The turn of the XXth century witnessed a revolution in physics comparable to Isaac Newton’s discovery of the universal laws of mechanics and of gravitation three centuries earlier. The world required to be described in novel terms, as the immutable, deterministic view of our familiar universe had given way to a new world picture, one which featured chance, flux, and an incessant upsurge of waves of matter. Such a worldview was so radically new and counterintuitive that it gave rise to strong debates, to the effect that Albert Einstein himself tried to oppose it on the grounds that “God does not play dice”. In spite of the intense debates that accompanied its emergence, quantum mechanics quickly proved an incredibly efficacious new tool to understand and to predict a wide array of new phenomena. It was so successful that in no time it broke free from the environment of research labs to become part of daily life, making it possible, for example, to understand why some materials were conductors, while others were insulators. Along with it, came, too, the discovery of transistors, on which much of modern electronics rests. It also led to understand how novel materials known as superconductors allow the transport of electricity with no loss, thus paving the way for new developments in the fields of medical imagery or energy distribution. Other aspects of the quantum theory led to the development of atomic clocks of astounding accuracy, which would be wrong by no more than fifteen seconds, had they been set at the beginning of the universe. A hundred years later, at the turn of the XXIst century, Quantum mechanics has lost none of its astounding power. Contemporary research has undertaken the task of exploring its less immediately perceptible aspects. Groundbreaking developments have ensued, such as the teleportation of grains of light or the possibility, once predicted by the great physicist Richard Feynman, to build, one day, novel computers which, unlike the ones we are familiar with today, will be able to process innumerable numbers of operations in parallel. The Wright Colloquium will be for us the occasion to explore, in the company of five internationallyknown specialists in the field, some of the fascinating aspects of quantum mechanics. We will appraise how efficiently quantum physics can describe our world, and confront its limitation when it is faced with the infinitely small (in relation to recent experiments carried out at the CERN) as with the incommensurably large scale of sidereal spaces. We will appreciate the extent to which quantum physics already has impacted our everyday lives, and evoke the way in which novel fields such as quantum computers and quantum information will entail profound changes in the future. The quantum adventure has only just begun! Monday 15 November 2010 - 18h30 Jochen Mannhart Center for Electronic Correlations and Magnetism, University of Augsburg, Germany Quantum Physics on the Scale of Daily Life Tuesday 16 November 2010 - 18h30 Wolfgang Ketterle Nobel Laureate 2001 (Physics), Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, U.S.A. When freezing cold is not cold enough New forms of matter close to absolute zero temperature Wednesday 17 November 2010 - 18h30 David Gross Nobel Laureate 2004 (Physics), Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of California, Santa-Barbara, U.S.A. Quantum Mechanics of the Very, Very Small and the Very, Very Large Thursday 18 November 2010 - 18h30 Alain Aspect CNRS senior scientist and Professor Institut d'Optique and Ecole Polytechnique Palaiseau, France. From Einstein’s intuition to quantum bits: a new quantum age? Vendredi 19 novembre 2010 - 18h30 Rainer Blatt Institute of Quantum Optics and Quantum Information, Austrian Academy of Sciences and University of Innsbruck, Austria The Quantum Way of Doing Computations
The turn of the XXth century witnessed a revolution in physics comparable to Isaac Newton’s discovery of the universal laws of mechanics and of gravitation three centuries earlier. The world required to be described in novel terms, as the immutable, deterministic view of our familiar universe had given way to a new world picture, one which featured chance, flux, and an incessant upsurge of waves of matter. Such a worldview was so radically new and counterintuitive that it gave rise to strong debates, to the effect that Albert Einstein himself tried to oppose it on the grounds that “God does not play dice”. In spite of the intense debates that accompanied its emergence, quantum mechanics quickly proved an incredibly efficacious new tool to understand and to predict a wide array of new phenomena. It was so successful that in no time it broke free from the environment of research labs to become part of daily life, making it possible, for example, to understand why some materials were conductors, while others were insulators. Along with it, came, too, the discovery of transistors, on which much of modern electronics rests. It also led to understand how novel materials known as superconductors allow the transport of electricity with no loss, thus paving the way for new developments in the fields of medical imagery or energy distribution. Other aspects of the quantum theory led to the development of atomic clocks of astounding accuracy, which would be wrong by no more than fifteen seconds, had they been set at the beginning of the universe. A hundred years later, at the turn of the XXIst century, Quantum mechanics has lost none of its astounding