The surprising aspects of quantum information are due to two distinctly non-classical features of the quantum world: first, different quantum states need not be orthogonal and, second, quantum states may be entangled. Non-orthogonality leads to the blurring of classical distinctions. On the other hand, entanglement leads via non-locality to teleportation and other ``entanglement-assisted'' forms of communication that go beyond what is classically possible. In this article we attempt to understand these new possibilities via an analysis of the significance of entanglement for the basic physical concepts of a ``particle'' and a ``localized physical system''. Classical particles can be individuated on the basis of qualitative differences in their sets of properties. But in entangled states the ``particle labels'' of the quantum formalism usually do not pick out such sets of individuating particle properties. It is sometimes nevertheless possible to think in terms of individual particles, which may be localized; but we argue that in general the structure of quantum mechanics is at odds with such a particle interpretation. This finally leads us to the conclusion that quantum mechanics is best seen as not belonging to the category of space-time theories, in which physical quantities are functions on space-time points. The resulting picture of the quantum world is relevant for our understanding of the way in which quantum theory is non-local, and it sheds light on the novel aspects of quantum information.
The surprising aspects of quantum information are due to two distinctly non-classical features of the quantum world: first, different quantum states need not be orthogonal and, second, quantum states may be entangled. Non-orthogonality leads to the blurring of classical distinctions. On the other hand, entanglement leads via non-locality to teleportation and other entanglement-assisted'' forms of communication that go beyond what is classically possible. In this article we attempt to understand these new possibilities via an analysis of the significance of entanglement for the basic physical concepts of a particle'' and a localized physical system''. Classical particles can be individuated on the basis of qualitative differences in their sets of properties. But in entangled states the particle labels'' of the quantum formalism usually do not pick out such sets of individuating particle properties. It is sometimes nevertheless possible to think in terms of individual particles, which may be localized; but we argue that in general the structure of quantum mechanics is at odds with such a particle interpretation. This finally leads us to the conclusion that quantum mechanics is best seen as not belonging to the category of space-time theories, in which physical quantities are functions on space-time points. The resulting picture of the quantum world is relevant for our understanding of the way in which quantum theory is non-local, and it sheds light on the novel aspects of quantum information.
The concept of information is not different in quantum theory from its counterpart in classical physics: a sui generis quantum information concept is not needed. However, the quantum world is radically different from its classical counterpart. This difference in structure of the material world has important consequences for the amounts of information that can be stored in physical systems and for the possibilities of information transfer. In many cases, overlap between quantum states (non-orthogonality of states) blurs distinctions and impedes efficient information transfer. However, the other typical quantum feature, entanglement, makes new and seemingly mysterious ways of transporting information possible. In this article, we suggest an interpretational scheme of quantum mechanics in terms of perspectival physical properties that may provide an intelligible account of these novel quantum possibilities, while staying close to the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics.
The theory of Quantum Mechanics is one of the mainstay of modern physics, a well-established mathematical clockwork whose strength and accuracy in predictions are currently experienced in worldwide research laboratories. As a matter of fact, Quantum Mechanics laid the groundwork of a rich variety of studies ranging from solid state physics to cosmology, from bio-physics to particle physics. The up-to-date ability of manipulating single quantum states is paving the way for emergent quantum technologies as quantum information and computation, quantum communication, quantum metrology and quantum imaging. In spite of the impressive matemathical capacity, a long-standing debate is even revolving around the foundational axioms of this theory, the main bones of content being the non-local effects of entangled states, the wave function collapse and the concept of measurement in Quantum Mechanics, the macro-objectivation problem (the transition from a microscopic probabilistic world to a macroscopic deterministic world described by classical mechanics). Problems that, beyond their fundamental interest in basic science, now also concern the impact of these developing technologies. Without claiming to be complete, this article provides in outline the living matter concerning some of these problems, the implications of which extend deeply on the connection between entanglement and space-time structure.
Space and Time are essential ways by which humans think about their environment. The mathematical parameters associated with these concepts appear nearly in the same way in the formulation of both the classical and the quantum theories, but cer tainly not any more at the level of our intuitive understanding of their results. This paper aims to explain why it can be so, starting from an analysis of the way some basic principles are introduced in these theories. These principles are: localisation in space, isolation of a system, state of an isolated system, and causality. The problem of quantum non-locality is analysed again. It is shown that localising a microscopic entity can depend on the kind of localising experiment one performs. I give an example of an entity which will be considered as localised or alternatively as non-localised, depending on the localising experiment. I also discuss the ideas of time and of duration in quantum physics. I show that if duration can be properly defined for a statistical set of particles, it is not so for the individuals.
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.
One of the key mysteries of quantum mechanics is the apparent faster-than-light communication between entangled particles. This was one of the qualms highlighted by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen in their famous EPR paper. Here, the locality of quantum systems and quantum mechanics is analyzed with reference to the phenomena of quantum teleportation. It is found that while information appears as though it is propagating nonlocally, in reality it can be explained using a local theory. The ideas of a nonlocal correlation and nonlocal information must be separated. Particularly, the concept of locally hidden or inaccessible information within subsystems of a wider quantum system is explained. Furthermore, it is shown that while some hidden-variable theories are proposed, they are not experimentally conclusive and do not provide a complete or better explanation of quantum mechanics.
The purpose of the article is to show that quantum mechanics is a synthesis of the old classical concepts and the new non-classical concepts (physics and mathematics). To illustrate the relationship of continuity between classical physics and quantum mechanics, the materials of Planck, Broglie, Schrodinger, Bohr and Dirac are considered. The author begins with a comparative study of the fundamental principles of classical and quantum physics, and concludes that, despite their opposition and irreducibility, scientists tried to adopt the principles of classical physics for constructing quantum mechanics. Survey of Planck's papers showed that Planck's formula for the blackbody spectrum containing the quantum of action is obtained as a synthesis of classical concepts and quantum concepts. Survey of Broglie's papers showed that the quantum-mechanical concept of Broglie emerged as a synthesis of the provisions of the classical (variation principles) and quantum physics (Planck's constant). Survey of Schrodinger's papers showed great generality of quantum theory in comparison with classical mechanics. Survey of Bohr's papers showed that Bohr was able to prove the basic concepts of quantum physics with the help of methodological principles. Survey of Dirac's papers showed that Dirac discovered the equivalence of Schrodinger's and Heisenberg's theories, showed that they go back to the same physical and algebraic principles, and that they can be formulated as variants of the quantum-mechanical system. The author considers the methodological features of quantum mechanics and fixes a number of methodological principles by which quantum mechanics is significantly different from classical physics. The category of quantum mechanics, on which an attempt to reconstruct the physical picture of the world based on quantum theory, is briefly discussed. On the basis of this reconstruction, there are the world picture broad categories: mass-field and space-time. The categories are related by the formula: wave-like particle moves in the classical space-time background. The first association the particles and interactions is from quantum mechanics, the second space and time from the special theory of relativity. In conclusion, a list of basic relations of quantum mechanics with classical physics is made. The development of quantum ideas resulted from direct influence of classical physics, so the main heuristic techniques to construct quantum theory are two ideas, namely, the idea of continuity and the idea of conformity which Bohr's methodological principles express. At the same time, quantum theory requires the use of classical concepts for support and verification. This is due to the restrictions imposed by the experimental technique. Thus, the author claims that quantum mechanics is a synthesis of the old classical concepts and the new non-classical concepts (physics and mathematics).