The relationship between physical notions and the structures expressing them is an issue of primary importance the history and philosophy of pre-modern natural philosophy and of modern science. Historical evidence suggests that, when investigating the relationship between physics and mathematics, one should pay attention to the material, sensually perceivable forms mediating it: spoken or written words, drawings, artefacts, descriptions of experimental set-ups or, as the case discussed the present paper, symbolic notation. The reason for this is that, historically, physical notions and their expressions have very often been developed as one, and only distinguished from each other at a later stage. This was for example the case with what we today regard as mathematical and classical mechanics, which were developed the course of the eighteenth century as the discipline of the analysis of motion. When considered from a later point of view, both the physical notions and the concepts involved historical developments appear as being in flux, vague, and, as far as the side is concerned, non-rigorous. In such cases, verbal description, mechanical artefacts or symbols do not simply mediate between physical notions and structures, as might be the case at a later stage, but represent both of them one, allowing the historical actors to construct and manipulate physical-mathematical meaning by following, at times, their physical reasoning and, at times, their criteria of rigour. The history of quantum mechanics offers many examples of how new physics and new mathematics can emerge as one, with symbolic notation playing a central role shaping both. Among the many creators of quantum theory, Paul Dirac was particularly sensitive to questions of notation:
The relationship between physical notions and the structures expressing them is an issue of primary importance the history and philosophy of pre-modern natural philosophy and of modern science. Historical evidence suggests that, when investigating the relationship between physics and mathematics, one should pay attention to the material, sensually perceivable forms mediating it: spoken or written words, drawings, artefacts, descriptions of experimental set-ups or, as the case discussed the present paper, symbolic notation. The reason for this is that, historically, physical notions and their expressions have very often been developed as one, and only distinguished from each other at a later stage. This was for example the case with what we today regard as mathematical and classical mechanics, which were developed the course of the eighteenth century as the discipline of the analysis of motion. When considered from a later point of view, both the physical notions and the concepts involved historical developments appear as being in flux, vague, and, as far as the side is concerned, non-rigorous. In such cases, verbal description, mechanical artefacts or symbols do not simply mediate between physical notions and structures, as might be the case at a later stage, but represent both of them one, allowing the historical actors to construct and manipulate physical-mathematical meaning by following, at times, their physical reasoning and, at times, their criteria of rigour. The history of quantum mechanics offers many examples of how new physics and new mathematics can emerge as one, with symbolic notation playing a central role shaping both. Among the many creators of quantum theory, Paul Dirac was particularly sensitive to questions of notation:
We summarize below some of the postulates and definitions basic to our formalism, and present some important results based on these postulates. The formalism is purely mathematical in nature with very little physics input, but it provides the structure within which the physical concepts that will be discussed in the later chapters will be framed. State vectors It is important to realize that the Quantum Theory is a linear theory in which the physical state of a system is described by a vector in a complex, linear vector space. This vector may represent a free particle or a particle bound in an atom or a particle interacting with other particles or with external fields. It is much like a vector in ordinary three-dimensional space, following many of the same rules, except that it describes a very complicated physical system. We will be elaborating further on this in the following. The mathematical structure of a quantum mechanical system will be presented in terms of the notations developed by Dirac. A physical state in this notation is described by a “ket” vector, |〉, designated variously as |α〉 or |ψ〉 or a ket with other appropriate symbols depending on the specific problem at hand. The kets can be complex. Their complex conjugates, |〉 * , are designated by 〈| which are called “bra” vectors. Thus, corresponding to every ket vector there is a bra vector. These vectors are abstract quantities whose physical interpretation is derived through their so-called “representatives” in the coordinate or momentum space or in a space appropriate to the problem under consideration.
By a series of simple examples, we illustrate how the lack of mathematical concern can readily lead to surprising mathematical contradictions in wave mechanics. The basic mathematical notions allowing for a precise formulation of the theory are then summarized and it is shown how they lead to an elucidation and deeper understanding of the aforementioned problems. After stressing the equivalence between wave mechanics and the other formulations of quantum mechanics, i.e. matrix mechanics and Dirac's abstract Hilbert space formulation, we devote the second part of our paper to the latter approach: we discuss the problems and shortcomings of this formalism as well as those of the bra and ket notation introduced by Dirac in this context. In conclusion, we indicate how all of these problems can be solved or at least avoided. Dedicated to the memory of Tanguy Altherr (1963-94). I dedicate these notes to the memory of Tanguy Altherr who left us very unexpectedly in the mountains which he loved so much (and where I had some pleasant trips with him). As to the subject of these notes (which I had the pleasure to discuss with him), Tanguy greatly appreciated Dirac's formalism and certainly knew how to apply it to real physical problems (such as the ones he worked on with an impressive enthusiasm, energy and productivity). Even if he did not share my preoccupations in this field, he liked to discuss the problems related to the general formalism of quantum physics.
