Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Distinguishing Features and Axioms of Quantum Mechanics

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover The Amazing World of Quantum Computing

Part of the book series: Undergraduate Lecture Notes in Physics ((ULNP))

  • 2282 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter describes certain fundamental differences between classical and quantum mechanics, their different postulates, the role of the observer, what is meant by local and non-local interactions, causality and determinism , and the role of force, energy, and momentum. A short introduction to the purely quantum mechanical aspect of superposition, measurement, and entanglement is provided to mentally prepare the reader for the chapters ahead.

Most of the fundamental ideas of science are essentially simple, and may, as a rule, be expressed in a language comprehensible to everyone.

—Albert Einstein (Einstein and Infeld [28], p. 17.)

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Deutsch [21].

  2. 2.

    Hence, in our context, quantum computing is not about computational quantum physics, or quantum chemistry or modeling of quantum systems using classical computers.

  3. 3.

    The terms “classical mechanics” and “classical physics” refer to a non-quantum theory. It is possible to give separately, for classical and quantum theories, a relativistic and a non-relativistic formulation.

  4. 4.

    Maxwell [47].

  5. 5.

    Dyson [26].

  6. 6.

    Bohr [7].

  7. 7.

    See Wheeler [68].

  8. 8.

    Faye [33].

  9. 9.

    Young [69, 70].

  10. 10.

    Thomson [65] for this discovery J. J. Thomson received the 1906 Nobel Prize in physics. His son George Paget Thomson won the 1937 Nobel Prize in physics (shared with Clinton Davisson) for showing that a beam of electrons could also be diffracted and hence behave as waves too.

  11. 11.

    Planck [52]. In this paper, Planck provided a phenomenological fit to the blackbody radiation spectrum and introduced the constant h later named after him.

  12. 12.

    Notwithstanding, the Nobel Prize in Physics 1918 was awarded to Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck “in recognition of the services he rendered to the advancement of Physics by his discovery of energy quanta.”

  13. 13.

    Einstein [27]. This paper was fundamental to the development of quantum theory.

  14. 14.

    This was in his doctoral thesis (titled Recherches sur la théorie des quanta (Researches on the Quantum Theory) at the Sorbonne in Paris.

  15. 15.

    A. Einstein, Letter to P. Langevin, December 16, 1924. The quote appears in James [43], p. 311.

  16. 16.

    Davisson and Germer [19]. The first published experiments to confirm de Broglie’s theory. See also: Davisson [20].

  17. 17.

    See Thomson [66]. See also: Thomson [67].

  18. 18.

    In 1929, de Broglie was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics “for his discovery of the wave nature of electrons.” In 1937, Sir George Paget Thomson and Clinton Joseph Davisson shared the Nobel Prize for physics “for their experimental discovery of the diffraction of electrons by crystals.”

  19. 19.

    In passing we note that the concept of force may be considered redundant. In principle, one can always express classical physics in terms of the positions, velocities, and accelerations of all the particles of the universe.

  20. 20.

    We now know from chaos theory that there are limitations to this; it appears in the form of “deterministic chaos.” It was first noticed in 1890 by Henri Poincaré (1854–1912). See Poincaré [53].

  21. 21.

    See, e.g., Bohm [4], Chap. 2.

  22. 22.

    Renkel [55].

  23. 23.

    Born won the 1954 Nobel Prize in physics “for his fundamental research in quantum mechanics, especially for his statistical interpretation of the wavefunction.” It was shared with Walther Bothe, who won it “for the coincidence method and his discoveries made therewith.” Born’s Nobel lecture, 11 December 1954 (see Born [11]) is highly recommended to the reader.

  24. 24.

    It may well be that Nature, at its core, is completely deterministic and the dynamics of the Universe is preordained.

  25. 25.

    See, e.g., Aspect et al. [3], Aspect [2]. In February 2017, even more stringent experimental evidence of entanglement was provided by Handsteiner et al. [35].

  26. 26.

