Alphabeta Math
How statement and proof provenance work

The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.

  • Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
  • AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
  • AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.

These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.

Qm Framework And Quantities

1 · Prerequisites

2 · Summary

This page fixes the framework and the quantity conventions of the non-relativistic quantum mechanics category before any derived result is stated. The arena is the Newtonian one: the affine time space with absolute time, Euclidean simultaneous slices and their smooth structure (The Newtonian spacetime arena of the framework), whose elementary coordinate transformations are the Galilean maps with their parameter quadruples (The Galilean transformations of the coordinate space) forming a group of bijections of the coordinate space (The Galilean transformations form a group of bijections of the coordinate space). The inertial frames of the model are the adapted charts determined by an event origin, a fixed time vector u with τ(u)=1, and a positively oriented orthonormal spatial triad, changed only by the Galilean class (Inertial frames of the framework and the class of frame changes), and the macroscopic apparatus and preparation devices are described by classical trajectories with the frame time as parameter (Classical apparatus and preparation trajectories of the framework); a quantum particle is not assigned a definite worldline between preparations and detections. The dimension group, the SI reference units, the exact defining constants of the current SI and the dimensions and mathematical types of the framework's quantities are recorded in Dimensions, SI unit conventions and quantity types of the framework, and the canonical commutator of the position and momentum acts is proved on the Schwartz core in Canonical commutation relations of position and momentum on the Schwartz core.

The adopted assumptions of the category are then stated in full: State and composition postulate P1: Hilbert spaces, preparations and composite systems (states, rays, density operators, mixtures and composite systems), Observable and probability postulate P2: self-adjoint observables, spectral probability and finite unsharp outcomes (self-adjoint observables, spectral probabilities and finite unsharp outcomes), Ideal conditional measurement postulate P3: the projective Lueders update and discarded outcomes (the declared projective measurement, its probabilities and updates), and Autonomous dynamics postulate P4: self-adjoint generators and unitary evolution (the self-adjoint energy operator and its unitary group). The identical-species sectors and spin representation are assigned in Identical-particle and spin assignments P6: permutation sectors and finite-spin representations. P5 then adopts the Newtonian frames, apparatus trajectories, one-particle space and bounded-potential Hamiltonian that use that representation in Kinematics and massive-particle model postulate P5: Newtonian frames and one-particle operators, and the conditions for comparing model predictions with data are fixed in Preparation and apparatus postulate P7: declared preparations, isolation and sampling assumptions. A closing status audit distinguishes the seven core postulates from the extension postulates adopted only on their own pages and lists what the framework excludes (Assumption classes and scope of the framework: P1-P7, the extension postulates and what is excluded), and the status of the framework's quantities as primitive, adopted or derived is recorded in Primitive, adopted and derived quantities of the framework. The worked checks and the counterexamples of the pair are collected on qm-framework-and-quantities-examples.

3 · Logical flowchart

4 · Definitions, postulates, theorems and proofs

DefinitionDefinition: AI-adaptedProof: Not applicableOpen item page →

The Newtonian spacetime arena of the framework

Physical scope

The spacetime arena used by the non-relativistic quantum framework: the affine time space with a surjective absolute-time covector, Euclidean simultaneous slices and their affine smooth structure. The definition fixes the objects and their readings in the model; it asserts no dynamics, no equation of motion and no claim that nature is exactly such an arena, and it excludes Lorentzian structure, light cones and any spacetime curvature.

Definition

The arena. The non-relativistic quantum framework of this category uses as its spacetime the affine time space of Affine time space with Euclidean simultaneous slices and adapted charts: a quadruple (V,τ,g,A) consisting of a four-dimensional real vector space V, a surjective linear map τ:V→R (the absolute-time covector), the three-dimensional kernel K=ker⁡τ (the spatial displacement space), a symmetric positive definite bilinear form g:K×K→R (the spatial metric), and an affine space A modelled on V whose elements are called events. When the framework speaks of "a particle at position x at time t", of "the time interval between two events" or of "the distance between two simultaneous events", these are read in this structure.

Spatial orientation. In addition to the quadruple, fix the orientation of K required by Affine time space with Euclidean simultaneous slices and adapted charts: an equivalence class of ordered bases, where two bases are equivalent exactly when their change-of-basis map has positive determinant. Every adapted chart uses a g-orthonormal basis in this fixed class. This chooses an orientation, not a distinguished basis.

Absolute time and slices. The absolute time of a displacement w∈V is τ(w); two events p,q∈A are simultaneous when τ(q−p)=0, and simultaneity is an equivalence relation whose classes are the simultaneous slices. For a fixed adapted chart and its coordinates (t,x) of Existence and uniqueness of adapted coordinates, and the affine structure of simultaneous slices, the slices are the level sets of t and the number t(p) is the time coordinate of the event p. The pair of events of one slice carries the slice distance dg(p,q)=g(p−q,p−q); no distance is defined between events of different slices by this structure.

Smooth structure. A is read with the affine smooth structure determined by adapted coordinates: for a nonempty open interval I⊆R, a curve γ:I→A is of class Ck when its coordinate representation s↦(t(γ(s)),x(γ(s))) in one adapted chart is of class Ck; the transition law between adapted charts of Transformation between adapted charts and its kinematic consequences makes this reading independent of the chart. Regularity of curves, of potential functions and of apparatus descriptions of the framework is stated with respect to this smooth structure.

What the arena does not contain. The data contain no inner product on V, no Lorentzian metric, no light cone, no causal classification, no universal speed and no curvature; they contain no distinguished event, no distinguished time vector and no distinguished spatial basis. In particular the arena alone does not select a frame: the inertial frames of the model and the transformations between them are fixed by the separate definition of the frames on this page and the accompanying postulate.

Status. These clauses define the spacetime objects of the model and their elementary readings. They are not a physical postulate that nature is such an arena and not a mathematical theorem; the corresponding adoption is made by the kinematics postulate of this page. No dynamics, force law, potential or matter model is fixed here, and no empirical measurement is recorded.

Remarks

DefinitionDefinition: AI-adaptedProof: Not applicableOpen item page →

The Galilean transformations of the coordinate space

Definition

Coordinate space. Let C:=R×R3, whose elements are written (t,x) with t∈R and x=(x1,x2,x3)∈R3. The Euclidean inner product and norm on the second factor are those of The Euclidean inner product ⟨x,y⟩=∑k<nxkyk on Rn; addition and scalar multiplication on C are componentwise, and I3 is the identity matrix of Rectangular matrix multiplication and the identity matrix In, including zero-sized shapes.

The transformations. For a quadruple θ=(b,a,v,R)∈R×R3×R3×SO(3) (The orthogonal group O(3) and the rotation group SO(3)) define the map gθ:C→C by

g(b,a,v,R)(t,x):=(t+b, Rx+v t+a),

where Rx and vt are the usual matrix–vector products with R=(Rij) and with the column vectors x,v,a. The four components of θ are called the time shift b, the spatial translation a, the boost velocity v and the rotation R, and θ is called the parameter quadruple of gθ. Write

G:={g(b,a,v,R):(b,a,v,R)∈R×R3×R3×SO(3)}

for the set of all these maps and Θ:=R×R3×R3×SO(3) for the parameter set. The elements of G are the Galilean transformations of the coordinate space, and the assignment θ↦gθ is the parameter map.

Elementary readings. For R=I3 and v=0 the map g(b,a,0,I3) is the pure time-and-space translation (t,x)↦(t+b,x+a); for b=0, a=0 and R=I3 it is the pure boost (t,x)↦(t,x+vt); and for b=0, a=0, v=0 it is the rotation (t,x)↦(t,Rx) acting only on the spatial factor. The time coordinate of gθ(t,x) depends only on t and b, in accordance with the absolute-time convention of the model that consumes this definition.

What is and is not asserted. This definition introduces the maps and names their parameters. It asserts no property of the parameter map (such as injectivity), no closure of G under composition or inversion, no continuity, smoothness or differentiability of the maps, and no physical interpretation: whether these maps describe changes between inertial frames of a physical model is a separate, explicitly adopted assumption of the physics items that consume this definition. The group structure of G is proved in the group lemma of this page, and the units in which the parameters are read are fixed by the model's unit conventions, not here.

Remarks

LemmaStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passOpen item page →

The Galilean transformations form a group of bijections of the coordinate space

Statement

In the notation of The Galilean transformations of the coordinate space, with C=R×R3, G the set of Galilean transformations and θ=(b,a,v,R) the parameters of gθ:

  1. The parameter map θ↦gθ is injective: if g(b,a,v,R)=g(b′,a′,v′,R′) then b=b′, a=a′, v=v′ and R=R′.
  2. Each g(b,a,v,R) is a bijection of C, with inverse g(b,a,v,R)−1=g(−b, −RT(a−vb), −RTv, RT).
  3. Composition of Galilean transformations is Galilean, with g(b2,a2,v2,R2)∘g(b1,a1,v1,R1)=g(b1+b2, R2a1+v2b1+a2, R2v1+v2, R2R1), and g(0,0,0,I3) is the identity map of C.
  4. Consequently G is a subgroup of the group of all bijections of C under composition.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The coordinate space C, the maps g(b,a,v,R)(t,x)=(t+b,Rx+vt+a) and the parameter set Θ (The Galilean transformations of the coordinate space).

[L1]

Definition of gθ and its parameters: g(b,a,v,R)(t,x)=(t+b,Rx+vt+a) for all (t,x)∈C, with b∈R, a,v∈R3 and R∈SO(3) (The Galilean transformations of the coordinate space).

[L2]

I3∈SO(3); for all R,S∈SO(3) the matrices RS and RT again lie in SO(3), and R is invertible with inverse RT, so that RRT=RTR=I3 (SO(3) is a subgroup of the general linear group, with R−1=RT, The orthogonal group O(3) and the rotation group SO(3)).

