Instruction: Write an abstract for the following acadamic paper.

Input:
Paper: we have recorded the flight of a fly during take off and landing using digital high speed photography . it is shown that the dynamics of flexible wings are different for these procedures . during this observation fly flew freely in a big box and it was not tethered .
Abstract: in this fluid dynamics video , we demonstrated take off and landing of a fly . the deformation of wings is in focus in this video .

Paper: in this article we revisit the notion of _ state _ : when it is preceded by the adjective _ pure _ it is commonly understood within _ quantum _ formalism as a unit ray in an hilbert space . we revisit the way a state is transformed through the action of an operator named _ quantum observable _ , and the way it evolves with the introduction in the formalism of an evolution parameter , i.e. a _ time_.    hilbert spaces in quantum physics are usually vector spaces on complex numbers , and are infinite - dimensional for many of them . here , our approach is utterly minimalist , not only for pedagogical purposes , but also to show that quantum formalism applies as well to unexpected situations , far beyond our modelling of the microscopical world . it is minimalist in the sense that our departure point is the two - dimensional hilbert space on the real numbers , i.e. the euclidean plane , denoted @xmath5 , so familiar to us since , say , the kindergarden - grade 12 . think about the following quote extracted from common core state standards initiative @xcite    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ although there are many types of geometry , school mathematics is devoted primarily to plane euclidean geometry , studied both synthetically ( without coordinates ) and analytically ( with coordinates ) . euclidean geometry is characterized most importantly by the parallel postulate , that through a point not on a given line there is exactly one parallel line . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _    besides parallel lines , _ vector _ is also a central concept of euclidean geometry , and the terminology associated to it can be a source of confusions , as exemplified by the following question asked on march 23 2013 at 22:15 on the site _ math.stackexchange.com_ ,    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i m trying to understand the difference between the sense , orientation , and direction of a vector . according to this , sense is specified by two points on a line parallel to a vector . orientation is specified by the relationship between the vector and given reference lines ( which i m interpreting to be some basis ) . _    _ however , these two definitions seem to be synonymous with direction . how do these 3 terms differ ? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _    the most clear , detailed , correct in our sense , answer was given on january 1 2014 , at 9:44 , as    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ here is how i think of it , let s construct a vector from scratch using just two points in space @xmath6 , @xmath7 . draw a line segment between the two points @xmath6 , @xmath7 . the magnitude of the line segment is the `` length '' of the vector . the `` orientation '' of the line segment we can define as the angle that the line segment makes with the horizontal axis . to be clear this angle is measured counterclockwise from the positive @xmath8 axis and is an angle between @xmath9 and @xmath10 . ok so far we just have a line segment that is situated on the plane somewhere and we know how it is oriented , but there is no arrowhead yet . now the last thing you need is the `` sense '' , that basically tells you where to put the arrowhead and implies an order . we can define this vector as @xmath11 with an arrow over it , where you read it as the vector starting from @xmath6 and ending at @xmath7 . _    _ more generally you can define a vector by defining its magnitude ( length ) , its orientation , and then its sense . but keeping in mind , technically a vector is an equivalence class . so there are an infinite number of vectors which are parallel to each other ( have the same orientation ) and have the same sense or same choice of where to put the arrowhead ( there are only two possible senses , since the arrowhead can be placed on @xmath6 or on @xmath7 ) . but i do nt want to confuse you . usually we discuss vectors that are situated at the origin so we do nt concern ourselves over other equivalent vectors . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _    hence , a unit ray in the euclidean plane is an orientation associated to an angle @xmath12 , equivalently to a point of the upper unit semi - circle deleted of its left boundary point . it is the unit circle @xmath13 where diametrically opposed points are made identical , i.e. @xmath14 as a physical realization of this set , we immediately think of the compass without considering the sense , i.e , by identifying north with south , east with west , .... , or even better , to the familiar protractor shown in figure [ protractor ] . is clearly apparent on the picture , with @xmath15 , @xmath16 , etc , sign minus being attributed to the internal graduation.,width=480 ]    the true compass orientations @xmath17 senses are described by the unit circle itself . in order to avoid notational complications , we consider in this paper states as elements of the latter , keeping in mind the possibility to view as equivalent two diametrically opposed points . now , multiplying a unit vector or a ray by a real number has a deep signification both in euclidean geometry as in quantum formalism , since it lies at the heart of the superposition principle , which states that any linear combination of two vectors is a vector , and that a new unit vector or ray is built from this vector , if it is not zero , by dividing it by its length . an appreciable part of the material presented here is borrowed from references @xcite , @xcite and @xcite . the article is organized as follows . in section [ r2dirac ] we briefly recall the definition of hilbert space before rewriting the language of euclidean geometry by using _ bra _ and _ ket _ dirac notations . we then describe _ pure _ or _ mixed _ states , and symmetric @xmath18 matrices as observables in these real hilbert spaces . in section [ intquant ] we proceed with the integral quantization of the circle , after a rapid survey of the method . this method allows us to give in a straightforward way the quantum counterparts of classical models such as functions ( and even distributions ) defined on the circle . some probabilistic aspects of the obtained quantum objects and of their _ semi - classical _ portraits are examined in great details . section [ evolution ] is devoted to the description of a