Abstract We have already mentioned that Schriöidinger’s formulation of quantum mechanics was slightly preceded by a totally different algebraic formulation proposed by Heisenberg. Although Schriöidinger’s methods were so much simpler that they were generally preferred, both approaches seemed to give the same answers, so it was natural to ask how they were related. This was particularly important because some features of quantum theory were easier to understand in Heisenberg’s formalism. In fact, as we have already noted, Schriöidinger was able to show that the two methods were essentially equivalent. Soon mathematicians like Hermann Weyland John von Neumann were able to find a general mathematical scheme that encompassed both approaches, and it is this that we shall now describe.
Abstract We have already mentioned that Schriöidinger’s formulation of quantum mechanics was slightly preceded by a totally different algebraic formulation proposed by Heisenberg. Although Schriöidinger’s methods were so much simpler that they were generally preferred, both approaches seemed to give the same answers, so it was natural to ask how they were related. This was particularly important because some features of quantum theory were easier to understand in Heisenberg’s formalism. In fact, as we have already noted, Schriöidinger was able to show that the two methods were essentially equivalent. Soon mathematicians like Hermann Weyland John von Neumann were able to find a general mathematical scheme that encompassed both approaches, and it is this that we shall now describe.
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.
Quantum theory is the soul of contemporary physics. It was discovered in an adventurous way, under the urge to solve the puzzles posed by atomic spectra and blackbody radiation. But after its invention, it immediately became clear that it was not just a theory of specific physical systems: it was rather a new language of universal applicability. Already in 1928, the theory had received solid mathematical foundations by Hilbert, von Neumann, and Nordheim, and this work was brought to completion in the monumental work of von Neumann, in the form that we still study nowadays. The theory is extraordinarily successful, and its predictions have been confirmed to an astonishing level of precision in a large spectrum of experiments. However, almost 90 years after von Neumann's book, quantum theory remains mysterious. Its mathematical formulation – based on Hilbert spaces and self-adjoint operators – is far from having an intuitive interpretation. The association of physical systems to Hilbert spaces whose unit vectors represent pure states, the representation of transformations by unitary operators and of observables by self-adjoint operators – all such postulates look artificial and ad hoc . A slightly more operational approach is provided by the C * -algebraic formulation of quantum theory – still, this formulation relies on the assumption that observables form an algebra , where the physical meanings of the multiplication and the sum are far from clear. In short, the postulates of quantum theory impose mathematical structures without providing any simple reason for this choice: the mathematics of Hilbert spaces is adopted as a magic blackbox that “works well” at producing experimental predictions. However, in a satisfactory axiomatization of a physical theory the mathematical structures should emerge as a consequence of postulates that have a direct physical interpretation. By this we mean postulates referring, e.g., to primitive notions like physical system, measurement, or process, rather than notions like, e.g., Hilbert space, C * -algebra, unit vector, or selfadjoint operator. The crucial question thus remains unanswered: why quantum theory? Which are the principles at the basis of the theory? A case that is often invoked in contrast is that of Special Relativity theory, which directly follows from the simple understandable principle of relativity.
The mathematical formalism of quantum theory in terms of vectors and operators in infinite-dimensional complex vector spaces is very abstract. The definitions of many mathematical quantities used do not seem to have an intuitive meaning, which makes it difficult to appreciate the mathematical formalism and understand quantum mechanics. This book provides intuition and motivation to the mathematics of quantum theory, introducing the mathematics in its simplest and familiar form, for instance, with three-dimensional vectors and operators, which can be readily understood. Feeling confident about and comfortable with the mathematics used helps readers appreciate and understand the concepts and formalism of quantum mechanics. This book is divided into four parts. Part I is a brief review of the general properties of classical and quantum systems. A general discussion of probability theory is also included which aims to help in understanding the probability theories relevant to quantum mechanics. Part II is a detailed study of the mathematics for quantum mechanics. Part III presents quantum mechanics in a series of postulates. Six groups of postulates are presented to describe orthodox quantum systems. Each statement of a postulate is supplemented with a detailed discussion. To make them easier to understand, the postulates for discrete observables are presented before those for continuous observables. Part IV presents several illustrative applications, which include harmonic and isotropic oscillators, charged particle in external magnetic fields and the Aharonov–Bohm effect. For easy reference, definitions, theorems, examples, comments, properties and results are labelled with section numbers. Various symbols and notations are adopted to distinguish different quantities explicitly and to avoid misrepresentation. Self-contained both mathematically and physically, the book is accessible to a wide readership, including astrophysicists, mathematicians and philosophers of science who are interested in the foundations of quantum mechanics.
