Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Interprtations of Quantum Mechanics
Interprtations of Quantum Mechanics
The definition of terms used by researchers in quantum theory (such as wavefunctions and matrix mechanics) progressed
through many stages. For instance, Schrödinger originally viewed the wavefunction associated with the electron as
corresponding to the charge density of an object smeared out over an extended, possibly infinite, volume of space. Max Born
interpreted it as simply corresponding to a probability distribution. These are two different interpretations of the wavefunction. In
one it corresponds to a material field; in the other it corresponds to a probability distribution — specifically, the probability that
the quantum of charge is located at any particular point within spatial dimensions.
The Copenhagen interpretation was traditionally the most popular among physicists, next to a purely instrumentalist position that
denies any need for explanation. (This latter view is expressed by David Mermin's famous quote "shut up and calculate", often
attributed to Richard Feynman.[1]) However, the many-worlds interpretation has been gaining acceptance[2]; a poll mentioned in
"The Physics of Immortality" (published in 1994), of 72 "leading cosmologists and other quantum field theorists" found that 58%
supported the many-worlds interpretation, including Stephen Hawking and Nobel laureates Murray Gell-Mann and Richard
Feynman.[3] Moreover, the instrumentalist position has been challenged by recent proposals for falsifiable experiments that might
one day distinguish interpretations, e.g. by measuring an AI consciousness[4] or via quantum computing.[5]
The difficulties of interpretation reflect a number of points about the orthodox description of quantum mechanics, including:
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
1. The abstract, mathematical nature of the description of quantum mechanics.
2. The existence of what appear to be non-deterministic and irreversible processes in quantum mechanics.
3. The phenomenon of entanglement, and in particular, the correlations between remote events that are not expected in
classical theory.
4. The complementarity of possible descriptions of reality.
5. The essential role played by observers and the process of measurement in the theory.
6. The rapid rate at which quantum descriptions become more complicated as the size of a system increases.
First, the accepted mathematical structure of quantum mechanics is based on fairly abstract mathematics, such as Hilbert
spaces and operators on those Hilbert spaces. In classical mechanics and electromagnetism, on the other hand, properties of a
point mass or properties of a field are described by real numbers or functions defined on two or three dimensional sets. These
have direct, spatial meaning, and in these theories there seems to be less need to provide special interpretation for those
numbers or functions.
Further, the process of measurement plays an essential role in the theory. Put simply: the world around us seems to be in a
specific state, yet quantum mechanics describes it with wave functions governing the probabilities of values. In general the wave-
function assigns non-zero probabilities to all possible values for a given physical quantity, such as position. How then is it that
we come to see a particle at a specific position when its wave function is spread across all space? In order to describe how
specific outcomes arise from the probabilities, the direct interpretation introduces the concept of measurement. According to the
theory, wave functions interact with each other and evolve in time according to the laws of quantum mechanics until a
measurement is performed, at which time the system will take on one of the possible values with probability governed by the
wave-function. Measurement can interact with the system state in somewhat peculiar ways, as is illustrated by the double-slit
experiment.
Thus the mathematical formalism used to describe the time evolution of a non-relativistic system proposes two somewhat
different kinds of transformations:
Reversible transformations described by unitary operators on the state space. These transformations are determined by
solutions to the Schrödinger equation.
Non-reversible and unpredictable transformations described by mathematically more complicated transformations (see
quantum operations). Examples of these transformations are those that are undergone by a system as a result of
measurement.
A restricted version of the problem of interpretation in quantum mechanics consists in providing some sort of plausible picture,
just for the second kind of transformation. This problem may be addressed by purely mathematical reductions, for example by
the many-worlds or the consistent histories interpretations.
In addition to the unpredictable and irreversible character of measurement processes, there are other elements of quantum
physics that distinguish it sharply from classical physics and which cannot be represented by any classical picture. One of
these is the phenomenon of entanglement, as illustrated in the EPR paradox, which seemingly violates principles of local
causality.[6]
Another obstruction to direct interpretation is the phenomenon of complementarity, which seems to violate basic principles of
propositional logic. Complementarity says there is no logical picture (obeying classical propositional logic) that can
simultaneously describe and be used to reason about all properties of a quantum system S. This is often phrased by saying that
there are "complementary" sets A and B of propositions that can describe S, but not at the same time. Examples of A and B are
propositions involving a wave description of S and a corpuscular description of S. The latter statement is one part of Niels Bohr's
original formulation, which is often equated to the principle of complementarity itself.
Complementarity is not usually taken to mean that classical logic fails, although Hilary Putnam did take that view in his paper Is
logic empirical?. Instead complementarity means that composition of physical properties for S (such as position and momentum
both having values in certain ranges) using propositional connectives does not obey rules of classical propositional logic (see
also Quantum_logic). As is now well-known (Omnès, 1999) the "origin of complementarity lies in the noncommutativity of
operators" describing observables in quantum mechanics.
