I conclude the first part of this book by carrying the story up to 1928, to the lightning flash in Eddington's mind produced by Dirac's paper on the wave equation of the electron. Setting out the context and Eddington's thinking about it is a very different matter for quantum mechanics and relativity. Both theories are commonly expressed in austere mathematical language. In the case of relativity the basic ideas behind the mathematics are now well understood and can be set out with little complication. These ideas were mostly already clear to Eddington. But for quantum mechanics the mathematics, yoked to the wealth of experimental results, drove the development of the theory at a breakneck speed, mostly without anyone pausing for deeper understanding. It is indeed only in the last decade that it has become generally accepted that quantum mechanics still lacks any coherent interpretation. To explain Eddington's context it is therefore necessary to say something about the mathematical formalism. It is true, as will become clear, that Eddington was a little more sceptical than most, but by and large the mathematics drove him as it did those directly working in the theory. I begin, then, with a description of that part of the early (pre-1925) history of quantum mechanics that was in Eddington's mind in 1923. Then I explain what happened in 1925–6 and Eddington's reaction to it. The chapter concludes with Dirac's relativistic wave equation of 1928 and Eddington's further reaction to that. The old quantum theory What is now called the old quantum theory arose at the turn of the century. Two related experimental contradictions with classical physics played important roles in this.
I conclude the first part of this book by carrying the story up to 1928, to the lightning flash in Eddington's mind produced by Dirac's paper on the wave equation of the electron. Setting out the context and Eddington's thinking about it is a very different matter for quantum mechanics and relativity. Both theories are commonly expressed in austere mathematical language. In the case of relativity the basic ideas behind the mathematics are now well understood and can be set out with little complication. These ideas were mostly already clear to Eddington. But for quantum mechanics the mathematics, yoked to the wealth of experimental results, drove the development of the theory at a breakneck speed, mostly without anyone pausing for deeper understanding. It is indeed only in the last decade that it has become generally accepted that quantum mechanics still lacks any coherent interpretation. To explain Eddington's context it is therefore necessary to say something about the mathematical formalism. It is true, as will become clear, that Eddington was a little more sceptical than most, but by and large the mathematics drove him as it did those directly working in the theory. I begin, then, with a description of that part of the early (pre-1925) history of quantum mechanics that was in Eddington's mind in 1923. Then I explain what happened in 1925–6 and Eddington's reaction to it. The chapter concludes with Dirac's relativistic wave equation of 1928 and Eddington's further reaction to that. The old quantum theory What is now called the old quantum theory arose at the turn of the century. Two related experimental contradictions with classical physics played important roles in this.
Unlike special relativity, quantum mechanics was not the inspired product of one mind. It developed, in fits and starts, over a period of 25 years (1900–1925), and many cooks stirred the broth. Even now, a century later, quantum mechanics raises profound conceptual questions. Every competent physicist can “do” quantum mechanics, and the predictions it makes are in spectacularly good agreement with experimental results; there can be little doubt that quantum mechanics is “right.” On the other hand, as Richard Feynman once remarked, “nobody understands quantum mechanics.” I'll tell the story in two parts. First the history (how the essential pieces of the puzzle were assembled), and then the implications (what the finished picture has to say about our world). Photons Like relativity, quantum mechanics began with the study of light. In both cases, this historical association is misleading. Relativity, really, has nothing to do with light – to be sure, it involves that magic speed limit, c , and of course the most familiar thing that travels at speed c is light. So light is a convenient vehicle for introducing the subject. But it is perfectly possible to imagine a universe in which there is no such thing as light, and yet relativity might still be valid. Quantum mechanics, too, starts with light – in this case the “quantum” of light (the photon). But, as it turns out, this is just one rather specialized example of much more general principles – in fact, a rather bad example, because photons are by their nature relativistic (they travel at the speed of light), and it would be more natural to begin with the quantum mechanics of slow-moving objects, in analogy with Newtonian mechanics.
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 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.
Written for advanced undergraduates, physicists, and historians and philosophers of physics, this book tells the story of the development of our understanding of quantum phenomena through the extraordinary years of the first three decades of the twentieth century. Rather than following the standard axiomatic approach, this book adopts a historical perspective, explaining clearly and authoritatively how pioneers such as Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Pauli and Dirac developed the fundamentals of quantum mechanics and merged them into a coherent theory, and why the mathematical infrastructure of quantum mechanics has to be as complex as it is. The author creates a compelling narrative, providing a remarkable example of how physics and mathematics work in practice. The book encourages an enhanced appreciation of the interaction between mathematics, theory and experiment, helping the reader gain a deeper understanding of the development and content of quantum mechanics than any other text at this level.
Our purpose in this chapter is to present the key concepts of quantum mechanics in the language of Hilbert spaces. The reader who has not previously met the physical ideas motivating quantum mechanics, and some of the more elementary applications of Schrödinger's equation, is encouraged to read any of a number of excellent texts on the subject such as [1–4]. Otherwise, the statements given here must to a large extent be taken on trust – not an altogether easy thing to do, since the basic assertions of quantum theory are frequently counterintuitive to anyone steeped in the classical view of physics. Quantum mechanics is frequently presented in the form of several postulates, as though it were an axiomatic system such as Euclidean geometry. As often presented, these postulates may not meet the standards of mathematical rigour required for a strictly logical set of axioms, so that little is gained by such an approach. We will do things a little more informally here. For those only interested in the mathematical aspects of quantum mechanics and the role of Hilbert space see [5–8]. Many of the standard applications, such as the hydrogen atom, will be omitted here as they can be found in all standard textbooks, and we leave aside the enormous topic of measurement theory and interpretations of quantum mechanics. This is not to say that we need be totally comfortable with quantum theory as it stands. Undoubtedly, there are some philosophically disquieting features in the theory, often expressed in the form of socalled paradoxes.
Abstract In the opening chapter on relativity, C. V. Vishveshwara (Vishu) takes the reader through an excursion on how Einstein laid down the remarkable foundations of special relativity. The chapter begins with an early treatment of relativity, namely Galilean relativity, which while successful with classical mechanics was not tenable with electromagnetism. Working in the seclusion of a patent office, Einstein thought deeply and despairingly of relativity that would encompass electromagnetism. He realized that not only spatial measures but also time varied among inertial observers moving with constant relative velocities. Thus, Einstein’s special theory of relativity came to be, and along with it, his celebrated equation, E = mc2. The chapter then surveys bizarre, observable consequences of this special relativity and how they all beautifully fit into a mathematical framework created by Minkowski in which space and time become united. The chapter concludes by describing physicists’ reactions to this radical new theory and its role in different areas, such as elementary particle physics and astrophysics. In the opening chapter of quantum physics, Smitha describes the circuitous historic path taken by many a physicist explorer that led to the establishment of its mind-boggling fundamentals. This revolutionary branch of physics was seeded by puzzles posed in the late 1800s related to the behavior of light from radiating objects. The chapter begins by exploring the nature of light and the story of blackbody radiation that led to Planck introducing the notion of the quantum. It then surveys the photoelectric effect, which heralds the concept of the photon, and wave-particle duality, which applies both to light and matter. The excursion continues into Schrödinger’s description of matter acting as a wave and its consequences, including energy quantization and quantum tunneling. The chapter then explains Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle from multiple angles. Finally, it presents the quantum picture of the atom and how it resolved some of the deep puzzles, a crowning testament to quantum theory.