Our present-day understanding of the detailed nature of atoms and molecules is based on what is known as quantum (mechanical) theory. This approach is relatively new, dating only from the early years of the century. The reasons for its development lay in the failure of so-called classical mechanics — by which we describe and explain the behaviour and interactions of relatively large bodies of matter — to describe satisfactorily the atomic system.
Our present-day understanding of the detailed nature of atoms and molecules is based on what is known as quantum (mechanical) theory. This approach is relatively new, dating only from the early years of the century. The reasons for its development lay in the failure of so-called classical mechanics — by which we describe and explain the behaviour and interactions of relatively large bodies of matter — to describe satisfactorily the atomic system.
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.
When physicists began to explore the world of atoms more precisely, as they endeavoured to understand its structure and the laws governing its behaviour, they soon encountered serious difficulties. Our intuitive concepts, based on our daily experience of the macroscopic world around us, proved to be completely erroneous on the atomic scale; the atom was incomprehensible within the framework of classical physics. In order to uncover these new mysteries, after a great deal of trial and error, entirely new concepts therefore had to be elaborated: the concepts of quantum physics. What are the main stages that have led us to this modern understanding of the atom? What is the present state of atomic physics? How has it contributed to the development of our knowledge and where is it heading?
1124 NOTICES OF THE AMS VOLUME 45, NUMBER 9 I n the twentieth century, the quest for deeper understanding of the laws of nature has largely revolved around the development of two great theories: namely, general relativity and quantum mechanics. General relativity is, of course, Einstein’s theory according to which gravitation results from the curvature of space and time; the mathematical framework is that of Riemannian geometry. While previously spacetime was understood as a fixed arena, given ab initio, in which physics unfolds, in general relativity spacetime evolves dynamically, according to the Einstein equations. Part of the problem of physics, according to this theory, is to determine, given the initial conditions as input, how spacetime will develop in the future. The influence of general relativity in twentiethcentury mathematics has been clear enough. Learning that Riemannian geometry is so central in physics gave a big boost to its growth as a mathematical subject; it developed into one of the most fruitful branches of mathematics, with applications in many other areas. While in physics general relativity is used to understand the behavior of astronomical bodies and the universe as a whole, quantum mechanics is used primarily to understand atoms, molecules, and subatomic particles. Quantum theory has had a much more complex history than general relativity, and in some sense most of its influence on mathematics belongs to the twenty-first century. The quantum theory of particles—which is more commonly called nonrelativistic quantum mechanics—was put in its modern form by 1925 and has greatly influenced the development of functional analysis, and other areas. But the deeper part of quantum theory is the quantum theory of fields, which arises when one tries to combine quantum mechanics with special relativity (the precursor of general relativity, in which the speed of light is the same in every inertial frame but spacetime is still flat and given ab initio). This much more difficult theory, developed from the late 1920s to the present, encompasses most of what we know of the laws of physics, except gravity. In its seventy years there have been many milestones, ranging from the theory of “antimatter”, which emerged around 1930, to a more precise description of atoms, which quantum field theory provided by 1950, to the “standard model of particle physics” (governing the strong, weak, and electromagnetic interactions), which emerged by the early 1970s, to new predictions in our own time that one hopes to test in present and future accelerators. Quantum field theory is a very rich subject for mathematics as well as physics. But its development in the last seventy years has been mainly by physicists, and it is still largely out of reach as a rigorous mathematical theory despite important efforts in constructive field theory. So most of its impact on mathematics has not yet been felt. Yet in many active areas of mathematics, problems are Edward Witten is professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study. His e-mail address is witten@ias.edu.
So far, this book has dealt almost exclusively with classical physics, which is a theoretical structure based on many brilliant and imaginative experiments performed on macroscopic objects, that is on objects of about our size or a few orders of magnitude smaller or larger. Classical physics was found to give good results when extrapolated downward to molecules and upward to planets, stars, and galaxies, and it was seriously suggested ate in the nineteenth century that all the major discoveries in physics had been made — that the physical basis of the universe was understood and that only minor tidying-up remained.
World Quantum Day is an international initiative dedicated to promoting public understanding of quantum science and technology.Celebrated annually on April 14, the date reflects the first three digits of Planck's constant (expressed as 4.14 × 10 -¹⁵ electronvolt-seconds).The word quantum refers to the smallest discrete unit of a physical quantity that can be exchanged or measured.Quantum science developed during the early 20th century.Pioneers such as Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, and Erwin Schrödinger developed theories explaining how energy and matter behave at atomic and subatomic scales.Medical applications of quantum mechanics include imaging such as ultrasound, magnetic resonance, and positron emission tomography; tissue imaging in microscopy, radiation therapy, and nuclear medicine; drug discovery; quantum communication and cybersecurity; education and public outreach, decision-making, and the development of new computational systems.In this review, we present an updated overview of quantum computing based on an extensive literature review using the databases PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus.
The modern physics is characterized by deeper and deeper penetration into the laws of the world of atoms and other minute particles of matter. These laws require not only new experimental techniques to be developed, but also new notions to formulate them. To describe atomic phenomena new methods that are completely different from those used to investigate larger objects of our world are required. The new problem of description of atomic objects is of particular practical importance since the arising notions could be applied to other fields of knowledge. Therefore on the ground of the modern physics some questions of the philosophical character arise. We are going to consider them here.