Full Ebook of Foundations of Quantum Mechanics 1St Edition Roderich Tumulka Online PDF All Chapter

Foundations of Quantum Mechanics 1st
Edition Roderich Tumulka

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/foundations-of-quantum-mechanics-1st-edition-roderi
ch-tumulka/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
A First Course on Symmetry Special Relativity and

Quantum Mechanics The Foundations of Physics 1st
Edition Gabor Kunstatter
https://ebookmeta.com/product/a-first-course-on-symmetry-special-
relativity-and-quantum-mechanics-the-foundations-of-physics-1st-
edition-gabor-kunstatter/
Foundations of Celestial Mechanics 1st Edition Elena

Bannikova
https://ebookmeta.com/product/foundations-of-celestial-
mechanics-1st-edition-elena-bannikova/
Quantum Mechanics Nouredine Zettili
https://ebookmeta.com/product/quantum-mechanics-nouredine-
zettili/
Quantum Mechanics: Inception or Conception? A Classical

Preamble to Quantum Mechanics 1st Edition Giuseppe
Pileio
https://ebookmeta.com/product/quantum-mechanics-inception-or-
conception-a-classical-preamble-to-quantum-mechanics-1st-edition-
giuseppe-pileio/
Quantum Mechanics 1st Edition Arjun Berera
https://ebookmeta.com/product/quantum-mechanics-1st-edition-
arjun-berera/
Quantum Mechanics Mahesh C Jain
https://ebookmeta.com/product/quantum-mechanics-mahesh-c-jain/
The Physics of Quantum Mechanics 1st Edition Daniel F.

Styer
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-physics-of-quantum-
mechanics-1st-edition-daniel-f-styer/
Foundations of Molecular Quantum Electrodynamics 1st

Edition R. Guy Woolley
https://ebookmeta.com/product/foundations-of-molecular-quantum-
electrodynamics-1st-edition-r-guy-woolley/
Topological Phases of Matter 1st Edition Roderich

Moessner
https://ebookmeta.com/product/topological-phases-of-matter-1st-
edition-roderich-moessner/
Lecture Notes in Physics
Roderich Tumulka
Foundations
of Quantum
Mechanics
Founding Editors
Wolf Beiglböck
Jürgen Ehlers
Klaus Hepp
Hans-Arwed Weidenmüller
Volume 1003
Series Editors
Roberta Citro, Salerno, Italy
Peter Hänggi, Augsburg, Germany
Morten Hjorth-Jensen, Oslo, Norway
Maciej Lewenstein, Barcelona, Spain
Angel Rubio, Hamburg, Germany
Wolfgang Schleich, Ulm, Germany
Stefan Theisen, Potsdam, Germany
James D. Wells, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
Gary P. Zank, Huntsville, AL, USA
The series Lecture Notes in Physics (LNP), founded in 1969, reports new develop-
ments in physics research and teaching - quickly and informally, but with a high
quality and the explicit aim to summarize and communicate current knowledge in
an accessible way. Books published in this series are conceived as bridging material
between advanced graduate textbooks and the forefront of research and to serve
three purposes:
• to be a compact and modern up-to-date source of reference on a well-defined

topic;
• to serve as an accessible introduction to the field to postgraduate students and
non-specialist researchers from related areas;
• to be a source of advanced teaching material for specialized seminars, courses
and schools.
Both monographs and multi-author volumes will be considered for publication.

Edited volumes should however consist of a very limited number of contributions
only. Proceedings will not be considered for LNP.
Volumes published in LNP are disseminated both in print and in electronic formats,
the electronic archive being available at springerlink.com. The series content is
indexed, abstracted and referenced by many abstracting and information services,
bibliographic networks, subscription agencies, library networks, and consortia.
Proposals should be sent to a member of the Editorial Board, or directly to the
responsible editor at Springer:
Dr Lisa Scalone
Springer Nature
Physics
Tiergartenstrasse 17
69121 Heidelberg, Germany
lisa.scalone@springernature.com
Roderich Tumulka
Foundations of Quantum
Mechanics
Roderich Tumulka
Department of Mathematics
University of Tübingen
Tübingen, Germany
ISSN 0075-8450 ISSN 1616-6361 (electronic)

ISBN 978-3-031-09547-4 ISBN 978-3-031-09548-1 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09548-1
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland
AG 2022
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse
of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Dedicated to the memory of
Detlef Dürr (1951–2021),
my teacher, colleague, and friend
Preface
This book grew out of lecture notes of courses I taught at Rutgers University and
Eberhard Karls University Tübingen between 2011 and 2022. Expecting a diverse
readership, I have tried to make it accessible also for students with little or no
background in quantum physics. Nevertheless, in the later chapters I also reach, step
by step, rather advanced topics. I will (briefly) introduce all of the physics concepts
we need. We will use advanced mathematics, as appropriate for a serious discussion
of quantum mechanics, but will not focus on technical methods of problem solving
(such as methods for calculating the ground state energy of the hydrogen atom).
Much of what I am trying to explain here have been learned from Detlef Dürr,
Shelly Goldstein, Tim Maudlin, and Nino Zanghì, who all have become my dear
friends. For insightful discussions, I am very much indebted to David Albert,
Valia Allori, Angelo Bassi, Jean Bricmont, Eddy Keming Chen, Dirk Deckert, Fay
Dowker, Jürg Fröhlich, GianCarlo Ghirardi, Stefan Keppeler, Michael Kiessling,
Jonas Lampart, Dustin Lazarovici, Joel Lebowitz, Matthew Leifer, Matthias Lienert,
Sascha Lill, Travis Norsen, Sören Petrat, Julian Schmidt, Charles Sebens, Ward
Struyve, Shadi Tahvildar-Zadeh, Daniel Victor Tausk, Stefan Teufel, Sahand Tokasi,
Lev Vaidman, and the students in my classes. I thank Paul Hege for help with the
figures. My deepest gratitude goes to my wife Heidi, my son Julian, and my daughter
Fiona for their love and support.
Tübingen, Germany Roderich Tumulka

April 2022
vii
Contents
1 Waves and Particles .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 The Schrödinger Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3 Unitary Operators in Hilbert Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.3.1 Existence and Uniqueness of Solutions of the
Schrödinger Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.3.2 The Time Evolution Operators . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.3.3 Unitary Matrices and Rotations . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.3.4 Inner Product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.3.5 Abstract Hilbert Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.4 Classical Mechanics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.4.1 Definition of Newtonian Mechanics . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.4.2 Properties of Newtonian Mechanics . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1.4.3 Hamiltonian Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1.5 The Double-Slit Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1.5.1 Classical Predictions for Particles and Waves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1.5.2 Actual Outcome of the Experiment . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1.5.3 Feynman’s Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
1.6 Bohmian Mechanics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
1.6.1 Definition of Bohmian Mechanics . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1.6.2 Properties of Bohmian Mechanics . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1.6.3 Historical Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
1.6.4 Equivariance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
1.6.5 The Double-Slit Experiment in Bohmian Mechanics . . . . . . 30
1.6.6 Delayed-Choice Experiments . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2 Some Observables .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
2.1 Fourier Transform and Momentum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
2.1.1 Fourier Transform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
2.1.2 Momentum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
2.1.3 Momentum Operator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
ix
x Contents
2.1.4 Tunnel Effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

2.1.5 External Magnetic Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
2.2 Operators and Observables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
2.2.1 Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Relation . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
2.2.2 Limitation to Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
2.2.3 Self-Adjoint Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
2.2.4 The Spectral Theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
2.2.5 Born’s Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
2.2.6 Conservation Laws in Quantum Mechanics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
2.2.7 The Dirac Delta Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
2.3 Spin .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
2.3.1 Spinors and Pauli Matrices . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
2.3.2 The Pauli Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
2.3.3 The Stern–Gerlach Experiment . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
2.3.4 Bohmian Mechanics with Spin . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
2.3.5 Is an Electron a Spinning Ball? . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
2.3.6 Are There Actual Spin Values? . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
2.3.7 Many-Particle Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
2.3.8 Representations of SO(3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
2.3.9 Inverted Stern–Gerlach Magnet and Contextuality . . . . . . . . . 78
Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
3 Collapse and Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
3.1 The Projection Postulate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
3.1.1 Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
3.1.2 The Projection Postulate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
3.1.3 Projection and Eigenspace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
3.1.4 Position Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
3.1.5 Consecutive Quantum Measurements . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
3.2 The Measurement Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
3.2.1 What the Problem Is . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
3.2.2 How Bohmian Mechanics Solves the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
3.2.3 Decoherence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
3.2.4 Schrödinger’s Cat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
3.2.5 Positivism and Realism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
3.2.6 Experiments and Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
3.3 The GRW Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
3.3.1 The Poisson Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
3.3.2 Definition of the GRW Process . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
3.3.3 Definition of the GRW Process in Formulas .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
3.3.4 Primitive Ontology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
3.3.5 How GRW Theory Solves the Measurement Problem . . . . . 108
3.3.6 Empirical Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
3.3.7 The Need for a Primitive Ontology . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Contents xi
3.4 The Copenhagen Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

3.4.1 Two Realms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
3.4.2 Elements of the Copenhagen View . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
3.4.3 Complementarity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
3.4.4 Reactions to the Measurement Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
3.4.5 The Transactional Interpretation . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
3.5 Many Worlds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
3.5.1 Schrödinger’s Many-Worlds Theory . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
3.5.2 Everett’s Many-Worlds Theory . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
3.5.3 Bell’s First Many-Worlds Theory . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
3.5.4 Bell’s Second Many-Worlds Theory . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
3.5.5 Probabilities in Many-Worlds Theories .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
3.6 Some Morals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
3.7 Special Topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
3.7.1 Einstein’s View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
3.7.2 The Mach–Zehnder Interferometer . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
3.7.3 Path Integrals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
3.7.4 Boundary Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
3.7.5 Point Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
3.7.6 No-Cloning Theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
3.7.7 Aharonov–Bergmann–Lebowitz Time
Reversal Symmetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
4 Nonlocality .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
4.1 The Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen Argument . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
4.1.1 The EPR Argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
4.1.2 Square-Integrable Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
4.1.3 Further Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
4.1.4 Bohm’s Version of the EPR Argument Using Spin . . . . . . . . . 152
4.1.5 Einstein’s Boxes Argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
4.1.6 Too Good to Be True . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
4.2 Proof of Nonlocality .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
4.2.1 Bell’s Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
4.2.2 Bell’s 1964 Proof of Nonlocality . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
4.2.3 Bell’s 1976 Proof of Nonlocality . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
4.3 Discussion of Nonlocality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
4.3.1 Nonlocality in Bohmian Mechanics, GRW,
Copenhagen, and Many-Worlds . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
4.3.2 Popular Myths About Bell’s Theorem . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
4.3.3 Simultaneous Quantum Measurements .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
4.4 Special Topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
4.4.1 Bohr’s Reply to EPR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
4.4.2 The Frauchiger–Renner Paradox . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
xii Contents
Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
5 General Observables.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
5.1 POVMs: General Observables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
5.1.1 Definition .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
5.1.2 The Main Theorem About POVMs . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
5.1.3 Limitations to Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
5.1.4 Limitations to Knowledge as a General Fact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
5.1.5 Limitations to Knowledge in Theories We Know . . . . . . . . . . 193
5.1.6 The Concept of Observable . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
5.2 Time of Detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
5.2.1 The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
5.2.2 The Quantum Zeno Effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
5.2.3 Allcock’s Paradox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
5.2.4 The Absorbing Boundary Rule . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
5.2.5 Time–Energy Uncertainty Relation . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
5.2.6 Historical Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
5.3 Ontic Versus Epistemic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
5.3.1 The Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph Theorem . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
5.4 Density Matrix and Mixed State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
5.4.1 Trace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
5.4.2 The Trace Formula in Quantum Mechanics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
5.4.3 Pure and Mixed States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
5.4.4 Empirically Equivalent Distributions . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
5.4.5 Density Matrix and Dynamics . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
5.5 Reduced Density Matrix and Partial Trace . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
5.5.1 Tensor Product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
5.5.2 Definition of the Reduced Density Matrix .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
5.5.3 Partial Trace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
5.5.4 The Trace Formula Again . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
5.5.5 The Measurement Problem and Density Matrices .. . . . . . . . . 226
5.5.6 POVM and Collapse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
5.5.7 Completely Positive Superoperators . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
5.5.8 The Main Theorem About Superoperators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
5.5.9 The No-Signaling Theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
5.5.10 Canonical Typicality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
5.5.11 The Possibility of a Fundamental Density Matrix . . . . . . . . . . 235
5.6 Quantum Logic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
5.6.1 Boolean Algebras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
5.6.2 Quantum Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
5.7 No-Hidden-Variables Theorems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
5.7.1 Bell’s NHVT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
5.7.2 Von Neumann’s NHVT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
5.7.3 Gleason’s NHVT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
5.7.4 Hidden Variables and Ontology . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
Contents xiii
5.8 Special Topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248

