Mature theories of physical science associate states with systems, for instance with particles or waves in classical physics. The quantities whose values comprise states in classical mechanics, namely position and momentum, are chosen, first of all, for predictive purposes. Everything that one would want to say about classical systems can, it seems, be said in terms of properties: specification of the properties of a system gives a complete specification of its state, and conversely. Quantum mechanics associates states with physical systems; whatever else these might be, systems are the particulars which bear physical properties. The former is non-reduced state, the quantum state proper, while the latter is the reduced state, the class of quantitative properties possessed by the system. The state therefore determines which quantities and which properties are instantiated. The non-reductive account of states was initially appealing because it seemed to promise some additional explanatory scope.
Mature theories of physical science associate states with systems, for instance with particles or waves in classical physics. The quantities whose values comprise states in classical mechanics, namely position and momentum, are chosen, first of all, for predictive purposes. Everything that one would want to say about classical systems can, it seems, be said in terms of properties: specification of the properties of a system gives a complete specification of its state, and conversely. Quantum mechanics associates states with physical systems; whatever else these might be, systems are the particulars which bear physical properties. The former is non-reduced state, the quantum state proper, while the latter is the reduced state, the class of quantitative properties possessed by the system. The state therefore determines which quantities and which properties are instantiated. The non-reductive account of states was initially appealing because it seemed to promise some additional explanatory scope.
The concept of the physical state of a system is ubiquitous in physics but is usually presented in terms of specific cases. For example, the state of a point particle of mass m is completely characterized by its position and momentum. There is a tendency to consider such states as "real", i.e., as physical properties of a system. This rarely causes problems in classical physics but the notion of real quantum states has contributed mightily to the philosophical conundrums associated with quantum mechanics. The Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky paradox is a prime example. In fact, quantum states are not physical properties of a system but rather subjective descriptions that depend on the information available to a particular observer. This realization goes a long way toward resolving such dilemmas as Schrödinger's cat, wave function collapse, quantum non-locality, and parallel universes.
The behavior of classical macroscopic particles – from baseballs to planets – is governed by Newtonian mechanics as we have described in the first chapters of this book. The behavior of very small particles, on the other hand, is governed by an entirely different collection of equations and rules that go under the name of “quantum mechanics” and these particles are referred to as quantum particles. These rules have analogies to classical mechanics, but are fundamentally different and somewhat mysterious as we discussed in Chapter 8. The fundamental principles of quantum mechanics cannot be proven to be correct. They were developed based on the results of experimental observation, by analogy with classical mechanics, and through the consideration of logical implications of the formalisms used. There is no way to derive the fundamental elements of quantum mechanics, any more than one could predict from first principles that Newtonian forces should add as vectors. On the other hand, quantum mechanics is among the most rigorously tested theories in science, and the predictions of quantum mechanics have, so far, always been in agreement with experiment. In this chapter, we will present quantum mechanics as a series of postulates and examine their implications in application to simple one-dimensional systems. In the next chapter we will examine quantum effects in real systems including atoms, molecules, crystals, and artificially engineered nano-structures. Postulates of quantum mechanics QM Postulate 1: A quantum particle is described by a wave function Ψ( x , y , z , t ) which is a function of spatial coordinates and time. All physically determinable quantities can be derived from the wave function Ψ( x , y , z , t ) ; quantities which cannot be found from the wave function are not physically meaningful. Note that some things that one could ask about a quantum particle, for example the exact position and simultaneous exact momentum of a particle, are not derivable from the wave function and are therefore considered indeterminate (or uncertain ). These are things which cannot ever be known about a particle, and, as such, they are meaningless to contemplate.