power. Contemporary research has undertaken the task of exploring its less immediately perceptible aspects. Groundbreaking developments have ensued, such as the teleportation of grains of light or the possibility, once predicted by the great physicist Richard Feynman, to build, one day, novel computers which, unlike the ones we are familiar with today, will be able to process innumerable numbers of operations in parallel. The Wright Colloquium will be for us the occasion to explore, in the company of five internationallyknown specialists in the field, some of the fascinating aspects of quantum mechanics. We will appraise how efficiently quantum physics can describe our world, and confront its limitation when it is faced with the infinitely small (in relation to recent experiments carried out at the CERN) as with the incommensurably large scale of sidereal spaces. We will appreciate the extent to which quantum physics already has impacted our everyday lives, and evoke the way in which novel fields such as quantum computers and quantum information will entail profound changes in the future. The quantum adventure has only just begun! Monday 15 November 2010 - 18h30 Jochen Mannhart Center for Electronic Correlations and Magnetism, University of Augsburg, Germany Quantum Physics on the Scale of Daily Life Tuesday 16 November 2010 - 18h30 Wolfgang Ketterle Nobel Laureate 2001 (Physics), Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, U.S.A. When freezing cold is not cold enough New forms of matter close to absolute zero temperature Wednesday 17 November 2010 - 18h30 David Gross Nobel Laureate 2004 (Physics), Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of California, Santa-Barbara, U.S.A. Quantum Mechanics of the Very, Very Small and the Very, Very Large Thursday 18 November 2010 - 18h30 Alain Aspect CNRS senior scientist and Professor Institut d'Optique and Ecole Polytechnique Palaiseau, France. From Einstein’s intuition to quantum bits: a new quantum age? Vendredi 19 novembre 2010 - 18h30 Rainer Blatt Institute of Quantum Optics and Quantum Information, Austrian Academy of Sciences and University of Innsbruck, Austria The Quantum Way of Doing Computations
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 physics is well known for being counter-intuitive, or even bizarre. Quantum correlations have no equivalence in classical physics. This was all well known for years. But several discoveries in the 1990's changed the world. First, in 1991 Artur Ekert, from Oxford University, discovered that quantum correlations could be used to distribute cryptographic keys. Suddenly physicists realized that quantum correlations and its associated bizarre non-locality, could be exploited to achieve a useful task that would be impossible without quantum physics. What a revolution! And this was not the end. Three years later, Peter Shor, from the AT&T Laboratories, discovered an algorithm that breaks the most used public key crypto-systems. Shor's algorithm requires a quantum computer, yet another bizarre quantum device, a kind of computer that heavily exploits the quantum superposition principle. The following year, in 1995, a collaboration between six physicists and computer scientists from three continents led to the discovery of quantum teleportation, a process with a science-fiction flavour. These discoveries and others led to the emergence of a new science, marrying quantum physics and theoretical computer science, called quantum information science. Today, a steadily growing community of physicists, mathematicians and computer scientists develop the tools of this new science. This leads to new experiments and new insights into physics and information theory. It is a fascinating time. Quantum information is still a very young science. In particular, the technology required to build a quantum computer is still unknown. Only quantum key distribution has reached a certain level of maturity, with a few start-ups already offering complete systems. Nevertheless, quantum information has been widely recognised as a source for truly innovative ideas and disruptive technologies.
Quantum many-body systems, as they appear in different branches of physics and chemistry, are very hard to simulate. The number of parameters defining their quantum states grows exponentially with the number of constituents. This prevents us from exploring and investigating relevant problems involving relatively small numbers of subsystems even with the help of the most powerful supercomputers. Richard Feynman already noticed this difficulty back in 1981 when he wrote his visionary paper “Simulating Physics with Computers” [Int. J. Theor. Phys. 21:6/7, 467 (1982)]. There, he proposed to use quantum systems (as opposed to classical computers) to perform the simulation and in this way to circumvent the need to store and compute a colossal number of parameters, necessary to describe the pertaining superpositions. What was a visionary idea at that time has become a very active field of research in the last few years. The extraordinary progress of both theoretical and experimental research in quantum physics allows us now to tame, control, and manipulate various quantum systems with unprecedented precision. Laser, magnetic, electronic and other technologies enable us to arrange quantum subsystems in different geometries, modify their interactions, and detect them. This allows us to engineer Hamiltonians and emulate systems displaying some of the most intriguing quantum phenomena. This