sign in sign up
<<
Home , Ladder operator, Phonon

of - why are there ?

R. A. Street Palo Alto Research Center, Palo Alto, CA 94304

The underlying physics of quantum mechanics has been discussed for decades without an agreed resolution to many questions. The measurement problem, function collapse and entangled states are mired in complexity and the difficulty of even agreeing on a definition of a measurement. This paper explores a completely different aspect of quantum mechanics – the physical mechanism for – to gain insights into quantum mechanics that may help address the broader questions.

Ever since quantum mechanics became ω) relation. Phonons are relatively simple established as a theory that correctly predicts the constructs, being mechanical oscillations of a result of a measurement, there has been a of . The point of taking this approach continuing discussion about the underlying is that the measurement problem and the physics and the meaning of the theory. Most of of the wave function are peripheral to the the discussion is centered around the description of phonons, but perhaps some insight measurement problem, decoherence, entangled can be gained that will help with those questions. states and the nature of the wave function.1-6 The The mathematical description of phonons as the measurement problem concerns how a quantum quantization of a is well state interacts with the macroscopic external known but does not explain the quantization. world to give the observed probabilistic result of Phonons have a specific property that is pertinent a measurement. The problem focuses on to their physical origin; a phonon mode involves reconciling the unitary evolution of the quantum multiple , so that one cannot attribute state and the non-unitary result of a measurement. their quantization to the property of any one This dichotomy has been under discussion for specific , as discussed further below. nearly a century without a clear resolution and is Phonons are often macroscopic oscillations, complicated by the difficulty in even finding a examples being acoustic phonons in a and precise and agreed definition of a measurement. the nano-mechanical oscillation of a C60 The wave function is similarly complicated by a .14 The relation of phonons to lack of clarity whether it reflects a real physical macroscopic material properties is also clear and entity or is a mathematical abstraction.7,8 These direct – the low specific heat of materials at low questions of ontology, epistemology and broader is the result of phonon quantization. philosophical issues have proved very hard to The quantum mechanics of macroscopic objects unravel, in part because of the lack of knowledge is of general interest.15 about the underlying physics of quantum The question being addressed is the mechanics.9-13 A core issue is one of ontology and physical origin of phonon quantization – i.e. what the nature of reality. The realist point of view is is the specific physical entity whose properties that there must be a physical entity that is the are the origin of the quantization? It is worth source of the quantum properties. starting by reviewing the history. As is well Given the difficulties described above, it known, Einstein proposed that lattice seems helpful to try to make progress with a are quantized in a 1907 paper and explicitly used potentially simpler question. To that end, this the result to explain why the specific heat of paper considers an aspect of quantum mechanics materials fell below the Dulong-Petit classical that is rarely discussed in the context of the value at low temperature.16 However, Einstein foundations of quantum mechanics, namely did not propose a physical mechanism for phonon phonons, and to ask why they are quantized, quantization, but instead gave an argument that obeying the E=(n+1/2)ℏω - (E-

1 the existence of quantized implied that 1907 paper was not very specific about the phonons were also quantized. mechanism. It states “…the mechanism of energy transfer is such that the energy of elementary In 1900, Plank showed that the theory of structures can only assume the values (nℏω)…” black body radiation required the E=ℏω relation with a footnote “It is obvious that this assumption to account for the spectrum.17 Initially Planck did also has to be extended to bodies capable of not consider that the quantum relation reflected oscillation that consist of any number of new physics and he spent several years trying to elementary structures”. find a classical explanation.18 It was not immediately obvious that new physics must be A century later we know that photons are involved because the calculation of the black intrinsically quantized,19 so that Einstein’s body spectrum was not settled, and its theoretical mechanism to link photons with phonons is not description was being actively debated. Part of necessarily correct. However, phonon Einstein’s 1907 paper settled this debate and gave quantization is a fact and the mechanism must the calculation of the spectrum in the way that it originate in the oscillating . One possible is done now, comprising the density of radiation explanation is that the quantum properties of modes in the cavity, equipartition for modes of individual particles combine to quantize the the same energy and a thermal distribution of the phonon, but this is readily refuted. To make the mode energy. The 1907 paper showed that a reasoning specific, consider a single benzene Boltzmann energy distribution gives the correct molecule C6H6, made up of 40 , 40 spectrum at low frequency but diverges at high and about 36 (without frequency. Einstein identified the classical considering ) and for which the phonon Boltzmann distribution as the problem and that are well known. Benzene has 20 the correct theory required a distribution function distinct vibrational frequencies and hence 20 reflecting energy quantization. There was no different energy quanta.20 For the atoms of the question that this could be explained by classical benzene molecule to be the source of the physics. quantization, then some physical property of those 116 particles must somehow generate the At this point the discussion given by energy quanta. The oscillation frequency results Einstein in the 1907 paper gets more interesting. from the mass m and elastic constant k, He could have asserted that photons are 1/2 intrinsically quantized to explain the quantized ω=(k/m) . The of the phonon is energy distribution. (Here, intrinsically quantized held by the stretched bonds of the valence means that the quantum effect is a property of the electrons – different combinations for each independent of the excitation source, phonon energy – while the kinetic energy is all in rather than a property of the mechanism by which the mass of the nuclei, and the energy quantum it is excited.) However, while the intrinsic must somehow transfer back and forth since the quantization mechanism gives the black body energy alternates between the elastic and the spectrum, it would not have given him an kinetic components. The fully symmetric phonon argument for phonons. Instead he asserted that modes of benzene have vibrational energy that is the general oscillatory electronic excitations of shared equally by the 6 CH units. By symmetry, the cavity wall material must be quantized, so that each unit must provide the energy for 1/6 of the only photons with the quantum energy relation quantum. It is not possible from any reasonable can be excited. He then argued that quantized understanding of elementary particles and atoms electronic excitations of a material must imply that they could combine their individual quantum quantized ionic oscillations and therefore also properties to explain the phonon quantum. There lattice vibrations. He concluded that that has to be a different explanation. phonons must have the same E=ℏω quantum The phonon, photon and other relation as do photons. Einstein’s argument is oscillations are described by the quantum theory based on the proposition that electronic of the harmonic oscillator. The theory treats the oscillations of bulk matter have properties that frequency as an arbitrary parameter, which just provide the physical origin of quantization. The goes to confirm that the physical mechanism of 2 quantization does not lie in the specific The detailed discussion of benzene is mechanisms that determine the oscillation intended to make clear that the phonon frequency. Instead, the theory shows that the quantization cannot be attributed directly to the quantum physics lies in the creation and individual particle properties. Once it is accepted annihilation operators. However, while the that the physical mechanism must instead be a mathematics of the harmonic oscillator is clear, collective property, then energy is the the physics that these operators describe is inescapable origin, at least in any realistic opaque. Neither the or the ontology – it is the only possibility. It is version of the theory point to an perfectly reasonable that energy should be a obvious physical mechanism. For example, the physical entity with a set of physical properties ih󠄺d/dx, describes how the even though this is not the conventional view, and physics leads to the mathematical equations, but there is no contradiction with any evidence. does not reveal the physical mechanism. Energy is an observable; a measureable quantity Faced with this impasse, a helpful feature that reflects the physical properties of a system, of the phonon is one cannot readily appeal to either a quantum system or a macroscopic some higher level of abstraction, either classical system. Its role as an observable does mathematical, physical or cognitive as is often not prevent energy also having physical done to try and understand quantum physics. properties that contribute to the properties of a There is no obvious relevance in considering the quantum system. A comparable example is phonon in the context of , electric ; the quantity of electric charge is string theory or any other higher abstraction. The an observable, but charge also has physical many-worlds interpretation or the role of human properties that determine the behavior of any consciousness have no apparent relation to system that contains charge. In the macroscopic phonons, because they are such simple physical world, the specific properties of energy that lead structures. They are not sub-atomic or relativistic to quantum effects are too small to be significant – they are just a few atoms oscillating slowly, and only the numerical value is important. visible and evidently real; benzene are Similarly, in macroscopic situations electric observable in a scanning tunneling microscope.21 charge is a numerical quantity, amps or coulombs, but at a microscopic level it is The central distinguishing feature of the “quantized” as the charge on an or phonon that sets it apart from the quantization of . individual particles is that it is a collective property of a cluster of vibrating atoms, a cluster Energy provides the direct link between that can contain almost any number of atoms, as the photon and the phonon that Einstein made noted in the 1907 paper. The only relevant indirectly – the common feature is the energy of collective physical quantities in such a the oscillation and the E=ℏω constraint placed on mechanical are frequency and energy; it by the properties of energy. Quantum physics there is nothing else to consider. The above concerns the properties of energy; the discussion shows that the frequency is not where Schrödinger and Dirac equations, and the the quantum physics originates. Both the Lagrangian of field theory are each descriptions mathematical analysis and the physics shows that of energy. the vibration frequency is a result of understood Accepting that energy has its own atomic . The energy is quantized, not the physical properties, it follows that all quantum frequency. The conclusion is that the quantum states comprise two physical components; one is properties must arise from the physical properties the source of the energy (radiation, lattice of energy. Energy cannot be what we usually vibrations, particles) and the other is the energy think it is, but instead it has physical properties – state. Such a two-component quantum state has the quantum properties. E=ℏω describes a implications for the description and property of energy for any oscillatory understanding of quantum physics. For example, phenomenon. Bohr introduced the Principle of Complementarity as a way of framing the 3 underlying physics. This is a statement that state.5,12,23 The problem with this view is that the particles have pairs of complementary properties non-unitary wave function collapse is not which cannot both be observed or measured described by the unitary Schrödinger equations, simultaneously. Bohr’s formulation of the apparently contradicting the ontological Principle describes the results of the quantum assumption of fully specifying the quantum state. equations that were developed from experimental The epistemological view is that the wave results in the context of the Copenhagen function is not real but instead is an abstraction interpretation. It is a descriptive statement rather that reflects the fundamentally limited than a physical mechanism. A two-component information that can be known about the quantum quantum state provides the underlying physical state.7,8 Wave function collapse is no longer a mechanism; the two components that comprise problem because the collapsed wave function the quantum state are complementary and in the reflects the new information that came about case of a particle, an experiment either measures from a measurement. However, the the energy state (or a related quantity such as epistemological view brings fully into question momentum) or measures the particle state, but not the nature of reality and leads to troubling both. alternatives that few physicists are willing to embrace.5,11,12,13 The two-component quantum state also explains the quantization of electronic states, one The two-component quantum state does of the many aspects of quantum mechanics that not immediately resolve these questions but was never previously explainable in physical certainly changes the basis of the discussion. For terms. Although an electron near an nucleus example, the wave function does not fully can in principle have a continuum of describe the quantum state, as assumed by the depending on the separation distance, only a few ontological approach, but instead describes only quantized energies are allowed. The Schrödinger the energy of the quantum state. The particle is a equation describes the allowed states but does not separate component of the quantum state, linked explain why they occur in physical terms. The in some way to the energy component. The explanation provided by the two-component energy state wave function constrains the particle quantum state is that the physical properties of the to a region of but does not define its energy state constrains the Coulomb energy of position. Absent the assumption that the wave the electron to a limited number of allowed states function fully defines the quantum state, the consistent with both components of the quantum primary argument against the ontological view is state. This is a familiar situation in physics. For removed. No further arguments are offered here example, the equations of heat diffusion, for how the two-component quantum state hydrodynamics and other processes allow for an changes the understanding of wave function infinite number of possible solutions. Unique collapse, the measurement problem and other solutions are obtained only when an additional aspects of the quantum properties, which await constraint is added, which is usually a boundary more careful consideration. The key point is that condition. Quantization is not a mysterious the two-component quantum state must changes discretization of nature but instead a normal the basis of the discussion. result of a constrained system. A recent paper In summary, it is argued that phonon explores in further detail how the properties of quantization must be the result of the physical energy can account for a variety of quantum properties of energy – no other explanation seems properties.22 possible. If energy is a real physical entity then A continuing aspect of the discussion quantum states must be understood as being made surrounding the fundamentals of quantum up of two components with their own specific properties is the question of ontology versus physical properties. These two components epistemology – a discussion that has been going acting together provide a rather straightforward on for at least 50 years.13 The ontology view is explanation of quantization of electronic states, that the wave function is real and the Schrödinger the Principle of Complementarity and other equation should fully specify the quantum aspects of quantum mechanics. The two

