The basic postulates The statistical interpretation of the wavefunction is in accord with experimental facts. An interference pattern on a screen is built up by a series of apparently random events, and the wavefunction correctly predicts where the particle is most likely to land over an ensemble of trials (cf. the frontispiece ). Yet the interpretation of the wavefunction which ascribes to it a purely statistical significance is not forced on us by the experimental results – the latter show only that it is consistent to regard the wavefunction as containing information on probability; they do not exclude the possibility that it may possess other properties. On the contrary, one may take the view that the characteristic distribution of spots on a screen which build up an interference pattern is evidence that the wavefunction indeed has a more potent physical role than a mere repository of information on probabilities, for how are the particles guided so that statistically they fall into such a pattern? Such a question is naturally ruled out by the purely probabilistic interpretation. But the latter is appropriate only if we wish to reduce physics to a kind of algorithm which is efficient at correlating the statistical results of experiments. If we wish to do more, and attempt to understand the experimental results as the outcome of a causally connected series of individual processes, then we are free to enquire as to the possible further significance of the wavefunction (beyond its probabilistic aspect), and to introduce other concepts in addition to the wavefunction.
The basic postulates The statistical interpretation of the wavefunction is in accord with experimental facts. An interference pattern on a screen is built up by a series of apparently random events, and the wavefunction correctly predicts where the particle is most likely to land over an ensemble of trials (cf. the frontispiece ). Yet the interpretation of the wavefunction which ascribes to it a purely statistical significance is not forced on us by the experimental results – the latter show only that it is consistent to regard the wavefunction as containing information on probability; they do not exclude the possibility that it may possess other properties. On the contrary, one may take the view that the characteristic distribution of spots on a screen which build up an interference pattern is evidence that the wavefunction indeed has a more potent physical role than a mere repository of information on probabilities, for how are the particles guided so that statistically they fall into such a pattern? Such a question is naturally ruled out by the purely probabilistic interpretation. But the latter is appropriate only if we wish to reduce physics to a kind of algorithm which is efficient at correlating the statistical results of experiments. If we wish to do more, and attempt to understand the experimental results as the outcome of a causally connected series of individual processes, then we are free to enquire as to the possible further significance of the wavefunction (beyond its probabilistic aspect), and to introduce other concepts in addition to the wavefunction.
The nature of the problem The quantum world is inexplicable in classical terms. The predictions pertaining to the interaction of matter and light embodied in Newton's laws for the motion of particles and Maxwell's equations governing the propagation of electromagnetic fields are in flat contradiction with the experimental facts at the microscopic scale. A key feature of quantum effects is their apparent indeterminism, that individual atomic events are unpredictable, uncontrollable and literally seem to have no cause. Regularities emerge only when one considers a large ensemble of such events. This indeed is generally considered to constitute the heart of the conceptual problem posed by quantum phenomena, necessitating a fundamental revision of the deterministic classical world view. Some of the principal phenomena, among those discussed in this book, are as follows: ( a ) Self-interference: a beam of electrons sent one at a time through a barrier containing two apertures builds up through a series of localized detection events on a screen an interference pattern characteristic of waves (cf. the frontispiece and §5.1). ( b ) Tunnelling: an α-particle trapped in a nucleus can pass through a potential barrier in a manner forbidden to a classical particle (§5.3). ( c ) The stability of matter: atoms and molecules are found to exist only in certain discrete, or ‘stationary’, energy states. For this reason they do not ‘collapse’, the result predicted by classical electrodynamics. During transitions between stationary states (quantum jumps) an atom exchanges a discrete quantity of energy with the electromagnetic field (§§4.5, 7.6). […]
When investigating various interpretations of quantum mechanics one notices that each interpretation contains an element which escapes a complete and full description. This element is always associated with the stochasticity of the individual event in the quantum measurement process. It appears that the implications of this limit to any description of the world has not been sufficiently appreciated with notable exceptions of, for example, Heisenberg, Pauli and Wheeler. If we assume that a deeper foundation of quantum mechanics is possible, the question arises which features such a philosophical foundation might have. It is suggested that the objective randomness of the individual quantum event is a necessity of a description of the world in view of the significant influence the observer in quantum mechanics has. It is also suggested that the austerity of the Copenhagen interpretation should serve as a guiding principle in a search for deeper understanding. In recent years, a significant increase of interest in the foundations of quantum mechanics can be observed. This increase is certainly related to the immense progress made during the last two decades in experiments with individual quantum systems. This technological progress has made it possible to really perform more and more of the famous gedanken experiments which were so important in the early days of the theory. Not only did these experiments confirm the theory in every detail, they also opened up avenues for new experimental directions which might even lead some day to new technology. While such applications are certainly still far away, areas like quantum cryptography[1], quantum computation[2] and interaction-free measurement[3], just to name a few examples, certainly deserve the attention they receive. All this activity has also drawn more attention to the problems of understanding and interpreting quantum mechanics. It seems that there, a definitive consensus has not yet been reached. As witnesses quote authorities like Feynman as saying[4]: I think can safely say that nobody today understands quantum mechanics, whereby he apparently included himself, or like Roger Penrose[5], who describes his opinion remarking that while the theory agrees incredibly well with experiment and while it is of profound mathematical beauty, it makes absolutely no sense. Why did even physicists who have contributed so significantly to quantum theory Feynman was even rewarded the Nobel Prize for one of its mathematical formulations choose such emphatic and strong formulations? Why is it that the average physicist hears very little about such problems during his/her education? Why is the comprehension of the theory very often focused on formalism while questions that probe for deeper meaning are usually not tackled? To take a closer look at the situation, let us turn to a brief analysis of the interpretation of quantum mechanics. We note that there are at least two levels of interpreting a formalism, a physical theory. The first, basic, level supplies the rules that determine which element of the formalism corresponds to which measurable quantity or to which observable fact in a concrete experimental situation. Theses rules are a large, mostly not explicated but only implicit, set of instructions. These instructions concern the manner of working with the statements of the theory in order to obtain predictions for future experiments or events, and they concern the instructions on how to proceed in experiment in order to demonstrate or test a theoretical