quantum dynamics adapted to our model . indeed , an adaptation is necessary since we are supposed to use real numbers , vectors and matrices in our quantum formalism , and the latter can not be derived from the quantization of some phase space . such a classical object does not exist in our formalism , and so our quantum dynamics can not be derived from an hamiltonian system . if we want to use quantum dynamics _  la _ dirac , we are forced to introduce at a certain stage pure imaginary numbers . hence , the most general hamiltonian compatible with the equation ruling the quantum evolution of symmetric @xmath18 real matrices must be a symmetric complex matrix . on the other hand , we can deal with a formalism using real numbers only and leading to a kind of majorana evolution equation . then unitary evolution operators are just @xmath18 rotation matrices , as expected in two - dimensional euclidean geometry . in section [ entanglement ] , we address the question of entanglement of two systems with states in the euclidean plane . states of such objects are elements of the tensor product @xmath19 . now , because of the elementary identity @xmath20 , this tensor product is isomorphic to @xmath21 ( and also to @xmath22 ) . since the plane @xmath5 can be also viewed as the complex plane @xmath23 , we get the possibility of understanding initial entangled objects either as elements of the more elementary complex hilbert spaces @xmath2 , e.g. , the space of quantum one - half spins , or as elements of the quaternion field @xmath3 . this set of possibilities sheds an interesting light on entangled objects viewed as cat states in @xmath2 . the purpose of section [ magnint ] is to give a physical exemple of the quantum hamiltonian appearing in euclidean plane quantum dynamics . this is done by considering for instance a charged spin one half particle , e.g. , an electron , interacting with a magnetic field with constant direction in the plane . the demonstration rests upon an integral quantization of the 2-sphere @xmath24 viewed as the phase space with canonical coordinates @xmath25 , where @xmath26 has the meaning of an angular momentum and @xmath27 is the azimutal angle . in section [ conclu ] we present some interesting perpectives of generalisations of the content of our work , centred on the continuation of the game @xmath28 ( as vector spaces ) with @xmath29 ( as vector spaces ) , the latter cartesian product being given an octonionic structure . in appendix [ pararho ] we describe different parametrizations of real @xmath30 density matrices together with interesting properties . quaternions in different languages and their basic properties are described in appendix [ allsu2 ] , by insisting on their @xmath31 representation . in appendix [ unitsphere ] we present the integral quantization of the @xmath0-sphere which is needed to establish our result in section [ magnint ] . we first recall that a finite - dimensional hilbert space is a finite - dimensional real or complex vector space @xmath32 equipped with a scalar ( or dot or inner ) product @xmath33 or @xmath23 , between any pair of vectors @xmath34 , @xmath35 , with the following properties @xmath36 where @xmath37 , @xmath38 , in are arbitrary complex or real numbers , and encodes the _ semi - definiteness _ of the scalar product . in the case of real vector space , the scalar product is fully symmetric and bilinear . hence , it is clear that the two - dimensional real vector space equipped with the usual dot product , i.e. the euclidean plane @xmath5 , is the simplest non - trivial hilbert space . we now adopt the dirac notations for vectors in @xmath5 after restoring the familiar arrow or hat superscripts and boldface symbols . given the orthonormal basis of @xmath5 defined by the two familiar unit vectors @xmath39 and @xmath40 , as is shown in figure [ r2fig ] , any vector @xmath41 in the plane decomposes as @xmath42 we also use in the sequel the column vector notation to designate @xmath41 with implicit mention of orthonormal basis , @xmath43 in such a way that the dirac _ ket _ and _ bra _ notations become transparent , @xmath44 hence , elementary matrix calculus allows to formulate scalar product and ( orthogonal ) projector in _ bra ket _ ( respectively in _ ket bra _ ) notations : @xmath45 since we view the euclidean plane as a space of quantum states , pure states are identified with unit vectors , discarding , as announced in the introduction , the imposed equivalence between opposed senses along the orientation support . hence , the unit circle @xmath13 in the plane is the natural set of parameters which distinguish these states . to each @xmath46 , polar angle of the unit vector @xmath47 , corresponds the pure state @xmath48 . in particular , with these notations and associated quantum terminology , the  horizontal orientation " or _ spin up _ state is @xmath49 , @xmath50 is the  vertical orientation " or _ spin down _ state . their quality to form an orthonormal basis is encoded in the relations @xmath51 together with the fact that the sum of their corresponding orthogonal projectors _ resolves the unity _ @xmath52    ( 60,60 ) ( 10,20)(1,0)30 ( 10,20)(0,1)30 ( 43 , 24)(0,0)@xmath53 ( 29 , 52)(0,0)@xmath54 ( 45 , 41)(0,0)(quantum ) state in `` spin representation '' ( 10 , 16.5)(0,0)@xmath55 ( 30 , 10)(0,0)@xmath56 ( 30 , 1)(0,0)@xmath57 ( 8 , 52)(0,0)@xmath58 ( 16 , 38)(0,0)@xmath59 ( 20 , 26)(0,0)@xmath27 ( 14,20)(10,15)[tr ] ( 10,20)(1,2)14    pursuing with our quantum terminology , the spin representation of a pure state lies in the form of the expansion or decomposition @xmath60    there exists another representation which could be abusively named `` phase space '' , as will become clearer in the next section . it is the `` unit circle '' representation given by the trigonometric function @xmath61 however , we should be aware that in our model there is no quantum observable underlying localisation on the whole unit circle , at the difference of ordinary quantum mechanics for which there exists a position operator , @xmath62 , underlying configuration representation , or a momentum operator , @xmath63 , underlying momentum representation . on the other hand , we know that in ordinary quantum mechanics there is no sharp localisation in the corresponding phase space @xmath64 due to the non commutativity of these two operators ( heisenberg ! ) . a similar situation is encountered here with the fuzzy localisation exemplified by the probability distribution families on the unit circle derived from , @xmath65 to the pure state @xmath66 corresponds the orthogonal projector @xmath67 given by : @xmath68 where @xmath69 is the matrix of rotation in the plane by the angle @xmath27 , @xmath70 in quantum formalism , the projector @xmath71 is also called pure state . this designation is consistent with the fact that the projector ignores orientation , @xmath72 . then , _ mixed states _ or _ density matrices _ are unit trace and non - negative matrices of the form @xmath73 with @xmath74 the conditions express the non - negativeness of @xmath75 , i.e. @xmath76 for all @xmath77 . pure states are rank - one such matrices corresponding to @xmath78 , i.e. @xmath79 . more details are given in subsection [ ssecqcirc ] and in appendix [ pararho ] . a more enlightening parametrisation is given in terms of the highest eigenvalue @xmath80 , @xmath81 given in and polar angle @xmath27 , @xmath82 of the corresponding pure eigenstate @xmath77 pointing toward the upper half - plane . introducing the parameter @xmath83 , @xmath84 , the most general form of a real density matrix can be given , as a @xmath85-periodic matrix , in terms of the polar coordinates @xmath86 of a point in the upper half unit disk : @xmath87 this expression epitomizes the map from the closed unit disk to the set of density matrices . more precisely , each @xmath88 is univocally ( but not biunivocally ) determined by a point in the unit disk @xmath89 , with polar coordinates @xmath90 , @xmath91 , @xmath92 . we check that for @xmath93 the density matrix is just the orthogonal projector on the unit vector @xmath77 with polar angle @xmath27 , i.e. @xmath94 .    the parameter @xmath95 can be viewed as a measure of the distance of @xmath75 to the pure state @xmath67 while @xmath96 measures the degree of  mixing " . a statistical interpretation is made possible through the von neumann entropy@xcite defined as @xmath97 as a function of @xmath98 $ ] @xmath99 is nonnegative , concave and symmetric with respect to its maximum value @xmath100 at @xmath101 , which corresponds to @xmath102 . the graph of @xmath99 as a function of @xmath95 is presented in figure [ srho1 ] . in fact , this function is the basic boltzmann - gibbs or shannon entropy in the case of two possibilities with probabilities @xmath80 and @xmath103 .     as a function of parameter @xmath104$].,width=288 ]      according to the canons of quantum formalism , a quantum observable is a self - adjoint operator in the hilbert space of quantum states , because self - adjointness is essential in the copenhagen - dirac - von neumann interpretation of quantum physics @xcite , @xcite , @xcite , @xcite . indeed , the spectral theorem for bounded or unbounded self - adjoint operators is the key for ( sharp ) quantum measurement , as it was mentioned above . in our case , a self - adjoint operator @xmath6 is represented by a @xmath30 real symmetric matrix and its spectral decomposition reads in terms of the two orthogonal projectors corresponding to its real eigenvalues : @xmath105 an immediate example is provided by the spin representation , which is also understood through the superposition of the two basic projectors @xmath106 in terms of quantum measurement , this decomposition means that the observable `` orientation '' assumes two values only : @xmath107 , associated to the projector on the horizontal or spin up state @xmath108 and the other one , @xmath109 , associated to the projector on the vertical or spin down @xmath110 . those measurements of orientation with only two issues are sharp in the sense that the corresponding projectors are orthogonal . at this point , we understand why no angular sharp localisation can be established on the unit circle . by sharp localisation we mean the existence of an angle operator @xmath6 acting as a multiplication operator in `` angle '' representation @xmath111 . such an operator does not existe because no @xmath30 real symmetric matrix @xmath6 can satisfy the equation @xmath112 , for all @xmath113 . three basic matrices generate the jordan algebra @xcite of all real symmetric @xmath18 matrices . they are the identity matrix and the two real pauli matrices , @xmath114 any element @xmath6 of the algebra decomposes as : @xmath115 the product in this algebra is defined by @xmath116 which entails on the level of components @xmath117 , the relations : @xmath118 in this context , a pure state @xmath77 in the plane can be viewed as the eigenstate of a system , e.g. a spin @xmath119 , for the eigenvalue @xmath120 of the following operator @xmath121 whereas it is eigenstate of @xmath122 for the eigenvalue @xmath123 . it is interesting to notice that the density operator can be expressed in terms of @xmath124 as @xmath125 any quantization of functions defined on a set @xmath126 ( e.g. a phase space or something else ) should reasonably meet four basic requirements @xcite :      it is a linear map @xmath127 : @xmath128 where    * @xmath129 is a vector space of complex or real - valued functions @xmath130 on a set @xmath126 , i.e. a `` classical '' mathematical model , * @xmath131 is a vector space of linear operators in some real or complex hilbert space @xmath132 , i.e , a `` quantum '' mathematical model . the map is such that      the function @xmath133 is mapped to the identity operator @xmath134 on @xmath132 ,      a real @xmath135 is mapped to a self - adjoint operator @xmath136 in @xmath132 or , at least , a symmetric operator ( in the infinite dimensional case )      if @xmath126 is acted on by a symmetry group @xmath137 , i.e. for @xmath138 , @xmath139 , then there exists a unitary representation @xmath140 of the group such that @xmath141 , with @xmath142 .    in our case , @xmath132 is finite - dimensional and the operators @xmath143 can be viewed as matrices . of course , further requirements are necessarily added , depending on the mathematical structures equipping @xmath126 and @xmath129 and their respective physical relevance .    an easy way to achieve the above minimal programme is to use resources offered by some adapted integral calculus . suppose that the set @xmath126 is equipped with a measure @xmath144 allowing to deal with integrals like @xmath145 , in which the functions @xmath146 are matrix valued , the integral being performed on each matrix element . now , suppose that there exists an @xmath126-labeled family of matrices @xmath147 resolving the identity @xmath134 in the following sense : @xmath148 the case we are specially interested in occurs when the @xmath149 s are unit trace and non - negative , i.e. are density matrices , @xmath150 because of their possible probabilistic content ( see below ) . with this material at hand , the integral quantization of functions @xmath130 on @xmath126 is the linear map @xmath151 which fulfills at least our quantization requirements ( i ) and ( ii ) and it takes the classical function @xmath130 to the operator @xmath143 . if the matrices @xmath149 are real symmetric , then ( iii ) is also satisfied . to get ( iv ) , i.e. covariance , we need to add more structure on the measure space @xmath152 . such structures will appear in a natural way in the examples we consider in this paper , namely the circle , @xmath153 , and the sphere , @xmath154 . any quantization map should be complemented by a  dequantization " map , associating to @xmath143 a function @xmath155 , more or less similar to the original @xmath130 , and giving a  semi - classical portrait " of @xmath143 . in quantum mechanics , examples are provided by the husimi function or the wigner function@xcite , more generally by lower ( lieb ) @xcite or contravariant ( berezin ) @xcite symbols . the terminology _ lower _ , which will appear below together with _ upper _ , is justified by the two berezin - lieb inequalities which follow from the symbol formalism .    as a matter of fact , some properties of the operator @xmath136 , may be derived or at least well grasped from functional properties of its lower symbol , which is defined in the present context by : @xmath156    when @xmath157 ( density matrix ) for all @xmath8 , this new function is the local average of the original @xmath135 with respect to the probability distribution @xmath158 with respect the measure @xmath159 : @xmath160 in many cases , this generalisation of convolution has a regularising effect on the original @xmath135 . for instance , if @xmath161 is a dirac peaked at @xmath162 , @xmath163 for any test function @xmath164 , then @xmath165 , a function which is expected to be more regular around @xmath166 .      here , the measure space @xmath167 is the unit circle equipped with its uniform ( lebesgue ) measure : @xmath168 the hilbert space is the euclidean plane @xmath169 . note that @xmath13 is also a group , isomorphic to the abelian group so@xmath4 of rotations in the plane . thus , we can expect that rotational covariance mentioned in point ( iv ) plays a central role here . it is indeed the case since the covariance property described in appendix [ pararho ] allows one to define the family of density operators obtained from rotational transport of the initial density operator introduced in , @xmath170 where the rotation matrix @xmath171 is defined by . it is straightforward to prove that this family resolves the identity @xmath172 the proof can be made by hand , integrating each matrix element . actually it is the direct consequence of a famous result in group representation theory , named schur s lemma @xcite . it follows the @xmath13-labelled family of probability distributions on @xmath173 @xmath174 such an expression reminds us of the cardioid distribution ( see @xcite , page 51 ) . at @xmath175 we get the uniform probability on the circle whereas at @xmath93 we get the simplified resolution of the identity @xmath176 and the pure state probability distribution @xmath177 previously introduced in . at given @xmath95 and @xmath178 a distance @xmath179 on the circle is defined as @xmath180 where the subscript @xmath181 refers to the hilbertian norm @xmath182 defined on matrices @xmath6 @xcite . the quantization of a function ( or distribution ) @xmath183 on the circle based on leads to the 2@xmath1842 matrix operator @xmath185 where @xmath186 is the average of @xmath135 on the unit circle and @xmath187 . the symbols @xmath188 and @xmath189 are for the cosine and sine doubled angle fourier coefficients of @xmath135 , @xmath190 the simplest function to be quantized is the angle function @xmath191 , i.e. the @xmath192-periodic extension of @xmath193 for @xmath46 , @xmath194 its eigenvalues are @xmath195 with corresponding eigenvectors @xmath196 . its lower symbol is given by the smooth function @xmath197      the existence of the set @xmath198 as the particular case @xmath93 and @xmath199 of the density matrices permits to proceed with the simplified  coherent state " integral quantization @xmath200 the quantized version of the angle function @xmath201 introduced above becomes : @xmath202 with eigenvalues @xmath203 . thus , a localisation measurement on the circle would yield those two values only , along the spectral decomposition @xmath204 with @xmath205 the family of pure states @xmath206 allows one to carry out the symbol calculus _  la _ berezin - lieb mentioned above . to any _ self - adjoint _ operator @xmath6 one associates the two types of _ symbol _ , functions @xmath207 et @xmath208 respectively defined on the unit circle by @xmath209 and @xmath210 where @xmath208 is named upper or contravariant symbol of @xmath6 , besides the fact that it is also the classical counterpart of @xmath6 in the context of integral quantization . the simplest upper symbols and the lower symbols of non - trivial basic elements are respectively given by : @xmath211 for the symmetric matrix ( [ msym13 ] ) there follows the two symbols : @xmath212    for instance , the lower symbol of the quantum angle ( [ qangle13 ] ) is equal to @xmath213 a @xmath85-periodic function that smoothly varies between the two eigenvalues of @xmath214 , as is shown in figure [ quantangle13 ] . -periodic function @xmath215 that varies between the two eigenvalues of @xmath214.,width=384 ]    one should notice that all the symbols defined above belong to the subspace @xmath216 of real fourier series that is the linear span of the three functions @xmath59 , @xmath217 , @xmath218 . hence @xmath208 is highly non unique since it is defined up to the addition of any function @xmath219 lying in the orthogonal complement of @xmath216 , i.e. such that @xmath220 . let us make explicit the berezin - lieb inequalities in the present context . let @xmath221 be a convex function . denoting by @xmath222 the eigenvalues of the symmetric matrix @xmath6 , we have @xmath223 this double inequality is not trivial . independently of the euclidean context it reads as : @xmath224 where @xmath225 and @xmath226 denotes the mean value on a period . if one applies ( [ berlieb13 ] ) to the exponential function @xmath227 , we get an intertwining of inequalities involving bessel functions of the second kind and the hyperbolic cosine : @xmath228      behind the resolution of the identity lies an interesting interpretation in terms of geometrical probability . let us consider a borel@xcite subset @xmath229 of the interval @xmath230 and the restriction to @xmath229 of the integral : @xmath231 one easily verifies the following properties : @xmath232 the application @xmath233 defines a normalized measure on the @xmath234-algebra @xcite of the borel sets in the interval @xmath230 , assuming its values in the set of positive or null @xmath30 matrices ( povm ) . let us now put into evidence the probabilistic nature of the measure @xmath235 . let @xmath236 be a unit vector . the application @xmath237 is clearly a probability measure , since it involves precisely the distribution @xmath238 introduced in . for instance , for @xmath239 $ ] and @xmath240 , we have @xmath241\right)= \frac{\theta_2-\theta_1}{2\pi } - \frac{1}{\pi}\sin\left(\theta_2-\theta_1\right ) \sin\left(\theta_2+\theta_1\right)\ , .