should be clear from this that contextuality is not itself something inherently connected with the occurrence of ℏ. Hence there is neither from this perspective some inherent connection between the traditional view of quantization—statement (TQ)—and the modern probabilistic view of quantum mechanics.
In the Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment, it is with regards to contextuality that that the supposed paradox appears: Consider the pure quantum state,
and its corresponding mixed state,
With regards to the ’dead/alive’ observable, both states result in the same probability distribution for its potential outcomes. However, when considering a potential observable
O that does not commute with the ’dead/alive’ observable, these states result in differing probability distributions:
where
denotes an arbitrary eigenstate of
O. This difference is exactly equal to the interference term. In the Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment, the ’dead/alive’ observable is manifested as the act of opening a box and checking if the cat is dead or alive. If there is a non-zero interference term, it would result in contextuality, meaning the ’dead/alive’ observable would be context-dependent. This would then mean that
death would be inherently dependent on the manner in which it is checked. Therein lies the paradox.
Remark 3. Of course, quantum mechanics does not dictate that every observable property—such as death—corresponds to a quantum observable. The Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment should therefore not be taken as an empirical statement, but rather as an illustration of the weirdness of contextuality, and perhaps as a argument that not all observables can be represented as quantum observables. This is a known issue in other areas of physics, for example, there can’t be a superposition between states of different charges, as this would violate charge conservation. Rules prohibiting such superpositions are commonly referred to as superselection rules [10]. These will be discussed further in this article. It is possible that there are superselection rules in place preventing superpositions of the type in equation (1).
With Remark 3 in mind, it is nonetheless fruitful to consider an equivalent way in which contextuality could manifest in a Schrödinger’s cat-type scenario through a unitary time-evolution. Imagine introducing a time-evolution operator of the form:
This form could be made sensible by assuming that the cat is not expected to die for the duration of interest, unless the radioactive isotope suddenly decays—i.e. a wave-function collapse occurs. With respect to this time-evolution, (
1) transforms non-trivially, while (
2) transforms trivially, offering a means of discerning a pure from a mixed state. This difference manifests as a difference in the interference term and hence corresponds to contextuality, as proven in more generality in the author’s previous work [
11]. Moreover, in [
11], it was shown that classical statistical mechanics manifests contextuality in this sense.
This was done in [
11] by reformulation classical statistical mechanics in the Hilbert space formalism of quantum mechanics in what is commonly known as the Koopman-von Neumann formulation [
12,
13,
14]. We briefly present it here in terms of it more modern formulation [
15]. Let
U correspond to a Hamiltonian flow on a phase space
associated with a Hamiltonian function
H. We unitarily represent
U on the Hilbert space Hilbert space
as
where
is any
U-invariant measure—e.g such as
, with
being canonical coordinates on
. In contrast to ordinary non-relativistic quantum mechanics (OQM), in which the operators
and
satisfy the canonical commutation relations (CCR),
the operators
and
here instead commute. These are here instead defined as:
for all
. According to the Born’s rule, a state
gives rise to a probability distribution over phase space as
. Moreover, this distribution satisfies the (integrated) Liouville equation,
The eigenstates
of the Liouvillian,
hence correspond to thermodynamic equilibria, and consequently arbitrary superpositions of such,
correspond to non-equilibria, as they are not stationary in time. As a result, we find ourselves in a similar situation to the Schrödinger’s cat scenario discussed earlier. In this scenario, the pure state described by equation (
10) can be differentiated from its corresponding mixed state,
through the use of the unitary time evolution operator
. This demonstrates contextuality in classical statistical mechanics.
Indeed, only in terms of the observables in KvN of the form
, there is no contextuality [
16]. The Liouvillian, however, is not an observable of this form. There is nothing inherent to KvN that prohibits the interpretation of the Liouvillian as an observable. For example, even if arguing in the style of algebraic quantum mechanics [
17], such as the algebra
subjected to the action,
of the time-evolution
U, the Liouvillian is not part of this algebra—in corresponds to an outer rather than an inner automorphism of the algebra—but this does not exclude it as a potential observable. This means that the Liouvillian can only be an observable in representations
of this algebra if there also exists a representation
of
U such that
which is exactly what KvN is. It does not mean that, in general, the Liouvillian cannot be an observable.
