With all its remarkable achievements, Quantum Mechanics as established in the fundamental papers written by Heisenberg, de Broglie, Schro¨dinger, Dirac, etc. contains some inconsistencies and internal contradictions. Quantum mechanics deals with quantum processes in which the number and the type of particles do not vary during their interaction, but only their energy and momentum states. The formalism of Quantum Mechanics is not capable of describing neither the variation of the number of particles, nor the transformation of one type of particle into another type. Even if in some cases the number of particles is allowed to change, this is somewhat forced and inconsistent. For example, Quantum Mechanics is not able to give a satisfactory explanation of the spontaneous emission, in which an electron situated on an excited energy level emits a quanta γ and decays to a lower energy level.
With all its remarkable achievements, Quantum Mechanics as established in the fundamental papers written by Heisenberg, de Broglie, Schro¨dinger, Dirac, etc. contains some inconsistencies and internal contradictions. Quantum mechanics deals with quantum processes in which the number and the type of particles do not vary during their interaction, but only their energy and momentum states. The formalism of Quantum Mechanics is not capable of describing neither the variation of the number of particles, nor the transformation of one type of particle into another type. Even if in some cases the number of particles is allowed to change, this is somewhat forced and inconsistent. For example, Quantum Mechanics is not able to give a satisfactory explanation of the spontaneous emission, in which an electron situated on an excited energy level emits a quanta γ and decays to a lower energy level.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, it became clear that microscopic particles do not obey Newton's laws of classical mechanics. The idea of light quanta was at odds with the established wisdom that light is a wave phenomenon, of course, but no other explanation of the photoelectric effect seemed possible. The next step in the development of quantum mechanics was taken by Niels Bohr, who introduced postulates about the discreteness of the energy of the bound electrons in an atom similar to the discreteness of the energy of light quanta. Modern quantum mechanics was founded by Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, Erwin Schroedinger, Paul Adrian Maurice Dirac, Wolfgang Pauli, Enrico Fermi, and others. In quantum mechanics, it is in general fundamentally impossible to determine the exact outcome of an experiment; one can only determine the probability of any given outcome.
In the 1920s, the old quantum theory was gradually being superseded by the new quantum theory. The cornerstone of the old theory was Bohr’s model of the hydrogen atom, which predicted that an electron cannot orbit the proton in the hydrogen atom in any arbitrary fashion. Orbits are “quantized,” meaning that only certain sizes, shapes, and magnetic properties are allowed. The principal quantum number n determined the allowed radii of the orbits, the orbital quantum number l determined the allowed shapes, and the magnetic quantum number m determined the magnetic behavior. Additionally, there is a fourth quantum number s which denotes the fact that the electron has an additional angular momentum, loosely associated with self rotation about its own axis, and that is quantized in units of (1/2)~. The old quantum theory was useful to infer the existence of discrete energy levels in atoms, calculate energy spacings between these levels, and therefore allowed one to interpret atomic spectra. The new quantum theory appeared to be more revolutionary and more powerful. It was triggered by Heisenberg’s discovery of matrix mechanics and Schro¨dinger’s discovery of wave mechanics. These two formalisms would not only predict the quantization of energy and provide a prescription to determine the energy difference between the levels (and thus explain the multiplicity of atomic spectra), but also allow one to calculate easily probabilities of transitions between different quantized energy states. At first, matrix mechanics and wave mechanics looked entirely different in their mathematical appearance and physical meaning. However, Schro¨dinger and Eckart [1] independently showed that the two theories are mathematically equivalent. Toward the end of 1926, Dirac unified the two theories using the concept of state vector and thus established the transformation theory of quantum mechanics. This ultimately had a profound implication for the quantum mechanical (mathematical) recipe to treat spin, as we will show in this chapter. The transformation theory is the mathematical recipe to handle modern quantum mechanics. In Heisenberg’s matrix mechanics, a physical quantity is expressed by a matrix, whereas in Schro¨dinger’s wave mechanics, a physical quantity is expressed by a linear operator. In the unified transformation theory, physical quantities are represented by abstract linear operators called Dirac’s q-numbers, which are linear operators in an infinite-dimensional linear space. Depending upon which types of orthogonal coordinate systems are used in this linear space, either matrix mechanics or wave mechanics emerges.
Quantum mechanics is our most successful physical theory. It underlies our very detailed understanding of atomic physics, chemistry, and nuclear physics, and the many technologies to which physical systems in these regimes give rise. Additionally, relativistic quantum mechanics is the basis for the standard model of elementary particles, which very successfully gives a partial unification of the forces operating at the atomic, nuclear, and subnuclear levels. However, from its inception the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, and the fact that “quantum measurements” in the orthodox formulation appear to require the intervention of non-quantum mechanical “classical systems,” have led to speculations by many physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science that quantum mechanics may be incomplete. Among the Founding Fathers of quantum theory, Einstein and Schrödinger were both of the opinion that quantum mechanics is in some way unsatisfactory, and this view has been amplified in more recent profound work of John Bell, among others. In an opposing camp, many others in the physics, mathematics, and philosophy communities have attempted to provide an interpretational foundation in which quantum mechanics remains a complete and self-contained system. Among the Founding Fathers, Bohr, Born, and Heisenberg maintained that quantum mechanics is a complete system, and a number of recent proposals have been made to improve upon or to provide alternatives to their “Copenhagen Interpretation.” The debate continues, and has spawned an enormous literature.
In the previous chapters we have seen how solutions to the time-independent Schro¨dinger equation correspond to the allowed energy levels of a quantum system and how, in the hydrogen atom case in particular, the results of this procedure are in extremely good agreement with the results of experiment. It would be possible to extend the process to predict the energy levels of other atoms. We would find that the corresponding Schro¨dinger equations could no longer be solved exactly, but that approximations could be developed which, when combined with computational techniques, would lead to predicted energy levels that were once again in very good agreement with experiment. However, such a programme, most of which is beyond the scope of this book in any case, would be premature at this stage as we have not yet established a general procedure that will do more than predict the allowed energy levels of a particle moving in a potential and the probability that it is in the vicinity of a particular point in space. We do not yet know, for example, how to predict the momentum of an electron in a hydrogen atom; we do not even know if it has a definite value or if it can only be specified by a probability distribution, as is the case for electron position. We have as yet no way of predicting under what conditions an atom undergoes a transition from one state to another, emitting energy in the form of a quantum of electromagnetic radiation.
The nature of the problem The quantum world is inexplicable in classical terms. The predictions pertaining to the interaction of matter and light embodied in Newton's laws for the motion of particles and Maxwell's equations governing the propagation of electromagnetic fields are in flat contradiction with the experimental facts at the microscopic scale. A key feature of quantum effects is their apparent indeterminism, that individual atomic events are unpredictable, uncontrollable and literally seem to have no cause. Regularities emerge only when one considers a large ensemble of such events. This indeed is generally considered to constitute the heart of the conceptual problem posed by quantum phenomena, necessitating a fundamental revision of the deterministic classical world view. Some of the principal phenomena, among those discussed in this book, are as follows: ( a ) Self-interference: a beam of electrons sent one at a time through a barrier containing two apertures builds up through a series of localized detection events on a screen an interference pattern characteristic of waves (cf. the frontispiece and §5.1). ( b ) Tunnelling: an α-particle trapped in a nucleus can pass through a potential barrier in a manner forbidden to a classical particle (§5.3). ( c ) The stability of matter: atoms and molecules are found to exist only in certain discrete, or ‘stationary’, energy states. For this reason they do not ‘collapse’, the result predicted by classical electrodynamics. During transitions between stationary states (quantum jumps) an atom exchanges a discrete quantity of energy with the electromagnetic field (§§4.5, 7.6). […]
We discuss the axiomatic basis of quantum mechanics and show that it is neither general nor consistent, since its axioms are incompatible with each other and moreover it does not incorporate the magnetic quantization as in the cyclotron motion. A general and consistent system of axioms is conjectured which incorporates also the magnetic quantization. 1 The neccessity of quantum mechanics (QM) was a result of experimental data for the energy spectrum of atoms which could not be explained in accord with the laws of classical mechanics. Nevertheless in the axiomatic basis of QM there are axioms which are not supported by the experimental results, since the whole system of axioms (1) is introduced only as a ”plausible generalization ” of the first axiom [1]: