Measurement-induced interrelations between quantum mechanics and its interpretation The development of quantum mechanics The formalism of quantum mechanics was developed within the very short period of a few months in 1925 and 1926 by Heisenberg [Heis 25] and by Schrodinger [Schrö 26], respectively. Together with the contributions of Born and Jordan [BoJo 26], [BHJ 26], Dirac [Dir 26] and others, the formalism of this theory was already brought in 1926 into its final form, which is still used in present-day text books. (For all details of the historical development, we refer to the monograph by M. Jammer [Jam 74].) It is a very remarkable fact that a theory which was formulated 70 years ago has never been corrected or improved and is still considered to be valid. Numerous experiments performed during this long period to test the theory have confirmed it to a very high degree of accuracy without any exception. Hence there are good reasons to believe that quantum mechanics is universally valid and can be applied to all domains of reality, i.e., to atoms, molecules, macroscopic bodies, and to the whole universe. However, the interpretation of the new theory was at the time of its mathematical formulation still an almost open problem. Any interpretation of quantum theory should provide interrelations between the theoretical expressions of the theory and possible experimental outcomes.
Measurement-induced interrelations between quantum mechanics and its interpretation The development of quantum mechanics The formalism of quantum mechanics was developed within the very short period of a few months in 1925 and 1926 by Heisenberg [Heis 25] and by Schrodinger [Schrö 26], respectively. Together with the contributions of Born and Jordan [BoJo 26], [BHJ 26], Dirac [Dir 26] and others, the formalism of this theory was already brought in 1926 into its final form, which is still used in present-day text books. (For all details of the historical development, we refer to the monograph by M. Jammer [Jam 74].) It is a very remarkable fact that a theory which was formulated 70 years ago has never been corrected or improved and is still considered to be valid. Numerous experiments performed during this long period to test the theory have confirmed it to a very high degree of accuracy without any exception. Hence there are good reasons to believe that quantum mechanics is universally valid and can be applied to all domains of reality, i.e., to atoms, molecules, macroscopic bodies, and to the whole universe. However, the interpretation of the new theory was at the time of its mathematical formulation still an almost open problem. Any interpretation of quantum theory should provide interrelations between the theoretical expressions of the theory and possible experimental outcomes.
Historical remarks The quantum mechanical formalism discovered by Heisenberg [Heis 25] an Schrödinger [Schrö 26] in 1925 was first interpreted in a statistical sense by Born [Born 26]. The formal expressions p (φ, a i ) = |(φ,φ ai )| 2 , i ∈ N, were interpreted as the probabilities that a quantum system S with preparation φ possesses the value a i that belongs to the state φ ai . This original Born interpretation, which was formulated for scattering processes, was, however, not tenable in the general case. The probabilities must not be related to the system S in state φ, since in the preparation φ the value a i of an observable A is in general not subjectively unknown but objectively undecided. Instead, one has to interpret the formal expressions p ( a i , a i ) as the probabilities of finding the value a i after measurement of the observable A of the system S with preparation φ. In this improved version, the statistical or Born interpretation is used in the present-day literature. On the one hand, the statistical (Born) interpretation of quantum mechanics is usually taken for granted, and the formalism of quantum mechanics is considered as a theory that provides statistical predictions referring to a sufficiently large ensemble of identically prepared systems S (φ) after the measurement of the observable in question. On the other hand, the meaning of the same formal terms p (φ, a i ) for an individual system is highly problematic.
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.
The interpretation of quantum mechanics has been controversial since the introduction of quantum theory in the 1920s. Although the Copenhagen interpretation is commonly accepted, its usual formulation suffers from some serious drawbacks. Based mainly on Bohr's concepts, the formulation assumes an independent and essential validity of classical concepts running in parallel with quantum ones, and leaves open the possibility of their ultimate conflict. In this book, Roland Omnes examines a number of recent advances, which, combined, lead to a consistent revision of the Copenhagen interpretation. His aim is to show how this interpretation can fit all present experiments, to weed out unnecessary or questionable assumptions, and to assess the domain of validity where the older statements apply. The text offers a self-contained treatment of interpretation (in nonrelativistic physics) in a manner accessible to both physicists and students. Although some hard results are included, the concepts and mathematical developments are maintained at an undergraduate level. This book enables readers to check every step, apply the techniques to new problems and make sure that no paradox or obscurity
Abstract Following the path by which humanity learned quantum mechanics can lead to an improved understanding of the theory and the origins of its perceived limitations. Our goal is to retrace the development by investigating primary sources, including original published papers and letters, with attention to their timing and influence. Quantum mechanics began in 1900 with the introduction of Planck’s constant, which lead to the “old” quantum theory and Bohr’s model of the atom. With the introduction of matter waves in 1924, a second more intense period began. By 1928 the complete fundamental structure of quantum mechanics was established with the introduction of the Schrödinger equation, the proof of its equivalence to Heisenberg’s matrix mechanics, and the introduction of the relativistic Dirac equation. The theory retains the same essential form today, fueling the technological revolution that began in the last century. We culminate with an introduction to quantum information and computing. This completely new physical scientific paradigm was developed largely in Germany during a period of enormous social, economic, and political upheaval—in a hostile intellectual environment—that parallels the overturning of classical physics. It is striking that all the problems debated today were immediately recognized by the founders of the theory and instructive to see how they dealt with the various issues. We emphasize the centrality of the often neglected second quantization form of the theory for questions of interpretation and give a detailed examination of von Neumann’s widely misunderstood hidden variable theorem.
Göttingen and Copenhagen were the undoubted capitals of the new discipline of quantum mechanics. The expertise in experimental and mathematical physics and in pure mathematics made Göttingen the epicentre of the revolution which was taking place in the mathematical physics of quanta. Whilst this was to remain the case for the next few years, other actors soon appeared on the scene who were to contribute to Born's ‘tangle of interconnected alleys’. What was truly remarkable was how quickly the different approaches to the problems of quantum theory were developed and the rapid assimilation of all of them into a coherent and self-consistent theory of quantum mechanics. Whilst the theory itself was completed relatively quickly, the understanding of its physical content was to take many more years. The new players on the scene included Paul Dirac at Cambridge, Erwin Schrödinger in Vienna and Norbert Wiener at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Each of them brought quite new approaches to the development of quantum theory – their innovations were to supersede the matrix mechanics of Born, Heisenberg and Jordan, but there can be no doubt that the success of that theory indicated clearly the route ahead. They were however to involve the introduction of new mathematical techniques into the description of quantum phenomena. Dirac's approach to quantum mechanics Paul Dirac was trained as an electrical engineer at Bristol University, but he had a very strong mathematical bent. He was a solitary character who was notoriously quiet and self-effacing. He simply worked things out on his own.