tremendous progress is, to a large extent, due to the pioneering work of many researchers during the last twenty to thirty years. Here, the investigations of basic phenomena with one or few atoms or photons were of particular impact. The degree of control achieved in the experiments has enabled the observation of mind-boggling quantum effects, related to the superposition principle or to entangled states, and their disappearance due to decoherence. In fact, the 2012 Nobel Prize has been awarded to two scientists, S. Haroche and D. Wineland, for such ground-breaking experiments. Such experiments, often in combination with laser cooling of atoms or ions and Bose-Einstein condensation, have formed one of the pillars on which the field of quantum simulations is being established. Quantum simulations with cold atoms, either in magnetic traps or in optical lattices, with trapped ions, with photons, with superconducting devices, with quantum dots, etc., have been theoretically proposed and experimentally considered by many researchers. Most of the proposals so far deal with problems in condensed matter physics that are either difficult to tackle with modern supercomputers or are difficult to observe in solid state systems. This has established a very close link between different disciplines, like atomic, molecular, and optical (AMO) physics, and condensed matter physics. Although some of the experiments are still in their infancy, and a lot of research is still needed, the extraordinary progress made in all these research areas during the last few years makes us feel confident that in the not too distant future quantum simulators will provide a key tool to investigate many-body quantum systems. Furthermore, we also expect that quantum simulators will help quantum physicists to establish new and fruitful links to other scientific communities, like high-energy physics or quantum chemistry. The present special issue contains various review papers as well as research papers on quantum simulations. It starts out with two papers written by last year's Nobel Prize winners describing their foundational work (Wineland, p. 739 and Haroche, p. 763). The issue continues with three thorough, invited review papers covering different topics on quantum simulations. The first one reviews recent theoretical proposals to use cold atoms in optical lattices to simulate lattice gauge theories of the sort that appear in high-energy physics (U.-J. Wiese, p. 783). The second covers both theoretical proposals and experimental demonstrations of cold-atom systems to simulate the physics of matter in the presence of gauge fields, displaying so-called topological phenomena, which so far have only been observed in solid-state systems (I. Spielman, p. 794). The third one contains an extensive overview and new proposals to perform a broad range of quantum simulations using quantum dot systems (P. Barthelmy et al., p. 813). The issue also includes six original papers with a variety of theoretical proposals as well as the introduction of novel theoretical techniques related to the field of quantum simulation. The field of quantum simulations is just starting, but we are confident that it will soon generate an even larger plethora of new ideas and discoveries, trigger interdisciplinary research, and lead us to the adventure of describing and understanding the quantum world. We hope that this special issue will help future researchers in such an exciting adventure. Rainer Blatt received his PhD degree in physics from the University of Mainz in 1981. As a postdoctoral fellow he worked on atomic beam cooling in Boulder, CO and later as a research assistant in Hamburg with single trapped ions. In 1995 he accepted a chair in experimental physics at the University of Innsbruck working on quantum information processing with trapped ions. Since 2003 he is also scientific director at the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information (IQOQI) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences. Immanuel Bloch received his PhD degree in physics from the Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich in 2000. As a junior group leader, he continued in Munich starting his work on ultracold quantum gases in optical lattices. In 2008 he was appointed scientific director of the newly founded division on Quantum Many-Body Systems at the Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics. Since 2009 he also holds a chair in quantum optics at the Ludwig-Maximilians University of Munich. Ignacio Cirac received his PhD degree in physics from the Universidad Complutense de Madrid in 1991. He was professor at the Universities of Castilla-La Mancha and Innsbruck from 1991–1996 and 1996–2001, respectively. In 2001 he joined the Max-Planck Institute of Quantum Optics, where he leads the Theory Division. His current research interests include quantum information theory and quantum optics. Peter Zoller obtained his doctorate from the University of Innsbruck in 1977. He was Max Kade Fellow at the University of Southern California from 1978/79, and was JILA visiting Fellow 1981/82 and 1988. In 1990 he became JILA Fellow and professor of physics at the University of Colorado. At the end of 1994, he accepted a chair at the University of Innsbruck, where he has worked ever since. Since 2003, he has also held the position of Scientific Director at the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information (IQOQI) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences.
