Clarifying the nature of the quantum state |Ψ⟩ is at the root of the problems with insight into counter-intuitive quantum postulates. We provide a direct—and math-axiom free—empirical derivation of this object as an element of a vector space. Establishing the linearity of this structure—quantum superposition—is based on a set-theoretic creation of ensemble formations and invokes the following three principia: (I) quantum statics, (II) doctrine of the number in the physical theory, and (III) mathematization of matching the two observations with each other (quantum covariance). All of the constructs rest upon a formalization of the minimal experimental entity—the registered micro-event, detector click. This is sufficient for producing the ℂ-numbers, axioms of linear vector space (superposition principle), statistical mixtures of states, eigenstates and their spectra, and non-commutativity of observables. No use is required of the spatio-temporal concepts. As a result, the foundations of theory are liberated to a significant extent from the issues associated with physical interpretations, philosophical exegeses, and mathematical reconstruction of the entire quantum edifice.
Clarifying the nature of the quantum state |Ψ⟩ is at the root of the problems with insight into counter-intuitive quantum postulates. We provide a direct—and math-axiom free—empirical derivation of this object as an element of a vector space. Establishing the linearity of this structure—quantum superposition—is based on a set-theoretic creation of ensemble formations and invokes the following three principia: (I) quantum statics, (II) doctrine of the number in the physical theory, and (III) mathematization of matching the two observations with each other (quantum covariance). All of the constructs rest upon a formalization of the minimal experimental entity—the registered micro-event, detector click. This is sufficient for producing the ℂ-numbers, axioms of linear vector space (superposition principle), statistical mixtures of states, eigenstates and their spectra, and non-commutativity of observables. No use is required of the spatio-temporal concepts. As a result, the foundations of theory are liberated to a significant extent from the issues associated with physical interpretations, philosophical exegeses, and mathematical reconstruction of the entire quantum edifice.
We summarize below some of the postulates and definitions basic to our formalism, and present some important results based on these postulates. The formalism is purely mathematical in nature with very little physics input, but it provides the structure within which the physical concepts that will be discussed in the later chapters will be framed. State vectors It is important to realize that the Quantum Theory is a linear theory in which the physical state of a system is described by a vector in a complex, linear vector space. This vector may represent a free particle or a particle bound in an atom or a particle interacting with other particles or with external fields. It is much like a vector in ordinary three-dimensional space, following many of the same rules, except that it describes a very complicated physical system. We will be elaborating further on this in the following. The mathematical structure of a quantum mechanical system will be presented in terms of the notations developed by Dirac. A physical state in this notation is described by a “ket” vector, |〉, designated variously as |α〉 or |ψ〉 or a ket with other appropriate symbols depending on the specific problem at hand. The kets can be complex. Their complex conjugates, |〉 * , are designated by 〈| which are called “bra” vectors. Thus, corresponding to every ket vector there is a bra vector. These vectors are abstract quantities whose physical interpretation is derived through their so-called “representatives” in the coordinate or momentum space or in a space appropriate to the problem under consideration.
We deduce the Born rule from a purely statistical take on quantum theory within minimalistic math-setup. No use is required of quantum postulates. One exploits only rudimentary quantum mathematics—a linear, not Hilbert’, vector space—and empirical notion of the Statistical Length of a state. Its statistical nature comes from the lab micro-events (detector-clicks) being formalized into the C -coefficients of quantum superpositions. We also comment that not only has the use not been made of quantum axioms (scalar-product, operators, interpretations , etc.), but that the involving thereof would be, in a sense, inconsistent when deriving the rule. In point of fact, the quadratic character of the statistical length, and even not (the ‘physics’ of) Born’s formula, represents a first step in constructing the mathematical structure we name the Hilbert space of quantum states.
The core content of even the most intricate intellectual edifices is often a simple fact or idea. So is it with quantum mechanics; the entire mathematical fabric of the formal description of quantum mechanics stems essentially from the fact that quantum probabilities interfere (i.e., from the superposition principle). This book is dedicated to substantiating this claim. In the process, the book tries to demonstrate how the factual content of quantum mechanics can be transcribed in the formal language of vector spaces and linear transformations by disentangling the empirical content from the usual formal description. More importantly, it tries to bring out what this transcription achieves. The book uses a pedagogic strategy which reverse engineers the postulates of quantum mechanics to device a schematic outline of the empirical content of quantum mechanics from which the postulates are then reconstructed step by step. This strategy is adopted to avoid the disconcerting details of actual experiments (however simplified) to spare the beginner of issues that lurk in the fragile foundations of the subject. In the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, the key idea is measurement. But "measurement" carries an entirely different meaning from the connotation that the term carries elsewhere in physics. This book strives to underline this as strongly as possible. The book is intended as an undergraduate text for a first course in quantum mechanics. Since the book is self contained, it may also be used by enthusiastic outsiders interested to get a glimpse of the core content of the subject. Features: Demonstrates why linear algebra is the appropriate mathematical language for quantum mechanics. Uses a reconstructive approach to motivate the postulates of quantum mechanics. Builds the vocabulary of quantum mechanics by showing how the entire body of its conceptual ingredients can be constructed from the single notion of quantum measurement.
Quantum physics consists of a formal core that is universally agreed upon (basically being a piece of mathematics with suggestive names for concepts matching related concepts of experimental culture) and an interpretational halo (trying to make this relation more precise) that remains highly disputed even after more than 90 years of modern quantum physics. The latter is the subject of the interpretation of quantum mechanics (see Part II), where many interpretations coexist and compete for the attention of those interested in what quantum physics really means. In this chapter, an axiomatic introduction to the undisputed formal core of quantum physics is given. The axioms described present nonrelativistic quantum statistical mechanics in the Schrödinger picture. The relativistic case is outside the scope of these axioms, as it must be treated by quantum field theory; see Chapter 7. As in any axiomatic setting (necessary for a formal discipline), there are a number of different but equivalent sets of axioms or postulates that can be used to define formal quantum physics. Since they are equivalent, their choice is a matter of convenience. The choice presented here is a formulation featuring three aspects: It emphasises the similarity of quantum mechanics and classical mechanics, gives most direct access to statistical mechanics, and is free from allusions to measurement. The reason for the first is that this similarity serves as a guide to meaning. From the axiomatic setting for quantum mechanics presented below, classical mechanics (in the Koopman setting discussed in Section 7.10) is obtained by simply restricting the operators to be diagonal, so that all operations happen pointwise on the diagonal elements. Thus, multiplication is commutative, and one can identify operators and functions. In particular, the density operator degenerates into a probability density. Therefore, the quantum case appears as a generalization of the classical case allowing for noncommutativity, so that both q-observables and the density operator are (usually infinite-dimensional) operators. The reason for the second is that statistical mechanics is the main tool for applications of quantum physics to the macroscopic systems we are familiar with. The reason for the third is that realistic measurements constitute a complex process involving macroscopic detectors, hence should be explained by quantum statistical mechanics rather than be part of the axiomatic foundations themselves. (This is in marked contrast to other foundations, and distinguishes the present system of axioms.)
Quantum theory is the soul of contemporary physics. It was discovered in an adventurous way, under the urge to solve the puzzles posed by atomic spectra and blackbody radiation. But after its invention, it immediately became clear that it was not just a theory of specific physical systems: it was rather a new language of universal applicability. Already in 1928, the theory had received solid mathematical foundations by Hilbert, von Neumann, and Nordheim, and this work was brought to completion in the monumental work of von Neumann, in the form that we still study nowadays. The theory is extraordinarily successful, and its predictions have been confirmed to an astonishing level of precision in a large spectrum of experiments. However, almost 90 years after von Neumann's book, quantum theory remains mysterious. Its mathematical formulation – based on Hilbert spaces and self-adjoint operators – is far from having an intuitive interpretation. The association of physical systems to Hilbert spaces whose unit vectors represent pure states, the representation of transformations by unitary operators and of observables by self-adjoint operators – all such postulates look artificial and ad hoc . A slightly more operational approach is provided by the C * -algebraic formulation of quantum theory – still, this formulation relies on the assumption that observables form an algebra , where the physical meanings of the multiplication and the sum are far from clear. In short, the postulates of quantum theory impose mathematical structures without providing any simple reason for this choice: the mathematics of Hilbert spaces is adopted as a magic blackbox that “works well” at producing experimental predictions. However, in a satisfactory axiomatization of a physical theory the mathematical structures should emerge as a consequence of postulates that have a direct physical interpretation. By this we mean postulates referring, e.g., to primitive notions like physical system, measurement, or process, rather than notions like, e.g., Hilbert space, C * -algebra, unit vector, or selfadjoint operator. The crucial question thus remains unanswered: why quantum theory? Which are the principles at the basis of the theory? A case that is often invoked in contrast is that of Special Relativity theory, which directly follows from the simple understandable principle of relativity.
An examination of the postulates of quantum mechanics reveals a number of fundamental mathematical constructs that form its theoretical underpinnings. Many of the results that are summarized in this Chapter will only become clear after reading the rest of the book and a re-reading may be in order. The dynamical variables of classical mechanics are superseded by the quantum degree of freedom. An exhaustive and complete description of the indeterminate degree of freedom is given by its state function, which is an element of a state space that, in general, is an infinite-dimensional linear vector space. The properties of the indeterminate degree of freedom are extracted from its state vector by the linear action of operators representing experimentally observable quantities. Repeated applications of the operators on the state function yield the average value of the operator for the state [Baaquie (2013e)]. The conceptual framework of quantum mechanics is discussed in Section 2.1. The concepts of degree of freedom, state space and operators are briefly reviewed in Sections 2.3–2.5. Three distinct formulations of quantum mechanics emerge from the superstructure of quantum mechanics and these are briefly summarized in Sections 2.7–2.9. The Copenhagen quantum postulate The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, pioneered by Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, provides a conceptual framework for the interpretation of the mathematical constructs of quantum mechanics and is the standard interpretation that is followed by the majority of practicing physicists [Stapp (1963), Dirac (1999)].