After a fairly rigorous mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics based on transformation theory by Dirac in which he cast Heisenberg’s matrix mechanics and Schrodinger’s wave mechanics on a common operator theoretic setting and successfully explained their equivalence, it was John Von Neumann in monumental treatise “Mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics” who proved the spectral theorem for all self adjoint operators in an infinite dimensional Hilbert space and thereby cast the masterly work of Dirac “The principles of quantum mechanics“ in a way that even pure mathematicians were able to understand. Dirac in his book had also indicated the work of Jordan and Heisenberg on quantum scattering theory but without the modern method of wave operators. Lippmann and Schwinger gave a more rigorous discussion of scattering theory via the introduction of free particle states and scattered states. Actually, free particle states are not square integrable and hence cannot strictly be termed as states. However by the use of wave operators the equations of Lippmann and Schwinger could be made rigorous using the setting of the continuous spectrum of a self-adjoint opearator introduced by Von Neumann, Crucial to this development is the notion of the domain of definition of an unbounded operator. This leads to the fact that the wave operators that appear in scattering theory are not defined on all vectors but usually on those vectors that belong to the continuous spectrum of the free particle Hamiltonian. Today scattering theory is a well developed subject and the interested reader can get a good grasp of this subject from the books 1 Tosio Kato, “Perturbation theory for linear operators”, Springer. 2 Werner O. Amrein, “Hilbert space methods in quantum mechanics”, CRC press, 2012.
In principle, the lattice of elementary propositions of a generic quantum system admits a representation in real, complex or quaternionic Hilbert spaces as established by Solèr’s theorem (1995) closing a long standing problem that can be traced back to von Neumann’s mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics. However up to now there are no examples of quantum systems described in Hilbert spaces whose scalar field is different from the set of complex numbers. We show that elementary relativistic systems cannot be described by irreducible strongly-continuous unitary representations of SL(2, C) on real or quaternionic Hilbert spaces as a consequence of some peculiarity of the generators related with the theory of polar decomposition of operators. Indeed such a ”naive” attempt leads necessarily to an equivalent formulation on a complex Hilbert space. Although this conclusion seems to give a definitive answer to the real/quaternionic-quantum-mechanics issue, it lacks consistency since it does not derive from more general physical hypotheses as the complex one does. Trying a more solid approach, in both situations we end up with three possibilities: an equivalent description in terms of a Wigner unitary representation in a real, complex or quaternionic Hilbert space. At this point the ”naive” result turns out to be a definitely important technical lemma, for it forbids the two extreme possibilities. \nIn conclusion, the real/quaternionic theory is actually complex. This improved approach is based upon the concept of von Neumann algebra of observables. Unfortunately, while \nthere exists a thorough literature about these algebras on real and complex Hilbert spaces, an analysis on the notion of von Neumann algebra over a quaternionic Hilbert space is \ncompletely absent to our knowledge. There are several issues in trying to define such a mathematical object, first of all the inability to construct linear combination of operators \nwith quaternionic coeffients. Restricting ourselves to unital real *-algebras of operators we are able to prove the von Neumann Double Commutant Theorem also on quaternionc \nHilbert spaces. Clearly, this property turns out to be crucial.