How is orthodoxy possible? How can an interpretation maintain both the eigenstate–eigenvalue link and indeterminism? Given the former, the properties possessed by a system are completely fixed by its quantum-mechanical state, but the quantum-mechanical state evolves deterministically, as I noted at the end of chapter 1. By themselves, then, the eigenstate–eigenvalue link and the quantum-mechanical equation of motion lead to determinism. Orthodoxy must change one of these things if it wants to maintain indeterminism. Of course, it cannot change the eigenstate–eigenvalue link, lest it no longer be orthdoxy. Hence it changes the equation of motion. In this chapter, I will discuss two ways to change the quantum-mechanical equation of motion: by ‘interupting’ it from time to time with some other (indeterminsitic) equation, or by making a wholesale replacement. The first strategy I discuss in the next section, and the second in the subsequent section. The projection postulate Collapse as an analogue of Lüder's rule Thus far, we have been working in the ‘Schrödinger picture’, according to which states evolve in time (according to the Scrödinger equation) and any given observable is at all times represented by the same operator. The Heisenberg picture reverses things: the states are constant in time and the operators representing observables change.
How is orthodoxy possible? How can an interpretation maintain both the eigenstate–eigenvalue link and indeterminism? Given the former, the properties possessed by a system are completely fixed by its quantum-mechanical state, but the quantum-mechanical state evolves deterministically, as I noted at the end of chapter 1. By themselves, then, the eigenstate–eigenvalue link and the quantum-mechanical equation of motion lead to determinism. Orthodoxy must change one of these things if it wants to maintain indeterminism. Of course, it cannot change the eigenstate–eigenvalue link, lest it no longer be orthdoxy. Hence it changes the equation of motion. In this chapter, I will discuss two ways to change the quantum-mechanical equation of motion: by ‘interupting’ it from time to time with some other (indeterminsitic) equation, or by making a wholesale replacement. The first strategy I discuss in the next section, and the second in the subsequent section. The projection postulate Collapse as an analogue of Lüder's rule Thus far, we have been working in the ‘Schrödinger picture’, according to which states evolve in time (according to the Scrödinger equation) and any given observable is at all times represented by the same operator. The Heisenberg picture reverses things: the states are constant in time and the operators representing observables change.
The world of quantum theory is not deterministic; however, the quantum theory of an isolated system describes its state as evolving deterministically.How can these two points be reconciled? The modal interpretation (of which a number of variants have been developed) answers this as follows. An observable may have a value even if the system is not in the corresponding eigenstate of that observable. The state of the system only constrains the possible values the observable can have, and (at least under certain conditions) the probabilities that it has those values. Hence, the eigenvalue–eigenstate link is violated. There is no collapse; the state of an isolated system always evolves in accordance with the Schroedinger equation. Hence the values of observables can change indeterministically, though this stochastic process is constrained by the deterministically evolving quantum state. Terminology varies but in this book the quantum state is then called the dynamical state, and a summary of the values of the observables pertaining to the system is called the value state. Since not all observables are mutually compatible, they will not all have simultaneous sharp values, but for each there is a minimum Borel set of values as its current range. The specific modal interpretation developed here is the Copenhagen Variant of the Modal Interpretation, which places holistic constraints on values of observables pertaining to parts of composite systems.
In this chapter, we finally introduce time evolution. The development is carried out for finite, enumerable systems (i.e., systems whose states live in a finite dimensional, inner product space) which, of course, allows a straight forward extension to the continuum and infinite dimensional state spaces. The necessary mathematical background of unitary operators, and their properties relevant to quantum mechanics are first introduced. In particular, the fact that preservation of norm under the action of an operator implies unitarity, and that every unitary operator can be expressed as the exponential of i timesa Hermitian operator are introduced. Time evolution is then introduced in its integral form through the time evolution operator, and the Hamiltonian operator is introduced in this context. This approach, however, necessitates the restriction to conservative systems. Next, the differential form of the law of time evolution, i.e., Schrodinger equation, is derived from the time evolution operator, and this is postulated to be the general law of time evolution. We then demonstrate how, for conservative systems, the solution of the Schrodinger equation essentially reduces to solving the eigenvalue problem of the Hamiltonian. Constants of motion and Heisenberg picture have been relegated to the problem section.
In the first two chapters we have examined the basic principles – superposition (p. 18), complementarity (p. 19), quantization (p. 44), statistical algorithm (p. 57), and correspondence (p. 72) (see also Subsec. 2.3.4) – and the basic entities, observables and states, of quantum mechanics, as well as the main differences with respect to classical mechanics. While what we have discussed so far is rather a static picture of observables and states, in this chapter we shall deal with quantum dynamics, i.e. with the time evolution of quantum-mechanical systems. Historically, after Bohr had provided a quantized description of the atom (see Subsec. 1.5.4), Einstein showed the quantized nature of photons (see Subsec. 1.2.1), and de Broglie hypothized the wave-like nature of matter (see Subsec. 1.5.5), the first building block of quantum mechanics was provided by the commutation relations, proposed by Heisenberg in 1925, whose consequence is represented by the uncertainty relation (see Subsec. 2.2.7 and Sec. 2.3). This was the subject of the previous chapters. The dynamical part of the theory was proposed by Schrödinger in 1926, and is known as the Schrödinger equation. It is also known as wave mechanics (see Subsec. 1.5.7). In this chapter we shall show that Heisenberg's and Schrödinger's formulations are only two different aspects of the same theory. We shall also come back to this point in Sec. 8.1.1. Here, first we shall derive the fundamental equation which rules quantum dynamics (Sec. 3.1), and, in Sec. 3.2, we shall summarize the main properties of the Schrödinger equation.
Classical mechanics is usually valid at the macro scale. The changes in the position and the momentum of the object over time are described by the Hamiltonian equation of motion. The wave function in quantum mechanics, if unobserved, evolves in a smooth and continuous way according to the Schrodinger equation, which is related to the Hamiltonian equation of motion. This equation describes a linear superposition of different states at time. A quantum mechanical description of a physical system is related to a probabilistic representation; it is described by a vector in Hilbert space. This description extends the two- or three-dimensional Euclidean space into spaces that have any finite or infinite number of dimensions. The state of a compound system is projected to the subspace that corresponds to the observed state and the vector representing the state is renormalized to the unit length. An observable describes a subspace for some dimensions with a special case of one dimension.
The Unitary Dynamical Group in Schrödinger's Picture Up to now we have been concerned with the description of a physical system at a fixed instant of time. The time evolution of quantum systems constitutes a many-faced, wide issue which, however, is somewhat tangential to the main aim of this volume. We shall touch upon it only briefly, restricting ourselves to the more familiar aspects of the problem. We assume, to begin with, that the physical system has no superselection rules, so that states and physical quantities correspond one-to-one to density operators and self-adjoint operators, respectively, on the Hilbert space. To describe the dynamical evolution of the system one has to specify the way the representatives of states and physical quantities evolve in, which is fixed in time, since the physical system is supposed to preserve its identity. There is an old tenet according to which there are two kinds of time evolution: the discontinuous, nondeterministic evolution undergone by the quantum system when a measurement is made on it, and the continuous, deterministic evolution caused by the interaction with external forces or with other quantum systems. The first kind of evolution will be dealt with in Chapter 8, where we shall find it less alarming than is often claimed.
Abstract Quantum mechanics is our most successful and versatile account of the basic constituents of matter, of their interaction and of their compounds. We introduce the theory via a sketch of its history and lay out its mathematical structure in some detail. Before this background we address the important and controversial question of how to interpret that structure. We contextualise our own position, which is linked to our account of ontological emergence as detailed in Chap. 2 , and which is mathematically best expressed in the Heisenberg picture of quantum dynamics. Indeterminism and irreversible processes are fundamental for our approach. We discuss the dialectics of the deterministic challenge to our position and argue that indeterminism in the form of quantum randomness has turned from a philosophical riddle to a technological resource. This claim is supported by a discussion of quantum information science, including some of its basic protocols. Towards the end of the chapter we argue that agency and quantum mechanics come as a package deal. For one, quantum mechanics describes the world as offering open possibilities for the future at a fundamental physical level, which is needed for real higher-order organisation, including agency. Of course, this does not in any way show that the actual existence of agents in our world is guaranteed. But it does show that general agency scepticism has no basis in physics. Second, we show that quantum mechanics is best understood as a theory that describes our agential interactions with nature, and not as a theory that represents nature from the point of view of an inert, detached observer.