Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

First quantization

First quantization is the original formulation of quantum mechanics that quantizes the dynamics of a fixed number of particles by replacing classical position and momentum variables with non-commuting operators in a Hilbert space, leading to wave functions that evolve according to the Schrödinger equation.^[1] This approach, developed between 1925 and 1926, marked the transition from classical to quantum descriptions of matter and radiation for non-relativistic systems with a predetermined particle count.^[2] The historical origins trace to Werner Heisenberg's 1925 introduction of matrix mechanics, which used arrays to represent observables and enforced commutation relations like [q, p] = i\hbar to capture quantum uncertainty.^[2] Shortly after, in 1926, Erwin Schrödinger formulated wave mechanics, deriving the time-dependent Schrödinger equation i\hbar \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial t} = \hat{H} \psi by analogy to classical wave equations and applying boundary conditions to quantize energy levels, such as in the hydrogen atom.^[3] Paul Dirac contributed pivotal insights in 1925–1926 by formalizing quantization as a systematic mapping from classical Poisson brackets to quantum commutators, bridging matrix and wave approaches in his transformation theory.^[2] These efforts culminated in the probabilistic interpretation by Max Born, where |\psi|^2 represents probability density, underpinning measurable outcomes like position and momentum eigenvalues from Hermitian operators.^[3] In practice, first quantization applies to single- or few-particle systems, solving the many-body Schrödinger equation i\hbar \frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial t} = \hat{H} \Psi(\mathbf{r}_1, \dots, \mathbf{r}_N, t) with Hamiltonians incorporating kinetic energy, potentials, and interactions, while enforcing symmetrization (for bosons) or antisymmetrization (for fermions) to account for identical particles.^[1]^[4] This framework excels in non-relativistic contexts, such as atomic spectra, molecular vibrations, and quantum tunneling in nanoelectronics, but becomes cumbersome for variable particle numbers or relativistic effects, where it requires explicit handling of statistics and excludes vacuum fluctuations.^[3]^[4] Distinguished from second quantization, which reformulates quantum mechanics in Fock space using creation and annihilation operators to describe arbitrary particle occupations and field theories, first quantization operates in a fixed-dimensional Hilbert space and treats fields classically, limiting its scope to systems without particle creation or annihilation.^[1]^[4] Despite these limitations, first quantization remains foundational for understanding core quantum principles like superposition, entanglement, and the Heisenberg uncertainty relation \sigma_x \sigma_p \geq \hbar/2, derived from operator non-commutativity.^[3]

Overview and Basics

Definition of First Quantization

First quantization refers to the foundational approach in quantum mechanics that transforms the classical description of point particles, characterized by definite trajectories in phase space, into a probabilistic framework using wave functions. These wave functions represent the quantum state of the system and evolve in time according to the Schrödinger equation, providing probabilities for measurement outcomes rather than precise paths. This method applies primarily to non-relativistic systems with a fixed number of particles, treating them as excitations of a wave rather than classical points.^[5]^[6] The term "first quantization" originated retrospectively to distinguish this particle-based quantization from the later development of second quantization for quantum fields, highlighting its role as the initial step in quantizing mechanical systems. It was introduced in contrast to the field quantization procedures pioneered by Dirac and Jordan in the late 1920s, which extend the formalism to relativistic contexts and variable particle numbers.^[5] At its core, first quantization promotes classical phase space variables to operators acting on a Hilbert space, where the quantum state is encoded in wave functions. The expectation values of these operators yield measurable observables, which recover classical values in the correspondence limit of large quantum numbers or \hbar \to 0, ensuring consistency with classical mechanics for macroscopic scales.^[6] As an introductory example, consider position and momentum: in classical mechanics, these are real numbers specifying a particle's state, but in first quantization, they become operators \hat{q} and \hat{p} whose action on wave functions encodes the uncertainty and interference inherent to quantum behavior.^[6]