4 component approach also changes the basis for 23. A. Bassi and G Ghirardi, Physics Reports, discussion of the measurement problem and the 379, 257 (2003) general questions of ontology and epistemology. References 1. N. D. Mermin, Nature 507, 421 (2014). 2. D. Bohm, Phys. Rev. 85, 166 (1952) 3. H. Everett, Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 454 (1957). 4. J. A. Wheeler, Quantum Theory and Measurement, (Princeton Legacy Library, 2014). D. Z. Albert, Quantum Mechanics and Experience, (Harvard University Press, 2009). 5 A. J. Leggett, J. Phys: Condensed Matter 14, R415 (2002). 6. G. C. Ghirardi, A. Rimini and T. Weber, Phys. Rev. D 34, 470 (1986) 7. R. Spekkens, Phys. Rev. A75, 032110 (2007). 8. N. Harrigan, and R. W. Spekkens, Found. Phys. 40,125 (2010). 9. M. F. Pusey, J. Barrett and T. Rudolph, Nature Physics, 8, 476 (2014). 10. L. Hardy, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 27, 1345012 (2013). 11. Vaidman, Lev, "Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics", in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2005 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.) 12. M. Ringbauer, B. Duffus, C. Branciard, E. G. Cavalcanti, A. G. White, A. Fedrizzi, Nature Physics, 11, 249 (2015). 13. M. S. Leifer, Quanta 3, 67 (2014). 14. H. Park, J. Park, A. K. L. Lim, E. H. Anderson, A. P. Alivisatos and P. L. McEuen, Nature 407, 57 (2000). 15. J. R. Friedman, V.Patel, W. Chen, S. K. Tolpygo and J. E. Lukens, Nature, 406, 43 (2000). 16. A. Einstein, Ann. D. Phys. 22, 180, (1907). 17. M. Planck, Ann. D. Phys. 1, 99, (1900). 18. T. Kuhn, Black-body Theory and the Quantum Discontinuity, 1894-1912, (University of Chicago Press, 1978). 19. Quantum electrodynamics theory assumes (usually unstated) that the photon is intrinsically quantized; e.g. R. P. Feynmann, Quantum Electrodynamics, (Addison-Wesley, 1998). 20. E. Bright Wilson, Jr., Phys. Rev. 45, 706, (1934). 21 L-J. Wan and K. Itaya, Langmuir 13, 7173 (1997) 22. R. A. Street, ArXiv 1704.08113 (2017).

5