5.8.1 The Decoherent Histories Interpretation .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
5.8.2 The Hilbert–Schmidt Inner Product . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
6 Particle Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
6.1 Identical Particles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
6.1.1 Symmetrization Postulate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
6.1.2 Schrödinger Equation and Symmetry . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
6.1.3 The Space of Unordered Configurations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
6.1.4 Identical Particles in Bohmian Mechanics .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
6.1.5 Identical Particles in GRW Theory . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
6.2 Hamiltonians of Particle Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
6.2.1 Configuration Space of a Variable Number of
Particles .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
6.2.2 Fock Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
6.2.3 Example: Emission–Absorption Model .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
6.2.4 Creation and Annihilation Operators . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
6.2.5 Ultraviolet Divergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
6.3 Particle Creation as Such . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
6.3.1 Jumps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
6.3.2 Bell’s Jump Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
6.3.3 Virtual Particles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
6.3.4 GRW Theory and Many-Worlds in Fock Space . . . . . . . . . . . . 288
6.4 Interior-Boundary Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
6.4.1 What an IBC Is . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292
6.4.2 Configuration Space with Two Sectors .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296
6.4.3 All Sectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
6.5 A Brief Look at Quantum Field Theory . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306
6.5.1 Problems of Quantum Field Theory . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306
6.5.2 Field Ontology vs. Particle Ontology . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
7 Relativity .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315
7.1 Brief Introduction to Relativity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315
7.1.1 Galilean Relativity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315
7.1.2 Minkowski Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317
7.1.3 Dual Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320
7.1.4 Arc Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322
7.1.5 Index Contraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324
7.1.6 Classical Electrodynamics as a Paradigm of a
Relativistic Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325
7.1.7 Cauchy Surfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327
7.1.8 Outlook on General Relativity . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328
xiv Contents
7.2 Relativistic Schrödinger Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329

7.2.1 The Klein-Gordon Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329
7.2.2 Two-Spinors and Four-Vectors . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334
7.2.3 The Weyl Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339
7.2.4 The Dirac Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342
7.3 Probability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345
7.3.1 Current for the Weyl Equation . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345
7.3.2 Current for the Dirac Equation . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347
7.3.3 Probability Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348
7.3.4 Evolution Between Cauchy Surfaces . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353
7.3.5 Propagation Locality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355
7.3.6 External Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356
7.3.7 Non-Relativistic Limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357
7.3.8 Probability and the Klein-Gordon Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358
7.3.9 The Maxwell Equation as the Schrödinger Equation
for Photons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362
7.4 Many Particles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369
7.4.1 Multi-Time Wave Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369
7.4.2 Surface Wave Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373
7.5 Which Theories Count as Relativistic? . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375
7.5.1 Lorentz Invariance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 376
7.5.2 Other Relativistic Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377
7.5.3 Relativistic Quantum Theories Without Observers .. . . . . . . . 378
7.5.4 The Time Foliation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379
7.6 Bohmian Mechanics in Relativistic Space-Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381
7.6.1 Law of Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381
7.6.2 Equivariance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385
7.6.3 The Spin-0 Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391
7.7 Predictions in Relativistic Space-Time . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395
7.7.1 Is Collapse Compatible with Relativity? .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395
7.7.2 Tunneling Speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399
7.8 GRW Theory in Relativistic Space-Time . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400
7.8.1 1-Particle Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401
7.8.2 The Case of N Non-Interacting Particles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 405
7.8.3 Interacting Particles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 410
7.8.4 Matter Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 412
7.9 Other Approaches .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415
7.9.1 Many-Worlds in Relativistic Space-Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415
7.9.2 Wormholes as an Alternative? . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 416
Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 418
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 418
8 Further Morals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421
8.1 Controversy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421
8.2 Do We Need Ontology? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421
Contents xv
8.3 What If Two Theories Are Empirically Equivalent? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422

8.4 Positivism and Realism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 426
8.5 If It Makes the Same Predictions, What Is It Good For? . . . . . . . . . . . . 427
8.6 Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 428
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 428
A Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 429
A.1 Topological View of the Symmetrization Postulate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 429
A.2 Ultraviolet Divergence Problem in Classical Electrodynamics . . . . . . 434
A.3 Nelson’s Stochastic Mechanics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 436
A.4 Probability and Typicality in Bohmian Mechanics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 440
A.4.1 Empirical Distributions in Bohmian Mechanics . . . . . . . . . . . . 440
A.4.2 Typicality .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443
A.4.3 The Explanation of Quantum Equilibrium .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445
A.4.4 Historical Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 448
A.5 Philosophical Topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 451
A.5.1 Free Will . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 451
A.5.2 Causation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 454
A.5.3 The Mind-Body Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 455
A.6 Differential Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 458
Index . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461
Acronyms
ABL Aharonov–Bergmann–Lebowitz
BMF Bohmian mechanics with foliation F
CI Copenhagen interpretation
CSL Continuous spontaneous localization
EPR Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen
GONB Generalized orthonormal basis
GRW Ghirardi–Rimini–Weber
GRW∅ GRW theory without primitive ontology
GRWf GRW theory with flash ontology
GRWm GRW theory with matter density ontology
GRWp GRW theory with particle ontology
IBC Interior-boundary condition
LHC Large Hadron Collider
LIGO Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory
MPI Microscopic parameter independence
NHVT No-hidden-variables theorem
ODE Ordinary differential equation
ONB Orthonormal basis
OQM Orthodox quantum mechanics
PBR Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph
PDE Partial differential equation
POVM Positive-operator-valued measure
PVM Projection-valued measure
QFT Quantum field theory
QTWO Quantum theory without observers
rGRWf Relativistic GRW theory with flash ontology
rGRWm Relativistic GRW theory with matter density ontology
S∅ Schrödinger equation without primitive ontology
Sm Schrödinger equation with matter density ontology
SO(n) Special orthogonal group in n dimensions
tr Trace
T RCL Trace class
UV Ultraviolet
xvii
Waves and Particles
1
1.1 Overview
Quantum mechanics is the field of physics concerned with (or the post-1900 theory
of) the motion of electrons, photons, quarks, and other elementary particles, inside
atoms or otherwise. It is distinct from classical mechanics, the pre-1900 theory
of the motion of physical objects. Quantum mechanics forms the basis of modern
physics and covers most of the physics under the conditions on Earth (i.e., not-too-
high temperatures or speeds, not-too-strong gravitational fields). “Foundations of
quantum mechanics” is the topic concerned with what exactly quantum mechanics
means and how to explain the phenomena described by quantum mechanics. It is a
controversial topic, although it should not be. It is one of the goals of this book to
enable readers to form their own opinion of the subject.
Here are some voices critical of the traditional, orthodox view of quantum
mechanics:
With very few exceptions (such as Einstein and Laue) [. . . ] I was the only sane person left
[in theoretical physics].
(Erwin Schrödinger in a letter dated 1959)
I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.

(Richard Feynman, 1965)
I think that conventional formulations of quantum theory [. . . ] are unprofessionally vague

and ambiguous.
(John Bell, 1986)
In this book, we will be concerned with what kinds of reasons people have for
criticizing the orthodox understanding of quantum mechanics, what the alternatives
are, and which kinds of arguments have been put forward for or against important
views. We will also discuss the rules of quantum mechanics for making empirical
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 1

R. Tumulka, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Lecture Notes in Physics 1003,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09548-1_1
2 1 Waves and Particles
predictions; they are uncontroversial. The aspects of quantum mechanics that we

discuss also apply to other fields of quantum physics, in particular to quantum field
theory.
We need some mathematics prerequisites: complex numbers; vectors in n
dimensions and inner product; matrices and their eigenvalues and eigenvectors; mul-
tivariable calculus; and probability, continuous random variables, and the Gaussian
(normal) distribution. Some mathematical topics will be introduced here when we
need them: differential operators (such as the Laplace operator) and their analogy
to matrices; eigenvalues and eigenvectors of differential (and other) operators; the
Hilbert space of square-integrable functions, norm, and inner product; projection
operators; Fourier transform of a function; positive operators and positive operator-
valued measures (POVMs); tensor product of vector spaces; trace of a matrix
or an operator, partial trace; certain ordinary and partial differential equations,
particularly the Schrödinger equation; and exponential random variables and the
Poisson process.
There is also a philosophical side to the topic of this book. Here are some
philosophical questions that will come up: Is the world deterministic, or stochastic,
or neither? Can and should logic be revised in response to empirical findings?
Are there in principle limitations to what we can know about the world (its
laws, its state)? Which theories are meaningful as fundamental physical theories?
In particular: If a statement cannot be tested empirically, can it be meaningful?
(Positivism versus realism.) Does a fundamental physical theory have to provide
a coherent story of what happens? Does that story have to contain elements
representing matter in three-dimensional space in order to be meaningful?
Physicists usually take math classes but not philosophy classes. That does not
mean, though, that one does not use philosophy in physics. It rather means that
physicists learn the philosophy they need in physics classes. Prior knowledge in
philosophy is not assumed in this book, but we will sometimes make connections
with philosophy.
1.2 The Schrödinger Equation
One of the fundamental laws of quantum mechanics is the Schrödinger equation
∂ψ h̄2
N
i h̄ =− ∇ 2ψ + V ψ . (1.1)
∂t 2mi i
i=1
It governs the time evolution of the wave function ψ = ψt = ψ(t, x 1 , x 2 , . . . , x N ).

(It can be expected to be valid only in the non-relativistic regime, i.e., when the
speeds of all particles are small compared to the speed of light. In the general
case (the relativistic case), it needs to be replaced by other equations, such as the
Klein–Gordon equation and the Dirac equation described in Chap. 7.) We focus
first on spinless particles and discuss the phenomenon of spin later in Sect. 2.3. I use
boldface symbols such as x for three-dimensional (3d) vectors.
1.2 The Schrödinger Equation 3
Equation (1.1) applies to a system of N particles in R3 . The word “particle”

is traditionally used for electrons, photons, quarks, etc. Opinions diverge about
whether electrons actually are particles in the literal sense (i.e., point-shaped objects
or little grains). A system is a subset of the set of all particles in the world. A
configuration of N particles is a list of their positions; configuration space is thus,
for our purposes, the Cartesian product of N copies of physical space or R3N .
The wave function of quantum mechanics, at any fixed time, is a function on
configuration space, either complex-valued or spinor-valued (as we will explain in
Sect. 2.3); for spinless particles, it is complex-valued, so
ψ : Rt × R3N
q → C. (1.2)
The subscript indicates the variable: t for time and q√ = (x 1 , . . . , x N ) for the
configuration. Note that i in (1.1) sometimes denotes −1 and sometimes labels
the particles, i = 1, . . . , N; mi are positive constants, called the masses of the
particles; h̄ = h/2π is a constant of nature; h is called Planck’s quantum of action
or Planck’s constant; h = 6.63 × 10−34 kg m2 s−1 ;
∂ ∂ ∂
∇i = , , (1.3)
∂xi ∂yi ∂zi
is the derivative operator with respect to the variable x i , ∇i2 the corresponding
Laplace operator
∂ 2ψ ∂ 2ψ ∂ 2ψ
∇i2 ψ = + + . (1.4)
∂xi2 ∂yi2 ∂zi2
V is a given real-valued function on configuration space, called the potential energy

or just potential.
Fundamentally, the potential in non-relativistic physics is
ei ej /4πε0 Gmi mj
V (x 1 , . . . , x N ) = − , (1.5)
|x i − x j | |x i − x j |
1≤i<j ≤N 1≤i<j ≤N
where

|x| = x 2 + y 2 + z2 for x = (x, y, z) (1.6)
denotes the Euclidean norm in R3 , ei are constants called the electric charges of
the particles (which can be positive, negative, or zero), the first term is called the
Coulomb potential, the second term is called the Newtonian gravity potential, ε0
and G are constants of nature called the electric constant and Newton’s constant of
gravity (ε0 = 8.85 × 10−12 kg−1 m−3 s4 A2 and G = 6.67 × 10−11 kg−1 m3 s−2 ),
and mi are again the masses. However, when the Schrödinger equation is regarded
as an effective equation rather than as a fundamental law of nature, then the potential
V may contain terms arising from particles outside the system interacting with
particles belonging to the system. That is why the Schrödinger equation is often
considered for rather arbitrary functions V , also time-dependent ones. The operator

N
h̄2 2
H =− ∇ +V (1.7)
2mi i
i=1
is called the Hamiltonian operator, so the Schrödinger equation can be summarized

in the form
∂ψ
i h̄ = Hψ . (1.8)
∂t
The Schrödinger equation is a partial differential equation (PDE). It determines
the time evolution of ψt in that for a given initial wave function ψ0 = ψ(t = 0) :
R3N → C, it uniquely fixes ψt for any t ∈ R. The initial time could also be taken
to be any t0 ∈ R instead of 0.
Exercise 1.1 (Plane Waves) Show that for every constant vector k ∈ R3 (the wave
vector), there is a unique constant ω ∈ R so that
ψ(t, x) = eik·x e−iωt (1.9)
satisfies the free (i.e., V = 0) Schrödinger equation (1.1) for N = 1. Specify ω

in terms of k. Remark: Since for every t, ψt = ∞, this function (called a plane
wave) is not square-integrable (not normalizable) and thus not physically possible
as a wave function; but it is a useful toy example.
So far, I have not said anything about what this new physical object ψ has to do
with the particles. One such connection is
Born’s Rule If we measure the system’s configuration at time t, then the outcome
is random with probability density
2
ρ(q) = ψt (q) . (1.10)
This rule refers to the concept of probability density, which means the following.
The probability that the random outcome X ∈ R3N is any particular point x ∈ R3N
is zero, in symbols P(X = x) = 0. However, the probability that X lies in a set
B ⊆ R3N is given by

P(X ∈ B) = ρ(q) d 3N q (1.11)
B
(a 3N-dimensional volume integral). Instead of d 3N q, we will often just write dq.

A density function ρ must be non-negative and normalized,

ρ(x) ≥ 0 , ρ(q) dq = 1 . (1.12)
R3N
A famous density function in one dimension is the Gaussian density

2
1 − (x−μ)
ρ(x) = √ e 2σ 2 . (1.13)
2πσ
A random variable with Gaussian density is also called a normal (or normally
distributed) random variable. It has mean μ ∈ R and standard deviation σ > 0.
The mean value or expectation value EX of a random variable X is its average
value

EX = x ρ(x) dx . (1.14)
R

The standard deviation of X is defined to be E[(X − EX)2 ].
For the Born rule to make sense, we need that

|ψt (q)|2 dq = 1. (1.15)
R3N
And indeed, the Schrödinger equation guarantees this relation: If it holds for t = 0,
then it holds for any t ∈ R. More generally, the Schrödinger equation implies that

dq |ψt |2 = dq |ψ0 |2 (1.16)
for any ψ0 . One says that dq |ψt |2 satisfies a conservation law. Indeed, the Schrö-
dinger equation implies a local conservation law for |ψ|2 , as we will show below;
this means not only that the total amount of |ψ|2 is conserved but also that amounts
of |ψ|2 cannot disappear in one place, while the same amount appears in another
place; that is, the amount of |ψ|2 cannot be created or destroyed, only moved around,
and in fact flows with a current j .
In general, a local conservation law in Rd gets expressed by a continuity
equation1
∂ρ ∂jα d
=− , (1.17)
∂t ∂xα
α=1
1I do not know where this name comes from. It has nothing to do with being continuous. It should
be called conservation equation.
where ρ is a time-dependent scalar function on Rd called the density and j a time-

dependent vector field on Rd called the current. To understand why (1.17) expresses
local conservation of ρ, recall the Ostrogradski–Gauss integral theorem (divergence
theorem), which asserts that for a vector field F in Rn ,

div F (x) d n x = F (x) · n(x) d n−1 x , (1.18)
A ∂A
where
div F = ∂F1 /∂x1 + . . . + ∂Fn /∂xn (1.19)
is called the divergence of F , A is an n-dimensional region with (piecewise smooth)

n − 1-dimensional boundary ∂A, the left-hand side is a volume integral in n
dimensions with volume element d n x, the right-hand side is a surface integral (flux
integral) of the vector field F , n(x) is the outward unit normal vector on ∂A at
x ∈ ∂A, and d n−1 x means the area of a surface element. The formula (1.18) implies
in particular that if the vector field F has zero divergence, then its flux integral across
any closed surface ∂A vanishes. Now apply this to n = d + 1 and the vector field
F = (ρ, j1 , . . . , jd ), which has zero divergence (in d + 1 dimensions!) according
to (1.17), and consider its flux across the surface of the d + 1-dimensional cylinder
A = [0, T ]×S, where S ⊆ Rd is a ball or any set with a piecewise smooth boundary
∂S; see Fig. 1.1.
Then the surface integral of F is
T
0=− ρ0 + ρT + dt d d x j · n∂S (1.20)
S S 0 ∂S
with n∂S the unit normal vector field in Rd on the boundary of S. That is, the amount
of ρ in S at time T differs from the initial amount of ρ in S by the flux of j across
the boundary of S during [0, T ]—a local conservation law. If (and this is indeed
the case with the Schrödinger equation) there is no flux to infinity, i.e., if the last
Fig. 1.1 The set A

considered in the calculation,
t
here shown for space
dimension d = 1 T
x
S
integral becomes arbitrarily small by taking S to be a sufficiently big ball, then the
total amount of ρ remains constant in time.
Now the Schrödinger equation implies the following continuity equation in
configuration space with d = 3N:
∂|ψ(t, q)|2 N
=− ∇i · j i (t, q) (1.21)
∂t
i=1
with

j i (t, q) = h̄
mi Im ψ ∗ (t, q)∇i ψ(t, q) , (1.22)
where Im means imaginary part, because
∂ ∗
ψ ψ = 2Re ψ ∗ −i
h̄ Hψ (1.23)
∂t
N
h̄2 ∗ 2
= h̄ Im −
2
2mi ψ ∇i ψ + V (q)|ψ|
2
(1.24)
i=1 real
and

N
N
− ∇i · j i = − h̄
mi Im ψ ∗ ∇i2 ψ + (∇i ψ ∗ ) · (∇i ψ) , (1.25)
i=1 i=1 real
so the two are equal. Thus, |ψ|2 is locally conserved, and in particular its integral
over all of configuration space does not change with time, as expressed in (1.16).
Since the quantity dq |ψ|2 occurs frequently, it is useful to abbreviate it: The
2
L norm is defined to be
1/2
ψ = dq |ψ(q)|2 . (1.26)
R3N
Thus, ψt = ψ0 , and the Born rule is consistent with the Schrödinger equation,
provided the initial datum ψ0 has norm 1, which we will henceforth assume. The
wave function ψt will in particular be square-integrable, and this makes the space
L2 (R3N ) of square-integrable functions a natural arena. It is also called the Hilbert
space and is the space of all wave functions (times finite factors).
1.3 Unitary Operators in Hilbert Space
In the following, we will often simply write L2 for L2 (R3N ). We will leave out
many mathematical details.
1.3.1 Existence and Uniqueness of Solutions of the Schrödinger

Equation
The Schrödinger equation defines the time evolution of the wave function ψt . In
mathematical terms, this means that for every choice of initial wave function ψ0 (q),
there is a unique solution ψ(t, q) of the Schrödinger equation. This leads to the
question what exactly is meant by “every” wave function. Remarkably, even when
ψ0 is not differentiable, there is still a natural sense in which a “weak solution" or
“L2 solution” can be defined. This sense allows for a particularly simple statement:
Theorem 1.1 2 For a large class of potentials V (including Coulomb, Newton’s

gravity, every bounded measurable function, and linear combinations thereof) and
for every ψ0 ∈ L2 , there is a unique weak solution ψ(t, q) of the Schrödinger
equation with potential V and initial datum ψ0 . Moreover, at every time t, ψt lies
again in L2 .
1.3.2 The Time Evolution Operators
Let Ut : L2 → L2 be the mapping defined by
Ut ψ0 = ψt . (1.27)
Ut is called the time evolution operator or propagator. Often, it is not possible to

write down an explicit closed formula for Ut , but it is nevertheless useful to consider
Ut . It has the following properties.
First, Ut is a linear operator, i.e.,
Ut (ψ + φ) = (Ut ψ) + (Ut φ) (1.28)

Ut (zψ) = z (Ut ψ) (1.29)
2This follows from Stone’s theorem and Kato’s theorem together. See, e.g., Theorem VIII.8 in
Reed and Simon (1980) [17] and Theorem X.16 in Reed and Simon (1975) [16].
1.3 Unitary Operators in Hilbert Space 9
for any ψ, φ ∈ L2 , z ∈ C. This follows from the fact that the Schrödinger equation
is a linear equation or, equivalently, that H is a linear operator. It is common to say
operator for linear operator.
Second, Ut preserves norms:
Ut ψ = ψ . (1.30)
This is just another way of expressing Eq. (1.16). Operators with this property are
called isometric.
Third, they obey a composition law:
Us Ut = Ut +s , U0 = I , (1.31)
for all s, t ∈ R, where I denotes the identity operator
Iψ = ψ . (1.32)
It follows from (1.31) that Ut−1 = U−t . In particular, Ut is a bijection. An isometric

bijection is also called a unitary operator; so Ut is unitary. A family of operators
satisfying (1.31) is called a one-parameter group of operators. Thus, the propagators
form a unitary one-parameter group. (The composition law (1.31) is owed to the
time translation invariance of the Schrödinger equation, which depends on the time
independence of the potential. If one inserted a time-dependent potential, then (1.31)
and (1.32) would have to be replaced by Utt23 Utt12 = Utt13 and Utt = I , where Ust maps
ψs to ψt .)
Fourth,
Ut = e−iH t /h̄ . (1.33)
The exponential of an operator A can be defined by the exponential series

∞
An
eA = (1.34)
n!
n=0
if A is a so-called bounded operator; in this case, the series converges (in the
operator norm). Unfortunately, the Hamiltonian of the Schrödinger equation (1.1)
is unbounded. But mathematicians agree about how to define eA for unbounded
operators (of the type that H is); we will not worry about the details of this
definition.
Equation (1.33) is easy to understand: after defining
φt := e−iH t /h̄ ψ0 , (1.35)

one would naively compute as follows:
d d
i h̄ φt = i h̄ e−iH t /h̄ ψ0 (1.36)
dt dt
iH
= i h̄ − e−iH t /h̄ ψ0 (1.37)
h̄
= H φt , (1.38)
so φt is a solution of the Schrödinger equation with φ0 = e0 ψ0 = ψ0 and thus

φt = ψt . The calculation (1.36)–(1.38) can actually be justified for all ψ0 in the
domain D of H , a dense subspace3 of L2 ; we will not go into details here.
1.3.3 Unitary Matrices and Rotations
The space L2 is infinite-dimensional. As a finite-dimensional analog, consider the

functions on a finite set, ψ : {1, . . . , n} → C, and the norm
n 1/2

ψ = ψ(i) (1.39)
i=1
instead of the L2 norm

1/2
ψ = |ψ(q)|2 dq . (1.40)
A function on {1, . . . , n} is always square-summable (its norm cannot be infinite).