Because the complexity of a quantum system is exponential in the number of degrees of freedom, it is difficult to overlap the
quantum and classical descriptions to see how the classical approximations are being made.
The precise ontological status, of each one of the interpreting pictures, remains a matter of philosophical argument.
In other words, if we interpret the formal structure X of quantum mechanics by means of a structure Y (via a mathematical
equivalence of the two structures), what is the status of Y? This is the old question of saving the phenomena, in a new guise.
Some physicists, for example Asher Peres and Chris Fuchs, seem to argue that an interpretation is nothing more than a formal
equivalence between sets of rules for operating on experimental data. This would suggest that the whole exercise of
interpretation is unnecessary.
On the other hand, since classical physics and non-mathematical language cannot match the precision and generality of
quantum mechanics, anything said outside the mathematical formulation is necessarily limited in accuracy and scope.
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
statistical properties of this distribution, such as its expectation value.
Calculations for measurements performed on a system S postulate a Hilbert space H over the complex numbers. When the
system S is prepared in a pure state, it is associated with a vector in H. Measurable quantities are associated with Hermitian
operators acting on H: these are referred to as observables.
Repeated measurement of an observable A for S prepared in state ψ yields a distribution of values. The expectation value of this
distribution is given by the expression
This mathematical machinery gives a simple, direct way to compute a statistical property of the outcome of an experiment, once
it is understood how to associate the initial state with a Hilbert space vector, and the measured quantity with an observable (that
is, a specific Hermitian operator).
As an example of such a computation, the probability of finding the system in a given state is given by computing the
expectation value of a (rank-1) projection operator
By abuse of language, the bare instrumentalist description can be referred to as an interpretation, although this usage is
somewhat misleading since instrumentalism explicitly avoids any explanatory role; that is, it does not attempt to answer the
question of what quantum mechanics is talking about.
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
The Copenhagen interpretation [edit]
Main article: Copenhagen interpretation
The Copenhagen interpretation is the "standard" interpretation of quantum mechanics formulated by Niels Bohr and Werner
Heisenberg while collaborating in Copenhagen around 1927. Bohr and Heisenberg extended the probabilistic interpretation of the
wavefunction, proposed by Max Born. The Copenhagen interpretation rejects questions like "where was the particle before I
measured its position?" as meaningless. The measurement process randomly picks out exactly one of the many possibilities
allowed for by the state's wave function in a manner consistent with the well-defined probabilities that are assigned to each
possible state.
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
relativity[13], in which a detection event is regarded as establishing a relationship between the quantized field and the detector.
The inherent ambiguity associated with applying Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is subsequently avoided.[14]
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
reconcile some of the apparent inconsistencies of classical boolean logic with the facts related to measurement and observation
in quantum mechanics.
Comparison [edit]
The most common interpretations are summarized in the table below. The values shown in the cells of the table are not without
controversy, for the precise meanings of some of the concepts involved are unclear and, in fact, are themselves at the center of
the controversy surrounding the given interpretation.
No experimental evidence exists that distinguishes among these interpretations. To that extent, the physical theory stands, and
is consistent with itself and with reality; difficulties arise only when one attempts to "interpret" the theory. Nevertheless,
designing experiments which would test the various interpretations is the subject of active research.
Most of these interpretations have variants. For example, it is difficult to get a precise definition of the Copenhagen interpretation.
The table below gives two variants: one that regards the waveform as being a tool for calculating probabilities only, and the other
regards the waveform as an "element of reality."
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
7 In the TI the collapse of the state vector is interpreted as the completion of the transaction between emitter and absorber.
8 Comparing histories between systems in this interpretation has no well-defined meaning.
9 Any physical interaction is treated as a collapse event relative to the systems involved, not just macroscopic or conscious
observers.
10 The state of the system is observer-dependent, i.e., the state is specific to the reference frame of the observer.
Sources [edit]
Bub, J. and Clifton, R. 1996. “A uniqueness theorem for interpretations of quantum mechanics,” Studies in History and
Philosophy of Modern Physics 27B: 181-219
Rudolf Carnap, 1939, "The interpretation of physics," in Foundations of Logic and Mathematics of the International
Encyclopedia of Unified Science. University of Chicago Press.
Dickson, M., 1994, "Wavefunction tails in the modal interpretation" in Hull, D., Forbes, M., and Burian, R., eds., Proceedings
of the PSA 1" 366–76. East Lansing, Michigan: Philosophy of Science Association.
--------, and Clifton, R., 1998, "Lorentz-invariance in modal interpretations" in Dieks, D. and Vermaas, P., eds., The Modal
Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers: 9–48.
Fuchs, Christopher, 2002, "Quantum Mechanics as Quantum Information (and only a little more). "
-------- and A. Peres, 2000, "Quantum theory needs no ‘interpretation’," Physics Today.
