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.
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.
The aim of this chapter is to present (in a compact way) the fundamentals of conventional quantum theory. We select the for- mulation of QM as an axiomatic theory in the complete accordance with the Hilbert’s program on axiomatization of physical theories. We remark that the first step toward the present formulation of QM was done in the seminal work of Hilbert, Nordheim, and von Neumann [112]. This work was substantially extended, completed, and clarified in the book of von Neumann [296]. Another version of the rigorous mathematical approach to QM was presented in the book of Dirac [74]. From the mathematical viewpoint, the main difference between the approaches of von Neumann and Dirac is that the first one is based on the theory of self-adjoint operators in complex Hilbert space and the second one is based on the theory of self-adjoint operators acting (by using the modern mathematical terminology) in rigged Hilbert spaces. This theory operates with generalized eigenvectors belonging to the spaces of distributions. Although the von Neumann’s formalization of QM became dominant in quantum mathematical physics, the Dirac’s formalization is widely used in the works on the physical level of rigorousness. Moreover, the Dirac’s terminology, bra-and ket- vectors, became the standard for quantum information theory. However, since quantum information is based on the castrated version of QM, namely, QM in finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces, the so-called n-qubit spaces, the basic tool of the Dirac’s formalism, usage of generalized eigenvectors, is useless (since in the finite- dimensional case everything is reduced to manipulation with matrices). During the last 80 years, there were written hundreds of books on QM enlightening its foundational aspects. Unfortunately, the majority of these writings advertise exotic (and some of them really esoteric) views on QM and, in particular, on interpretation of the wave function. They are full of such terms as the collapse of the wave function, quantumnonlocality, manyworlds, thewave function of universe, the preparation of Schro¨dinger cats, influence of the future on the past, quantum teleportation. Of course, manipulations with such terminology create an atmosphere of mystery and a feeling that something unusual and impossible can happen. And this atmosphere plays a positive role in attracting young people to QM and especially to quantum foundations.
Following previous works by E. Prugovečki [Physica A 91A, 202 (1978) and Stochastic Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Space–time (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1986)] on common features of classical and quantum mechanics, we develop a unified mathematical framework for classical and quantum mechanics (based on L2-spaces over classical phase space), in order to investigate to what extent quantum mechanics can be obtained as a simple modification of classical mechanics (on both logical and analytical levels). To obtain this unified framework, we split quantum theory in two parts: (i) general quantum axiomatics (a system is described by a state in a Hilbert space, observables are self-adjoints operators, and so on) and (ii) quantum mechanics proper that specifies the Hilbert space as L2(Rn); the Heisenberg rule [pi,qj]=−iℏδij with p=−iℏ∇, the free Hamiltonian H=−ℏ2Δ/2m and so on. We show that general quantum axiomatics (up to a supplementary “axiom of classicity”) can be used as a nonstandard mathematical ground to formulate physical ideas and equations of ordinary classical statistical mechanics. So, the question of a “true quantization” with “ℏ” must be seen as an independent physical problem not directly related with quantum formalism. At this stage, we show that this nonstandard formulation of classical mechanics exhibits a new kind of operation that has no classical counterpart: this operation is related to the “quantization process,” and we show why quantization physically depends on group theory (the Galilei group). This analytical procedure of quantization replaces the “correspondence principle” (or canonical quantization) and allows us to map classical mechanics into quantum mechanics, giving all operators of quantum dynamics and the Schrödinger equation. The great advantage of this point of view is that quantization is based on concrete physical arguments and not derived from some “pure algebraic rule” (we exhibit also some limit of the correspondence principle). Moreover spins for particles are naturally generated, including an approximation of their interaction with magnetic fields. We also recover by this approach the semi-classical formalism developed by E. Prugovečki [Stochastic Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Space–time (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1986)].
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.
In this second chapter we will review the basic mathematical and physical facts about quantum mechanics and establish physical units and notation. Those readers already familiar with the subject can safely jump to the next chapter. An attempt has been made to make the presentation in this chapter as elementary as possible, and yet present the basic facts that will be needed later. There are many beautiful and important topics which will not be touched upon such as self-adjointness of Schrödinger operators, the general mathematical structure of quantum mechanics and the like. These topics are well described in other works, e.g.. Much of the following can be done in a Euclidean space of arbitrary dimension, but in this chapter the dimension of the Euclidean space is taken to be three-which is the physical case-unless otherwise stated. We do this to avoid confusion and, occasionally, complications that arise in the computation of mathematical constants. The interested reader can easily generalize what is done here to the R d , d > 3 case. Likewise, in the next chapters we mostly consider N particles, with spatial coordinates in R 3 , so that the total spatial dimension is 3 N . A Brief Review of the Connection Between Classical and Quantum Mechanics Considering the range of validity of quantum mechanics, it is not surprising that its formulation is more complicated and abstract than classical mechanics. Nevertheless, classical mechanics is a basic ingredient for quantum mechanics. One still talks about position, momentum and energy which are notions from Newtonian mechanics.
This chapter introduces the quantum mechanics. It explores the formulation in terms of the operator calculus. The chapter shows how nonrelativistic quantum kinematics emerges from the general theory. It discusses how physical quantities are related to symmetries through unitary transformations, and consider translations. The chapter also introduces the statistical operator and the density matrix. It introduces the consistent history interpretation of quantum mechanics. The true core of quantum mechanics is the rule for assigning the amplitude to an event that can be effected in indistinguishable ways. The chapter examines the presentation of Feynman's space-time approach since it offers the most intuitive formulation of quantum mechanics. A physical quantity is said to be conserved if it for any state of the system stays constant in time. In quantum mechanics this therefore means that its probability distribution in any state is independent of time.
This chapter, based on the background information of the previous chapter, will review the formalism of quantum mechanics – its fundamental mathematical structure (the basic contents of Hilbert space representation and operator algebra representation) and physical assumptions (kinematics, dynamics, and measurement theory). These are the premise and foundation for discussing the quantum histories interpretation. Then, in combination with the viewpoints of some literature in recent years, we will explore what is the interpretation of quantum mechanics, analyze the relationship between the theory of quantum mechanics and its interpretation, and declare the author’s basic stance on these two issues. These two are the primary issues that all interpretive work in the philosophy of physics will face (not limited to the interpretation of quantum mechanics), and the necessary clarification here is also conducive to the subsequent discussion. Three common terms – theory, formalism, and interpretation – are explicated and differentiated by offering the necessary definitions of their meanings, based on the works of Acuña and Ruetsche. The clarification will help to make the subsequent related discussions more precise.