By the end of the nineteenth century all the important elements of classical physics were fully mature. Newton's Laws had been applied with success to everything from industrial machines to planetary orbits. Classical thermodynamics had extended energy conservation arguments into thermal processes, and scientists including J. Willard Gibbs and Ludwig Boltzmann had developed the statistical interpretation of entropy. James Clerk Maxwell had explained all electromagnetic phenomena, from AC generators/motors to light, with the four Maxwell's equations and three material-dependent constitutive relations. There was serious discussion that physics was on the verge of being “finished” – becoming a closed system of knowledge like classical geometry with only essentially routine tasks left of determining how the known laws could be applied to engineering problems. Yet by 1930 the foundations of mechanics, electromagnetics, and atomic-scale systems had been shaken to the core by the new revolutions in the Theory of Relativity, the photon picture of light, and quantum physics. We are still reaping the benefits of the application of these new scientific paradigms in our technology today, including semiconductor electronic devices, lasers, and GPS systems. But the description of reality that these theories provide is still deeply anti-intuitive and disturbing. Nevertheless, quantum physics is one of the most extensively experimentally verified theories that we know. Even when quantum theory and common sense seem to diverge, quantum theory gives the right answers when tested by experiment. In the next chapter we will develop the framework of quantum theory that has been so successful when people “shut up and calculate,” as one scientist suggested as the way through the philosophical thicket of quantum physics. But in this chapter, we will spend a brief time considering the historical development and continuing paradoxical implications of quantum theory. The photoelectric effect and photons In 1905, Albert Einstein, who was a key figure in the revolution of modern physics, was working as a clerk in the patent office in Zurich, Switzerland. Einstein had finished his studies in physics, but had not obtained a coveted position as a university professor. He was intensely interested in the latest developments in classical physics and was aware of a few of the remaining loose ends that were resisting explanation in the classical model.
In 1903 the physicist Albert Michelson made an astonishing pronouncement. Confident of the advances made by the great physicists of the Victorian era, such as Lord Kelvin, James Clark Maxwell and Thomas Edison, he declared that ‘the most important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered, and these are now so firmly established that the possibility of their ever being supplemented in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote’.1 In so doing he followed what appeared to be a long-established tradition that eminent physicists should make bold and far-reaching statements on the nature of the universe and its physical laws.2 Unfortunately, Michelson’s timing could not be worse as early twentieth-century physicists were about to make a string of discoveries that would fundamentally alter our perceptions of the universe. The world as Michelson understood it was about to be turned on its head by the work of three men: Max Planck, Albert Einstein and Ernest Rutherford. The first, Planck, was a respected German physicist who had done work on entropy, but had done little to distinguish himself. Then in 1900 he developed his ‘quantum theory’ which posited that energy did not flow as a stream or wave as had been imagined before, but rather was carried by packets or quanta. This seemingly simple, yet deceptively complex, thesis was to have a profound effect upon our understanding of the physical universe. Planck’s thesis proved to be the foundation for the modern discipline of quantum physics, a discipline that first came to the attention of the wider public when in 1905 a young Swiss patents clerk called Albert Einstein wrote five papers for the Annalen der Physik. Three of these papers are widely accepted to be among the best in the history of physics and examined photoelectric effects by applying Planck’s new quantum theory, Brownian Motion and a ‘Special Theory of Relativity’. As Bill Bryson notes in his Short History of Nearly Everything, ‘the first won its author a Nobel Prize and explained the nature of light (and also helped make television possible among other things). The Second provided proof that atoms do indeed exist – a fact that had surprisingly, been in some dispute. The third merely changed the world’.3 Thus within two years of Michelson’s pronouncement much of our understanding of the physical universe had been turned on its head by this new development; but for Michelson worse was to follow. In 1895, a young South African named Ernest Rutherford had won a scholarship to the world famous Cavendish Laboratory at the University of Cambridge. By 1911, Rutherford had become obsessed with the nature of atoms, the basic building blocks that form the constituent parts of the universe. That year he proposed his ‘theory of atomic nuclei’, which suggested that all the positive charge and most of the mass of an atom must be contained in a tiny nucleus at the atom’s centre, with the negatively charged electrons ‘in orbit’ about this nucleus. To prove his thesis Rutherford had to ‘split’ the atom to prove that he could release matter from this nucleus, something which he finally succeeded in doing in 1919 when he showed that by firing alpha-particles into nitrogen gas a small amount of hydrogen could be produced. In so doing he also established that energy could be released from the nucleus of an atom, thereby proving an essential part of Albert Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity: the unification of energy and mass, usually represented by the famous equation E=mc2.4 With Rutherford providing the link between quantum theory and nuclear physics the Newtonian view of the universe, which was at the heart of Michelson’s beliefs, had been rewritten in less that 20 years.
Abstract A series of seminal technological revolutions has led to a new generation of electronic devices miniaturized to such tiny scales that the strange laws of quantum physics come into play. There is no doubt that, unlike scientists and engineers of the past, technology leaders of the future will have to rely on quantum mechanics in their everyday work. This makes teaching and learning the subject of paramount importance for further progress. Mastering quantum physics is a very non-trivial task and its deep understanding can only be achieved through working out real-life problems and examples. It is notoriously difficult to come up with new quantum-mechanical problems that would be solvable with a pencil and paper, and within a finite amount of time. This book presents some 700+ original problems in quantum mechanics together with detailed solutions, covering nearly 1,000 pages on all aspects of quantum science.