Quantum measurement theories are interesting mainly because of the fundamental questions. Since quantum mechanics is primarily a theory of small, simple systems, it could a priori be expected that a full description of this formalism would be possible in a language that would refer only to the objective properties of such small systems. Unless quantum physics is objectively false in some of its predictions, limitations of such a kind are unavoidable. The chapter argues that such limitations extend to systems of arbitrary finite size and of arbitrary complexity. As a matter of fact, this is the first and perhaps the most significant conclusion in investigation of the conceptual foundations of quantum physics. An equally tenable standpoint is to assert that truly infinite systems have special features of their own that make them fall outside the realm of elementary quantum mechanics. Implicitly or explicitly, nonseparability is indeed present in all the various interpretations of the quantum rules which have been set forth.
Quantum measurement theories are interesting mainly because of the fundamental questions. Since quantum mechanics is primarily a theory of small, simple systems, it could a priori be expected that a full description of this formalism would be possible in a language that would refer only to the objective properties of such small systems. Unless quantum physics is objectively false in some of its predictions, limitations of such a kind are unavoidable. The chapter argues that such limitations extend to systems of arbitrary finite size and of arbitrary complexity. As a matter of fact, this is the first and perhaps the most significant conclusion in investigation of the conceptual foundations of quantum physics. An equally tenable standpoint is to assert that truly infinite systems have special features of their own that make them fall outside the realm of elementary quantum mechanics. Implicitly or explicitly, nonseparability is indeed present in all the various interpretations of the quantum rules which have been set forth.
Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics provides a detailed view of the conceptual foundations and problems of quantum physics, and a clear and comprehensive account of the fundamental physical implications of the quantum formalism. This book deals with nonseparability, hidden variable theories, measurement theories and several related problems. Mathematical arguments are presented with an emphasis on simple but adequately representative cases. The conclusion incorporates a description of a set of relationships and concepts that could compose a legitimate view of the world.
There is no dissent regarding the quantum theory success on the small-scale structure of the world but there is equally an open subject of debate about its interpretation. Both quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity are indeed extensions of classical mechanics, that is, they reproduce their results in other appropriate limiting cases. Quantum mechanics provides a new set of laws and a method of description of microscopic systems that has been very successful. The chapter discusses some of the fundamental principles of this highly controversial subject. In quantum physics, it is difficult to uphold a sharp distinction between the object and the observer. The chapter examines why quantum mechanics seems to be so hard for newcomers to learn and understand. The theory of quantum mechanics has led to many applications: laser, the electron microscope and many other technological devices.
The previous chapters contain many examples of the successful application of quantum mechanics to the solution of real physical problems. These represent only a small sample of the wide range of experimental results, spanning just about all areas of physics and chemistry and beyond, that have been successfully explained by quantum theory. So far at least, no quantum-mechanical prediction has been experimentally falsified. Despite these successes, however, many scientists have considered the basic conceptual framework of the subject to be unsatisfactory, and repeated attempts have been made to reinterpret quantum mechanics, or even replace it with a different theory whose philosophical and conceptual basis could be considered more acceptable. In the present chapter we shall explain the reasons for this dissatisfaction and outline some of the reinterpretations and alternative approaches that have been devised. Inevitably many of the questions that arise in this area are matters of opinion rather than fact and, for this reason, some physicists consider that they belong more properly to the realm of philosophy than of physics. However, the conceptual basis of quantum mechanics is so fundamental to our whole understanding of the nature of the physical universe that it should surely be important for physicists to understand the nature of the problems involved, if nothing else.1,2 16.1 THE CONCEPTUAL PROBLEMS In this section we outline some of the main areas of difficulty with a view to more detailed discussion later in the chapter.
It has been suggested that the measuring apparatus used to measure quantum systems ought to be idealized as consisting of an infinite number of quantum systems. Let us call this the infinity assumption. The suggestion that we ought to make the infinity assumption has been made in connection with two closely related but distinct problems. One is the problem of determining the importance of the limitations on measurement incorporated into the Wigner-Araki-Yanase quantum theory of measurement. The other is the measurement problem. These problems are not internal to the quantum mechanical formalism. They arise when we obtain particular formal results in applying the quantum mechanical formalism to measurement interactions. The formal results are problematic because they resist explanation. Various authors have claimed that by making the infinity assumption we can neglect the limitations on measurement. Bub (1988) and (1989) claims it allows us to solve the measurement problem. I will argue that both claims are unjustified.
When investigating various interpretations of quantum mechanics one notices that each interpretation contains an element which escapes a complete and full description. This element is always associated with the stochasticity of the individual event in the quantum measurement process. It appears that the implications of this limit to any description of the world has not been sufficiently appreciated with notable exceptions of, for example, Heisenberg, Pauli and Wheeler. If we assume that a deeper foundation of quantum mechanics is possible, the question arises which features such a philosophical foundation might have. It is suggested that the objective randomness of the individual quantum event is a necessity of a description of the world in view of the significant influence the observer in quantum mechanics has. It is also suggested that the austerity of the Copenhagen interpretation should serve as a guiding principle in a search for deeper understanding. In recent years, a significant increase of interest in the foundations of quantum mechanics can be observed. This increase is certainly related to the immense progress made during the last two decades in experiments with individual quantum systems. This technological progress has made it possible to really perform more and more of the famous gedanken experiments which were so important in the early days of the theory. Not only did these experiments confirm the theory in every detail, they also opened up avenues for new experimental directions which might even lead some day to new technology. While such applications are certainly still far away, areas like quantum cryptography[1], quantum computation[2] and interaction-free measurement[3], just to name a few examples, certainly deserve the attention they receive. All this activity has also drawn more attention to the problems of understanding and interpreting quantum mechanics. It seems that there, a definitive consensus has not yet been reached. As witnesses quote authorities like Feynman as saying[4]: I think can safely say that nobody today understands quantum mechanics, whereby he apparently included himself, or like Roger Penrose[5], who describes his opinion remarking that while the theory agrees incredibly well with experiment and while it is of profound mathematical beauty, it makes absolutely no sense. Why did even physicists who have contributed so significantly to quantum theory Feynman was even rewarded the Nobel Prize for one of its mathematical formulations choose such emphatic and strong formulations? Why is it that the average physicist hears very little about such problems during his/her education? Why is the comprehension of the theory very often focused on formalism while questions that probe for deeper meaning are usually not tackled? To take a closer look at the situation, let us turn to a brief analysis of the interpretation of quantum mechanics. We note that there are at least two levels of interpreting a formalism, a physical theory. The first, basic, level supplies the rules that determine which element of the formalism corresponds to which measurable quantity or to which observable fact in a concrete experimental situation. Theses rules are a large, mostly not explicated but only implicit, set of instructions. These instructions concern the manner of working with the statements of the theory in order to obtain predictions for future experiments or events, and they concern the instructions on how to proceed in experiment in order to demonstrate or test a theoretical
The basic thesis of this book is that there is no quantum measurement problem. I do not mean by this that the apparent paradoxes of quantum mechanics arise because we fail to recognize ‘that quantum theory does not describe physical reality’ (Fuchs and Peres 2000a). Quantum theory describes reality just fine, like any other scientific theory worth taking seriously: describing (and explaining) reality is what the scientific enterprise is about. Nor do I mean that we have found solutions to the problem, ways to modify or supplement quantum mechanics so that the paradoxes are removed. I don’t actually think that we have found any very satisfactory solutions in this sense (at least not in the relativistic domain) but that isn’t my theme: even if we did have these modifications, they would be ways of changing from quantum physics, which supposedly does have a measurement problem, to some other theory, which supposedly doesn’t.