BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research paths
Menu

Discover

SearchFind papers, people, topics, institutions and opportunities from one place.GraphSee how papers, authors, topics and evidence connect.

Research tools

HomeContinue from the papers, people and topics that matter now.CollectionsTurn saved papers into reading lists, evidence maps and shareable context.ResearchReconstruct the path that led you from search to paper to question.CollaborationMove from a paper, topic or expert request into a focused thread.PublishCreate full-text research articles with metadata, formulas and versions.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists whose work and reviews explain why they can help.CommunitiesJoin research groups organized around papers, topics and shared evidence.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations connected to real research context.

Account

Log inReturn to your saved papers, graph views and active threads.Create accountStart saving papers, building a research trail and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Source author record

Thomas F. Jordan

Thomas F. Jordan appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
quant-phphysics.class-phastro-phgr-qcphysics.ed-phphysics.gen-ph

Catalog footprint

What is connected

10works
6topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim
Open graphBrowse works

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

10 published item(s)

preprint2016arXiv

Bracket relations for relativity groups

Poisson bracket relations for generators of canonical transformations are derived directly from the Galilei and Poincaré groups of changes of space-time coordinates. The method is simple but rigorous. The meaning of each step is clear because it corresponds to an operation in the group of changes of space-time coordinates. Only products and inverses are used; differences are not used. It is made explicitly clear why constants occur in some bracket relations but not in others, and how some constants can be removed, so that in the end there is a constant in the bracket relations for the Galilei group but not for the Poincaré group. Each change of coordinates needs to be only to first order, so matrices are not needed for rotations or Lorentz transformations; simple three-vector descriptions are enough. Conversion to quantum mechanics is immediate. One result is a simpler derivation of the commutation relations for angular momentum directly from rotations. Problems are included.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Symmetries in open quantum dynamics

Simple examples are used to introduce and examine symmetries of open quantum dynamics that can be described by unitary operators. For the Hamiltonian dynamics of an entire closed system, the symmetry takes the expected form which, when the Hamiltonian has a lower bound, says that the unitary symmetry operator commutes with the Hamiltonian operator. There are many more symmetries that are only for the open dynamics of a subsystem. Examples show how these symmetries alone can reveal properties of the dynamics and reduce what needs to be done to work out the dynamics. A symmetry of the open dynamics of a subsystem can even imply properties of the dynamics for the entire system that are not implied by the symmetries of the dynamics of the entire system. The symmetries are generally not related to constants of the motion for the open dynamics of the subsystem. There are many symmetries that cannot be seen in the Schrodinger picture as symmetries of dynamical maps of density matrices for the subsystem. There are symmetries of the open dynamics of a subsystem that depend only on the dynamics. In the simplest examples, these are also symmetries of the dynamics of the entire system. There are many more symmetries, of a new kind, that also depend on correlations, or absence of correlations, between the subsystem and the rest of the entire system, or on the state of the rest of the entire system.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Symmetry examples in open quantum dynamics

Dependent symmetries, symmetries that depend on the situation of the subsystem in a larger closed system, are explored by looking at simple examples. This is a new kind of symmetry in the open quantum dynamics of a subsystem Each symmetry implies a particular form for the results of the open dynamics. The forms exhibit the symmetries very simply. It is shown directly, without assuming anything about the symmetry, that the dynamics produces the form, but knowing the symmetry and the form it implies can reduce what needs to be done to work out the dynamics; pieces can be deduced from the symmetry rather that calculated from the dynamics. Symmetries can be related to constants of the motion in new ways. A quantity might be a dependent constant of the motion, constant only for particular situations of the subsystem in the larger system. In particular, a generator of dependent symmetries could represent a quantity that is a dependent constant of the motion for the same situations as for the symmetries. The examples present a variety of possibilities. Sometimes a generator of dependent symmetries does represent a dependent constant of the motion. Sometimes it does not. Sometimes no quantity is a dependent constant of the motion. Sometimes every quantity is.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2010arXiv