Remark 4. In classical statistical mechanics, it is generally believed that states correspond to statistical ensembles, meaning that a gas described by a probability distribution in phase space is considered to be in a definite state at all times, represented by a point in phase space. Einstein believed that probability would play a similar role in quantum mechanics as it did in classical statistical mechanics, in the sense of being reducible to "incomplete knowledge" of the system’s exact state [18]. However, the results of [11] suggest that this ensemble interpretation was never viable in classical statistical mechanics in the first place and hence remove the very reason for imposing it upon OQM. Instead, it suggests that the problem with the foundations of quantum mechanics lies with probability in general, to which contextuality is inherent. In line with this and [11], elsewhere it has also been shown that contextuality is relevant in classical statistics [19].
It is the claim of this article that KvN is as ’quantum mechanical’ as OQM. This has already been demonstrated in [
11] to be the case in terms of contextuality. However, the traditional view of
quantization—statement (TQ)—still offers a sense in which OQM is possibly more ’naturally connected’ to Hamiltonian mechanics than KvN is, and hence could be a sense in which it could be considered as more ’quantum mechanical’. For instance, interpreting TQ in the sense of Dirac [
20] as corresponding to ’turning brackets to commutators’—symbolically written as:
where
denotes the Poisson bracket and
the operator commutator—offers such a ’natural connection’ and distinguishes OQM over KvN. The issue with this ’Diracian approach’ is what this symbolic relation (
14) is supposed to correspond to mathematically. The well-known Groenewold-van Hove theorem [
21,
22,
23] states:
Theorem 1.
Let denote the set of all polynomials in P and Q subjected to the Poisson bracket, and the sub-Lie algebra of polynomials of degree less than or equal to . There is no irreducible representation Λ of , for , as self-adjoint operators on some Hilbert space such that
In the proof of this theorem, it is shown that the well-known ordering ambiguity that arises in operators of the form
due to the CCR is unavoidable, regardless of the ordering prescription applied. As a result, a mapping
fails to exist even for polynomials and certainly does not exist for the full Poisson algebra of smooth functions in phase space. Theorem 1 therefore implies that (
14) cannot correspond to a unitary representation of the Poisson algebra of Hamiltonian mechanics.
A Groenewold-van Hove-type theorem will also be proven in
Section 2 of this article. The proof of this theorem will also show that the ordering ambiguity is unavoidable, but this theorem rather focuses on it not being in the sense of Dirac that canonical quantization works. Despite this, canonical quantization is not disproven. Its empirical success cannot be denied. It is simply that the Diracian sense of
quantization neither provides a ’proper’ formulation of it nor provide a reason for its empirical success.
There are more advanced versions of
quantization that aim to provide a proper formulation of canonical quantization and aligned with TQ, such as Deformation quantization [
24,
25] and Geometric quantization [
26] . Of these, Deformation quantization is closer to the Diracian approach. Both of these approaches still work under the assumption that the Diracian approach is ’basically correct’. In the sense of the correct understanding of
quantization only needing to drop one of the premises of the Groenewold-van Hove theorem:
In Deformation quantization, the Poisson bracket is replaced by the Moyal bracket as the Lie algebraic structure of phase space. With respect to the Moyal bracket, the analogous mapping to in Theorem 1 exists. As ℏ approaches zero, the Moyal bracket converges to the Poisson bracket on the phase space side. In this sense, deformation quantization is considered to be aligned with Theorem TQ.
In Geometric quantization, the requirement for mapping in Theorem 1 to be irreducible is dropped. The result as a ’too large’ Hilbert space. In order to have agreement with canonical quantization, these extra degrees of freedom must be decoupled, which is achieved through a process referred to as ’polarization’.
The view of
quantization presented here rejects TQ and the assumption that the Diracian view is ’basically correct’. The main reason for this rejection is that it is contextuality, not the presence of
ℏ, that constitutes the essence of quantum mechanics. Additionally, TQ relies on a reductionist view of physics and science, which is plagued with more problems than commonly thought [
27,
28,
29,
30].
Mathematically, TQ manifests as the CCR, leading to the consideration of the Diracian view. However, as will be shown in
Section 2, the CCR cannot be considered as the quantum analogue of
—i.e. as a way of preserving the notion of
canonical coordinates in the formalism of quantum mechanics. This is because the Poisson bracket in Hamiltonian mechanics is invariant under the large symmetry group of canonical transformations, while OQM violates this symmetry. Others—such as Gukov and Witten [
31]—have pointed out that canonical quantization depends on the choice of canonical coordinates in which it is performed. In this article, this dependence is not only taken as a reason to reject the Diracian view of quantization, but also as the defining characteristic of
quantization. In the view of
quantization presented in
Section 3, the breaking of general canonical coordinate invariance will be considered an inherent part of
quantization.