\ ] ] now , the quantity @xmath242 means that direction @xmath243 is examined from the point of view of the family of vectors @xmath244 . as a matter of fact , it has a _ geometrical probability _ interpretation in the plane @xcite . with no loss of generality let us choose @xmath240 . recall here the canonical equation describing a straight line @xmath245 in the plane : @xmath246 where @xmath247 is the direction normal to @xmath245 and the parameter @xmath248 is equal to the distance of @xmath245 to the origin . there follows that @xmath249 is the ( non - normalized ) probability measure element on the set @xmath250 of the lines randomly chosen in the plane . picking a certain @xmath27 , consider the set @xmath251 of the lines normal to @xmath252 that intersect the segment with origin @xmath55 and length @xmath253 equal to the projection of @xmath252 onto @xmath254 as shown in figure [ probge13 ]    ( 8,6 ) ( 5.1,4.9)(0,-1)3.9 ( 2.8,.6)o ( 7.5,1.3)@xmath254 ( 5.2,5)@xmath255 ( 3.1,1)(1,2)2 ( 3.1,1)(1,0)4.67 ( 2.1,1.5)(.1,.2)5(2,-1)2.7 ( 3.1,.1)@xmath256    0.5 cm    the measure of this set is equal to : @xmath257 integrating ( [ measline13 ] ) over all directions @xmath252 gives the area of the unit circle . hence we can construct @xmath258 as the probability for a straight line in the plane to belong to the set of secants of segments that are projections @xmath259 of the unit vectors @xmath252 , @xmath260 , onto the unit vector @xmath243 . one could think in terms of _ polarizer _ @xmath261 and _ analyzer _ `` sandwiching '' the directional signal @xmath236 . as was asserted in the introduction , from a strictly quantum point of view , we should have made equivalent any vector @xmath263 of the euclidean plane with its symmetric @xmath264 , which amounts to deal with the half - plane viewed as the coset @xmath265 . following the same procedure as above , we start from the hilbert space @xmath266 and we choose the subset @xmath267 that is orthonormal . note that @xmath268 and @xmath269 are now exactly wigner semicircle distributions @xcite . we then consider the continuous family of pure states or coherent states @xmath270 . they are normalized and they solve the identity ( just change the factor @xmath271 into @xmath272 ) . the previous material can be repeated _ in extenso _ but with the restriction that @xmath12 . we now deal with the question of the existence of a quantum dynamics compatible with the simplicity of our model . let us introduce into the game a time ( or evolution ) parameter @xmath273 . can we associate with it a self - adjoint hamiltonian or energy operator @xmath274 , i.e. a @xmath18 real symmetric matrix @xmath274 ? a first problem concerns the construction of @xmath274 without the existence of a classical phase space as a guidance . let us circumvent this difficulty by simply postulating its existence . then , another issue makes our effort totally pointless . indeed , if we rely on the copenhagen - dirac - von neumann canons @xcite , the evolution of a time - dependent quantum observable or state is ruled by the equation @xmath275 + \ii \hbar\frac{\partial a}{\partial t}\ , .\ ] ] the presence of the imaginary unit @xmath276 in is unavoidable since the latter has to be a relation between symmetric operators acting in complex hilbert spaces . on the other hand , we want to keep the reality of our euclidean plane and of the matrices acting on it . thus , this number @xmath276 should be canceled because of its appearance somewhere on the right - hand side of . the only place where it can stand lies in the expression of @xmath274 as a @xmath18 complex symmetric matrix , and we easily check that the most general allowed matrix form of @xmath274 is @xmath277 actually the diagonal hamiltonian parameter @xmath278 does not play any role . moreover @xmath279 can be time - dependent . hence , no real symmetric matrix , except the trivial multiple of the identity , can represent an hamiltonian in the context of our approach . if we wish to keep real our matrices , we have to abandon the requirement of being symmetric . instead , let us introduce the real `` pseudo - hamiltonian '' @xmath280 then , by dividing by @xmath276 the evolution equation , one obtains an equation involving only real quantities , our _ baby majorana equation _ @xcite , @xmath281 + \hbar\frac{\partial a}{\partial t } \ , .\ ] ] the price to pay with our manipulation is that the eigenvalues @xmath282 of @xmath283 are real only in the trivial case @xmath284 : no physical energy comes out from our formalism . on the other hand , if @xmath279 is constant , the pseudo - hamiltonian @xmath283 may generate unitary time evolution . more precisely , in the case of time explicit independence of @xmath6 , the integration of is straightforward : @xmath285 i.e. the appearance of the @xmath30 proper rotation matrix in the plane as the solely possible continuous unitary operator in the plane is unescapable . in the case of the time evolution of a pure state @xmath286 , this solution corresponds to a uniform rotation , with frequency @xmath287 , of the unit vector @xmath288 .    on the algebraic side , we note that our real quantum dynamics involves the antisymmetric matrix @xmath289 . together with @xmath290 and @xmath291 these 3 matrices generate the lie algebra @xmath292 of the group sl@xmath293 @xmath294= 2\sigma_3\ , , \quad [ \tau_2,\sigma_3]= 2\sigma_1\ , , \quad [ \sigma_3,\sigma_1]= -2\tau_2= 2\tau_2\,.\ ] ]    if we had sticked to the complex formalism imposed by , we would have to introduce the third pauli matrix @xmath295 , which was missing in . then the self - adjointness of @xmath274 is preserved , and quantum evolution restores the full real lie algebra of su@xmath4 generated by the @xmath296 s , @xmath297 . actually , we will use in section [ magnint ] the equation for presenting a physical example of . the possible entanglement property of quantum states appears with the construction of tensor products @xcite of hilbert spaces for describing quantum states of composite systems . in the present case , we are in presence of a remarkable sequence of vector space isomorphisms due to the fact that @xmath298 : @xmath299 where @xmath3 is the field of quaternions ( see appendix [ allsu2 ] for definition and properties of these objects ) . let us first write the ( canonical ) orthonormal basis of the tensor product @xmath300 , the first factor being for system `` @xmath6 '' and the other for system `` @xmath7 '' , as latexmath:[\[\label{tensbas }    these factors @xmath108 , @xmath302 pertaining to @xmath6 or to @xmath7 , are termed `` @xmath303-bit '' or  qubit " in standard language of quantum information . they can be associated to a pointer measuring the horizontal ( resp . vertical ) direction or