Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Reviews of Modern Physics

On the Localizability of Quantum Mechanical Systems

Arthur S. Wightman

Published Oct 1, 1962• 417 citations
Publisher

Abstract

From the very beginning of quantum mechanics, the notion of the position of a particle has been much discussed. In the nonrelativistic case, the proof of the equivalence of matrix and wave mechanics, the discovery of the uncertainty relations, and the development of the statistical interpretation of the theory led to an understanding which, within the inevitable limitations of the nonrelativistic theory, may be regarded as completely satisfactory.

DOI
10.1103/revmodphys.34.845

Related papers

Quantum mechanics

Valia Allori

This is a brief review of the history and development of quantum theories. Starting from the experimental findings and theoretical results which marked the crisis of the classical framework, I overview the rise of axiomatic quantum mechanics through matrix and wave mechanics. I discuss conceptual problems such as the measurement problem that led scientific realists to explore other, more satisfactory, quantum theories, as well as Bell’s theorem and quantum nonlocality, concluding with a short review of relativistic theories.

Routledge eBooks•Dec 16, 2025•0 citations

Quantum Mechanics

Peter E. Hodgson

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.

Routledge eBooks•Sep 8, 2017•0 citations

Localizability in the Hamiltonian formalism and in quantum-mechanics

R. D. Grigore

Unknow•Jan 1, 1989•0 citations

From the origin of quantum concepts to the establishment of quantum mechanics

M A El'yashevich

The article deals with the origins and development, in the first quarter of the 20th century, of the fundamental ideas advanced by Planck and Einstein and by Bohr and de Broglie concerning the quantum of action, the quanta of energy and the quanta of light, the stationary states of atomic systems and jumplike transitions between them, the correspondence principle, and the particle-wave dualism. It is shown how the development of the quantum concepts have led to two approaches to the creation of quantum mechanics by Heisenberg, Born, and Dirac in algebraic form and by Schrodinger in analytic form. The main stages in the evolution of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics are described, namely the development of wave mechanics and matrix mechanics, the proofs of their equivalence, the physical interpretation of the wave function, the generalized formulation of quantum mechanics as a unified theory, and the discovery of the uncertainty relations. The most important trends in the development of quantum mechanics in the course of its evolution are considered. A complete bibliography of the main period of evolution of quantum mechanics (July 1925–March 1928), classified by topics and by time of publication, is included.

Soviet Physics Uspekhi•Aug 31, 1977•6 citations

The interpretation of quantum mechanics

Malcolm S. Longair

In completing the story of spin, we have run far ahead of the continued development of the understanding of the matrix, operator and wave mechanical approaches to quantum mechanics. The reconciliation of these approaches was described in Chap. 15, but there remained the issue of the interpretation of the wavefunction and the deeper implications of the theory. The understanding came gradually with Born's interpretation of the wavefunction, Ehrenfest's demonstration of the equivalence of the classical and quantum pictures and Heisenberg's enunciation of the uncertainty principle. These led to what became known as the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. At the same time, the formal mathematical foundations of the different approaches to quantum phenomena were set on a secure foundation thanks to the efforts of Hilbert and many others. These developments resulted in what may be referred to as the completion of quantum mechanics, in the sense that it laid the foundations for all the future development of physics at the atomic and subatomic level – some of these achievements are summarised in Chap. 18. Schrödinger's interpretation (1926) Schrödinger regarded wave mechanics as superior to the matrix mechanical approach to quantum physics, not only because it was based upon the well-known eigenfunction techniques of classical physics, but also because it was much more visualisable. His first attempt at interpreting the wavefunction appeared in the final Sect. 7 of the fourth part of his great series of papers (Schrödinger, 1926f) and was entitled On the physical significance of the field scalar.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Jan 31, 2013•1 citation

On the Localizability of Quantum Mechanical Systems

Arthur S. Wightman

Springer eBooks•Jan 1, 1988•15 citations
From the very beginning of quantum mechanics, the notion of the position of a particle has been much discussed. In the nonrelativistic case, the proof of the equivalence of matrix and wave mechanics, the discovery of the uncertainty relations, and the development of the statistical interpretation of the theory led to an understanding which, within the inevitable limitations of the nonrelativistic theory, may be regarded as completely satisfactory.
This is a brief review of the history and development of quantum theories. Starting from the experimental findings and theoretical results which marked the crisis of the classical framework, I overview the rise of axiomatic quantum mechanics through matrix and wave mechanics. I discuss conceptual problems such as the measurement problem that led scientific realists to explore other, more satisfactory, quantum theories, as well as Bell’s theorem and quantum nonlocality, concluding with a short review of relativistic theories.
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 article deals with the origins and development, in the first quarter of the 20th century, of the fundamental ideas advanced by Planck and Einstein and by Bohr and de Broglie concerning the quantum of action, the quanta of energy and the quanta of light, the stationary states of atomic systems and jumplike transitions between them, the correspondence principle, and the particle-wave dualism. It is shown how the development of the quantum concepts have led to two approaches to the creation of quantum mechanics by Heisenberg, Born, and Dirac in algebraic form and by Schrodinger in analytic form. The main stages in the evolution of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics are described, namely the development of wave mechanics and matrix mechanics, the proofs of their equivalence, the physical interpretation of the wave function, the generalized formulation of quantum mechanics as a unified theory, and the discovery of the uncertainty relations. The most important trends in the development of quantum mechanics in the course of its evolution are considered. A complete bibliography of the main period of evolution of quantum mechanics (July 1925–March 1928), classified by topics and by time of publication, is included.
In completing the story of spin, we have run far ahead of the continued development of the understanding of the matrix, operator and wave mechanical approaches to quantum mechanics. The reconciliation of these approaches was described in Chap. 15, but there remained the issue of the interpretation of the wavefunction and the deeper implications of the theory. The understanding came gradually with Born's interpretation of the wavefunction, Ehrenfest's demonstration of the equivalence of the classical and quantum pictures and Heisenberg's enunciation of the uncertainty principle. These led to what became known as the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. At the same time, the formal mathematical foundations of the different approaches to quantum phenomena were set on a secure foundation thanks to the efforts of Hilbert and many others. These developments resulted in what may be referred to as the completion of quantum mechanics, in the sense that it laid the foundations for all the future development of physics at the atomic and subatomic level – some of these achievements are summarised in Chap. 18. Schrödinger's interpretation (1926) Schrödinger regarded wave mechanics as superior to the matrix mechanical approach to quantum physics, not only because it was based upon the well-known eigenfunction techniques of classical physics, but also because it was much more visualisable. His first attempt at interpreting the wavefunction appeared in the final Sect. 7 of the fourth part of his great series of papers (Schrödinger, 1926f) and was entitled On the physical significance of the field scalar.