    Given a set S and two binary operators * and + on S, we say that the operation * is left-distributive over + if, given any elements x, y, and z of S, x * (y + z) = (x * y) + (x * z) and right-distributive if (y + z) * x = (y * x) + (z * x), and simply distributive if both left and right hold. Note that when * is commutative, then all the three are logically equivalent.

  27. 27.

    Susskind and Friedman [64], pp. 35, 94.

  28. 28.

    Susskind and Friedman [64], p. 96.

  29. 29.

    Heisenberg [37]. See also: Born and Jordan [14], and Born et al. [13].

  30. 30.

    Nobelprize [51].

  31. 31.

    Heisenberg [40], p. 57.

  32. 32.

    Heisenberg [40], p. 75.

  33. 33.

    The original paper is Schrödinger [61]. This paper was preceded by Schrödinger [58–58,59,]. All these papers are available at Schrödinger (Collected papers). See also: Nanni [49].

  34. 34.

    See, e.g., Cresser [18], especially Chaps. 2, 3, and 6.

  35. 35.

    Schrödinger [57].

  36. 36.

    Born [11].

  37. 37.

    Dirac [24].

  38. 38.

    Hawking [36].

  39. 39.

    Since Schrödinger’s wave equation is non-relativistic, it does not work at high energies. At high energies, particle physicists use the S Matrix (also called scattering matrix), an array of mathematical quantities that predicts the probabilities of all possible outcomes of a given experimental situation. E.g., two colliding particles may alter in speed and direction or even change into entirely new particles: The S-matrix for the collision gives the likelihood of each possibility. An S-matrix is expressed in terms of observable quantities. Complete knowledge of the S-matrix for all processes would amount to having complete understanding of all physical laws.

  40. 40.

    For example, de Broglie and Schrödinger had attempted to make the obvious analogy between matter waves of quantum mechanics and classical waves of Maxwellian electrodynamics without success, because such an analogy, inter alia, was incompatible with the intrinsic nonlocality of quantum phenomena.

  41. 41.

    Invented by Paul Dirac.

  42. 42.

    Nielsen and Chuang [50], see Chap. 2, Sect. 2.2. We have generally tried to stay close to their formal statements and notations to enable readers to easily transition to their excellent book.

  43. 43.

    A linear operator U whose inverse is its adjoint (conjugate transpose) is called unitary.

  44. 44.

    Born [12], p. 95.

  45. 45.

    Born [12], p. 96.

  46. 46.

    Born [12], p. 102.

  47. 47.

    Heisenberg [38]. See also: Heisenberg [39].

  48. 48.

    Heisenberg [38]. See also: Heisenberg [39].

  49. 49.

    For a proof, see Nielsen and Chuang [50], p. 89. See also Busch et al. [15]; Cowan [17].

  50. 50.

    Heisenberg [38], Hilgevoord and Uffink [42].

  51. 51.

    See, e.g., Lamb [45].

  52. 52.

    Susskind and Friedman [64], p. 52.

  53. 53.

    For a proof, see, e.g., Dirac [25], pp. 49–50. The converse is also true, i.e., if there are two observables such that their simultaneous eigenstates form a complete set, then the two observables commute.

  54. 54.

    In Chap. 2, Sect. 2.2, we noted the two-layer description of the world . In quantum mechanics, one may view observable-operators as partly doing the task of the second layer. What is unusual here is that an observable-operator initiates the random “collapse” of the wave function on which it acts.

  55. 55.

    Bohm [4], pp. 84–85.

  56. 56.

    Feynman [34], Chap. 6.

  57. 57.

    Born [11].

  58. 58.

    Stapp [63].

  59. 59.

    Heisenberg [41], p. 114. (Quoted in Zukav [70], p. 47.)

  60. 60.

    Deutsch [23].

  61. 61.

    Born [9, 10].

  62. 62.

    Jammer [43], p. 87. Quotation as reproduced in Al-Kahlili [1], p. 134.

  63. 63.

    Seife [62].

  64. 64.

    Al-Kahlili [1], p. 153.

  65. 65.

