Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-mnklg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-13T10:51:45.455Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quantization and Group Representations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2018

R. Cressman
R. Cressman*
Affiliation:
Memorial University of Newfoundland, Regional College at Corner Brook, Corner Brook, Newfoundland
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

A quantization of a fixed classical mechanical system is firstly an association between quantum mechanical observables (preferably self-adjoint operators on Hilbert space) and classical mechanical observables (i.e. real-valued functions on phase space). Secondly, a quantization should permit an interpretation of the correspondence principle that ‘classical mechanics is the limit of quantum mechanics as Planck's constant approaches zero'. With these two underlying precepts, Section 2 states the four basic requirements, I to IV, of a quantization along with an additional requirement V that characterizes the subclass of special quantizations.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Mathematics , Volume 29 , Issue 6 , 01 December 1977, pp. 1264 - 1276
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Mathematical Society 1977

References

1. Abraham, R., Foundations of mechanics (Benjamin, New York, 1967).Google Scholar
2. Anderson, R. F. V., The Weyl functional calculus, J. Functional Analysis 4 (1969), 240–269.Google Scholar
3. Anderson, R. F. V. The multiplicative Weyl functional calculus, J. Functional Analysis 9 (1972), 423–440.Google Scholar
4. Berezin, F. A., General concept of quantization, Comm. Math. Phys. Ifi (1975), 153–174.Google Scholar
5. Blattner, R. J., Quantization and representation theory, in Harmonic Analysis on Homogeneous Spaces, Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, Vol. XXVI (American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I., 1973).Google Scholar
6. Cressman, R., An evolution equation in phase space and the Weyl correspondence, J. Functional Analysis 22 (1976), 405–419.Google Scholar
7. Grossmann, A., Loupias, G., and Stein, E. M., An algebra of pseudodifferential operators and quantum mechanics on phase space, Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 18 (1968), 343–368.Google Scholar
8. Helgason, S., Differential geometry and symmetric spaces (Academic Press, New York, 1962).Google Scholar
9. Kirillov, A. A., Unitary representations of nilpotent Lie groups, Uspehi Mat. Nauk. 17 (1962), 57-110; Russian Math. Surveys 17 (1962), 53–104.Google Scholar
10. Kostant, B., Quantization and unitary representations, in Lectures in Modern Analysis and Application III, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 170 (Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, 1970).Google Scholar
11. Mackay, G. W., The mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics (Benjamin, New York, 1963).Google Scholar
12. Moore, C. C., Representations of solvable and nilpotent groups and harmonic analysis on nil and solvmanifolds, in Harmonic Analysis on Homogeneous Spaces, Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, Vol. XXVI (American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I., 1973).Google Scholar
13. Pukansky, L., On the characters and the Plancherel formula of nilpotent groups, J. Functional Analysis 1 (1967), 255–280.Google Scholar
14. Pukansky, L. On the unitary representations of exponential groups, J. Functional Analysis 2 (1968), 73–113.Google Scholar
15. Weyl, H., Theory of groups and quantum mechanics (Dover, New York, 1950).Google Scholar