The existence of ‘special’ states can be established with ordinary quantum mechanics. We seek particular microscopic states of large systems that have the property that they evolve to only one or another macroscopic outcome, when other microstates of a more common sort (having the same initial macrostate) would have given grotesque states. Justifying the hypothesis that Nature chooses these special states as initial conditions is another matter. In this chapter we stick to the narrower issue of whether there exist states that can do the job, irrespective of whether they occur in practice. In Section 7.1 we give several explicit examples. In Section 6.2 we exhibited an apparatus model and its special states. Here we look at the decay of an unstable quantum state, not as a single degree of freedom in a potential, but with elements of the environment taken into account as well. We also study another popular many-body system, the spin boson model. This has extensive physical applications and especially with respect to Josephson junctions has been used to address quantum measurement questions. A single degree of freedom in a potential, by the way, does not generally lend itself to ‘specializing,’ and an example is shown below. In recent years, exotic non-local effects of quantum mechanics have been exhibited experimentally. Behind many of these lies entanglement , the property of a wave function of several variables that it does not factor into a product of functions of these variables separately.
The existence of ‘special’ states can be established with ordinary quantum mechanics. We seek particular microscopic states of large systems that have the property that they evolve to only one or another macroscopic outcome, when other microstates of a more common sort (having the same initial macrostate) would have given grotesque states. Justifying the hypothesis that Nature chooses these special states as initial conditions is another matter. In this chapter we stick to the narrower issue of whether there exist states that can do the job, irrespective of whether they occur in practice. In Section 7.1 we give several explicit examples. In Section 6.2 we exhibited an apparatus model and its special states. Here we look at the decay of an unstable quantum state, not as a single degree of freedom in a potential, but with elements of the environment taken into account as well. We also study another popular many-body system, the spin boson model. This has extensive physical applications and especially with respect to Josephson junctions has been used to address quantum measurement questions. A single degree of freedom in a potential, by the way, does not generally lend itself to ‘specializing,’ and an example is shown below. In recent years, exotic non-local effects of quantum mechanics have been exhibited experimentally. Behind many of these lies entanglement , the property of a wave function of several variables that it does not factor into a product of functions of these variables separately.
Pure quantum evolution is deterministic, ψ → exp (—iHt/ħ)ψ , but as for classical mechanics probability enters because a given macroscopic initial condition contains microscopic states that lead to different outcomes; the relative probability of those outcomes equals the relative abundance of the microscopic states for each outcome. This is the postulated basis for the recovery of the usual quantum probabilities, as discussed in Chapter 6. In this chapter we take up the question of whether the allowable microstates (the ‘special’ states) do indeed come with the correct abundance. To recap: ‘special’ states are microstates not leading to superpositions of macroscopically different states (‘grotesque’ states). For a given experiment and for each macroscopically distinct outcome of that experiment these states form a subspace. We wish to show that the dimension of that subspace is the relative probability of that outcome. This is an ambitious goal, especially considering the effort needed to establish that there are any special states—the subject of Chapter 7. As remarked there, the special states exhibited are likely to be only a small and atypical fraction of all special states in the physical apparatus being modeled (e.g., the cloud chamber). In one example (the decay model) there is a remarkable matching of dimension and conventional probability, but I would not make too much of that. What is especially challenging about the present task is that we seek a universal distribution.
Why should special states occur as initial conditions in every physical situation in which they are needed? Half this book has been devoted to making the points that initial conditions may not be as controllable as they seem; that there may be constraints on microscopic initial conditions; that this would not have been noticed; that such constraints can arise from two-time or future conditioning; that in our universe such future conditioning may well be present, although, as remarked, cryptic . In this chapter I will take up more detailed questions: what future conditions could give rise to the need for our ‘special’ states, and why should those particular future conditions be imposed. Before going into this there is a point that needs to be made. Everything in the present chapter could be wrong and the thesis of Chapter 6 nevertheless correct. It is one thing to avoid grotesque states (and solve the quantum measurement problem) by means of special states and it is another provide a rationale for their occurrence. I say this not only to highlight the conceptual dependencies of the theses in this book, but also because there is a good deal of hand waving in the coming chapter and I don't want it to reflect unfavorably on the basic proposal. As pointed out earlier, the usual thermodynamic arrow of time can be phrased as follows: initial states are arbitrary, final states special.
