The theory of relativity is essentially the culmination of classical physics. Although revisions in our concepts of space and time are necessitated by both the special and general theories of relativity, the notion of causality, in which a cause precedes its effect, remains intact in the relativistic formulations of electrodynamics and mechanics and of gravitation. An upper limit is set on the speed of bodies, and of the propagation of energy, and physical quantities are often defined operationally, but once we adjust ourselves to these new rules, our representations of physical processes proceed pretty much as they did in classical physics. On the other hand, quantum theory seems to require a much more profound philosophical revision of our thought patterns. Even the viability of the usual meaning of a causal connection between one event and another is there called into question. SOME HISTORICAL BACKGROUND We begin with a brief and highly selective review of the experimental and theoretical problems that formed the conceptual backdrop to the emergence of quantum theory. We focus attention first on an important phenomenon – blackbody radiation – that was instrumental for the formulation of quantum mechanics. A blackbody is defined as a surface that absorbs all of the electromagnetic radiation that falls onto it. It is picturesquely so named since any light incident on such a body would be absorbed, making it appear black (at least at typical temperatures in our environment). A blackbody also emits radiation.
The theory of relativity is essentially the culmination of classical physics. Although revisions in our concepts of space and time are necessitated by both the special and general theories of relativity, the notion of causality, in which a cause precedes its effect, remains intact in the relativistic formulations of electrodynamics and mechanics and of gravitation. An upper limit is set on the speed of bodies, and of the propagation of energy, and physical quantities are often defined operationally, but once we adjust ourselves to these new rules, our representations of physical processes proceed pretty much as they did in classical physics. On the other hand, quantum theory seems to require a much more profound philosophical revision of our thought patterns. Even the viability of the usual meaning of a causal connection between one event and another is there called into question. SOME HISTORICAL BACKGROUND We begin with a brief and highly selective review of the experimental and theoretical problems that formed the conceptual backdrop to the emergence of quantum theory. We focus attention first on an important phenomenon – blackbody radiation – that was instrumental for the formulation of quantum mechanics. A blackbody is defined as a surface that absorbs all of the electromagnetic radiation that falls onto it. It is picturesquely so named since any light incident on such a body would be absorbed, making it appear black (at least at typical temperatures in our environment). A blackbody also emits 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). […]
[概要]量子力学は, 現代の科学技術文明にとってもっとも重要な理論である. 量子なる概念は, 二十世紀初頭に出現した. これを量子革命と称する. われわれは, 本論で量子論の発展過程を見てゆく. とりわけ本論が主題とするのは, 黒体放射の問題がいかに解き明かされてプランクの放射公式に結実したか, ということである. かかる議論の過程で, われわれは, 量子の二重性がどのようにして出現したのかが明確にされるのを見るであろう. 言い替えれば, 量子の二面性の根源が, 完成された理論のどこに潜んでいるかを見いだすであろう. また, 本論は, 量子の認識論に関して, その哲学的含意についても若干の議論をすることになる. [Abstract] Quantum mechanics is the most important theory for the modern scientific and technological civilization. The notion of quantum had been emerged at the beginning of the 20th century that is called quantum revolution. We will see the process of the development of the quantum theory in this paper. Especially, we will see and discuss how the black-body problem had been solved by the Planck's formula for radiation. This discussion will make a clear understanding to the emergence of the so-called wave-particle duality. That is to say, we will see the origins of the quantum duality that are hid behind of the accomplished theory. And we discuss a few philosophical implications that are about the epistemology of quantum.
