• Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.


PO is now at the Physics Department of Bielefeld University!

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,064 questions , 2,215 unanswered
5,347 answers , 22,734 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
818 active unimported users
More ...

  Is a "third quantization" possible?

+ 10 like - 1 dislike
  • Classical mechanics: $t\mapsto \vec x(t)$, the world is described by particle trajectories $\vec x(t)$ or $x^\mu(\lambda)$, i.e. the Hilbert vector is the particle coordinate function $\vec x$ (or $x^\mu$), which is then projected into the space parametrized by the "coordinate" time $t$ or the relativistic parameter $\lambda$ (which is not necessarily monotonous in $t$).
    Interpretation: For each parameter value, the coordinate of a particle is described.
    Deterministic: The particle position itself
  • Quantum mechanics: $x^\mu\mapsto\psi(x^\mu)$, (sometimes called "the first quantization") yields Quantum mechanics, where the Hilbert vector is the wave function (being a field) $|\Psi\rangle$ that is for example projected into coordinate space so the parameters are $(\vec x,t)$ or $x^\mu$.
    Interpretation: For each coordinate, the quantum field describes the charge density (or the probability of measuring the particle at that position if you stick with the non-relativistic theory).
    Deterministic: The wave function
    Non-deterministic: The particle position
  • Quantum Field Theory: $\psi(x^\mu)\mapsto \Phi[\psi]$, (called the second quantization despite the fact that now the wave field is quantized, not the coordinates for a second time) basically yields a functional $\Phi$ as Hilbert vector projected into quantum field space parametrized by the wave functions $\psi(x^\mu)$.
    Interpretation: For each possible wave function, the (to my knowledge nameless) $\Phi$ describes something like the probability of that wave function to occur (sorry, I don't know how to formulate this better, it's not really a probability). One effect is for example particle generation, thus the notion "particle" is fishy now
    Deterministic: The functional $\Phi$ Non-deterministic: The wave function $\psi$ and the "particle" position

Now, could there be a third quantization $\Phi[\psi(x^\mu)] \mapsto \xi\{\Phi\}$? What would it mean? And what about fourth, fifth, ... quantization? Or is second quantization something ultimate?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-28 11:42 (UCT), posted by SE-user Tobias Kienzler
asked Nov 12, 2010 in Theoretical Physics by Tobias Kienzler (260 points) [ no revision ]
retagged Apr 28, 2014
As far as I know -- "second quantization" is just a deprecated term, used traditionaly. See e.g. here.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-28 11:42 (UCT), posted by SE-user Kostya

10 Answers

+ 7 like - 1 dislike

One more answer against “second quntization”, because I think it is a good demonstration of how a lame notation can obscure a physical meaning.

The first statement is: there is no second quantization. For example, here is citation from Steven Weinberg's book “The Quantum Theory of Fields” Vol.I:

It would be a good thing if the misleading expression ‘second quantization’ were permanently retired.

[I would even say that there is no quantization at all, as a procedure to pass from classical theory to quantum one, because (for example) quantum mechanics of single particle is more fundamental than the classical mechanics, therefore you can derive all “classical” results from QM but not vice versa. But I understand that it is a too speculative answer.]

There is a procedure called “canonical quantization”, which is used to construct a quantum theory for a classical system which has Hamiltonian dynamics, or more generally, to construct a quantum theory which has a certain classical limit.

In this case, if by the “canonical quantization” of a Hamiltonian system with finite number of degrees of freedom (classical mechanics) you imply quantum mechanics (QM) with fixed number of particles, then quantum field theory (QFT) is the “canonical quantization” of a classical Hamiltonian system with infinite number of degrees of freedom - classical field theory, not quantum mechanics. For such procedure, there is no difference between quantization of the electro-magnetic field modes and quantization of vibrational modes of the surface of the droplet of superfluid helium.

One more citation from Weinberg's book:

The wave fields $\phi$, $\varphi$, etc, are not probability amplitudes at all...

It is useful to keep in mind the following analogy: the coordinates are the “classical configuration” of a particle. QM wave function $\psi(x)$ corresponds to the “smearing” of a quantum particle over all possible “classical configurations”. QFT wave function $\Psi(A)$ corresponds to “smearing” of a quantum field over all possible configurations of a classical field $A$. Operator $\hat{A}$ corresponds to the observable $A$ in the same way as observable $x$ is represented by Hermitian operators $\hat{x}$ in QM.

The second statement is: “canonical quantization” is irrelevant in the context of fundamental theory. QFT is the only way to marry quantum mechanics to special relativity and can be contracted without a reference to any "classical crutches"

Conclusion: There is not any sequence of “quantizations” (1st, 2nd,.. nth).

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-28 11:42 (UCT), posted by SE-user Grisha Kirilin
answered Nov 15, 2010 by Grisha Kirilin (95 points) [ no revision ]
I really didn't intend this to be a revival of the "second quantization" term, I know it's "bad". But still, why shouldn't there be a next step? QFT is the quantum theory of fields, but also its "classical" Lagrangian describes the equation of motion for QM-fields, e.g. the Dirac equation. In QM, the wave function is usually used as the basic description to then obtain e.g. expectation values, while in QFT one usually starts directly with correlation functions / expectation values. Yet the is also a wave functional and a quantum-Lagrangian possible, what happens if you quantize that again?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-28 11:42 (UCT), posted by SE-user Tobias Kienzler
@Tobias: But why would you do that? More importantly, which object would you get if you did that? Let me try to make a long story short, amputated: the Jacobi Metric is given by $\tilde{g}_E = \sqrt{2 (E - V(q))}$, where $V$ is the Potential energy for your system (be it particles, fields, etc). Once you re-write your Lagrangian in terms of Jacobi's metric, you map the Hamiltonian flow into the Geodesic one. The bottom line is that the eqs of motion, now, have a very clear geometrical meaning. (continues…)

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-28 11:42 (UCT), posted by SE-user Daniel
(continuing…) This geometrical meaning is given by noting that Curvature is really the relevant quantity in this game. The question, then, is the following: What would you get if you did what you want? Fine, you go ahead and quantize again… what kinds of structures do you get? What do they represent? I hinted at this in my answer above…

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-28 11:42 (UCT), posted by SE-user Daniel
Tobias, you don't understand my (actually Weinberg's) point of view. In the context of "canonical quantization", "classical Lagrangian" of QFT describes the equation of motion for classical fields, not probability amplitudes $\psi(x)$. In fact, it is not possible to perform "canonical quantization" for Dirac equation in strict mathematical way (all attempts are some sort of cheating), that is why we should consider Dirac QF in the context of the second statement I made. There aren't two steps, only one - quantum theory.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-28 11:42 (UCT), posted by SE-user Grisha Kirilin
One more citation from Weinberg (I really like his "The Quantum Theory of Fields", because it is quite simple and consistent): From the point of view adopted here, the free-particle Dirac equation is nothing but a Lorentz-invariant record of the convention that we have used in putting together the two irreducible representations of the proper orthochronous Lorentz group to form a field that transforms simply also under space inversion.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-28 11:42 (UCT), posted by SE-user Grisha Kirilin
And one more (sorry): The Dirac equation for an electron in an external electromagnetic field, which historically appeared almost at the very start of relativistic quantum mechanics, is not seen here until Chapter 14, on bound state problems, because this equation should not be viewed (as Dirac did) as a relativistic version of the Schrodinger equation, but rather as an approximation to a true relativistic quantum theory, the quantum field theory of photons and electrons.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-28 11:42 (UCT), posted by SE-user Grisha Kirilin
+ 4 like - 0 dislike

Wow, that's a very good question. Unfortunately, I can't write down a question, because a haven't got one.

Nevertheless, I tried to found something related to third quantization in arxiv, and surprisingly (or not so surprisingly), you can find some papers related to this new step.

Just to name a few:



I really hope that someone can get a full answer here.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-28 11:42 (UCT), posted by SE-user asanlua
answered Nov 12, 2010 by asanlua (40 points) [ no revision ]
+1 That's some nice findings. Then I also stumbled upon nth quantization (Baez) and Strominger, Third Quantization (and Discussion), the latter suggesting (after a brief glance only) the third quantization would quantize spacetime as a result of String theory...

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-28 11:42 (UCT), posted by SE-user Tobias Kienzler
Baez's functorial description of quantization, while nice, doesn't include classical mechanics as one of the steps. My personal take on this question is that "first quantization" and "second quantization" are actually misnomers in that they describe very different mathematical processes. If no one else comes by, I might try to expand this into an answer.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-28 11:42 (UCT), posted by SE-user j.c.
+ 4 like - 0 dislike

I agree with Kostya that these names are deprecated and, in this sense, should be avoided (A. Zee's, "QFT in a Nutshell", book makes this point pretty straightforwardly).

Now, if you think of the process of "quantization" as a functor, you get to Baez's constructions. But, note that the objects being acted upon by this 'quantization functor' get progressively different from what you may be expecting.

An example that comes to mind is the quantization of gerbes, which does make an appearance in high energy physics (see section 3 of Geometric Langlands From Six Dimensions). But these objects are very non-intuitive from the Physics point-of-view: you don't even get an Action associated to this construction.

So, at this point, the furthest we've moved in this direction is String Field Theory. But, in some sense, "quantization" is still a mystery…

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-28 11:42 (UCT), posted by SE-user Daniel
answered Nov 13, 2010 by Daniel (735 points) [ no revision ]
+ 4 like - 0 dislike

Weinberg warned against interpreting the term "second quantization" too literally, and the term "third quantization" has been used as a misnomer in quantum cosmology and string theory. However there has been some speculative research into the idea of multiple quantiization. In particluar Carl von Weizsacker proposed a theory of multiple quantisation in the 1950s starting with one bit, or "ur" as he called it. By repreated quantisation he hoped to build a complete theory of the universe. While unsucessful, his ideas are still seen as forerunners to ideas about qubits and the role of information in physics. It is less well known that Yoichiro Nambu had written about thrid quantisation even earlier.

More recently the idea has been explored in the context of string theory and n-category theory. Here is a list of references:

P. Gibbs, "An Acataleptic Universe" http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1603
M. Kober, "Quantum Theory of Ur Objects and General Relativity", arXiv:0905.3828
L. Motl. "Quantum Graphity" in "the reference frame (blog)" (2006) http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/11/quantum-graphity.html
L. Motl. "Evaluating extreme approaches to the theory of everything" in "the reference frame (blog)" (2006) http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/07/evaluating-extreme-approaches-to.html
D. R. Finkelstein, "General quantization", quant-ph/0601002
L. Motl, "Measuring the depth of ideas" in "the reference frame (blog)" (2005) http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/07/measuring-depth-of-ideas.html
D. Graudenz "Multiple quantization in Fock space" In Castell, L. (ed.) et al.: Time, quantum and information, 355-360 (2003)
K-G Schlesinger "On the universality of string theory", Found.Phys.Lett. 15 (2002) 523-536, hep-th/0008217
J. Baez, "The Story of Nth Quantization" (2001) http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/nth_quantization.html
P. Gibbs, "Event symmetric space-time", Weburbia press,(1998) http://www.weburbia.com/press/esst.htm
K-G Schlesinger "Towards Quantum Mathematics Part II: Manifold Notions", (1998)
K-G Schlesinger "Towards Quantum Mathematics Part I: From Quantum Set Theory to Universal Quantum Mechanics", (1998)
P. Gibbs, "Event Symmetry for Superstrings.", Int.J.Theor.Phys.37:1243-1252,(1998)
D. R. Finkelstein, "Quantum Relativity", Heidelberg: Springer, (1996)
H. Lyre, "Multiple quantization and the concept of information", Int.J.Theor.Phys.35:2219-2225, (1996), quant-ph/9702047
P. Gibbs, "Superstring partons and multiple quantization", (1996), hep-th/9609118
P. Gibbs, "Is the universe uniquely determined by invariance under quantization?", (1996), hep-th/9603165
H. Lyre, "The Quantum theory of Ur objects as a theory of information", Int.J.Theor.Phys.34:1541-1552, (1995)
L. Crane, "Clock and Category; IS QUANTUM GRAVITY ALGEBRAIC", gr-qc/9504038
L. Crane, I. B. Frenkel, "Four dimensional topological quantum field theory, Hopf categories, and the canonical bases", hep-th/9405183
T Görnitz, D Graudenz, CF v Weizsäcker "Quantum field theory of binary alternatives", International Journal of Theoretical Physics, (1992)
M. Srednicki, "Infinite Quantization", UCSB-TH-88-07, Jul (1988)
M. B. Green "World sheets for world sheets", Nucl. Phys. B293 (1987), 593-611
C. F. von Weizsäcker "Probability and Quantum Mechanics", Br. J. Phil. Sci. 24,321 (1973).
C. F. von Weizsäcker "Die Quantentheorie der einfachen Alternative (Komplementarität und Logik II)", Zeitschrift fur Naturforschung, 13a:245-253 (1958)
C. F. von Weizsäcker "Komplementarität und Logik", Die Naturwissenschaften, Zeitschrift fur Physik, 60:573-586 (1955)
A. E. Scheidegger "Multiple Quantization", Canadian Journal of Physics, V,1 p26 (1953)
Y. Nambu "Second Configuration Space and Third Quantization", Progress of theoretical physics, (1949)
Y. Nambu "On the Method of the Third Quantization ", Progress of theoretical physics, (1949)

answered Apr 30, 2014 by Philip Gibbs (650 points) [ no revision ]
+ 3 like - 0 dislike

Second quantization is a way of recasting things. Second quantization defines fields over the Fock space so formerly waves are now parameters of field amplitudes. I have heard string theory called “third quantization,” but as I see it this is probably an abuse of language. At one time when membranes were first considered the term fourth quantization was raised a few times, though I think more in jest.

In the end it is all just quantization, and Weinberg is probably right in ignoring numberical ordering of quantization. Writing nonrelativistic QM according to $a$ and $a^\dagger$ is called second quantization by some, but really nothing much has changed.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-28 11:42 (UCT), posted by SE-user Lawrence B. Crowell
answered Jan 18, 2011 by Lawrence B. Crowell (590 points) [ no revision ]
+ 3 like - 0 dislike

As far as I understand, string theory is the quantization of a conformal quantum field theory, treated as a classical theory - apparently in precisely the same way as a spinor quantum field is the quantization of the Dirac particle, treated as a classical field. Thus it is a prominent example of third quantization.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-28 11:42 (UCT), posted by SE-user Arnold Neumaier
answered Mar 20, 2012 by Arnold Neumaier (15,787 points) [ no revision ]
+ 1 like - 0 dislike

In the context of quantum field theory Weinberg's advice to ignore the term "second quantisation" is good advice. However, to go beyond quantum field theory anything goes and some people have promoted the idea of multiple quantization as a speculative idea that could be fruitful. It's not a popular idea as you can see from the other answers, but the response to this question would not be complete without mentioning it.

Beware that the term "third quantization" is used in the context of quantum cosmology and does not really mean an extra quantization after second quantization. If you want to learn about the real thing try searching for terms like "multiple quantization", "iterated quantization", "repeated quantization", "fourth quantization" or "infinite quantization" (and ignore anything about data compression.)

You will find that the results are speculative, varied and incomplete, but not always totally mad. I don't think people should get overexcited about the idea but it should not be blithely dismissed either. It's just something to keep in the back of your mind if you are trying to understand the structure of theories about quantum gravity for example.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-28 11:42 (UCT), posted by SE-user Philip Gibbs
answered Jan 18, 2011 by Philip Gibbs (650 points) [ no revision ]
+ 1 like - 0 dislike

There's a pretty interesting article where they use a trick that they call "Third Quantization" to study open fermi systems.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/10/4/043026 (open access no less!)

It's not exactly what you have in mind, but as clearly illustrated by all of these other answers, "third quantization" is not really canon among physicists.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-28 11:42 (UCT), posted by SE-user wsc
answered Jan 19, 2011 by wsc (290 points) [ no revision ]
+ 1 like - 0 dislike

Four authors then all  based in Stonybrook created a series of parodies authored by "V. Gates, Empty Kangaroo, M. Roachcock, and W. C. Gall". In one of their parodies, they discuss third quantization of the superstring (this is circa 1985). While it is a parody, they are serious scientists and they do discuss the sequence: functions (in first quantization); functionals (in second quantization) and what they call functionalals (in third quantization) describes the wavefunction of the universe. I vaguely recall the third quantization picking up a citation in the literature.

By the way, this is meant to be a semi-serious post and with absolutely no malice intended on anybody including the OP.

answered Apr 29, 2014 by suresh (1,545 points) [ revision history ]
LOL +1 for mentioning the funny joke paper, I just love all of them (the earlier ones are slightly funnier though) :-D
+ 0 like - 0 dislike

3rd Quant IS not only possible, but is now being employed to develop a quantum theory of the Multiverse. First invented 60 yrs ago by Nambu, it was first employed in string theory (Strominger), as necessary to describe topology change, in analogy to 2nd quant, which is used to explain particle creation/annihilation.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-28 11:42 (UCT), posted by SE-user Jimbo
answered Feb 14, 2012 by Jimbo (35 points) [ no revision ]
sounds interesting, can you give my a reference to that?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-28 11:42 (UCT), posted by SE-user Tobias Kienzler

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
Please complete the anti-spam verification

user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights