This paper reviews some of our understanding of general quantum mechanics. It starts with the exposition of an abstract algebraic formalism useful to formulate classical and quantum-mechanical models of physical systems. It then highlights the essential differences between classical models (commutative algebra) and quantum-mechanical models (non-commutative algebra) of physical systems. It is explained in which sense classical models are “realistic” and deterministic, while quantum-mechanical models are intrinsically probabilistic – in spite of the fact that the Heisenberg time-evolution of operators representing physical quantities is “deterministic”. The quantum theory of time-ordered sequences of measurements is developed in some detail, and the crucial role of “decoherence” in the emergence of facts – or “(almost) consistent histories” – is explained. Some technical matters (Bell inequalities, quantum marginal problem) are discussed in appendices.
This paper reviews some of our understanding of general quantum mechanics. It starts with the exposition of an abstract algebraic formalism useful to formulate classical and quantum-mechanical models of physical systems. It then highlights the essential differences between classical models (commutative algebra) and quantum-mechanical models (non-commutative algebra) of physical systems. It is explained in which sense classical models are “realistic” and deterministic, while quantum-mechanical models are intrinsically probabilistic – in spite of the fact that the Heisenberg time-evolution of operators representing physical quantities is “deterministic”. The quantum theory of time-ordered sequences of measurements is developed in some detail, and the crucial role of “decoherence” in the emergence of facts – or “(almost) consistent histories” – is explained. Some technical matters (Bell inequalities, quantum marginal problem) are discussed in appendices.
We attempt to contribute some novel points of view to the "foundations of quantum mechanics", using mathematical tools from "quantum probability theory" (such as the theory of operator algebras). We first introduce an abstract algebraic framework for the formulation of mathematical models of physical systems that is general enough to encompass classical and quantum mechanical models. After a short discussion on the properties of classical systems (realism and determinism), we move on to the study of a general class of quantum-mechanical models of physical systems and explain what some of the key problems in a quantum theory of observations and measurements are. In the last part of our essay, we attempt to elucidate the roles played by entanglement between a system and its environment and of information loss in understanding "decoherence" and "dephasing", which are key mechanisms in a quantum theory of measurements and experiments. We also discuss the problem of "time in quantum mechanics" and sketch an answer to the question when an experiment can be considered to have been completed successfully.
Quantum mechanics (QM) is not just a theory of micro-objects: it is our current fundamental theory of motion. It expresses a deeper understanding of Nature than classical mechanics. Precisely as classical mechanics, the conventional formulation of QM describes evolution of states and observables in time. Precisely as classical mechanics, this is not sufficient to deal with general relativistic systems, because these systems do not describe evolution in time; they describe correlations between observables. Therefore, a formulation of QM slightly more general than the conventional one – or a quantum version of the relativistic classical mechanics discussed in the previous chapter – is needed. In this chapter I discuss the possibility of such a formulation. In the last section I discuss the general physical interpretation of QM. QM can be formulated in a number of more or less equivalent formalisms: canonical (Hilbert spaces and self-adjoint operators), covariant (Feynman's sum-over-histories), algebraic (states as linear functionals over an abstract algebra of observables) and others. Generally, but not always, we are able to translate these formalisms into one another, but often what is easy in one formulation is difficult in another. A generalrelativistic sum-over-histories formalism has been developed by Jim Hartle. Here I focus on the canonical formalism, because the canonical formalism has provided the mathematical completeness and precision needed to explicitly construct the mathematical apparatus of quantum gravity. Later I will consider alternative formalisms.