I n the early 20th century, the groundbreaking theories of quantum mechanics and special relativity emerged at roughly the same time.At first, both theories appeared to be entirely incompatible with each other.While the quantum equations written out by Erwin Schrödinger and Wolfgang Pauli dealt with the behaviours of electrons, atoms, and molecules moving at speeds encountered in classical physics, the rules of special relativity first imagined by Albert Einstein described the behaviour of matter moving at close to the speed of light.Initially, this apparent clash of theories presented a crisis in physics.However, in the late 1920s, further theoretical work carried out by physicists including Paul Dirac, Oskar Klein, and Walter Gordon culminated in a new set of equations, which proved definitively that quantum mechanics and special relativity are compatible with each other after all. An educational challengeYet with this groundbreaking discovery came an entirely new problem.In adding a new layer of complexity to the equations of non-relativistic quantum mechanics, the more complete theories of relativistic
Quantum mechanics is usually defined in terms of some loosely connected axioms and rules. Such a foundation is far from the beauty of, e.g., the `principles' underlying classical mechanics. Motivated, in addition, by notorious interpretation problems, there have been numerous attempts to modify or `complete' quantum mechanics. A first attempt was based on so-called hidden variables; its proponents essentially tried to expel the non-classical nature of quantum mechanics. More recent proposals intend to complete quantum mechanics not within mechanics proper but on a `higher (synthetic) level'; by means of a combination with gravitation theory (R Penrose), with quantum information theory (C M Caves, C A Fuchs) or with psychology and brain science (H P Stapp). I think it is fair to say that in each case the combination is with a subject that, per se , suffers from a very limited understanding that is even more severe than that of quantum mechanics. This was acceptable, though, if it could convincingly be argued that scientific progress desperately needs to join forces. Quantum mechanics of a closed system was a beautiful and well understood theory with its respective state being presented as a point on a deterministic trajectory in Liouville space---not unlike the motion of a classical N -particle system in its 6N -dimensional phase-space. Unfortunately, we need an inside and an outside view, we need an external reference frame, we need an observer. This unavoidable partition is the origin of most of the troubles we have with quantum mechanics. A pragmatic solution is introduced in the form of so-called measurement postulates: one of the various incompatible properties of the system under consideration is supposed to be realized (i.e. to become a fact, to be defined without fundamental dispersion) based on `instantaneous' projections within some externally selected measurement basis. As a result, the theory becomes essentially statistical rather than deterministic; furthermore there is an asymmetry between the observed and the observing. This is the point where consciousness may come in. Complemented by an introduction and several appendices, Henry Stapp's book consists essentially of three parts: theory, implications, and new developments. The theory part gives a very readable account of the Copenhagen interpretation, some aspects of a psychophysical theory, and, eventually, hints towards a quantum foundation of the brain--mind connection. The next part, `implications', summarizes some previous attempts to bridge the gap between the working rules of quantum mechanics and their possible consequences for our understanding of this world (Pauli, Everett, Bohm, Heisenberg). The last section, `new developments', dwells on some ideas about the conscious brain and its possible foundation on quantum mechanics. The book is an interesting and, in part, fascinating contribution to a field that continues to be a companion to `practical' quantum mechanics since its very beginning. It is doubtful whether such types of `quantum ontologies' will ever become (empirically) testable; right now one can hardly expect more than to be offered some consistent `grand picture', which the reader may find more or less acceptable or even rewarding. Many practicing quantum physicists, though, will remain unimpressed. The shift from synthetic ontology to analytic ontology is the foundation of the present work. This means that fundamental wholes are being partitioned into their ontologically subordinate components by means of `events'. The actual event, in turn, is an abrupt change in the Heisenberg state describing the quantum universe. The new state then defines the tendencies associated with the next actual event. To avoid infinite regression in terms of going from one state of tendencies to the next, consciousness is there to give these events a special `feel', to provide a status of `intrinsic actuality'. The brain of an alert human observer is similar in an important way to a quantum detection device: it can amplify small signals to large macroscopic effects. On the other hand, actual events are not postulated to occur exclusively in brains. They are more generally associated with the formation of records. Records are necessarily part of the total state of the universe: it is obvious that the state of the universe cannot undergo a Schrödinger dynamics and at the same time record its own history. `The full universe consists therefore of an exceedingly thin veneer of relatively sluggish, directly observable properties resting on a vast ocean or rapidly