Quantum mechanics has been enormously successful in explaining the behavior of microsystems such as molecules, atoms, and nuclei. We have seen that quantum mechanics describes a quantum system by the wave function ψ, which is the solution of the Schro¨dinger equation. The wave function determines the probability amplitudes (whose modulus squared gives the probability) for all possible outcomes of a measurement corresponding to an observable on the system. In general, the wave function does not uniquely predict the result of a measurement; it only provides a probability distribution for all possible results of the measurement on a quantum system. Only if the system happens to be in an eigenstate corresponding to the observable being measured, is the result of a measurement of this observable completely predictable. On the other hand, the results of measurements corresponding to a conjugate or non-commuting observable, on the same system in the same state, are indeterminate. Quantum mechanical description of physical systems raises profound questions: How are the wave function and the probabilities for different outcomes of a measurement to be interpreted? Does the wave function represent a single system or an ensemble of systems? Does the physical system actually have the attribute corresponding to the measurement in question or does the measurement itself create the attribute? These questions led to different interpretations of quantum mechanics, which were vigorously debated during the years of its discovery as also in the following decades. The new idea of indeterminacy was especially difficult to reconcile with the long-held view that a physical theory should aim at predicting accurately, and without ambiguity, the result of any measurement on any system, big or small. These debates not only gave us a deeper understanding of quantum mechanics but also changed profoundly the way we view the micro-world.
Quantum mechanics has been enormously successful in explaining the behavior of microsystems such as molecules, atoms, and nuclei. We have seen that quantum mechanics describes a quantum system by the wave function ψ, which is the solution of the Schro¨dinger equation. The wave function determines the probability amplitudes (whose modulus squared gives the probability) for all possible outcomes of a measurement corresponding to an observable on the system. In general, the wave function does not uniquely predict the result of a measurement; it only provides a probability distribution for all possible results of the measurement on a quantum system. Only if the system happens to be in an eigenstate corresponding to the observable being measured, is the result of a measurement of this observable completely predictable. On the other hand, the results of measurements corresponding to a conjugate or non-commuting observable, on the same system in the same state, are indeterminate. Quantum mechanical description of physical systems raises profound questions: How are the wave function and the probabilities for different outcomes of a measurement to be interpreted? Does the wave function represent a single system or an ensemble of systems? Does the physical system actually have the attribute corresponding to the measurement in question or does the measurement itself create the attribute? These questions led to different interpretations of quantum mechanics, which were vigorously debated during the years of its discovery as also in the following decades. The new idea of indeterminacy was especially difficult to reconcile with the long-held view that a physical theory should aim at predicting accurately, and without ambiguity, the result of any measurement on any system, big or small. These debates not only gave us a deeper understanding of quantum mechanics but also changed profoundly the way we view the micro-world.
The difficulties of the old quantum theory were largely dispelled by the development of quantum mechanics in the 1920s. First Heisenberg (1925) developed the rather abstract matrix mechanics and soon after Schro¨dinger (1926; see also Eckart, 1926) developed the physically more appealing wave mechanics. Subsequently he showed them to be mathematically equivalent. The physicists were greatly relieved; now they had once again a mathematical formalism that enabled the results of experiments to be calculated. It was possible to move forward. It is certainly a very elegant and indeed beautiful formalism, and does enable the results of many physical measurements to be calculated with great accuracy. It is used daily by atomic and nuclear physicists; there is no other way to make calculations. From the earliest days there has been intense debate about the interpretation of quantum mechanics, and it shows no signs of being settled; if anything it is becoming more intense over the years. As Penrose has remarked, no one understands quantum mechanics. Feynman (1967; see also Sykes, 1994) also admitted that ‘nobody understands quantum mechanics’, and Einstein once remarked: ‘I have thought a hundred times as much about the quantum problems as I have about general relativity theory’ (Pais, 1994, p. 57). It should therefore be evident that the most that can be done here is to try to show where the real difficulties lie, and how the failure to recognize that quantum mechanics is an essentially statistical theory has led to a series of confusing quantum paradoxes. It is just these paradoxes that have often been used to support theological speculations. It is useful to ask what ‘understanding quantum mechanics’ actually means. Certainly it means being able to calculate the results of many measurements. The same applies to Newton’s theory of gravitation, which we understand in the sense that we can use it as a basis of calculation, although we do not really understand the gravitational force itself. Very often, especially in modern physics, the mathematical formalism does not give us the sort of intuitive physical feeling for what is going on that we often obtain from classical mechanics. Perhaps we can never achieve more than this for quantum mechanics. In classical mechanics we can assume that a property that is measured objectively exists prior to the interaction of the measuring apparatus with the observed system. Quantum mechanics, however, ‘is incompatible with the proposition that measurement discovers some unknown but pre-existing property’ (Peres, 1997, p. 14). There is an important distinction between mysteries and absurdities. We may be forced to live with mysteries, but there is no reason why we should put up with absurdities such as the wave-particle duality, tunnelling through potential barriers, acausal events and the collapse of the wave function. These are the quantum paradoxes that will be discussed later on. They arise within the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and are solved by other interpretations. These alternative interpretations enable us to make conjectures about what is going on, even though we cannot understand it in detail. This is acceptable and a stimulus to further research. It is certainly difficult enough to understand quantum mechanics, but there is no need to try to visualize logical absurdities in the effort to do so. Quantum mechanics is a mathematical formalism that makes it possible to calculate the results of some experiments. Anything more than this, such as questions about the interpretation of what is measured and whether it tells us what is actually going on in the system being studied, belongs to philosophy. Thus we are concerned here with what is essentially a philosophical debate; if it were just a matter of physics the debate would have been settled long ago. One of the difficulties is that it invokes the results of experiments and uses the language of quantum mechanics. Inevitably this language uses philosophical terms and then it is easy to give the impression that the philosophical propositions are in some way entailed by the physical results. These in turn can influence theological thinking. In order to be quite clear which arguments are justified and which are not, it is essential to separate the three levels of discourse: physical, philosophical and theological. Our task is to relate these together, and this immediately raises the traditional problems of the philosophy of science, including the relation of experiment to theory, and of theory to explanation. We begin by discussing experiments, distinguishing between those that are real and those that are imaginary.
