Abstract Quantum mechanics as developed in the standard textbooks, and as applied to elementary particle physics in the standard model, is understood to be complex’ quantum mechanics: The wave functions and probability amplitudes are represented by complex numbers. However, it has been known since the 1930s that more general quantum mechanical systems, and in particular a quaternionic quantum mechanics, can in principle be constructed (Birkhoff and von Neumann, 1936).
Abstract Quantum mechanics as developed in the standard textbooks, and as applied to elementary particle physics in the standard model, is understood to be complex’ quantum mechanics: The wave functions and probability amplitudes are represented by complex numbers. However, it has been known since the 1930s that more general quantum mechanical systems, and in particular a quaternionic quantum mechanics, can in principle be constructed (Birkhoff and von Neumann, 1936).
Quantum mechanics is our most successful physical theory. It underlies our very detailed understanding of atomic physics, chemistry, and nuclear physics, and the many technologies to which physical systems in these regimes give rise. Additionally, relativistic quantum mechanics is the basis for the standard model of elementary particles, which very successfully gives a partial unification of the forces operating at the atomic, nuclear, and subnuclear levels. However, from its inception the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, and the fact that “quantum measurements” in the orthodox formulation appear to require the intervention of non-quantum mechanical “classical systems,” have led to speculations by many physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science that quantum mechanics may be incomplete. Among the Founding Fathers of quantum theory, Einstein and Schrödinger were both of the opinion that quantum mechanics is in some way unsatisfactory, and this view has been amplified in more recent profound work of John Bell, among others. In an opposing camp, many others in the physics, mathematics, and philosophy communities have attempted to provide an interpretational foundation in which quantum mechanics remains a complete and self-contained system. Among the Founding Fathers, Bohr, Born, and Heisenberg maintained that quantum mechanics is a complete system, and a number of recent proposals have been made to improve upon or to provide alternatives to their “Copenhagen Interpretation.” The debate continues, and has spawned an enormous literature.
As earlier conjectured by several authors and much later established by Solèr, from the lattice-theory point of view, Quantum Mechanics may be formulated in real, complex or quaternionic Hilbert spaces only. On the other hand, no quantum systems seem to exist that are naturally described in a real or quaternionic Hilbert space. In a previous paper [23], we showed that any quantum system which is elementary from the viewpoint of the Poincaré symmetry group and it is initially described in a real Hilbert space, it can also be described within the standard complex Hilbert space framework. This complex description is unique and more precise than the real one as, for instance, in the complex description, all self-adjoint operators represent observables defined by the symmetry group. The complex picture fulfils the thesis of Solér’s theorem and permits the standard formulation of the quantum Noether’s theorem. The present work is devoted to investigate the remaining case, namely, the possibility of a description of a relativistic elementary quantum system in a quaternionic Hilbert space. Everything is done exploiting recent results of the quaternionic spectral theory that were independently developed. In the initial part of this work, we extend some results of group representation theory and von Neumann algebra theory from the real and complex cases to the quaternionic Hilbert space case. We prove the double commutant theorem also for quaternionic von Neumann algebras (whose proof requires a different procedure with respect to the real and complex cases) and we extend to the quaternionic case a result established in the previous paper concerning the classification of irreducible von Neumann algebras into three categories. In the second part of the paper, we consider an elementary relativistic system within Wigner’s approach defined as a locally-faithful irreducible strongly-continuous unitary representation of the Poincaré group in a quaternionic Hilbert space. We prove that, if the squared-mass operator is non-negative, the system admits a natural, Poincaré invariant and unique up to sign, complex structure which commutes with the whole algebra of observables generated by the representation itself. This complex structure leads to a physically equivalent reformulation of the theory in a complex Hilbert space. Within this complex formulation, differently from what happens in the quaternionic one, all self-adjoint operators represent observables in agreement with Solèr’s thesis, the standard quantum version of Noether theorem may be formulated and the notion of composite system may be given in terms of tensor product of elementary systems. In the third part of the paper, we focus on the physical hypotheses adopted to define a quantum elementary relativistic system relaxing them on the one hand, and making our model physically more general on the other hand. We use a physically more accurate notion of irreducibility regarding the algebra of observables only, we describe the symmetries in terms of automorphisms of the restricted lattice of elementary propositions of the quantum system and we adopt a notion of continuity referred to the states viewed as probability measures on the elementary propositions. Also in this case, the final result proves that there exists a unique (up to sign) Poincaré invariant complex structure making the theory complex and completely fitting into Solèr’s picture. The overall conclusion is that relativistic elementary systems are naturally and better described in complex Hilbert spaces even if starting from a real or quaternionic Hilbert space formulation and this complex description is uniquely fixed by physics.
Abstract It has been known since the 1930s that quantum mechanics can be formulated in quaternionic as well as complex Hilbert space. But systematic work on the quaternionic extension of standard quantum mechanics has scarcely begun. Authored by a world-renowned theoretical physicist, this book signals a major conceptual advance and gives a detailed development and exposition of quaternionic quantum mechanics for the purpose of determining whether quaternionic Hilbert space is the appropriate arena for the long sought-after unification of the standard model forces with gravitation. Significant results from earlier literature, together with many new results obtained by the author, are integrated to give a coherent picture of the subject. The book also provides an introduction to the problem of formulating quantum field theories in quaternionic Hilbert space. The book concludes with a chapter devoted to discussions on where quaternionic quantum mechanics may fit into the physics of unification, experimental and measurement theory issues, and the many open questions that still challenge the field. This well-written treatise is a very significant contribution to theoretical physics. It will be eagerly read by a wide range of physicists.
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.
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.