The standard presentation of the principles of quantum mechanics is critically reviewed both from the experimental/operational point and with respect to the request of mathematical consistency and logical economy. A simpler and more physically motivated formulation is discussed. The existence of non commuting observables, which characterizes quantum mechanics with respect to classical mechanics, is related to operationally testable complementarity relations, rather than to uncertainty relations. The drawbacks of Dirac argument for canonical quantization are avoided by a more geometrical approach.
The standard presentation of the principles of quantum mechanics is critically reviewed both from the experimental/operational point and with respect to the request of mathematical consistency and logical economy. A simpler and more physically motivated formulation is discussed. The existence of non commuting observables, which characterizes quantum mechanics with respect to classical mechanics, is related to operationally testable complementarity relations, rather than to uncertainty relations. The drawbacks of Dirac argument for canonical quantization are avoided by a more geometrical approach.
The standard presentation of the principles of quantum mechanics is critically reviewed both from the experimental/operational point and with respect to the request of mathematical consistency and logical economy. A simpler and more physically motivated formulation is discussed. The existence of non commuting observables, which characterizes quantum mechanics with respect to classical mechanics, is related to operationally testable complementarity relations, rather than to uncertainty relations. The drawbacks of Dirac argument for canonical quantization are avoided by a more geometrical approach.
Quantum mechanics, one of the most successful theories in the history of science, was created to account for physical systems not describable by classical physics. Though it is consistent with all experiments conducted thus far, many of its core concepts (amplitudes, global phases, etc.) can not be directly accessed and its interpretation is still the subject of intense debate, more than 100 years since it was introduced. So, a fundamental question is why this particular mathematical model is the one that nature chooses, if indeed it is the correct model. In the past two decades there has been a renewed effort to determine what physical or informational principles define quantum mechanics. In this paper, recent attempts at establishing reasonable physical principles are reviewed and their degree of success is tabulated. An alternative approach using joint quasi-probability distributions is shown to provide a common basis of representing most of the proposed principles. It is argued that having a common representation of the principles can provide intuition and guidance to relate current principles or advance new principles. The current state of affairs, along with some alternative views are discussed.
Quantum mechanics' formal core is a handful of objects---the wavefunction that encodes a state, the operators that act on it, the commutators that measure their incompatibility, and the uncertainty principle that the commutators imply---and the theory's history is the story of how those objects were given. This article presents a narrative review of the primary literature that gave them, from Heisenberg's 1925 umdeutung---the reinterpretation that replaced orbits with arrays of transition amplitudes---and Schrödinger's 1926 quantization as an eigenvalue problem, which wrote the wave equation and proved the equivalence with matrix mechanics, through Born's 1926 probability interpretation of the wavefunction, Heisenberg's 1927 uncertainty paper, Robertson's 1929 general commutator inequality, Pauli's 1926 solution of the hydrogen spectrum by the new mechanics, Bohr's 1928 quantum postulate and complementarity, Weyl's 1928 group theory and quantum mechanics, Dirac's 1930 Principles, which organized the formalism's transformations, and von Neumann's 1932 mathematical foundations, which gave the theory its Hilbert space, to the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen 1935 argument that tested what the formalism claims about reality. The synthesis is organized around three themes: the state's representations, in which matrix and wave mechanics were shown to be one theory; the uncertainty structure, in which commutators became the measure of incompatibility and the uncertainty principle its theorem; and the formalism's completion, in which Hilbert space, transformations, and the measurement problem gave the objects their rigorous home. It is concluded that the formal core's construction is physics' most consequential algebra---the theory's content located not in its pictures but in its operators' relations.
Abstract The book starts with a description of classical mechanics then discusses the quantum phenomena that require us to give up our commonsense classical intuitions. We consider the physical and conceptual arguments that led to the standard von Neumann-Dirac formulation of quantum mechanics and how the standard theory explains quantum phenomena. This includes a discussion of how the theory’s two dynamical laws work with the standard interpretation of states to explain determinate measurement records, quantum statistics, interference effects, entanglement, decoherence, and quantum nonlocality. A careful understanding of how the standard theory works ultimately leads to the quantum measurement problem. We consider how the measurement problem threatens the logical consistency of the standard theory then turn to a discussion of the main proposals for resolving it. This includes collapse formulations of quantum mechanics like Wigner’s extension of the standard theory and the GRW approach and no-collapse formulations like pure wave mechanics, the various many-worlds theories, and Bohmian mechanics. In discussing alternative formulations of quantum mechanics we pay particular attention to the explanatory role played by each theory’s empirical ontology and associated metaphysical commitments and the conceptual trade-offs between theoretical options.
In standard formulations of the uncertainty principle, two fundamental features are typically cast as impossibility statements: two noncommuting observables cannot in general both be sharply defined (for the same state), nor can they be measured jointly. The pioneers of quantum mechanics were acutely aware and puzzled by this fact, and it motivated Heisenberg to seek a mitigation, which he formulated in his seminal paper of 1927. He provided intuitive arguments to show that the values of, say, the position and momentum of a particle can at least be unsharply defined, and they can be measured together provided some approximation errors are allowed. Only now, nine decades later, a working theory of approximate joint measurements is taking shape, leading to rigorous and experimentally testable formulations of associated error tradeoff relations. Here we briefly review this new development, explaining the concepts and steps taken in the construction of optimal joint approximations of pairs of incompatible observables. As a case study, we deduce measurement uncertainty relations for qubit observables using two distinct error measures. We provide an operational interpretation of the error bounds and discuss some of the first experimental tests of such relations.
Abstract In standard formulations of the uncertainty principle, two fundamental features are typically cast as impossibility statements: two noncommuting observables cannot in general both be sharply defined (for the same state), nor can they be measured jointly. The pioneers of quantum mechanics were acutely aware and puzzled by this fact, and it motivated Heisenberg to seek a mitigation, which he formulated in his seminal paper of 1927. He provided intuitive arguments to show that the values of, say, the position and momentum of a particle can at least be unsharply defined, and they can be measured together provided some approximation errors are allowed. Only now, nine decades later, a working theory of approximate joint measurements is taking shape, leading to rigorous and experimentally testable formulations of associated error tradeoff relations. Here we briefly review this new development, explaining the concepts and steps taken in the construction of optimal joint approximations of pairs of incompatible observables. As a case study, we deduce measurement uncertainty relations for qubit observables using two distinct error measures. We provide an operational interpretation of the error bounds and discuss some of the first experimental tests of such relations.