Conceptual difficulties still remain in quantum mechanics, even if they had already been identified by its inventors. This does not mean that the theory is not successful! The reality is quite the opposite: in fact, independently of these difficulties, quantum mechanics is certainly one of the most successful theories of all science. One can even consider that its ability to adapt to new situations is one of its most remarkable features. It continues to give efficient and accurate predictions while new experiments are performed, even in situations that the founding fathers had no way to imagine. Actually, there are very few theories that have been verified with the same accuracy in so many situations. Nevertheless, it remains true that conceptual difficulties subsist, and their discussion is the object of this chapter. As we will see, most of them relate to the process of quantum measurement, in particular to the very nature of the random process that takes place on this occasion.

We have seen that, in most cases, the wave function evolves gently, in a perfectly predictable and continuous way, according to the Schrödinger equation; in some cases only (when a measurement is performed), unpredictable changes take place, according to the Von Neumann postulate of state vector reduction. Obviously, having two different postulates for the evolution of the same mathematical object is very unusual in physics. The notion was a complete novelty when it was introduced, and still remains unique, but also the source of difficulties – in particular logical difficulties related to the compatibility between the two different postulates.

The Bell theorem [103] can be seen in several different ways, as the EPR argument. Initially, Bell invented it as a direct logical continuation of the EPR theorem: the idea is to take the existence of the EPR elements of reality seriously, and to push it further by introducing them explicitly into the mathematics with the notation λ; one then proceeds to study all possible kinds of correlations that can be obtained from the fluctuations of one or several variables λ, making the condition of locality explicit in the mathematics (locality was already useful in the EPR theorem, but not used in equations). The reasoning develops within determinism (considered as proved by the EPR reasoning) and classical probabilities; it studies in a completely general way all kinds of correlations that can be predicted from the fluctuations of some classical common cause in the past – if one prefers, from some random choice concerning the initial state of the system. This leads to the famous inequalities. But subsequent studies have shown that the scope of the Bell theorem is not limited to determinism; for instance, the λ variables may determine the probabilities of the results of future experiments, instead of the results themselves (see Appendix B), without canceling the theorem. We postpone the discussion of the various possible generalizations to §4.2.3. For the moment, we just emphasize that the essential condition for the validity of the Bell theorem is locality: all kinds of fluctuations can be assumed, but their effect must affect physics only locally.

The founding fathers of quantum mechanics had already perceived the essence of the difficulties of quantum mechanics; today, after almost a century, the discussions are still lively and, if some very interesting new aspects have emerged, at a deeper level the questions have not changed so much. What is more recent, nevertheless, is a general change of attitude among physicists: until about 1970 or 1980, most physicists thought that the essential questions had been settled, and that “Bohr was right and proved his opponents to be wrong”. This was probably a consequence of the famous discussions between Bohr, Einstein, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Pauli, de Broglie, and others (in particular at the Solvay meetings [1–3], where Bohr's point of view had successfully resisted Einstein's extremely clever attacks). The majority of physicists did not know the details of the arguments. They nevertheless thought that the standard “Copenhagen interpretation” had clearly emerged from the infancy of quantum mechanics as the only sensible attitude for good scientists. This interpretation includes the idea that modern physics must contain indeterminacy as an essential ingredient: it is fundamentally impossible to predict the outcome of single microscopical events; it is impossible to go beyond the formalism of the wave function (or its generalization, the state vector ∣ψ) and complete it.

Long ago, and almost in parallel with the “orthodox” Copenhagen/standard interpretation, other interpretations of quantum mechanics were proposed. Giving an exhaustive discussion of all points of view that have been put forward since then would probably be an impossible task. Moreover, while one can distinguish big families among the interpretations, it is also possible to combine them in many ways, with an almost infinite number of nuances. The Copenhagen/standard interpretation itself, as we have seen, is certainly not a monolithic construction, but can be declined in various forms. In this chapter, we will therefore limit ourselves to a general description of the major families of interpretations.

We will begin with a brief description of some frequent attitudes observed among scientists in laboratories, who do not necessarily pay extreme attention to the foundations of quantum mechanics, even when they do experiments in quantum physics. In practice, they often use pragmatic rules, which are sufficient to interpret all their experiments, and prefer to avoid difficult questions about the very nature of the measurement process. For instance, one popular point of view is the “correlation interpretation”, which can be considered as a “minimal interpretation” – minimal but sufficient for all practical purposes; it is accepted as a valid rule by a large majority of physicists, even those who prefer to supplement it with other elements in order to reach a more precise interpretation for the whole theory. We will then proceed to discuss various families of interpretations that are less common, including additional variables, modified Schrödinger dynamics, consistent histories, Everett interpretation, etc.

This chapter gives a summary of the mathematical formalism used in quantum mechanics, with a short bibliography put directly at its end. It should be seen as a complement, to be used by readers who wish to know more than what has been recalled about the mathematical tools in the other chapters. Some results are given without explicit proofs; they can be found for instance in Chapters II and IV of [1]. Many quantum mechanics textbooks introduce its general formalism in a more complete way, for instance Chapter VII of [2], Chapter 3 of [3], or Chapter 2 of [4].

We first summarize the general formalism of quantum mechanics for any physical system (§11.1), with the Dirac notation; we then study how this formalism treats the grouping of several physical systems into one single quantum system (§11.2); finally, we study a few simple special cases (§11.3), for instance a single particle in an external potential, with or without spin; the reader who prefers wave functions to more abstract reasonings in spaces of states may begin with this section.

General physical system

The general formalism of quantum mechanics applies to all physical systems, whether they contain a single particle, many particles of various sorts, one or several fields, etc.

Quantum space of states

The physical state of a system at each time is defined in quantum mechanics by a state vector which, in Dirac notation, is written ∣ψ〈 – or ∣ψ(t)〈 if one wishes to make the time dependence explicit.

This appendix provides a discussion of the consistency condition (10.39) and of the construction of consistent families of histories. First, we should mention that other conditions have been proposed and used in the literature; in the initial article on histories [17], a weaker condition involving only the cancellation of the real part of (10.39) was introduced. For simplicity, here we limit ourselves to the stronger condition (10.39), which is a sufficient but not necessary condition to the weaker form; it turns out that, as noted in [519], it seems more useful in this context to introduce selectivity than generality in the definition of consistent histories.

At first sight, a natural question that comes to mind is whether or not it is easy, or even possible at all, to fulfil exactly the large number of conditions contained in (10.39). Actually, it has been proposed by Gell-Mann and Hartle to give a fundamental role to families that satisfy consistency conditions in only an approximate way [510], but here we leave aside this possibility and consider only exact consistency conditions. Let us assume for instance that the system under study is a particle propagating in free space; the various projectors may then define ranges of positions for the particle, playing a role similar to diaphragms or spatial filters in optics that confine an optical beam in the transverse direction. Then the consistency condition will appear as similar to a non-interference condition for the Huyghens wavelets that are radiated by the inner surface of each diaphragm.

Quantum Mechanics is an essential topic in today's physics curriculum at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. Quantum mechanics can explain the microscopic world with fantastic accuracy; the fruits from its insights have created technologies that have revolutionized the world. Computers, lasers, mobile telephones, optical communications are but a few examples. The language of quantum mechanics is now an accepted part of the language of physics and day-to-day usage of this language provides physicists with the intuition that is essential for achieving meaningful results. Nevertheless, most physicists acknowledge that, at least once in their scientific career, they have had difficulties understanding the foundations of quantum theory, perhaps even the impression that a really satisfactory and convincing formulation of the theory is still lacking.

Numerous quantum mechanics textbooks are available for explaining quantum formalism and applying it to understand problems such as the properties of atoms, molecules, liquids, and solids; the interactions between matter and radiation; and more generally to understand the physical world that surrounds us. Other texts are available for elucidating the historical development of this discipline and describing the steps through which it went before quantum mechanics reached its modern formulation. In contrast, books are rare that review the conceptual difficulties of the theory and then provide a comprehensive overview of the various attempts to reformulate quantum mechanics in order to solve these difficulties. The present text by Franck Laloë does precisely this.