Skip to main content

The Nature of Reality

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
A First Introduction to Quantum Physics

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

  • 155k Accesses

Abstract

In this chapter, we explore how quantum mechanics leads to some rather strange consequences for our notion of what is real and not real. What does quantum mechanics actually say about reality? Why does this theory make predictions that are so radically different from our everyday experience? We must answer these questions if quantum mechanics is to properly explain the world around us.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, in: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fall 2008 edition.

  2. 2.

    If you are not very familiar with formal logic, you can think of this as the logical equivalent of the distributive property of numbers: \(x(y+z) = xy + xz\), where multiplication plays the role of \(\mathsf {AND}\), and addition plays the role of \(\mathsf {OR}\).

  3. 3.

    See Collapse Theories, in: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fall 2008 edition.

References

  • A. Aspect, J. Dalibard, G. Roger, Experimental test of Bell’s inequalities using time-varying analyzers. Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 1804 (1982)

    Article  MathSciNet  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • J.S. Bell, in Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics: Collected Papers on Quantum Philosophy (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987)

    Google Scholar 

  • G. Birkhoff, J. von Neumann, The logic of quantum mechanics. Ann. Math. 37, 823 (1936); see also Quantum Logic and Probability Theory, in: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fall 2008 edition

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • D. Bohm, A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of ‘hidden variables’ I. Phys. Rev. 85, 166 (1952); see also Bohmian Mechanics, in: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fall 2008 edition

    Article  MathSciNet  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • N. Bohr, The quantum postulate and the recent development of atomic theory. Nature 121, 580 (1928)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • A. Cabello et al., Simple Hardy-like proof of quantum contextuality. Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 180404 (2013)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • D. Dieks, P. Vermaas (eds.), The Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1998); see also Modal Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, in: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fall 2008 edition

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • H. Everett, Relative state formulation of quantum mechanics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 454 1957; see also Everett’s Relative-State Formulation of Quantum Mechanics and Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, in: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fall 2008 edition

    Google Scholar 

  • S. Gerlich et al., Quantum interference of large organic molecules. Nat. Commun. 2, 263 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • G.C. Ghirardi, A. Rimini, T. Weber, Unified dynamics for microscopic and macroscopic systems. Phys. Rev. D 34, 470 (1986)

    Article  MathSciNet  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • L. Hardy, Nonlocality for two particles without inequalities for almost all entangled states. Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 1665 (1993)

    Article  MathSciNet  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • N. Harrigan, R.W. Spekkens, Einstein, incompleteness, and the epistemic view of quantum states. Found. Phys. 40, 125 (2010)

    Article  MathSciNet  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • B. Hensen et al., Loophole-free Bell inequality violation using electron spins separated by 1.3 kilometres. Nature 526, 682 (2015)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • S. Kochen, E.P. Specker, The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. J. Math. Mech. 17, 59 (1967)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • N.D. Mermin, What’s wrong with this pillow? Phys. Today 42(4), 9 (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  • N.D. Mermin, Physics: QBism puts the scientist back into science. Nature 507, 421 (2014)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • R. Penrose, On gravity’s role in quantum state reduction. Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 28, 581 (1996)

    Article  MathSciNet  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • A. Petersen, The philosophy of Niels Bohr. Bull. At. Sci. 19, 7 (1963)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • M. Pusey, J. Barrett, T. Rudolph, On the reality of the quantum state. Nat. Phys. 8, 475 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • C. Rovelli, Relational quantum mechanics. Int. J. Theor. Phys. 35, 1637 (1996); see also Relational Quantum Mechanics, in: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fall 2008 edition

    Article  MathSciNet  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • M.A. Rowe et al., Experimental violation of a Bell’s inequality with efficient detection. Nature 409, 791 (2001)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • E. Schrödinger, Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik. Naturwissenschaften 23, 807 (1935)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • J.A. Wheeler, Information, physics, quantum: the search for links, in Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information, ed. by W.H. Zurek (Addison-Wesley, Redwood City, 1990)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pieter Kok .

10.1 Electronic supplementary material

Exercises

Exercises

  1. 1.

    Going back to your answer to the first exercise of Chap. 1 (What is the purpose of physical theories?), does quantum mechanics fulfil the requirements implied by your answer there?

  2. 2.