This article surveys a selection of key conceptual and interpretational developments in quantum mechanics, tracing the theory from its foundational postulates to contemporary discussions of measurement, nonlocality, and the emergence of classicality. Beginning with the structure of Hilbert space and the postulates governing state evolution and measurement, the epistemic stance of the Copenhagen interpretation and its modern reformulations are examined. The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen argument, Bell's theorem, and Hardy's paradox are then discussed as probes of locality and realism, alongside the deterministic but explicitly nonlocal de Broglie-Bohm theory. The measurement problem and the implications of contextuality are analyzed in relation to objective collapse models, which introduce new physical dynamics to account for definite outcomes. Finally, the role of decoherence in the suppression of interference and the emergence of classical behavior is explored, together with the interpretational frameworks of many-worlds and consistent histories. This material aims to provide a coherent introductory overview of how several of the most prominent interpretations address the central concern of what quantum mechanics tells us about the nature of physical reality.
This article surveys a selection of key conceptual and interpretational developments in quantum mechanics, tracing the theory from its foundational postulates to contemporary discussions of measurement, nonlocality, and the emergence of classicality. Beginning with the structure of Hilbert space and the postulates governing state evolution and measurement, the epistemic stance of the Copenhagen interpretation and its modern reformulations are examined. The Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen argument, Bell’s theorem, and Hardy’s paradox are then discussed as probes of locality and realism, alongside the deterministic but explicitly nonlocal de Broglie–Bohm theory. The measurement problem and the implications of contextuality are analyzed in relation to objective collapse models, which introduce new physical dynamics to account for definite outcomes. Finally, the role of decoherence in the suppression of interference and the emergence of classical behavior is explored, together with the interpretational frameworks of many-worlds and consistent histories. This material aims to provide a coherent introductory overview of how several of the most prominent interpretations address the central concern of what quantum mechanics tells us about the nature of physical reality.
Abstract The book starts with a description of classical mechanics then discusses the quantum phenomena that require us to give up our commonsense classical intuitions. We consider the physical and conceptual arguments that led to the standard von Neumann-Dirac formulation of quantum mechanics and how the standard theory explains quantum phenomena. This includes a discussion of how the theory’s two dynamical laws work with the standard interpretation of states to explain determinate measurement records, quantum statistics, interference effects, entanglement, decoherence, and quantum nonlocality. A careful understanding of how the standard theory works ultimately leads to the quantum measurement problem. We consider how the measurement problem threatens the logical consistency of the standard theory then turn to a discussion of the main proposals for resolving it. This includes collapse formulations of quantum mechanics like Wigner’s extension of the standard theory and the GRW approach and no-collapse formulations like pure wave mechanics, the various many-worlds theories, and Bohmian mechanics. In discussing alternative formulations of quantum mechanics we pay particular attention to the explanatory role played by each theory’s empirical ontology and associated metaphysical commitments and the conceptual trade-offs between theoretical options.
Some aspects of the interpretation of microscopic physics in terms of quantum theory are discussed. It is first emphasized that quantum theory is formulated in a Cartesian coordinate system; in other coordinates the result obtained with the help of the Hamiltonian formalism and commutation relations between ''canonically conjugated'' coordinate and momentum operators leads to a wrong version of quantum mechanics. In this connection the Feynman integral formalism is also discussed. In this formalism the measure is not well defined, and there is no idea how to distinguish between the true version of quantum mechanics and an incorrect one. In this respect, the Feynman approach consists of a mnemonic rule to generate perturbation series from an undefined zero-order term. The origin of time in the quantum framework is then analyzed in detail and illustrated by the example of atomic collisions. It is shown that the time-dependent Schr ¨ odinger equation for the closed three-body (two nuclei + electron) system has no physical meaning because in the high-impact energy limit it transforms into an equation with two independent time-like variables; time naturally appears in the stationary Schr ¨ odinger equation as a result of extraction of a classical subsystem (two nuclei) from a closed three-body system. Finally, following the well-known Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky experiment and Bell's inequality, we reiterate that the wave function must be interpreted as an actual field of information, in a form as elementary as the usual material particles and electromagnetic fields. In fact, experimental measurements transfer this quantum information field into the classical world, which is directly discernable. In my conclusion, the relation between physical reality and its mathematical formulation is discussed. 2012 Physics Essays Publication. (DOI: 10.4006/0836-1398-25.1.27) R ´