Partiteness

Demystifying quantum mechanics IV

Yes I know, it is not a word, at least not yet. We tend to do that in physics sometimes. When one wants to introduce a new concept, one needs to give it a name. Often, that name would be a word that does not exist yet.

What does it mean? The word “partiteness” indicates the property of nature that it can be represented in terms of parties or partites. It is the intrinsic capability of a system to incorporate an arbitrary number of partites. In my previous post, I mentioned partites as a replacement for the notion of particles. The idea of partites is not new. People often consider quantum systems consisting of multiple partites.

What are these partites then? They represent an abstraction of the concept of a particle. Usually the concept is used rather vaguely, since it is not intended to carry more significance than what is necessary to describe the quantum system. I don’t think anybody has ever considered it to be a defining property that nature possesses at the fundamental level. However, I feel that we may need to consider the idea of partiteness more seriously.

Classical optics diffraction pattern

Let’s see if we can make the concept of a partite a little more precise. It is after all the key property that allows nature to transcend its classical nature. It is indeed an abstraction of the concept of a particle, retaining only those aspects of particles that we can confirm experimentally. Essentially, they can carry a full compliment of all the degrees of freedom associated with a certain type of particle. But, unlike particles, they are not dimensionless points traveling on world lines. In that sense, they are not localized. Usually, one can think of a single partite in the same way one would think of a single particle such as a photon, provided one does not think of it as a single point moving around in space. A single photon can have a wave function described by any complex function that satisfies the equations of motion. (See for instance the diffraction pattern in the figure above.) The same is true for a partite. As a result, a single partite behaves in the same way as a classical field. So, we can switch it around and say that a classical field represents just one partite.

The situation becomes more complicated with multiple partites. The wave function for such a system can become rather complex. It allows the possibility for quantum entanglement. We’ll postpone a better discussion of quantum entanglement for another time.

Multiple photons can behave in a coherent fashion so that they all essentially share the same state in terms of the degrees of freedom. All these photons can then be viewed collectively as just one partite. This situation is what a coherent classical optical field would represent. Once again we see that such a classical field behaves as just one partite.

The important difference between a particle and a partite is that the latter is not localized in the way a particle is localized. A partite is delocalized in a way that is described by its wave function. This wave function describes all the properties of the partite in terms of all the degrees of freedom associated with it, including the spatiotemporal degrees of freedom and the internal degrees of freedom such as spin.

The wave function must satisfy all the constraints imposed by the dynamics associated with the type of field. It includes interactions, either with itself (such as gluons in quantum chromodynamics) or with other types of fields (such as photons with charges particles).

All observations involve interactions of the field with whatever device is used for the observation. The notion of particles comes from the fact that these observations tend to be localized. However, on careful consideration, such a localization of an observation only tells us that the interactions are localized and not that the observed field must consist of localized particles. So, we will relax the idea that fields must be consisting of localized particle and only say that, for some reason that we perhaps don’t understand yet, the interaction among fields are localized. That leaves us free to consider the field as consisting of nonlocal partites (thus avoiding all sort of conceptual pitfalls such as the particle-wave duality).

Hopefully I have succeeded to convey the idea that I have in my mind of the concept of a partite. If not, please let me know. I would love to discuss it.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is 1C7DB1746CFC72286DF097344AF23BD2.png

Transcending the impasse, part IV

Planck’s constant

It all started with the work of Max Planck. He famously introduced the notion that the energy absorbed or emitted during an interaction is proportional to the frequency of the field being absorbed or emitted. The proportionality constant h is today considered as a fundamental constant of nature. In honor of Max Planck is called Planck’s constant.

Max Planck, the father of quantum mechanics

The reason why we need to look at the Planck constant for transcending the impasse in physics is because there seem to be some confusion as to the role that it plays in quantum mechanics. The confusion manifests in two aspects of quantum mechanics.

One of these aspects is related to the transition from quantum to classical physics, which we have considered before. It is assumed that one should recover classical physics from quantum physics by simply taking the limit where Planck constant goes to zero. Although this assumption is reasonable, it depends on where the constant shows up. One may think that the presence of Planck’s constant in expressions should be unambiguous. That turns out not to be the case.

An example is the commutation relation for spin operators. Often one finds that the commutator produces the spin operators multiplied by Planck’s constant. According to this practice the limit where Planck’s constant goes to zero would imply that spin operators must commute in the classical theory, which is obviously not correct. Spin operators are the generators of three-dimensional rotations which still obey the same algebraic structure in classical theories as they do in quantum theories.

So when should there be a factor of Planck’s constant and when not? Perhaps a simple way to see it is that, if one finds that a redefinition of the quantities in an expression can be used to remove Planck’s constant from that expression, then it should not be there in the first place.

