This introductory chapter provides a brief summary of the discussions in the succeeding chapters. Here, the new quantum mechanics has in recent years achieved in its essential parts what is presumably a definitive form: the so-called “transformation theory.” Therefore the principal emphasis shall be placed on the general and fundamental questions which have arisen in connection with this theory. In particular, the difficult problems of interpretation, many of which are even now not fully resolved, will be investigated in detail. In this connection, the relation of quantum mechanics to statistics and to the classical statistical mechanics is of special importance.
This introductory chapter provides a brief summary of the discussions in the succeeding chapters. Here, the new quantum mechanics has in recent years achieved in its essential parts what is presumably a definitive form: the so-called “transformation theory.” Therefore the principal emphasis shall be placed on the general and fundamental questions which have arisen in connection with this theory. In particular, the difficult problems of interpretation, many of which are even now not fully resolved, will be investigated in detail. In this connection, the relation of quantum mechanics to statistics and to the classical statistical mechanics is of special importance.
Abstract The purpose of this book is to present an interpretation of quantum mechanics. But what are we talking about when we speak of “quantum mechanics?” Are we talking about a single theory or about many related theories? And what do we mean by “interpretation” here? In this chapter, I will address these questions in an introductory way. Of course, I do not intend to take part in the extensive discussions about what a scientific theory is, what is meant by interpreting a theory, in what situation we encounter equivalent theories, and many other questions related to or derived from these. My aim here is to present some preliminary ideas in a way that I hope will be sufficient to avoid misunderstandings in the following chapters. But, above all, I will state my position as to why, after so many years and so much literature on the subject, the interpretation of quantum mechanics deserves further discussion.
Perhaps due to its technical complexity, oftentimes one sees in research papers on nonequilibrium quantum field theory (NEqQFT) more emphasis placed on the field-theoretical formalisms than the ideas these sophisticated techniques attempt to capture, or the issues such problems embody. All the more so, we need some basic understanding of the important issues and concepts in nonequilibrium statistical mechanics (NEqSM), and how they are manifested in the context of quantum field theory. Many important advances in this field came from asking such questions and finding out how to answer them in the language of quantum field theory. Because of this somewhat skewed existing emphasis in NEqQFT, and since we do not assume the reader to have had a formal course on NEqSM before, we shall give a brief summary of the basic concepts of NEqSM relevant to the field-theoretical processes discussed in this book. Many fine monographs and reviews written on this subject take a more formal mathematical approach. approach. Since our purpose here is to familiarize readers with these issues and their subtleties, rather than training them to work in the rich field of NEqSM (which includes in addition to the traditional subject matter such as the projection operator formalism and open system concepts, also current topics at their foundation, such as dynamical systems and quantum chaos), we choose to approach these topics in a more intuitive and physical way, sacrificing by necessity rigor and completeness.
Chapter 1 begins by re-examining the textbook quantum postulates. It concludes with the realization that some of them are inconsistent with quantum mathematics, but also that they may not have to be postulated. Indeed, in the following two chapters it is shown that their consequences follow from the other, consistent postulates. This simplification of the quantum foundations provides a consistent, convenient, and solid starting point. The emergence of the classical from the quantum substrate is based on this foundation of “core quantum postulates”—the “quantum credo”. Discussion of the postulates is accompanied by a brief summary of their implications for the interpretation of quantum theory. This discussion touches on questions of interpretation that are implicit throughout the book, but will be addressed more fully in Chapter 9. Chapter 1 ends with a “decoherence primer” that provides a quick introduction to decoherence (discussed in detail in Part II). Its aim is to provide the reader with an overview of the process that will play an important role throughout the book, and to motivate Chapters 2 and 3 that lay the foundations for the physics of decoherence (Part II) as well as for quantum Darwinism, the subject of Chapters 7 and 8.
The nature of time has long been debated in human history and nowadays is considered of central importance for understanding quantum gravity. We focus on and advocate the relational concept of time, which was put forward in the 17th century in opposition to Newton's absolute time, and only in 1990 explored in a quantum mechanical framework by Carlo Rovelli. After a historical introduction the mathematical models of time are carefully analyzed in chapter 1, followed by a discussion of the role of time played in fundamental theories. Using as an example nonrelativistic mechanics, the process of parametrization is explained, leading to a separation of a 'canonical time coordinate' from an arbitrary evolution parameter. The discussion of the role of time in special and general relativity as well as in quantum mechanics shows that more fundamental theories use less structure of time. This is followed by an exposition of the history of the relational concept of time, which negates the existence of an absolute duration and therefore often is called "timeless". Next it is shown how fundamental theories can be formulated and re-interpreted using this concept. We put emphasis on the hitherto neglected connection between relationalism and non-extensibility, while absolute time is shown to be unproblematic in classical mechanics just because of the possibility to extend the system without changing its nature. We conclude chapter 1 with a new axiomatic basis for the construction of time observables based on a simultaneity relation between 'observations', which are treated as a primitive concept and intuitively correspond to measurement events, but without knowing 'when' these events occur. There is no fundamental time observable; any observable qualifies as a time observable, if it allows to separate all instants. Chapter 2 gives a brief account of three main problems connected with time: a) The problem of the arrow of time. This has to be disentangled from the problem of irreversibility: a solution of the latter essentially excludes cyclic motions and is required for a solution of the former, which consists in showing that a fundamental direction between any two non-identical instants is physically meaningful. We give a formal definition of the arrow of time. This classical analysis is followed by a review of the problem of the arrow of time in quantum theory, where the situation becomes more complicated because of indeterminism. The discussion shows that there is no experimental evidence for a fundamental arrow of time, so that no contradiction with the relational concept of time arises. b) The problem of time measurement, which is of particular importance for the relational approach, in which time has no reality except if measured by a clock. In quantum theory useful time operators seem to be possible only within the more general formalism of positive operator valued measures (POVM). Clocks based on an oscillation mechanism do however require phase measurements; quantum phase operators can be defined as certain POVMs. Phase difference operators do also exist in the traditional Hilbert space formalism, if another quantization is used, as is done with relational quantization. c) The problem of quantum gravity is sketched only briefly. Chapter 3 introduces and discusses a model of Rovelli consisting of two oscillators with no external time. In this model one oscillator is considered as a clock and defines a relational time for the other one. In the first section we introduce this model and generalize it to a free massless scalar field in one dimension. We establish the relation between a single field mode and the infrared behaviour of the field through constants of motion. In the second section after a short review of canonical quantization we review Rovelli's quantization and generalize it to the free field. We could not prove the existence of the quantization map, but calculations using computer algebra indicate that the quantization does exist. For an enlarged algebra we are able to prove the nonexistence of a quantization map similar to a proof by Groenewold and van Hove. In chapter 4 we observe that a clock time always requires infinitely many degrees of freedom, and we make the hypothesis that a time observable is given by the infrared behaviour of quantum fields, leading to a classical notion of time when using algebraic quantum mechanics. This does however not solve the main problem of quantum relationalism: Which conditions determine a particular evolution?
In this monograph I present the basic structure of an interpretation of quantum mechanics. Chapter 1 outlines the central ideas behind the interpretation and illustrates them by means of examples: Subsequent chapters fill in the details of the interpretation. But it is important to begin by explaining what I take an interpretation of quantum mechanics to be, and why any further interpretation needs to be offered. After all, quantum mechanics (in some form) is by now both a foundation for much of contemporary physics and a veteran of more than sixty years of intermittent but sometimes intense reflection on its content and meaning. What more can be, or should be, said about the interpretation of this theory? Many physicists believe that no more needs to be said: that there is basically only one way of understanding quantum mechanics, due to Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli, and others, and that the only remaining interpretative task is that of the physics teacher, who seeks to perfect ways of conveying this understanding to new generations of students. Sir Rudolf Peierls, one of the more lucid and distinguished of these physicists, even objects to the use of the familiar term ‘Copenhagen interpretation’ to refer to the way of understanding quantum mechanics due to Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli, and others. Because this sounds as if there were several interpretations of quantum mechanics. There is only one. There is only one way in which you can understand quantum mechanics.[…]