[L3]

Matrix algebra: the matrix product is associative and I3M=MI3=M for every 3×3 matrix M; the matrix-vector products displayed in the definition satisfy R(u+w)=Ru+Rw, R(λu)=λ(Ru), (λR)u=λ(Ru) and (RS)u=R(Su) for u,w∈R3 and λ∈R, when matrices act on column vectors by the product of Rectangular matrix multiplication and the identity matrix In, including zero-sized shapes read componentwise; two vectors of R3 are equal exactly when their three components agree, and two 3×3 matrices are equal exactly when their nine entries agree (Rectangular matrix multiplication and the identity matrix In, including zero-sized shapes).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1L1L3algebra

[Injectivity] Assume g(b,a,v,R)=g(b′,a′,v′,R′). Evaluating at (0,0) and comparing first coordinates gives b=b′. Evaluating at (0,x) then gives Rx+a=R′x+a′ for every x∈R3; at x=0 this gives a=a′, and after subtracting, (R−R′)x=0 for every x, which for x=e1,e2,e3 compares the three columns of the matrix R−R′ and gives R=R′. Evaluating at (t,0) then gives vt+a=v′t+a′ for every real t; subtracting the known a=a′ and taking t=1 gives v=v′. Hence θ=θ′.

1.2L1L2L3algebra

[Composition] For every (t,x)∈C, applying first g(b1,a1,v1,R1) and then g(b2,a2,v2,R2) gives (t+b1+b2, R2(R1x+v1t+a1)+v2(t+b1)+a2). By the linearity and associativity identities of [L3] this equals (t+(b1+b2), (R2R1)x+(R2v1+v2)t+(R2a1+v2b1+a2)), which is gθ3(t,x) for θ3:=(b1+b2, R2a1+v2b1+a2, R2v1+v2, R2R1); and R2R1∈SO(3) by [L2], so θ3∈Θ and the composite is Galilean with the displayed parameters. Taking the second quadruple to be (0,0,0,I3) makes the composite equal gθ1 by [L2], and taking the first to be (0,0,0,I3) makes it equal gθ2; hence g(0,0,0,I3) is the identity map of C, and the composite lies in G.

1.3L1L2L3algebra

[Inverse] Let θ=(b,a,v,R) and η:=(−b, −RT(a−vb), −RTv, RT); by [L2] RT∈SO(3), so η∈Θ. For (t′,x′)∈C put t:=t′−b and x:=RT(x′−v(t′−b)−a). Then t+b=t′, and Rx+vt+a=R RT(x′−v(t′−b)−a)+v(t′−b)+a=x′ by RRT=I3 of [L2]; hence gθ(t,x)=(t′,x′) and gθ is surjective. Expanding x gives x=RTx′+(−RTv)t′+(−RT(a−vb))=gη(t′,x′), so gθ∘gη is the identity of C. If gθ(t1,x1)=gθ(t2,x2) then t1=t2 from the first coordinate, and R(x1−x2)=0 from the second, giving x1=x2 because R is invertible by [L2]; so gθ is injective, and with surjectivity it is a bijection.

2.1step 1.2L2L3algebra

[Two-sided inverse] By step 1.2 the composite gθ∘gη has parameters (−b+b, Raη+vbη+a, Rvη+v, RRT) with (bη,aη,vη,Rη)=η, so its components are 0, R(−RT(a−vb))+v(−b)+a=−(a−vb)−vb+a=0, R(−RTv)+v=−v+v=0 and RRT=I3; hence gθ∘gη=g(0,0,0,I3), the identity of C by step 1.2. This proves clause 2 with the displayed inverse.

3.1step 1.1step 1.2step 1.3step 2.1algebra∎

[Subgroup] By steps 1.2 and 2.1 the set G contains the identity of the bijection group of C and is closed under composition and inversion; by step 1.1 the parameter map is injective, and every gθ is a bijection by steps 1.3 and 2.1. Therefore G is a subgroup of the group of all bijections of C under composition, and clauses 1-4 hold.

DefinitionDefinition: AI-adaptedProof: Not applicableOpen item page →

Dimensions, SI unit conventions and quantity types of the framework

Physical scope

Conventions fixing how the quantities of the framework are read with dimensions and SI reference units: the dimension group on length, duration, mass and charge with its temperature extension, the metre, second, kilogram, coulomb and kelvin, the exact defining constants of the current SI and the dimensions and mathematical types of the framework's quantities. The item fixes conventions only: it asserts no measured constant value, adopts no law and makes no claim about any system.

Definition

(a) Dimensions. Write ℓ, τ, μ, ϑ for the four independent dimension symbols of length, duration, mass and electric charge. A dimension is an element of Q4, written ℓaτbμcϑd with a,b,c,d∈Q; products and inverses of dimensions are componentwise addition and negation, and the dimensionless dimension ℓ0τ0μ0ϑ0 is abbreviated 1. The conventions assign to each quantity of the framework a dimension [X], subject to [XY]=[X][Y], [X/Y]=[X][Y]−1 and [dX/du]=[X][u]−1, with sums meaningful only between quantities of equal dimension, in which case the sum carries that dimension. For a rational power q, dimension powers mean [X]q=ℓqaτqbμqcϑqd when [X]=ℓaτbμcϑd. Rational exponents include the half-integer wave-function dimensions in clause (d); the integer-exponent dimensions form the subgroup Z4. These are consistency requirements on the conventions, not laws of nature.

For extensions using temperature, adjoin an independent dimension symbol Θ: the enlarged group is Q4×Q, written ℓaτbμcϑdΘe, with the same componentwise rules. The preceding group embeds by e=0, so all previously assigned dimensions are preserved. Temperature has dimension Θ, the Boltzmann constant has dimension μℓ2τ−2Θ−1, and entropy in joules per kelvin has that same dimension; a dimensionless entropy remains dimensionless. This convention does not assign a temperature or an entropy to any system.

(b) Reference units. The metre (m), second (s), kilogram (kg) and coulomb (C) are the reference units of length, duration, mass and charge; a quantity of dimension ℓaτbμcϑd is expressed in the unit masbkgcCd. Coordinates of an inertial frame are read with the time coordinate t in seconds, [t]=τ, and the spatial coordinates xi in metres, [xi]=ℓ; slice distances of the arena are read in metres. In the temperature extension the reference unit of Θ is the kelvin (K), so the general reference unit gains a factor Ke.

(c) Defining constants of the current SI. The framework keeps ℏ explicit. In the current SI the constants h, c and e are exact defining constants, with the values h=6,626 070 15×10−34 J s, c=2,99792458×108 m s−1 and e=1,602 176 634×10−19 C, and ℏ:=h/(2π). These are real scalar constants with dimensions and units [h]=[ℏ]=μℓ2τ−1 (J s), [c]=ℓτ−1 (m s−1), and [e]=ϑ (C). The vacuum permeability μ0 is a positive real scalar that is experimentally determined in the current SI, with [μ0]=μℓϑ−2 (N A−2 = H m−1); ε0:=(μ0c2)−1 is a positive real scalar with [ε0]=μ−1ℓ−3τ2ϑ2 (F m−1). These are unit-convention statements of the SI, not measurements reported by this framework; c enters the framework only through the separate radiation assumptions adopted on their own pages, not in the nonrelativistic spacetime of The Newtonian spacetime arena of the framework.

(d) Dimensions and types of the framework's quantities. The dimension map is fixed on the following quantities.

  1. State quantities: a position wave function of a system with d spatial dimensions and r internal components is an almost-everywhere equivalence class in L2(Rd;Cr) with dimension ℓ−d/2, its norm ∥ψ∥ is dimensionless, and an abstract normalized state and the density operators of the state postulate are dimensionless.
  2. Probability: the outcome probability μ(B) of the observable postulate is a dimensionless number; a position density ∣ψ∣2 has dimension ℓ−d; a momentum wave function normalized against ddp has dimension (μℓτ−1)−d/2; an amplitude for a finite outcome is a dimensionless complex number, while an amplitude read against a detector coordinate carries the square-root of the inverse of the detector measure.
  3. Frame parameters (The Galilean transformations of the coordinate space): [b]=τ, [ai]=ℓ, [vi]=ℓτ−1 and [Rij]=1.
  4. Mechanical quantities: action [ℏ]=μℓ2τ−1; energy and the Hamiltonian eigenvalues μℓ2τ−2; momentum μℓτ−1; position components ℓ; angular momentum and spin μℓ2τ−1; mass μ; velocity of a free spinless model ℓτ−1; force μℓτ−2; a real potential energy μℓ2τ−2.
  5. Probability current: in the ordinary continuous-field regime, fix an integer d≥1, an open spatial region Ω⊆Rd and an open time interval I⊆R. A probability current density is a declared continuous map j:Ω×I→Rd, whose spatial components have dimension ℓ1−dτ−1 and reference unit m1−ds−1. At fixed time it is a spatial vector field; its signed normal component is read as probability transported per unit spatial (d−1)-area and time. Explicitly, for a flat face S={x:xk=a, ai≤xi≤bi (i≠k)}⊂Ω, with ai<bi and chosen normal n=ϵek, ϵ∈{−1,1}, define its signed probability flux at t∈I as ΦS(t):=ϵ∫∏i≠k[ai,bi]jk(x1,…,xk−1,a,xk+1,…,xd,t)∏i≠kdxi. Here ek is the kth coordinate unit vector and the integral uses (d−1)-dimensional Lebesgue measure; for d=1 this means Φ{a}(t)=ϵj(a,t). The flux has dimension τ−1 and unit s−1; positive sign means transport in the chosen normal direction. Fluxes through curved surfaces, or currents with weaker regularity, require separately specified surface measures or traces. This fixes the quantity type and flux convention; it supplies neither a current associated to an arbitrary L2 state nor a conservation or detector law. Each dynamical model supplies its current construction and balance hypotheses.
  6. Electric quantities of the model parameters: charge has dimension ϑ; a magnetic moment has dimension ℓ2ϑτ−1, equivalently A m2=J T−1, and a gyromagnetic parameter γ in the relation μ=γS has dimension μ−1ϑ, equivalently s−1T−1; these quantities appear only in the model assumptions that introduce them.
  7. Statistical quantities: a mean has the dimension of its outcome coordinate, a variance the square of it and a standard deviation it; a mean, variance or higher moment exists only when the corresponding moment of the outcome probability is finite, so a symbolic average is not a number unless that integrability is established. Angles and phases are dimensionless under the radian convention.
  8. Quantities of later extension assumptions - radiation frequencies and energies, electric dipole moments, cross sections, temperatures and entropies - are declared with their dimensions and units by the items that introduce those assumptions, under the rules fixed here; they are not part of the present list.