    See Footnote 64.

  66. 66.

    Mermin [48].

  67. 67.

    Everett [29].

  68. 68.

    Everett [30].

  69. 69.

    Byrne [16].

  70. 70.

    Al-Kahlili [1].

  71. 71.

    See Footnote 70.

  72. 72.

    Byrne [16].

  73. 73.

    Everett [31].

  74. 74.

    Deutsch [22], p. 51.

  75. 75.

    Bohm and Hiley [6], Chap. 3. The original paper is: Bohm [5].

  76. 76.

    Mahler et al. [46]. See also: Falk [32].

  77. 77.

    Galileo is the only scientist referred to in the scientific literature by his first name rather than his last.

  78. 78.

    Popper [54]. Great scientific theories have built into them the risk of making predictions of possible effects not yet observed. The matter wave theory of de Broglie is one of them. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice. As for Popper, “the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.” Theories which fail to meet the criterion of falsifiability adopt the soothsayer’s practice of making their interpretations and prophesies sufficiently vague so that they are able to explain away anything that might have been a refutation of the theory had the theory and prophesies been more precise.

  79. 79.

    Heisenberg [40], p. 58.

  80. 80.

    Zukav [70], p. 129.

  81. 81.

    Bohr [8], p. 60.

References

  1. J. Al-Kahlili, in Quantum (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 2003)

    Google Scholar 

  2. A. Aspect, in Testing Bell’s Inequalities (1991), pp. 415–425. http://inspirehep.net/record/1406213/files/C91-01-26_415-426.pdf (For a video, see http://cds.cern.ch/record/423022) The text presented is very close to the one that Aspect prepared for the special issue of Europhysics News; A. Aspect, Testing Bell’s inequalities. Europhys. News 22, 73–75 (1991), on John Bell and Quantum Mechanics (issue of April 1991)

  3. A. Aspect, P. Grangier, G. Roger, Experimental realization of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm Gedankenexperiment: a new violation of Bell’s inequalities. Phys. Rev. Lett. 49(2), 91–94 (1982). http://www.qudev.ethz.ch/content/courses/QSIT08/pdfs/Aspect82.pdf

  4. D. Bohm, in Quantum Theory (Dover Publications, New York, 1989) (Reprint of the original published by Prentice-Hall, New Jersey in 1951)

    Google Scholar 

  5. D. Bohm, A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of “hidden” variables. Phys. Rev. 85, 166–193 (1952). http://fma.if.usp.br/~amsilva/Artigos/p166_1.pdf

  6. D. Bohm, B.J. Hiley, in The Undivided Universe (Routledge, London, 1993)

    Google Scholar 

  7. N. Bohr, Das Quantenpostulat und die neuere Entwicklung der Atomistik. Naturwissenschaften 16(15), 245–257 (1928)

    Google Scholar 

  8. N. Bohr, in Atomic Theory and Human Knowledge (Wiley, New York, 1958)

    Google Scholar 

  9. M. Born, Zur Quantenmechanik der Stoßvorgänge. Zeitschrift für Physik 37(12), 863–867 (1926). http://www.psiquadrat.de/downloads/born26_stossvorgaenge.pdf

  10. M. Born, Quantenmechanik der Stoßvorgänge. Zeitschrift für Physik, 38 (11–12), 803–827 (1926) [English translation in ed. G. Ludwig, Wave Mechanics (Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1968)]

    Google Scholar 

  11. M. Born, in The Statistical Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (1954). Nobel Lecture, 11 Dec 1954. https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1954/born-lecture.pdf

  12. M. Born, in Atomic Physics (Blackie, Glasgow, 1969)

    Google Scholar 

  13. M. Born, W. Heisenberg, P. Jordan, Zur Quantenmechanik II, Zeitschrift für Physik 35, 557–615 (1926) (received 16 Nov 1925) [English translation in ed. B.L. van der Waerden, Sources of Quantum Mechanics (Dover Publications, 1968) ISBN 0-486-61881-1 (English title: On Quantum Mechanics II).]

