Einstein, Podolski, Rosen

Demystifying quantum mechanics VI

When one says that one wants to demystify quantum mechanics, then it may create the false impression that there is nothing strange about quantum mechanics. Well, that would be a misleading notion. Quantum mechanics does have a counterintuitive aspect (perhaps even more than one). However, that does not mean that quantum mechanics need to be mysterious. We can still understand this aspect, and accept its counterintuitive aspect as part of nature, even though we don’t experience it in everyday life.

The counterintuitive aspect of quantum mechanics is perhaps best revealed by the phenomenon of quantum entanglement. But before I discuss quantum entanglement, it may be helpful to discuss some of the historical development of this concept. Therefore, I’ll focus on an apparent paradox that Einstein, Podolski and Rosen (EPR) presented.

They proposed a simple experiment to challenge the idea that one cannot measure position and momentum of a particle with arbitrary accuracy, due to the Heisenberg uncertainty. In the experiment, an unstable particle would be allowed to decay into two particles. Then, one would measure the momentum of one of the particles and the position of the other particle. Due to the conservation momentum, one can then relate the momentum of the one particle to that of the other. The idea is now that one should be able to make the respective measurements as accurately as possible so that the combined information would then give one the position and momentum of one particle more accurately than what Heisenberg uncertainty should allow.

Previously, I explained that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle has a perfectly understandable foundation, which has nothing to do with quantum mechanics apart from the de Broglie relationship, which links momentum to the wave number. However, what the EPR trio revealed in their hypothetical experiment is a concept which, at the time, was quite shocking, even for those people that thought they understood quantum mechanics. This concept eventually led to the notion of quantum entanglement. But, I’m getting ahead of myself.

John Bell

The next development came from John Bell, who also did not quite buy into all this quantum mechanics. So, to try and understand what would happen in the EPR experiment, he made a derivation of the statistics that one can expect to observe in such an experiment. The result was an inequality, which shows that, under some apparently innocuous assumptions, the measurement results when combine in a particular way must always give a value smaller than a certain maximum value. These “innocuous” assumptions were: (a) that there is a unique reality, (b) that there are no nonlocal interactions (“spooky action at a distance”) .

It took a while before an actual experiment that tested the EPR paradox could be perform. However, eventually such experiments were performed, notably by Alain Aspect in 1982. He used polarization of light instead of position and momentum, but the same principle applies. And guess what? When he combined the measurement result as proposed for the Bell inequality, he found that it violated the Bell inequality!

So, what does this imply? It means that at least one of the assumption made by Bell must be wrong. Either, the physical universe does not have a unique reality, or there are nonlocal interactions allowed. The problem with the latter is that it would then also contradict special relativity. So, then we have to conclude that there is no unique reality.

It is this lack of a unique reality that lies at the heart of an understand of the concept of quantum entanglement. More about that later.

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

Discreteness

Demystifying quantum mechanics V

Perhaps one of the most iconic “mysteries” of quantum mechanics is the particle-wave duality. Basically, it comes down to the fact that the interference effects one can observe implies that quantum entities behave like waves, but at the same time, these entities are observed as discrete lumps, which are interpreted as particles. Previously, I explained that one can relax the idea of localized lumps a bit to allow only the interactions, which are required for observations, to be localized. So instead of particles, we can think of these entities as partites that share all the properties of particles, accept that they are not localized lumps. So, they can behave like waves and thus give rise to all the wave phenomena that are observed. In this way, the mystery of the particle-wave duality is removed.

Now, it is important to understand that, just like particles, partites are discrete entities. The discreteness of these entities is an important aspect that plays a significant role in the phenomena that we observe in quantum physics. Richard Feynman even considered the idea that “all things are made of atoms” to be the single most important bit of scientific knowledge that we have.

Model of the atom

How then does it happen that some physicist would claim that quantum mechanics is not about discreteness? In her blog post, Hossenfelder goes on to make a number of statements that contradict much of our understanding of fundamental physics. For instance, she would claim that “quantizing a theory does not mean you make it discrete.”

Let’s just clarify. What does it mean to quantize a theory? It depends, whether we are talking about quantum mechanics or quantum field theory. In quantum mechanics, the processing of quantizing a theory implies that we replace observable quantities with operators for these quantities. These operators don’t always commute with each other, which then leads to the Heisenberg uncertainty relation. So the discreteness is not immediately apparent. On the other hand, in quantum field theory, the quantization process implies that fields are replaced by field operators. These field operators are expressed in terms of so-called ladder operators: creation and annihilation operators. What a ladder operator does is to change the excitation of a field in discrete lumps. Therefore, discreteness is clearly apparent in quantum field theory.

What Hossenfelder says, is that the Heisenberg uncertainty relationships is the key foundation for quantum mechanics. In one of her comments, she states: “The uncertainty principle is a quantum phenomenon. It is not a property of classical waves. If there’s no hbar in it, it’s not the uncertainty principle. People get confused by the fact that waves obey a property that looks similar to the uncertainty principle, but in this case it’s for the position and wave-number, not momentum. That’s not a quantum phenomenon. That’s just a mathematical identity.”

It seems that she forgot about Louise de Broglie’s equation, which relates the wave-number to the momentum. In a previous post, I have explained that the Heisenberg uncertain relationship is an inevitable consequence of the Planck and de Broglie equations, which relate the conjugate variables of the phase space with Fourier variables. It has nothing to do with classical physics. It is founded in the underlying mathematics associated with Fourier analysis. Let’s not allow us to be mislead by people that are more interested in sensationalism than knowledge and understanding.

The discreteness of partites allows the creation of superpositions of arbitrary combinations of such partites. The consequences for such scenarios include quantum interference that is observed in for instance the Hong-Ou-Mandel effect. It can also lead to quantum entanglement, which is an important property used in quantum information systems. The discreteness in quantum physics therefore allows it to go beyond what one can find in classical physics.

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

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

What particle?

Demystifying quantum mechanics III

The notion of a particle played an important role in our understanding of fundamental physics. It also lies at the core of understanding quantum mechanics. However, there are some issues with the notion of a particle that can complicate things. Before addressing the role that particles play in the understanding of quantum mechanics, we first need to look at these issues.

Particle trajectories detected in a high energy experiment

So what is this issue about particles? The problem is that we don’t really know whether there really are particles. What?!!! Perhaps you may think that what I’m referring to has something to do with the wave-particle duality. No, this issue about the actual existence of particles goes a little deeper than that.

It may seem like a nonsense issue, when one considers all the experimental observation of particles. The problem is that, while the idea of a particle provides a convenient explanation for what we see in those experiments, none of them actually confirms that what we see must be particles. Even when one obtains a trajectory as in a cloud chamber or in the more sophisticated particle detectors that are used in high energy particle experiments, such as the Large Hadron Collider, such a trajectory can be explained as a sequence of localized observations each of which projects the state onto a localize pointer state, thus forcing the state to remain localized through a kind of Zeno effect. It all this sounds a little too esoteric, don’t worry. The only point I’m trying to make is that the case for the existence of actual particles is far from being closed.

Just to be on the same page, let’s first agree what we mean when we talk about a particle. I think it was Eugene Wigner that defined a particle as a dimensionless point traveling on a world line. Such a particle would explain those observed trajectories, provided one allows for a limited resolution in the observation. However, this definition runs into problems with quantum mechanics.

Consider for example Young’s double slit experiment. Here the notion of a particle on a world line encounters a problem, because somehow the particle needs to pass through both slits to produce the interference pattern that is observed. This leads to the particle-wave duality. To solve this problem, one can introduce the idea of a superposition of trajectories. By itself this idea does not solve the problem, because these trajectories must produce an interference pattern. So one can add the notion (thanks to Richard Feynman) of a little clock that accompanies each of the trajectories, representing the evolution of the phase along the trajectory. Then when the particle arrives at the screen along these different trajectories the superposition together with the different phase values will determine the interference at that point.

Although the construction thus obtained can explain what is being seen, it remains a hypothesis. We run into the frustrating situation that nature does not allow us any means to determine whether this picture is correct. Every observation that we make just gives us the same localized interaction and there is no way to probe deeper to see what happens beyond that localize interaction.

So, we arrive at the situation where our scientific knowledge of the micro-world will always remain incomplete. We can build strange convoluted constructs to provide potential explanations, but we can never establish their veracity.

This situation may seem like a very depressing conclusion, but if we can accept that there are things we can never know, then we may develop a different approach to our understanding. It helps to realize that our ignorance exactly coincides with the irrelevance of the issue. In other words, that which we cannot know is precise that which would never be useful. This conclusion follows from the fact that, if it could have been useful, we would have had the means to study it and uncover a true understanding of it.

So, let’s introduce at a more pragmatic approach to our understanding of the micro-world. Instead of trying to describe the exact nature of the physical entities (such as particles) that we encounter, let’s rather focus on the properties of these entities that would produce the phenomena that we can observe. Instead of particles, we focus of the properties that make things look like particles. This brings us to the notion of a party or a partite.

But now the discussion is becoming too long. More about that next time.

