Abstract The past few decades have seen tremendous growth in our under standing of interpretations of quantum mechanics. For example, a number of ‘nogo’ results have been obtained which show that some or other interpretation violates constraints that we would expect any plausible interpretation of quantum mechanics to satisfy. Thus, although there is no immediate hope of convergence of opinion on interpretive issues, we certainly have an increased understanding of the technical and conceptual issues at stake. Perhaps, then, we can make use of this increased technical awareness to shed some new light on the great old episodes in the conceptual development of quantum mechanics.
Abstract The past few decades have seen tremendous growth in our under standing of interpretations of quantum mechanics. For example, a number of ‘nogo’ results have been obtained which show that some or other interpretation violates constraints that we would expect any plausible interpretation of quantum mechanics to satisfy. Thus, although there is no immediate hope of convergence of opinion on interpretive issues, we certainly have an increased understanding of the technical and conceptual issues at stake. Perhaps, then, we can make use of this increased technical awareness to shed some new light on the great old episodes in the conceptual development of quantum mechanics.
The difficulties of the old quantum theory were largely dispelled by the development of quantum mechanics in the 1920s. First Heisenberg (1925) developed the rather abstract matrix mechanics and soon after Schro¨dinger (1926; see also Eckart, 1926) developed the physically more appealing wave mechanics. Subsequently he showed them to be mathematically equivalent. The physicists were greatly relieved; now they had once again a mathematical formalism that enabled the results of experiments to be calculated. It was possible to move forward. It is certainly a very elegant and indeed beautiful formalism, and does enable the results of many physical measurements to be calculated with great accuracy. It is used daily by atomic and nuclear physicists; there is no other way to make calculations. From the earliest days there has been intense debate about the interpretation of quantum mechanics, and it shows no signs of being settled; if anything it is becoming more intense over the years. As Penrose has remarked, no one understands quantum mechanics. Feynman (1967; see also Sykes, 1994) also admitted that ‘nobody understands quantum mechanics’, and Einstein once remarked: ‘I have thought a hundred times as much about the quantum problems as I have about general relativity theory’ (Pais, 1994, p. 57). It should therefore be evident that the most that can be done here is to try to show where the real difficulties lie, and how the failure to recognize that quantum mechanics is an essentially statistical theory has led to a series of confusing quantum paradoxes. It is just these paradoxes that have often been used to support theological speculations. It is useful to ask what ‘understanding quantum mechanics’ actually means. Certainly it means being able to calculate the results of many measurements. The same applies to Newton’s theory of gravitation, which we understand in the sense that we can use it as a basis of calculation, although we do not really understand the gravitational force itself. Very often, especially in modern physics, the mathematical formalism does not give us the sort of intuitive physical feeling for what is going on that we often obtain from classical mechanics. Perhaps we can never achieve more than this for quantum mechanics. In classical mechanics we can assume that a property that is measured objectively exists prior to the interaction of the measuring apparatus with the observed system. Quantum mechanics, however, ‘is incompatible with the proposition that measurement discovers some unknown but pre-existing property’ (Peres, 1997, p. 14). There is an important distinction between mysteries and absurdities. We may be forced to live with mysteries, but there is no reason why we should put up with absurdities such as the wave-particle duality, tunnelling through potential barriers, acausal events and the collapse of the wave function. These are the quantum paradoxes that will be discussed later on. They arise within the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and are solved by other interpretations. These alternative interpretations enable us to make conjectures about what is going on, even though we cannot understand it in detail. This is acceptable and a stimulus to further research. It is certainly difficult enough to understand quantum mechanics, but there is no need to try to visualize logical absurdities in the effort to do so. Quantum mechanics is a mathematical formalism that makes it possible to calculate the results of some experiments. Anything more than this, such as questions about the interpretation of what is measured and whether it tells us what is actually going on in the system being studied, belongs to philosophy. Thus we are concerned here with what is essentially a philosophical debate; if it were just a matter of physics the debate would have been settled long ago. One of the difficulties is that it invokes the results of experiments and uses the language of quantum mechanics. Inevitably this language uses philosophical terms and then it is easy to give the impression that the philosophical propositions are in some way entailed by the physical results. These in turn can influence theological thinking. In order to be quite clear which arguments are justified and which are not, it is essential to separate the three levels of discourse: physical, philosophical and theological. Our task is to relate these together, and this immediately raises the traditional problems of the philosophy of science, including the relation of experiment to theory, and of theory to explanation. We begin by discussing experiments, distinguishing between those that are real and those that are imaginary.
The past two decades of attention to introductory physics education has emphasized enhanced development of conceptual understanding to accompany calculational ability. Given this, it is surprising that current texts continue to rely on the Bohr model to develop a flawed intuition, and introduce correct atomic physics on an ad hoc basis. For example, Halliday, Resnick, and Walker1 describe the origin of atomic quantum numbers as such: “The restrictions on the values of the quantum number for the hydrogen atom, as listed in Table 39-2, are not arbitrary but come out of the solution to Schrödinger's equation.” They give no further justification, but do point out the values are in conflict with the predictions of the Bohr model.
The Nobel Prize in Physics 2022 was awarded to three experiment physicists: Alain Aspect, John F. Clauser and Anton Zeilinger, for their contributions to “experiments with entangled photons, establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science”. In this paper, the history, basics, and applications related with the Bell inequalities are reviewed. The discussion of fundamental issues on quantum mechanics dated back to the year 1927 when the fifth Solvay conference was held, highlighting intense arguments between Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr. At the time, Einstein expressed, publicly for the first time, his critical attitude towards quantum mechanics. While the arguments did not reach a decisive conclusion, Bohr’s probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics, the Copenhagen interpretation, had since been well circulated among the community. Einstein’s arguments with Bohr lasted many years after the conference. The arguably most famous one was the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox, proposed in a 1935 paper written by the three authors. They stated, by flawless reasoning, that quantum mechanics is ‘incomplete’. Bohr replied immediately. So did Erwin Schrödinger, who, in particular, coined the term ‘entangled’ for the first time to describe the bizarre quantum mechanical property. Nevertheless, the EPR paper received few citations at its publication, until 1990’s when quantum information science started blossoming. From today’s perspective, the paper resembles the ‘sleeping beauty’ who slumbered for decades before fully awakening. It has been widely accepted that it was John S. Bell who eventually resolved the EPR paradox. But many important figures before him should not go unnoticed, including John A. Wheeler, Chien-Shiung Wu, David Bohm, to name a few. In 1964, Bell wrote down a mathematical inequality which satisfies local hidden variable theory but which can be violated in quantum mechanics. The significance is that Bell’s inequality brings the rather philosophic debates on the EPR paradox down to be experimentally testable. Hence, an experiment is here appealing, as is the case in all fields of physics. To the end, John F. Clauser, alongside Stuart J. Freedman, conducted an experiment in 1972 to test a Bell inequality, the Bell-Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) inequality, proposed by him and his collaborators in 1969. The results, however, leaves loopholes open. One of the loopholes was closed in a later experiment led by Alain Aspect in 1982. The Bell-CHSH inequality was later tested under a much stricter condition by Anton Zeilinger’s team. Two most important loopholes were both closed by three teams in 2015 independently. Zeilinger’s team was among them. Almost all experiments to date have confirmed quantum mechanical predictions. Zeilinger’s team also performed the first teleportation of unknown quantum states, the first entanglement swapping, along with other contributions pioneering the quantum information science. In retrospect, the foundational study of quantum theory has been developed over a century. It once drew much of quantum physics founders’ attention, went virtually unnoticed while other physical fields advanced, had for quite a while been considered to have very weak relationship with major physics, and finally revived in recent decades leading to rapid progress in quantum information science and quantum technology. We believe that the Nobel Prize in Physics this year is not only an award and recognition to past achievements, but also heralds a new era of science in future.
What is it about quantum mechanics that continues to make its interpretation so difficult and controversial? It is now more than 70 years after its inception and at least half a century since the verification of its predictions of physical phenomena that range from the motion of electrons in solids to the basic structure and properties of the atomic nucleus. After reading the first half of this book one could be forgiven for believing that it has been just our unwillingness or inability to understand properly what Niels Bohr said from the beginning, and to update these ideas in the light of later experience. The aim of the present book is to do just this: to restate the Copenhagen interpretation and to show us how it has been developed to take modern results and ideas into account.
Abstract The Bohr and von Neumann views on the measurement process in quantum mechanics have been interpreted for a long time in somewhat controversial terms, often leading to misconceptions. On the basis of some textual analysis, I would like to show that—contrary to a widespread opinion—their views should be taken less inconsistent, and much closer to each other, than usually thought. As a consequence, I claim that Bohr and von Neumann are conceptually on the same side on the issue of the universality of quantum mechanics: hopefully, this might contribute to a more accurate history of the measurement problem in quantum mechanics.