In a physical theory we typically describe a system in terms of its state . We specify the relevant physical quantities or variables and then use dynamical laws to find the time evolution of these variables to predict their values in the future. For example, in classical particle mechanics, the state of a system is specified by the positions and velocities (or, equivalently for us, the momenta) of all of the particles in the system (that is, r ( t ) and v ( t ) for each particle). Newton's second law, F = ma , then determines the time evolution of the variables, or of the state, of the system. For electrodynamics, the state variables are the electric and magnetic fields, E and B , and Maxwell's equations govern the time evolution of these. In classical physics (including relativity here), the state variables that are the central entities of the dynamical equations (typically the positions and momenta of the particles) are also the directly observable physical quantities. That is, the state itself is specified in terms of the observables of the theory. The essential features of the classical world view (as modified by relativity) are that the present state of a system in principle determines its future state (as in the flight of a baseball under the influence of gravity) and that the agency responsible for this event-by-event causal structure must propagate from the cause to the effect at some rate no greater than the speed of light.
In a physical theory we typically describe a system in terms of its state . We specify the relevant physical quantities or variables and then use dynamical laws to find the time evolution of these variables to predict their values in the future. For example, in classical particle mechanics, the state of a system is specified by the positions and velocities (or, equivalently for us, the momenta) of all of the particles in the system (that is, r ( t ) and v ( t ) for each particle). Newton's second law, F = ma , then determines the time evolution of the variables, or of the state, of the system. For electrodynamics, the state variables are the electric and magnetic fields, E and B , and Maxwell's equations govern the time evolution of these. In classical physics (including relativity here), the state variables that are the central entities of the dynamical equations (typically the positions and momenta of the particles) are also the directly observable physical quantities. That is, the state itself is specified in terms of the observables of the theory. The essential features of the classical world view (as modified by relativity) are that the present state of a system in principle determines its future state (as in the flight of a baseball under the influence of gravity) and that the agency responsible for this event-by-event causal structure must propagate from the cause to the effect at some rate no greater than the speed of light.
In previous chapters we presented and discussed the standard, generally accepted Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics according to which there exists in nature at the most fundamental level an irreducible and ineliminable indeterminism. Although we saw that what historically constituted the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is difficult to specify with precision, three central commitments do characterize it. (1) In general, no particle trajectories can exist in a space–time background. (2) No deterministic description of fundamental physical phenomena is possible. (3) There exists in the laws of the fundamental physical phenomena of nature an essential and ineliminable indeterminism or probability (unlike the probability of classical physics, that there reflects our ignorance of the finer details of complex physical phenomena). A flavor of these features of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics can be gotten from the quotations at the beginning of Part VIII ( Some philosophical lessons from quantum mechanics ). On this view, it is in principle impossible to predict, say, the exact future behavior of an electron (that is, to give its position and velocity as functions of the time). According to the Copenhagen school, there can be no causal description of microphenomena in terms of a continuous space–time background (as there is in classical physics). It is generally believed that a causal interpretation of quantum mechanics is impossible, although no proof of this exists.
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). […]
Quantum mechanics (QM) is the description of dynamics in the microscopic world of atoms, photons, electrons, etc. Similar to Newton’s law of dynamics, dp/dt = F, which is the statement on the time evolution of the dynamical physical state associated with matter, the Schrödinger equation iħdψ/dt = Hψ is the statement of the time evolution on the quantum physical state of matter, denoted with the function ψ ( x, t ). Though the wavefunction ψ ( x, t ) is not a dynamical quantity like momentum, the role of time in the description of dynamics is similar and straightforward, if the final results are interpreted as the average over a statistical ensemble (collection). In the conventional interpretation of quantum mechanics, the wavefunction is supposed to be the complete description of the physical state of the particle, like an electron or an atom. It is complex-valued, mathematically, and needs two real quantities for its specification. It evolves in ‘magnitude’ and ‘phase’ as the reference clock advances in time. The evolution progresses causally, connecting the past to the present and into the future, as one expects in dynamics. Thus, the variable called ‘time’ in the microscopic world of quantum mechanics is the same as the time that is familiar in our macroscopic world.
Every vertex of the magic cube of physics discussed so far introduced a major element in the development of physics and the whole of science. Mechanics introduced the basic concept of equations of motion, or time-evolution of a physical system given certain initial condition and the associated idea of determinism, even with its generalization in the form of chaos, the dependence of the outcomes of the temporal evolution on the initial conditions. These concepts taken for many particles, or elements of a physical system, led to the probabilistic description of many particle systems, in the realm of statistical physics and thermodynamics, whereby the averages over time of various observable quantities were related to the ensemble averages, that involve classical, so-called Kolmogorov, probability measures, at least for certain “equilibrium” situations. The second law of thermodynamics introduced the concept of entropy and its probabilistic increase, the first truly emergent, probabilistic law in physics (temperature and pressure, being other emergent quantities, apart from entropy, the measure of disorder of a statistical system). In the context of Newtonian gravity, one gets, at least in retrospect the geometric description of gravity in non-relativistic, Galilean spacetime. Galilean relativity, based on the asymmetric mixing of space and time, with the absolute, universal time, true for all observers, gets generalized in special theory of relativity to observer dependent space and observer dependent time, viewed as “slices” of a new concept of spacetime, with the new concept of causal structure, that distinguish timelike, null and spacelike events. This in turn is made into a full dynamical geometric structure of spacetime with a relativistic description of gravity stemming from curvature of spacetime, and a dynamical causal structure, tied to gravity. In our next story, the story of quantum theory, we will encounter fundamental, intrinsic probabilities, that can interfere, unlike the classical probabilities of statistical thermodynamics, and which are consistent with equations of motion of individual elements, and not, as in statistical thermodynamics, with temporal averages over the time evolution of many elements. This is the big new lesson of quantum theory, that transcends the lessons of classical spacetime physics.
The general view is that all fundamental physical laws should be formulated within the framework given by quantum mechanics (QM). In a sense, QM therefore has the character of a metaphysical theory. Consequently, if it is possible to derive QM from more basic principles, these principles should be of general, philosophical nature. Here, we derive the formalism of QM from well-motivated epistemic principles. A key assumption is that a physical theory that relies on entities or distinctions that are unknowable in principle gives rise to wrong predictions. First, an epistemic formalism is developed, using concepts like knowledge and potential knowledge, identifying a physical state S with the potential knowledge of the physical world. It is demonstrated that QM emerges from this formalism. However, Hilbert spaces, wave functions and probabilities are defined in certain well-defined observational contexts only. This means that the epistemic formalism is broader than QM. In the fundamental layer of description, the physical state S is a subset of a state space S={Z}, such that S always contains many elements Z. These elements correspond to unattainable states of complete knowledge of the world. The evolution of S cannot be determined in terms of the individual evolution of the elements Z, unlike the evolution of an ensemble in classical phase space. The evolution of S is described in terms of sequential time n∈N, which is updated according to n→n+1 each time an event occurs, each time potential knowledge changes. Sequential time n can be separated from relational time t, which describes distances between events in space-time. There is an entire space-time associated with each n, in which t represents the knowledge at sequential time n about the temporal relations between present and past events.
The behavior of classical macroscopic particles – from baseballs to planets – is governed by Newtonian mechanics as we have described in the first chapters of this book. The behavior of very small particles, on the other hand, is governed by an entirely different collection of equations and rules that go under the name of “quantum mechanics” and these particles are referred to as quantum particles. These rules have analogies to classical mechanics, but are fundamentally different and somewhat mysterious as we discussed in Chapter 8. The fundamental principles of quantum mechanics cannot be proven to be correct. They were developed based on the results of experimental observation, by analogy with classical mechanics, and through the consideration of logical implications of the formalisms used. There is no way to derive the fundamental elements of quantum mechanics, any more than one could predict from first principles that Newtonian forces should add as vectors. On the other hand, quantum mechanics is among the most rigorously tested theories in science, and the predictions of quantum mechanics have, so far, always been in agreement with experiment. In this chapter, we will present quantum mechanics as a series of postulates and examine their implications in application to simple one-dimensional systems. In the next chapter we will examine quantum effects in real systems including atoms, molecules, crystals, and artificially engineered nano-structures. Postulates of quantum mechanics QM Postulate 1: A quantum particle is described by a wave function Ψ( x , y , z , t ) which is a function of spatial coordinates and time. All physically determinable quantities can be derived from the wave function Ψ( x , y , z , t ) ; quantities which cannot be found from the wave function are not physically meaningful. Note that some things that one could ask about a quantum particle, for example the exact position and simultaneous exact momentum of a particle, are not derivable from the wave function and are therefore considered indeterminate (or uncertain ). These are things which cannot ever be known about a particle, and, as such, they are meaningless to contemplate.