polarisation described by the state @xmath108 ( resp . @xmath302 ) . we now introduce the celebrated bell pure states @xcite in @xmath300 as special linear superpositions of the above basis elements @xmath304 or in matrix form , @xmath305 they form an orthonormal basis of @xmath300 . they are four specific _ maximally entangled _ quantum states of two qubits . `` maximally '' refers to the degree to which a state in a quantum system consisting of two entities is entangled . this degree is measured by the von neumann entropy @xcite of either of the two reduced density operators of the state , i.e. , obtained by tracing out one of the partners in the composite systems . they exhibit perfect correlation . consider for instance the state @xmath306 . if the pointer associated to @xmath6 measures its qubit in the standard basis the outcome would be perfectly random , either possibility having probability 1/2 . but if the pointer associated to @xmath7 then measures its qubit , the outcome , although random for it alone , is the same as the one @xmath6 gets . there is quantum correlation . let us now turn our attention to the complex two - dimensional hilbert space @xmath2 , one of the most familiar mathematical objects in our initiation to quantum formalism , after having been so nicely popularised by feynman @xcite with examples like two - level atom or spin one - half objects . now , as a complex vector space , @xmath2 , with canonical basis @xmath307 , @xmath308 , has a real structure . the latter is isomorphic to the real vector space @xmath309 , itself isomorphic to @xmath19 , from the above . a standard real structure is obtained by considering the vector expansion @xmath310 i.e. , by writing @xmath311 , @xmath312 , and considering the set of vectors @xmath313 as forming a basis of @xmath309 . now , we need to define a map from this @xmath309 to @xmath19 , forgetting about the superfluous subscripts @xmath6 and @xmath7 . for this , we use the map euclidean plane @xmath5 @xmath314 complex `` plane '' @xmath23 determined by @xmath315 or , in matrix form , @xmath316 interpreting @xmath2 as the space of quantum states of a two - level system , e.g. spin one - half with notations @xmath317 the correspondances and might be interpreted as giving a real composite nature to `` up '' and  down " complex objects . note that the @xmath318-matrix on the right of is its own inverse . finally , we get the matrix map from the bell basis and the basis @xmath319 in terms of components of vectors in their respective spaces , @xmath320 equivalently , in complex notations , with @xmath321 , @xmath322 where we have introduced the conjugation operator @xmath323 , i.e. the mirror symmetry with respect to the real axis , @xmath324 being the mirror symmetry with respect to the imaginary axis . note that the operator @xmath325 can be expressed in the quaternionic language for su@xmath4 , as introduced in , by @xmath326 therefore , with the above choice of isomorphisms , bell entanglement in @xmath327 is represented by a linear superposition in @xmath2 . it involves also the two mirror symmetries @xmath328 . interpreting @xmath2 as in , we see that the operator @xmath329 is a kind of `` flip '' whereas `` cat '' operator @xmath325 builds from the _ up _ and _ down _ basic states the two elementary schrdinger cats @xmath330 we can now understand better the real bell state nature of these elementary cat superpositions if we remember the identification between composite real states and complex _ up _ and _ down _ basic states . interesting too is the appearance of the flip @xmath329 in the construction of the spin one - half coherent state defined in terms of spherical coordinates @xmath331 by @xmath332 indeed , they result from the action on the up state by the operator @xmath333 given in . this operator represents the element @xmath334 in su@xmath4 , quaternionic conjugate or inverse of @xmath335 . the latter corresponds through the homomorphism so@xmath336 @xmath314 su@xmath4 to the specific rotation @xmath337 that maps the unit vector pointing to the north pole , @xmath338 , to @xmath339 , as is shown in figure [ rotkton ] and explained at length in appendix [ allsu2 ] : @xmath340 now we notice that the second column of @xmath333 is precisely the flip of the first one , @xmath341 actually , this feature is the key for grasping the isomorphisms @xmath342 . with the notations of appendix [ allsu2 ] and using quaternionic algebra , e.g. , @xmath343 @xmath17 even permutations , @xmath344 after identifying @xmath345 , as both are roots of @xmath123 . then the flip appears naturally in the final identification @xmath346 as @xmath347 the fact that the sole acceptable form the hamiltonian may assume in our model is might suggest a kind of magnetic field interacting with some one - half spin magnetic moment . how can we integrate this physics in our toy model ? the ( potential ) energy of a magnetic moment @xmath348 ( whatever the origin of the latter ) submitted to a magnetic field @xmath349 is given by @xmath350 in the case of a moving charge , the magnetic moment is proportional to the angular momentum of the latter . here we consider a magnetic moment as a physical system on its own , without any consideration of space location or something else , and proportional to an angular momentum or classical spin denoted by @xmath351 : @xmath352 the factor @xmath353 is usually named gyromagnetic factor . now , the energy of a magnetic moment submitted to a constant magnetic field alone is conserved . choosing the direction of the unit vector @xmath354 , part of the orthonormal basis in space @xmath355 , as the same as @xmath349 , we have for the hamiltonian @xmath356 and so the polar angle @xmath357 is conserved : the magnetic moment experiences a precession about the @xmath354-axis at constant azimuthal velocity @xmath358 in such a way that @xmath359 is also conserved . actually , this precession motion which takes place on the surface of a sphere @xmath360 of radius @xmath361 has to be viewed as a phase trajectory in @xmath360 , the latter being as the classical phase space for the magnetic moment . the canonical conjugate coordinates are in the present case action - angle variables , the angle variable being the azimuthal angle @xmath27 whereas the action variable @xmath362 is precisely @xmath363 . indeed , from the expression @xmath364 of the rotational invariant measure on @xmath360 , one infers that @xmath363 is canonically conjugate to @xmath27 , and the action variable defined as @xmath365 is identical to @xmath363 in the case of a constant external magnetic field . note that the pair @xmath366 are a part of the cylindrical coordinates of the sphere @xmath360 with radius @xmath361 . let us turn our attention to the quantum model of a magnetic moment interacting with a constant magnetic field . following the integral quantization procedure of the two - sphere @xmath24 and of functions ( or distributions on it , as is explained in details in appendix [ unitsphere ] , and yielding the expression ) , the quantum version of the classical hamiltonian with @xmath367 reads as @xmath368 where the parameter @xmath369 plays the same rle as in . now , contrarily to our previous choice , we take the direction of the magnetic field along the unit vector @xmath370 , , @xmath371 . this new choice gives a quantum hamiltonian of the form , @xmath372 this formula leaves to us the freedom to choose @xmath95 and @xmath361 in order to comply with observations , for instance for the electron . we just remind that , in its quantum description , the electron _ total _ spin magnetic moment is given by the formula @xcite : @xmath373 where @xmath374 is the charge of the electron , @xmath221 is the land @xmath221-factor , and by the quantization equation along the direction determined by @xmath339 : @xmath375 where @xmath376 is the bohr magneton . basic aspects of quantum formalism have been presented in this paper , taking the euclidean plane as the simplest mathematical model to be considered in a pedagogical approach . the corresponding quantum dynamics has been given a physical flavour at the price of increasing the dimension from 2 to three in order to implement what we call integral quantization , and a simple illustration is presented in terms of magnetic moment . we have shown that entanglement , a central notion of modern developments in quantum physics , allows to follow an interesting path from the euclidean plane to the quantum one - half spin formalism and to the quaternionic language as well . now , this path can be extended in order to include entanglement of two @xmath119 spins and to give an interesting description of the latter in an octonionic language . indeed , like @xmath28 ( as vector spaces ) , we can continue with @xmath29 ( as vector spaces ) , the cartesian product of two quaternion field being given an octonionic structure _  la _ cayley dickson . this is the content of a work in progress . there are various expressions for a density matrix acting on the euclidean plane , i.e. a @xmath18 real positive matrix with trace equal to @xmath59 . the most immediate one is the following with parameters @xmath377 and @xmath378 : @xmath379 the above inequalities imply the following ones @xmath380 let @xmath381 be the highest eigenvalue of @xmath75 ( the lowest one is @xmath382 ) . the spectral decomposition of @xmath75 reads as @xmath383 where @xmath384 is the corresponding unit eigenvector , chosen as pointing toward the right half - plane . we could have as well chosen the opposite @xmath385 pointing in the left half - plane since @xmath386 . our choice corresponds to the most immediate one in terms of orthonormal basis of the plane issued from the canonical one @xmath387 through the rotation by @xmath27 . let us make explicit the decomposition , @xmath388 we derive from this expression the polar parametrization of the @xmath389 parameters of @xmath75 : @xmath390 in return , we have the angle @xmath391 $ ] in function of @xmath377 and @xmath378 @xmath392 in this way , each @xmath75 is univocally ( but not biunivocally ) determined by a point in the unit disk , with polar coordinates @xmath393 , @xmath91 , @xmath394 . also note the alternative expression issued from : @xmath395 where @xmath396 is the rotation matrix in the plane @xmath397 and @xmath291 is the diagonal pauli matrix @xmath398 in order to get the second equality in we used the important property @xmath399 therefore the expression of a matrix density to which we refer mostly often through the paper reads @xmath400 from and we derive the interesting multiplication formula @xmath401 and the resulting ( non - closed ! ) `` algebra '' of real density matrices , @xmath402= -irr'\sin(\phi -\phi^{\prime } ) \sigma_2\ , , \quad \{\rho,\rho'\ } = \rho + \rho ' + ( \cos(\phi - \phi^{\prime})- 1/2)i\ , .\ ] ]      the expression is convenient to examine the way a density matrix transforms under a rotation @xmath403 in the plane . we have , @xmath404      the computation of the three following integrals is straightforward : @xmath405 @xmath406 @xmath407 @xmath408 where @xmath89 is the unit disk and @xmath409 . a convenient representation of rotations in space is possible thanks to quaternion calculus . we recall that the quaternion field as a multiplicative group is @xmath411su@xmath4 . the correspondence between the canonical basis of @xmath412 , @xmath413 , and the pauli matrices is @xmath414 , with @xmath415 . hence , the @xmath18 matrix representation of these basis elements is the following : @xmath416    any quaternion decomposes as @xmath417 ( resp . @xmath418 ) in scalar - vector notation ( resp . in euclidean metric notation ) . we also recall that the multiplication law explicitly reads in scalar - vector notation : @xmath419 . the ( quaternionic ) conjugate of @xmath420 is @xmath421 , the squared norm is @xmath422 , and the inverse of a nonzero quaternion is @xmath423 . unit quaternions , i.e. , quaternions with norm @xmath59 , which form the multiplicative subgroup isomorphic to su@xmath4 , constitute the three - sphere @xmath424 .    on the other hand , any proper rotation in space is determined by a unit vector @xmath339 defining the rotation axis and a rotation angle @xmath425 about the axis , as illustrated in figure [ rotation ] . ( 40,40 ) ( 20,10)(2,1)30 ( 18,6)@xmath55 ( 35,12)@xmath426 ( 20,10)(-4,1)30 ( 16,20)@xmath427 ( 18,18)@xmath428 ( 17,26)@xmath339 ( 20,10)(-1,4)5 ( 0,10)@xmath429    the action of such a rotation , @xmath430 , on a vector @xmath429 is given by : @xmath431    the latter is expressed in scalar - vector quaternionic form as @xmath432 where @xmath433 or , in matrix form resulting from the identification , @xmath434 in which case quaternionic conjugation corresponds to the transposed conjugate of the corresponding matrix , @xmath435 in particular , for a given unit vector @xmath436 one considers the specific rotation @xmath437 that maps the unit vector pointing to the north pole , @xmath338 , to @xmath339 , as is shown in figure [ rotkton ] , @xmath438 with , in quaternionic matrix notations , @xmath439 @xmath440    ( 50,30 ) ( 20,10)(4,3)20 ( 20,10)(4,1)15 ( 18,6)@xmath55 ( 40,21)@xmath339 ( 33,9)@xmath441 ( 20,12.5)@xmath442 ( 27,11.5)@xmath442 ( 22,16)@xmath357 ( 17,28)@xmath354 ( 20,10)(0,4)23      the unitary irreducible representations @xmath443 of su@xmath4 are labelled by half - integers @xmath444 . for a given @xmath444 , the corresponding complex hilbert space is finite - dimensional , with dimension @xmath445 . the matrix elements of the linear operator @xmath446 in the basis @xmath447 are given by @xmath448 in agreement with talman @xcite . in the lowest non trivial dimensional case we are concerned with in this paper , @xmath449 , these matrix elements are given by @xmath450 hence , we have to be careful when we work with matrix representations of quaternions , due to the choice of basis . consequently , besides the `` canonical '' one , we use preferably ( and safely ! ) the notation @xmath451 for the @xmath30 matrix given by in the `` up '' and `` down '' spin basis , @xmath452 precisely , we have @xmath453 and for the particular case @xmath454 , essential in the construction of spin @xmath119 coherent states , @xmath455 we consider the unit sphere equipped with its rotationally invariant measure : @xmath456\ , , \quad \phi\in [ 0,2\pi)\ , .\ ] ] the hilbert space is @xmath457 . the unit ball @xmath458 in @xmath410 parametrizes the set of @xmath18 complex density matrices @xmath75 . indeed , given a 3-vector @xmath459 , viewed as a pure quaternion @xmath460 , and such that @xmath461 , a general density matrix @xmath75 can be written as @xmath462 where @xmath463 ( resp . @xmath464 ) are the cartesian ( resp . spherical ) coordinates of vector @xmath429 . we have used the representation @xmath465 defined by in order to avoid any ambiguity about the basis in which is expressed the density matrix @xmath75 . if @xmath93 , with spherical coordinates @xmath466 , then @xmath75 is the pure state @xmath467 where the column vector @xmath468 is the spin @xmath449 coherent state introduced in . let us now transport the density matrix @xmath75 by using the two - dimensional complex representation of rotations in space , namely the matrix su@xmath4 representation . for @xmath469 , one defines the family of density matrices labelled by @xmath470 : @xmath471 in order to get a one - to - one correspondence with the points of the 2-sphere , we restrict the elements of su@xmath4 to those corresponding to the rotation @xmath472 bringing the unit vector @xmath354 pointing to the north pole to the vector @xmath473 with spherical coordinates @xmath474 , as described in and but with an opposed sign for @xmath27 in order to get for @xmath93 . @xmath475 the value of the integral @xmath476 shows that the resolution of the unity is achieved with @xmath477 only . then , it is clear that @xmath478 it is with this strong restriction and the simplified notation @xmath479 that we go forward to the next calculations with the resolution of the unity @xmath480 note that the resolution of the identity with the su@xmath4 transport of a generic density operator is possible only if we integrate on the whole group , as it was done in @xcite . the @xmath24-labelled family of probability distributions on @xmath481 @xmath482 at @xmath175 we get the uniform probability on the sphere whereas at @xmath93 we get the probability distribution corresponding to the spin 1/2 cs , @xmath483 the quantization of a function ( or distribution ) @xmath484 on the sphere based on leads to the 2@xmath1842 matrix operator @xmath485 where @xmath486 is the average of @xmath135 on the unit sphere and @xmath487 and @xmath488 are fourier coefficients of @xmath135 on the sphere defined as @xmath489 since the sphere is a phase space with canonical coordinates @xmath490 , @xmath491 , and @xmath492 , the latter may be thought as the simplest functions to be quantized . we find for the quantization of @xmath303 @xmath493 its eigenvalues are @xmath494 with corresponding eigenvectors @xmath495 . its lower symbol is given by the smooth function @xmath496 the quantization of @xmath248 yields the diagonal matrix @xmath497 with immediate eigenvalues @xmath498 and lower symbol @xmath499 we note the commutation rule @xmath500 now , applying the quantization formula of the three components of the generic unit vector provides , as expected , the three pauli matrices , up to a common factor in agreement with general results given in @xcite , @xmath501    j.p . gazeau thanks cbpf and cnpq for financial support and cbpf for hospitality . curado acknowledges cnpq and faperj for financial support . the authors are grateful to pierre martin - dussaud ( ens lyon ) for helpful comments .                for a quantum - mechanical system described by a density matrix @xmath503 , the von neumann entropy is @xmath504 , the last expression being actually its shannon form . it is zero if and only if @xmath75 is a pure state , i.e. , a projector .        j. von neumann , mathematische grundlagen der quantenmechanik , springer , berlin ( 1932 ) . english translation by r. t. beyer , mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics , princeton university press ( 1955 ) .                  a borel set is any set in a topological space that can be formed from open sets ( or , equivalently , from closed sets ) through the operations of countable union , countable intersection , and relative complement .        a very pedagogical explanation of the semi - circle law is given in the junior research seminar on probability , y. sinai , s. miller , l. silberman , @xmath505-functions , random matrix theory and ramanujan graphs , online at https://web.williams.edu/mathematics/sjmiller/public_html/mathlab/public_html/jr02spring/plfrmt.pdf ( 2003 ) . see the answer to the question _ what is the difference between cartesian and tensor product of two vector spaces ? _ at http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/710481/what-is-the-difference-between-cartesian-and-tensor-product-of-two-vector-spaces
Abstract:

Answer: the euclidean plane is certainly the simplest example of real hilbert space . viewed as a space of quantum states , it can be used as a nice introductive example in teaching quantum formalism . the pure states form the unit circle ( actually one half of it ) , the mixed states form the unit disk ( actually one half of it ) , and rotations in the plane rule time evolution through a majorana - like equation involving only real quantities . the set of pure states or the set of mixed states at fixed `` temperature '' solve the identity and they are used for the integral quantization of functions on the unit circle and to give a semi - classical portrait of quantum observables . interesting probabilistic aspects are developed . since the tensor product of two planes , their direct sum , their cartesian product , are isomorphic ( @xmath0 is the unique solution to @xmath1 ) , and they are also isomorphic to @xmath2 , and to the quaternion field @xmath3 ( as a vector space ) , we describe an interesting relation between entanglement of real states , one - half spin cat states , and unit - norm quaternions which form the group su@xmath4 . finally , we explain the most general form of the hamiltonian in the real plane by considering the integral quantization of a magnetic - like interaction potential viewed as a classical observable on the unit 2-sphere .