    Google Scholar 

  14. M. Born, P. Jordan, Zur Quantenmechanik, Zeitschrift für Physik 34, 858–888 (1925) (received 27 Sept 1925) [English translation in ed. B.L. van der Waerden, Sources of Quantum Mechanics (Dover Publications, 1968) ISBN 0-486-61881-1 (English title: On Quantum Mechanics).]

    Google Scholar 

  15. P. Busch, P. Lahti, R.F. Werner, Proof of Heisenberg’s error-disturbance relation. Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 160405 (2013). Preprint at http://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.1565v2.pdf

  16. P. Byrne, in The Many Worlds of Hugh Everett (Scientific American, Dec 2007). http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=hugh-everett-biography

  17. R. Cowan, Proof mooted for quantum uncertainty. Nature 498, 419–420 (2013). http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/1.13270!/menu/main/topColumns/topLeftColumn/pdf/498419a.pdf

  18. J. Cresser, Physics 201, Lecture Notes (Department of Physics, Macquarie University, Sydney, 2005). http://physics.mq.edu.au/~jcresser/Phys201/LectureNotes

  19. C. Davisson, L.H. Germer, Diffraction of electrons by a crystal of nickel. Phys. Rev. 30(6), 705–740 (1927)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. C.J. Davisson, The diffraction of electrons by a crystal of Nickel. Bell Syst. Tech. J. January 1928. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1928.tb00342.x

  21. D. Deutsch, Quantum theory, the Church-Turning principle and the universal quantum computer, in Proceedings of the Royal Society of London; Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, vol. 400 (1818), July 1985, pp. 97–117. http://www.ceid.upatras.gr/tech_news/papers/quantum_theory.pdf

  22. D. Deutsch, in The Fabric of Reality (Penguin Books, New York, 1997)

    Google Scholar 

  23. D. Deutsch, in Creative Blocks (Aeon, 03 Oct 2012). https://aeon.co/essays/how-close-are-we-to-creating-artificial-intelligence

  24. P.A.M. Dirac, The fundamental equations of quantum mechanics. Proc. R. Soc. A 109, 642–653 (1925). http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royprsa/109/752/642.full.pdf

  25. P.A.M. Dirac, in The Principles of Quantum Mechanics, 4th edn. (Oxford University Press, 1958)

    Google Scholar 

  26. F.J. Dyson, Why is Maxwell’s theory so hard to understand? in The Second European Conference on Antennas and Propagation, 2007 (EuCAP 2007, Edinburgh). http://www.sonnetsoftware.com/news/DMLfiles/dysonessay.pdf

  27. A. Einstein, On a heuristic view concerning the production and transformation of light. Annalen der Physik 17, 132–148 (1905) (English translation from German). https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/101

  28. A. Einstein, L. Infeld, The Evolution of Physics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1938). https://ia800302.us.archive.org/15/items/evolutionofphysi033254mbp/evolutionofphysi033254mbp.pdf

  29. H. Everett, On the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Ph.D. thesis (Princeton University, Department of Physics, 1957)

    Google Scholar 

  30. H. Everett, “Relative State” formulation of quantum mechanics. Rev. Modern Phys. 29(3), 454–462 (1957). http://www.univer.omsk.su/omsk/Sci/Everett/paper1957.html

  31. H. Everett, Generalized Lagrange multiplier method for solving problems of optimum allocation of resources. Oper. Res. 11(3), 399–417 (1963). http://www.hpca.ual.es/~jjsanchez/references/Generalized_Lagrange_multiplier_method_for_solving_problems_of_optimum_allocation_of_resources.pdf

  32. D. Falk, New support for alternative quantum view. Quanta Magazine, 16 May 2016. https://d2r55xnwy6nx47.cloudfront.net/uploads/2016/05/pilot-wave-theory-gains-experimental-support-20160516.pdf (Reprinted from Dan Falk. New Evidence Could Overthrow the Standard View of Quantum Mechanics. Science, 16 May 2016, https://www.wired.com/2016/05/new-support-alternative-quantum-view/)

  33. J. Faye, Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Stanford Encycl. Philos. (2008). http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-copenhagen/

  34. R. Feynman, in The Character of Physical Law. Modern Library Edition, 1994 (Originally published by BBC in 1965, and in paperback by MIT Press, 1967)

    Google Scholar 

  35. J. Handsteiner et al., Cosmic Bell test: measurement settings from Milky Way stars. Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 060401, 07 Feb 2017. https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.060401

  36. S. Hawking (n.d.), in Does God play Dice? http://www.hawking.org.uk/does-god-play-dice.html

  37. W. Heisenberg, Über quantentheoretische Umdeutung kinematischer und mechanischer Beziehungen. Zeitschrift für Physik, 33, 879–893 (1925) (received July 29, 1925) [English translation in: B. L. van der Waerden, editor, Sources of Quantum Mechanics (Dover Publications, 1968) ISBN 0-486-61881-1 (English title: Quantum-Theoretical Re-interpretation of Kinematic and Mechanical Relations).] (The original paper)

    Google Scholar 

  38. W. Heisenberg, Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik Zeitschr (The actual content of quantum theoretical kinematics and mechanics), Phys. 43(3–4), 172–198 (1927) (Translation available at J.A. Wheeler, W.H. Zurek, Quantum Theory and Measurement (Princeton University Press, N.J., 1983), pp. 62–84)

    Google Scholar 

  39. W. Heisenberg, in The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory (University of Chicago Press, 1930)

    Google Scholar 

  40. W. Heisenberg, in Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science (George Allen and Unwin, 1958) https://archive.org/stream/PhysicsPhilosophy/Heisenberg-PhysicsPhilosophy#page/n1

  41. W. Heisenberg, Across the Frontiers (Harper & Row, New York, 1974)

    Google Scholar 

  42. J. Hilgevoord, J. Uffink, The uncertainty principle. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 12 July 2016. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/

  43. I. James, in Remarkable Physicists: From Galileo to Yukawa (Cambridge University Press, 2004)

    Google Scholar 

  44. I. Jammer, in The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics (Wiley, New York, 1974)

    Google Scholar 

  45. H. Lamb, in Hydrodynamics (Cambridge University Press, 1932)

    Google Scholar 

  46. D. Mahler et al., Experimental nonlocal and surreal Bohmian trajectories. Sci. Adv. 2(2), e1501466 (2016). http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/2/e1501466.full

  47. J.C. Maxwell, A dynamical theory of the electromagnetic field. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. 155, 459–512 (1865). http://rstl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/155/459. (This article accompanied a December 8, 1864 presentation by Maxwell to the Royal Society.)

  48. N.D. Mermin, Could Feynman have said this? Phys. Today 57(5). http://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.1768652

  49. L. Nanni, A new derivation of the time-dependent Schrödinger equation from wave and matrix mechanics. Adv. Phys. Theor. Appl. 43 (2015). ISSN 2224-719X (Paper) ISSN 2225-0638 (Online). https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1506/1506.03180.pdf

  50. M.A. Nielsen, I.L. Chuang, in Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, 2000) [Errata at http://www.squint.org/qci/]

  51. Nobelprize (n.d.). The uncertainty principle. Quant. World, Quant. Mech. 3, 9. https://www.nobelprize.org/educational/physics/quantised_world/final-3.html

  52. M. Planck, Ueber irreversible Strahlungsvorgänge. Annalen der Physik 306(1), 69–122 (1900). https://doi.org/10.1002/andp.19003060105|

  53. H. Poincaré, Sur le problème des trois corps et les équations de la dynamique, Acta Mathematica 13, 1–270 (1890). http://henripoincarepapers.univ-lorraine.fr/bibliohp/?a=on&art=Sur+le+probl%C3%A8me+des+trois+corps+et+les+%C3%A9quations+de+la+dynamique&action=go

