arXiv:1905.00920

Foundations of quantum physics V. Coherent foundations

Arnold Neumaier

Published May 2, 2019• 0 citations

Abstract

This paper is a programmatic article presenting an outline of a new view of the foundations of quantum mechanics and quantum field theory. In short, the proposed foundations are given by the following statements: * Coherent quantum physics is physics in terms of a coherent space consisting of a line bundle over a classical phase space and an appropriate coherent product. * The kinematical structure of quantum physics and the meaning of the fundamental quantum observables are given by the symmetries of this coherent space, their infinitesimal generators, and associated operators on the quantum space of the coherent space. * The connection of quantum physics to experiment is given through the thermal interpretation. The dynamics of quantum physics is given (for isolated systems) by the Ehrenfest equations for q-expectations.

DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.1905.00920

Related papers

6. Coherent quantum physics

Arnold Neumaier

Coherent quantum physics is quantum physics in terms of a coherent space and an appropriate coherent product. The kinematical structure and the meaning of the quantities are given by the symmetries (invertible coherent maps) of the coherent space. If Z is a coherent manifold, a canonical symplectic form is often canonically determined by the coherent product through the coherent action principle discussed in Section 6.1. In a quantum mechanical context, Z is indeed a classical phase space or an extended phase space-typically a symplectic manifold, a Poisson manifold, or a circle or line bundle over such a manifold that incorporates the classical action variable (encoding the Berry phase under quantization). For example, the Aharonov-Bohm effect [3] needs the bundle formulation. A coherent space and its quantum space provide a classical and a quantum view of the same physical system, discussed in Section 6.2. Section 6.3 shows that symmetries of coherent spaces can be quantized, that is, promoted to linear operators on the quantum space. This leads to quantum dynamics, which in special (completely integrable) situations can be solved in closed form in terms of classical motions on the underlying coherent space, if the latter has a compatible manifold structure. Close relations to concepts from geometric quantization and Kähler manifolds are pointed out in Section 6.4. In order that the quantum space of a coherent space Z can describe physics, one needs not only a distinguished class of coherent states but a more general concept of state. In Sections 6.5-6.6, we give a general abstract setting for states in Lie ∗-algebras, emphasize the essential mathematical features and the close analogy between classical and quantum physics. We illustrate these generalities with a number of examples in Section 6.7. The coherent action principle is put to use in Section 6.8 for numerical quantum physics and an application to quantum chaos. Spectral issues can, in favorable cases, be handled in terms of dynamical Lie algebras, discussed in Section 6.9.

De Gruyter eBooksOct 24, 20190 citations

Coherent Quantum Physics

Arnold Neumaier

This book introduces mathematicians, physicists, and philosophers to a new, coherent approach to theory and interpretation of quantum physics, in which classical and quantum thinking live peacefully side by side and jointly fertilize the intuition. The formal, mathematical core of quantum physics is cleanly separated from the interpretation issues. The book demonstrates that the universe can be rationally and objectively understood from the smallest to the largest levels of modeling. The thermal interpretation featured in this book succeeds without any change in the theory. It involves one radical step, the reinterpretation of an assumption that was virtually never questioned before - the traditional eigenvalue link between theory and observation is replaced by a q-expectation link: Objective properties are given by q-expectations of products of quantum fields and what is computable from these. Averaging over macroscopic spacetime regions produces macroscopic quantities with negligible uncertainty, and leads to classical physics. - Reflects the actual practice of quantum physics. - Models the quantum-classical interface through coherent spaces. - Interprets both quantum mechanics and quantum field theory. - Eliminates probability and measurement from the foundations. - Proposes a novel solution of the measurement problem.

De Gruyter eBooksOct 23, 20194 citations

Quantum mechanics, classical, and special relativity

James Lindesay

Fundamentals of quantum mechanics Quantum mechanics remains one of the most successful, yet enigmatic, formulations of physics. Uncertainty and measurement constraints are incorporated at the core of this fundamental description of micro-physical dynamics. Quantum mechanics successfully describes the observed structures in chemistry and materials science. In particular, the impenetrability of matter due to Pauli exclusion is a consequence of incorporating special relativity into quantum mechanics. Microscopic causality , or the requirement that communications cannot propagate at greater than the speed of light, relates a particle's spin to its quantum statistics but does not exclude the space-like correlations associated with a coherent quantum state. This section will examine some of the foundations of quantum physics. An emphasis will be placed upon how the microscopic fundamentals of quantum mechanics relate to the geometric fundamentals of gravitational mechanics. Quantum formalism There are several interpretations of quantum mechanics offering models of the underlying (often hidden) dynamics that generate the observed quantum phenomenology (for example, the Copenhagen interpretation, or the many-worlds interpretation). Since any interpretation consistent with quantum physics cannot be proved or disproved by experiment, only those aspects of quantum formalism directly connected to experimental observables will be developed, with minimal interpretation imposed. To establish the conventions utilized in what follows, a brief overview of the formalism that describes those calculable observables modeled by quantum physics will be given.

Cambridge University Press eBooksMay 16, 20130 citations

Foundations of quantum physics II. The thermal interpretation

Arnold Neumaier

This paper presents the thermal interpretation of quantum physics. The insight from Part I of this series that Born's rule has its limitations -- hence cannot be the foundation of quantum physics -- opens the way for an alternative interpretation -- the thermal interpretation of quantum physics. It gives new foundations that connect quantum physics (including quantum mechanics, statistical mechanics, quantum field theory and their applications) to experiment. The thermal interpretation resolves the problems of the foundations of quantum physics revealed in the critique from Part I of this series. It improves the traditional foundations in several respects: * The thermal interpretation reflects the actual practice of quantum physics, especially regarding its macroscopic implications. * The thermal interpretation gives a fair account of the interpretational differences between quantum mechanics and quantum field theory. * The thermal interpretation gives a natural, realistic meaning to the standard formalism of quantum mechanics and quantum field theory in a single world, without introducing additional hidden variables. * The thermal interpretation is independent of the measurement problem. The latter becomes a precise problem in statistical mechanics rather than a fuzzy and problematic notion in the foundations. Details will be discussed in Part III.

arXiv:1902.10779Feb 27, 20190 citations

On the foundations of quantum physics

Е. А. Соловьев

Some aspects of the interpretation of microscopic physics in terms of quantum theory are discussed. It is first emphasized that quantum theory is formulated in a Cartesian coordinate system; in other coordinates the result obtained with the help of the Hamiltonian formalism and commutation relations between ''canonically conjugated'' coordinate and momentum operators leads to a wrong version of quantum mechanics. In this connection the Feynman integral formalism is also discussed. In this formalism the measure is not well defined, and there is no idea how to distinguish between the true version of quantum mechanics and an incorrect one. In this respect, the Feynman approach consists of a mnemonic rule to generate perturbation series from an undefined zero-order term. The origin of time in the quantum framework is then analyzed in detail and illustrated by the example of atomic collisions. It is shown that the time-dependent Schr ¨ odinger equation for the closed three-body (two nuclei + electron) system has no physical meaning because in the high-impact energy limit it transforms into an equation with two independent time-like variables; time naturally appears in the stationary Schr ¨ odinger equation as a result of extraction of a classical subsystem (two nuclei) from a closed three-body system. Finally, following the well-known Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky experiment and Bell's inequality, we reiterate that the wave function must be interpreted as an actual field of information, in a form as elementary as the usual material particles and electromagnetic fields. In fact, experimental measurements transfer this quantum information field into the classical world, which is directly discernable. In my conclusion, the relation between physical reality and its mathematical formulation is discussed. 2012 Physics Essays Publication. (DOI: 10.4006/0836-1398-25.1.27) R ´

Physics EssaysMar 1, 20125 citations

Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics (2nd edition)

G. Mahler

Quantum mechanics is usually defined in terms of some loosely connected axioms and rules. Such a foundation is far from the beauty of, e.g., the `principles' underlying classical mechanics. Motivated, in addition, by notorious interpretation problems, there have been numerous attempts to modify or `complete' quantum mechanics. A first attempt was based on so-called hidden variables; its proponents essentially tried to expel the non-classical nature of quantum mechanics. More recent proposals intend to complete quantum mechanics not within mechanics proper but on a `higher (synthetic) level'; by means of a combination with gravitation theory (R Penrose), with quantum information theory (C M Caves, C A Fuchs) or with psychology and brain science (H P Stapp). I think it is fair to say that in each case the combination is with a subject that, per se , suffers from a very limited understanding that is even more severe than that of quantum mechanics. This was acceptable, though, if it could convincingly be argued that scientific progress desperately needs to join forces. Quantum mechanics of a closed system was a beautiful and well understood theory with its respective state being presented as a point on a deterministic trajectory in Liouville space---not unlike the motion of a classical N -particle system in its 6N -dimensional phase-space. Unfortunately, we need an inside and an outside view, we need an external reference frame, we need an observer. This unavoidable partition is the origin of most of the troubles we have with quantum mechanics. A pragmatic solution is introduced in the form of so-called measurement postulates: one of the various incompatible properties of the system under consideration is supposed to be realized (i.e. to become a fact, to be defined without fundamental dispersion) based on `instantaneous' projections within some externally selected measurement basis. As a result, the theory becomes essentially statistical rather than deterministic; furthermore there is an asymmetry between the observed and the observing. This is the point where consciousness may come in. Complemented by an introduction and several appendices, Henry Stapp's book consists essentially of three parts: theory, implications, and new developments. The theory part gives a very readable account of the Copenhagen interpretation, some aspects of a psychophysical theory, and, eventually, hints towards a quantum foundation of the brain--mind connection. The next part, `implications', summarizes some previous attempts to bridge the gap between the working rules of quantum mechanics and their possible consequences for our understanding of this world (Pauli, Everett, Bohm, Heisenberg). The last section, `new developments', dwells on some ideas about the conscious brain and its possible foundation on quantum mechanics. The book is an interesting and, in part, fascinating contribution to a field that continues to be a companion to `practical' quantum mechanics since its very beginning. It is doubtful whether such types of `quantum ontologies' will ever become (empirically) testable; right now one can hardly expect more than to be offered some consistent `grand picture', which the reader may find more or less acceptable or even rewarding. Many practicing quantum physicists, though, will remain unimpressed. The shift from synthetic ontology to analytic ontology is the foundation of the present work. This means that fundamental wholes are being partitioned into their ontologically subordinate components by means of `events'. The actual event, in turn, is an abrupt change in the Heisenberg state describing the quantum universe. The new state then defines the tendencies associated with the next actual event. To avoid infinite regression in terms of going from one state of tendencies to the next, consciousness is there to give these events a special `feel', to provide a status of `intrinsic actuality'. The brain of an alert human observer is similar in an important way to a quantum detection device: it can amplify small signals to large macroscopic effects. On the other hand, actual events are not postulated to occur exclusively in brains. They are more generally associated with the formation of records. Records are necessarily part of the total state of the universe: it is obvious that the state of the universe cannot undergo a Schrödinger dynamics and at the same time record its own history. `The full universe consists therefore of an exceedingly thin veneer of relatively sluggish, directly observable properties resting on a vast ocean or rapidly fluctuating unobservable ones.' The present ideas also bear on how the world should be seen to develop. While conventional cosmology encounters problems as to how to define the intial conditions, which would enter the governing equations of motion, here `the boundary conditions are set not at some initial time, but gradually by a sequence of acts that imposes a sequence of constraints. After any sequence of acts there remains a collection of possible worlds, some of which will be eliminated by the next act.' Connected with those acts is `meaning': there has always been some speculation about the special significance of local properties in our understanding of the world. One could argue that correlations (even the quantum correlations found, e.g., in the EPR-experiments) were as real as anything else. But also Stapp stresses the special role of locality: the `local observable properties, or properties similar to them are the natural, and perhaps exclusive, carriers of meaning in the quantum universe. From this point of view the quantum universe tends to create meaning.' This sounds like an absolute concept: meaning not with respect to something else, but defined intrinsically---not easy to digest. The role of consciousness in the developing quantum universe requires more attention. `The causal irrelevance of our thoughts within classical physics constitutes a serious deficiency of that theory, construed as a description of reality.' This is taken to be entirely different within quantum mechanics. `The core idea of quantum mechanics is to describe our activities as knowledge-seeking and knowledge-using agents.' `21st century science does not reduce human beings to mechanical automata. Rather it elevates human beings to agents whose free choices can, according to the known laws, actually influence their behaviour.' An example with respect to perception is discussed: `Why, when we look at a triangle, do we experience three lines joined at three points and not some pattern of neuron firings?' The brain `does not convert an actual whole triangle into some jumbled set of particle motions; rather it converts a concatenation of separate external events into the actualization of some single integrated pattern of neural activity that is congruent to the perceived whole triangle.' How convincing is this proposal? It is hard to tell. I think Henry Stapp did a good job, but there are tight limitations to any such endeavour. Quantum mechanics is often strange indeed, but it also gives rise to our classical world around us. For the emergence of classicality jumps and measurement projections (the basic phenomena connected with those fundamental events of choice) are not needed. Therefore, I doubt whether the explanation of the evolution of our world really allows (or requires) that much free choice. On the other hand, most scientist will agree that empirical science was not possible without free will: we could not ask independent questions if this asking was part of a deterministic trajectory. The fact that the result of a quantum measurement is indeterminate (within given probabilities) does certainly not explain free will. How about the type of measurment? The experimentalist will have to assume that he can select the pertinent observable within some limits. But given a certain design the so-called pointer basis (producing stable measurement results) is no longer a matter of free choice. `The main theme of classical physics is that we live in a clocklike universe.' Today it is often assumed that the universe was a big (quantum-) computer or a cellular automaton. Many would be all too happy to leave that rather restrictive picture behind. But where to go? Stapp suggests giving consciousness a prominent role: `The most profound alteration of the fundamental principles was to bring consciousness of human beings into the basic structure of the physical theory.' How far we are able to go in this direction will depend on the amount of concrete research results becoming available to support this view.

Journal of Physics A Mathematical and GeneralJun 17, 20044 citations