This new view postulates that the relevant structures of Hamiltonian mechanics with regards to quantization are what will be referred to as ’flow structures’. A flow structure consists of a Hamiltonian flow, its inherent symmetry of canonical transformations and a choice of canonical coordinates. KvN and OQM will be shown to correspond to simply inequivalent representations of Flow structures, and therefore they have been made as ’quantum mechanical’ not only in terms of both exhibiting contextuality, but also in terms of both resulting from quantization.
The structure of this article is as follows: In
Section 2, the limitations of the Diracian view of
quantization in properly formalizing canonical quantization are demonstrated. It is shown that breaking the invariance of the choice of canonical coordinates is a fundamental aspect of canonical quantization, and this is suggested as the underlying reason for the limitations of the Diracian view. In
Section 3, a new approach to quantization is proposed, which reinterprets this fundamental aspect as a feature of quantization rather than a hindrance. Both KvN and OQM are shown to be valid outcomes of this new quantization. Finally, in
Section 4, the results and conclusions of the article are summarized and clarified.
3. A New Perspective on Quantization
In this section, a new perspective on quantization will be presented. Unlike TQ, this view does not consider the presence of ℏ or its manifestation in the CCR as necessary criteria for a quantization. Instead, it is based on the idea that contextuality is the central feature of quantum mechanics and the breaking of general canonical coordinate invariance is at the core of quantization. This will be formalized by focusing on flow structures—which consist of a Hamiltonian flow, its associated symmetry group of canonical transformations, and a choice of canonical coordinates—rather than on the general Poisson structure of Hamiltonian mechanics. KvN and OQM will both be revealed to be distinct representations of flow structures. As a result, KvN will have been shown to be equally ’quantum mechanical’ as OQM in terms of quantization as well as in terms of contextuality.
This section begins with
Subsection 3.1, in which the significant achievement of algebraic quantum mechanics—the integration of superselection rules—will be discussed. The application of these superselection rules to the new view of
quantization presented here will also be explored, and their use in interpreting KvN and OQM as merely distinct representations will be explained. It is assumed that the reader is familiar with algebraic quantum mechanics. Those who are not familiar with the subject are encouraged to consult references [
17] for an introduction. In
Subsection 3.2, the notion of flow structure is introduced and postulated to correspond to quantization.
3.1. Lessons from algebraic quantum mechanics
In algebraic quantum mechanics, the primary object is the
-algebra
. Despite being referred to as the ’algebra of observables’, the elements of
may not directly correspond to physical observables. For instance, in the case of the
-algebraic formulation of the CCR-algebra,
is not generated by
and
subject to the restriction
Instead,
is generated by its ’integrated version’—the Weyl group—formally created by the elements
and
. This is because the elements of a
-algebra must be bounded, while
and
are not. This article does not fully commit to the algebraic view of quantum mechanics as the relevant observables must be mapped to fit the description of a
-algebra. While it is true that both OQM—via the ’integrated CCR’—as well as KvN [
35] can be formulated in terms of algebraic quantum mechanics, they end up corresponding to different algebraic structures. The hypothesis if this article is that they fundamentally corresponds to the same structure, only being separated at the level of representations of this structure.
The view that quantization corresponds to a mapping of a Hamiltonian mechanical (sub)structure to a
-algebraic one is hence not hre pursued. This does not imply tha the algebraic formulation is completely disregarded, as it is mathemetically inherent to the quantum formalism. What is challenged is the notion that the
-algebraic structure holds a privileged position in terms of fundamental principles. Instead, group structures are here postulated to rather hold such a more privileged position. In line with this, in the next subsection, the group theoretical aspects of Hamiltonian mechanics with regards to
quantization will be emphasized. In doing so, what is arguably the greatest achievement of the algebraic approach [
17]—the incorporation of superselection rules [
10]—will be incorporated to interpret the difference between OQM and KvN as merely inequivalent representations of the same structure.
In the algebraic approach, one considers unitary representations of
, which leads to the traditional Hilbert space formulation. If the unitary representation is reducible, it is said to be subject to superselection rules and its irreducible subrepresentations are referred to as superselection sectors. On the other hand, in the traditional Hilbert space formalism, two subspaces
and
of
are considered superselection sectors if they are separated by a superselection rule. This means that for all states
and
,
holds for all observables
O. As a result, there is no observable difference between the pure state
and the corresponding mixed state
As there certainly exist self-adjoint operators
A for which instead
for instance
it is clear that the meaning of superselection is that not every self-adjoint operator corresponds to an actual observable.
We can reconcile the algebraic and Hilbert space perspectives on superselection by noting that if
and
are irreducible subrepresentations of
that together form an orthogonal decomposition of
, then equation (
68) holds for all
.
The occurrence of superselection rules is explained in the algebraic approach as follows: If the commutant
of a representation
of
is non-trivial—meaning it contains elements other than proportional to the identity—then
is subjected to superselection rules, as stated in [
10,
36]. This is due to Shur’s lemma, which says that
is irreducible if and only if its commutant is trivial. In the next subsection, we will implement this concept of superselection.
In addition, we do not limit our observables to those in alone. We also allow observables that correspond to elements of the commutant —which are referred to as superselection observables—to be included. These observables can be related to specific values in superselection sectors. For instance, the charge of a particle is a archetypical example of a superselection observable, as it is considered unphysical to be in a superposition of different charges because of the conservation of charge.
Remark 6. Based on the traditional purely Hilbert space account of superselection rules, it is clear that there is an intimate relationship between superselection rules and contextuality. For example, regarding the contextuality claimed by the author to occur in KvN in a previous work [11], it is possible that this effect could be eliminated if one posited that the eigenspaces of the Liouvillian are superselection sectors. However, it is unclear what justification such a superselection rule could have. Moreover, this would necessarily result in the considered Hilbert space being different from that of KvN, thus one would no longer be doing KvN.
3.2. The flow structure and its representations
In this subsection, we postulate that quantization corresponds to a substructure of Hamiltonian mechanics associated with a chosen Hamiltonian flow, referred to as a ’flow structure’. In the introduction of this article, KvN was presented as a unitary representation of the Hamiltonian flow, which is true for OQM as well. However, a unitary representation of a flow alone simply represents , therefore, some additional structure is required. Hinted in Remark 5, OQM satisfies the quantum version of Hamilton’s equations of motion, which requires at least a pair of self-adjoint operators corresponding to the quantum analogues of P and Q. Moreover, there is an inherent symmetry of canonical transformations associated with each Hamiltonian flow. This structure is postulated to correspond to a quantization of Hamiltonian mechanics.
We will demonstrate that KvN and OQM correspond to unitary representations of flow structures. Similar to algebraic quantum mechanics, superselection rules are implemented, leading to the conclusion that KvN and OQM correspond to different superselection sectors.
We will start by defining inherent symmetry of a Hamiltonian flow.
Definition 5.
The
inherent symmetry
of a Hamiltonian mechanical system , where is a Hamiltonian phase space and U is a Hamiltonian flow is the group
Remark 7. Note that U is a subgroup of , and that it moreover by definition is in the center of it.
Next we define flow structure.
Definition 6.
Let be a Hamiltonian phase space. A
flow structure
on is a pair
where U is a Hamiltonian flow and is a choice of canonical coordinates.
Remark 8. Note that inherently associated to the flow structure there is also the group of inherent symmetries of U.
The flow structures of a Hamiltonian phase space are deemed to be the essential sub-structure of that is relevant to quantization. In other words, these flow structures are the structures of that must be represented in the formalism of quantum mechanics. It is important to note that, in contrast to the traditional view, quantization is not inherently about mapping the full Hamiltonian structure of classical mechanics into the formalism of quantum mechanics. Instead, a part of quantization involves singling out the particular type of flow structure.
Next, we define how flow structures are represented in the formalism of quantum mechanics.
Definition 7.
A
flow representation
of a flow structure is a double , where Λ is a unitary representation of on a Hilbert space , λ is a mapping,
where each is self-adjoint on such that:
where is the function such that .
Remark 9.
Note, because U is in the center of —Remark 7—any flow representation must be such that
which is a non-trivial relation in the case of and not being of polynomial form.
Now we can fully state the suggested reformulation of quantization:
Postulate 1.
A
quantization
of a Hamiltonian phase space corresponds to a flow representation of a flow structure on .
Before demonstrating that both KvN and OQM correspond to flow representations—i.e., to quantizations in the sense of Postulate 1—we will define what it means for a flow representation to be irreducible. We will do this in terms of equivalences of flow representations. Therefore, we need to first define what is meant by equivalence.
Definition 8.
Let and be two flow representations of . A
flow representation isomorphism
(FRI) from to is a unitary map
such that
for all , and
and are
equivalent
of there exists an IFR from one to the other. An FRI from onto itself is called a
flow representation automorphism
(FRA).
In representation theory, Schur’s lemma states that any intertwining operator between two irreducible representations on the same space must be proportional to the identity. Using this analogous statement, we will define irreducibility in the context of flow representations.
Definition 9.
A flow representation is irreducible if all its FRAs are proportional to the identity, otherwise it is reducible
.
In analogy with algebraic quantum mechanics we define the following:
Definition 10.
A flow representation of on is subjected to
superselection rules
if there exists a self-adjoint operator A on such that and
Next we show that the occurrence of a superselection rule is equivalent to the flow representation being reducible.
Theorem 5. A flow representation is subjected to superselection rules if and only if it is reducible.
Proof. First, if
is subjected to superselection rules, then there exists non-trivial self-adjoint operator
A such that (
83) holds.
then defines an non-trivial FRA on
, and hence it must be reducible.
Second, if
is reducible, then there exists a non-trivial FRA
. To
we can associate a non-trivial self-adjoint operator
A such that
, which consequently must satisfy (
83). Hence making
subjected to a superselection rule. □
Note that the set of FRAs associated with a flow representation
has the structure of a group. We denote this group by
, referring to it as its
degeneracy group. A flow representation is then irreducible if and only if
Irreducibility, in a way, is hence similar to there being no redundancies. Following this analogy, we can hypothesize how a superselection rule can be removed even if the flow representation is reducible.
Hypothesis 1.
A superselection rule of a flow representation can be removed by connecting its degeneracy group with an actual symmetry, that is, by finding a physically meaningful group and a unitary representation ρ such that
Although we will make a reference to this hypothesis in the context of KvN later, we will not delve into its full meaning. Nonetheless, it is worth mentioning to avoid giving the impression that flow structures are the final word in some sense.
Next we move on towards showing that both KvN and OQM correspond to flow representations.
Example 1.
In KvN is a flow representation of for which
with μ, any -invariant measure on —such as or , for instance—and
for all and , where, for any , we define
It can be easily verified that
for all m and thus by replacing F with any and , , respectively, and G with any , it is shown that (78) is satisfied. KvN is a flow representation of .
Remark 10. Note that KvN, with the choice of as the integration measure, defines a flow representation of any flow structure on . However, if the integration measure is chosen as , this is no longer the case because the measure is not invariant under all inherent symmetries of any Hamiltonian flow . Nonetheless, it could still potentially be a flow representation of for any choice of canonical coordinates .
Referring to the choice of
as integration measure as the
full KvN, we can see that this flow representation is subjected to superselection rules. This is because the full KvN is a reducible flow representation. For every function
,
defines an FRA on the full KvN.
However, by considering the measure
, where, for any
,
we observe that the FRAs
take the form of
. A closer look reveals that this symmetry corresponds to the large degeneracy present in the full KvN with regards to the eigenstates of its generator of time evolution—the Liouvillian
.
The Liouvillian satisfies:
Working formally, ignoring the possibility of other constants of motion besides
H, a generic eigenstate
with eigenvalue
L can be expressed as:
where
satisfies:
There is a huge degeneracy in the choice of
f, with the only restriction being that the state must have finite norm. This degeneracy is represented by the symmetry (
90). Based on Hypothesis 1, one may speculate about the physical meaning of this symmetry, otherwise the full KvN is subjected to a superselection rule with
H—typically corresponding to the energy observable—as the superselection observable.
In contrast, KvN with the integration measure of
is irreducible and not subjected to a superselection rule. This corresponds to fixing the value of the superselection observable
H at
E. This measure corresponds to the microcanonical ensemble in classical statistical mechanics. The appearance of this superselection rule might seem natural in that context, as it is equivalent to the common assumption [
37] that an isolated system—such as the system + heat reservoir—always behaves according to the microcanonical ensemble.
Remark 11. Note that the microcanonical ensemble here is a result of a superselection rule, not from some principle of ’equal prior probability’.
Remark 12. The KvN formalism has been interpreted in the context of statistical mechanics, but this interpretation is not inherent to KvN. Statistical mechanics relies on the assumption of a large number of particles, while KvN does not make this assumption.
Next we show that OQM is a flow representation.
Example 2.
We consider a traditional Hamiltonian function H and coordinates with respect to which the Hamiltonian is of traditional spherically symmetric form,
That is, is generated by the flow U and the canonical transformations of the form
where R belongs to the group of rotation matrices. We consider the Hilbert space . Where we define
Because U and every rotation (96) commute, we may simply define Λ as
We may then simply define
for all . It is a straightforward calculatation to show (78), which may be found in any textbook on quantum mechanics, say, [34]. So indeed, OQM corresponds to a flow representation.