Having achieved this point we hope to have accomplished, at least partly, our main aim which was to convince the reader that once appropriate systems have been found (or built) they can present a very peculiar combination of microscopic parameters in such a way that quantum mechanics should be applied to general macroscopic variables to describe the collective effects therein. Moreover, the very nature of these macroscopic variables does not allow them to be treated in an isolated fashion. They must rather be considered coupled to uncontrollable microscopic degrees of freedom which is the ultimate origin of dissipative phenomena. The latter, at least in the great majority of cases, play a very deleterious role in the dynamics of the macroscopic variables and we hope to have introduced minimal phenomenological techniques in order to quantify this. We have concentrated our discussions on questions originating from a few examples of superconducting or magnetic systems where quantum mechanics and dissipative effects coexist. In particular, superconducting devices which present the possibility of displaying several different quantum effects (quantum interference, decay by quantum tunneling, or coherent tunneling) are of special importance, as we will see below. Prior to development of the modern cryogenic techniques and/or the ability to build nanometric devices, it was unthinkable to imagine the existence of subtle quantum mechanical effects such as the entanglement of macroscopically distinct quantum states.
Introduction The historical development of scientific progress teaches us that every theory that was established and broadly accepted at a certain time was later inevitably replaced by a deeper and more fundamental theory of which the old one remains a special case. One celebrated example is Newtonian (classical) mechanics, which was superseded by quantum mechanics at the beginning of the last century. It is natural to ask whether in a similar manner there could be logically consistent theories that are more generic than quantum theory itself. It could then turn out that quantum mechanics is an effective description of such a theory, only valid within our current restricted domain of experience. At present, quantum theory has been tested against very specific alternative theories that, both mathematically and in their concepts, are distinctly different. Instances of such alternative theories are non-contextual hidden-variable theories [1], local hidden-variable theories [2], crypto-nonlocal hidden-variable theories [3, 4], or some nonlinear variants of the Schrödinger equation [5–8]. Currently, many groups are working on improving experimental conditions to be able to test alternative theories based on various collapse models [9–14]. The common trait of all these proposals is to suppress one or the other counterintuitive feature of quantum mechanics and thus keep some of the basic notions of a classical worldview intact. Specifically, hidden-variable models would allow us to preassign definite values to outcomes of all measurements; collapse models are mechanisms for restraining superpositions between macroscopically distinct states, and nonlinear extensions of the Schrödinger equation may admit more localized solutions for wave-packet dynamics, thereby resembling localized classical particles.
In Chapter 6 I presented a proposal for how and why grotesque states do not occur in Nature. In subsequent chapters I explored consequences and found subsidiary requirements, such as Cauchy distributed kicks. To find out whether all or part of our scheme is the way Nature works, we turn to experiment. How to turn to experiment is not so obvious, since the basic dynamical law, ψ → exp(− iHt/ħ )ψ, is the same as for most other theories. Our basic assertion concerns not the dynamical law but the selection of states. Therefore it is that assertion that must be tested. For example, one way is to set up a situation where the states we demand, the ‘special’ states, cannot occur. Then what happens? Another part of our theory is the probability postulate, and this deals not only with the existence of special states but with their abundance. It enters in the recovery of standard probabilities but has far reaching consequences that may well lead to the best tests of the theory. Such tests arise in the context of EPR situations. The experimental tests fall into the following categories. Precluding a class of special states . This should prevent a class of outcomes. If the changes in the system (due to precluding the class of special states) do not change the predictions of the Copenhagen interpretation, then this provides a test. In particular, with a class of special states precluded, our theory forbids the associated outcome.
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.