Using this approach, one can consider what happens in a Hamiltonian or Lagrangian for a theory. Remember that both of these are divided by Planck’s constant in the unitary evolution operator or path integral, respectively. One also finds that the quantization of the fields in these theories always contains a factor of the square root of Planck constant. If we pull it out of the definition and make it explicit in the expression of the theory, one finds that Planck’s constant cancels for all the free-field terms (kinetic term and mass term) in the theory. The only terms in either the Hamiltonian or the Lagrangian where the Planck constant remains are the interaction terms. This brings us full circle to the reason why Max Planck introduced the constant in the first place. Planck’s constant is specifically associated with interactions.

So if one sets Planck constant to zero in a theory, the result is that it removes all the interactions. It leads to a free-field theory without interactions, which is indistinguishable form a classical theory. Interactions are responsible for the changes in the number of particles and that is where all the quantum effects come from that we observe.

The other confusion about Planck’s constant is related to the uncertain principle. Again, the role that Planck’s constant plays is that it relates two quantities that, on the one hand, is the conjugate variable on phase space with, on the other hand, the Fourier variable. Without this relationship, one recovers the same uncertainty relationships between Fourier variables in classical theories, but not between conjugate variables in phase space. Planck’s relationship transfers the uncertainty relationship between Fourier variables to conjugate variables on phase space. So, the uncertainty relationship is not a fundamental quantum mechanical principle. No, it is the Planck relationship that deserves that honor.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is 1C7DB1746CFC72286DF097344AF23BD2.png

Transcending the impasse, part II

Classical vs quantum

It is a strange thing. Why the obsession with something that in the end comes down to a rather artificial distinction. Nature is the way it is. There is no dualism in nature. The distinction we make between classical and quantum is just an artifact of the theoretical model we build to understand nature. Or is it?

Well there is a history. It started with Einstein’s skepticism about quantum mechanics. Together with some co-workers, he eventually came up with a very good argument to justify the idea that quantum mechanics must be incomplete. At least, it seemed like a good argument until it was eventually shown to be wrong. It was found that the idea that quantum mechanics is incomplete and needs some extra hidden variables does not agree with experimental observations. The obsession with the distinction between what is classical and what is quantum is a remnant of this debate that originated with Einstein.

Today, we have a very successful formalism, which is simply called quantum mechanics, and can be used to model quantum phenomena. Strictly speaking, there are different versions of the quantum mechanics formalism, but they are all equivalent. The choice of specific formalism is usually based on convenience and personal taste.

Though Einstein’s issues with quantum mechanics may have been resolved, the mystery of what it really means remains. Therefore, many people are trying to probe deeper to find out why quantum mechanics works the way it does. However, despite all the probing, nothing seems to be discovered that disagrees with the quantum mechanics formalism, which is by now almost a hundred years old. The strange concepts, such as entanglement, discord, and contextuality, that have been distilled from quantum physics, turn out to be aspects that are already built into the quantum mechanics formalism. So, in effect all the probing merely comes down to an attempt to understand the implications of the formalism. We do not uncover any new physics.

But now a new understanding is rearing it ugly head. It turns out that the quantum mechanics formalism is not only successful for situation where we are clearly dealing with quantum physics. It is equally successful in situations where the physical phenomena are clearly classical. The consequence is that many of the so-called quintessential quantum properties, are actually properties of the formalism and are for that reason also present in cases where one can apply the formalism to classical scenarios.

I’ll give two examples. The one is the celebrated concept of entanglement. It has been shown now that the non-separability, which signals entanglement, is also present in classical optical fields. The difference is, in classical field it is restricted to local properties and cannot be separated over a distance as in the quantum case. This classical non-separability display many of the features that were traditionally associated with quantum entanglement. Many people now impose a dogmatic restriction on the use of the term entanglement, reserving it for those cases where it is clearly associated with quantum phenomena.

It does not serve the scientific community well to be dogmatic. It reminds us of the dogmatism that prevailed shortly after the advent of quantum mechanics. For a long while, any questioning of this dogma was simply not tolerated. It has led to a stagnation in progress in the understanding of quantum physics. Eventually, through the work of dissidents such as J. S. Bell, this stagnation was overthrown.

The other example is where certain properties of quasi-probability distributions are used as an indication of the quantum nature of a state. For instance, in the case of the Wigner distribution, any presence of negative values in the function is used as such an indication of it quantum nature. Nothing prevents one from using the Wigner distribution for classical fields. One can for instance consider the mode profiles of classical optical beams. Some of these mode profiles produce Wigner distributions that take on negative values at certain points. Obviously, it would be misleading to use this as a indication of a quantum nature. So, to avoid this situation, one needs to impose the dogmatic restriction that one can only used this indication in those cases where the Wigner distribution is computed for quantum state. But then the indication becomes somewhat circular, doesn’t it?

It occurs to me that the fact that we can use the quantum mechanics formalism in classical scenarios provides us with an opportunity to question our understanding of what it truly means to be quantum. What are the fundamental properties of nature that indicates scenarios that can be unambiguously identified as quantum phenomena? Through a process of elimination we may be able to arrive at such unambiguous properties. That may help us to see that the difference between the quantum nature of things and the classical nature of things is perhaps not as big as we thought.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is 1C7DB1746CFC72286DF097344AF23BD2.png