(e) Conventions only. No numerical value of any model parameter is fixed by this item: no mass, charge, spin label, potential or measured constant is asserted, and natural-unit shorthand (for example setting ℏ=1 or c=1) is read as an abbreviation for the corresponding SI-dimensioned statement with the constant restored.

Remarks

  • The dimension rules fix bookkeeping only. They neither predict a value nor restrict which models are admissible; each later item that introduces an operation outside the product, quotient and derivative rules declares the dimensions of its outputs.
  • The framework's exact constants of (c) are conventions of the current SI: they assert nothing about the validity of the model, and the measured constants of the model (masses, charges, magnetic parameters) are qualified empirical inputs wherever they enter.
DefinitionDefinition: AI-adaptedProof: Not applicableOpen item page →

Inertial frames of the framework and the class of frame changes

Physical scope

The frames of the non-relativistic quantum framework: inertial frames are adapted coordinate charts of the Newtonian arena, determined by a time origin, a spatial origin and a positively oriented orthonormal spatial triad, and the allowed changes between them are the Galilean transformations. The definition fixes these objects; it makes no claim about forces, about the motion of apparatus and no empirical claim, and it deliberately excludes observer congruences and time-varying basis fields.

Definition

Inertial frames. Fix the arena (V,τ,g,A) of The Newtonian spacetime arena of the framework. An inertial frame of the framework is an adapted chart

F=(o,u,(e1,e2,e3))

of that arena in the sense of Affine time space with Euclidean simultaneous slices and adapted charts: an event o∈A (the spatial and time origin of the frame), a vector u∈V with τ(u)=1 (the frame's time vector), and an ordered g-orthonormal positively oriented basis (e1,e2,e3) of K (the frame's spatial triad). The associated frame coordinates are the functions (t,x):A→R×R3 of Existence and uniqueness of adapted coordinates, and the affine structure of simultaneous slices, defined by p=o+t(p)u+∑ixi(p)ei.

What kind of object a frame is. A frame is a coordinate chart of A: a bijection of A with R×R3 carrying the affine structure, and in particular a global chart, not a local one. It is deliberately not an observer congruence (no family of curves indexed by spatial position, no four-velocity field) and not a time-varying orthonormal basis field: the triad (e1,e2,e3) is a fixed basis of K and the time vector u is fixed once the frame is chosen. A time-dependent family of bases or a congruence of observers is a different geometric object, and statements about them are not statements about frames unless a separate construction relates them.

Allowed changes of frame. Let F and F′ be two inertial frames with coordinates (t,x) and (t′,x′). The change of frame from F to F′ is the bijection of R×R3 that sends the F-coordinates of an event to its F′-coordinates. By clause 1 of Transformation between adapted charts and its kinematic consequences there are b∈R, a,v∈R3 and R∈SO(3) (The orthogonal group O(3) and the rotation group SO(3)) with

t′=t+b,x′=Rx+vt+a;

that is, the change of frame is the Galilean transformation g(b,a,v,R) of The Galilean transformations of the coordinate space applied to the coordinates. The class of transformations between inertial frames is therefore the set G of the Galilean transformations, which by The Galilean transformations form a group of bijections of the coordinate space is a group of bijections of the coordinate space: the composite of two frame changes is again a frame change, and the inverse of a frame change is a frame change. The parameters are the time shift b, the spatial translation a, the boost velocity v and the rotation R of the two frames.

Conventions. The spatial triad of every frame is positively oriented for the fixed orientation of K used in the definition of adapted charts, so all frame changes have R∈SO(3) rather than R∈O(3) with negative determinant. The reading of the coordinates in seconds and metres, and the physical meaning of the parameters as measured quantities, are fixed by the unit conventions recorded on this page; no measured value of any parameter is asserted here.

Status. This definition fixes the frames and the class of frame changes of the model. It asserts no property of forces or of the motion of any body, selects no distinguished frame, and makes no empirical claim. The adoption of these frames as the frames of the physical model, together with the reading of apparatus motion as classical, is part of the kinematics postulate of this page.

Remarks

  • The distinction between chart and congruence matters for later claims: a change of frame changes the coordinate description of a state or of a trajectory but does not move the apparatus, and an accelerated congruence of observers is not a frame of the model.
  • Two inertial frames related by a pure time shift, a pure spatial translation, a pure boost or a pure rotation are the elementary cases listed in The Galilean transformations of the coordinate space, and a general frame change is the composite of these.
  • Every Galilean map is realized by a pair of frames. Fix F=(o,u,(ei)) and any (b,a,v,R)∈R×R3×R3×SO(3). Define ej′:=∑iRjiei, u′:=u−∑i(RTv)iei, and o′:=o−bu+∑i(RT(vb−a))iei. Then τ(u′)=1, and (e1′,e2′,e3′) is a positively oriented g-orthonormal basis of K because its change-of-basis matrix is orthogonal with determinant det⁡R=1. Thus F′:=(o′,u′,(ej′)) is an inertial frame. Substitution into p=o+tu+∑ixiei=o′+t′u′+∑jxj′ej′ gives t′=t+b and x′=Rx+vt+a. Hence every parameter quadruple in the definition of G occurs as the coordinate change of two inertial frames; combined with the adapted-chart lemma's forward direction, the class of changes is exactly G.
DefinitionDefinition: AI-adaptedProof: Not applicableOpen item page →

Classical apparatus and preparation trajectories of the framework

Physical scope

The classical trajectories used for apparatus constituents and preparation devices of the framework: twice continuously differentiable curves in the Newtonian arena whose parameter is the frame time. The definition records that these objects describe macroscopic apparatus, that a quantum particle is not assigned a definite worldline between measurements, and that no force law for the apparatus is adopted here; it makes no empirical claim.

Definition

Classical trajectories. Fix the arena of The Newtonian spacetime arena of the framework and an inertial frame F of Inertial frames of the framework and the class of frame changes with coordinates (t,x). A classical trajectory (also called a worldline of the model) is a pair (I,γ) consisting of a nondegenerate open interval I⊆R and a map γ:I→A such that:

  1. Parameter condition. The parameter of the curve is the frame time: t(γ(s))=s for every s∈I. In the coordinates of the frame this reads γ(s)=(s,x(s)) with x:I→R3.
  2. Regularity. The coordinate map x:I→R3 is of class C2, so that the coordinate velocity w(s):=x′(s) and the coordinate acceleration a(s):=x′′(s) exist as continuous curves; derivatives are those of The derivative and the Riemann integral of a vector-valued function: an intrinsic derivative and a componentwise integral and the chain rule used to differentiate compositions is The chain rule for total derivatives: D(g∘f)(a)=Dg(f(a))∘Df(a).

Apparatus and preparation constituents. The macroscopic parts of a laboratory arrangement - sources, slits and collimators, shutters, field-generating coils and magnets, screens and detector housings - are described in the model by classical trajectories: to each such constituent and each inertial frame there is assigned a trajectory in the above sense, with the same event of the arena carrying its position at the frame time. A preparation device is such a constituent together with the classical trajectory assigned to it.

Quantum particles. A trajectory in the above sense is not assigned to a quantum particle of the model: the state of a particle between preparations and detections is given by a state in the sense of the state postulate of this page, and the model asserts no definite trajectory of a particle between measurements. A detected particle event is a localized detection record; its distribution is computed with the model's measurement assumptions, not by reading off a worldline.

Status. This definition fixes the mathematical object used for apparatus descriptions and its regularity, and records the two restrictions above: apparatus motion is described classically, and no worldline is assigned to an unmeasured quantum particle. It adopts no force law determining the apparatus trajectories, no interaction between apparatus and particle other than those specified on the pages that state a measurement model, and no empirical claim. The identification of a particular laboratory device with a trajectory of the model is a physical assumption with uncertainty, in the sense of the preparation and apparatus postulate of this page.

Remarks

  • The parameter condition is a genuine restriction: under an affine reparametrization s↦αs+β of a trajectory, the new parameter again equals the frame time only when α=1 and β=0; free reparametrizations are not part of the model.
  • No causal or velocity restriction is imposed on classical trajectories by this definition; the framework is non-relativistic and sets no speed bound. Constraints imposed by a particular apparatus model are stated where that model is introduced.
  • Dimensions of the derivatives. The parameter s=t(γ(s)) has dimension τ and each coordinate xi has dimension ℓ under Dimensions, SI unit conventions and quantity types of the framework. Therefore each coordinate velocity component wi=dxi/ds has dimension ℓτ−1, and each coordinate acceleration component ai=d2xi/ds2 has dimension ℓτ−2. These are the dimensions of the frame-coordinate derivatives; they add no force law or speed bound.
LemmaStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passOpen item page →

Canonical commutation relations of position and momentum on the Schwartz core

Graph-core convention used in the Statement. If A:D(A)⊆H→H is a densely defined linear operator, its graph norm on D(A) is ∥f∥A:=(∥f∥H2+∥Af∥H2)1/2. A linear subspace D0⊆D(A) is a core for A when it is dense in D(A) in this graph norm; equivalently, the graph of A∣D0 is dense in the graph of A in H×H. A common core for a family of operators is one subspace that is a core for each operator in the family.

Statement

Assume the Axiom of Countable Choice (The Axiom of Countable Choice (ACω)). Fix d≥1 and ℏ>0, let Qj,Pk be the position and momentum operators on L2(Rd;C) of Position and momentum operators on Euclidean L2, and let

S:=S(Rd;C)

be the Schwartz space of Schwartz space and its seminorms. Then:

In this operator statement, S denotes the image in L2(Rd;C) of the actual Schwartz functions under the quotient map by almost-everywhere equality (The space Lp(μ) as the quotient by null functions); the smooth representatives are used in the pointwise derivative calculations.

(a) S⊆D(Qj)∩D(Pk) for all j,k, and Qjf∈S and Pkf∈S for every f∈S. (b) for every f∈S the products QjPk and PkQj are defined at f and (QjPk−PkQj)f=iℏ δjkf,δjk={1,j=k,0,j≠k; that is, the canonical commutation relation holds on the common core S.

No statement is made about products of Qj and Pk outside S: the relation is asserted on the Schwartz core only, not as an identity of unbounded products on all of L2.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: d≥1, ℏ>0, the operators Qj,Pk of Position and momentum operators on Euclidean L2 with the domains D(Qj)={f:xjf∈L2} and D(Pk)={f:Dkf exists in L2}, and a class f∈S.

[L1]

Operator formulas and domains: Qjf=xjf on D(Qj)={f∈L2:xjf∈L2} and Pkf=−iℏDkf on D(Pk)={f∈L2:Dkf∈L2}; on a smooth Schwartz representative, Dkf=∂kf as an L2 class by the classical-to-weak derivative lemma (Position and momentum operators on Euclidean L2, Classical derivatives agree with weak derivatives).

[L2]

From the seminorm definition, xjf and ∂kf are Schwartz whenever f is Schwartz, since the product rule gives ∂β(xjf)=xj∂βf+βj∂β−ejf, so pαβ(xjf)≤pα+ej,β(f)+βjpα,β−ej(f), with the second term omitted in both formulas when βj=0, while pαβ(∂kf)=pα,β+ek(f). Every Schwartz function and each polynomial-times-derivative used here is in L2 by Schwartz derivatives are integrable; every compactly supported smooth function belongs to S directly from the seminorm definition (Schwartz space and its seminorms).

[L3]

All approximation sequences below are indexed by positive integers n≥1; as sequences on N={0,1,…}, their term at r is the displayed term at n=r+1. There is χ∈Cc∞(Rd) with 0≤χ≤1, χ=1 on ∣x∣≤1 and χ=0 on ∣x∣≥2. For χn(x)=χ(x/n), supp⁡χn⊆{∣x∣≤2n} and ∥∂kχn∥∞≤n−1∥∂kχ∥∞ (Explicit compactly supported smooth cutoffs).

[L4]

Normalize the nonnegative cutoff χ of [L3] to a real unit-mass bump ρ=χ/∫χ, and put ρϵ(x)=ϵ−dρ(x/ϵ). For compactly supported h∈L2, ρϵ∗h∈Cc∞, its support lies in the sum of the compact supports of h and ρϵ, and ρϵ∗h→h in L2 as ϵ↓0 (The mollifier family generated by a unit-mass smooth bump, Complex translation, convolution, approximate identities, and mollification).

[L7]

Dominated convergence is supplied by Dominated convergence.

[L6]

Fubini applies to the convolution test identity used below: the mollifier and test function have compact support, and the compactly supported L2 input and its L2 weak derivative are locally integrable (Fubini's theorem for L^1 functions on a sigma-finite product).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1L1L2algebra

[Schwartz invariance and domains] Let f∈S. By [L2], xjf and ∂kf are Schwartz and in L2; by [L1], f∈D(Qj)∩D(Pk), Qjf=xjf∈S, and Pkf=−iℏ∂kf∈S. This proves (a) and ensures both products in (b) are defined.

1.2givenL3L4L7choosealgebra

[The position operators have Schwartz cores] Fix j and f∈D(Qj), and define fn=χnf using [L3]. Since χn(x)→1 for each fixed x and ∣χn∣≤1, dominated convergence applied to ∣fn−f∣2 and ∣xj(fn−f)∣2 gives ∥fn−f∥2+∥xjfn−xjf∥2→0. Each fn is supported in ∣x∣≤2n. For fixed n, let gn,ϵ=ρϵ∗fn; by [L4] it is smooth, compactly supported in ∣x∣≤2n+2ϵ, and ∥gn,ϵ−fn∥2→0. For 0<ϵ≤1, ∣xj∣≤2n+2 on both supports, so ∥xj(gn,ϵ−fn)∥2≤(2n+2)∥gn,ϵ−fn∥2. Choose ϵn≤1 so the latter L2 error is below n−2. Then gn,ϵn∈Cc∞⊆S and converges to f in the graph norm of Qj. Thus S is a core for Qj.

2.1step 1.1L1L2L5algebra

[Classical product rule and commutator] Since xjf∈S, its classical derivative is its weak derivative by [L1]. By [L5], Dk(xjf)=∂k(xjf)=δjkf+xj∂kf. Therefore PkQjf=−iℏ(δjkf+xj∂kf), while QjPkf=−iℏxj∂kf. Subtraction yields (QjPk−PkQj)f=iℏδjkf, proving (b) directly on Schwartz representatives.

3.1givenstep 1.1L1L3L4L6L7choosealgebra∎

[The momentum operators have Schwartz cores] Fix k and f∈D(Pk); put fn=χnf. For every φ∈Cc∞, the weak derivative identity for f applied to χnφ gives ∫fn∂kφ=−∫(χnDkf+(∂kχn)f)φ, so Dkfn=χnDkf+(∂kχn)f∈L2. Dominated convergence gives fn→f and χnDkf→Dkf in L2, while [L3] gives ∥(∂kχn)f∥2≤n−1∥∂kχ∥∞∥f∥2→0; hence fn→f in the graph norm of Pk. For fixed n, let gn,ϵ=ρϵ∗fn. For a test function φ, change variables and apply the weak-derivative identity inside the convolution integral: ∫gn,ϵ(x)∂kφ(x) dx=∫ρϵ(y)∫fn(z)∂kφ(z+y) dz dy=−∫(ρϵ∗Dkfn)(x)φ(x) dx. The interchange is valid by [L6], so ∂kgn,ϵ=ρϵ∗Dkfn as a weak derivative; since gn,ϵ is smooth, it is also its classical derivative. Both gn,ϵ→fn and ∂kgn,ϵ→Dkfn in L2 by [L4]. Choose ϵn>0 so both errors are below 1/n. Then gn,ϵn∈Cc∞⊆S and converges to f in the graph norm of Pk=−iℏDk. Thus S is a core for Pk. Since j,k were arbitrary, the proof establishes the common-core assertion in the Statement and completes (a) and (b).

PostulateStatement: AI-adaptedProof: Not applicableOpen item page →

State and composition postulate P1: Hilbert spaces, preparations and composite systems

Physical scope

The state and composition assumptions of the nonrelativistic quantum framework: assignment of a nonzero separable complex Hilbert space to each system of a declared sector, identification of pure preparations with unit rays and of general preparations with density operators, statistical mixing, and composition of independent distinguishable subsystems by the completed Hilbert tensor product. Adoption is a model assumption, not a derived or empirical result; the item excludes superselection rules, identical-particle sectors and any relativistic or field-theoretic structure, which are separate assumptions.

Postulate

Adopt as physical assumptions of the framework, for systems in the declared massive-matter sector, the following statements about states and their composition. Assume throughout the Axiom of Countable Choice (The Axiom of Countable Choice (ACω)), which is the choice hypothesis of the mathematical suppliers cited below.

(i) State space. To each physical system of the sector the model assigns a complex Hilbert space H that is nonzero and separable: a complex Hilbert space in the sense of Hilbert space which admits a sequence whose range is dense in H, so that the hypothesis of A Hilbert space with a dense sequence has a finite or countable orthonormal basis holds and H has a finite or countable orthonormal basis. The assignment of a Hilbert space to a physical system is a model assumption; the linear structure used to combine descriptions mathematically is not an empirical claim. The physical system to which H is assigned, and the sector in which the assignment is made, are declared with it.

(ii) Pure preparations. A pure preparation of the system is a unit ray [ψ]={zψ:z∈C∖{0}} of a vector ψ∈H with ∥ψ∥=1; that is, two nonzero vectors describe the same pure preparation exactly when they differ by a nonzero complex factor. The zero vector is not a state and no preparation is assigned to it: the normalization ∥ψ∥=1 is part of the assignment. The ray allows arbitrary nonzero rescaling; between unit representatives the factor has modulus one and is a global phase, which has no observable consequence (P2). The rank-one operator Tψ,ψ of Rank-one operator calculus is the density operator associated with the ray of ψ.

(iii) General preparations and mixing. A general preparation of the system is a density operator: a self-adjoint positive trace-class operator ρ on H with tr⁡ρ=1 (Trace class operator, Trace of a trace class operator, Density operators and scalar spectral probability clause (a)). Pure preparations are the special case ρ=Tψ,ψ with ∥ψ∥=1. A statistical mixture of preparations ρn with weights wn≥0, ∑nwn=1, is the trace-norm convergent sum ρ=∑nwnρn as follows directly in the trace-class Banach space (Trace class is a two sided Banach operator ideal): each density has trace norm one, so ∑n∥wnρn∥1=1 gives trace-norm convergence. Every partial sum is positive; operator-norm convergence preserves its nonnegative quadratic forms, and continuity of trace gives tr⁡ρ=∑nwn=1 (Trace is absolutely convergent and basis independent). Thus the limit is again a density operator, without requiring the components to be orthogonal pure states. The weights are a classical preparation uncertainty and are not amplitudes. Distinct weighted ensembles of pure states may define the same ρ.

(iv) Composition. Two independent distinguishable subsystems with state spaces HA and HB are composed by the completed Hilbert tensor product HA⊗^HB of Hilbert tensor construction: inner product, completion and product bases. Product preparations ψA⊗ψB are simple tensors and are the special case in which each subsystem has its own specified preparation. Their finite linear span is dense in HA⊗^HB by the construction; a pure composite preparation may be any unit ray in this completion, including a norm limit of finite linear combinations of product vectors, and need not factor. General composite preparations are density operators on this space and include the statistical mixtures of clause (iii). A quantity of subsystem A alone is represented on the composite by an operator of the form A⊗IB and a quantity of B alone by IA⊗B, in the sense of Bounded tensor maps: extension, norm estimate, adjoint and commutation (bounded case; unbounded local operators are treated where they occur). The existence of the completed tensor product is mathematics; the assignment of that product to a composite physical system is the physical assumption here.

(v) Restrictions that are separate assumptions. Restrictions of the state space by superselection rules, identical-particle symmetry sectors, and the replacement of the tensor product by more general algebraic structures are not consequences of the clauses above: where such a restriction is used it is adopted separately, and the identical-species sectors are the subject of the postulate P6 of this page.

(vi) Status. Clauses (i)-(v) are adopted assumptions of the model within its declared sector. They are not derived from experiment, and they do not assert that a physical system is exactly described by such a Hilbert space; no numerical measurement is recorded. The compatibility of the framework with observation is a question about fully specified models and reported data, in the sense of P7.

Status and scope

  • Sector. The assignment is made for systems of nonrelativistic massive matter with a fixed finite particle number, each system treated once and for all with a declared state space; quantum field theory, gravity and systems whose particle number is not fixed are outside this postulate.
  • No derivation. The state space, the ray equivalence and the tensor composition are adopted. In particular the tensor composition is not a theorem about physical composition, and the nonuniqueness of mixtures recorded in clause (iii) is a mathematical property of the adopted objects, not an empirical claim.
  • Choice. The cited mathematical suppliers assume Countable Choice; all consequences of this postulate that use them inherit that assumption, and any choice-free special case must be proved separately where it is claimed.
  • Composition is not a measurement postulate. Clause (iv) fixes how descriptions of independent subsystems are combined; it asserts nothing about interactions, correlations or measurements of the composite.
PostulateStatement: AI-adaptedProof: Not applicableOpen item page →

Observable and probability postulate P2: self-adjoint observables, spectral probability and finite unsharp outcomes

Physical scope

The observable and probability assumptions of the framework: sharp real-valued quantities are self-adjoint operators with a declared unit, their spectral projection-valued measures assign outcome probabilities to preparations, and finite families of bounded effects describe unsharp finite outcomes. Adoption is a model assumption, not a derived result; the item excludes any claim that every laboratory dial is such an observable, makes no statement about joint measurements or moments, and is silent on which quantities of a given system are sharp.

Positive operators and effects on the assigned Hilbert space. For a bounded operator F:H→H, write F≥0 when F=F∗ and ⟨Fx,x⟩≥0 for every x∈H. Write 0≤F≤I when F and I−F are positive; equivalently 0≤⟨Fx,x⟩≤∥x∥2 for every x∈H. Thus an effect on H is a bounded operator satisfying these conditions. These definitions apply whether or not H is finite-dimensional; in finite dimensions they agree with Non-negative and positive operators.

Mathematical normalization of finite effects (conditional on P1). Let H be any nonzero Hilbert space, let ρ be a density operator on H, and let (Fa)a=1p be effects with ∑aFa=I. By Density operators and scalar spectral probability clause (a), write ρ=∑nwnTun,un in trace norm with wn≥0, ∑nwn=1, and (un) orthonormal. The rank-one trace formula gives tr⁡(Tun,unFa)=⟨Faun,un⟩ (Rank-one operator calculus), and the trace-class ideal bound makes T↦tr⁡(TFa) continuous in trace norm (Trace class is a two sided Banach operator ideal). Hence tr⁡(ρFa)=∑nwn⟨Faun,un⟩≥0; summing over the finite index a gives ∑atr⁡(ρFa)=∑nwn⟨Iun,un⟩=1. This is a mathematical normalization calculation for the probabilities in clause (iv), not an additional physical measurement assumption.

Postulate

Adopt as physical assumptions of the framework the following statements about sharp and unsharp real-valued quantities. Assume the Axiom of Countable Choice and the Axiom of Choice (The Axiom of Countable Choice (ACω), The Axiom of Choice). The latter is the explicit hypothesis used to obtain the spectral PVM of a general self-adjoint operator from Spectral theorem for unbounded self-adjoint operators (PVM form) in clause (ii); consumers invoking this construction inherit it.

(i) Sharp observables. An ideal sharp real-valued quantity (observable) of a system with state space H is a densely defined self-adjoint operator A:D(A)⊂H→H (Adjoint of a densely defined operator, Symmetric, self-adjoint and essentially self-adjoint operators), meaning D(A)=D(A∗) and Aψ=A∗ψ on this common domain, together with a declared unit in which its real spectral coordinate is read; the unit is part of the assignment, and no numerical value of the coordinate is asserted by the assignment. Symmetry of A on a small domain is not sufficient for self-adjointness, and the domain is a declared part of the observable.

(ii) Spectral probability. Let EA be the spectral projection-valued measure of the self-adjoint operator A on the Borel σ-algebra of R (Spectral theorem for unbounded self-adjoint operators (PVM form), Projection valued measure, The Borel sigma-algebra of a topological space). For a preparation ρ and a Borel set B⊆R the probability of the outcome in B is μρA(B):=tr⁡(ρ EA(B)),and for a pure preparation [ψ] it is μψA(B)=∥EA(B)ψ∥2. By clause (b) of Density operators and scalar spectral probability the assignment B↦μρA(B) is a probability measure on the Borel sets (Probability measures and probability spaces, Scalar and complex measures from a pvm). It is the general form of the Born rule adopted here.

(iii) Nature of the outcome law. The probability law is a measure, not necessarily a density with respect to Lebesgue measure and not necessarily a finite or countable sum of point masses: a self-adjoint operator with continuous spectrum ordinarily has no normalizable eigenvector at a point of its continuous spectrum, so an "exact value" of a continuum quantity is not represented by a normalized state. An ideal point value is an idealization; a real detector reports a finite-resolution outcome, that is, the probability of a declared Borel set B such as a bin, and the recorded-event probability is that of (ii) for the bin, not the value of a density at a point.

(iv) Unsharp finite outcomes. Outcomes of a finite-resolution apparatus with finitely many channels are described, when the idealization uses bounded effects, by a finite family (Fa)a=1p of effects on H as defined above, with ∑aFa=I. The outcome probabilities are pa=tr⁡(ρFa). They are normalized for every state space assigned by P1, as shown by the preceding general-H calculation. This unsharp extension is an operational description tied to an apparatus model; it is not obtained from the sharp observable by mathematical manipulation alone, and the effects alone do not determine what happens to the state after the outcome (P3).

(v) Moments are a separate matter. Statements about the mean, variance or higher moments of the outcome law require the corresponding integrability of t↦tn against μρA and are not part of this postulate; where they are used they are stated with their hypotheses. In particular the existence of tr⁡(ρA) for an unbounded A is not asserted.

(vi) Status. Clauses (i)-(v) are adopted assumptions of the model. They assert nothing about which quantities of a concrete apparatus are sharp, about the physical mechanism producing an outcome or about the completeness of the description; a laboratory record is a classical event whose relation to the model is a tested identification with uncertainty, in the sense of P7.

Status and scope

  • Adopted, not derived. The representation of sharp quantities by self-adjoint operators and the Born rule of clause (ii) are assumptions. They are motivated by the successes of the framework but are not deduced from experiment.
  • No detector theorem. Clause (iii) explicitly distinguishes an ideal point outcome from a finite-resolution record: the model's binomial or binned probabilities are the operational objects, and a vanishing ideal density at a point does not make a finite bin of positive length impossible.
  • Sharpness and units. A declared observable carries a unit; sums and comparisons of outcome coordinates are meaningful only for observables with the same unit. Quantities of the model whose operator status is not declared are numbers or parameters, not observables.
PostulateStatement: AI-adaptedProof: Not applicableOpen item page →

Ideal conditional measurement postulate P3: the projective Lueders update and discarded outcomes

Physical scope

The ideal conditional-measurement assumption of the framework: a declared repeatable sharp measurement with a finite or countable family of mutually orthogonal projections resolves the identity, outcomes occur with the Born probabilities, a selected outcome updates the preparation by the Lueders rule and discarding outcomes gives the trace-norm convergent sum. Adoption is a model assumption for declared ideal apparatus; it is not asserted for every laboratory detector, makes no claim about outcome uniqueness, and excludes exact continuum eigenvalues and nonprojective absorption processes, which require their own models.

Postulate

Adopt as physical assumptions of the framework the following conditional-update rule for declared ideal measurements. Assume the Axiom of Countable Choice (The Axiom of Countable Choice (ACω)).

(i) Declared measurement. A declared ideal sharp measurement of a system with state space H consists of a finite or countably infinite family (Pa)a∈A of bounded orthogonal projections on H (The Hilbert orthogonal projection onto a closed subspace, The orthogonal projection PWv is the W-component in V=W⊕W⊥) which are mutually orthogonal, PaPb=0 for a≠b, and whose strong sum is the identity: the finite or norm-convergent countable sum ∑aPax=x for every x∈H (Projection valued measure clause 4). The family is part of the apparatus description; the model does not claim that every laboratory device is a declared measurement of this form.

(ii) Outcome probabilities. For a preparation ρ the probability of the outcome a is pa:=tr⁡(ρPa)≥0, with ∑apa=1; equivalently pa=∥Paψ∥2 for a pure preparation [ψ], as in the probability postulate P2. This is the Born law of the declared measurement.

(iii) Conditional update. If the outcome a has been recorded and pa>0, the preparation posterior to the measurement is ρa:=Pa ρ Papa, the Lueders update. It is a density operator (Density operators and scalar spectral probability clause (a), Rank-one operator calculus): PaρPa is positive, trace class with trace pa by the rank-one series expansion of ρ and the trace formulas, and ρa is self-adjoint, positive, trace class with trace 1. The update preserves coherence inside the range of a degenerate Pa: a superposition of orthogonal vectors within that range is updated to the same relative superposition, and repetition of the same declared measurement on ρa returns a with probability 1 (repeatability of the declared projective measurement).

(iv) Discarded outcomes. If the outcomes are recorded but not selected, the posterior ensemble is ρ′=∑aPa ρ Pa, which converges in trace norm and is a density operator: for an eigen-expansion ρ=∑nwnTun,un as in clause (a) of Density operators and scalar spectral probability under the adopted Axiom of Countable Choice, the series ∑aPaρPa=∑a∑nwnTPaun,Paun is nuclear with trace ∑a∑nwn∥Paun∥2=∑nwn=1 by the nuclear-series characterization of the trace norm and the absolute convergence of the trace (Nuclear series characterizes trace norm, Trace is absolutely convergent and basis independent); its normalized form ρ′ has the operator dependence recorded by clause (iii) for each branch.

(v) Limits of the rule. The rule is an assumption of the model for the declared ideal measurement; it is not derived from the Born law of P2, and it is not asserted for every apparatus. In particular: a measurement of an exact eigenvalue of an operator with continuous spectrum is not represented by normalizing a delta distribution; a photon-absorption detector need not leave an outgoing one-photon preparation of the same form; and a unitary system-apparatus model that produces conditional correlations does not by itself select a unique recorded outcome or resolve which branch occurred. Apparatuses outside the declared class require their own models with their own stated assumptions. The example in Finite effects and instruments: normalization and non-determination of the update that equal finite outcome effects can have different updates is proved there only for finite-dimensional H; that example is not a representation result for instruments on infinite-dimensional H.

(vi) Status. Clauses (i)-(v) are adopted assumptions. They record how the model updates preparations in the declared ideal case and what it deliberately does not claim about arbitrary apparatuses and about the uniqueness of recorded outcomes.

Status and scope

  • No preferred-basis claim. The declared family (Pa) belongs to the apparatus model; the postulate gives no rule that selects a preferred family from a system alone.
  • Degeneracy. Clause (iii) is the density-operator form of the Lueders rule with the projections Pa themselves, not with one-dimensional sub-projections chosen inside a degenerate eigenspace; the difference is measurable and is treated with the update rule where degenerate measurements occur.
  • Discarding versus conditioning. Clause (iv) describes the discarded-outcome ensemble; it is a different object from the selected-branch state of clause (iii), and it destroys the coherence between different branches.
PostulateStatement: AI-adaptedProof: Not applicableOpen item page →

Autonomous dynamics postulate P4: self-adjoint generators and unitary evolution

Physical scope

The autonomous-dynamics assumption of the framework: an isolated system's energy is a self-adjoint operator with a declared energy unit, the state of a vector or density operator evolves by the unitary group it generates, and the Schroedinger equation holds on the operator domain. Adoption is a model assumption of the isolated-system idealization; driven and open systems are excluded and require their own assumptions, and no claim is made that any laboratory system is exactly isolated.

Postulate

Adopt as physical assumptions of the framework the following statement of isolated autonomous dynamics. Assume the Axiom of Countable Choice and the Axiom of Choice (The Axiom of Countable Choice (ACω), The Axiom of Choice), which are the choice hypotheses of the cited spectral and group suppliers.

(i) Energy operator. An isolated autonomous system of the sector has a declared energy operator Hop:D(Hop)⊂H→H that is self-adjoint (Adjoint of a densely defined operator, Symmetric, self-adjoint and essentially self-adjoint operators) and a declared energy unit in which its spectral coordinate is read. The energy operator is part of the model specification of the system; for a massive particle it is fixed by the kinematics postulate P5, and singular or unbounded model Hamiltonians require their own self-adjointness statements.

(ii) Evolution. The time evolution of the model is the strongly continuous one-parameter unitary group U(t):=exp⁡ ⁣(−iℏtHop)(t∈R),U(t+s)=U(t)U(s),U(t)∗=U(t)−1, defined by the spectral calculus of the self-adjoint generator (Spectral theorem for unbounded self-adjoint operators (PVM form), Integral of a measurable function against a projection-valued measure, A self-adjoint operator generates a strongly continuous unitary group, Strongly continuous one-parameter unitary group). The energy unit enters the argument of the exponential so that Hopt/ℏ acts in the dimensionless spectral variable.

(iii) State evolution. A vector state evolves continuously, ψ(t):=U(t)ψ(0) for every ψ(0)∈H, and the Schroedinger equation iℏ ddtψ(t)=Hopψ(t) holds in the norm-differentiable sense exactly for initial vectors ψ(0)∈D(Hop), where the derivative is the norm limit of the difference quotients; for other vectors the equation is not asserted, although the evolution remains continuous. A density-operator preparation evolves as ρ(t)=U(t)ρ(0)U(t)∗, which is a density operator for every t and satisfies tr⁡ρ(t)=1 (Density operators and scalar spectral probability).

(iv) Time-dependent families. A prescribed time-dependent family t↦H(t) of self-adjoint operators is a different model assumption: a norm-continuous finite-dimensional Hermitian family is used only through the unitary two-time propagator that its family defines, and the exponential of the integral of H(t) is not identified with that propagator unless the family commutes with itself at different times. The general unbounded time-dependent case requires a separate existence and domain theorem of its own and is not adopted by this postulate; the driven-dynamics page states its own assumptions for the models it treats.

(v) Open systems. A non-unitary evolution of the reduced description of a system coupled to an environment is an extension obtained from an explicitly chosen environment model and a declared reduction, not a replacement for clause (ii); no environment model is adopted by this postulate.

(vi) Status. Clauses (i)-(v) are adopted assumptions of the isolated-system idealization. They assert nothing about the origin of the energy operator of a concrete system, about the accuracy of the idealization for a laboratory preparation, or about which laboratory interactions realize an isolated evolution; those are tested identifications in the sense of P7.

Status and scope

  • Domain matters. The Schroedinger equation is a statement about vectors in D(Hop); for a vector outside the domain only the unitary group acts, and the expression Hopψ is undefined. Statements about the derivative of expected values require the common-domain hypotheses stated with them.
  • Autonomous only. An isolated system evolves autonomously; driven evolution is an additional model assumption of the pages that treat it.
  • Units. The energy unit is declared with the observable; energies and times enter the phase Hopt/ℏ so that the combination is dimensionless in the declared units.
PostulateStatement: AI-adaptedProof: Not applicableOpen item page →

Identical-particle and spin assignments P6: permutation sectors and finite-spin representations

Physical scope

The identical-particle and spin assignments of the framework: labels as tensor factor labels, adoption of the symmetric or antisymmetric permutation sector for a declared species, and assignment of a finite-spin SU(2) representation with spin operators. Adoption is a model assumption; exclusion and permutation invariance are conditional on the adopted sector, the relativistic spin-statistics theorem is not asserted, and no species assignment is claimed to be derived.

Postulate

Adopt as physical assumptions of the framework the following assignments for identical species and for spin. Assume the Axiom of Countable Choice (The Axiom of Countable Choice (ACω)).

(i) Labels and sectors. For n particles of one species the model forms the n-fold completed tensor power H⊗n of the one-particle space (Hilbert tensor construction: inner product, completion and product bases), whose tensor position factors are mathematical labels and not observable particle identities. For a declared bosonic species the model uses the symmetric sector SnH, the range of the symmetrizing projection Pn+, and for a declared fermionic species the antisymmetric sector ΛnH, the range of the alternating projection, both as constructed in Permutation sector projections on the n-fold tensor power. The sector is part of the declared species assignment; the permutation invariance of states in the sector and the resulting exclusion statement for fermions are conditional consequences read off that projection, not assumptions added to it. A bounded quantity A on H⊗n is restricted to an adopted sector only when it preserves that sector; in particular, AUπ=UπA for every permutation implies APn±=Pn±A by the finite projection sums. Bounded tensor maps construct ambient operators; an operator on a single labelled factor need not preserve either sector.

(ii) Spin. For a declared spin label s∈{0,12,1,32,… } the model assigns the internal factor Vs=C2s+1 with the standard inner product and basis (em)m=−s,−s+1,…,s. Here SU(2)={W∈M2(C):W∗W=I2,det⁡W=1} with its matrix topology. For s>0 put n=2s≥1 and let Fs:Sn→Vs be the unitary identification Fsvk=es−k of Symmetric-power SU2 representation. The assigned strongly continuous unitary representation is Ds(W)=FsUn(W)Fs−1. For s=0 put D0(W)=IC for every W, the trivial one-dimensional representation with zero generators. The spin operators are Si=ℏJi with the self-adjoint endomorphisms of Finite spin matrices, satisfying [Si,Sj]=iℏ∑kϵijkSk,S2=Sx2+Sy2+Sz2=ℏ2s(s+1)I. For Ai(t)=cos⁡(t/2)I2−isin⁡(t/2)σi, the curve Ds(Ai(t)) has infinitesimal generator −iJi, including s=0. This specifies the internal SU(2) action. If a spatial Hilbert factor Hsp is separately assigned a strongly continuous unitary SU(2) representation Rsp, the combined action is explicitly W↦Rsp(W)⊗Ds(W) on Hsp⊗^Vs: its representation law follows from bounded tensor composition, and continuity follows on elementary tensors and then by density and the unitary norm bound. The existence and physical interpretation of that spatial action require the separate assignment. The spin label and representation are species model assignments; the internal factor is not a rotating body or a spatial coordinate.

(iii) Species parameters. The mass, charge, spin label, statistics and any magnetic coupling constant of a species are empirical model parameters: they enter the model as declared values with uncertainty, and no value is derived from the Hilbert-space formalism. The assignment of a sector (symmetric or antisymmetric) to a species is likewise a model assignment, tested through the consequences computed with it.

(iv) What is not asserted. The relativistic spin-statistics theorem is not a theorem of this postulate set: the connection between spin and permutation sector adopted here is a nonrelativistic model assignment, and any relativistic statement about it belongs to a framework that adopts relativistic assumptions. Similarly, the postulate asserts nothing about the internal structure, compositeness or interactions of a species beyond the declared parameters.

(v) Status. Clauses (i)-(iv) are adopted assumptions of the framework for declared species. They record the sectors and the spin representations used by the model and the empirical status of the species parameters; they make no claim that the model assignment is exact for any species and record no measurement.

Status and scope

  • Sector and statistics. The model does not derive from a sector that a species is bosonic or fermionic in nature; it declares the sector. Consequences such as the exclusion of coincident fermionic occupied states are conditional on the adopted antisymmetric sector.
  • Finite spin only. The internal factor is finite-dimensional, with the representation displayed above. Infinite-dimensional internal structures and relativistic spinor bundles are separate model assumptions.
  • Spin and orbital angular momentum are distinct. The operators Si of this postulate act on the internal factor; orbital generators act on the spatial factor, and the two are combined only through stated tensor constructions.
PostulateStatement: AI-adaptedProof: Not applicableOpen item page →

Kinematics and massive-particle model postulate P5: Newtonian frames and one-particle operators

Physical scope

The nonrelativistic kinematics and massive-particle model assumption of the framework: the Newtonian spacetime arena and its inertial frames with Galilean frame changes, classical apparatus trajectories, and the one-particle model of a spin-s particle of mass m with position and momentum operators and the bounded-potential Schroedinger Hamiltonian. Adoption is a model assumption; the item excludes relativistic matter, radiation, massless particles, singular potentials and boundary realizations, which are separate model assumptions, and asserts no empirical identification of any particular particle.

Mathematical realization used below (not an additional physical assumption). For each finite r≥1, define L2(R3;Cr) to be the space of r-tuples of scalar L2 classes with inner product ⟨(fl),(gl)⟩=∑l⟨fl,gl⟩, and define S(R3;Cr):=(S(R3;C))r. The tensor-product universal property extends the bilinear assignment f⊗z↦(zlf)l=1r linearly to the algebraic tensor product. It is an isometry there: for Z=∑ifi⊗zi, ∥ΦZ∥2=∑i,j⟨fi,fj⟩⟨zi,zj⟩=∥Z∥2 by the tensor-product inner product. It extends to the completion and is onto, because each tuple (fl) is Φ(∑lfl⊗el). Thus it gives the stated unitary identification. Here A∗ is the adjoint of a densely defined operator and A=A∗ means equality of domains and values (Adjoint of a densely defined operator, Symmetric, self-adjoint and essentially self-adjoint operators). If A is self-adjoint on the scalar space, the finite direct sum A(r)=⨁l=1rA on tuples with each fl∈D(A) is self-adjoint: testing an adjoint vector on inputs with one nonzero component shows each component lies in D(A∗) and gives the component A∗fl; conversely, if each component lies in D(A∗), summing the finitely many adjoint identities shows the tuple lies in D((A(r))∗). Hence (A(r))∗=⨁lA∗, which equals A(r) when A=A∗. This applies below to Qj, Pk, and the scalar bounded-potential Hamiltonian.

Postulate

Adopt as physical assumptions of the framework the following kinematics and one-particle model. Assume the Axiom of Countable Choice and the Axiom of Choice (The Axiom of Countable Choice (ACω), The Axiom of Choice), which are the choice hypotheses of the cited operator suppliers.

(i) Spacetime and frames. The model reads its events and frames in the Newtonian arena of The Newtonian spacetime arena of the framework, with inertial frames and frame changes as in Inertial frames of the framework and the class of frame changes: the frame changes are the Galilean transformations of The Galilean transformations of the coordinate space, and their composition is governed by the group law of The Galilean transformations form a group of bijections of the coordinate space. These frames are global coordinate charts, not observer congruences and not time-varying basis fields. The parameters of a frame change are read in the units fixed by Dimensions, SI unit conventions and quantity types of the framework.

(ii) Apparatus motion. The macroscopic constituents of preparations and apparatus are described by the classical trajectories of Classical apparatus and preparation trajectories of the framework; a quantum particle of the model is not assigned a worldline between preparations and detections.

(iii) One-particle state space. For one particle of spin label s∈{0,12,1,32,… } and mass parameter m>0, the model uses the state space Hs:=L2(R3;C)⊗^ C2s+1≅L2(R3;C2s+1), whose second factor carries the spin representation assigned in the postulate P6, and ℏ>0 is the action constant of the adopted unit system. Position and momentum act on Hs componentwise: for ψ=(ψ1,…,ψ2s+1) the j-th position acts by (Qjψ)l(x):=xjψl(x) on the classes with xjψl∈L2, and the k-th momentum by (Pkψ)l:=−iℏDkψl on the classes whose componentwise weak derivative lies in L2; for one component these are the operators of Position and momentum operators on Euclidean L2, whose self-adjointness, domains and Fourier representation are supplied by Self-adjointness, Fourier representation and translation identities of position and momentum. On the componentwise Schwartz space defined in the preceding mathematical realization, the canonical commutation relation (QjPk−PkQj)ψ=iℏδjkψ holds componentwise by Canonical commutation relations of position and momentum on the Schwartz core (Schwartz space and its seminorms).

(iv) Baseline Hamiltonian. For a real bounded measurable potential V:R3→R the model uses the scalar Hamiltonian Hop:=−ℏ22mΔ+V(Q),D(Hop)=W2,2(R3;C) (componentwise), with the free part −ℏ2Δ/2m and the bounded multiplier V(Q) as in Real multiplication operators and free plus bounded-potential Schrödinger operators clauses (b) and (c) (Integer-order Sobolev spaces and their norms); that theorem supplies the self-adjointness of each component operator on the displayed domain and the strongly continuous unitary group it generates, which the dynamics postulate P4 then reads as the evolution. The assignment of the operator Hop to a particle of mass m and spin s is the physical content of this clause; the mathematical properties are those of the cited theorem.

(v) What is separate. The model does not follow from P1-P4: the choice of the Newtonian arena, of the frame class, of the tensor factor C2s+1, of the operators Qj,Pk as position and momentum and of the Hamiltonian of clause (iv) are all adopted. Singular or unbounded model potentials (Coulomb-type, oscillator-type, boundary and point-interaction realizations) are separate model choices with their own domains and self-adjointness statements, established before use; relativistic matter, massless particles and radiation modes are not supplied by this massive-model assignment; they are adopted separately on their own pages, without a limiting construction here. No empirical identification of a particular particle species with a value of s or m is made or recorded here; the species parameters are empirical inputs in the sense of P6 and P7.

(vi) Status. Clauses (i)-(v) are adopted assumptions of the framework. They assert that the model is used in the nonrelativistic regime and make no claim that any physical system is exactly described by it; no numerical measurement is recorded.

Status and scope

  • Spin factor. The spatial factor L2(R3;C) carries the position and momentum structure; the finite factor carries the spin representation. The model does not identify the internal factor with a spatial coordinate, a rotating body or a classical angular momentum.
  • Bounded baseline only. Clause (iv) is asserted for real bounded measurable V; a potential that is unbounded below, singular or merely form-bounded is not covered, and each such model carries its own hypotheses.
  • Frames and covariance. The transformation law of states under a frame change is a derived statement about the model's operators and is developed on the kinematics pages; this postulate fixes only which frames and frame changes the model uses.
PostulateStatement: AI-adaptedProof: Not applicableOpen item page →

Preparation and apparatus postulate P7: declared preparations, isolation and sampling assumptions

Physical scope

The preparation and apparatus assumptions of the framework: a comparison with data requires declared preparation, isolation, detection and sampling models, repetitions are an additional statistical model, and the claim that an apparatus realizes a preparation and a dynamics is a physically tested identification with uncertainty. The item asserts no measured result, adopts no sampling distribution as a quantum law, and excludes inferred certainty about identification or about the model.

Postulate

Adopt as physical assumptions of the framework the following discipline for comparing the model with recorded data.

(i) Declared model of each comparison. A comparison of a model prediction with an experiment of the framework requires, in addition to the state and dynamics assumptions P1-P5, the following declared items: a preparation model, that is, a specification of the state or preparation assigned to the system together with the physical procedure that realizes it; an isolation model, that is, the energy operator used and a statement of the interactions neglected in the approximation; a detection model, that is, the response of the apparatus, including efficiency, resolution, background and any binning; and sampling assumptions, that is, the statistical model under which repetitions of the preparation and detection are combined. None of these items is supplied by the mathematical framework alone.

(ii) Repetitions. The treatment of repeated trials as independent and identically distributed draws from the model's outcome law is an additional statistical model of the apparatus and the procedure. It is not a consequence of the state postulate and is not guaranteed by the mathematics; where it is assumed it is stated, and where it fails (correlated trials, drifting preparation, dead time, selection) the statistical analysis must model the departure or record the limitation.

(iii) Identification with uncertainty. The claim "this apparatus realizes the preparation ρ and the dynamics Hop" and the claim "this detector realizes the effect F" are physical identifications: they are tested against recorded behaviour of the apparatus, carry uncertainty and can fail. They are not derived from the framework, and a model prediction obtained under them inherits their qualifications. Calibration procedures, control experiments and their limitations are recorded with the comparison.

(iv) Empirical premises. Where a measured value enters a deduction - a mass, a charge, a field strength, a detector efficiency - it enters as a qualified empirical premise with its uncertainty, conditions of measurement and source, and the conclusion of the deduction carries those qualifications. A deduction that uses a measured input is not an exact statement about nature.

(v) Status. Clauses (i)-(iv) are adopted as the framework's conditions for comparing model with data. They make no claim that the framework or the apparatus description is exact; agreement of a prediction with a dataset is evidence about the combined model and apparatus assumptions, not a proof of the framework and not a statement about nature deduced from the mathematics.

Status and scope

  • No sampling law from the state postulate. The probability law of P2 is a probability measure on outcomes of a declared measurement for a preparation; it is not by itself a probability distribution over finite datasets, which requires the sampling model of clause (ii).
  • Records are classical. A detection record is a classical event with a time and a position in the arena, described by a classical apparatus trajectory; the model's outcome law assigns probabilities to records, and the recorded counts are compared with those probabilities.
  • Qualification persists. Uncertainty and conditions carried by an empirical premise are not removed by exact subsequent algebra; the downstream conclusion inherits them.
RemarkRemark: AI-adaptedProof: Not applicableOpen item page →

Assumption classes and scope of the framework: P1-P7, the extension postulates and what is excluded

Physical scope

A scoped audit of the framework's assumption classes: the seven core postulates adopted on this page, the further model postulates adopted only on the pages that name them, and the exclusion list of the framework. The remark records status and scope; it proves nothing, asserts no empirical result, and claims no completeness beyond its stated list.

Assumption classes of the framework

This remark audits the assumption classes of the framework as stated on this page, and the deliberate boundary between them. It is bookkeeping of status and scope; it proves nothing and asserts no empirical result.

Adopted here: the core postulates P1-P7. The framework of this category starts from the seven adopted assumptions of this page, each stated in complete scoped form at its own item.

  1. P1, the state and composition postulate State and composition postulate P1: Hilbert spaces, preparations and composite systems: nonzero separable complex Hilbert spaces, unit rays and density operators as preparations, statistical mixtures, and composition by the completed tensor product.
  2. P2, the observable and probability postulate Observable and probability postulate P2: self-adjoint observables, spectral probability and finite unsharp outcomes: sharp observables as self-adjoint operators with declared units, their spectral probability measures, finite-resolution bins, and finite unsharp outcome families.
  3. P3, the ideal conditional-measurement postulate Ideal conditional measurement postulate P3: the projective Lueders update and discarded outcomes: the declared projective Lueders measurement, its outcome probabilities, its conditional update and its discarded-outcome ensemble.
  4. P4, the autonomous-dynamics postulate Autonomous dynamics postulate P4: self-adjoint generators and unitary evolution: the self-adjoint energy operator, unitary evolution generated by it, the Schroedinger equation on the operator domain, and the exclusion of driven and open-system evolution from the present assumptions.
  5. P5, the kinematics and massive-particle model postulate Kinematics and massive-particle model postulate P5: Newtonian frames and one-particle operators: the Newtonian arena The Newtonian spacetime arena of the framework, the inertial frames Inertial frames of the framework and the class of frame changes, the apparatus trajectories Classical apparatus and preparation trajectories of the framework, and the one-particle operators with the bounded-potential Hamiltonian.
  6. P6, the identical-particle and spin assignments Identical-particle and spin assignments P6: permutation sectors and finite-spin representations: permutation sectors for declared species and finite-spin representations, with species parameters as empirical inputs.
  7. P7, the preparation and apparatus postulate Preparation and apparatus postulate P7: declared preparations, isolation and sampling assumptions: declared preparation, isolation, detection and sampling models, and the qualified status of apparatus identifications and measured inputs.

Not adopted here: the extension postulates. The framework also names, on the pages that introduce them, further model postulates that are deliberately not part of P1-P7 and are not adopted by this page:

  • P5a, prescribed external electromagnetic coupling: a bounded-coefficient minimal-coupling Hamiltonian with prescribed static potentials for a charged particle in a named inertial frame, adopted only where that model is used; its gauge and domain statements belong to the page that adopts it.
  • P6a, effective magnetic-moment coupling: a finite-spin magnetic moment with a declared gyromagnetic parameter in a specified bounded field profile, adopted only where that model is used; it is not a consequence of the spin representation.
  • R1-R3, radiation and light-matter extensions: a fixed-mode transverse polarization model, quantized transverse radiation modes with the dispersion and energy assignments of a chosen inertial frame, and a finite-level dipole coupling in a declared long-wavelength regime; these are adopted only on the radiation and light-matter pages that name them.
  • R3a, finite-level electric-dipole coupling: the compressed dipole operator and its field interaction in the stated approximation, adopted with the driven-dynamics models that use it.

None of these extensions follows from P1-P7, and none is used by the items of this page. Their status on their own pages is the same as that of P1-P7 here: adopted model assumptions with declared scope, not theorems and not empirical findings.

Excluded from the framework. The following are outside the scope of this category and are not hidden in the core assumptions: relativistic matter and Lorentz-covariant particle dynamics; antiparticles, pair creation and annihilation; quantum field theory and quantum electrodynamics with their local field dynamics; quantum gravity and any coupling of quantum matter to spacetime curvature; quantum circuits, quantum computing and algorithms; and any claim that the framework's postulates are derived from experiment or from a deeper theory. Radiation and external-field models appear only through the explicitly adopted extensions above, never as a limit of the massive model of P5.

Status of the quantity conventions. The dimension and unit conventions of Dimensions, SI unit conventions and quantity types of the framework are conventions of the framework, not postulates about nature; measured constants enter through the empirical premises of P7. The postulate count depends on how assumptions are packaged: the list above distinguishes the core P1-P7 from the extensions, but an alternative packaging that combines or splits clauses would not change the model content.

No completeness claim. This list is complete for the declared core of this page and its named extensions, and for nothing else. It makes no claim about apparatuses, systems or regimes outside the stated scope, and it records no measured observation.

Remarks

  • The distinction between adopted assumptions and derived statements is a standing obligation of the category: each later item records which of its hypotheses are adopted model assumptions, which are mathematical hypotheses and which are qualified empirical premises.
  • The three definitions of this page record objects, not assumptions: the Newtonian arena, the inertial frames and the apparatus trajectories have mathematical content independently of their adoption, and the adoption clauses are the postulates listed above.
RemarkRemark: AI-adaptedProof: Not applicableOpen item page →

Primitive, adopted and derived quantities of the framework

Physical scope

An audit of which quantities of the framework are primitive model inputs, which are adopted structures and which are derived within the stated assumptions, together with the empirical status of the measured parameters. The remark records status; it derives no new result and asserts no measured value.

Primitive, adopted and derived quantities

This remark records the status of the framework's quantities under the conventions of Dimensions, SI unit conventions and quantity types of the framework and the postulates of this page. The classification is internal to the framework: a quantity called primitive here may be derived in another framework, and the same name in another framework need not denote the same object.

Primitive and adopted model inputs. The following enter the model as inputs rather than being derived within it: the arena objects and their readings (events, absolute time, the spatial metric and the frame parameters of the adopted frames); the state space assigned to each system, with its linear structure State and composition postulate P1: Hilbert spaces, preparations and composite systems; the energy operator of an autonomous system Autonomous dynamics postulate P4: self-adjoint generators and unitary evolution; the action constant ℏ, the particle mass m>0, the spin label and the potential of the one-particle model Kinematics and massive-particle model postulate P5: Newtonian frames and one-particle operators; the componentwise position and momentum assignments with their maximal domains (P5 clause (iii)); and the species parameters of Identical-particle and spin assignments P6: permutation sectors and finite-spin representations (mass, charge, spin, statistics, magnetic couplings), which are empirical model inputs.

Adopted structures. Separable complex Hilbert spaces with their inner products, the completed tensor product and the space of trace-class operators are mathematical structures; the framework adopts them as the description of states, and their mathematical properties are not physical findings. Similarly the projective measurement family of the conditional-measurement postulate is an adopted apparatus model, and the permutation sector of a species is an adopted assignment.

Derived quantities and statements. Within the stated assumptions the following are derived, and each is accompanied by the hypotheses of its derivation: the outcome probability measures μρA and their finite-resolution restrictions (from P2 and the spectral calculus); the updated preparation of the conditional-measurement rule and the discarded-outcome ensemble (from P3); the evolved vector state and density operator, with the Schroedinger equation on the operator domain (from P4); the invariance and common-core property of the Schwartz space, the canonical commutator there and the self-adjointness of the bounded-potential Hamiltonian (mathematical consequences of the operators and domains assigned in P5); the probability current j=(ℏ/m)Im⁡(ψ‾∇ψ) and pointwise continuity equation only under the hypotheses of Smooth local continuity equation and its integrated forms clause (a): Ω⊆R3 and I⊆R are nonempty open sets, m,ℏ>0, V:Ω→R is continuous, and ψ, ∂tψ, ∂jψ, and ∂k∂jψ are continuous and solve the displayed Schroedinger equation pointwise. The integrated balance additionally requires a bounded open C1 region D with D‾⊆Ω; global norm conservation requires the domination and vanishing-flux hypotheses of clause (c). Means, variances and higher moments exist only where their corresponding integrals are finite; energies are spectral quantities of the specified model Hamiltonian, while angular momenta and other spectral quantities belong to their corresponding specified self-adjoint observables, with the units declared under P2. No derived statement is asserted outside its hypotheses.

Empirical status of measured inputs. The numerical values of m, of charges and of magnetic parameters are not derived by the framework; they are qualified empirical premises in the sense of P7, with uncertainty and measurement conditions. The exact defining constants of the current SI recorded in the unit conventions are conventions of the system of units, not measured findings of this framework; the measured status of μ0 in the same conventions is that of a qualified empirical constant wherever it is used.

No interpretation claimed. The classification above records where each object enters the model. It asserts nothing about the ontological status of states, about the completeness of the description or about the empirical truth of the framework; those questions are outside the framework's deductive content.

Remarks

  • A quantity's name and unit do not establish its identity with a similarly named quantity of another framework: the momentum of the one-particle model is the operator assigned in P5, not the classical momentum of a trajectory, and the identification of classical and quantum descriptions in a limit is a separate derived statement where it is claimed.
  • The spin label and the internal factor are model inputs of P6; the spin operators are derived from the representation assignment, and no classical rotating-body picture is part of the framework.

5 · Examples, experiments and counterexamples

None yet.

Sources