What is tested when experiments test that quantum dynamics is linear

Experiments that look for nonlinear quantum dynamics test the fundamental premise of physics that one of two separate systems can influence the physical behavior of the other only if there is a force between them, an interaction that involves momentum and energy. The premise is tested because it is the assumption of a proof that quantum dynamics must be linear. Here variations of a familiar example are used to show how results of nonlinear dynamics in one system can depend on correlations with the other. Effects of one system on the other, influence without interaction between separate systems, not previously considered possible, would be expected with nonlinear quantum dynamics. Whether it is possible or not is subject to experimental tests together with the linearity of quantum dynamics. Concluding comments and questions consider directions our thinking might take in response to this surprising unprecedented situation.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2009arXiv

Probability sum rules and consistent quantum histories

An example shows that weak decoherence is more restrictive than the minimal logical decoherence structure that allows probabilities to be used consistently for quantum histories. The probabilities in the sum rules that define minimal decoherence are all calculated by using a projection operator to describe each possibility for the state at each time. Weak decoherence requires more sum rules. They bring in additional variables, that require different measurements and a different way to calculate probabilities, and raise questions of operational meaning. The example shows that extending the linearly positive probability formula from weak to minimal decoherence gives probabilities that are different from those calculated in the usual way using the Born and von Neumann rules and a projection operator at each time.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2007arXiv

Why quantum dynamics is linear

Quantum dynamics is linear. How do we know? From theory or experiment? The history of this question is reviewed. Nonlinear generalizations of quantum mechanics have been proposed. They predict small but clear nonlinear effects, which very accurate experiments have not seen. Is there a reason in principle why nonlinearity is not found? Is it impossible? Does quantum dynamics have to be linear? Attempts to prove this have not been decisive, because either their assumptions are not compelling or their arguments are not conclusive. The question has been left unsettled. There is a simple answer, based on a simple assumption. It was found in two steps separated by 44 years. They are steps back to simpler and more compelling assumptions. A proof of the assumptions of the Wigner-Bargmann proof has been known since 1962. It assumes that the maps of density matrices in time are linear. For this step, it is also assumed that density matrices are mapped one-to-one onto density matrices. An alternative is to assume that pure states are mapped one-to-one onto pure states and that entropy does not decrease. In a step taken in 2006, it is proved that the maps of density matrices in time are linear. It is assumed, as in the earlier step, that at each time the physical quantities and states are described by the usual linear structures of quantum mechanics, so the question is only about how things change in time. Beyond that, the proof assumes only that the dynamics does not depend on anything outside the system, but must allow the system to be described as part of a larger system.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2006arXiv

Lorentz transformations that entangle spins and entangle momenta

Simple examples are presented of Lorentz transformations that entangle the spins and momenta of two particles with positive mass and spin 1/2. They apply to indistinguishable particles, produce maximal entanglement from finite Lorentz transformations of states for finite momenta, and describe entanglement of spins produced together with entanglement of momenta. From the entanglements considered, no sum of entanglements is found to be unchanged.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2004arXiv

Cosmology calculations almost without general relativity

The Friedmann equation is derived for a Newtonian universe. Changing mass density to energy density gives exactly the Friedmann equation of general relativity. Accounting for work done by pressure then yields the two Einstein equations that govern the expansion of the universe. Descriptions and explanations of radiation pressure and vacuum pressure are added to complete a basic kit of cosmology tools. It provides a basis for teaching cosmology to undergraduates in a way that quickly equips them to do basic calculations. This is demonstrated with calculations involving: characteristics of the expansion for densities dominated by radiation, matter, or vacuum; the closeness of the density to the critical density; how much vacuum energy compared to matter energy is needed to make the expansion accelerate; and how little is needed to make it stop. Travel time and luninosity distance are calculated in terms of the redshift and the densities of matter and vacuum energy, using a scaled Friedmann equation with the constant in the curvature term determined by matching with the present values of the Hubble parameter and energy density. General relativity is needed only for the luminosity distance, to describe how the curvature of space, determined by the energy density, can change the intensity of light by changing the area of the sphere to which the light has spread. Thirty-one problems are included.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access