Abstract Modern developments of atomic theory have required alterations in some of the most fundamental physical ideas. This has resulted in its being usually easier to discover the equations that describe some particular phenomenon than just how the equations are to be interpreted. The quantum mechanics of Heisenberg and Schrodinger was first worked out for a number of simple examples, from which a general mathematical scheme was constructed, and afterwards people were led to the general physical principles governing the interpretation, such as the superposition of states and the indeterminacy principle. In this way a satisfactory non-relativistic quantum mechanics was established.
Abstract Modern developments of atomic theory have required alterations in some of the most fundamental physical ideas. This has resulted in its being usually easier to discover the equations that describe some particular phenomenon than just how the equations are to be interpreted. The quantum mechanics of Heisenberg and Schrodinger was first worked out for a number of simple examples, from which a general mathematical scheme was constructed, and afterwards people were led to the general physical principles governing the interpretation, such as the superposition of states and the indeterminacy principle. In this way a satisfactory non-relativistic quantum mechanics was established.
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.
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.
Quantum mechanics is our most successful physical theory. It underlies our very detailed understanding of atomic physics, chemistry, and nuclear physics, and the many technologies to which physical systems in these regimes give rise. Additionally, relativistic quantum mechanics is the basis for the standard model of elementary particles, which very successfully gives a partial unification of the forces operating at the atomic, nuclear, and subnuclear levels. However, from its inception the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, and the fact that “quantum measurements” in the orthodox formulation appear to require the intervention of non-quantum mechanical “classical systems,” have led to speculations by many physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science that quantum mechanics may be incomplete. Among the Founding Fathers of quantum theory, Einstein and Schrödinger were both of the opinion that quantum mechanics is in some way unsatisfactory, and this view has been amplified in more recent profound work of John Bell, among others. In an opposing camp, many others in the physics, mathematics, and philosophy communities have attempted to provide an interpretational foundation in which quantum mechanics remains a complete and self-contained system. Among the Founding Fathers, Bohr, Born, and Heisenberg maintained that quantum mechanics is a complete system, and a number of recent proposals have been made to improve upon or to provide alternatives to their “Copenhagen Interpretation.” The debate continues, and has spawned an enormous literature.
The formulation of a consistent scheme for treating semiclassical systems is considered, giving particular emphasis to the case of gravity. A critical review of the semiclassical problem is first given, stressing the conceptual aspects of the topic; the theory usually adopted is found to be unsatisfactory, and the need to have an unambiguous interpretation of quantum mechanics before trying to give an alternative description is realized. Our way to arrive at such an interpretation is rather unusual, but it presents the advantage of being almost compelling in the choice to make: First, we reformulate the Schrodinger equation as a set of hydrodynamical equations involving quantities which formally play the role of mass density, velocity and pressure for a fluid; the problem of interpreting the wave function is thus reduced to that of interpreting these quantities. We then show how they can be derived from the Wigner distribution function exactly as in the usual formalism of kinetic theory, and discuss how this fact provides strong support in favour of the statistical interpretation of quantum theory, according to which the state vector describes only ensembles, and not individual systems. We also consider some implications of these results on the possible existence of a more fundamental theory underlying quantum mechanics. It is shown that reconsidering the semiclassical problem in the light of the statistical interpretation, one is led to distinguish between a strongly and a weakly semiclassical regime, which are essentially characterized by the size of the statistical dispersion induced in the observables of the classical subsystem by the coupling to the quantum one. It turns out that in the weakly semiclassical regime, in which this dispersion is not negligible, the concept of coupling equations cannot be successfully applied, and one has rather to define a probability distribution even for the values of the classical observables; an hypothesis which allows to specify such a distribution is enunciated. Several examples of the application of these general principles are considered, and it is shown how the treatment of semiclassical relativistic fields requires a much more sophisticated treatment of the quantum source. This is provided reformulating quantum theory in terms of a quasiprobability functional P[1] in the space of the histories of the system. It is shown how such a functional allows to reconstruct the usual phase space distributions when integrated over suitable sets of paths, in a way which clarify the relations between operator ordering, path integration and phase space treatment of quantum theory. The relativistic extension of p[f] is also constructed, and an explicitly covariant version of relativistic quantum theory is discussed in some details. It is shown how the latter allows, formally, to consider superpositions of different mass eigenstates, although such superpositions are not directly observable. Finally, the application of these new techniques to the treatment of semiclassical electromagnetism and gravity, as well as of a scalar field, are considered. It is shown how the usual semiclassical field equations, suitably reinterpreted in terms of averages of the field, are recovered either in linear cases or in the strongly semiclassical regime, but that they do not hold in general. Finally, some possible extensions and implications of the formalism are discussed.
The interpretation of quantum mechanics has been controversial since the introduction of quantum theory in the 1920s. Although the Copenhagen interpretation is commonly accepted, its usual formulation suffers from some serious drawbacks. Based mainly on Bohr's concepts, the formulation assumes an independent and essential validity of classical concepts running in parallel with quantum ones, and leaves open the possibility of their ultimate conflict. In this book, Roland Omnes examines a number of recent advances, which, combined, lead to a consistent revision of the Copenhagen interpretation. His aim is to show how this interpretation can fit all present experiments, to weed out unnecessary or questionable assumptions, and to assess the domain of validity where the older statements apply. The text offers a self-contained treatment of interpretation (in nonrelativistic physics) in a manner accessible to both physicists and students. Although some hard results are included, the concepts and mathematical developments are maintained at an undergraduate level. This book enables readers to check every step, apply the techniques to new problems and make sure that no paradox or obscurity
Abstract Conventional methods for teaching spin at a university level generally follow four main approaches. The first introduces spin into the Schrödinger equation artificially, leaving its physical meaning unclear. The second connects spin to the representation of the rotation group, which clarifies its nature but requires knowledge of group theory. The third approach derives from field theory, separating angular momentum into orbital and intrinsic parts, the latter corresponding to spin; however, this cannot be done within quantum mechanics alone. The fourth derives electron spin from Dirac’s 1928 relativistic equation, which, though correct, has led to the misconception that spin is a purely relativistic effect. A detailed analysis of Dirac’s 1928 papers shows that the concept of spin arises from the need to construct an equation linear in both energy and momentum to preserve Born’s probabilistic interpretation. This linearization of the Klein–Gordon equation reveals that spin is conceptually independent of relativity. Historical and pedagogical perspectives can together clarify conceptual difficulties and promote a deeper understanding of fundamental ideas in physics. Drawing on selected passages from Dirac’s original work, the present discussion offers broader conceptual and cultural considerations that introduce the notion of spin with limited mathematical requirements and can be applied independently of the didactic approach adopted.