  54. K. Popper, in Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (Routledge, 1963)

    Google Scholar 

  55. P. Renkel, in Building a Bridge between Classical and Quantum Mechanics. arXiv:1701.04698v2 [physics.gen-ph], 06 Nov 2017. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1701.04698.pdf

  56. E. Schrödinger, An undulatory theory of the mechanics of atoms and molecules. Phys. Rev. Second Series, 28(6) (1926). https://web.archive.org/web/20081217040121/ http://home.tiscali.nl/physis/HistoricPaper/Schroedinger/Schroedinger1926c.pdf

  57. E. Schrödinger, in Collected Papers on Wave Mechanics. Blackie and Son Ltd. (Translated from the Second German Edition, Abhandlungen zur Wellenmechanik. Johann Ambrosius Barth, 1928, by J. F. Shearer) (They include practically all that Schrödinger has written on wave mechanics.) (Publisher’s note: “Throughout the book Eigenfunktion has been translated as proper function, and Eigenwert, proper value. The phrase eine stückweise stetige Funktion has been translated a sectionally continuous function.”) https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.211600/2015.211600.Collected-Papers#page/n159

  58. E. Schrödinger, Quantisation as a problem of proper values (Part I). Annalen der Physik 79(4) (1926). Available in Schrödinger (Collected papers), pp. 1–12

    Google Scholar 

  59. E. Schrödinger, Quantisation as a problem of proper values (Part II). Annalen der Physik 79(4) (1926). Available in Schrödinger (Collected papers), pp. 13–40

    Google Scholar 

  60. E. Schrödinger, Quantisation as a problem of proper values (Part III). Annalen der Physik 80(4) (1926). Available in Schrödinger (Collected papers), pp. 62–101

    Google Scholar 

  61. E. Schrödinger, Quantisation as a problem of proper values (Part IV). Annalen der Physik 81(4) (1926). Available in Schrödinger Available in Schrödinger (Collected papers), pp. 102–123

    Google Scholar 

  62. C. Seife, Do deeper principles underlie quantum uncertainty and nonlocality? Science 309(5731), 98, 01 July 2005. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/309/5731/98/tab-pdf

  63. H. Stapp, S-matrix interpretation of quantum theory. Phys. Rev. D3, 1303 (1971)

    Google Scholar 

  64. L. Susskind, A. Friedman, in Quantum Mechanics—The Theoretical Minimum (Penguin Books, 2015)

    Google Scholar 

  65. J.J. Thomson, Cathode Rays, The Electrician, vol. 39, No. 104, also published in Proceedings of the Royal Institution, 30 April 1897, 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  66. G.P. Thomson, Experiments on the diffraction of cathode rays, in Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series A, vol. 117, No. 778 (Feb. 1, 1928), pp. 600–609. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0950-1207%2819280201%29117%3A778%3C600%3AEOTDOC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-G

  67. G.P. Thomson, Some recent experiments on cathode rays, in The 11th Mackenzie Davidson Memorial Lecture; read, 4 Dec 1930, http://bjr.birjournals.org/cgi/reprint/4/38/52.pdf

  68. J.A. Wheeler, ““No Fugitive and Cloistered Virtue”—A tribute to Niels Bohr”. Physics Today 16(1), 30 (1963). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3050711

  69. T. Young, The Bakerian lecture: on the theory of light and colours, in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, vol. 92, pp. 12–48 (38 p), Nov 1802. https://www.jstor.org/stable/107113?seq=36#metadata_info_tab_contents

  70. T. Young, Experimental demonstration of the general law of the interference of light, in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, vol. 94, 31 Dec 1804. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstl.1804.0001

  71. G. Zukav, in The Dancing Wu Li Masters: An Overview of the New Physics (Rider, 1979)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Acadinnet Education Services India, Bangalore, Karnataka, India

    Rajendra K. Bera

Authors
  1. Rajendra K. Bera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rajendra K. Bera .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Bera, R.K. (2020). Distinguishing Features and Axioms of Quantum Mechanics. In: The Amazing World of Quantum Computing. Undergraduate Lecture Notes in Physics. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2471-4_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation