This work is part of a reconstruction of quantum mechanics from scratch with the aim to understand what it means. In previous work we have shown that the Dirac equation can be derived by classical reasoning just using relativity and group theory. This implies that contrary to common belief quantum mechanics (QM) is not magical or radically different from classical mechanics. It is also not incompatible with the theory of relativity but completely part of it. As the experimental violations of the Bell inequalities seem to take exception with this general scheme for making sense of QM we have scrutinized the derivation of the Bell inequalities to figure out the limitations of our approach. We were able to show that the derivation contains a logical error based on wrong modelling. In the present paper we complete this investigation by showing that Malus' law can be derived by classical reasoning using group representation theory, both for electrons and photons. This is a further, be it somewhat more indirect proof that the derivation of the Bell inequalities contains an error. But more importantly it shows that the philosophy of our approach remains intact, by proving that we can also understand Malus' law with our methods and thereby validating our approach also for this physical phenomenon.
This work is part of a reconstruction of quantum mechanics from scratch with the aim to understand what it means. In previous work we have shown that the Dirac equation can be derived by classical reasoning just using relativity and group theory. This implies that contrary to common belief quantum mechanics (QM) is not magical or radically different from classical mechanics. It is also not incompatible with the theory of relativity but completely part of it. As the experimental violations of the Bell inequalities seem to take exception with this general scheme for making sense of QM we have scrutinized the derivation of the Bell inequalities to figure out the limitations of our approach. We were able to show that the derivation contains a logical error based on wrong modelling. In the present paper we complete this investigation by showing that Malus' law can be derived by classical reasoning using group representation theory, both for electrons and photons. This is a further, be it somewhat more indirect proof that the derivation of the Bell inequalities contains an error. But more importantly it shows that the philosophy of our approach remains intact, by proving that we can also understand Malus' law with our methods and thereby validating our approach also for this physical phenomenon.
The basic Leggett inequalities, i.e. those inequalities in which the particular assumptions of Leggett's hidden-variable model (e.g. Malus law) were not yet introduced, are usually derived using hidden-variable distributions of probabilities (although in some cases completely general, positive probabilities would lead to the same result). This fact creates sometimes the illusion that these basic inequalities are a belonging of the hidden-variable theories and are bound to contradict the quantum theory. In the present text the basic Leggett inequalities are derived in the most general way, i.e. no assumption is made that the distribution of probabilities would result from some wave function, or from some set of classical variables. The consequence is that as long as one and the same probability distribution is used in the calculus of all the averages appearing in the basic Leggett inequalities, no contradiction may occur. These inequalities may be violated only when different averages are calculated with different distributions, for example, some of them calculated with the quantum formalism and the others with some distribution of classical parameters.
This paper re-examines the key aspects of Dirac's derivation of his relativistic equation for the electron in order advance our understanding of the nature of quantum field theory. Dirac's derivation, the paper argues, follows the key principles behind Heisenberg's discovery of quantum mechanics, which, the paper also argues, transformed the nature of both theoretical and experimental physics vis-a-vis classical physics and relativity. However, the limit theory (a crucial consideration for both Dirac and Heisenberg) in the case of Dirac's theory was quantum mechanics, specifically, Schrodinger's equation, while in the case of quantum mechanics, in Heisenberg's version, the limit theory was classical mechanics. Dirac had to find a new equation, Dirac's equation, along with a new type of quantum variables, while Heisenberg, to find new theory, was able to use the equations of classical physics, applied to different, quantum-mechanical variables. In this respect, Dirac's task was more similar to that of Schrodinger in his work on his version of quantum mechanics. Dirac's equation reflects a more complex character of quantum electrodynamics or quantum field theory in general and of the corresponding (high-energy) experimental quantum physics vis-a-vis that of quantum mechanics and the (low-energy) experimental quantum physics. The final section examines this greater complexity and its implications for fundamental physics.
In order to solve the problem of which is the real logic of Quantum Mechanics (QM), we suggest to study the mutual relationships between the physical theory (as a whole, that is both its experimental part and its theoretical part), its mathematics and its logic. That results to be a more general problem than what is considered by traditional studies on Quantum Logic (QL). These studies focus attention on the problem of the relationship between the experimental part of the physical theory and only its mathematics, from which logic is then derived. The new approach, that we suggest, generalises the interpretation that one of us (A. D.) successfully tested on the foundations of classical physical theories. The foundations of a theory are interpreted in terms of two options on the kind of mathematics, either classical one or constructive one, and the kind of logic, either classical logic or intuitionistic logic. It is remarkable that each theory making use of intuitionistic logic – i. e. L. Carnot’s classical mechanics, S. Carnot’s thermodynamics, Lobacevskij’s non-Euclidean geometry is organised in order to solve an universal problem (expressed by a double negated sentence), rather than in an entirely deductive way; hence, a non-classical logic does not belong exclusively to QM. From an historical and foundational analysis about QM, we conclude that in QM it is the law of double negation and not modular law (introduced by Birkhoff and von Neumann without giving physical evidence to it) which fails, i. e. which represents the true difference between Classical Logic (CL) and QL. We have looked for previous works on QL supporting our suggestion; in the past Destouches-Fevrier (1948), Fine (1974), Bell-Hallett (1981), Gauthier (1983), Adelman-Corbett (1995) already defended this thesis on the relevance of double negation law for QL. Under this light, QL results to have the same logic of a classical theory organised in a problematic manner. Hence, QM has to be referred to intuitionistic logic, in the same way every theory which is developed around a fundamental problem, expressed by a double negated sentence, does. In particular, by following the founder of intuitionism, Brouwer, we reject the identification of intuitionistic logic with an entirely deductive system; rather, the logical system of QL, as a theory, is organised in such a way to put a crucial problem to be solved. In agreement with this kind of organisation, among the several QM formulations we choose Heisenberg’s formulation, which was ignored by previous authors on QL. This formulation is aimed to solve the problem of quantum measurement, that originates the uncertainty methodological principle. Moreover, it is remarkable that it makes use of an operational mathematics (discrete matrices only). We interpret its characteristic arguing about its principal problem through double negated sentences; it results to be a moving from arguments belonging to non-classical logic expressed by a double negated sentence to the recognition of a suitable mathematics for QM formulation. In sum, QL shows how it is possible to state the relationship between QM and mathematics. This point has been almost ignored by the most traditional approaches to QL, which rather drew it from an a priori mathematics of QM (commonly, Hilbert space). As a verification of our approach, we show that even both Lobachevskij’s geometry and S. Carnot’s thermodynamics argued in order to achieve mathematical formulas expressing the content of the basic double negated sentences of respective theory. In the same way the recent book on QM by T. F. Jordan formalised his matrix mechanics. 1. Logic in classical physics and in Quantum Mechanics An historical analysis of Quantum Mechanics (QM) shows that there were at the origin of the theory two distinct formulations: Matrix Mechanics (Heisenberg, 1925) and Wave Mechanics (Schroedinger, 1926). Although Dirac subsumed these two formulations in a comprehensive mathematical framework (Hilbert space), we think that the organisation of the principles is different in Matrix Mechanics from that in Wave Mechanics, and this difference implies different logics. So we think that in order to characterise the logic of QM it is necessary to distinguish between this two formulations. In Matrix Mechanics, Heisenberg’s basic idea was to explain atomic spectra not in terms of atomic orbits (as Old Quantum Theory tried to make), but only by means of the study of experimental data; i. e., frequencies and intensities of light both emitted and absorbed by matter. Through a
From Spinors to Quantum Mechanics discusses group theory and its use in quantum mechanics. Chapters 1 to 4 offer an introduction to group theory, and it provides the reader with an exact and clear intuition of what a spinor is, showing that spinors are just a mathematically complete notation for group elements. Chapter 5 contains the first rigorous derivation of the Dirac equation from a simple set of assumptions. The remaining chapters will interest the advanced reader who is interested in the meaning of quantum mechanics. They propose a novel approach to the foundations of quantum mechanics, based on the idea that the meaning of the formalism is already provided by the mathematics.In the traditional approach to quantum mechanics as initiated by Heisenberg, one has to start from a number of experimental results and then derive a set of rules and calculations that reproduce the observed experimental results. In such an inductive approach the underlying assumptions are not given at the outset. The reader has to figure them out, and this has proven to be difficult. The book shows that a different, bottom-up approach to quantum mechanics is possible, which merits further investigation as it demonstrates that with the methods used, the reader can obtain the correct results in a context where one would hitherto not expect this to be possible.
A famous experiment by Pan et al. (Nature 403, 515 (2000)) on a three-photon Bell state is considered to prove the existence of entanglement without relying on Bell inequalities. We show that the theory this proof is based on contains errors in the calculations that are beyond repair. Indeed, the formalism to describe the internal dynamics of electrons (at rest) and photons in quantum mechanics is based on the representations of the rotation group. For electrons, who have spin 1/2, the representation is SU(2), for photons, who have spin 1 it is SO(2). Rotations are just a subject of elementary Euclidean geometry, which does not contain any physics, let alone "quantum magic". Therefore all quantum paradoxes that oppose classical mechanics and QM (when it is purely based on the algebra of SU(2)), can only be due to logical errors and a lack of understanding of the group representation theory. The three-photon Bell state is extended but not non-local and as such does not imply a "spooky action at a distance". (This version supersedes the previous version which contained an error).
The classical and the quantum Malus laws for light and spin are discussed. It is shown that for spin 1/2, the quantum Malus law is equivalent in form to the classical Malus law provided the statistical average involves a quasidistribution function that can become negative. A generalization of Malus's law for arbitrary spin s is obtained in the form of a Feynman path-integral representation for the Malus amplitude. The classical limit of the Malus amplitude for s\ensuremath{\rightarrow}\ensuremath{\infty} is discussed.