fluctuating unobservable ones.' The present ideas also bear on how the world should be seen to develop. While conventional cosmology encounters problems as to how to define the intial conditions, which would enter the governing equations of motion, here `the boundary conditions are set not at some initial time, but gradually by a sequence of acts that imposes a sequence of constraints. After any sequence of acts there remains a collection of possible worlds, some of which will be eliminated by the next act.' Connected with those acts is `meaning': there has always been some speculation about the special significance of local properties in our understanding of the world. One could argue that correlations (even the quantum correlations found, e.g., in the EPR-experiments) were as real as anything else. But also Stapp stresses the special role of locality: the `local observable properties, or properties similar to them are the natural, and perhaps exclusive, carriers of meaning in the quantum universe. From this point of view the quantum universe tends to create meaning.' This sounds like an absolute concept: meaning not with respect to something else, but defined intrinsically---not easy to digest. The role of consciousness in the developing quantum universe requires more attention. `The causal irrelevance of our thoughts within classical physics constitutes a serious deficiency of that theory, construed as a description of reality.' This is taken to be entirely different within quantum mechanics. `The core idea of quantum mechanics is to describe our activities as knowledge-seeking and knowledge-using agents.' `21st century science does not reduce human beings to mechanical automata. Rather it elevates human beings to agents whose free choices can, according to the known laws, actually influence their behaviour.' An example with respect to perception is discussed: `Why, when we look at a triangle, do we experience three lines joined at three points and not some pattern of neuron firings?' The brain `does not convert an actual whole triangle into some jumbled set of particle motions; rather it converts a concatenation of separate external events into the actualization of some single integrated pattern of neural activity that is congruent to the perceived whole triangle.' How convincing is this proposal? It is hard to tell. I think Henry Stapp did a good job, but there are tight limitations to any such endeavour. Quantum mechanics is often strange indeed, but it also gives rise to our classical world around us. For the emergence of classicality jumps and measurement projections (the basic phenomena connected with those fundamental events of choice) are not needed. Therefore, I doubt whether the explanation of the evolution of our world really allows (or requires) that much free choice. On the other hand, most scientist will agree that empirical science was not possible without free will: we could not ask independent questions if this asking was part of a deterministic trajectory. The fact that the result of a quantum measurement is indeterminate (within given probabilities) does certainly not explain free will. How about the type of measurment? The experimentalist will have to assume that he can select the pertinent observable within some limits. But given a certain design the so-called pointer basis (producing stable measurement results) is no longer a matter of free choice. `The main theme of classical physics is that we live in a clocklike universe.' Today it is often assumed that the universe was a big (quantum-) computer or a cellular automaton. Many would be all too happy to leave that rather restrictive picture behind. But where to go? Stapp suggests giving consciousness a prominent role: `The most profound alteration of the fundamental principles was to bring consciousness of human beings into the basic structure of the physical theory.' How far we are able to go in this direction will depend on the amount of concrete research results becoming available to support this view.
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 quantum revolution began in 1900 with a novel solution to what might seem to be one of the minor puzzles of theoretical physics, the problem of black-body radiation: the problem of the interaction of those two sorts of entity which figure in the dualist ontology of late classical physics. The trouble for classical physics was that the facts about a black body's capacity to absorb and emit radiation defied thermodynamic explanation. The best that classical physics could do was to get the facts wrong and to generate paradox. So what was the problem of black-body radiation and why was it considered to be so puzzling? First, what is a black body? Some bodies absorb and emit radiation more readily than others. A mirror is a poor absorber of radiation in the form of light, a piece of coal is a good one. A good absorber of radiation in the form of light is ‘blacker’ than one that is not. One can extend the metaphor to radiation outside the visible range. Clearly, a body that is ‘blacker’ than another for one range of radiation frequencies need not be ‘blacker’ for all frequencies. A body's ‘blackness’ will, in general, depend on its chemical structure. But we can imagine a body whose blackness is maximal for all wavelengths. Such a body, if it exists, has a blackness which is independent of its chemical structure. We call it a black body. Two interesting questions are: first, are there bodies in Nature which are uniformly and maximally black for all wavelengths? and second, how does such a black body distribute the energy that it radiates as a function of the wavelength of the radiation it emits?