The founding fathers of quantum mechanics had already perceived the essence of the difficulties of quantum mechanics; today, after almost a century, the discussions are still lively and, if some very interesting new aspects have emerged, at a deeper level the questions have not changed so much. What is more recent, nevertheless, is a general change of attitude among physicists: until about 1970 or 1980, most physicists thought that the essential questions had been settled, and that “Bohr was right and proved his opponents to be wrong”. This was probably a consequence of the famous discussions between Bohr, Einstein, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Pauli, de Broglie, and others (in particular at the Solvay meetings [1–3], where Bohr's point of view had successfully resisted Einstein's extremely clever attacks). The majority of physicists did not know the details of the arguments. They nevertheless thought that the standard “Copenhagen interpretation” had clearly emerged from the infancy of quantum mechanics as the only sensible attitude for good scientists. This interpretation includes the idea that modern physics must contain indeterminacy as an essential ingredient: it is fundamentally impossible to predict the outcome of single microscopical events; it is impossible to go beyond the formalism of the wave function (or its generalization, the state vector ∣ψ) and complete it.
Quantum mechanics is an immensely successful theory, occupying a unique position in the history of science. It has solved mysteries ranging from macroscopic superconductivity to the microscopic theory of elementary particles and has provided deep insights into the nature of vacuum on the one hand and the description of the nucleon on the other. Whole new fields such as quantum optics and quantum electronics owe their very existence to this body of knowledge. However, despite the stunning successes of quantum mechanics, there is no general agreement on the conceptual foundations and interpretation of the subject. The theory provides unambiguous information about the outcome of a measurement of a physical object. However, many feel that it does not provide a satisfactory answer to the nature of the “reality” we should attribute to the physical objects between the acts of measurement. The conceptual difficulty comes about because the wave function |ψ〉 is usually given by a coherent superposition of various distinguishable experimental outcomes. If we denote the collection of states that represent the possible outcomes of an experiment by |ψ j 〉, then |ψ〉 = ∑ j c j |ψ j 〉 where c j = 〈ψ j |ψ〉. The probability of the outcome |ψ j 〉 is P j =|c j | 2 . In the process of measurement, the so called collapse of the wave function takes place and a single, definite state |ψ i 〉 of the physical object is chosen. The difficulty comes about in the interpretation of the mechanism by which this definite state is chosen from amongst all the possible outcomes.
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.
Quantum mechanics is our most successful physical theory. It predicts the behavior of atoms, molecules, and light to ten decimal places. No experiment has ever contradicted it. It also contains a crack at its foundation. The theory’s central equation—the Schrodinger equation—describes a smooth, continuous, perfectly predictable evolution of the quantum state. But whenever anyone performs a measurement, they get a single, definite result. Which result they get appears to be random. The transition from smooth evolution to random outcome is called the “collapse of the wavefunction,” and after nearly a century of analysis, there is no agreed-upon explanation for what causes it, when it occurs, or whether it occurs at all. This is the measurement problem. The measurement problem is not a minor puzzle at the margins of the theory. It is a failure to explain the most basic operation in science: looking at the result of an experiment. Around it cluster other puzzles. Light behaves like a wave in some experiments and like a particle in others—two contradictory descriptions. Two particles that have interacted remain correlated across arbitrary distances, as though communicating faster than light. The probabilities that govern measurement outcomes appear as a postulate—the Born rule—inserted by hand with no deeper justification. And the theory offers no unified picture of reality: quantum mechanics, general relativity, and the standard model of particle physics speak incompatible mathematical languages. A century of effort has produced many interpretations of quantum mechanics. Copenhagen. Many-worlds. De Broglie-Bohm. Objective collapse. Quantum Bayesianism. None has achieved consensus. The measurement problem remains. This document proposes that the source of these puzzles is not quantum mechanics itself. It is a single, invisible assumption made at the very beginning of the theory in 1900—an assumption so deeply embedded that nobody noticed they were making it. Change that assumption, and the puzzles do not get solved. They dissolve. They stop being puzzles. They become predictable consequences of geometry.
Werner Heisenberg introduced the notion of quantum potentia in order to accommodate the indeterminism associated with quantum measurement. Potentia captures the capacity of the system to be found to possess a property upon a corresponding sharp measurement in which it is actualized. The specific potentiae of the individual system are represented formally by the complex amplitudes in the measurement bases of the eigenstate in which it is prepared. All predictions for future values of system properties can be made by an experimenter using the probabilities which are the squared moduli of these amplitudes that are the diagonal elements of the density matrix description of the pure ensemble to which the system, so prepared, belongs. Heisenberg considered the change of the ensemble attribution following quantum measurement to be analogous to the classical change in Gibbs’ thermodynamics when measurement of the canonical ensemble enables a microcanonical ensemble description. This analogy, presented by Heisenberg as operating at the epistemic level, is analyzed here. It has led some to claim not only that the change of the state in measurement is classical mechanical, bringing its quantum character into question, but also that Heisenberg held this to be the case. Here, these claims are shown to be incorrect, because the analogy concerns the change of ensemble attribution by the experimenter upon learning the result of the measurement, not the actualization of the potentia responsible for the change of the individual system state which—in Heisenberg’s interpretation of quantum mechanics—is objective in nature and independent of the experimenter’s knowledge.