Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
I have included at geometric quantization the definition of quantum operators associated with a given function on phase space in geometric quantization. Then I decided to split it off to dedicated entry quantum operator.
I am interested who uses the terminology “quantum operator”? I am used to say quantum observable followed an old tradition. This looks reasonable as in particular as an operator it is just a plain operator, not any kind of a quantum analogue (though some have such generalized operators in noncommutative setups when some people do talk about a quantum operator living in a space of usual operators tensored with some geometric noncommutative algebra or alike). As an observable it is really a quantum analogue of a classical observable. But I read mainly older literature and I am not much familiar with new books and papers on the subject.
True. I find there is a bit of a terminology mess.
I was following here the text
A. Echeverria-Enriquez, M.C. Munoz-Lecanda, N. Roman-Roy, C. Victoria-Monge, Mathematical Foundations of Geometric Quantization (arXiv)
which uses “quantum operator” throughout.
But at the very least I should add more cross-links to the respective Lab entries. I’ll do that now
Thanks for clarifying your perspective out and the reference.
Okay, I have renamed the entry to “quantum observable”. That’s indeed better.
I have added a brief link to it from observable. Eventually that entry deserves a bit more attention to make it more coherent.
(years later…)
added a little bit of more actual content to prequantum operator.
1 to 6 of 6