Quantum uncertainty Spin I want to start this section with a description of particle spin. In addition to the usual properties of mass, charge, position and velocity, particles have a further parameter which describes their state of rotation. Physicists call this ‘spin’. We have already seen that in quantum physics it is impossible to measure simultaneously, in a precise way, both speed and position (recall the Heisenberg uncertainty relations). The same considerations apply to spin, which cannot be absolutely determined with arbitrary precision. The things that we can in principle find out are the rate of rotation (that is, the number of revolutions per second) and the component of this rotation in a given direction in space (for example, the angle of the axis of rotation relative to the direction of motion). It is important to understand that these two knowable quantities can take only certain quantised values. This is an aspect of quantum physics that we have already encountered when describing wave motion. We can use as an analogy the stable vibrations that can be sustained on a piano string: the basic note is generated when the centre of the string vibrates to its maximum extent while the two ends are (necessarily) fixed.
Quantum uncertainty Spin I want to start this section with a description of particle spin. In addition to the usual properties of mass, charge, position and velocity, particles have a further parameter which describes their state of rotation. Physicists call this ‘spin’. We have already seen that in quantum physics it is impossible to measure simultaneously, in a precise way, both speed and position (recall the Heisenberg uncertainty relations). The same considerations apply to spin, which cannot be absolutely determined with arbitrary precision. The things that we can in principle find out are the rate of rotation (that is, the number of revolutions per second) and the component of this rotation in a given direction in space (for example, the angle of the axis of rotation relative to the direction of motion). It is important to understand that these two knowable quantities can take only certain quantised values. This is an aspect of quantum physics that we have already encountered when describing wave motion. We can use as an analogy the stable vibrations that can be sustained on a piano string: the basic note is generated when the centre of the string vibrates to its maximum extent while the two ends are (necessarily) fixed.
I consider in this book a formulation of Quantum Mechanics. Usually QM is formulated based on the notion of time and space, both of which are thought a priori given quantities or notions. However, when we try to define the notion of velocity or momentum, we encounter a difficulty as we will see in chapter 1. The problem is that if the notion of time is given a priori, the velocity is definitely determined when given a position, which contradicts the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg. We then set the basis of QM on the notion of position and momentum operators as in chapter 2. Time of a local system then is defined approximately as a ratio ∣x∣/∣v∣ between the space coordinate x and the velocity v. In this formulation of QM, we can keep the uncertainty principle, and time is a quantity that does not have precise values unlike the usually supposed notion of time has. The feature of local time is that it is a time proper to each local system, which is defined as a finite set of quantum mechanical particles. We now have an infinite number of local times that are unique and proper to each local system. Based on the notion of local time, the motion inside a local system is described by the usual Schrödinger equation. We investigate such motion in a given local system in part II. This is a usual quantum mechanics. After some excursion of the investigation of local motion, we consider in part III the relative relation or motion between plural local systems. In the final part IV, we will prove that there is at least one Universe wave function ϕ in which all local systems have local motions and thus local times. This concludes our formulation of Quantum Mechanics.
I consider in this book a formulation of Quantum Mechanics. Usually QM is formulated based on the notion of time and space, both of which are thought a priori given quantities or notions. However, when we try to define the notion of velocity or momentum, we encounter a difficulty as we will see in chapter 1. The problem is that if the notion of time is given a priori, the velocity is definitely determined when given a position, which contradicts the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg. We then set the basis of QM on the notion of position and momentum operators as in chapter 2. Time of a local system then is defined approximately as a ratio ∣x∣/∣v∣ between the space coordinate x and the velocity v. In this formulation of QM, we can keep the uncertainty principle, and time is a quantity that does not have precise values unlike the usually supposed notion of time has. The feature of local time is that it is a time proper to each local system, which is defined as a finite set of quantum mechanical particles. We now have an infinite number of local times that are unique and proper to each local system. Based on the notion of local time, the motion inside a local system is described by the usual Schrodinger equation. We investigate such motion in a given local system in part II. This is a usual quantum mechanics. After some excursion of the investigation of local motion, we consider in part III the relative relation or motion between plural local systems. In the final part IV, we will prove that there is at least one Universe wave function ϕ in which all local systems have local motions and thus local times. This concludes our formulation of Quantum Mechanics.
Most students of science and engineering know that every elementary particle, such as electrons, neutrons, photons, neutrinos, etc., has a quantum mechanical property called “spin” which can be measured (perhaps not easily, but at least in principle) and has a quantized value, including zero. The vast majority of these students mentally visualize spin as the angular momentum associated with the elementary particle spinning or rotating about its own axis (like a top or a planetary object). This mental picture, although convenient and comforting, is actually somewhat crude and certainly incomplete. Landau and Lifshitz, in their classic textbook on quantum mechanics [1], wrote “[the spin] property of elementary particles is peculiar to quantum theory. [It] has no classical interpretation... It would be wholly meaningless to imagine the ‘intrinsic’ angular momentum of an elementary particle as being the result of its rotation about its own axis.” The simplistic notion of self-rotation about an axis, shown in Fig. 1.1, can- not explain many features of spin, such as why its magnitude cannot assume continuous values and why it is quantized to certain specific values. It also causes serious problems if taken too literally. As we will see later (Problem 1.2), if we think of an electron as a solid sphere of radius equal to the Lorentz radius e2/(4πǫ0m0c 2) (where e is the electron’s charge, m0 is the mass, c is the speed of light in vacuum, and ǫ0 is the dielectric constant of vacuum), then the velocity on the surface of a rotating electron would have to be many times the velocity of light in vacuum if such a rotation were to generate an angular momentum equal to the electron’s spin. Obviously that would not be permitted by the theory of relativity. Indeed, a deep understanding of quantum mechanics is required to understand how the spin property comes about. Its origin is in relativistic quantum mechanics and really was first appreciated by Paul Andrew Maurice Dirac when he derived the Dirac equation which is the cornerstone of relativistic quantum mechanics. Richard Feynman, noted for his distaste for mysticism in physics, wrote about the notion of “spin”: “It appears to be one of the few places in physics where there is a rule which can be stated very simply, but for which no one has found a simple and easy explanation. The explanation is down deep in relativistic quantum mechanics.
At the quantum scale, objects such as fundamental particles, atoms, and molecules are modeled as localized wavepackets rather than concrete objects. As such, some quantities that are well-defined at our human scale physics instead become uncertain. For instance, quantum objects do not have a precise position, and instead their position is understood probabilistically and we look to the expected, or average, value of the position. Another quirk of quantum mechanics is that quantities such as position and momentum become operators that act on functions, similar to matrices acting on vectors. As such, quantities that may have commuted classically may not at the quantum level. For instance, position (x) and momentum (p) commute in classical physics (xp = px), but they do not commute at the quantum level (xp ≠ px). For noncommuting operators A and B, the uncertainty principle qualitatively describes how well one can know A and B simultaneously: the more certain one is of the value of A, the less one knows the value B and vice versa. The standard example is that of position and momentum: the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that the more certain one is of the position of a quantum object, the more uncertain one is about its momentum. The classic uncertainty principles between noncommuting operators are those of position and momentum, the z and x or y components of angular momentum, and number and phase operators. These operators are very rigid and do not provide easy generalization to more general operators. In this project, we used an infinite matrix representation to analyze the uncertainty principle underlying position and momentum which allows for broader generalization. The biggest component of this project was determining eigenvalues of infinite banded matrices which was aided by the use of the mathematical software Mathematica.
We have seen in the previous chapter how useful wave mechanics can be in solving physical problems. But wave mechanics has several limitations. It describes physical states by means of wave functions, which are functions of the positions of the particles of the system, but why should we single out position as the fundamental physical observable? For instance, we might want to describe states in terms of probability amplitudes for particles to have certain values of the momentum or energy rather than the position. A more fundamental limitation is that there are attributes of physical systems that cannot be described at all in terms of the positions and momenta of a set of particles. One of these attributes is spin , which will be a chief subject of Chapter 4. Another is the value of the electric or magnetic field at some point in space, treated in Chapter 11. This chapter will describe the principles of quantum mechanics in a formalism which is essentially the “transformation theory” of Dirac, mentioned briefly in Section 1.4. This formalism generalizes both the wave mechanics of Schrödinger and the matrix mechanics of Heisenberg, and is sufficiently comprehensive to apply to any sort of physical system. States The first postulate of quantum mechanics is that physical states can be represented as vectors in a sort of abstract space known as Hilbert space . Before getting into Hilbert space, I need to say a bit about vectors in general. In kindergarten we learn that vectors are quantities with both magnitude and direction. Later, when we study analytic geometry, we learn instead to describe a vector in d dimensions as a string of d numbers, the components of the vector. The latter approach lends itself well to calculation, but in some respects the kindergarten version is better, because it allows us to describe relations among vectors without specifying a coordinate system. For instance, a statement that one vector is parallel to a second vector, or perpendicular to a third, has nothing to do with how we choose our coordinate system. Here we will formulate what we mean by vector spaces in general, and Hilbert space in particular, in a way that is independent of the coordinates we use to describe directions in these spaces.
We have seen in the previous chapter how useful wave mechanics can be in solving physical problems. But wave mechanics has several limitations. It describes physical states by means of wave functions, which are functions of the positions of the particles of the system, but why should we single out position as the fundamental physical observable? For instance, we might want to describe states in terms of probability amplitudes for particles to have certain values of the momentum or energy rather than the position. A more fundamental limitation: There are attributes of physical systems that cannot be described at all in terms of the positions and momenta of a set of particles. One of these attributes is spin , which will be the subject of Chapter 4. Another is the value of the electric or magnetic field at some point in space, treated in Chapter 11. This chapter will describe the principles of quantum mechanics in a formalism which is essentially the “transformation theory” of Dirac, mentioned briefly in Section 1.4. This formalism generalizes both the wave mechanics of Schrödinger and the matrix mechanics of Heisenberg, and is sufficiently comprehensive to apply to any sort of physical system. States The first postulate of quantum mechanics is that physical states can be represented as vectors in a sort of abstract space known as Hilbert space . Before getting into Hilbert space, I need to say a bit about vectors in general. In kindergarten we learn that vectors are quantities with both magnitude and direction. Later, when we study analytic geometry, we learn instead to describe a vector in d dimensions as a string of d numbers, the components of the vector. This latter approach lends itself well to calculation, but in some respects the kindergarten version is better, because it allows us to describe relations among vectors without specifying a coordinate system. For instance, a statement that one vector is parallel to a second vector, or perpendicular to a third, has nothing to do with how we choose our coordinate system.