Note that the rotation symmetry in Example 2 is familiar from the quantization of the coulomb potential, where the degeneracy of energy levels is described by the unitary representation of the rotation group [
34]. It is well known that, in the absence of spin, the rotation group describes the full degeneracy of the quantum Hamiltonian. Furthermore, in OQM as any operator that commutes with both
and
must be proportional to the identity [
34], OQM is irreducible as flow representation, and hence not subjected to a superselection rule.
Remark 13. The reason for choosing a traditional Hamiltonian in Example 2 is to avoid the issue with the ordering ambiguity caused by the CCR. This issue has not been resolved by this view of quantization, but that was neither its intended purpose.
Note: If two flow representations
and
are equivalent, then any FRI
between them must be such that
We use this to prove the following result:
Theorem 6. KvN and OQM are mutually inequivalent flow representations.
Proof. Assume that
is of KvN-type—i.e that
and
commute—and that
is of OQM-type—i.e that
and
satisfy the CCR. If they are equivalent, there must be a an FRI such that (
100) holds, which is a contradiction. □
As stated in Theorem 6, KvN and OQM represent different superselection sectors. This provides the possibility of interpreting
as a superselection observable, as it commutes with the flow structure in both KvN and OQM. This viewpoint could offer a way to include
ℏ-dependence in the flow structure, similar to Deformation quantization [
25] or Plain mechanics [
38]. However, these approaches appear to still rely on the belief that
ℏ is the essence of quantum mechanics and that proper quantum phenomena cannot occur without it. This belief is challenged in the author’s previous work [
11]. The quantization approach presented here incorporates these findings, while Deformation quantization and Plain mechanics seem unable to do so.
4. Conclusion
This article has challenged the traditional view of quantization, proposing a new and novel perspective instead. The traditional view, based on a Diracian interpretation, relies on similarities between the Poisson bracket and the commutator, such as the correspondences:
and
However, this view is not inherent to the modern, probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics—in which contextuality is the essential phenomenon—as the correspondence (
101) is merely a particular manifestation of contextuality, not the phenomenon itself.
Through a Groenewold-van Hove-type theorem, it was demonstrated that any formalization of the Diracian view as a unitary irreducible representation of a sub-Lie algebra of the Poisson algebra is plagued by the well-known ordering ambiguity and therefore cannot exist. Additionally, it was shown that OQM violates the canonical coordinate invariance central to the utility of the Poisson bracket in Hamiltonian mechanics. Rather than interpreting this and Groenewold-van Hove-type theorems as posing problems to the Diracian view to be worked around, a new view of
quantization was suggested in which the breaking of general canonical coordinate invariance is instead embraced, (
101) is discarded and (
102) is interpreted as indicative of a unitary representation of the Hamiltonian flow.
In this new perspective, quantization corresponds to the selection of a flow structure that consists of a Hamiltonian flow, its associated symmetry group of canonical transformations, and a choice of canonical coordinates. KvN and OQM have been shown to correspond to different flow representations. This view of quantization is consistent with the author’s prior work, in which KvN was demonstrated to exhibit contextuality and should therefore be considered a proper quantum mechanical theory. Additionally, it implements the principle of superselection, where KvN and OQM correspond to different superselection sectors and may serve as the superselection observable. Furthermore, it was noted that the superselection sectors of both KvN and OQM break general canonical coordinate invariance, fulfilling the general objective of quantization as being inherently connected with the breaking of this invariance.
In addition to aligning with the modern, probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics, this new approach to quantization differs from the traditional one in that it proposes that the classical-to-quantum transition may have a physical significance, whereas in the traditional view, it is merely seen as an algorithmic procedure. This new perspective suggests that quantization is inherently linked to the breaking of canonical coordinate invariance and that the possibility of serving as a superselection observable gives direct physical meaning to the classical-to-quantum transition. For instance, the breaking of canonical coordinate invariance may reflect the manifestation of the ’particle picture’. Although Hamiltonian mechanics may describe a system using any canonical coordinates, it is seems that describing the system in terms of the spatial positions and momenta of its constituents is ’more real’. Perhaps quantization functions to make this ’realness’ manifest.
In contrast, the traditional view is based on a reductionist perspective, where the physical significance lies in the quantum-to-classical direction, in the sense of the classical limit. It is thus suggested that this new perspective on quantization is best understood within the context of non-reductionist views on physics and science [
1,
3,
27,
28,
29,
30,
39,
40].