The predictions of the Quantum Theory have been verified so far with astonishingly high accuracy. Despite of its impressive successes, the theory still presents mysterious features such as the border line between the classical and quantum world, or the deep nature of quantum nonlocality. These open questions motivated in the past several proposals of alternative and/or generalized approaches. We shall discuss in the present paper alternative theories that can be infered from a reconsideration of the status of time in quantum mechanics. Roughly speaking, quantum mechanics is usually formulated as a memory free (Markovian) theory at a fundamental level, but alternative, nonMarkovian, formulations are possible, and some of them can be tested in the laboratory. In our paper we shall give a survey of these alternative proposals, describe related experiments that were realized in the past and also formulate new experimental proposals.
The predictions of the Quantum Theory have been verified so far with astonishingly high accuracy. Despite of its impressive successes, the theory still presents mysterious features such as the border line between the classical and quantum world, or the deep nature of quantum nonlocality. These open questions motivated in the past several proposals of alternative and/or generalized approaches. We shall discuss in the present paper alternative theories that can be infered from a reconsideration of the status of time in quantum mechanics. Roughly speaking, quantum mechanics is usually formulated as a memory free (Markovian) theory at a fundamental level, but alternative, nonMarkovian, formulations are possible, and some of them can be tested in the laboratory. In our paper we shall give a survey of these alternative proposals, describe related experiments that were realized in the past and also formulate new experimental proposals.
The predictions of the Quantum Theory have been verified so far with astonishingly high accuracy. Despite of its impressive successes, the theory still presents mysterious features such as the border line between the classical and quantum world, or the deep nature of quantum nonlocality. These open questions motivated in the past several proposals of alternative and/or generalized approaches. We shall discuss in the present paper alternative theories that can be infered from a reconsideration of the status of time in quantum mechanics. Roughly speaking, quantum mechanics is usually formulated as a memory free (Markovian) theory at a fundamental level, but alternative, nonMarkovian, formulations are possible, and some of them can be tested in the laboratory. In our paper we shall give a survey of these alternative proposals, describe related experiments that were realized in the past and also formulate new experimental proposals.
Quantum mechanics, one of the most successful theories in the history of science, was created to account for physical systems not describable by classical physics. Though it is consistent with all experiments conducted thus far, many of its core concepts (amplitudes, global phases, etc.) can not be directly accessed and its interpretation is still the subject of intense debate, more than 100 years since it was introduced. So, a fundamental question is why this particular mathematical model is the one that nature chooses, if indeed it is the correct model. In the past two decades there has been a renewed effort to determine what physical or informational principles define quantum mechanics. In this paper, recent attempts at establishing reasonable physical principles are reviewed and their degree of success is tabulated. An alternative approach using joint quasi-probability distributions is shown to provide a common basis of representing most of the proposed principles. It is argued that having a common representation of the principles can provide intuition and guidance to relate current principles or advance new principles. The current state of affairs, along with some alternative views are discussed.
Quantum mechanics was developed in the early 20th century as a computational algorithm to organize and predict the strange results of a wide variety of experiments involving the microscopic world (molecules, atoms, elementary particles), which appeared random but had a predictable probabilistic distribution. Despite its overwhelming success, the conceptual foundations of this algorithm remain unclear and extremely controversial. How can we connect the microscopic world described by quantum mechanics with the macroscopic world of our daily experience? What is the role of observers in this connection? Why don't strange quantum phenomena occur on macroscopic scales? How can we explain the nonlocal nature of quantum phenomena? In this article I will present some attempts to answer these and other basic questions, which constitute different theories with completely different worldviews, commenting on their strengths and weaknesses. We will conclude that quantum theory is still under construction, as there is no consensual formulation. Its development is a fundamental problem in contemporary physics, and in thought in general.
Despite scholarly consensus on the empirical facts, ever since its inception in the 1920s there has been deep disagreement about how to interpret quantum theory. “To interpret a physical theory is to say what the world would be like, if the theory were true.” All scientific theories require interpretation, since strictly speaking what they describe are our experiences of the world rather than the world itself. Thus, whether we are trying to explain or merely describe the world, we are always engaged in inference. To make inferences we need a context for interpretation. For any given claim this context is provided locally by related theories, more broadly by disciplinary paradigms, and ultimately by worldview claims about the nature of reality. The challenge in interpreting scientific theories is to integrate them into this hierarchy of knowledge. Usually this is not too difficult. New theories often require adjustments to nearby theories, but in doing so we can rely on paradigms to make them cohere. More rarely paradigmatic assumptions are themselves challenged, but in that case scientists can fall back on their worldview to make sense of the needed changes. By implication, the most difficult interpretive problems arise when our worldview is called into question, which leaves us without any frame of reference on which to fall back. Quantum theory poses a worldview problem. Prior to the quantum revolution the classical worldview could not be tested scientifically and so it was essentially metaphysical. Even though it corresponded to our experience of material objects, we lacked proof that it adequately represented the deep structure of reality. By giving us access to that deep structure for the first time, quantum mechanics made it possible to do such a test, or “experimental metaphysics.” Unfortunately, the results seemed to contradict classical assumptions, at least on the sub-atomic level.
The failure of conventional quantum theory to recognize time as an observable and to admit time operators is addressed. Instead of focusing on the existence of a time operator for a given Hamiltonian, we emphasize the role of the Hamiltonian as the generator of translations in time to construct time states. Taken together, these states constitute what we call a timeline, or quantum history, that is adequate for the representation of any physical state of the system. Such timelines appear to exist even for the semi-bounded and discrete Hamiltonian systems ruled out by Pauli's theorem. However, the step from a timeline to a valid time operator requires additional assumptions that are not always met. Still, this approach illuminates the crucial issue surrounding the construction of time operators, and establishes quantum histories as legitimate alternatives to the familiar coordinate and momentum bases of standard quantum theory.
When we are presented with apparently bizarre properties of microsystems governed by quantum mechanics (as in our discussion of the double-slit experiment in the previous chapter), we naturally ask whether it might be possible to find another theory, or at least another story to go with the equations, that would make more sense to us. We might seek a theory and a view of fundamental physical processes that would accord more with our classically based, everyday common sense. This typically takes the form of the question of the possibility of the existence of a more detailed description of atomic processes than that afforded by the wave function (that is, by the Copenhagen interpretation of the previous chapter). In this chapter we discuss some of the central interpretive problems of the Copenhagen version of quantum mechanics. Then, in the next two chapters, we look at the severe, general restrictions that are placed on any such completion of quantum mechanics and at one particular extension of quantum mechanics. First, though, we begin here with the struggle that ensued over the status of causality in quantum theory. THE COMPLETENESS OF QUANTUM MECHANICS Although the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (Section 20.4) and the lack of absolute predictive power are an inherent feature of quantum mechanics, there have been attempts to preserve an in principle completely deterministic structure for physics. Even classically, in a macroscopic sample of gas there are so many molecules that it would be hopeless, as a practical matter, to predict the future locations of all these molecules from Newton's laws of motion.