Favorite Prefaces – II
Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics
by Bernard d’Espagnat
A few words are here in order concerning the guiding idea that inspired this book. It is that quantum mechanics can be formulated axiomatically, that, for clarity sake, it is of course quite appropriate to do so, but that the axioms in question then have to take the form of (precise and general) “rules of the game,” serving to predict what will be observed. This is a difference with classical mechanics, the axioms of which (Newton’s laws and the rest) are most simply expressed as statements bearing on the structure of some mind-independent reality. It is a fact that attempts at doing the same in quantum physics quickly lead to conceptual muddles (“Are wave functions real?,” “Is collapse real?,” etc.), while, in contrast, viewed as a set of observational predictive rules, quantum mechanics is crystal clear. The rules in question must therefore be considered as being—by far—what is most solid in quantum physics. And it is for this matter-of-fact reason—and not because of any a prior allegiance to positivism, empiricism or what not!—that it was here found advisable to begin by just stating these predictive rules and investigating their consequences. Since no allegiance to phenomenalism is made, the question of the possible interpretation of the said rules in terms of some underlying reality of course remains significant. In fact such a study constitutes, in a sense, the very purpose of the present book. But the corresponding analyses must—-and do, here—come in only in a second stage, after the rules have been duly stated and examined.
Note that the just explained standpoint is precisely the one that gives us maximal freedom concerning interpretation problems, since it bars out any a priori prejudice relative to what constitutes reality. Within it, we are not, right at the start, forced to conceive of reality in terms, either of waves, or of particles, or of “wavicles,” or etc. Any way of thinking of it is a priori admissible, provided only that, in the end, it turns out to be compatible with the observational predictions yielded by the basic quantum rules. But, as will be seen, this condition proves to be a demanding one. It does not leave many vistas open. Indeed the book shows that such an approach gently leads to quite definite ideas concerning the conceptual foundations of the incredibly powerful science that is called quantum mechanics.
February 24, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Very elegant, indeed.
This maxim seems to me to be crucial: one must deeply understand the observational predictions of a theory before undertaking its interpretation, on pain of failure to correctly describe the world. However, I’m suspicious about the suggestion that these observational predictions might by themselves be enough. Quantum theory really does provide a description of the world. And not only of classical, macroscopic observations such as measurement! Of course, people disagree about what’s ‘really’ going on during (say) unitary evolution, or state reduction. But this only suggests to me that the answer has not yet been found…
February 25, 2009 at 10:06 am
Hi Bryan,
I think that d’Espagnat approach is a valid one, although I have only skimmed through his book. Actually, I often use many strategies when trying to understand something. So, sure, I agree with you that the approach may not be enough.In any case, the more I study quantum mechanics, from different points of view, the more I tend to be on Einsteins “realistic” side, in the sense that there is an “underlying reality” and we still do not what is quantum mechanics at that level.
BTW, in this “favourite prefaces” series I include what I consider interesting or curious sections of prefaces, not necessarily implying that I agree with them, but that I have found them of value in some sense.
Best,
Christine