We assume the reader has a strong background in elementary linear algebra. In this section we familiarize the reader with the algebraic notation used in quantum mechanics, remind the reader of some basic facts about complex vector spaces, and introduce some notions that might not have been covered in an elementary linear algebra course. The linear algebra notation used in quantum computing will likely be familiar to the student of physics, but may be alien to a student of mathematics or computer science. It is the Dirac notation, which was invented by Paul Dirac and which is used often in quantum mechanics. In mathematics and physics textbooks, vectors are often distinguished from scalars by writing an arrow over the identifying symbol: e.g a⃗. Sometimes boldface is used for this purpose: e.g. a. In the Dirac notation, the symbol identifying a vector is written inside a ‘ket’, and looks like |a⟩. We denote the dual vector for a (defined later) with a ‘bra’, written as ⟨a|. Then inner products will be written as ‘bra-kets’ (e.g. ⟨a|b⟩). We now carefully review the definitions of the main algebraic objects of interest, using the Dirac notation. The vector spaces we consider will be over the complex numbers, and are finite-dimensional, which significantly simplifies the mathematics we need. Such vector spaces are members of a class of vector spaces called Hilbert spaces. Nothing substantial is gained at this point by defining rigorously what a Hilbert space is, but virtually all the quantum computing literature refers to a finite-dimensional complex vector space by the name ‘Hilbert space’, and so we will follow this convention. We will use H to denote such a space. Since H is finite-dimensional, we can choose a basis and alternatively represent vectors (kets) in this basis as finite column vectors, and represent operators with finite matrices. As you see in Section 3, the Hilbert spaces of interest for quantum computing will typically have dimension 2n, for some positive integer n. This is because, as with classical information, we will construct larger state spaces by concatenating a string of smaller systems, usually of size two.
This paper examines the deep and enduring relationship between physics and philosophy, a connection that has shaped the trajectory of human inquiry from antiquity to the present. By tracing their shared historical roots, the paper emphasizes how early philosophical speculations laid the groundwork for scientific reasoning. Despite the modern institutional separation of these two disciplines, physics continues to grapple with questions that are fundamentally philosophical in nature, questions concerning the essence of time, space, causality, determinism, and the very nature of reality. The paper explores the epistemological structures that underpin scientific knowledge, such as the criteria for theory confirmation and falsifiability, and investigates the ontological assumptions embedded in classical and modern physics. Special attention is devoted to paradigm shifts in the history of science, including the contributions of figures such as Aristotle, Newton, Popper, and Kuhn, as well as the radical implications of quantum mechanics and general relativity. Through an analysis of contemporary debates, such as those surrounding interpretations of quantum mechanics, the multiverse, and the conceptual validity of string theory, the paper argues that philosophy remains indispensable for critically examining and contextualizing scientific thought. Far from being obsolete, philosophical reflection serves as a compass for navigating the conceptual challenges of physics. Ultimately, the dialogue between philosophy and physics is presented as a dynamic and reciprocal exchange, one that not only enriches both fields but is also necessary for advancing our understanding of the universe.
Quantum theory is the soul of contemporary physics. It was discovered in an adventurous way, under the urge to solve the puzzles posed by atomic spectra and blackbody radiation. But after its invention, it immediately became clear that it was not just a theory of specific physical systems: it was rather a new language of universal applicability. Already in 1928, the theory had received solid mathematical foundations by Hilbert, von Neumann, and Nordheim, and this work was brought to completion in the monumental work of von Neumann, in the form that we still study nowadays. The theory is extraordinarily successful, and its predictions have been confirmed to an astonishing level of precision in a large spectrum of experiments. However, almost 90 years after von Neumann's book, quantum theory remains mysterious. Its mathematical formulation – based on Hilbert spaces and self-adjoint operators – is far from having an intuitive interpretation. The association of physical systems to Hilbert spaces whose unit vectors represent pure states, the representation of transformations by unitary operators and of observables by self-adjoint operators – all such postulates look artificial and ad hoc . A slightly more operational approach is provided by the C * -algebraic formulation of quantum theory – still, this formulation relies on the assumption that observables form an algebra , where the physical meanings of the multiplication and the sum are far from clear. In short, the postulates of quantum theory impose mathematical structures without providing any simple reason for this choice: the mathematics of Hilbert spaces is adopted as a magic blackbox that “works well” at producing experimental predictions. However, in a satisfactory axiomatization of a physical theory the mathematical structures should emerge as a consequence of postulates that have a direct physical interpretation. By this we mean postulates referring, e.g., to primitive notions like physical system, measurement, or process, rather than notions like, e.g., Hilbert space, C * -algebra, unit vector, or selfadjoint operator. The crucial question thus remains unanswered: why quantum theory? Which are the principles at the basis of the theory? A case that is often invoked in contrast is that of Special Relativity theory, which directly follows from the simple understandable principle of relativity.
In classical physics, the ‘state’ of a particle, at any particular time, is taken to involve a definite position in space and a definite motion; and the state of a system of particles is taken to involve a definite position in space and a definite motion for each of the particles. The situation in relation to quantum mechanics is completely different. As in classical physics, calculations can be made concerning the position and motion of a particle. However, this representation is not by means of symbols for scalar or vector quantities: it is by a more complex mathematical object. This quantum state does not indicate or represent position or motion in any direct way: what it does in substance is to enable calculation of the probability of the particle in question being found to have a position or momentum if an appropriate measurement is made.