Quantum mechanics (QM) is the description of dynamics in the microscopic world of atoms, photons, electrons, etc. Similar to Newton’s law of dynamics, dp/dt = F, which is the statement on the time evolution of the dynamical physical state associated with matter, the Schrödinger equation iħdψ/dt = Hψ is the statement of the time evolution on the quantum physical state of matter, denoted with the function ψ ( x, t ). Though the wavefunction ψ ( x, t ) is not a dynamical quantity like momentum, the role of time in the description of dynamics is similar and straightforward, if the final results are interpreted as the average over a statistical ensemble (collection). In the conventional interpretation of quantum mechanics, the wavefunction is supposed to be the complete description of the physical state of the particle, like an electron or an atom. It is complex-valued, mathematically, and needs two real quantities for its specification. It evolves in ‘magnitude’ and ‘phase’ as the reference clock advances in time. The evolution progresses causally, connecting the past to the present and into the future, as one expects in dynamics. Thus, the variable called ‘time’ in the microscopic world of quantum mechanics is the same as the time that is familiar in our macroscopic world.
Quantum mechanics (QM) is the description of dynamics in the microscopic world of atoms, photons, electrons, etc. Similar to Newton’s law of dynamics, dp/dt = F, which is the statement on the time evolution of the dynamical physical state associated with matter, the Schrödinger equation iħdψ/dt = Hψ is the statement of the time evolution on the quantum physical state of matter, denoted with the function ψ ( x, t ). Though the wavefunction ψ ( x, t ) is not a dynamical quantity like momentum, the role of time in the description of dynamics is similar and straightforward, if the final results are interpreted as the average over a statistical ensemble (collection). In the conventional interpretation of quantum mechanics, the wavefunction is supposed to be the complete description of the physical state of the particle, like an electron or an atom. It is complex-valued, mathematically, and needs two real quantities for its specification. It evolves in ‘magnitude’ and ‘phase’ as the reference clock advances in time. The evolution progresses causally, connecting the past to the present and into the future, as one expects in dynamics. Thus, the variable called ‘time’ in the microscopic world of quantum mechanics is the same as the time that is familiar in our macroscopic world.
In a physical theory we typically describe a system in terms of its state . We specify the relevant physical quantities or variables and then use dynamical laws to find the time evolution of these variables to predict their values in the future. For example, in classical particle mechanics, the state of a system is specified by the positions and velocities (or, equivalently for us, the momenta) of all of the particles in the system (that is, r ( t ) and v ( t ) for each particle). Newton's second law, F = ma , then determines the time evolution of the variables, or of the state, of the system. For electrodynamics, the state variables are the electric and magnetic fields, E and B , and Maxwell's equations govern the time evolution of these. In classical physics (including relativity here), the state variables that are the central entities of the dynamical equations (typically the positions and momenta of the particles) are also the directly observable physical quantities. That is, the state itself is specified in terms of the observables of the theory. The essential features of the classical world view (as modified by relativity) are that the present state of a system in principle determines its future state (as in the flight of a baseball under the influence of gravity) and that the agency responsible for this event-by-event causal structure must propagate from the cause to the effect at some rate no greater than the speed of light.
Despite its successes, quantum mechanics (QM) has remained mysterious to all who have encountered it. Starting with Bohr and progressing into the present, the departure from intuitive, physical reality has widened. The connection between QM and reality is more than just a “philosophical” issue. It reveals that QM is not a correct or complete theory of the physical world and that inescapable internal inconsistencies and incongruities arise when attempts are made to treat it as physical as opposed to a purely mathematical “tool.” Some of these issues are discussed in a review by F. Laloe [Am. J. Phys. 69, 655 (2001)]. In an attempt to provide some physical insight into atomic problems and starting with the same essential physics as Bohr of e moving in the Coulombic field of the proton and the wave equation as modified by Schrodinger, a classical approach is explored that yields a remarkably accurate model and provides insight into physics on the atomic level. The proverbial view, deeply seated in the wave-particle duality notion, that there is no large-scale physical counterpart to the nature of the electron may not be correct. Physical laws and intuition may be restored when dealing with the wave equation and quantummechanical problems. Specifically, a theory of classical quantum mechanics (CQM) is derived from first principles that successfully applies physical laws on all scales. Rather than using the postulated Schrodinger boundary condition “Ψ → 0 as r → ∞,” which leads to a purely mathematical model of the electron, the constraint is based on experimental observation. Using Maxwell’s equations, the classical wave equation is solved with the constraint that the bound (n = 1)state electron cannot radiate energy. By further application of Maxwell’s equations to electromagnetic and gravitational fields at particle production, the Schwarzschild metric is derived from the classical wave equation, which modifies general relativity to include conservation of spacetime in addition to momentum and matter/energy. The result gives a natural relationship among Maxwell’s equations, special relativity, and general relativity. CQM holds over a scale of spacetime of 85 orders of magnitude — it correctly predicts the nature of the universe from the scale of the quarks to that of the cosmos. A review is given by G. Landvogt [Internat. J. Hydrogen Energy 28, 1155 (2003)].
Fundamentals of quantum mechanics Quantum mechanics remains one of the most successful, yet enigmatic, formulations of physics. Uncertainty and measurement constraints are incorporated at the core of this fundamental description of micro-physical dynamics. Quantum mechanics successfully describes the observed structures in chemistry and materials science. In particular, the impenetrability of matter due to Pauli exclusion is a consequence of incorporating special relativity into quantum mechanics. Microscopic causality , or the requirement that communications cannot propagate at greater than the speed of light, relates a particle's spin to its quantum statistics but does not exclude the space-like correlations associated with a coherent quantum state. This section will examine some of the foundations of quantum physics. An emphasis will be placed upon how the microscopic fundamentals of quantum mechanics relate to the geometric fundamentals of gravitational mechanics. Quantum formalism There are several interpretations of quantum mechanics offering models of the underlying (often hidden) dynamics that generate the observed quantum phenomenology (for example, the Copenhagen interpretation, or the many-worlds interpretation). Since any interpretation consistent with quantum physics cannot be proved or disproved by experiment, only those aspects of quantum formalism directly connected to experimental observables will be developed, with minimal interpretation imposed. To establish the conventions utilized in what follows, a brief overview of the formalism that describes those calculable observables modeled by quantum physics will be given.
Till 1925 the idea of what the quantum theory would be was unknown. During 1925 three different but equivalent versions of quantum theory were proposed – Schrödinger-proposed wave mechanics; Heisenberg-developed matrix mechanics and Dirac-introduced operator theory. Considering the de Broglie’s matter waves Erwin Schrödinger, an Austrian physicist, argued that if a particle like an electron behaves as a wave then the equation of wave motion could be successfully applied to it. He postulated a function varying in both space and time in a wave-like manner (hence called wave function and denoted it as ψ). This function is generally complex and assumed to contain information about a system. Schrödinger set up a linear and time-dependent wave-like equation, called Schrödinger wave equation, to describe the wave aspect of a particle taking account of de Broglie’s relation for wavelength. Physically, |ψ(X, t)|2, where ψ(X, t) is the solution of the Schrödinger equation, is interpreted as position probability density. That is, |ψ(X, t)|2 is the probability density of observing a particle at position X at time t. ψ does not give exact outcomes of observations but helps us to know all possible events and their probabilities . Further, the probability interpretation allows us to find the average or expected result of a set of measurements on a quantum system.
The first question to ask about the phenomenon of relaxation is why it occurs at all. Both the Newton and the Schrödinger equations are symmetrical under time reversal: The Newton equation, dx/dt = v ; dv/dt = −∂V/∂x, implies that particles obeying this law of motion will retrace their trajectory back in time after changing the sign of both the time t and the particle velocities v. The Schrödinger equation, ∂ψ/∂t = −(i/.h) Ĥ ψ, implies that if (ψ (t) is a solution then ψ *(−t) is also one, so that observables which depend on |ψ|2 are symmetric in time. On the other hand, nature clearly evolves asymmetrically as asserted by the second law of thermodynamics. How does this asymmetry arise in a system that obeys temporal symmetry in its time evolution? Readers with background in thermodynamics and statistical mechanics have encountered the intuitive answer: Irreversibility in a system with many degrees of freedom is essentially a manifestation of the system “getting lost in phase space”:Asystem starts from a given state and evolves in time. If the number of accessible states is huge, the probability that the system will find its way back to the initial state in finite time is vanishingly small, so that an observer who monitors properties associated with the initial state will see an irreversible evolution. The question is how is this irreversible behavior manifested through the reversible equations of motion, and how does it show in the quantitative description of the time evolution. This chapter provides an introduction to this subject using the time-dependent Schrödinger equation as a starting point. Chapter 10 discusses more advanced aspects of this problem within the framework of the quantum Liouville equation and the density operator formalism.
Quantum mechanics (QM) is not just a theory of micro-objects: it is our current fundamental theory of motion. It expresses a deeper understanding of Nature than classical mechanics. Precisely as classical mechanics, the conventional formulation of QM describes evolution of states and observables in time. Precisely as classical mechanics, this is not sufficient to deal with general relativistic systems, because these systems do not describe evolution in time; they describe correlations between observables. Therefore, a formulation of QM slightly more general than the conventional one – or a quantum version of the relativistic classical mechanics discussed in the previous chapter – is needed. In this chapter I discuss the possibility of such a formulation. In the last section I discuss the general physical interpretation of QM. QM can be formulated in a number of more or less equivalent formalisms: canonical (Hilbert spaces and self-adjoint operators), covariant (Feynman's sum-over-histories), algebraic (states as linear functionals over an abstract algebra of observables) and others. Generally, but not always, we are able to translate these formalisms into one another, but often what is easy in one formulation is difficult in another. A generalrelativistic sum-over-histories formalism has been developed by Jim Hartle. Here I focus on the canonical formalism, because the canonical formalism has provided the mathematical completeness and precision needed to explicitly construct the mathematical apparatus of quantum gravity. Later I will consider alternative formalisms.