Distinction from Second Quantization

Second quantization refers to the procedure of quantizing classical fields, such as electromagnetic or matter fields, by promoting them to operators that act on a Fock space, thereby incorporating creation and annihilation operators to allow for variable particle numbers.^[7] In contrast, first quantization treats particles as fundamental entities with a fixed number, describing their states via wave functions in a configuration space Hilbert space.^[4] The primary differences lie in their treatment of particle statistics and interactions: first quantization assumes a predetermined number of particles and requires explicit symmetrization or antisymmetrization of wave functions to handle indistinguishable particles, whereas second quantization naturally accommodates indistinguishability through occupation number representations in Fock space and simplifies the description of interactions via field operators.^[8] This makes second quantization particularly suited for systems where particle number is not conserved, such as in processes involving creation or annihilation.^[9] First quantization offers simplicity and computational efficiency for systems with a few non-interacting particles, as it avoids the need for operator algebras and directly leverages familiar wave mechanics tools.^[4] However, it becomes inefficient and cumbersome for many-body systems due to the exponential growth in the dimensionality of the Hilbert space and difficulties in treating strong interactions or relativistic effects, where particle number fluctuations are significant.^[8] A illustrative example is the quantum harmonic oscillator: in first quantization, the system is described by a single-particle wave function satisfying the Schrödinger equation, yielding discrete energy levels without inherent vacuum structure; in second quantization, the same oscillator is represented using creation and annihilation operators on a Fock space, naturally incorporating vacuum fluctuations and multi-mode extensions for identical particles.^[4] First quantization proves inadequate for quantum field theories, where relativistic invariance and locality demand a framework that unifies particles and fields, leading to the adoption of second quantization—as exemplified in quantum electrodynamics (QED), where electron and photon fields are quantized to describe scattering and pair production processes.^[9]

Mathematical Preliminaries

Canonical Quantization Procedure

The canonical quantization procedure provides a systematic method to transition from a classical Hamiltonian formulation to its quantum counterpart by promoting classical phase space variables to operators on a Hilbert space, guided by algebraic rules that preserve the structure of classical Poisson brackets. Developed primarily by Paul Dirac, this approach emphasizes the correspondence between classical dynamics and quantum evolution through operator commutators.^[10] Central to Dirac's prescription is the replacement of classical Poisson brackets with quantum commutators, scaled by the reduced Planck's constant. Specifically, for any two classical functions A(q, p) and B(q, p) of position q and momentum p, the Poisson bracket \{A, B\} is mapped to the commutator of the corresponding operators as [\hat{A}, \hat{B}] / i\hbar, where \hbar = h / 2\pi and h is Planck's constant. This rule ensures that the quantum equations of motion, derived from the Heisenberg picture, mirror the classical Hamilton's equations in form. For instance, the time evolution of an operator \hat{A} follows i\hbar d\hat{A}/dt = [\hat{A}, \hat{H}], analogous to the classical dA/dt = \{A, H\}.^[10] The basic dynamical variables are quantized via specific operator representations: the position q becomes the multiplication operator \hat{q} \psi(q) = q \psi(q), while the momentum p is represented as the differential operator \hat{p} = -i\hbar d/dq in the position basis. These lead to the fundamental canonical commutation relations, which underpin the algebra of quantum observables. In one dimension, [\hat{q}, \hat{p}] = i\hbar; in three dimensions, this generalizes to [\hat{x}_i, \hat{p}_j] = i\hbar \delta_{ij} for i, j = 1, 2, 3, with all other commutators vanishing. These relations are postulated as the quantum analog of the classical Poisson bracket \{q, p\} = 1.^[10] When quantizing more complex classical Hamiltonians involving products of non-commuting operators, ambiguities arise in the operator ordering. To resolve these and ensure the resulting Hamiltonian is Hermitian (self-adjoint), Hermann Weyl proposed a symmetric ordering scheme, known as Weyl ordering, where products like q p are symmetrized as (\hat{q} \hat{p} + \hat{p} \hat{q})/2. This method, derived from group-theoretic considerations, provides a unique quantization map for polynomials in phase space variables and maintains covariance under canonical transformations.^[11] A illustrative example is the quantization of the classical harmonic oscillator Hamiltonian H = p^2 / 2m + (1/2) m \omega^2 q^2, where m is mass and \omega is angular frequency. Applying the procedure yields the quantum Hamiltonian \hat{H} = \hat{p}^2 / 2m + (1/2) m \omega^2 \hat{q}^2, with the ordering ambiguity resolved via Weyl symmetrization if needed, though the simple form suffices here due to the quadratic nature. This operator acts on wave functions in the Schrödinger picture, leading to energy eigenvalues (n + 1/2) \hbar \omega for integer n \geq 0. The procedure adheres to the correspondence principle, ensuring consistency with classical mechanics in the semiclassical limit. As \hbar \to 0, the expectation values of quantum operators \langle \hat{A} \rangle approach the classical values A(q, p), and quantum dynamics reduce to classical trajectories, validating the quantization rules for macroscopic scales.

Hilbert Space and Wave Functions

In first quantization, the quantum state of a single non-relativistic particle is described by a normalized vector in the separable Hilbert space \mathcal{H} = L^2(\mathbb{R}^3), consisting of complex-valued square-integrable functions on three-dimensional Euclidean space.^[12] This space is equipped with the inner product \langle \psi | \phi \rangle = \int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \psi^*(\mathbf{r}) \phi(\mathbf{r}) \, d^3\mathbf{r}, which induces a norm \|\psi\| = \sqrt{\langle \psi | \psi \rangle} measuring the "size" of states and ensuring completeness for infinite-dimensional systems.^[12] The Hilbert space structure allows for the representation of quantum superpositions as linear combinations of basis states, embodying the principle that any state can be expressed as \psi = \sum c_n |n\rangle where \sum |c_n|^2 = 1. The wave function \psi(\mathbf{r}, t) represents the state in the position basis, where \psi(\mathbf{r}, t) = \langle \mathbf{r} | \psi(t) \rangle gives the amplitude for finding the particle at position \mathbf{r} at time t.^[13] According to the Born rule, the probability density of measuring the particle at \mathbf{r} is |\psi(\mathbf{r}, t)|^2, with the normalization condition \int_{\mathbb{R}^3} |\psi(\mathbf{r}, t)|^2 \, d^3\mathbf{r} = 1 ensuring total probability unity.^[14] In the momentum basis, the wave function is obtained via the Fourier transform \tilde{\psi}(\mathbf{p}, t) = \frac{1}{(2\pi\hbar)^{3/2}} \int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \psi(\mathbf{r}, t) e^{-i\mathbf{p}\cdot\mathbf{r}/\hbar} \, d^3\mathbf{r}, allowing equivalent descriptions in either representation. Time evolution of the state is governed by unitary operators on the Hilbert space, specifically |\psi(t)\rangle = U(t) |\psi(0)\rangle where U(t) = e^{-i\hat{H}t/\hbar} and \hat{H} is the self-adjoint Hamiltonian operator, preserving the norm \|\psi(t)\| = \|\psi(0)\| and thus probability conservation. The Born rule extends to general measurements: for an observable with eigenbasis |\phi_n\rangle, the probability of outcome n is |\langle \phi_n | \psi \rangle|^2, highlighting the probabilistic nature of quantum predictions.^[14] A representative example is the free particle, where an initial Gaussian wave packet \psi(\mathbf{r}, 0) = \left(\frac{2\alpha}{\pi}\right)^{3/4} e^{-\alpha r^2} e^{i\mathbf{k}_0 \cdot \mathbf{r}} (with \alpha > 0) evolves such that its spatial width \sigma(t) \approx \sqrt{\sigma_0^2 + (\hbar t / 2m\sigma_0)^2} increases quadratically with time, illustrating dispersion due to the superposition of plane waves with different momenta. This spreading underscores the irreversible loss of initial localization in first quantization, contrasting classical point-particle trajectories.^[12]

Historical Context

Precursors to Quantum Mechanics

The foundations of classical mechanics, which preceded the development of quantum theory, were laid in the 19th century through the Hamiltonian formulation. In this framework, the dynamics of a system are described by Hamilton's equations, which govern the evolution of generalized coordinates q and momenta p via the Hamiltonian function H(q, p, t):

\frac{dq}{dt} = \frac{\partial H}{\partial p}, \quad \frac{dp}{dt} = -\frac{\partial H}{\partial q}.

These equations define trajectories in phase space, a multidimensional space where each point represents a unique state of the system, allowing for a complete deterministic description of motion under conservative forces. This classical picture successfully explained macroscopic phenomena but encountered severe limitations when applied to microscopic systems, particularly in radiation and atomic structure. One prominent failure was the ultraviolet catastrophe in blackbody radiation, where the Rayleigh-Jeans law predicted an infinite energy density at high frequencies, diverging from experimental observations of finite emission.^[15] Similarly, classical electrodynamics applied to Rutherford's 1911 nuclear model of the atom forecasted instability: orbiting electrons would continuously radiate energy, spiraling into the nucleus in fractions of a second, contradicting the observed persistence of atomic structures.^[16] These inconsistencies motivated the introduction of quantization. In 1900–1901, Max Planck resolved the blackbody problem by proposing that energy is emitted and absorbed in discrete quanta, with E = n h f, where n is an integer, h is Planck's constant, and f is the frequency, fitting experimental spectra without infinities.^[17] Building on this, Albert Einstein in 1905 explained the photoelectric effect by treating light as discrete packets (quanta, later called photons) with energy E = h f, accounting for the threshold frequency dependence of electron emission.^[18] Niels Bohr's 1913 atomic model incorporated quantization to stabilize Rutherford's structure, postulating stationary electron orbits with quantized angular momentum L = n \hbar (where \hbar = h / 2\pi), an approximation later refined to \sqrt{l(l+1)} \hbar in full quantum mechanics; transitions between orbits emitted discrete radiation, matching spectral lines.^[19] This initiated the old quantum theory of the 1910s–1920s, which applied ad hoc rules to periodic systems, such as the Wilson-Sommerfeld condition \oint p \, dq = n h for action integrals over closed paths, extending Bohr's ideas to elliptical orbits and multi-electron atoms but remaining inconsistent for non-integrable systems.^[20]

Key Formulations in the 1920s

The development of first quantization began with Werner Heisenberg's introduction of matrix mechanics in 1925, where physical observables such as position and momentum were represented by infinite arrays, or matrices, that do not commute under multiplication.^[21] This formulation emphasized observable quantities and their transitions, avoiding unobservable classical trajectories, and incorporated the fundamental commutation relation between position x and momentum p operators, [x, p] = i\hbar, which implies the uncertainty principle limiting simultaneous precision in measuring conjugate variables.^[21] Shortly thereafter, Max Born and Pascual Jordan formalized Heisenberg's ideas in their 1925 paper, establishing the commutation relations as a cornerstone of the theory and proving their consistency with the old quantum conditions for periodic systems.^[22] They demonstrated that these relations could be derived from a quantum analog of the Poisson bracket, providing a systematic framework for calculating transition amplitudes and energy levels in atomic spectra.^[22] In 1926, Erwin Schrödinger proposed an alternative wave mechanics approach, representing quantum states by wave functions \psi in configuration space and deriving the time-dependent Schrödinger equation,

i \hbar \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial t} = \hat{H} \psi,

where \hat{H} is the Hamiltonian operator.^[23] This equation emerged from extending Louis de Broglie's wave-particle duality to a relativistic Hamilton-Jacobi equation, treating particles as wave packets whose interference patterns govern their dynamics.^[23] In a subsequent 1926 paper, Schrödinger demonstrated the mathematical equivalence between his wave mechanics and Heisenberg's matrix mechanics, providing an early unification of the two approaches. John von Neumann established a more rigorous mathematical equivalence between matrix and wave mechanics in his 1927 papers, proving an isomorphism between the two formulations through the spectral theorem for self-adjoint operators in Hilbert space.^[24] This unification showed that both approaches describe the same physical predictions, with matrix elements corresponding to integrals over wave functions, solidifying first quantization as a coherent framework.^[24] Paul Dirac contributed to bridging these formulations with his 1927 transformation theory, which generalized quantum states as vectors in an abstract space and allowed representations in either matrix or wave forms via unitary transformations.^[25] In the same work, Dirac further refined the canonical quantization procedure by systematically replacing classical Poisson brackets \{q, p\} with commutators [q, p]/i\hbar, providing a correspondence principle that extended first quantization to more complex systems.^[25] As an extension of first quantization, Wolfgang Pauli and Werner Heisenberg introduced early ideas of second quantization in 1929, treating field amplitudes as operators to handle radiation and particle creation, though this marked a departure toward quantum field theory.^[26] These formulations resolved key debates on the completeness of quantum mechanics, as later highlighted in the 1935 Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, which questioned whether first quantization fully described physical reality but affirmed its foundational role post-1928.^[27]

Systems in First Quantization

One-Particle Systems

In first quantization, the behavior of a single particle subject to a potential V(\mathbf{r}) is described by solving the time-independent Schrödinger equation for stationary states:

\hat{H} \psi(\mathbf{r}) = E \psi(\mathbf{r}),

where the Hamiltonian operator is \hat{H} = -\frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \nabla^2 + V(\mathbf{r}), \psi(\mathbf{r}) is the wave function, E is the energy eigenvalue, m is the particle mass, and \hbar is the reduced Planck's constant. This eigenvalue problem yields quantized energy levels and corresponding spatial probability distributions |\psi(\mathbf{r})|^2, providing physical insights into bound states and confinement effects.^[28] For a free particle where V(\mathbf{r}) = 0, the solutions are plane waves of the form

\psi(\mathbf{r}, t) = A \exp\left[i (\mathbf{k} \cdot \mathbf{r} - \omega t)\right],

with the dispersion relation E = \frac{\hbar^2 k^2}{2m} and \omega = E / \hbar, reflecting the particle's momentum \mathbf{p} = \hbar \mathbf{k}. These delocalized waves illustrate the wavelike nature of matter, as proposed by de Broglie, and highlight the absence of discrete energies in unbounded systems.^[28] A foundational example of confinement is the infinite square well potential, defined as V(x) = 0 for $0 < x < a and V(x) = \infty otherwise in one dimension. The normalized wave functions are

\psi_n(x) = \sqrt{\frac{2}{a}} \sin\left(\frac{n \pi x}{a}\right), \quad n = 1, 2, 3, \dots,

with discrete energy levels

E_n = \frac{n^2 \pi^2 \hbar^2}{2 m a^2}.

These standing waves vanish at the boundaries, demonstrating quantization due to the finite spatial domain and enabling calculations of transition probabilities between levels. The hydrogen atom provides a three-dimensional illustration, where the potential is V(r) = -\frac{e^2}{4\pi \epsilon_0 r} (in atomic units, simplified to -1/r). Separation of variables in spherical coordinates leads to the radial Schrödinger equation, solved using associated Laguerre polynomials, yielding quantum numbers n (principal), l (orbital angular momentum, $0 \leq l < n), and m (magnetic, -l \leq m \leq l). The bound-state energies depend only on n:

E_n = -\frac{13.6 \, \mathrm{eV}}{n^2}.

The angular momentum operators are defined as \hat{\mathbf{L}} = \hat{\mathbf{r}} \times \hat{\mathbf{p}}, with eigenvalues \sqrt{l(l+1)} \hbar for \hat{L}^2 and m \hbar for \hat{L}_z, explaining the degeneracy and spectroscopic structure observed in atomic spectra.^[28] Quantum tunneling exemplifies non-classical penetration through barriers, as in Gamow's 1928 model of alpha decay. For an alpha particle confined in a nuclear potential well (r < R, where V(r) < E) that encounters a Coulomb barrier (V(r) > E for r > R), the transmission probability P \propto \exp\left(-2 \int \sqrt{2m (V(r) - E)} / \hbar \, dr \right) allows escape, predicting decay rates that match Geiger-Nuttall law observations for heavy nuclei.^[29] This application underscores first quantization's success in nuclear processes.

Many-Particle Systems

In first quantization, the quantum state of a system consisting of N particles is described by a wave function \psi(\mathbf{r}_1, \mathbf{r}_2, \dots, \mathbf{r}_N, t) defined on a $3N-dimensional configuration space, where each \mathbf{r}_i represents the position of the i-th particle in three-dimensional space. This high-dimensional space encodes the joint probabilities for all particle positions, extending the single-particle three-dimensional Hilbert space to capture correlations among particles. The time evolution follows the many-particle Schrödinger equation i\hbar \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial t} = \hat{H} \psi, where the Hamiltonian operator governs the dynamics. The Hamiltonian for a system of N particles takes the form

\hat{H} = \sum_{i=1}^N \left( -\frac{\hbar^2}{2m_i} \nabla_i^2 + V_i(\mathbf{r}_i) \right) + \sum_{i < j} V_{ij}(\mathbf{r}_i, \mathbf{r}_j),

with kinetic energy terms for each particle of mass m_i, external potentials V_i, and interaction potentials V_{ij} between pairs. For non-interacting particles (V_{ij}=0), the Hamiltonian is separable. When interactions are present, such as Coulomb repulsion in atomic systems, the wave function generally cannot be separated into products of single-particle functions, leading to entangled states that reflect collective behavior. For identical particles, quantum statistics impose symmetry requirements on the wave function under particle exchange. Bosons, with integer spin, have symmetric wave functions satisfying \psi(\dots, \mathbf{r}_j, \dots, \mathbf{r}_k, \dots) = \psi(\dots, \mathbf{r}_k, \dots, \mathbf{r}_j, \dots), allowing arbitrary occupation of quantum states. Fermions, with half-integer spin like electrons, have antisymmetric wave functions \psi(\dots, \mathbf{r}_j, \dots, \mathbf{r}_k, \dots) = -\psi(\dots, \mathbf{r}_k, \dots, \mathbf{r}_j, \dots), enforcing the Pauli exclusion principle that prohibits multiple fermions from occupying the same state. A practical construction for fermionic wave functions is the Slater determinant, formed as the antisymmetrized product of single-particle orbitals \phi_\alpha(\mathbf{r}_i):

\psi(\mathbf{r}_1, \dots, \mathbf{r}_N) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{N!}} \det \begin{vmatrix} \phi_1(\mathbf{r}_1) & \phi_1(\mathbf{r}_2) & \cdots & \phi_1(\mathbf{r}_N) \\ \phi_2(\mathbf{r}_1) & \phi_2(\mathbf{r}_2) & \cdots & \phi_2(\mathbf{r}_N) \\ \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\ \phi_N(\mathbf{r}_1) & \phi_N(\mathbf{r}_2) & \cdots & \phi_N(\mathbf{r}_N) \end{vmatrix}.

This ensures antisymmetry and approximates the ground state in methods like Hartree-Fock. An illustrative example is the ground state of the helium atom, modeled with two electrons. A simple variational trial wave function \psi(\mathbf{r}_1, \mathbf{r}_2) = \frac{Z'^3}{\pi a_0^3} e^{-Z' (r_1 + r_2)/a_0}, where Z' = 27/16 optimizes the effective nuclear charge, yields an energy of -77.5 eV, close to the exact -79.0 eV and capturing electron correlation approximately. More accurate Hylleraas functions incorporating the interelectron distance r_{12} improve this to within 0.001% of the exact value. Solving the many-particle Schrödinger equation faces severe computational challenges due to the curse of dimensionality: the configuration space volume grows exponentially as O((L/a)^{3N}) for lattice spacing a and system size L, rendering exact diagonalization infeasible for large N. Strong interactions exacerbate this, as perturbation theory fails and numerical methods like quantum Monte Carlo scale poorly. Relativistic extensions in first quantization, such as multi-particle Klein-Gordon equations for scalar particles, encounter fundamental limitations including negative probability densities and unstable vacuum states, necessitating second quantization for consistency.^[30]

References

[1]
A. First and Second Quantization - IuE
The original form of quantum mechanics is denoted first quantization, while quantum field theory is formulated in the language of second quantization.
[2]
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2202.07838.pdf
[3]
First quantization | Nanoelectronics
### Summary of First Quantization Definition and Key Aspects
[4]
[PDF] Quantum Mechanics
In first-quantization, we ask: Which particle is in which state? In second-quantization, we ask: How many particles are there in every state? The ...
[5]
Quantization (First, Second) - SpringerLink
Jul 25, 2009 · H. D. Zeh: There Is no “first” quantization. Physics Letters A 309, 329–334 (2003). Article ADS MathSciNet Google Scholar · Download references ...
[6]
[PDF] Quantization: History and Problems - arXiv
Feb 16, 2022 · On November 7 of 1925, however, Dirac's first paper on QM was received, “The Fundamental. Equations of Quantum Mechanics,” in which he proposed ...
[7]
[PDF] 11 Canonical quantization of classical fields
In principle, quantization of classical fields is very similar to the quantization of the system of many coupled harmonic oscillators discussed in Section 5.6: ...
[8]
[PDF] 1 Second quantization
First quantization is also the most useful formulation in many approaches that treat the full interacting many-body problem. In particular, the quantum Monte.
[9]
Quantum Field Theory - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Jun 22, 2006 · The term 'second quantization' has often been criticized partly because it blurs the important fact that the single particle wave function \(\ ...
[10]
On the theory of quantum mechanics - Journals
Dirac Paul Adrien Maurice. 1926On the theory of quantum mechanicsProc. R. Soc. Lond. A112661–677http://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1926.0133. Section. Abstract ...
[11]
Quantenmechanik und Gruppentheorie | Zeitschrift für Physik A ...
Download PDF · Zeitschrift für Physik. Quantenmechanik und ... Cite this article. Weyl, H. Quantenmechanik und Gruppentheorie. Z. Physik 46, 1–46 (1927).
[12]
https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691178561/mathematical-foundations-of-quantum-mechanics
[13]
An Undulatory Theory of the Mechanics of Atoms and Molecules
28, 1049 – Published 1 December, 1926. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.28.1049. Export Citation. Show metrics. Abstract. The paper gives an account of ...
[14]
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01397477
[15]
On the laws of radiation | Proceedings of the Royal ... - Journals
(2002) Jeans' role in the law of black-body radiation, Physics Education, 10.1088/0031-9120/15/4/318, 15:4, (255-260), Online publication date: 1-Jul-1980.
[16]
[PDF] LXXIX. The scattering of α and β particles by matter and the structure ...
It was shown that the number N of the electrons within the atom could be deduced from observations of the scattering of electrified particles. The accuracy of ...Missing: model | Show results with:model
[17]
[PDF] On the Law of Distribution of Energy in the Normal Spectrum
where λ is the wavelength, E · dλ represents the volume density of the “black-body” radiation12 within the spectral region λ to λ + dλ, θ represents temperature ...
[18]
[PDF] Einstein's Proposal of the Photon Concept-a Translation
Of the trio of famous papers that Albert Einstein sent to the Annalen der Physik in 1905 only the paper proposing the photon concept has been unavailable in ...
[19]
[PDF] Philosophical Magazine Series 6 I. On the constitution of atoms and ...
25. To link to this ...
[20]
[PDF] Quantization Conditions, 1900–1927 - PhilSci-Archive
Mar 9, 2020 · Using this procedure, Sommerfeld was able to generalize the circular orbits of Niels Bohr's hydrogen atom (selected through quantization of the ...
[21]
[PDF] On quantum-theoretical reinterpretation of kinematic and ...
(1925), 879-893. On the quantum-theoretical reinterpretation of kinematical and mechanical relationships. By W. Heisenberg in Göttingen. (Received on 29 July ...
[22]
[PDF] On Quantum Mechanics - Neo-classical physics
34 (1925), 858-888. On Quantum Mechanics. By M. Born and P. Jordan in Göttingen. (Received on 27 September 1925).
[23]
[PDF] An undulatory theory of the mechanics of atoms and molecules - ISY
SCHRÖDINGER. ABSTRACT. The paper gives an account of the author's work on a new form of quantum theory. §1. The Hamiltonian analogy between mechanics and optics ...Missing: citation | Show results with:citation
[24]
[PDF] Von Neumann's 1927 Trilogy on the Foundations of Quantum ... - arXiv
May 20, 2025 · The object of the present article is to present new, fully annotated translations of these remarkable papers.1 We begin with some brief ...
[25]
[PDF] The Physical Interpretation of the Quantum Dynamics
Dirac. in any direction determines the probability of the ,colliding electron (or other body) being scattered in that direetion. Recently Heisenberg ...
[26]
[PDF] Quantum theory of wave fields II - Neo-classical physics
On the quantum theory of wave fields, II. By W. Heisenberg in Leipzig and W. Pauli in Zurich. (Received on 7 September 1929). Translated by D. H. ...
[27]
[PDF] Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be
MAY 15, 1935. PHYSICAL REVIEW. VOLUME 47. Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? A. EINSTEIN, B. PODOLSKY AND N. ROSEN, ...
[28]
Quantisierung als Eigenwertproblem - Wiley Online Library
Quantisierung als Eigenwertproblem. E. Schrödinger,. E. Schrödinger. Zürich ... First published: 1926. https://doi.org/10.1002/andp.19263840404. Citations ...
[29]
[PDF] There is no “first” quantization - arXiv
According to the present state of the art, the “second” quantization in terms of fields is the first and only one, while particles represent a derived and ...