It can be written as an n-component vector

ψ(1), . . . , ψ(n) , (1.41)
and the space of these functions can be identified with Cn .

The linear operators on Cn are given by the complex n × n matrices. If a matrix
preserves the norm (1.39) as in (1.30), it is automatically bijective and thus unitary.
A matrix Uij is unitary if and only if
U † = U −1 , (1.42)
3A subset D of L2 is called dense if and only if for every ψ ∈ L2 and every ε > 0, there is a
φ ∈ D such that φ − ψ < ε.
where U † , the adjoint matrix of U , is defined by
Uij† = (Uj i )∗ . (1.43)
The norm (1.39) is analogous to the norm (= magnitude = length) of a vector in

R3 ,
1/2

3
|u| = u2i . (1.44)
i=1
The norm-preserving operators in R3 are exactly the orthogonal matrices, i.e., those
matrices A with
At = A−1 , (1.45)
where At denotes the transposed matrix, Atij = Aj i . They have a geometric

meaning: Each orthogonal matrix is either a rotation around some axis passing
through the origin or a reflection across some plane through the origin, followed
by a rotation. The set of orthogonal 3 × 3 matrices is denoted O(3). The set of those
orthogonal matrices which do not involve a reflection is denoted SO(3) for “special
orthogonal matrices”; they correspond to rotations and can be characterized by the
condition det A > 0 in addition to (1.45).
In dimension d > 3, one can show that the special orthogonal matrices are still
compositions (i.e., products) of two-dimensional rotation matrices such as (for d =
4)
⎛ ⎞
cos α sin α
⎜− sin α cos α ⎟
⎜ ⎟. (1.46)
⎝ 1 ⎠
1
This rotation does not rotate around an axis; it rotates around a (d − 2)-dimensional
subspace (spanned by the third and fourth axes). However, in d ≥ 4 dimensions, not
every special orthogonal matrix is a rotation around a (d −2)-dim. subspace through
a certain angle, but several such rotations can occur together, as the following
example shows:
⎛ ⎞
cos α sin α
⎜− sin α cos α ⎟
⎜ ⎟. (1.47)
⎝ cos β sin β ⎠
− sin β cos β
We will simply call every special orthogonal d × d matrix a “rotation.”

Since Cn can be regarded as R2n , and the norm (1.39) then coincides with the
2n-dimensional version of (1.44), every unitary operator then corresponds to an
orthogonal operator, in fact a special orthogonal one. So if you can image 2n-
dimensional space, every unitary operator is geometrically a rotation. Also in L2 , it
is appropriate to think of a unitary operator as a rotation.
1.3.4 Inner Product
In analogy to the dot product in R3 ,

3
u·v = ui vi (1.48)
i=1
one defines the inner product of two functions ψ, φ ∈ L2 to be

ψ|φ = ψ(q)∗ φ(q) dq . (1.49)
R3N
It has the following properties:
1. It is anti-linear (or semi-linear or conjugate-linear) in the first argument,
ψ + φ|χ = ψ|χ + φ|χ , zψ|φ = z∗ ψ|φ (1.50)
for all ψ, φ, χ ∈ L2 and z ∈ C.

2. It is linear in the second argument,
ψ|φ + χ = ψ|φ + ψ|χ , ψ|zφ = z ψ|φ (1.51)
for all ψ, φ, χ ∈ L2 and z ∈ C. Properties 1 and 2 together are called sesqui-

linear (from Latin sesqui = 1 12 ).
3. It is conjugate-symmetric (or Hermitian),
φ|ψ = ψ|φ∗ (1.52)
for all ψ, φ ∈ L2 .
4. It is positive definite,4
ψ|ψ > 0 for ψ = 0 . (1.53)
4 Another math subtlety: This will be true only if we identify two functions ψ, φ whenever the set
{q ∈ R3N : ψ(q) = φ(q)} has volume 0. It is part of the standard definition of L2 to make these
identifications.
Note that the dot product in R3 has the same properties, the properties of an inner
product, except that the scalars involved lie in R, not C. Another inner product with
these properties is defined on Cn by

n
ψ|φ = ψ(i)∗ φ(i) . (1.54)
i=1
The norm can be expressed in terms of the inner product according to

ψ = ψ|ψ . (1.55)
Note that the radicand is ≥ 0.
Exercise 1.2 Show that, conversely, the inner product can be expressed in terms of
the norm according to the polarization identity

ψ|φ = 1
4 ψ + φ2 − ψ − φ2 − iψ + iφ2 + iψ − iφ2 . (1.56)
(Hint: Start from the right-hand side, express each norm in terms of the inner
product, and watch out for cancelations.)
It follows from the polarization identity that every unitary operator U preserves
inner products,
U ψ|U φ = ψ|φ . (1.57)
(Likewise, every A ∈ SO(3) preserves dot products, which has the geometrical
meaning that a rotation preserves the angle between any two vectors.)
In analogy to the dot product, two functions ψ, φ with ψ|φ = 0 are said to be
orthogonal.
1.3.5 Abstract Hilbert Space
The general and abstract definition of a vector space (over R or over C) is that it is
a set S (whose elements are called vectors) together with a prescription for how to
add elements of S and a prescription for how to multiply an element of S by a scalar,
such that the usual algebraic rules of addition and scalar multiplication are satisfied.
Similarly, a Hilbert space is a vector space over C together with an inner product
satisfying the completeness property: every Cauchy sequence converges. One can
then prove the
Theorem 1.2 L2 (Rd ) is a Hilbert space.

1.4 Classical Mechanics
Classical physics means pre-quantum (pre-1900) physics. I describe one particular

version that could be called Newtonian mechanics (even though certain features
were not discovered until after Isaac Newton’s death). This version is over-
simplified in that it leaves out magnetism, electromagnetic fields (which play a
role for electromagnetic waves and thus the classical theory of light), and relativity
theory.
1.4.1 Definition of Newtonian Mechanics
According to Newtonian mechanics, the world consists of a space, which is a three-

dimensional Euclidean space, and particles moving around in space with time.
Here, a particle means a material point—a point-shaped physical object. Let us
suppose there are N particles in the world (say, N ≈ 1080 ), and let us fix a
Cartesian coordinate system in Euclidean space. At every time t, particle number
i (i = 1, . . . , N) has a position Qi (t) ∈ R3 . These positions are governed by the
equation of motion
d 2 Qi
mi = −∇i V (Q1 , . . . , QN ) (1.58)
dt 2
with V the fundamental potential function of the universe as given in Eq. (1.5). This
completes the definition of Newtonian mechanics.
The equation of motion (1.58) is an ordinary differential equation (ODE) of
second order (i.e., involving second time derivatives). Once we specify, as initial
conditions, the initial positions Qi (0) and velocities (dQi /dt)(0) of every particle,
the equation of motion (1.58) determines Qi (t) for every i and every t.
Written explicitly, (1.58) reads
d 2 Qi ei ej Qj − Qi Qj − Qi
mi =− + Gmi mj . (1.59)
dt 2 4πε0 |Qj − Qi | 3 |Qj − Qi |3
j =i j =i
The right-hand side is called the force acting on particle i; the j -th term in the first
sum (with the minus sign in front) is called the Coulomb force exerted by particle j
on particle i; the j -th term in the second sum is called the gravitational force exerted
by particle j on particle i.
Newtonian mechanics is empirically wrong. For example, it entails the absence
of interference fringes in the double-slit experiment (and entails wrong predictions
about everything that is considered a quantum effect). Nevertheless, it is a coherent
theory, a “theory of everything,” and often useful to consider as a hypothetical world
to compare ours to.
1.4 Classical Mechanics 15
Newtonian mechanics is to be understood in the following way: Physical objects

such as tables, baseballs, or dogs consist of huge numbers (such as 1024 ) of particles,
and they must be regarded as just such an agglomerate of particles. Since Newtonian
mechanics governs unambiguously the behavior of each particle, it also completely
dictates the behavior of tables, baseballs, and dogs. Put differently, after (1.58) has
been given, there is no need to specify any further laws for tables, baseballs, or
dogs. Any physical law concerning tables, baseballs, or dogs is a consequence of
(1.58). This scheme is called reductionism. It makes chemistry and biology sub-
fields of physics. (This does not mean, though, that it would be of practical use to
try to solve (1.58) for 1024 or 1080 particles in order to study the behavior of dogs.)
Can everything be reduced to (1.58)? It seems that conscious experiences are an
exception—presumably the only one.
When we consider a baseball, we are often particularly interested in the motion
of its center Q(t) because we are interested in the motion of the whole ball. It is
often possible to give an effective equation for the behavior of a variable like Q(t),
for example,
⎛ ⎞
0
d 2Q dQ
M 2 = −γ − Mg ⎝0⎠ , (1.60)
dt dt
1
where M is the mass of the baseball, the first term on the right-hand side is called
the friction force and the second the gravitational force of Earth, γ is the friction
coefficient of the baseball, and g is the gravitational field strength of Earth. The
effective equation (1.60) looks quite similar to the fundamental equation (1.58), but
(i) it has a different status (it is not a fundamental law), (ii) it is only approximately
valid, (iii) it contains a term that is not of the form −∇V (the friction term), and (iv)
forces that do obey the form −∇V (Q) (such as the second force) can have other
functions for V (such as V (x) = Mgx3 ) instead of (1.5).
The theory I call Newtonian mechanics was never actually proposed to give
the correct and complete laws of physics (although we can imagine a hypothetical
world where it does); for example, it leaves out magnetism. An extension of this
theory, which we will not consider further but which is also considered “classical
physics,” includes electromagnetic fields (governed by Maxwell’s field equations
(7.25)) and gravitational fields (governed by Einstein’s field equations, also known
as the general theory of relativity).
The greatest contributions from a single person to the development of Eq. (1.58)
came from Isaac Newton (1643–1727), who suggested (in his Philosophiae Nat-
uralis Principia Mathematica 1687) considering ODEs, in fact of second order,
suggested “forces” and the form m ddtQ
2
2 = force, and introduced the form of
the gravitational force, now known as “Newton’s law of universal gravity.” Equa-
tion (1.59) was first written down, without the Coulomb term, by Leonhard Euler
(1707–1783). The first term was proposed in 1784 by Charles Augustin de Coulomb
(1736–1806). Nevertheless, we will call (1.58) and (1.59) “Newton’s equation of
motion.”
1.4.2 Properties of Newtonian Mechanics
Exercise 1.3 (Time Reversal) Show that if t → q(t) = (Q1 (t), . . . , QN (t)) is
a solution of Newton’s equation of motion (1.58), then so is t → q(−t), which is
called the time reverse.
This property is called time reversal invariance or reversibility. It is a rather

surprising property, in view of the irreversibility of many phenomena. But since
it has been explained in statistical mechanics, particularly by Ludwig Boltzmann
(1844–1906), how reversibility of the microscopic laws and irreversibility of
macroscopic phenomena can be compatible (for discussion, see, e.g., Lebowitz
(2008) [14]), time reversal invariance has been widely accepted. This was also
because time reversal invariance also holds in other, more refined theories after
Newtonian mechanics, such as Maxwell’s equations of classical electromagnetism
(which we will write down in (7.25)), general relativity, and the Schrödinger
equation.
Definition 1.1 Let v i (t) = dQi /dt denote the velocity of particle i. The energy,
the momentum, and the angular momentum of the universe are defined to be,
respectively,
N
ej ek
N
mk 1
E= v 2k − Gmj mk − (1.61)
2 4πε0 |Qj − Qk |
k=1 j,k=1
j <k

N
p= mk v k (1.62)
k=1

N
L= m k Qk × v k , (1.63)
k=1
where v 2 = v · v = |v|2 and × denotes the cross product in R3 . The first term in
(1.61) is called kinetic energy and the second one potential energy.
Exercise 1.4 (Conservation Laws) Show that E, p, and L are conserved quanti-
ties, i.e., they are time independent, if the motion is governed by (1.59). Show further
that, more generally, for the Newtonian motion (1.58) with arbitrary potential V that
is invariant under rotations and translations,

V RQ1 + a, . . . , RQN + a = V Q1 , . . . , QN (1.64)
1.4 Classical Mechanics 17
for all a ∈ R3 and R ∈ SO(3), E, p, and L are conserved if we define

N
mk
E= v 2k + V (Q1 , . . . , QN ) . (1.65)
2
k=1
1.4.3 Hamiltonian Systems
A dynamical system is another name for an ODE. A dynamical system in Rn can be

characterized by specifying the function F : → Rn in
dX
= F (X, t) , (1.66)
dt
with ⊆ Rn ×R. F can be called a time-dependent vector field on (a possibly time-

dependent domain in) Rn . (One often considers a more general concept of ODE, in
which F is a time-dependent vector field on a differentiable manifold M.)
Newtonian mechanics has a time evolution that belongs to the class of dynamical
systems, with n = 6N, X = (Q1 , . . . , QN , v 1 , . . . , v N ) and (the phase space)
= R6N or rather = {(Q1 , . . . , QN , v 1 , . . . , v N ) ∈ R6N : Qi = Qj ∀i = j }.
The phase point X(t) = (Q1 (t), . . . , QN (t), v 1 (t), . . . , v N (t)) is determined by
the equation of motion and the initial datum X(0). The mapping Tt that maps any
X(0) ∈ to X(t),
Tt (X(0)) = X(t) , (1.67)
is called the flow map. It satisfies a composition law analogous to that of the unitary
time evolution operators for the Schrödinger equation (1.31),
Ts Tt = Ts+t and T0 = id (1.68)
for all s, t ∈ R, where id means the identity mapping on , id (x) = x. In general,
Tt is not a linear mapping but still a bijection.
Newtonian mechanics also belongs to a narrower class, called Hamiltonian
systems. Simply put, these are dynamical systems for which the vector field F is
a certain type of derivative of a scalar function H called the Hamiltonian function
or simply the Hamiltonian. Namely, n is assumed to be even, n = 2r, and denoting
the n components of x by (q1 , . . . , qr , p1 , . . . , pr ), the ODE is of the form
dqi ∂H
= (1.69)
dt ∂pi
dpi ∂H
=− . (1.70)
dt ∂qi
Newtonian mechanics fits this definition with r = 3N, q1 , . . . , qr the 3N compo-

nents of q = (q 1 , . . . , q N ), p1 , . . . , pr the 3N components of p = (p1 , . . . , p N )
(the momenta pk = mk v k ), and H = H (q, p) the energy (1.61) expressed as a
function of q and p, that is,
N
ej ek
N
p 2k 1
H (q, p) = − Gmj mk − . (1.71)
2mk 4πε0 |q j − q k |
k=1 j,k=1
j =k
For readers familiar with manifolds, I mention that the natural definition of a
Hamiltonian system on a manifold M is as follows. M plays the role of phase space.
Let the dimension n of M be even, n = 2r, and suppose we are given a symplectic
form ω on M, i.e., a non-degenerate differential 2-form whose exterior derivative
vanishes, dω = 0. (Non-degenerate means that it has full rank n at every point.)
The equation of motion for t → x(t) ∈ M reads
dx
ω , · = dH , (1.72)
dt
where dH means the exterior derivative of H . To make the connection with the case
M = Rn just described, dH is then the gradient of H and ω the n × n matrix

0 I
ω= (1.73)
−I 0
with I the r × r unit matrix and 0 the r × r zero matrix; ω(dx/dt, ·) becomes
the transpose of ω applied to the n-vector dx/dt, and (1.72) reduces to (1.69) and
(1.70).
1.5 The Double-Slit Experiment
The double-slit experiment is a demonstration of fundamental features of quantum

mechanics, in particular of the wave nature and the particle nature of electrons
and other elementary particles. The experiment has been carried out in many
variants with electrons, neutrons, photons, entire atoms, and even molecules. It
involves interference, i.e., the constructive or destructive cooperation (i.e., addition)
of waves. The word “diffraction” means more or less the same as interference.
In this experiment, an “electron gun” shoots electrons at a plate with two
slits. Electrons get reflected when they hit the plate, but they can pass through
the slits. Behind the plate with the slits, at a suitable distance, there is a screen
capable of detecting electrons; see Fig. 1.2. Every electron leaves a (basically point-
shaped) spot on the screen that we can see. The exact location of the next spot
is unpredictable, but a probability distribution governing the spots is visible from
a large number of spots. Before I describe the outcome of the experiment, let me
1.5 The Double-Slit Experiment 19
Fig. 1.2 The setup of a

double-slit experiment
electron
gun
plate screen
discuss, for the purpose of contrast, the expected outcome on the basis of Newtonian
mechanics and on the basis of classical wave theory.
1.5.1 Classical Predictions for Particles and Waves
In Newtonian mechanics, a particle moves uniformly (i.e., along a straight line with
constant speed) if no forces act on it. The particles hitting the plate will be scattered
back and leave the setup, but let us focus on the particles that make it through the
slits. Since in this experiment, gravity can usually be neglected and other forces do
not matter much as the particles do not get very close to each other or to particles
belonging to the plate, the particles passing the slits move along straight lines. Not
all particles will arrive at the same spot, as they will be shot off at different positions
and in different directions. If the particle source (the electron gun) is small and far
away, then the possible spots of arrival will form two stripes corresponding to the
two slits—the complement of the shadow of the plate. A particle passing through
the upper (lower) slit arrives in the upper (lower) stripe. If the source is larger and
less far away, then the two stripes will be blurred and may overlap.
Waves behave very differently. We may think of water waves in a basin and,
playing the role of the plate, a wall with two gaps that will let waves pass into an
ulterior basin; at the end of the ulterior basin, playing the role of the screen, we
may measure the intensity of the arriving waves (say, their energy) as a function
on the location along the rim of the basin. The first difference from Newtonian
particles is that the energy does not arrive in a single spot, in a chunk carried by
each particle, but arrives continuously in time and continuously distributed along
the rim. A second difference shows up when the width of the slits is small enough
so it becomes comparable to the wave length. Then the wave emanating from each
slit will spread out in different directions; for an ideally
small slit, the outcoming
wave will be a semi-circular wave such as cos(k x 2 + y 2 )/(x 2 + y 2 )1/4 (with
wave number k = 2π/wave length and direction of propagation orthogonal to the
wave fronts, while the amplitude decreases like r −1/2 because the energy of the
Fig. 1.3 Constructive and

destructive interference of
waves: Graph of the sum of 0.4
two semi-circular waves in
the plane emanating from a i , 0.2
each given by
cos(|x − a i |)/|x − a i |1/2 , 0
with a 1 = (5, 0) and −0.2
a 2 = (−5, 0)
10
20 −20
0
30 20
wave (for water waves, seismic waves, waves in elastic materials, electromagnetic
waves, and the gravitational waves of the general theory of relativity) is proportional
to the square of the amplitude and the energy gets distributed over semi-circles of
circumference πr). Thus, at each slit, the incoming wave propagates in the direction
from the source, while the outgoing wave propagates in many directions (hence the
word “diffraction,” which is Latin for “breaking up,” as the path of propagation
suddenly changes direction).
The third difference is that, when waves emanate from both slits whose distance
is not much larger than the wave length, they will cancel each other in some places
(destructive interference) and add in others (constructive interference), as shown
in Fig. 1.3. As a consequence, the energy arriving on the rim will vary from place
to place; as a function E(x) of the coordinate x along the rim, it will show ups and
downs (local maxima and minima) known as an “interference pattern.” In double-slit
experiments done with light, these are visible as alternating bright and dark stripes
known as “interference fringes.”
1.5.2 Actual Outcome of the Experiment
In the quantum mechanical experiment, the energy arrives, as for Newtonian parti-
cles, in discrete localized chunks, each corresponding to one electron (or neutron,
etc.) and each visible as a spot on the screen. The probability distribution ρ(x) of the
spots, however, features an interference pattern, indicative of the presence of waves.
One speaks of wave–particle duality, meaning that the experiment displays aspects
of particle behavior and aspects of wave behavior. But how, you may wonder, can
the electron be particle and wave at the same time?
We will discuss proposals for that in the following chapters; for now, let us go
into more detail about the experiment. The experiment can be carried out in such a
way that, at any given time, only one electron (or neutron etc.) is passing the setup
between the source and the screen, so we can exclude interaction between many
particles as the cause of the interference pattern. Figure 1.4 shows the spots on the
screen in a double-slit experiment carried out by Tonomura et al. (1989) [21]. In
this experiment, 70,000 electrons were detected individually after passing through
a double slit.5 Only one electron at a time went through the setup. About 1000
electrons per second went through, at nearly half the speed of light. Each electron
needed about 10−8 s to travel from the double slit to the screen.
The sense of surprise (or even paradox) may be further enhanced. If we place
the screen directly behind the plate, the spots occur in two stripes located where the
slits are (like Newtonian particles with small source). From this, it seems natural
to conclude that every particle passes through one of the slits. Now it would be of
interest to see how the particles passing through slit 1 behave later on. So we put the
screen back at the original distance from the plate, where it shows an interference
pattern, but now we close one of the slits, say slit 2. As expected, the number
of particles that arrive on the screen gets (approximately) halved. Perhaps less
expectedly, the interference fringes disappear. Instead of several local maxima and
minima, the distribution function ρ1 (x) has just one maximum in (approximately)
the center and tends to 0 monotonically on both sides. Let me explain what is strange
about the disappearance of the fringes. If we close slit 1 instead and keep only slit
2 open, then (if the slits are equal in size and their centers are distance a apart)
the distribution function should be (and indeed is) ρ2 (x) = ρ1 (x − a). Arguing
that every particle passes through one of the slits and that those passing through slit
i ∈ {1, 2} end up with distribution ρi , we may expect that the distribution with both
slits open, ρ = ρ12 , is given by the sum of the ρi . But it is not,
ρ12 (x) = ρ1 (x) + ρ2 (x) . (1.74)
While the right-hand side has no minima (except perhaps for a little valley of width a
in the middle, which is usually invisible since a is usually smaller than 10−6 m), ρ12
features pronounced minima, some of which even have (at least ideally) ρ12 (x) = 0.
Such x are places where particles passing through slit 1 would arrive if slit 1 alone
were open, but where no particles arrive if both slits are open! How does a particle
passing through slit 1 even “know” whether slit 2 is open or not?
Moreover, there are detectors that can register a particle, while it passes through
and moves on. If we place such a detector in each slit, while both slits are
open, we will know of each particle which slit it went through. In that case, the
fringes disappear again, and the observed distribution is ρ1 + ρ2 . In particular, the
distribution on the screen depends on whether we put detectors in the slits. It seems
as if our mere knowledge of which slit each particle went through had an effect on
the locations of the spots on the screen!
5 More precisely, electrons could pass right or left of a positively charged wire of diameter 1 μm.
Those passing on the right get deflected to the left, and vice versa. Thus, the arrangement leads
to the superposition of waves travelling in slightly different directions—just what is needed for
interference.
Fig. 1.4 A picture of actual

results of a double-slit
experiment, after (a) 10, (b)
100, (c) 3000, (d) 20,000, and
(e) 70,000 electrons
(Reprinted from [21] with
permission by AIP
Publishing)
The same phenomena arise when using more than two slits, except that the details
of the interference pattern are different then. It is common to use dozens of slits or
more (called a diffraction grating).
Note that the observations in the double-slit experiment are in agreement with,
and in fact follow from, the Born rule and the Schrödinger equation: The relevant
system here consists of one electron, so ψt is a function in just three dimensions.
The potential V can be taken to be +∞ (or very large) at every point of the plate,
except in the slits themselves, where V = 0. Away from the plate, also V = 0. The
Schrödinger equation governs the behavior of ψt , with the initial wave function ψ0
being a wave packet, e.g., a Gaussian wave packet (as in Exercise 1.11),
x2
−
ψ0 (x) = (2πσ 2 )−3/4 e−ik·x e 4σ 2 , (1.75)
moving toward the double slit. According to the Schrödinger equation, part of ψ
will be reflected from the plate, and part of it will pass through the two slits. The
two parts of the wave emanating from the two slits, ψ1 and ψ2 , will overlap and thus
interfere, ψ = ψ1 + ψ2 .
When we detect the electron, its probability density is given, according to the
Born rule, by
|ψ|2 = |ψ1 + ψ2 |2 = |ψ1 |2 + |ψ2 |2 + 2 Re(ψ1∗ ψ2 ) . (1.76)
The third summand on the right is responsible for the minima of the interference
pattern.
What if we include detectors in the slits? Then we detect the electron twice: once
in a slit and once at the screen. Thus, either we have to regard it as a many-particle
problem (involving the electron and the particles making up the detector), or we
need a version of the Born rule suitable for repeated detection. We will study both
approaches in later chapters.
1.5.3 Feynman’s Discussion
Richard Feynman (1918–1988), in his widely known book ([12] Vol. 3, Ch. 1),
provides a nice introduction to the double-slit experiment. I recommend that chapter
as further reading and will add a few remarks about it:
• Feynman’s statement on page 1
[The double slit experiment] has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality, it
contains the only mystery.
is a bit too strong. Other mysteries can claim to be on equal footing with this
one. Feynman weakened his statement later.
• Feynman’s statements
We cannot make the mystery go away by ‘explaining’ how it works. (page 1)

Many ideas have been concocted to try to explain the curve for P12 [. . . ] None of them
has succeeded. (page 6)
No one has found any machinery behind the law. No one can ‘explain’ any more than we
have just ‘explained.’ No one will give you any deeper representation of the situation. We
have no idea about a more basic mechanism from which these results can be deduced.
(page 10)
are too strong. We will see in Sects. 1.6 and 3.3 that Bohmian mechanics and
other theories provide precisely such explanations of the double-slit experiment.
• Feynman’s presentation conveys a sense of mystery and a sense of paradox about
quantum mechanics. This will be a recurrent theme in this book, and one question
will be whether there is any genuine, irreducible mystery or paradox in quantum
mechanics.
• Feynman suggests that the mysterious character of quantum mechanics is not
surprising (“perfectly reasonable”) “because all of direct, human experience and
of human intuition applies to large objects.” This argument seems not quite on
target to me. After all, the troublesome paradoxes of the double slit are not like
the notions we often find hard to imagine (e.g., how big the number 6 × 1023
is, or what four-dimensional geometry looks like, or how big a light year is) but
which are clearly sensible.
1.6 Bohmian Mechanics

[Bohmian mechanics] exercises the mind in a very salutary way.
John Bell (1984) [5, p. 171]
The situation in quantum mechanics is that we have a set of rules, known as the
quantum formalism, for computing the possible outcomes and their probabilities for
(more or less) any conceivable experiment, and everybody agrees (more or less)
about the formalism. What the formalism does not tell us, and what is controversial,
is what exactly happens during these experiments and how nature arrives at the
outcomes whose probabilities the formalism predicts. There are different theories
answering these questions, and Bohmian mechanics is one of them.
Let me elucidate my statements a bit. We have already encountered part of the
quantum formalism: the Schrödinger equation and the Born rule. These rules have
allowed us to predict the possible outcomes of the double-slit experiment with a
single electron (easy here: a spot anywhere on the screen) and their probability
distribution (here: a probability distribution corresponding to |ψ|2 featuring a
sequence of maxima and minima corresponding to interference fringes). What the
rules did not tell us was what exactly happens during this experiment (e.g., how the
electron moves). Bohmian mechanics fills this gap.
1.6 Bohmian Mechanics 25
We have not seen all the rules of the quantum formalism yet. We will later,
in Sects. 2.2 and 3.1. So far, we have formulated the Born rule only for position
measurements, and we have not considered repeated detections.
1.6.1 Definition of Bohmian Mechanics
According to Bohmian mechanics (also known as pilot-wave theory or de Broglie–

Bohm theory), the world consists of a space, which is a three-dimensional Euclidean
space, and particles (material points) moving around in space with time. Let us
suppose there are N particles in the world (say, N ≈ 1080 ), and let us fix a
Cartesian coordinate system in Euclidean space. At every time t, particle number i
(i = 1, . . . , N) has a position Qi (t) ∈ R3 . These positions are governed by Bohm’s
equation of motion
dQi h̄ ∇i
= Im (t, Q(t)) . (1.77)
dt mi
Here, Q(t) = (Q1 (t), . . . , QN (t)) is the configuration at time t, and is a wave
function that is called the wave function of the universe and evolves according to the
Schrödinger equation
∂ h̄2
N
i h̄ =− ∇ 2 + V (1.78)
∂t 2mi i
i=1
with V given by (1.5). The configuration Q(0) at the initial time of the universe
(say, right after the big bang) looks as if chosen randomly by nature with probability
density
ρ0 (q) = |0 (q)|2 . (1.79)
One says that Q(0) is typical relative to the |0 |2 distribution; see Appendix A.4
for further discussion of typicality. (We write an upper case Q for the configuration
of particles and a lower case q for the configuration variable in either ρ or .) This
completes the definition of Bohmian mechanics.
1.6.2 Properties of Bohmian Mechanics
The central fact about Bohmian mechanics is that its predictions agree exactly
with those of the quantum formalism (which so far have always been confirmed
in experiment). We will understand later why this is so.
Equation (1.77) is an ordinary differential equation of first order (specifying
the velocity rather than the acceleration). Thus, the initial configuration Q(0)
determines Q(t) for all t, so Bohmian mechanics is a deterministic theory. On

the other hand, Q(t) is random because Q(0) is. Note that this randomness does
not conflict with determinism. It is a theorem, the equivariance theorem, that the
probability distribution of Q(t) is given by |t (q)|2 . We will derive the equivariance
theorem in Sect. 1.6.4. As a consequence, it is consistent to assume the Born
distribution for every t. Note that due to the determinism, the Born distribution can
be assumed only for one time (say t = 0); for any other time t, then, the distribution
of Q(t) is fixed by (1.77). The state of the universe at any time t is given by the pair
(Q(t), t ). In particular, in Bohmian mechanics, “wave–particle duality” means a
very simple thing: there is a wave, and there are particles.
Let us have a closer look at Bohm’s equation of motion (1.77). If we recall the
formula (1.22) for the probability current, then we can rewrite Eq. (1.77) in the form
dQi j probability current
= i2 = . (1.80)
dt || probability density
This is a very plausible relation because it is a mathematical fact about any particle
system with deterministic velocities that
probability current = velocity × probability density . (1.81)
We will come back to this relation when we prove equivariance.

Here is another way of rewriting (1.77). A complex number z can be character-
ized by its modulus R ≥ 0 and its phase S ∈ R, z = ReiS . It will be convenient
in the following to replace S by S/h̄ (but we will still call S the phase of z). Then
a complex-valued function (t, q) can be written in terms of the two real-valued
functions R(t, q) and S(t, q) according to
(t, q) = R(t, q) eiS(t,q)/h̄ . (1.82)
Let us plug this into (1.77): Since
∇i = ∇i (ReiS/h̄ ) (1.83)
= (∇i R)eiS/h̄ + R∇i eiS/h̄ (1.84)
i∇i S iS/h̄
= (∇i R)eiS/h̄ + R e , (1.85)
h̄
we have that

h̄ ∇i h̄ ∇i R ∇i S
Im = Im +i (1.86)
mi mi R h̄
real
h̄ ∇i S 1
= = ∇i S . (1.87)
mi h̄ mi
Thus, (1.77) can be rewritten as
dQi 1
= ∇i S(t, Q(t)) . (1.88)
dt mi
In words, the velocity is given (up to a constant factor involving the mass) by the
gradient of the phase of the wave function.
Exercise 1.5 (Current in Terms of Modulus and Phase) Show that
1 2
ji = R ∇i S . (1.89)
mi
Exercise 1.6 (Bohmian Trajectories for Plane Waves) Let ψt be a plane wave
solution (1.9) of the Schrödinger equation with wave vector k. Show that for every
constant vector a ∈ R3 ,
h̄k
Q(t) = a + t (1.90)
m
is a Bohmian trajectory with initial position Q(0) = a.
A few years before the development of the Schrödinger equation, Louis de

Broglie6 (1892–1987) had suggested a quantitative rule of thumb for wave–particle
duality: A particle with momentum p = mv should “correspond” to a wave with
wave vector k according to the de Broglie relation
p = h̄k . (1.91)
The wave vector is defined by the relation ψ = eik·x (so it is defined only for
plane waves); it is orthogonal to the wave fronts (surfaces of constant phase), and its
magnitude is |k| = 2π/(wave length). Now, if the wave is not a plane wave, then we
can still define a local wave vector k(x) that is orthogonal to the surface of constant
phase and whose magnitude is 1/(rate of phase change). Some thought shows that
k(x) = ∇S(x)/h̄. If we use this expression on the right-hand side of (1.91) and
interpret p as mass times the velocity of the particle, we obtain exactly Eq. (1.88),
that is, Bohm’s equation of motion.
6 Although de Broglie was French, his family was originally from Italy. His last name is awkward
to pronounce in French, but in Italian it is natural and sounds like “Brawl-ye.”
1.6.3 Historical Overview
The idea that the wave function might determine particle trajectories as a “guiding
field” was perhaps first expressed by Albert Einstein (1879–1955) around 1923 and
considered in detail by John C. Slater (1900–1976) in 1924 (see [19]). Bohmian
mechanics was developed by Louis de Broglie in 1927 (see [9]) but then abandoned.
It was rediscovered independently by Nathan Rosen (1909–1995, known for
the Einstein–Rosen bridge in general relativity and the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen
argument) in 1945 [18] and David Bohm (1917–1992) in 1952 [7,8]. Bohm was the
first to realize that it actually makes the correct predictions and the first to take it
seriously as a physical theory. Several physicists mistakenly believed that Bohmian
mechanics makes wrong predictions, including de Broglie, Rosen, and Einstein.
Curiously, Bohm’s 1952 papers [7, 8] provide a strange presentation of the theory,
as Bohm insisted on writing the law of motion as an equation for the acceleration
d 2 Qj /dt 2 , obtained by taking the time derivative of (1.77); see Appendix A.4.4.
It is widespread to call any variables that are not functions of ψ “hidden
variables”; in Bohmian mechanics, the configuration Q is a variable that is not a
function of ψ, so it is often called a hidden variable although the particle positions
are not hidden at all in Bohmian mechanics, as they can be measured any time to
any desired accuracy.
1.6.4 Equivariance
Equivariance can be expressed by saying that an ensemble of Bohmian configu-

rations, if |0 |2 distributed at time 0 (or at any one time), is |t |2 distributed
at every time t. (An ensemble means a probability distribution ρ, thought of as
a large collection of systems with statistical distribution given by ρ.) The term
“equivariance” comes from the fact that the two relevant quantities, ρt and |t |2 ,
vary equally with t. (Here, ρt is the distribution arising from ρ0 by transport along
the Bohmian trajectories.) The equivariance theorem can be expressed by means of
the following diagram:
⏐0 −→ ρ
⏐0
⏐ ⏐
Ut (1.92)
t −→ ρt
The horizontal arrows mean taking | · |2 , the left vertical arrow means the Schrödin-
ger evolution from time 0 to time t, and the right vertical arrow means the transport
of probability along the Bohmian trajectories. The statement about this diagram is
that both paths along the arrows lead to the same result. Here is a rigorous version:
Theorem 1.3 (Equivariance Theorem, Berndl et al. (1995) [6], Teufel et al.
(2005) [20]) For a large class of potentials V and a dense subspace of ψ0 , the
solution t → Q(t) of Bohm’s equation of motion with Q(0) ∼ |0 |2 exists globally
(i.e., for all t) with probability 1, and equivariance holds:

P(Q(t) ∈ B) = dq |t (q)|2 ∀B ⊆ R3N ∀t ∈ R. (1.93)
B
We give a non-rigorous derivation that conveys the reason why equivariance

holds. As a preparation, we note that the equation of motion can be written in the
form
dQ
= vt (Q(t)) , (1.94)
dt
where vt : R3N → R3N is the vector field on configuration space vt = v =

(v 1 , . . . , v N ) whose i-th component is
h̄ ∇i
vi = Im . (1.95)
mi
We now address the following question: If vt is known for all t, and the initial prob-
ability distribution ρ0 is known, how can we compute the probability distribution ρt
at other times? The answer is the continuity equation
∂ρt
= −div ρt vt . (1.96)
∂t
This follows from the fact that the probability current is given by ρt vt . In fact, in
any dimension d (d = 3N or otherwise) and for any density (probability density or
energy density or nitrogen density, etc.), it is true that
current = density × velocity . (1.97)
We are now ready to give the derivation. We first show that
∂ρt ∂
if ρt = |t |2 then = |t |2 (1.98)
∂t ∂t
and then conclude that if ρ0 = |0 |2 , then ρt = |t |2 (which is the equivariance
theorem). By the continuity equation (1.96) for ρt and the continuity equation (1.21)
for |t |2 , the right equation in (1.98) is equivalent to

− ∇i · ρt v i = − ∇i · j i . (1.99)
i i
As mentioned in (1.80), v i = j i /|t |2 . Thus, if ρt = |t |2 , then Eq. (1.99) is true,

which completes the derivation.
1.6.5 The Double-Slit Experiment in Bohmian Mechanics
Let us apply what we know about Bohmian mechanics to N = 1 and the wave
function of the double-slit experiment. We assume that the particle in the experiment
moves as if it was alone in the universe, with the potential V representing the wall
with two slits. We will justify that assumption in a later chapter. We know already
what the wave function ψ(t, x) looks like. Figure 1.5 shows possible trajectories of
the particle.
We know from the equivariance theorem that the position will always have
probability distribution |ψt |2 . Thus, if we detect the particle at time t, we find its
distribution in agreement with the Born rule.
Note that the particle moves not along straight lines, as it would according to
classical mechanics. That is because Bohm’s equation of motion is different from
Newton’s. Note also that the wave passes through both slits, while the particle passes
through one only. Note further that the particle trajectories would be different if one
slit were closed: then no interference fringes would occur. How can the particle,
after passing through one slit, know whether the other slit is open? Because the
wave passes through both slits if both are open.
Fig. 1.5 Several alternative Bohmian trajectories of a particle in a double-slit experiment

(Reprinted from Dürr and Teufel (2009) [11] with permission by Springer, based on a figure in
Philippidis et al. (1979) [15])
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
holding Uganda. These results have followed very rapidly the
political partition of the continent.
The final blow has been given by the act of the Brussels
Antislavery Conference, lately ratified by the powers, wherein
modern civilization has fully declared its opinions upon the question
of slavery, and no single power will dare remain indifferent to them,
under penalty of obloquy and shame.
The first article of the Brussels act is as follows:
“The powers declare that the most effective means for
counteracting the slave trade in the interior of Africa are the
following:
“1. Progressive organization of the administration; judicial,
religious, and military services in the African territories placed
under the sovereignty or protectorate of civilized nations.
“2. The gradual establishment in the interior by the
responsible power in each territory of strongly occupied
stations in such a way as to make their protective or
repressive action effectively felt in the territories devastated
by man-hunters.
“3. The construction of roads, and, in particular, of railways
connecting the advanced stations with the coast, and
presenting easy access to the inland waters and to the upper
reaches of streams and rivers which are broken by rapids and
cataracts, so as to substitute economical and speedy means
of transport for the present means of portage by men.
“4. Establishment of steamboats on the inland navigable
waters and on the lakes, supported by fortified posts
established on the banks.
“5. Establishment of telegraphic lines, assuring the
communication of the posts and stations with the coast and
with administrative centres.
“6. Organization of expeditious and flying columns to keep
up the communication of the stations with each other and with
the coast, to support repressive action, and to assume the
security of roadways.
“7. Restriction of the importation of fire-arms.”
The above articles concern three powers especially, Great Britain,
Germany, and the Congo State, so far as regards the efficient
counteraction of the slave trade. In examining them one by one, we
find that Great Britain, which in the past was foremost in the cause of
the slave, has done and is doing least to carry out the measures
suggested by the great Antislavery Conference. We must also admit
that as regards furthering the good cause, France is a long way
ahead of England.
The Congo State devotes her annual subsidies of £120,000 and
the export tax of £30,000 wholly to the task of securing her territory
against the malign influences of the slave trade, and elevating it to
the rank of self-protecting states.
The German government undertakes the sure guardianship of its
vast African territory as an imperial possession, so as to render it
inaccessible to the slave-hunter, and free from the terrors, the
disturbances, the internecinal wars, and the distractions arising from
the presence or visits of slavers. It has spent already large sums of
money, and finds no difficulty in obtaining from Parliament the sums
requisite for the defence and the thorough control and management
of the territory as a colonial possession. So far the expenses, I think,
have averaged over £100,000 annually.
The French government devotes £60,000 annually for the
protection and administration of its Gaboon and Congo territory.
These two objects include in brief all that the Antislavery Conference
deemed necessary, for with due protection and efficient
administration there can be no room for slave hunting or trading.
Now the question comes, what has England done in the extensive
and valuable territory in East Africa which fell to her share as per
Anglo-German agreement signed July 1, 1890? The answer must be
that she has done less than the least of all those concerned in the
extirpation of the slave trade.
The Germans have crushed the slave-traders, have built fortified
stations in the interior, have supplied their portion of the east coast
with a powerful flotilla of steamers, are engaged in transporting
cruisers to the three great lakes on their borders, have surveyed and
are extending surveys for several railways in the interior, have not
lost time in discovering ways of evading the territorial wants, but
have set about to supply these wants as indicated by the
International Conference of Brussels; and were we able to obtain an
instantaneous photograph of the present movements of the
Germans throughout their territory, we should know how to fully
appreciate the hearty spirit with which they are performing their
duties.
And were we able to glance in the same way as to what is
occurring on British soil, we should be struck by the earnestness of
the Germans as compared with the British.
AN ARAB
Both governments started with delegating their authority to
chartered companies. On the part of the Germans, however, the
imprudence of their agents imperilled their possessions, and the
imperial government set itself the task of reducing malcontentism to
order, and settling the difficulties in its own masterful manner, and is
engaged in providing against their recurrence before surrendering
the territory again to the influences of the company.
The British East African Company, on the other hand, has been
comparatively free to commence its commercial operations,
undisturbed by armed opposition of aborigines or of Arab and
Swahili residents. The welcome given to it has been almost
universally cordial. The susceptibilities of the Arabs were not
wounded, and the aborigines gratefully recognized that the new-
comers were not hostile to them. Concessions were obtained at a
fair price, and on payment of the stipulated value the company
entered into possession, and became, with the consent of all
concerned, masters of the British East African territory—a territory
far more ample than what the founders of the company had hoped
for at first.
Had the British East African Company confined its transactions
and operations to the coast, it is well known that the returns would
have been most lucrative, for over and above the expenditure we
see by their reports that there would have been a yearly net gain of
over £6000 available for dividend, which by this time would have
been trebled.
But the Berlin Conference of 1884-5 expressly stipulated (Article
VI.) that all powers exercising sovereign rights or having influence in
the said territories (shall) undertake to watch over the preservation of
the native races and the amelioration of the moral and material
conditions of their existence, and to co-operate in the suppression of
slavery, and, above all, of the slave trade; (that) they will protect and
encourage all institutions and enterprises, religions, etc., re-
established or organized, which tend to educate the natives; and in
Article XXXV. it is stipulated that the power which in future takes
possession of a territory, or assumes a protectorate, recognizes the
obligation to insure in the territories occupied by it on the coasts of
the African continent the existence of an adequate authority to
enforce respect for acquired rights.
Therefore the back-land of British East Africa could not remain the
theatre of slave raids, or unclaimed.
It devolved upon the occupants of the sea-frontage to exercise
their sovereign rights, and in the due exercise of these to watch over
the native races of the back-lands, and to co-operate for the
suppression of slavery and the slave trade. It was incumbent upon
them also to protect and encourage the Christian missions, without
distinction of nationality or creed, which were established in Uganda
—the most important because most populous and most promising of
these back-lands. And to insure its acquired right to those countries it
was necessary that the British company should be represented by
adequate authority there, otherwise it would be in the power of any
person, society, or power to bar its claim to them by actual
occupation.
Following the declarations of the powers at the Berlin Conference
in 1885 is the act of assembled civilization at Brussels in 1890,
emphasizing and reiterating the conditions upon which sovereignty
shall be recognized. They point out in detail what ought, what indeed
must be done. They say that the responsible power ought—which is
almost equivalent to must in this case—to organize administration,
justice, and the religious and the military services, to establish
strongly occupied stations, to make roads, particularly railroads, for
the sake of easy access to the inland waters, to inaugurate steamer
service on the lakes, erect telegraphic lines, and restrict the
importation of fire-arms.
The British East African Company as a commercial company is
unable with its own means to meet these conditions. What it can it
will, and its ability is limited to a sacrifice of all the dividends
available from its commercial operations on the coast for the benefit
of the whole territory, and subscribing a few more thousands of
pounds to postpone retreat. Yet as the delegate of the British
government the company is bound not to neglect the interior. It is
pledged to insure the protection of British subjects in Uganda, to
protect the Waganda from internecine and factional wars, to place
steamers on Lake Victoria for the protection of the lake coasts, and
to prevent the wholesale importation of fire-arms. But in the attempt
to do what Europe expects to be done the company has been
involved in an expense which has been disastrous to its interests. It
has established adequate authority in Uganda, but the maintenance
of the communication between Uganda and the coast is absolutely
ruinous. It has to pay £300, or thereabouts, the ton for freight. Thus,
to send 150,000 rounds of ammunition, which is equal to twelve
tons, costs £3600. To send the cloth currency required for purchase
of native provisions for the force costs £12,000. Add the cost of
conveyance of miscellaneous baggage, European provisions and
medicines, tools, utensils, tents, besides the first cost of these
articles and the pay of the men, and we at once see that £40,000 per
annum is but a small estimate of the expense thus entailed upon the
company. Meantime the transportation of steamers to Lake Victoria,
the erection of stations connecting the lake with the sea, and many
other equally pressing duties, are utterly out of the question. The
directors understand too well what is needed, but they are helpless.
We must accept the will for the deed.
This much, however, is clear: Europe will not hold the British East
African Company, but England, responsible for not suppressing the
slave trade and slave hunt. The agreement with Europe was not
made by the company, but by Great Britain through her official and
duly appointed representatives. When her official representatives
signed the act of the Brussels Antislavery Conference, they
undertook in the name of Great Britain the important responsibilities
and duties specified within the act. The representatives of all Europe
and the United States were witnesses to the signing of the act. To
repudiate the obligations so publicly entered into would be too
shameful, and if the majority in Parliament represents the will of the
people there is every reason to think that the railway to the Victoria
Nyanza, which is necessary for carrying into effect the suggestions
of the Antislavery Conference, will be constructed.
I have been often asked what trade will be benefited by this
railway to the Nyanza, or what can be obtained from the interior of
Africa to compensate for the expense—say £2,000,000—of building
the railway. There is no necessity for me to refer to the commercial
aspect of the question in such an article as this, but there are some
compensating advantages specially relating to my subject-matter
which may be mentioned.
First. England will prove to Europe and the world that she is
second to no other power in the fulfilment of her obligations, moral or
material.
Second. She will prove that she does not mean to be excelled by
Germany, France, or Belgium in the suppression of the slave trade
and the man hunt, nor is averse to do justice to the Africans whom
she has taken under her wing.
Third. She will prove that the people on British territory shall not be
the last to enjoy the mercies and privileges conceded to the negroes
by civilization, that the preservation of the native races and their
moral and material welfare are as dear to England as to any other
power, that the lives of her missionaries shall not be sacrificed in
vain, that the labors of her explorers are duly appreciated, that she is
not deaf to the voices of her greatest and best, and, in brief—to use
the words uttered lately by one of her ministers—she will prove that
“her vaunted philanthropy is not a sham, and her professed love of
humanity not mere hypocrisy.”
The objective point for the British East African Company, for the
people and government of Great Britain, is the Victoria Nyanza, with
1400 miles of coast-line. So far as the British as a slavery-hating
nation are concerned, their duties are simply shifted from the ocean
coast to the Nyanza coast, 500 miles inland. The slave-trader has
disappeared from the east coast almost entirely, and is to be found
now on the lake coasts of the Victoria, or within British territory. The
ocean cruiser can follow him no farther; but the lake cruiser must not
only debar the guilty slave-dhow from the privilege of floating on the
principal fountain of the Nile, but she must assist to restrict the
importation of fire-arms from German territory, from the byways of
Arab traffic, from the unguarded west; she must prevent the flight of
fugitives and rebels and offenders from British territory; she must
protect the missionaries and British subjects in their peaceful
passage to and fro across the lake; she must teach the millions on
the lake shores that the white ensign waving from her masthead is a
guarantee of freedom, life, and peace.
To make these great benefits possible, the Victorian lake must be
connected with the Indian Ocean by a railway. That narrow iron track
will command effectively 150,000 square miles of British territory. It is
the one remedy for the present disgraceful condition of British East
Africa. It will enable the company to devote the thousands now spent
wastefully upon porterage to stimulating legitimate traffic, and to
employ its immense caravans in more remunerative work than
starving and perishing on British soil; to grace the surroundings of its
many stations with cornfields and gardens; to promote life, interest,
and intellect, instead of being stupefied by increasing loss of brave
men and honest money. It will create trade in the natural productions
of the land, instead of letting Arabs traffic in the producers. Clarkson
long ago said that legitimate trade would kill the slave traffic; Buxton
repeated it. Wherever honest trade has been instituted and fairly
tried, as in the southern part of the United States, in Jamaica and
Brazil, as in Sierra Leone and Lagos, in Old Calabar, in Egypt and
the lower Congo, always and everywhere it has been proved that
lawful commerce is a great blessing to a land by the peace it brings,
by its power of creating scores of little channels for thrifty industry, by
the force of attraction it possesses to draw the marketable products
into the general mart. And this is what will surely happen upon the
completion of the Victoria Nyanza Railway, for the slave trade and
slavery will then be rendered impossible in British African territory.
THE END
Transcriber’s Notes
Page 37: “peformed this feat of strength” changed to “performed this feat of strength”
Page 38: “undertaken to peform” changed to “undertaken to perform”
Page 76: “over and above the expediture” changed to “over and above the expenditure”
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK SLAVERY AND
THE SLAVE TRADE IN AFRICA ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions

will be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright
in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and
distribute it in the United States without permission and without
paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General
Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and
distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the
PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if
you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the
trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the
Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such
as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and
printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in
the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright
law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially
commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the

free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this
work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase
“Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of
the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or
online at www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand,
agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual
property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to
abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using
and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for
obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms
of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only

be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by
people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.
There are a few things that you can do with most Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the
full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There
are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™
electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and
help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright
law in the United States and you are located in the United
States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying,
distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works
based on the work as long as all references to Project
Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will
support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free
access to electronic works by freely sharing Project
Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this
agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name
associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms
of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with
its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it
without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside
the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to
the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying,
displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works
based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The
Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright
status of any work in any country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project

Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project
Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed,
viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United

States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it
away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg
License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United
States, you will have to check the laws of the country where
you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to
anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges.
If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of
paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use
of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth
in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and
distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder.
Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™
License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright
holder found at the beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files
containing a part of this work or any other work associated with
Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute
this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1
with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the
Project Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if
you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project
Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or
other format used in the official version posted on the official
Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at
no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a
means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other
form. Any alternate format must include the full Project
Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™
works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or

providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that
s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and
discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project
Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project

Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different
terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain
permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™
trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3
below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on,
transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright
law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite
these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the
medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,”
such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt
data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other
medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES -

Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in
paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic
work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for
damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU
AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE,
STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH
OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH
1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER
THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR
ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE
OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF
THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If

you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of
receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you
paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you
received the work from. If you received the work on a physical
medium, you must return the medium with your written
explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the
defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu
of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or
entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.
If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund
in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set

forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’,
WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR
ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this
agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this
agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the
maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable
state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of
this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the

Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless
from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that
arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project
Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or
deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect
you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of

Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new
computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of
volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project
Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™
collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In
2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was
created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project
Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your
efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the
Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-
profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the
laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by
the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal
tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax
deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and
your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500

West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact
links and up to date contact information can be found at the
Foundation’s website and official page at
www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to

the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission
of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works
that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form

Full Ebook of Foundations of Quantum Mechanics 1St Edition Roderich Tumulka Online PDF All Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Full Ebook of Foundations of Quantum Mechanics 1St Edition Roderich Tumulka Online PDF All Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full Ebook of Foundations of Quantum Mechanics 1St Edition Roderich Tumulka Online PDF All Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Foundations of Quantum Mechanics 1st

Edition Roderich Tumulka

A First Course on Symmetry Special Relativity and

Foundations of Celestial Mechanics 1st Edition Elena

Quantum Mechanics Nouredine Zettili

Quantum Mechanics: Inception or Conception? A Classical

Quantum Mechanics Mahesh C Jain

The Physics of Quantum Mechanics 1st Edition Daniel F.

Foundations of Molecular Quantum Electrodynamics 1st

Topological Phases of Matter 1st Edition Roderich

• to be a compact and modern up-to-date source of reference on a well-defined

Both monographs and multi-author volumes will be considered for publication.

ISSN 0075-8450 ISSN 1616-6361 (electronic)

Tübingen, Germany Roderich Tumulka

1 Waves and Particles .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2.1.4 Tunnel Effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

3.4 The Copenhagen Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

5.8 Special Topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248

7.2 Relativistic Schrödinger Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329

8.3 What If Two Theories Are Empirically Equivalent? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422

I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.

I think that conventional formulations of quantum theory [. . . ] are unprofessionally vague

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 1

predictions; they are uncontroversial. The aspects of quantum mechanics that we

1.2 The Schrödinger Equation

One of the fundamental laws of quantum mechanics is the Schrödinger equation

It governs the time evolution of the wave function ψ = ψt = ψ(t, x 1 , x 2 , . . . , x N ).

Equation (1.1) applies to a system of N particles in R3 . The word “particle”

V is a given real-valued function on configuration space, called the potential energy

is called the Hamiltonian operator, so the Schrödinger equation can be summarized

ψ(t, x) = eik·x e−iωt (1.9)

satisfies the free (i.e., V = 0) Schrödinger equation (1.1) for N = 1. Specify ω

(a 3N-dimensional volume integral). Instead of d 3N q, we will often just write dq.

A famous density function in one dimension is the Gaussian density

where ρ is a time-dependent scalar function on Rd called the density and j a time-

div F = ∂F1 /∂x1 + . . . + ∂Fn /∂xn (1.19)

is called the divergence of F , A is an n-dimensional region with (piecewise smooth)

Fig. 1.1 The set A

where Im means imaginary part, because

1.3 Unitary Operators in Hilbert Space

1.3.1 Existence and Uniqueness of Solutions of the Schrödinger

Theorem 1.1 2 For a large class of potentials V (including Coulomb, Newton’s

1.3.2 The Time Evolution Operators

Let Ut : L2 → L2 be the mapping defined by

Ut is called the time evolution operator or propagator. Often, it is not possible to

Ut (ψ + φ) = (Ut ψ) + (Ut φ) (1.28)

Ut ψ = ψ . (1.30)

for all s, t ∈ R, where I denotes the identity operator

It follows from (1.31) that Ut−1 = U−t . In particular, Ut is a bijection. An isometric

Ut = e−iH t /h̄ . (1.33)

The exponential of an operator A can be defined by the exponential series

φt := e−iH t /h̄ ψ0 , (1.35)

one would naively compute as follows:

so φt is a solution of the Schrödinger equation with φ0 = e0 ψ0 = ψ0 and thus

1.3.3 Unitary Matrices and Rotations

The space L2 is infinite-dimensional. As a finite-dimensional analog, consider the

instead of the L2 norm

A function on {1, . . . , n} is always square-summable (its norm cannot be infinite).

Ut ψ = ψ . (1.30)

ψ + φ|χ = ψ|χ + φ|χ , zψ|φ = z∗ ψ|φ (1.50)

ψ|φ + χ = ψ|φ + ψ|χ , ψ|zφ = z ψ|φ (1.51)

φ|ψ = ψ|φ∗ (1.52)

ψ|ψ > 0 for ψ = 0 . (1.53)

U ψ|U φ = ψ|φ . (1.57)

with ⊆ Rn ×R. F can be called a time-dependent vector field on (a possibly time-

Ts Tt = Ts+t and T0 = id (1.68)

ρ12 (x) = ρ1 (x) + ρ2 (x) . (1.74)