Shall I refuse my dinner because I do not fully understand the process of digestion? No, not if I am satisfied with the result. O. Heaviside, Electromagnetic Theory , vol. 2, 1899 Basic notions of quantum mechanics Quantum axioms Let us start with a brief recapitulation of quantum mechanics on the “how to” level. According to the standard lore, the instantaneous state of any quantum system (that is, everything that can be known about it at a given moment of time) is given by its wave function (state vector) – a complex-valued vector in some abstract Hilbert space; the nature of this space is determined by the system. All the observables (i.e., physical quantities defined for the system and determined by its state – e.g., the position or momentum of a free particle, the energy of an oscillator) are described by Hermitian operators defined in the same Hilbert space. All three elements – the Hilbert space, the state vector, and the set of observables – are necessary to describe the outcome of any experiment one could perform with the system. Since humans cannot directly observe the behaviour of quantum objects, these outcomes are also called measurements , being the result of using some classical apparatus in order to translate the state of a quantum system into the state of the apparatus, which can then be read out by the experimentalist. The classical (i.e., non-quantum) nature of the apparatus is essential, as we shall see in a moment.
We have seen in the previous chapter how useful wave mechanics can be in solving physical problems. But wave mechanics has several limitations. It describes physical states by means of wave functions, which are functions of the positions of the particles of the system, but why should we single out position as the fundamental physical observable? For instance, we might want to describe states in terms of probability amplitudes for particles to have certain values of the momentum or energy rather than the position. A more fundamental limitation: There are attributes of physical systems that cannot be described at all in terms of the positions and momenta of a set of particles. One of these attributes is spin , which will be the subject of Chapter 4. Another is the value of the electric or magnetic field at some point in space, treated in Chapter 11. This chapter will describe the principles of quantum mechanics in a formalism which is essentially the “transformation theory” of Dirac, mentioned briefly in Section 1.4. This formalism generalizes both the wave mechanics of Schrödinger and the matrix mechanics of Heisenberg, and is sufficiently comprehensive to apply to any sort of physical system. States The first postulate of quantum mechanics is that physical states can be represented as vectors in a sort of abstract space known as Hilbert space . Before getting into Hilbert space, I need to say a bit about vectors in general. In kindergarten we learn that vectors are quantities with both magnitude and direction. Later, when we study analytic geometry, we learn instead to describe a vector in d dimensions as a string of d numbers, the components of the vector. This latter approach lends itself well to calculation, but in some respects the kindergarten version is better, because it allows us to describe relations among vectors without specifying a coordinate system. For instance, a statement that one vector is parallel to a second vector, or perpendicular to a third, has nothing to do with how we choose our coordinate system.
Along with weaving together observations, experiments, and theoretical constructs into a coherent mesh of understanding of the world around us, physics over its past five centuries has continuously refined the base concepts on which the whole framework is built. In quantum physics, first in non-relativistic mechanics and later in quantum field theories, even familiar concepts of position, momentum, wave or particle, are derived constructs from the classical limit in which we live but not intrinsic to the underlying physics. Most crucially, the very idea of the individual, whether an object or an event, distinguished only in a mere label of identity from others identical to it in all the physics, exists only as an approximation, not an element of underlying reality. Failure to recognize this and seeking alternative explanations in many worlds or multiverses leads only to incoherent logic and incorrect physics. As an example, in a physical system such as an atom in a particular state, physics deals with the universal system of all such atoms but makes no meaningful prediction of the position of an electron or the time of decay of any specific atom. Those are incidental, entirely random among all possible positions and times, even while physics makes very precise predictions for the distribution of the outcomes in measurements on atoms in that state. Physics deals with the universal, not the individual.
A classical state specifies the quantitative values of all the state variables relevant to a given system. In some situations, we can know the overall state of the system without being sure about the individual states of the constituent parts. On top of the problems inherent in picking out the crucial details of a system, there is another issue with trying to specify an initial state precisely: there is always some uncertainty connected with measurement. The quantum state of a system contains a series of complex numbers related to the probability that the system will collapse into a new state when a measurement takes place. Each of these new states represents a possible result of the measurement, which might be a path or a specific quantitative value of some physical variable.