This paper combines mathematical, philosophical, and historical analyses in a comprehensive investigation of the dynamical foundations of the formalism of orthodox quantum mechanics. The results obtained include: (i) A deduction of the canonical commutation relations (CCR) from the tenets of Matrix Mechanics; (ii) A discussion of the meaning of Schrödinger's first derivation of the wave equation that not only improves on Joas and Lehner's 2009 investigation on the subject, but also demonstrates that the CCR follow of necessity from Schrödinger's first derivation of the wave equation, thus correcting the common misconception that the CCR were only posited by Schrödinger to pursue equivalence with Matrix Mechanics; (iii) A discussion of the mathematical facts and requirements involved in the equivalence of Matrix and Wave Mechanics that improves on F. A. Muller's classical treatment of the subject; (iv) A proof that the equivalence of Matrix and Wave Mechanics is necessitated by the formal requirements of a dual action functional from which both the dynamical postulates of orthodox quantum mechanics, von Neumann's process 1 and process 2, follow; (v) A critical assessment, based on (iii) and (iv), of von Neumann's construction of unified quantum mechanics over Hilbert space. Point (iv) is our main result. It brings to the open the important, but hitherto ignored, fact that orthodox quantum mechanics is no exception to the golden rule of physics that the dynamics of a physical theory must follow from the action functional. If orthodox quantum mechanics, based as it is on the assumption of the equivalence of Matrix and Wave Mechanics, has this "peculiar dual dynamics," as von Neumann called it, then this is so because by assuming the equivalence one has been assuming a peculiar dual action.
This paper combines mathematical, philosophical, and historical analyses in a comprehensive investigation of the dynamical foundations of the formalism of orthodox quantum mechanics. The results obtained include: (i) A deduction of the canonical commutation relations (CCR) from the tenets of Matrix Mechanics; (ii) A discussion of the meaning of Schrödinger's first derivation of the wave equation that not only improves on Joas and Lehner's 2009 investigation on the subject, but also demonstrates that the CCR follow of necessity from Schrödinger's first derivation of the wave equation, thus correcting the common misconception that the CCR were only posited by Schrödinger to pursue equivalence with Matrix Mechanics; (iii) A discussion of the mathematical facts and requirements involved in the equivalence of Matrix and Wave Mechanics that improves on F. A. Muller's classical treatment of the subject; (iv) A proof that the equivalence of Matrix and Wave Mechanics is necessitated by the formal requirements of a dual action functional from which both the dynamical postulates of orthodox quantum mechanics, von Neumann's process 1 and process 2, follow; (v) A critical assessment, based on (iii) and (iv), of von Neumann's construction of unified quantum mechanics over Hilbert space. Point (iv) is our main result. It brings to the open the important, but hitherto ignored, fact that orthodox quantum mechanics is no exception to the golden rule of physics that the dynamics of a physical theory must follow from the action functional. If orthodox quantum mechanics, based as it is on the assumption of the equivalence of Matrix and Wave Mechanics, has this "peculiar dual dynamics," as von Neumann called it, then this is so because by assuming the equivalence one has been assuming a peculiar dual action.
Doubts and misconceptions about the origin and justification of a physical theory\'s most fundamental concept are bound to spill over into doubts and misconceptions about the origin and foundation of the theory as a whole: such is the case, in point of fact, of the concept of quantum discontinuity of orthodox quantum mechanics. This work, which comprises three chapters, each of which is an independent paper, is a comprehensive investigation of the origin and nature of the concept of quantum discontinuity. The first paper, entitled \"Rewriting the Quantum \'Revolution\',\" gives a novel account of the origin of quantum theory. It refutes, by direct counter-example, Thomas Kuhn\'s well-known thesis that revolutions in science do not happen on the basis of theory and experiment alone; the quantum revolution happened exactly in this way. The second paper, \"On the Lawfulness of Quanta,\" is a sequel to \"Rewriting the Quantum \'Revolution\'.\" It evinces that and how the existence of the energy quanta is a principled result; it refutes the traditional viewthat the existence of the energy quantawas originally introduced in physics as an ad hoc hypothesis in a self-contradictory argument by showing that it is instead a necessary consequence of the laws of thermodynamics of black-bodies. This result affects our understanding of what is actually involved in the classical-to-quantum paradigm-shift, of scientific method, and of the specific nature of the quantum hypothesis which was carried over into contemporary physics in the course of the quantum revolution. The third paper, \"The Dual Dynamical Foundation of Orthodox Quantum Mechanics,\" was written in collaboration with the mathematical physicist Dr. Ricardo Correa da Silva. It is a detailed critical study of the dynamical foundations of orthodox quantum mechanics; it contains several original results of mathematical, historical, and theoretical interest. The most important of them is the discovery of a dual action functional from which both of the dynamical postulates of von Neumann\'s quantum mechanics, process 1 and process 2, necessarily follow. It also contains the following results that have interest on their own: (i) a derivation of the canonical commutation relations from Matrix Mechanics; (ii) an analysis of Schrödinger\'s first derivation of the wave equation that improves on the understanding of it that is now current in the literature; (iii) a demonstration of how the canonical commutation relations follow fromWave Mechanics; (iv) a discussion, that improves on F. A. Muller\'s work, about the theoretical equivalence of Matrix andWave Mechanics; (v) a revaluation of von Neumann\'s statement of the measurement problem. Broadly speaking, the three papers, taken together, drive home the lesson that the concept of quantum discontinuity stands on a more solid foundation than the scholarship on the foundations of quantum mechanics has hitherto acknowledged
A recent rethinking of the early history of Quantum Mechanics deemed the late 1920s agreement on the equivalence of Matrix Mechanics and Wave Mechanics, prompted by Schrödinger’s 1926 proof, a myth. Schrödinger supposedly failed to achieve the goal of proving isomorphism of the mathematical structures of the two theories, while only later developments in the early 1930s, especially the work of mathematician John von Neumman (1932) provided sound proof of equivalence. The alleged agreement about the Copenhagen Interpretation, predicated to a large extent on this equivalence, was deemed a myth as well. If such analysis is correct, it provides considerable evidence that, in its critical moments, the foundations of scientific practice might not live up to the minimal standards of rigor, as such standards are established in the practice of logic, mathematics, and mathematical physics, thereby prompting one to question the rationality of the practice of physics. In response, I argue that Schrödinger’s proof concerned primarily a domain-specific ontological equivalence, rather than the isomorphism. It stemmed initially from the agreement of the eigenvalues of Wave Mechanics and energy-states of Bohr’s Model that was discovered and published by Schrödinger in his First and Second Communications of 1926. Schrödinger demonstrated in this proof that the laws of motion arrived at by the method of Matrix Mechanics could be derived successfully from eigenfunctions as well (while he only outlined the reversed derivation of eigenfunctions from Matrix Mechanics, which was necessary for the proof of isomorphism of the two theories). This result was intended to demonstrate the domain-specific ontological equivalence of Matrix Mechanics and Wave Mechanics, with respect to the domain of Bohr’s atom. And although the full-fledged mathematico-logical equivalence of the theories did not seem out of the reach of existing theories and methods, Schrödinger never intended to fully explore such a possibility in his proof paper. In a further development of Quantum Mechanics, Bohr’s complementarity and Copenhagen Interpretation captured a more substantial convergence of the subsequently revised (in light of the experimental results) Wave and Matrix Mechanics. I argue that both the equivalence and Copenhagen Interpretation can be deemed myths if one predicates the philosophical and historical analysis on a narrow model of physical theory which disregards its historical context, and focuses exclusively on its formal aspects and the exploration of the logical models supposedly implicit in it.
Quantum mechanics comes in a variety of different forms and formalisms. There is wave mechanics, matrix mechanics, Dirac's version of quantum mechanics, von Neumann's version of quantum mechanics. The philosopher of physics has to ask not only what quantum mechanics means, but also what it is. Orthodoxy in the philosophy of physics treats quantum mechanics as the general theory of microphysics which takes Hilbert space as its state space and which associates observables with certain special operators on that space. This amounts to a decision as to what quantum mechanics is. However it is a far from arbitrary decision. For the Hilbert space, or von Neumann, formalism summarizes and captures everything that is in the other versions of quantum mechanics, without any of the dubious mathematics of, for example, Dirac's version. Contemporary philosophers of physics take a very formal view of what quantum mechanics is, a view which has many advantages and some disadvantages. Whatever the disadvantages of focussing on the formalism of quantum mechanics - and it may lead to losing sight of the ‘physics' and possibly to a bias against Bohrian Copenhagenism - it is certainly true that the literate philosopher of physics must have some acquaintance with Hilbert space. There are in fact several topics we have to deal with, though we deal with them only very cursorily. (This chapter is no substitute for Jauch's classic text Foundations of Quantum Mechanics .)
We propose that the Schrodinger equation results from applying the classical wave equation to describe the physical system in which subatomic particles play random motion, thereby leading to quantum mechanics. The physical reality described by the wave function is subatomic particle moving randomly. Therefore, the characteristics of quantum mechanics have a dual nature, one of them is the deterministic nature carried on from classical physics, and the other is the probabilistic nature coined by particle's random motion. Based on this model, almost all of open questions in quantum mechanics can be explained consistently, which include the particle-wave duality, the principle of quantum superposition, the interference pattern of double-slit experiments, and the boundary between the classical world and the quantum world. The current quantum mechanics is a mixture of matrix mechanics and wave mechanics, which are sharply conflicting in principle. Matrix mechanics treats quantum particles as classical particles with fixed relation between the particle's position and its momentum. The matrix mechanics, in fact, belongs to the old quantum theory. Both Born's non-commutative relation and Heisenberg uncertainty relation originate from matrix mechanics. However, in wave mechanics, there is no any fixed relation between the particle's position and its momentum, and the particle's position and its momentum belong to immeasurable physical quantities. Therefore, there is no need for non-commutative relation and uncertainty relation in wave mechanics.
After a quarter century of discoveries that rattled the foundations of classical mechanics and electrodynamics, the year 1926 saw the publication of two works intended to provide a theoretical structure to support new quantum explanations of the subatomic world. Heisenberg's matrix mechanics and Schrodinger's wave mechanics provided compatible but mathematically disparate ways of unifying the discoveries of Planck, Einstein, Bohr and many others. Efforts began immediately to prove the equivalence of these two structures, culminated successfully by John von Neumann's 1932 volume Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. This forms the springboard for the current effort. We begin with a presentation of a minimal set of von Neumann postulates while introducing language and notation to facilitate subsequent discussion of quantum calculations based in finite dimensional Hilbert spaces. Chapters that follow address two-state quantum systems (with spin one-half as the primary example), entanglement of multiple two-state systems, quantum angular momentum theory and quantum approaches to statistical mechanics. A concluding chapter gives an overview of issues associated with quantum mechanics in continuous infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces.
In a previous work by the author it was shown that the Koopman-von Neumann formulation of classical mechanics (KvN) exhibits quantum interference. As such it was there claimed that KvN ought to be considered as a proper quantum mechanical theory in a similar sense as ordinary non-relativistic quantum mechanics (OQM) is. In this article this claim is made manifest by showing that KvN and OQM can be taken as merely inequivalent representations resulting from one and the same quantization scheme. Of course, as the typical notion of quantization necessitates the canonical commutation relations (CCR) to hold, which they do not in KvN, the concept needs to be properly revised. To justify such a revision the typical reasons for necessitation the CCR, reductionism and quantization as 'turning brackets to commutators', are examined and found insufficient.