The world of physical systems at the most fundamental levels is replete with efficient, interesting models possessing sufficient ability to represent the reality to a considerable extent. So far, quantum mechanics (QM) forming the basis of almost all natural phenomena, has found beyond doubt its intrinsic ingenuity, capacity and robustness to stand the rigorous tests of validity from and through appropriate calculations and experiments. No serious failures of quantum mechanical predictions have been reported, yet. However, Albert Einstein, the greatest theoretical physicist of the twentieth century and some other eminent men of science have stated firmly and categorically that QM, though successful by and large, is incomplete. There are classical and quantum reality models including those based on consciousness. Relativistic quantum theoretical approaches to clearly understand the ultimate nature of matter as well as radiation have still much to accomplish in order to qualify for a final theory of everything (TOE). Mathematical models of better, suitable character as also strength are needed to achieve satisfactory explanation of natural processes and phenomena. We, in this paper, discuss some of these matters with certain apt illustrations as well.
The world of physical systems at the most fundamental levels is replete with efficient, interesting models possessing sufficient ability to represent the reality to a considerable extent. So far, quantum mechanics (QM) forming the basis of almost all natural phenomena, has found beyond doubt its intrinsic ingenuity, capacity and robustness to stand the rigorous tests of validity from and through appropriate calculations and experiments. No serious failures of quantum mechanical predictions have been reported, yet. However, Albert Einstein, the greatest theoretical physicist of the twentieth century and some other eminent men of science have stated firmly and categorically that QM, though successful by and large, is incomplete. There are classical and quantum reality models including those based on consciousness. Relativistic quantum theoretical approaches to clearly understand the ultimate nature of matter as well as radiation have still much to accomplish in order to qualify for a final theory of everything (TOE). Mathematical models of better, suitable character as also strength are needed to achieve satisfactory explanation of natural processes and phenomena. We, in this paper, discuss some of these matters with certain apt illustrations as well.
Why yet another book on quantum mechanics? Quantum mechanics was born in the first quarter of the twentieth century and has received an enormous number of theoretical and experimental confirmations over the years. It is considered to be the fundamental physical paradigm, and has a wide range of applications, from cosmology to chemistry, and from biology to information sciences. It is one of the greatest intellectual achievements of the past century. As an effect of its invention, the very concept of physical reality was changed, and “observation,” “measurement,” “prediction,” and “state of the system” acquired a new and deeper meaning. Probability was not unknown in physics: it was introduced by Boltzmann in order to control the behavior of a system with a very large number of particles. It was the missing concept in order to understand the thermodynamics of macroscopic bodies, but the structure of the physical laws remained still deterministic. The introduction of probability was needed as a consequence of our lack of knowledge of the initial conditions of the system and of our inability to solve an enormous number of coupled non-linear differential equations. In quantum mechanics, the tune is different: if we have 10 6 radioactive atoms no intrinsic unknown variables decide which of them will decay first. What we observe experimentally seems to be an irreducible random process. The original explanation of this phenomenon in quantum mechanics was rather unexpected.
The history of mathematical modeling outside physics has been dominated by the use of classical mathematical models, C-models, primarily those of a probabilistic or statistical nature. More recently, however, quantum mathematical models, Q-models, based in the mathematical formalism of quantum theory have become more prominent in psychology, economics, and decision science. The use of Q-models in these fields remains controversial, in part because it is not entirely clear whether Q-models are necessary for dealing with the phenomena in question or whether C-models would still suffice. My aim, however, is not to assess the necessity of Q-models in these fields, but instead to reflect on what the possible applicability of Q-models may tell us about the corresponding phenomena there, vis-à-vis quantum phenomena in physics. In order to do so, I shall first discuss the key reasons for the use of Q-models in physics. In particular, I shall examine the fundamental principles that led to the development of quantum mechanics. Then I shall consider a possible role of similar principles in using Q-models outside physics. Psychology, economics, and decision science borrow already available Q-models from quantum theory, rather than derive them from their own internal principles, while quantum mechanics was derived from such principles, because there was no readily available mathematical model to handle quantum phenomena, although the mathematics ultimately used in quantum did in fact exist then. I shall argue, however, that the principle perspective on mathematical modeling outside physics might help us to understand better the role of Q-models in these fields and possibly to envision new models, conceptually analogous to but mathematically different from those of quantum theory, helpful or even necessary there or in physics itself. I shall suggest one possible type of such models, singularized probabilistic, SP, models, some of which are time-dependent, TDSP-models. The necessity of using such models may change the nature of mathematical modeling in science and, thus, the nature of science, as it happened in the case of Q-models, which not only led to a revolutionary transformation of physics but also opened new possibilities for scientific thinking and mathematical modeling beyond physics.
Applications of quantum mechanics have led to many successful predictions and explanations of puzzling phenomena, and we now apply quantum mechanics to gain, process, and communicate information in novel ways. We can understand quantum mechanics by understanding how we have applied it. We should not seek agreement on the nature of the world it represents, because this theory does not itself represent the physical world (though its applications do help us to represent it better). When applied to a quantum state, quantum mechanics yields probabiities for physical events: both state and probability are objective--not because they represent elements of phyiscal reality, but because each exerts norrmative authority over the beliefs of anyone who accepts quantum mechanics and applies it relative to a physical situation they may (but need not) occupy. These events may be described by statements that are meaningful in an appropriate environmental context, and quantum mechanics can help one to say when that is. Measurement creates an appropriate context, so here the Born rule indirectly yields probabilities of measurement outcomes. The quantum state of a system does not "collapse" on measurement: a new state must be assigned relative to a physical situation in which information about the outcome is accessible. Understood this way, there is no measurement problem, and violations of Bell inequalities does not demonstrate "spooky" non-local action. Quantum field theories have no physical ontology of their own: a quantum field is a mathematical object in a model whose application helps us to improve and extend our descriptions of the world in other terms. We cannot realise the scenario of Wigner's friend and its recent extensions: but the data that provide overwhelming evidence for quantum mechanics are objective in the same sense as the relative measurement outcomes described in those scenarios.
Applications of quantum mechanics have led to many successful predictions and explanations of puzzling phenomena, and we now apply quantum mechanics to gain, process, and communicate information in novel ways. We can understand quantum mechanics by understanding how we have applied it. We should not seek agreement on the nature of the world it represents, because this theory does not itself represent the physical world (though its applications do help us to represent it better). When applied to a quantum state, quantum mechanics yields probabilities for physical events: both state and probability are objective—not because they represent elements of physical reality, but because each exerts normative authority over the beliefs of anyone who accepts quantum mechanics and applies it relative to a physical situation they may (but need not) occupy. These events may be described by statements (about values of magnitudes) that are meaningful in an appropriate environmental context, and quantum mechanics can help one to say when that is. Measurement creates an appropriate context, so here the Born rule indirectly yields probabilities of measurement outcomes. The quantum state of a system does not “collapse” on measurement: a new state must be assigned relative to a physical situation in which information about the outcome is accessible. Understood this way, there is no measurement problem, and violation of Bell inequalities does not demonstrate “spooky” non-local action. Quantum field theories have no physical ontology of their own: a quantum field is a mathematical object in a model whose application helps to improve and extend our descriptions of the world in other terms. We cannot realise the scenario of Wigner’s friend and its recent extensions: but the data that provide overwhelming evidence for quantum mechanics are objective in the same sense as the relative measurement outcomes described in those scenarios.
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.
The early twentieth century was a revolutionary time in the history of physics. People often think of Einstein's special theory of relativity of 1905, which changed our conceptions of time and space. But among physicists, quantum mechanics is usually regarded as an even more radical change in our thinking about the physical world. Quantum mechanics, which was developed between 1900 and 1926, began as a theory of atoms and light but has now become the framework in terms of which all basic physical theories are expected to be cast. We need quantum ideas not only to understand atoms, molecules, and elementary particles, but also to understand the electronic properties of solids and even certain astronomical phenomena such as the stability of white dwarf stars. The theory was radical in part because it introduced probabilistic behavior as a fundamental aspect of the world, but even more because it seems to allow mutually exclusive situations to exist simultaneously in a “quantum superposition.” We will see later that the possibility of quantum superposition is largely responsible for a quantum computer's distinctive advantage over an ordinary computer. The present chapter is devoted to introducing the basic principles of quantum mechanics. There are essentially four components of the mathematical structure of quantum mechanics. We need to know how to represent (i) states, (ii) measurements, (iii) reversible transformations, and (iv) composite systems. We will develop the first three in stages, starting with a very simple case – linear polarization of photons – and working toward the most general case.