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

American Journal of Physics

Albert Einstein and the Quantum Riddle

Alfred Landé

Published Jun 1, 1974• 13 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Einstein's “quantum riddle” is the almost forgotten problem of finding the ultimate reason for the quanta. It is solved here by deduction of quantum mechanics from three general postulates, those of symmetry, correspondence, and covariance, imposed on a general probabilistic connection between states. The derivation offers a systematic approach to the quantum mathematics and its teaching by trying to “comprehend the complexity and apparent disorder of Nature in the light of a supreme order” (Einstein).

DOI
10.1119/1.1987752

Related papers

The Laws behind the Quantum Laws

Alfred Landi

The mathematician's delight is to see fundamental problems solved by a minimum of logical reasoning (for example, the solution of the problem of whether root two is rational). The scientist's delight is to reduce intricate regularities or apparent irregularities of natural phenomena to simple and general ground principles. This method of 'explaining' odd-looking relations has been gravely neglected in the case of quantum mechanics. When all efforts, during the first decade after Planck's discovery, to reduce the quantum jumps to some gap in classical statistical mechanics proved to be futile, quantum theory became accepted as fundamental, as irreducible to anything more elementary and plausible as a matter of principle. Later in 1926, when a new set of quantal calculation rules was found, hardly any physicist felt the urge to ask for the Why of these rules, after their How proved so immensely successful. One of the few exceptions was Albert Einstein. But in his efforts to 'solve the quantum riddle' he was misled by his conviction that 'the Lord does not play dice with the world' for quantum mechanics is an essentially probabilistic structure, incapable in principle of being reduced to deterministic chains (beginning with an undeterministic molecular disorder having taken place five billion years ago?) So the question of 'why are there quantum jumps?' remained unanswered. The reply 'Because there is a Schr6dinger wave equation' is quite naive, since this equation contains the various quantum riddles all rolled into one formula.

•Jan 1, 2016•0 citations

QUANTUM MECHANICS EXPLAINED

ULRICH MOHRHOFF

The physical motivation for the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics is made clear and compelling by starting from an obvious fact — essentially, the stability of matter — and inquiring into its preconditions: what does it take to make this obvious fact possible?

arXiv:quant-ph/0607005•International Journal of Quantum Information•Feb 1, 2009•6 citations

Principle of General Q Covariance

David Finkelstein, J. M. Jauch, Samuel Schiminovich +1 more

In this paper the physical implications of quaternion quantum mechanics are further explored. In a quanternionic Hilbert space HQ, the lattice of subspaces has a symmetry group which is isomorphic to the group of all co-unitary transformations in HQ. In contrast to the complex space HC (ordinary Hilbert space), this group is connected, while for HC it consists of two disconnected pieces. The subgroup of transformations in HQ which associates with every quaternion q of magnitude 1, the correspondence ψ → qψq−1 for all ψ∈HQ (called Q conjugations), is isomorphic to the three-dimensional rotation group. We postulate the principle of Q covariance: The physical laws are invariant under Q conjugations. The full significance of this postulate is brought to light in localizable systems where it can be generalized to the principle of general Q covariance: Physical laws are invariant under general Q conjugations. Under the latter we understand conjugation transformations which vary continuously from point to point. The implementation of this principle forces us to construct a theory of parallel transport of quaternions. The notions of Q-covariant derivative and Q curvature are natural consequences thereof. There is a further new structure built into the quaternionic frame through the equations of motion. These equations single out a purely imaginary quaternion η(x) which may be a continuous function of the space—time coordinates. It corresponds to the i in the Schrödinger equation of ordinary quantum mechanics. We consider η(x) as a fundamental field, much like the tensor gμν in the general theory of relativity. We give here a classical theory of this field by assuming the simplest invariant Lagrangian which can be constructed out of η and the covariant Q connection. It is shown that this theory describes three vector fields, two of them with mass and charge, and one massless and neutral. The latter is identifiable with the classical electromagnetic field.

Journal of Mathematical Physics•Jun 1, 1963•161 citations

Demystifying Quantum Mechanics

Ana Elisa D. Barioni, Felipe Boechat Mazzi, Elsa Bifano Pimenta +2 more

Why does such a successful theory like Quantum Mechanics have so many mysteries? The history of this theory is replete with dubious interpretations and controversies, and yet a knowledge of its predictions, however, contributed to the amazing technological revolution of the last hundred years. In its very beginning Einstein pointed out that there was something missing, due to contradictions with the relativity theory. So, even though Quantum Mechanics explains all the nanoscale physical phenomena, there were many attempts to find a way to “complete” it, e.g. hidden-variable theories. In this paper, we discuss some of those enigmas, with special attention to the concepts of physical reality imposed by quantum mechanics, the role of the observer, prediction limits, a definition of collapse, and how to deal with correlated states (the basic strategy for quantum computers and quantum teleportation). That discussion is carried out within the framework of accepting that there is in fact nothing important missing, rather we are just restricted by the limitations imposed by quantum mechanics. The mysteries are thus explained by a proper interpretation of those limitations, which is achieved by introducing two interpretation rules within the Copenhagen paradigm.

arXiv:2106.02161•Revista Brasileira de Ensino de Física•Jan 1, 2022•4 citations

A Derivation of Quantum Mechanics from START

Jaime Keller

Quantum Mechanics is a successful model to describe physical phenomena. We show that a simple set of postulates about the description of objects in Nature allows the derivation of the principles of QM, transforming this theory into a deductive approach to Physics. The main postulate is: Objects are described as energy distributions in Space–Time. 1 Quantum Mechanics from START It is universally accepted that Quantum Mechanics is a successful model to describe physical phenomena, in particular of the electronic structure of atoms, molecules and solids. As such it has been reformulated in several different forms (see for example: Nine formulations of quantum mechanics, Daniel F. Styer et al. [15]). The aim of the present paper is to show that a simple set of postulates about the description of objects in Nature allows the derivation of the principles of QM, transforming this theory into a deductive approach to Physics. In our approach the main postulate is: Objects are described as energy distributions in Space–Time. The theory is in fact a systematic mathematical analysis of this postulate and of other general considerations about action, energy–momentum and the role of the theory as a useful description of Nature. The paper also shows the fundamental and basic status of Density Functional Theory, also contained in our approach. The initial mathematical structure is a geometric (quadratic form based) union of space, time and action. In physics bundles of trajectories are used to describe the objects of nature: distribution of heights over a surface, a real object is described as a bundle of space-time trajectories, here we use a description as a bundle of action valves in space-time (energy densities in space following light-like lines). The author is fully aware that the presentation is strongly guided by the knowledge of the usual computational approach to study atoms, molecules and condensed matter electronic structure.

•Jan 1, 2004•0 citations

Quantum mechanics explained

Mohrhoff, U

The physical motivation for the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics is made clear and compelling by starting from an obvious fact - essentially, the stability of matter - and inquiring into its preconditions: what does it take to make this fact possible?

•Jul 2, 2006•12 citations
Einstein's “quantum riddle” is the almost forgotten problem of finding the ultimate reason for the quanta. It is solved here by deduction of quantum mechanics from three general postulates, those of symmetry, correspondence, and covariance, imposed on a general probabilistic connection between states. The derivation offers a systematic approach to the quantum mathematics and its teaching by trying to “comprehend the complexity and apparent disorder of Nature in the light of a supreme order” (Einstein).
The mathematician's delight is to see fundamental problems solved by a minimum of logical reasoning (for example, the solution of the problem of whether root two is rational). The scientist's delight is to reduce intricate regularities or apparent irregularities of natural phenomena to simple and general ground principles. This method of 'explaining' odd-looking relations has been gravely neglected in the case of quantum mechanics. When all efforts, during the first decade after Planck's discovery, to reduce the quantum jumps to some gap in classical statistical mechanics proved to be futile, quantum theory became accepted as fundamental, as irreducible to anything more elementary and plausible as a matter of principle. Later in 1926, when a new set of quantal calculation rules was found, hardly any physicist felt the urge to ask for the Why of these rules, after their How proved so immensely successful. One of the few exceptions was Albert Einstein. But in his efforts to 'solve the quantum riddle' he was misled by his conviction that 'the Lord does not play dice with the world' for quantum mechanics is an essentially probabilistic structure, incapable in principle of being reduced to deterministic chains (beginning with an undeterministic molecular disorder having taken place five billion years ago?) So the question of 'why are there quantum jumps?' remained unanswered. The reply 'Because there is a Schr6dinger wave equation' is quite naive, since this equation contains the various quantum riddles all rolled into one formula.
In this paper the physical implications of quaternion quantum mechanics are further explored. In a quanternionic Hilbert space HQ, the lattice of subspaces has a symmetry group which is isomorphic to the group of all co-unitary transformations in HQ. In contrast to the complex space HC (ordinary Hilbert space), this group is connected, while for HC it consists of two disconnected pieces. The subgroup of transformations in HQ which associates with every quaternion q of magnitude 1, the correspondence ψ → qψq−1 for all ψ∈HQ (called Q conjugations), is isomorphic to the three-dimensional rotation group. We postulate the principle of Q covariance: The physical laws are invariant under Q conjugations. The full significance of this postulate is brought to light in localizable systems where it can be generalized to the principle of general Q covariance: Physical laws are invariant under general Q conjugations. Under the latter we understand conjugation transformations which vary continuously from point to point. The implementation of this principle forces us to construct a theory of parallel transport of quaternions. The notions of Q-covariant derivative and Q curvature are natural consequences thereof. There is a further new structure built into the quaternionic frame through the equations of motion. These equations single out a purely imaginary quaternion η(x) which may be a continuous function of the space—time coordinates. It corresponds to the i in the Schrödinger equation of ordinary quantum mechanics. We consider η(x) as a fundamental field, much like the tensor gμν in the general theory of relativity. We give here a classical theory of this field by assuming the simplest invariant Lagrangian which can be constructed out of η and the covariant Q connection. It is shown that this theory describes three vector fields, two of them with mass and charge, and one massless and neutral. The latter is identifiable with the classical electromagnetic field.
Why does such a successful theory like Quantum Mechanics have so many mysteries? The history of this theory is replete with dubious interpretations and controversies, and yet a knowledge of its predictions, however, contributed to the amazing technological revolution of the last hundred years. In its very beginning Einstein pointed out that there was something missing, due to contradictions with the relativity theory. So, even though Quantum Mechanics explains all the nanoscale physical phenomena, there were many attempts to find a way to “complete” it, e.g. hidden-variable theories. In this paper, we discuss some of those enigmas, with special attention to the concepts of physical reality imposed by quantum mechanics, the role of the observer, prediction limits, a definition of collapse, and how to deal with correlated states (the basic strategy for quantum computers and quantum teleportation). That discussion is carried out within the framework of accepting that there is in fact nothing important missing, rather we are just restricted by the limitations imposed by quantum mechanics. The mysteries are thus explained by a proper interpretation of those limitations, which is achieved by introducing two interpretation rules within the Copenhagen paradigm.
Quantum Mechanics is a successful model to describe physical phenomena. We show that a simple set of postulates about the description of objects in Nature allows the derivation of the principles of QM, transforming this theory into a deductive approach to Physics. The main postulate is: Objects are described as energy distributions in Space–Time. 1 Quantum Mechanics from START It is universally accepted that Quantum Mechanics is a successful model to describe physical phenomena, in particular of the electronic structure of atoms, molecules and solids. As such it has been reformulated in several different forms (see for example: Nine formulations of quantum mechanics, Daniel F. Styer et al. [15]). The aim of the present paper is to show that a simple set of postulates about the description of objects in Nature allows the derivation of the principles of QM, transforming this theory into a deductive approach to Physics. In our approach the main postulate is: Objects are described as energy distributions in Space–Time. The theory is in fact a systematic mathematical analysis of this postulate and of other general considerations about action, energy–momentum and the role of the theory as a useful description of Nature. The paper also shows the fundamental and basic status of Density Functional Theory, also contained in our approach. The initial mathematical structure is a geometric (quadratic form based) union of space, time and action. In physics bundles of trajectories are used to describe the objects of nature: distribution of heights over a surface, a real object is described as a bundle of space-time trajectories, here we use a description as a bundle of action valves in space-time (energy densities in space following light-like lines). The author is fully aware that the presentation is strongly guided by the knowledge of the usual computational approach to study atoms, molecules and condensed matter electronic structure.