Herbert, N., 1985. Quantum Reality: Beyond the New Physics. New York: Doubleday. ISBN 0-385-23569-0.
Hey, Anthony, and Walters, P., 2003. The New Quantum Universe, 2nd ed. Cambridge Univ. Press. ISBN 0-5215-6457-3.
Roman Jackiw and D. Kleppner, 2000, "One Hundred Years of Quantum Physics," Science 289(5481): 893.
Max Jammer, 1966. The Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics. McGraw-Hill.
--------, 1974. The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics. Wiley & Sons.
Al-Khalili, 2003. Quantum: A Guide for the Perplexed. London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson.
de Muynck, W. M., 2002. Foundations of quantum mechanics, an empiricist approach. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers. ISBN 1-4020-0932-1 [8] .
Roland Omnès, 1999. Understanding Quantum Mechanics. Princeton Univ. Press.
Karl Popper, 1963. Conjectures and Refutations. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. The chapter "Three views Concerning
Human Knowledge" addresses, among other things, instrumentalism in the physical sciences.
Hans Reichenbach, 1944. Philosophic Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Univ. of California Press.
Max Tegmark and J. A. Wheeler, 2001, "100 Years of Quantum Mysteries," Scientific American 284: 68.
Bas van Fraassen, 1972, "A formal approach to the philosophy of science," in R. Colodny, ed., Paradigms and Paradoxes:
The Philosophical Challenge of the Quantum Domain. Univ. of Pittsburgh Press: 303-66.
John A. Wheeler and Wojciech Hubert Zurek (eds), Quantum Theory and Measurement, Princeton: Princeton University
Press, ISBN 0-691-08316-9, LoC QC174.125.Q38 1983.
References [edit]
1. ^ For a discussion of the provenance of the phrase "shut up and calculate", see [1]
2. ^ Vaidman, L. (2002, March 24). Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Retrieved March 19, 2010, from Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/#Teg98
3. ^ Who believes in many-worlds?
4. ^ Quantum theory as a universal physical theory, by David Deutsch, International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol 24 #1 (1985)
5. ^ Three connections between Everett's interpretation and experiment Quantum Concepts of Space and Time, by David Deutsch,
Oxford University Press (1986)
6. ^ La nouvelle cuisine, by John S. Bell, last article of Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, second edition.
7. ^ A. Einstein, B. Podolsky and N. Rosen, 1935, "Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered
complete?" Phys. Rev. 47: 777.
8. ^ An experiment illustrating the ensemble interpretation
9. ^ Why Bohm's Theory Solves the Measurement Problem by T. Maudlin, Philosophy of Science 62, pp. 479-483 (September, 1995).
10. ^ Bohmian Mechanics as the Foundation of Quantum Mechanics by D. Durr, N. Zanghi, and S. Goldstein in Bohmian Mechanics
and Quantum Theory: An Appraisal, edited by J.T. Cushing, A. Fine, and S. Goldstein, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science
184, 21-44 (Kluwer, 1996)1997 [2]
11. ^ [3]
12. ^ For more information, see Carlo Rovelli, 1996, "Relational Quantum Mechanics, " Int. J. of Theor. Phys. 35: 1637. Also arXiv:
quant-ph/9609002.
13. ^ David Bohm, The Special Theory of Relativity, Benjamin, New York, 1965
14. ^ [4] . For a full account [5] , see Q. Zheng and T. Kobayashi, 1996, "Quantum Optics as a Relativistic Theory of Light," Physics
Essays 9: 447. Annual Report, Department of Physics, School of Science, University of Tokyo (1992) 240.
15. ^ [6]
16. ^ Nelson,E. (1966) Derivation of the Schrödinger Equation from Newtonian Mechanics, Phys. Rev. 150, 1079-1085
17. ^ M. Pavon, “Stochastic mechanics and the Feynman integral”, J. Math. Phys. 41, 6060-6078 (2000)
18. ^ Tsekov, R. (2009) Bohmian Mechanics versus Madelung Quantum Hydrodynamics
19. ^ Frigg, R. GRW theory
20. ^ Review of Penrose's Shadows of the Mind
21. ^ von Neumann, John. (1932/1955). Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
Translated by Robert T. Beyer.
22. ^ Dick J. Bierman and Stephen Whitmarsh. (2006). Consciousness and Quantum Physics: Empirical Research on the Subjective
Reduction of the State Vector. in Jack A. Tuszynski (Ed). The Emerging Physics of Consciousness. p. 27-48.
23. ^ C. M. H. Nunn et. al. (1994). Collapse of a Quantum Field may Affect Brain Function. Journal of Consciousness Studies.
1(1):127-139.
24. ^ Science Show - 18 February 2006 - The anthropic universe
25. ^ [7]
Bibliographic guide to the foundations of quantum mechanics and quantum information [9]
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
Contact us
Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com