Foundations of quantum mechanics. An exploration of the physical meaning of quantum theory (Q2400600)

In a provocative opinion article recently contributed to The New York Times on Jan. 23, 2019 (\textit{The Uncertain Future of Particle Physics}, \url{https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/23/opinion/particle-physics-large-hadron-collider.html}) S. Hossenfelder -- a research fellow at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies -- sharply argues that ``ten years in, the Large Hadron Collider has failed to deliver the exciting discoveries that scientists promised.'' And her remarks are not confined to just complain for this alleged failure: she also suggests that ``there are other avenues to pursue. For example, the astrophysical observations pointing toward dark matter ... the interface between the quantum realm and gravity ... Another place where discoveries could be waiting is in the foundations of quantum mechanics. These could have major technological impacts.'' This acknowledgement is rather ironic in the light of the fact that the foundations of quantum mechanics have been kept for a longtime at arm's length by the mainstream physicists as too ideological and too philosophical to be good science; and this late, but welcome recognition is suggestive of a wholly new, more favorable climate. It is not indeed just a brilliant, but admittedly disgruntled young physicist to see in the foundations of quantum mechanics one of the main avenues to follow to find a future for the research in physics; and it is not only for its prospected ``major technological impacts'' that this topic is today resurrected to the general scientific interest. As recently as January 2017 no less than the nobel laureate S. Weinberg has suggested a similar choice as a major conceptual challenge. In a paper for the New York Review of Books (\textit{The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics}, \url{https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/01/19/trouble-with-quantum-mechanics/}) Weinberg maintains that ``the development of quantum mechanics in the first decades of the twentieth century came as a shock to many physicists. Today, despite the great successes of quantum mechanics, arguments continue about its meaning, and its future.'' And he goes on by recalling that ``the weirdness of quantum mechanics did not matter for most purposes. Physicists learned how to use it to do increasingly precise calculations ... Many physicists came to think that the reaction of Einstein and Feynman and others to the unfamiliar aspects of quantum mechanics had been overblown. This used to be my view.'' But today ``I'm not as sure as I once was about the future of quantum mechanics ... The dispute arises chiefly regarding the nature of measurement in quantum mechanics.'' The problem of quantum measurement with its \textit{random} outcomes, and its irreducibility to the \textit{deterministic} evolution of a Schrödinger equation was tackled in many ways. Always in Weinberg's words, ``one response to this puzzle was given in the 1920s by Niels Bohr, in what came to be called the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics ... This answer is now widely felt to be unacceptable ... On the other hand, the problems of understanding measurement in the present form of quantum mechanics may be warning us that the theory needs modification ... One difficulty in developing such a new theory is that we get no direction from experiment -- all data so far agree with ordinary quantum mechanics ... Unfortunately, these ideas about modifications of quantum mechanics are not only speculative but also vague, and we have no idea how big we should expect the corrections to quantum mechanics to be.'' In this new mood it is not inappropriate, then, for Norsen's new book on the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics to open with a quotation from J. C. Slater 1963 interview with T. S. Kuhn and J. H. Van Vleck, and to end in the \textit{Afterword} with a vivid recollection of the ideological divide between the young Slater on the one hand, and N. Bohr and H. Kramers on the other in Copenhagen back in 1923. What was interesting in that incident was ``not what felt to Slater like rude or even professionally inappropriate behavior on the part of Bohr and Kramers, but instead the philosophical disconnect that seemingly prevented them from agreeing about how best to proceed with the physics.'' The problems pointed by Slater in 1923 are not indeed very far from that recalled by Weinberg in 2017, and this shows once again -- if need to be -- both the suitability of a renewed effort toward a better understanding of quantum mechanics, and the expediency of new inquiries about these questions. The present work is indeed a textbook intended to help the students both to appreciate ``the concerns that people like Einstein, Schrödinger, and Bell have had with traditional formulations'', and to have a glimpse of ``the several extant formulations of quantum theory which purport to address at least some of the concerns''. Coming out of a seminar-style course where the student were supposed to pre-read the chapters in advance in order to have subsequent, comprehensive discussions with the teacher, every chapter ends with the list of the \textit{Projects} recommended as pre-class assignments: they range from traditional exercises, to proposed readings of suggested articles; from the production of visualizations and numerical solutions, to interviews to fellow physicists about particular issues. This commendable book is roughly divided into three parts: The first (Chapters 1 and 2, \textit{the background}) is a quick introduction to several important concepts of classical physics, and ``a lightning overview of some quantum mechanical formalism and examples that serve as a foundation for later discussions.'' No need to add that this requires some previous exposure to these ideas: even if the author struggles to play down the possible fears of people missing these prerequisites, it is difficult to see these chapters as much more than the list of the main topics to be investigated and discussed in the following. The second part (Chapters 3 to 5, \textit{the questions}) is then a detailed exposition of ``the concerns that people like Einstein, Schrödinger, and Bell had with traditional formulations of quantum theory.'' By gathering from the chapter titles they are in the order: the measurement problem (Weinberg \textit{dixit}), the locality problem (coming out of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen 1935 paper), and the so called ontology problem that ``might be summarized by the general question: even leaving aside the question of whether or not the [quantum] description is complete, what kind of physical thing -- what ontology, exactly -- could the quantum wave function possibly represent, and how would that representation work?'' The third part (Chapters 6 to 10, \textit{the answers}) is of course devoted to reviewing and assessing four out of the full menu of the available resolutions: the Copenhagen interpretation (admittedly not the favorite choice of the author), the pilot-wave theory, the spontaneous collapse theory, anche the many-worlds theory. The Chapter 8 on the Bell's theorem, on the other hand, is not really a proposed resolution of the quantum troubles, but rather an interesting exploration ``about what, exactly, should be inferred from the empirical violations of Bell inequalities.'' Hoping finally to have ``established a fertile base from which to further explore foundational questions in quantum physics'', the author concludes his book with a visionary \textit{Afterword} ``suggesting some possible directions and topics for further study and research.'' Therein he not only proposes further readings about the theories previously introduced in the book (and in particular about his favourite pilot-wave theory), but he also hints to the ``many other 'interpretations' of quantum mechanics that were (undoubtedly to the great annoyance of their defenders) not included in this book.'' Admittedly that is because he view them as less worthwhile, but he also graciously concedes that ``there may be value in exploring them nevertheless.'' Thanks God.