The theories of quantum mechanics and relativity dramatically altered our understanding of the universe ushering in the era of modern physics. Quantum theory deals with objects probabilistically at small scales, whereas relativity deals classically with motion in space and time. We show here that the mathematical structures of quantum theory and of relativity follow together from pure thought, defined and uniquely constrained by the same elementary ``combining and sequencing'' symmetries that underlie standard arithmetic and probability. The key is uncertainty, which inevitably accompanies observation of quantity and imposes the use of pairs of numbers. The symmetries then lead directly to the use of complex \sqrt{-1} arithmetic, the standard calculus of quantum mechanics, and the Lorentz transformations of relativistic spacetime. One dimension of time and three dimensions of space are thus derived as the profound and inevitable framework of physics.
Abstract. Physics is real. Measurement produces real numbers. Yet quantum mechanics uses com-plex arithmetic, in which √−1 is necessary but mysteriously relates to nothing else. By applying the same sort of symmetry arguments that Cox [1, 2] used to justify probability calculus, we are now able to explain this puzzle. The dual device/object nature of observation requires us to describe the world in terms of pairs of real numbers about which we never have full knowledge. These pairs combine according to complex arithmetic, using Feynman’s rules.
In this introductory chapter, which actually is the core of the entire book, we make a serious effort to bring together a variety of ideas from philosophy and physics. We first lay the epistemological foundations for our approach to particle physics. These philosophical foundations, combined with tools borrowed from the amazingly sophisticated, but still not entirely satisfactory, mathematical apparatus of present-day quantum field theory and augmented by some new ideas, are then employed to develop a mathematical representation of fundamental particles and their interactions. In this process, also the relation between “fundamental particle physics” and “quantum field theory” is going to be clarified. This first chapter consists of two voluminous sections: a number of philosophical contemplations followed by a discussion of mathematical and physical elements . The reader might wonder why these massive sections are not presented as two separate chapters. The reason for keeping them together is the desire to emphasize the intimate relation between these two sections: the selection and construction of the mathematical and physical elements is directly based on our philosophical contemplations. The beauty of the entire approach is a fruit of this intimate relationship. The presentation of the material in this chapter is based on the assumption that the reader has a basic working knowledge of linear algebra and quantum mechanics. If that is not the case, the reader might want to consult the equally entertaining and serious introduction Quantum Mechanics: The Theoretical Minimum by Susskind and Friedman [4]. The book Quantum Mechanics and Experience by Albert [5] offers a fascinating introduction with a strong focus on the measurement problem. An almost equation-free discussion of the history and foundations of quantum mechanics can be found in the book Einstein, Bohr and the Quantum Dilemma: From Quantum Theory to Quantum Information by Whitaker [6]. Complex vector spaces, Hilbert space vectors and density matrices for describing states of quantum systems, bosons and fermions, canonical commutation relations, Heisenberg's uncertainty relation, the Schrodinger and Heisenberg pictures for the time evolution of quantum systems, as well as a basic idea of the measurement process are all referred or alluded to in Section 1.1; these basics of quantum mechanics are recapped only very briefly in Section 1.2. The crucial construct of Fock spaces is explained in a loose way in Section 1.1.3 and later elaborated in full detail in Section 1.2.1.
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.
We take it for granted that our physical environment communicates information, making things observable and measurable. However, there are very strong constraints on the fundamental physics of any universe that can do this. Measuring or communicating any kind of information always requires an appropriate interactive context, and these contexts are necessarily complex, involving other kinds of information determined in different contexts. This makes measurement hard to grasp theoretically, since every measurement depends on other kinds of measurements. Even so, we can identify some basic functional requirements for a physics that determines and communicates facts. These are sufficient to explain the peculiar features of quantum mechanics, combining the unitary evolution of superpositions with the mysterious "collapse" that occurs whenever the context allows new facts to be defined. Moreover, the precise determinism of classical physics can be understood on the same basis. It seems likely, in fact, that most of the complexity and fine-tuning we see in our most fundamental theories is needed to make any kind of information measurable.
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.