    The Pauli matrices \(\sigma _x\), \(\sigma _y\) and \(\sigma _z\) can be considered observables, since they have real eigenvalues \(+1\) and \(-1\). Consider two qubits in some quantum state, and the following array of possible observables:

    $$\begin{aligned} \begin{matrix} \sigma _x^{(1)} \sigma _x^{(2)} &{} \sigma _x^{(1)} \mathrm{{\mathbb {I}}}^{(2)} &{} \mathrm{{\mathbb {I}}}^{(1)} \sigma _x^{(2)} \\ \sigma _z^{(1)} \sigma _z^{(2)} &{} \mathrm{{\mathbb {I}}}^{(1)} \sigma _z^{(2)} &{} \sigma _z^{(1)} \mathrm{{\mathbb {I}}}^{(2)} \\ \sigma _y^{(1)} \sigma _y^{(2)} &{} \sigma _x^{(1)} \sigma _z^{(2)} &{} \sigma _z^{(1)} \sigma _x^{(2)} \end{matrix} \end{aligned}$$

    where the superscript indicates the qubit the matrix operates on.

    1. (a)

      Show that the three operators in every column and every row commute, and can therefore be measured simultaneously.

    2. (b)

      Show that each operator has eigenvalues \(\pm 1\).

    3. (c)

      Using the matrix form of the Pauli matrices, show that the operators in each row and column multiply to \(+{\mathbb {I}}\), except the first column, which multiplies to \(-{\mathbb {I}}\).

    4. (d)

      Assuming that each entry in the array has a pre-determined value of \(\pm 1\), try to populate the array such that the conditions in part (c) are satisfied. What do you conclude?

  3. 3.

    Alice and Bob, positioned far away from each other, each receive an electron that is part of the entangled spin state

    $$ |{\Psi ^-}\rangle = \frac{|{\uparrow \downarrow }\rangle -|{\downarrow \uparrow }\rangle }{\sqrt{2}} \, , $$

    where \(\uparrow \) and \(\downarrow \) define the positive and negative z-axis. Alice can freely choose to measure her electron spin in one of two directions: in the z-direction (denoted by \(\mathbf {a}\)) and in the direction an angle \(\theta _A\) away from the z-axis towards the x-axis (denoted by \(\mathbf {a}'\)). Similarly Bob can freely choose to measure his electron spin in the z-direction (denoted by \(\mathbf {b}\)) and in the direction an angle \(\theta _B\) away from the z-axis towards the x-axis (denoted by \(\mathbf {b}'\)).

    1. (a)

      Calculate the probabilities \(\mathrm {Pr({\textit{a}=\pm ,\textit{b}=\pm })}\) of finding the \(\pm \hbar /2\) eigenvalues in all possible measurement directions \(\mathbf {a}\), \(\mathbf {a}'\), \(\mathbf {b}\) and \(\mathbf {b}'\).

    2. (b)

      Define \(P(\mathbf {a},\mathbf {b})\) as the expectation value over the \(\pm 1\) values of \(\mathbf {a}\cdot \mathbf {b}\):

      $$\begin{aligned} P(\mathbf {a},\mathbf {b}) = \,&\mathrm {Pr({\textit{a}=+,\textit{b}=+})} - \mathrm {Pr({\textit{a}=+,\textit{b}=-})} \\&- \mathrm {Pr({\textit{a}=-,\textit{b}=+})} + \mathrm {Pr({\textit{a}=-,\textit{b}=-})}\, . \end{aligned}$$

      What are the minimum and maximum values that \(P(\mathbf {a},\mathbf {b})\) can take?

    3. (c)

      Without superluminal signalling between Alice and Bob, the expectation values obey the so-called CHSH inequality

      $$\begin{aligned} |{P(\mathbf {a},\mathbf {b})}| + |{P(\mathbf {a},\mathbf {b}')}| + |{P(\mathbf {a}',\mathbf {b})}| - |{P(\mathbf {a}',\mathbf {b}')}| \le 2\, , \end{aligned}$$

      which is a special case of a Bell inequality. Show that the probabilities you calculated in part (a) violate this expression when \(\theta _{\mathbf {a}} = 0\), \(\theta _{\mathbf {a}'} = \pi /2\), \(\theta _{\mathbf {b}} = \pi /4\), and \(\theta _{\mathbf {b}'} = 3\pi /4\). What do you conclude?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kok, P. (2018). The Nature of Reality. In: A First Introduction to Quantum Physics. Undergraduate Lecture Notes in Physics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92207-2_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics