Quantum mechanics occupies a unique position in the history of science. It has survived all experimental tests to date, culminating with the most precise comparison of any measurement to any theory – a 1987 measurement of the electron's magnetic moment, or gyromagnetic ratio g e = 2.002 319 304 39 (Van Dyck et al. 1987), agreeing with QED theory to 12 digits. Despite this and other dramatic successes of quantum mechanics, its foundations are often questioned, owing to the glaring difficulties in reconciling quantum physics with the classical laws of physics that govern macroscopic bodies. If quantum mechanics is indeed a complete theory of nature, why does it not apply to everyday life? Even Richard Feynman (1982), a fierce defender of quantum mechanics, memorably stated that: We have always had a great deal of difficulty in understanding the world view that quantum mechanics represents … Okay, I still get nervous with it … It has not yet become obvious to me that there is no real problem. I cannot define the real problem, therefore I suspect there's no real problem, but I'm not sure there's no real problem. In the dawn of the twenty-first century, John A. Wheeler's big question “Why the quantum?” has returned to the forefront of physics with full steam. Advances in experimental physics are beginning to realize the same thought-experiments that proved helpful to Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, and the other founders of quantum mechanics.
Quantum mechanics occupies a unique position in the history of science. It has survived all experimental tests to date, culminating with the most precise comparison of any measurement to any theory – a 1987 measurement of the electron's magnetic moment, or gyromagnetic ratio g e = 2.002 319 304 39 (Van Dyck et al. 1987), agreeing with QED theory to 12 digits. Despite this and other dramatic successes of quantum mechanics, its foundations are often questioned, owing to the glaring difficulties in reconciling quantum physics with the classical laws of physics that govern macroscopic bodies. If quantum mechanics is indeed a complete theory of nature, why does it not apply to everyday life? Even Richard Feynman (1982), a fierce defender of quantum mechanics, memorably stated that: We have always had a great deal of difficulty in understanding the world view that quantum mechanics represents … Okay, I still get nervous with it … It has not yet become obvious to me that there is no real problem. I cannot define the real problem, therefore I suspect there's no real problem, but I'm not sure there's no real problem. In the dawn of the twenty-first century, John A. Wheeler's big question “Why the quantum?” has returned to the forefront of physics with full steam. Advances in experimental physics are beginning to realize the same thought-experiments that proved helpful to Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, and the other founders of quantum mechanics.
The difficulties of the old quantum theory were largely dispelled by the development of quantum mechanics in the 1920s. First Heisenberg (1925) developed the rather abstract matrix mechanics and soon after Schro¨dinger (1926; see also Eckart, 1926) developed the physically more appealing wave mechanics. Subsequently he showed them to be mathematically equivalent. The physicists were greatly relieved; now they had once again a mathematical formalism that enabled the results of experiments to be calculated. It was possible to move forward. It is certainly a very elegant and indeed beautiful formalism, and does enable the results of many physical measurements to be calculated with great accuracy. It is used daily by atomic and nuclear physicists; there is no other way to make calculations. From the earliest days there has been intense debate about the interpretation of quantum mechanics, and it shows no signs of being settled; if anything it is becoming more intense over the years. As Penrose has remarked, no one understands quantum mechanics. Feynman (1967; see also Sykes, 1994) also admitted that ‘nobody understands quantum mechanics’, and Einstein once remarked: ‘I have thought a hundred times as much about the quantum problems as I have about general relativity theory’ (Pais, 1994, p. 57). It should therefore be evident that the most that can be done here is to try to show where the real difficulties lie, and how the failure to recognize that quantum mechanics is an essentially statistical theory has led to a series of confusing quantum paradoxes. It is just these paradoxes that have often been used to support theological speculations. It is useful to ask what ‘understanding quantum mechanics’ actually means. Certainly it means being able to calculate the results of many measurements. The same applies to Newton’s theory of gravitation, which we understand in the sense that we can use it as a basis of calculation, although we do not really understand the gravitational force itself. Very often, especially in modern physics, the mathematical formalism does not give us the sort of intuitive physical feeling for what is going on that we often obtain from classical mechanics. Perhaps we can never achieve more than this for quantum mechanics. In classical mechanics we can assume that a property that is measured objectively exists prior to the interaction of the measuring apparatus with the observed system. Quantum mechanics, however, ‘is incompatible with the proposition that measurement discovers some unknown but pre-existing property’ (Peres, 1997, p. 14). There is an important distinction between mysteries and absurdities. We may be forced to live with mysteries, but there is no reason why we should put up with absurdities such as the wave-particle duality, tunnelling through potential barriers, acausal events and the collapse of the wave function. These are the quantum paradoxes that will be discussed later on. They arise within the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and are solved by other interpretations. These alternative interpretations enable us to make conjectures about what is going on, even though we cannot understand it in detail. This is acceptable and a stimulus to further research. It is certainly difficult enough to understand quantum mechanics, but there is no need to try to visualize logical absurdities in the effort to do so. Quantum mechanics is a mathematical formalism that makes it possible to calculate the results of some experiments. Anything more than this, such as questions about the interpretation of what is measured and whether it tells us what is actually going on in the system being studied, belongs to philosophy. Thus we are concerned here with what is essentially a philosophical debate; if it were just a matter of physics the debate would have been settled long ago. One of the difficulties is that it invokes the results of experiments and uses the language of quantum mechanics. Inevitably this language uses philosophical terms and then it is easy to give the impression that the philosophical propositions are in some way entailed by the physical results. These in turn can influence theological thinking. In order to be quite clear which arguments are justified and which are not, it is essential to separate the three levels of discourse: physical, philosophical and theological. Our task is to relate these together, and this immediately raises the traditional problems of the philosophy of science, including the relation of experiment to theory, and of theory to explanation. We begin by discussing experiments, distinguishing between those that are real and those that are imaginary.
For over nine decades, quantum mechanics has profoundly shaped our understanding of nature, offering explanations for the stability of atoms, the formation of mole cules, the properties of materials, and phenomena such as light or radioactivity. It is essential to modern technologies—from microchips to lasers—and underpins the physics of elementary particles. Yet, despite its successes, it remains a deeply mysterious theory, confronting a central enigma: why does the quantum world behave so differently from everyday reality? Elements such as superposition and quantum entanglement—which allow particles to exist simultaneously in multiple states or remain interconnected regardless of distance—contradict classical world intuitions. This gap between microscopic and macroscopic behavior has given rise to what is known as the “measurement problem,” raising fundamental questions about the nature of reality. Diverging interpretations have led to two major schools of thought: anti-realism, promoted by Niels Bohr, which holds that reality depends on the observer and their interaction with measurement instruments; and realism, supported by Albert Einstein, which argues that quantum mechanics is incomplete and that eality exists independently of observation. Bohr’s complementary philosophy and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle were central to the formulation of the “Copenhagen interpretation,” which became dominant in the 20th century. However, the persistent opposition of scientists like Einstein and Schrödinger inspired generations of physicists to seek a unification between quantum mechanics and relativity, culminating in new theories such as loop quantum gravity and string theory. Thus, the debate between realism and anti-realism remains alive, and philosophy continues to play a crucial role in exploring the new foundations of physics.
Quantum mechanics to a large extent is a subject which conceptually is abstract and very mathematical in nature. Despite its abstract formalism it has proved to be a storehouse of ideas of enormous practical value. These radically new ideas, boldly proposed and strikingly uncommon, have helped to unlock deep secrets of the world, especially at the microscopic level where the breakdown of classical physics becomes rather apparent. There flows indeed from this subject a vast stream of concrete, everyday life applications. The phenomenon of transistors, television, semiconductors, computers, lasers, to name a few, instruments of unde-bated importance for communication, education, energy requirements, medicine, etc.—all involve quantum mechanical effects. The work of P. Lenard and especially of A. Einstein on the photoelectric effect, for example, helped toward the development of television. Our world has been positively changed by the fruits of this elegant subject and its forward thinking founders.
Quantum physics joined the mainstream in the 1920s and 1930s with the general acceptance of the theories of Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr (1885-1962), Erwin Schrödinger (1887-1961), Werner Heisenberg (1901-1976), Paul Dirac (1902-1984), and many other established physicists. Quantum computing is based on quantum physics, with all of its special behaviors and unusual limits. Therefore, quantum computing deals with the behaviors of atomic and subatomic particles. These behaviors are irreducibly random and the measurement of particle characteristics simultaneously, such as position and momentum, to an arbitrary precision is impossible. That is, physical phenomena of small particles do not agree often with our classical intuition. The unusual behavior results from features of quantum mechanics called superposition and interference. In the early 1980s, Richard Feynman (1918-1988) noted that there seemed to be fundamental difficulties in simulating quantum mechanical systems on digital computers, and further suggested that having computers based on the principles of quantum mechanics would overcome those difficulties. Devices that perform quantum information processing are known as quantum computers.
Quantum mechanics is an immensely successful theory, occupying a unique position in the history of science. It has solved mysteries ranging from macroscopic superconductivity to the microscopic theory of elementary particles and has provided deep insights into the nature of vacuum on the one hand and the description of the nucleon on the other. Whole new fields such as quantum optics and quantum electronics owe their very existence to this body of knowledge. However, despite the stunning successes of quantum mechanics, there is no general agreement on the conceptual foundations and interpretation of the subject. The theory provides unambiguous information about the outcome of a measurement of a physical object. However, many feel that it does not provide a satisfactory answer to the nature of the “reality” we should attribute to the physical objects between the acts of measurement. The conceptual difficulty comes about because the wave function |ψ〉 is usually given by a coherent superposition of various distinguishable experimental outcomes. If we denote the collection of states that represent the possible outcomes of an experiment by |ψ j 〉, then |ψ〉 = ∑ j c j |ψ j 〉 where c j = 〈ψ j |ψ〉. The probability of the outcome |ψ j 〉 is P j =|c j | 2 . In the process of measurement, the so called collapse of the wave function takes place and a single, definite state |ψ i 〉 of the physical object is chosen. The difficulty comes about in the interpretation of the mechanism by which this definite state is chosen from amongst all the possible outcomes.
[I] think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. Richard Feynman, The Character of Physical Law Quantum mechanics [is] that mysterious, confusing discipline, which none of us really understands but which we know how to use. It works perfectly, as far as we can tell, in describing physical reality, but it is a ‘counter-intuitive discipline’… Murray Gell-Mann, Questions for the Future [The quantum] postulate implies a renunciation as regards the causal space-time co-ordination of atomic processes. Niels Bohr, Atomic Theory and the Description of Nature It should be emphasized, however, that the probability function does not in itself represent a course of events in the course of time. It represents a tendency for events and our knowledge of events. The probability function can be connected with reality only if one essential condition is fulfilled: if a new measurement is made to determine a certain property of the system. [T]he idea of an objective real world whose smallest parts exist objectively in the same sense as stones or trees exist, independently of whether or not we observe them…is impossible … Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy [In] quantum theory it is the principle of causality , or more accurately that of determinism , which must be dropped and replaced by something else.… We now have a new form of the law of causality.… It is as follows: if in a certain process the initial conditions are determined as accurately as the uncertainty relations permit, then the probabilities of all possible subsequent states are governed by exact laws. Max Born, The Restless Universe