Amplitudes play a key role in quantum mechanics, as they are the link between theory and experiment. Theorists use quantum mechanics to calculate the amplitudes for various situations, and then experimenters set up appropriate apparatus and take measurements to check the theoretical conclusions. The idea that states can be expanded over a suitable basis is a very important aspect of quantum theory. This is how, in part, quantum theory reflects the contextual nature of quantum reality, that is, that the behaviour of a system is influenced by the experimental context. Every quantum state can be expanded in various ways, depending on what sort of experiment is involved. The first person to introduce symbols such as |φ〉 for quantum states was the celebrated English physicist, Paul Dirac. Dirac notation has become the standard alphabet for working in quantum theory.
Amplitudes play a key role in quantum mechanics, as they are the link between theory and experiment. Theorists use quantum mechanics to calculate the amplitudes for various situations, and then experimenters set up appropriate apparatus and take measurements to check the theoretical conclusions. The idea that states can be expanded over a suitable basis is a very important aspect of quantum theory. This is how, in part, quantum theory reflects the contextual nature of quantum reality, that is, that the behaviour of a system is influenced by the experimental context. Every quantum state can be expanded in various ways, depending on what sort of experiment is involved. The first person to introduce symbols such as |φ〉 for quantum states was the celebrated English physicist, Paul Dirac. Dirac notation has become the standard alphabet for working in quantum theory.
The relationship between physical notions and the structures expressing them is an issue of primary importance the history and philosophy of pre-modern natural philosophy and of modern science. Historical evidence suggests that, when investigating the relationship between physics and mathematics, one should pay attention to the material, sensually perceivable forms mediating it: spoken or written words, drawings, artefacts, descriptions of experimental set-ups or, as the case discussed the present paper, symbolic notation. The reason for this is that, historically, physical notions and their expressions have very often been developed as one, and only distinguished from each other at a later stage. This was for example the case with what we today regard as mathematical and classical mechanics, which were developed the course of the eighteenth century as the discipline of the analysis of motion. When considered from a later point of view, both the physical notions and the concepts involved historical developments appear as being in flux, vague, and, as far as the side is concerned, non-rigorous. In such cases, verbal description, mechanical artefacts or symbols do not simply mediate between physical notions and structures, as might be the case at a later stage, but represent both of them one, allowing the historical actors to construct and manipulate physical-mathematical meaning by following, at times, their physical reasoning and, at times, their criteria of rigour. The history of quantum mechanics offers many examples of how new physics and new mathematics can emerge as one, with symbolic notation playing a central role shaping both. Among the many creators of quantum theory, Paul Dirac was particularly sensitive to questions of notation:
Most physicists use quantum mechanics every day in their working lives without needing to worry about the fundamental problem of its interpretation. Being sensible people with very little time to follow up all the ideas and data in their own specialties and not having to worry about this fundamental problem. Significantly, complex numbers must be used for amplitudes. In no other physical theory is this a necessity, rather than a calculational convenience. Instead of being a reason to doubt that complex-valued wave functions are representational of some aspect of the world. Classical physics is structured in a very deterministic way. Given a sufficiently detailed knowledge of the positions, momenta, and forces for every particle in the universe, classical physics.
Quantum mechanics runs on probability amplitudes. Probability amplitudes must accurately describe the physics prior to calculating the quantum probability. Symbolical probability amplitudes are mathematically represented by complex wave functions. Many physicists in the field don’t even mention the words probability amplitude and prefer to refer to wave function, or state, instead. When they do that they miss out on the subtleties of the physics at hand. In this brief chapter we emphasize probability amplitudes à la Dirac since that is the way Feynman and Ward preferred to describe quantum mechanics. The Dirac notation is also ideally suited to describe quantum interference and quantum entanglement.
What can you learn about quantum theory in one chapter without knowing any physics? A complete presentation of quantum theory requires an entire textbook, but our goal for this chapter is to provide only the essential elements of the theory that we feel are relevant for modelling behavioral phenomena. Just like classical probability theory, quantum theory is based on a small set of axioms used to assign probabilities to events. This chapter is limited to what is called the structural principles of quantum theory, whereas Chapter 8 will set out the dynamic principles. For simplicity, only finite state systems will be described, although quantum theory can also be applied to continuous state systems. Even though this book is limited to finite dimensions, the number of dimensions can be arbitrarily large. For finite state systems, the structural part of quantum theory is expressed in the formalism of linear algebra (for continuous state systems, it is expressed in the formalism of functional analysis). Consequently, a brief tutorial of linear algebra is presented along with our elementary introduction to quantum theory. Various notations are used to describe linear algebra, depending on the application field. Physicists like to use Dirac notation, invented by one of the founders of quantum theory, Paul Dirac (Dirac, 1958). Although the Dirac notation will be unfamiliar to many cognitive scientists, we will still use it as it is a succinct notation for expressing linear algebra. It helps the reader to see relations that are more difficult to identify using other formalisms.
We summarize below some of the postulates and definitions basic to our formalism, and present some important results based on these postulates. The formalism is purely mathematical in nature with very little physics input, but it provides the structure within which the physical concepts that will be discussed in the later chapters will be framed. State vectors It is important to realize that the Quantum Theory is a linear theory in which the physical state of a system is described by a vector in a complex, linear vector space. This vector may represent a free particle or a particle bound in an atom or a particle interacting with other particles or with external fields. It is much like a vector in ordinary three-dimensional space, following many of the same rules, except that it describes a very complicated physical system. We will be elaborating further on this in the following. The mathematical structure of a quantum mechanical system will be presented in terms of the notations developed by Dirac. A physical state in this notation is described by a “ket” vector, |〉, designated variously as |α〉 or |ψ〉 or a ket with other appropriate symbols depending on the specific problem at hand. The kets can be complex. Their complex conjugates, |〉 * , are designated by 〈| which are called “bra” vectors. Thus, corresponding to every ket vector there is a bra vector. These vectors are abstract quantities whose physical interpretation is derived through their so-called “representatives” in the coordinate or momentum space or in a space appropriate to the problem under consideration.
The file on this site provides the slides for a lecture given in Hangzhou in May 2018, and the lecture itself is available at the URL beginning 'sms' in the set of links provided in connection with this item. It is commonly assumed that regular physics underpins biology. Here it is proposed, in a synthesis of ideas by various authors, that in reality structures and mechanisms of a biological character underpin the world studied by physicists, in principle supplying detail in the domain that according to regular physics is of an indeterminate character. In regular physics mathematical equations are primary, but this constraint leads to problems with reconciling theory and reality. Biology on the other hand typically does not characterise nature in quantitative terms, instead investigating in detail important complex interrelationships between parts, leading to an understanding of the systems concerned that is in some respects beyond that which prevails in regular physics. It makes contact with quantum physics in various ways, for example in that both involve interactions between observer and observed, an insight that explains what is special about processes involving observation, justifying in the quantum physics context the replacement of the unphysical many-worlds picture by one involving collapse. The link with biology furthermore clarifies Wheeler’s suggestion that a multiplicity of observations can lead to the ‘fabrication of form’, including the insight that this process depends on very specific ‘structures with power’ related to the 'semiotic scaffolding' of the application of sign theory to biology known as biosemiotics. The observer-observed 'circle' of Wheeler and Yardley is a special case of a more general phenomenon, oppositional dynamics, related to the 'intra-action' of Barad's Agential Realism, involving cooperating systems such as mind and matter, abstract and concrete, observer and observed, that preserve their identities while interacting with one another in such a way as to act as a unit. A third system may also be involved, the mediating system of Peirce linking the two together. Such a situation of changing connections and separations may plausibly lead in the future to an understanding of how complex systems are able to evolve to produce 'life, the universe and everything'. (Added 1 July 2018) The general structure proposed here as an alternative to a mathematics-based physics can be usefully characterised by relating it to different disciplines and the specialised concepts utilised therein. In theoretical physics, the test for the correctness of a theory typically involves numerical predictions, corresponding to which theories are expressed in terms of equations, that is to say assertions that two quantities have identical values. Equations have a lesser significance in biology which typically talks in terms of functional mechanisms, dependent for example on details of chemistry and concepts such as genes, natural selection, signals and geometrical or topologically motivated concepts such as the interconnections between systems and the unfolding of DNA. Biosemiotics adds to this the concept of signs and their interpretation, implying novel concepts such as semiotic scaffolding and the semiosphere, code duality, and appreciation of the different types of signs, including symbols and their capacity for abstraction and use in language systems. Circular Theory adds to this picture, as do the ideas of Barad, considerations such as the idea of oppositional dynamics. The proposals in this lecture can be regarded as the idea that concepts such as those deriving from biosemiotics have more general applicability than just conventional biology and may apply, in some circumstances, to nonlinear systems generally, including the domain new to science hypothesised to underlie the phenomena of present-day physics. The task then has to be to restore the mathematical aspect presumed, in this picture, not to be fundamental as it is in conventional theory. Deacon has invoked a complex sequence of evolutionary steps to account for the emergence over time of human language systems, and correspondingly mathematical behaviour can be subsumed under the general evolutionary mechanisms of biosemiotics (cf. also the proposals of Davis and Hersh regarding the nature of mathematics), so that the mathematical behaviour of physical systems is consistent with the proposed scheme. In conclusion, it is suggested that theoretical physicists should cease expecting to find some universal mathematical ‘theory of everything’, and focus instead on understanding in more detail complex systems exhibiting behaviour of a biological character, extending existing understanding. This may in time provide a more fruitful understanding of the natural world than does the regular approach. The essential concepts have an observational basis from both biology and the little-known discipline of cymatics (a discipline concerned with the remarkable patterns that specific waveforms can give rise to), while again computer simulations also offer promise in providing insight into the complex behaviours involved in the above proposals. References Jesper Hoffmeyer, Semiotic Scaffolding of Living Systems. Commens, a Digital Companion to C. S. Peirce (on Commens web site). Terrence Deacon, The Symbolic Species, W.W. Norton & Co. Karen Barad, Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning, Duke University Press. Philip Davis and Reuben Hersh, The Mathematical Experience, Penguin. Ilexa Yardley, Circular Theory.