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

The origin of Heisenberg uncertainty

Demystifying quantum mechanics II

Perhaps the one thing that everyone thinks about when they hear talk about quantum mechanics is Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. It may even sometimes be considered as the essence of quantum mechanics. Now what would you say if I tell you that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is not a fundamental principle and that the origin of this principle is not found in quantum mechanics? The fundamental origin of this uncertainty is a purely mathematical property and the reason that quantum mechanics inherited this principle is simply a result of the Planck relationship.

Werner Heisenberg

I have discussed this issue to some extent before. However, it forms an important part of the knowledge that would help to demystify quantum mechanics. Therefore, it deserves more attention.

Before the advent of quantum mechanics, the state of a particle was considered to be completely described by its position and velocity (momentum). The dynamics of a system could then be represented by a diagram showing position and velocity of the particle as a function of time. For historical reasons, the domain of such a diagram is called phase space. For a one-dimensional system (such as a harmonic oscillator), it would give a two-dimensional graph with position on one axis and velocity on the other. The state of the system is a point on the two-dimensional plane that moves along some trajectory as a function of time. For a harmonic oscillator, this trajectory is a circle.

A mathematical property (in Fourier analysis), which may have seemed to be complete unrelated at the time, is that the width of the spectrum of a function has a lower limit that is proportional to the inverse of the width of the function. This property has nothing to do with physical reality. It is a purely logical fact that can be proven with the aid of mathematics. If the function is, for instance, interpreted as the probability distribution of the position of a particle, the width of the function would represent the uncertainty in its location.

This mathematical uncertainty property was transferred to phase space by Planck’s relation, which links the independent variable of the spectrum (the wave number) with the momentum or velocity of the particle. The implication is that one cannot represent the state of a quantum particle with a single dimensionless point on phase space in quantum mechanics. Hence, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

So, the uncertainty associated with Heisenberg’s principle is inevitable due to Planck’s relation. And it is founded on pure logic in terms of which mathematics is based. Planck’s relation is the only physics that enters the picture. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is therefore not a separate principle that is independent of Planck’s relationship as far as the physics is concerned.

Now, there are a few subtleties that we can address. There are also some interesting consequences based in this understanding, but I’ll leave these for later.

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

Demystifying quantum mechanics I

Feynman’s statement

In one of his books, The Character of Physical Law (MIT Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1995), Richard Feynman stated: “I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.”¬†Apparently, he also said “If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics”¬†in a talk with the same title as the book.

Richard Feynman

So it is quite clear that Feynman strongly believed that quantum mechanics is fundamentally incomprehensible. Who can argue with Feynman? He was a genius. If he said nobody can understand it, then nobody can understand it, right?

Genius or not, Feynman was just a human being. One should not elevate any person to such a level that their statements are considered to be cast in stone.

I don’t think that quantum mechanics is fundamentally incomprehensible. It is just that we don’t like what we learn. The way nature behaves at the fundamental level seems to contradict our intuition because it is so different from what we experience in our daily lives.

To be sure, there are things about the micro world that we simply cannot know. We know that atoms radiate photons, and that the atoms change their states when this happens. But we don’t know the exact mechanism by which such a photon is created.

The amazing thing about quantum mechanics is that it allows us to make reliable calculations without knowing these details. It is a way to encapsulate our ignorance and renders it innocuous, allowing us to use the little that we can know to make useful predictions.

Quantum mechanics is not the only scientific approach that allows one to make useful calculations amidst ignorance. Statistical analysis does the same. It also ignores the ignorance about the details and allows useful calculations exploiting the little that we do know.

What makes quantum mechanics more mysterious is that the part that we can know includes aspects that are strange to say the least. This strangeness has many manifestations, variously referred to as “the wave-particle duality,” “quantum uncertainty,” “quantum tunneling,” “quantum entanglement,” and many others.

A thorough understanding of these various aspects of quantum mechanics removes some of the strangeness. One can often identify the mechanisms with similar mechanisms in non-quantum scenarios without any strangeness.

However, within this understanding there usually remains an aspect that does not have any equivalent aspect in non-quantum scenarios. Distilling out this one aspect that makes things seem weird, one can refer to it as the notion of multiple realities.

People don’t like this idea of multiple realities. So they invented the idea of quantum collapse. However, there is no observable confirmation of quantum collapse. One can even argue that it is in principle impossible to observe quantum collapse, because it would have to be intrinsically involved in the process of observations. So this led to the so-called “measurement problem.”

The very fact the there are people that try to solve the measurement problem shows that they don’t buy into Feynman’s statement. They invest a significant amount of time and effort to understand something that Feynman believed could not be understood.

I don’t think the idea of multiple realities needs more understanding. It is the way it is, even if we don’t like it. I intend to say a bit more about it later.

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