This article is the third of a trilogy of articles on the nature of probability in quantum mechanics. The first article [1] began by noting that superposed wavefunctions in quantum mechanics lead to a squared amplitude that introduces interference into the position probability density of an atomic particle, which happens nowhere else in probability theory. It went on to also note that there is an unexplained coincidence in quantum mechanics in that the interference term in the squared amplitude of superposed wavefunctions gives the squared amplitude the form of a variance of a sum of correlated random variables and went on to examine whether there could be an archetypical variable, in the Platonic sense of true form, behind quantum probability that would reconcile quantum probability with classic probability. This examination found such a variable, which can encompass both local and nonlocal quantum events. The second article [2] provided evidence that quantum probability has such a stochastic nature. This evidence was based on the number of electrons that need to be sent through a two-slit interferometer to gain a clear pattern of self-interference, which when compared with the number that would be expected to be sufficient in order for the position probability distribution of the self-interference wavefunction to take clear shape suggests that there is more variability present than that described by the formulation of quantum mechanics, which implies the presence of an underlying and as yet unrecognized physical process. This final article completes the trilogy by considering how a key aspect of experimental design would be affected by the increased variability that would be present if quantum probability is itself stochastic in the manner suggested in the previous two articles.
The Statistical Interpretation of quantum theory is formulated for the purpose of providing a sound interpretation using a minimum of assumptions. Several arguments are advanced in favor of considering the quantum state description to apply only to an ensemble of similarily prepared systems, rather than supposing, as is often done, that it exhaustively represents an individual physical system. Most of the problems associated with the quantum theory of measurement are artifacts of the attempt to maintain the latter interpretation. The introduction of hidden variables to determine the outcome of individual events is fully compatible with the statistical predictions of quantum theory. However, a theorem due to Bell seems to require that any such hidden-variable theory which reproduces all of quantum mechanics exactly (i.e., not merely in some limiting case) must possess a rather pathological character with respect to correlated, but spacially separated, systems.
Abstract In stark contrast to classical Newtonian mechanics, the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics associates the Schrödinger wavefunction, not in a determ- inistic way with definite predictions about a specific, individual experimental result, but only in a probabilistic manner, with |ψ(x, t )|2 acting as a probability density, in this case, for position measurements. Before analyzing this approach in more detail, we will find it profitable to briefly review some of the basic concepts of discrete and
The quantum theory (QT) and new stochastic approaches have no deterministic prediction for a single measurement or for a single time‐series of events observed for a trapped ion, electron or any other individual physical system. The predictions of QT being of probabilistic character apply to the statistical distribution of the results obtained in various experiments. The Copenhagen interpretation (CI) of QT acknowledged the abstract and statistical character of the predictions of QT but at the same time claimed that a state vector Ψ provided complete description of each individual physical system. The assigning the state vector to an individual physical system together with a postulate of its instantaneous reduction in the measurements was shown by Einstein Podolski and Rosen to lead to so called EPR paradox for the experiments with the entangled pairs of the particles. EPR concluded that a state vector could not provide a complete description of the individual systems and the question arose whether the probabilistic predictions of QT could be derived from some more fundamental spatio‐temporal deterministic description of the invisible sub‐phenomena by introduction of supplementary parameters. The experimental violation of the Bell inequalities in the spin polarization correlation experiments (SPCE) which were the implementations of Bohm and EPR gedanken experiments eliminated so called local and realistic models of the sub‐phenomena. Quite often the violation of these inequalities has been incorrectly interpreted as a proof of the completeness of QT or as the violation of the locality and causality in the micro‐world. The local and realistic models overlooked the fact that an experimental outcome is only the information about a particular system‐system or system‐instrument interaction. Namely the quantum phenomena are described in terms of the probabilities. It is well known that the probability distribution is not an attribute of a dice but it is a characteristic of a whole random experiment: “rolling a dice”. In this paper we will underline: that the quantum probabilities do not describe the lack of knowledge about the physical systems but the lack of knowledge about the experiments and therefore they are “contextual” and that the statistical long range correlations between two random variables X and Y are not a proof of any causal relation between these variables. Moreover any probabilistic model used to described a random experiment is consistent only with a specific protocol telling how the random experiment has to be performed. The probabilistic model used to prove Bell inequalities implied a protocol completely inappropriate and impossible to implement for SPCE . We conclude that the meaningful question about the predictable completeness of QT is still open and it should be answered by a careful and unconventional analysis of the experimental data. The correct understanding of statistical and contextual character of QT is essential for the research in the domain of quantum information and quantum computing.