Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (German: Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik) is a quantum mechanics book written by John von Neumann in 1932. It is an important early work in the development of the mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics.[1] The book mainly summarizes results that von Neumann had published in earlier papers.[2]
Author | John von Neumann |
---|---|
Original title | Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik |
Language | German |
Subject | Quantum mechanics |
Published | 1932 |
Publisher | Springer |
Publication place | Berlin, Germany |
The book was originally published in German in 1932 by Springer.[2] An English translation by Robert T. Beyer was published in 1955 by Princeton University Press. A Russian translation, edited by Nikolay Bogolyubov, was published by Nauka in 1964. A new English edition, edited by Nicholas A. Wheeler, was published in 2018 by Princeton University Press.[3]
According to the 2018 version, the main chapters are:[3]
One significant passage is its mathematical argument against the idea of hidden variables. Von Neumann's claim rested on the assumption that any linear combination of Hermitian operators represents an observable and the expectation value of such combined operator follows the combination of the expectation values of the operators themselves.[4]
Von Neumann's makes the following assumptions:[5]
Von Neumann then shows that one can write
for some , where and are the matrix elements in some basis. The proof concludes by noting that must be Hermitian and non-negative definite ( ) by construction.[5] For von Neumann, this meant that the statistical operator representation of states could be deduced from the postulates. Consequently, there are no "dispersion-free" states:[a] it is impossible to prepare a system in such a way that all measurements have predictable results. But if hidden variables existed, then knowing the values of the hidden variables would make the results of all measurements predictable, and hence there can be no hidden variables.[5] Von Neumann's argues that if dispersion-free states were found, assumptions 1 to 3 should be modified.[6]
Von Neumann's concludes:[7]
if there existed other, as yet undiscovered, physical quantities, in addition to those represented by the operators in quantum mechanics, because the relations assumed by quantum mechanics would have to fail already for the by now known quantities, those that we discussed above. It is therefore not, as is often assumed, a question of a re-interpretation of quantum mechanics, the present system of quantum mechanics would have to be objectively false, in order that another description of the elementary processes than the statistical one be possible.
— pp. 324-325
This proof was rejected as early as 1935 by Grete Hermann who found a flaw in the proof.[6] The additive postulate above holds for quantum states, but it does not need to apply for measurements of dispersion-free states, specifically when considering non-commuting observables.[5][4] Dispersion-free states only require to recover additivity when averaging over the hidden parameters.[5][4] For example, for a spin-1/2 system, measurements of can take values for a dispersion-free state, but independent measurements of and can only take values of (their sum can be or ).[8] Thus there still the possibility that a hidden variable theory could reproduce quantum mechanics statistically.[4][5][6]
However, Hermann's critique remained relatively unknown until 1974 when it was rediscovered by Max Jammer.[6] In 1952, David Bohm constructed the Bohmian interpretation of quantum mechanics in terms of statistical argument, suggesting a limit to the validity of von Neumann's proof.[5][4] The problem was brought back to wider attention by John Stewart Bell in 1966.[4][5] Bell showed that the consequences of that assumption are at odds with results of incompatible measurements, which are not explicitly taken into von Neumann's considerations.[5]
It was considered the most complete book written in quantum mechanics at the time of release.[2] It was praised for its axiomatic approach.[2]