Quantcast
  • 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.

News

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

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

145 submissions , 122 unreviewed
3,930 questions , 1,398 unanswered
4,853 answers , 20,624 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
501 active unimported users
More ...

Quantum mathematics?

+ 8 like - 0 dislike
4 views

"Quantum" as a term/prefix used to be genuinely physical: what was supposed to be physically continuous turned out to be physically quantized.

What sense does this distinction make inside mathematics?

Especially: Is "quantum algebra" a well-chosen name? (According to Wikipedia, it's one of the top-level mathematics categories used by the arXiv, but it's not explained any further.)

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2017-09-18 17:19 (UTC), posted by SE-user Hans Stricker
asked Mar 25, 2011 in Mathematics by Hans Stricker (40 points) [ no revision ]
There is a very clear and important mathematical distinction between classical probability theory and quantum (non-commutative) probability.

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2017-09-18 17:19 (UTC), posted by SE-user Gil Kalai
Actually, it is explained further, like all the arXiv categories: front.math.ucdavis.edu/categories/math

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2017-09-18 17:19 (UTC), posted by SE-user Ben Webster
What does "well-chosen name" mean? Quantum is catchy, historically motivated, sufficiently distinct from other terms that one usually knows what it is intended to mean when one sees is, considerably much better that "basic", and so on....

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2017-09-18 17:19 (UTC), posted by SE-user Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
@Ben: "Quantum groups, skein theories, operadic and diagrammatic algebra, quantum field theory" isn't very much of an explanation.

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2017-09-18 17:19 (UTC), posted by SE-user Hans Stricker
@Mariano: "catchy", "historically motivated", "sufficiently distinct": I came up with these paraphrases, but didn't find them satisfactory and conclusive. By "well-chosen" I meant something like "self-explaining" (as in the physical realm), but - to be honest - did not want to discuss it.

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2017-09-18 17:19 (UTC), posted by SE-user Hans Stricker
@Gil: That's for sure, but "non-commutative" is more to the point than "quantum". So why not "non-commutative algebra"?

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2017-09-18 17:19 (UTC), posted by SE-user Hans Stricker
This is not to disagree with Gil's comment; but I think Connes has taken issue (informally, in casual interviews) with some uses of "quantum X" as a more fundable synonym of "noncommutative X". My memory is that he politely points out that he can't see what is actually being "quantized" in some of these cases.

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2017-09-18 17:19 (UTC), posted by SE-user Yemon Choi

3 Answers

+ 7 like - 0 dislike

Working in "quantum mathematics" myself, I should tend to defend this teminology a bit ;) The term is clearly motivated by the usage in physics and, nowadays, is typically used in situations where you have a "classical" mathematical object (ring, algebra, group, whatever) which traditionally is viewed in a commutative context. Then the "quantum" version means to transfer things into a noncommutative context and see what happens.

Of course, this is all very vague, but why do you call groups "groups" and fields "fields"? I guess, it is the intuition which makes this notion useful for the community. The intuition from physics is the transition from commutative to noncommutative, and I think that is really what people usually think if they hear from some "quantum blablabla" in math. So I guess, it is not a completely irritating notion :)

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2017-09-18 17:19 (UTC), posted by SE-user Stefan Waldmann
answered Mar 25, 2011 by Stefan Waldmann (440 points) [ no revision ]
On first reading I (mis?)read this as saying that 'traditionally ring, algebra, group are viewed in a commutative context'. Inserting 'a certain' in front of ring could avoid this.

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2017-09-18 17:19 (UTC), posted by SE-user user9072
@unknown (goolge) Of course, noncommutative rings etc have been studied before any sort of "quantum". I should have been a bit more specific here: it is the analogy (perhaps even a deformation) with a commutative object which makes the noncommutative object "quantum". Clearly not a mathematical definition :)

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2017-09-18 17:19 (UTC), posted by SE-user Stefan Waldmann
+ 7 like - 0 dislike

I think that the basic intuition relating quantum algebra and quantum physics is something like:

quantum stuff = classical stuff + $\hbar$ (something complicated)

where $\hbar$ is a "small" formal variable. In other words, the point is to consider that the mathematical objects everybody knows are only approximations of more complicated objects. Hence, quantum mathematics has something to do with perturbation theory, because most of the interesting objects in quantum mathematics are perturbations of trivial solutions of some problems/equations. Here, perturbation means that these objects are formal power series in $\hbar$ whose constant term is a trivial solution (eg: 1 :) ) of some equation (eg: the Yang Baxter equation).

Hence, as John pointed out, quantum algebra involves the study of objects for which classical properties (eg: commutativity) are "almost" true (ie: true modulo $\hbar$).

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2017-09-18 17:19 (UTC), posted by SE-user Adrien
answered Mar 25, 2011 by Adrien (70 points) [ no revision ]
Personally, I like your answer very much: "quantum" involves a small parameter like $\hbar$ or a $q$. But I think that many people working in e.g. noncommutative geometry would disagree: they usually neglegt the deformation aspect and study "hard" quantum algebras where no classical limit is in sight. So one probably should be open also for this point of view. In NCG the analogy with ordinary (=classical) geometry is more important than the deformation aspect.

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2017-09-18 17:19 (UTC), posted by SE-user Stefan Waldmann
+ 5 like - 0 dislike

I would hold that the term non-commutative algebra is usually used to refer to the study of general noncommutative algebras. Quantum algebra involves the study of certain types of non-commutative algebras, not all non-commutative algebras. It's not black and white, but reasonably well-defined subfamily. The algebras quite often involve a parameter $q$ st when $q=1$ or $0$ the algebra is commutative - take for example Drinfeld--Jimbo algebras. The parallels with quantum theory here are obvious.

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2017-09-18 17:19 (UTC), posted by SE-user John McCarthy
answered Mar 25, 2011 by John McCarthy (50 points) [ no revision ]

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:
p$\hbar$ysicsOve$\varnothing$flow
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).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.




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

Your rights
...