One of us has shown that the statistical properties of the measurements of a quantum mechanical system assume their simplest form when expressed in terms of a certain hypercomplex algebra which is commutative but not associative.1 This algebra differs from the non-commutative but associative matrix algebra usually considered in that one is concerned with the commutative expression ½(A × B + B × A) instead of the associative product A × B of two matrices. It was conjectured that the laws of this commutative algebra would form a suitable starting point for a generalization of the present quantum mechanical theory. The need of such a generalization arises from the (probably) fundamental difficulties resulting when one attempts to apply quantum mechanics to questions in relativistic and nuclear phenomena.
One of us has shown that the statistical properties of the measurements of a quantum mechanical system assume their simplest form when expressed in terms of a certain hypercomplex algebra which is commutative but not associative.1 This algebra differs from the non-commutative but associative matrix algebra usually considered in that one is concerned with the commutative expression ½(A × B + B × A) instead of the associative product A × B of two matrices. It was conjectured that the laws of this commutative algebra would form a suitable starting point for a generalization of the present quantum mechanical theory. The need of such a generalization arises from the (probably) fundamental difficulties resulting when one attempts to apply quantum mechanics to questions in relativistic and nuclear phenomena.
The content of this chapter may serve as yet another supplemental topic to meet the needs and interests beyond those of a usual course curriculum. Here we shall present an over-simplified, but hopefully totally transparent, description of some of the fundamental ideas and concepts of quantum mechanics, using a pure linear algebra formalism. Vectors in ℂ n and Dirac bracket Consider the vector space ℂ n , consisting of column vectors, and use { e 1 , …, e n } to denote the standard basis of ℂ n . For u , υ ∈ ℂ n with recall that the Hermitian scalar product is given by so that { e 1 , …, e n } is a unitary basis, satisfying ( e i , e j ) = δ ij , i, j = 1, …, n . In quantum mechanics, it is customary to rewrite the scalar product (9.1.2) in a bracket form, 〈 u | v 〉. Then it was Dirac who suggested to view 〈 u |υ〉 as the scalar pairing of a ‘bra’ vector 〈 u | and a ‘ket’ vector |υ〉, representing the row vector u † and the column vector υ. Thus we may use | e 1 〉, …, | e n 〉 to denote the standard basis vectors of ℂ n and represent the vector u in ℂ n as Therefore the bra-counterpart of | u 〉 is simply given as As a consequence, the orthonormal condition regarding the basis { e 1 , …, e n } becomes and the Hermitian scalar product of the vectors | u 〉 and |υ〉 assumes the form For the vector | u 〉 given in (9.1.3), we find that a i = 〈 e i | u 〉, i = 1, …, n . Now rewriting | u 〉 as and inserting (9.1.7) into (9.1.8), we obtain which suggests that the strange-looking ‘quantity’, should naturally be identified as the identity mapping or matrix, which readily follows from the associativity property of matrix multiplication. Similarly, we have Thus (9.1.10) can be applied to both bra and ket vectors symmetrically and what it expresses is simply the fact that | e 1 〉, …,| e n form an orthonormal basis of ℂ n .
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.
Quantum mechanics is usually described in the terminology of probability theory even though the properties of the probability spaces associated with it are fundamentally different from the standard ones of probability theory. For example, Kolmogorov's axioms are not general enough to encompass the non-commutative situations that arise in quantum theory. There have been many attempts to generalise these axioms to meet the needs of quantum mechanics. The focus of these attempts has been the observation, first made by Birkhoff and von Neumann (1936), that the propositions associated with a quantum-mechanical system do not form a Boolean σ-algebra. There is almost universal agreement that the probability space associated with a quantum-mechanical system is given by the set of subspaces of a separable Hilbert space, but there is disagreement over the algebraic structure that this set represents. In the most popular model for the probability space of quantum mechanics the propositions are assumed to form an orthocomplemented lattice (Mackey (1963), Jauch (1968)). The fundamental concept here is that of a partial order, that is a binary relation that is reflexive and transitive but not symmetric. The partial order is interpreted as embodying the logical concept of implication in the set of propositions associated with the physical system. Although this model provides an acceptable mathematical expression of the probabilistic structure of quantum mechanics in that the subspaces of a separable Hilbert space give a representation of an ortho-complemented lattice, it has several deficiencies which will be discussed later.
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.
Considering physics as it is done today one notices that physics separates into two formally and conceptually different parts. There is on the one hand classical physics that deals with macroscopic phenomena and there is on the other hand quantum physics that deals with microscopic phenomena. Penrose [96] described this situation as a disturbing analogy to ancient Greece, where two different sets of laws for earth and heaven were applied. So immediately the question arises if one really has to use different formalisms on different scales or if it is possible to describe physics in a unified way. In order to investigate this question one first has to consider how classical and quantum physics are related. Quantum mechanics results from classical physics by a procedure called quantization and classical physics is reobtained by taking the classical limit. Both procedures are heavily plagued by problems [61, 100]. In the first chapter the mathematical problems of quantization will be addressed and it will be described how the star product formalism circumvents these problems. The star product formalism has the advantage that there is no formal break if one goes from classical physics to quantum physics. This formal advantage and the resulting beauty is then used as a guiding principle for the further development. The first question that arises is if the spin can be described in the star product formalism. That this is indeed possible is shown in the second chapter. As a starting point the spin description with pseudoclassical mechanics as it was developed by Berezin is used. One can then construct a fermionic star product and apply it for deformation quantization of pseudoclassical mechanics. In analogy to the bosonic star product formalism one obtains spin Wigner functions that act as spin projectors. Besides the nonrelativistic case it is also possible to formulate Dirac theory with star products. The Clifford algebra of the gamma matrices is hereby described as a deformed version of a four dimensional Grassmann algebra. The fermionic star product in combination with the bosonic Moyal product leads to a supersymmetric star product formalism that can be used to describe supersymmetric quantum mechanics and in the relativistic case to describe the supersymmetric structure of Dirac theory. The other direction of generalization of the star product formalism is the application of star products in quantum field theory that is described in chapter three. After constructing a suitable normal product it is shown that the algebraic structures of perturbative quantum field theory appear also in the star product formalism, which is an expression of the algebra morphism of the operator and the star product formalism. But moreover the quantum group structure that was recently found in perturbative quantum field theory is shown to be a natural algebraic structure of the star product. The essential advantage of deformation quantization is that the classical limit has a well defined meaning. In the context of the spin description with star products this leads to the question of the classical limit of spin, or equivalently to the question of the physical status of pseudoclassical mechanics. In chapter four it is shown that this question is solved if one realizes that the fermionic sector together with the fermionic star product describe the underlying geometric structure. The deformation of a Grassmann algebra leads to a Clifford calculus that is equivalent to geometric algebra. The formulation of geometric algebra in the star product formalism is given in chapter four. One sees there that geometric algebra as the most fundamental geometric formalism that unifies all geometric structures that appear in physics can be described in a supersymmetric manner that parallels the bosonic star product structures. Having obtained a formulation of geometry with fermionic star products this formalism is then applied in the fifth chapter to physical problems. As examples for the application of geometric algebra in classical physics the rigid body and the Kepler problem are considered. In both cases the formalism of geometric algebra gives the most elegant formulation of the problem. In the quantum case one can then combine the fermionic star product formalism that describes the underlying geometric structure with the bosonic star product that describes the noncommuative structure of quantum mechanics. The result is a noncommutative version of geometric algebra that leads to a natural appearance of spin terms. The same idea applied on the phase space leads to the split in supersymmetric partner systems. Geometric algebra gives in this way a natural geometric foundation of supersymmetric quantum mechanics. Similarly one can interpret the hidden BRST-structure of classical mechanics that was found by E. Gozzi and M. Reuter in the path integral formalism from a star product point of view.