1

Position of an object can be specified if it looked upon according to the laws of Newtonian mechanics
however, as per quantum mechanics description, one can not specify the position precisely, i.e. One can
determine only the probability of the finding the object at a certain position in space

We can measure the position of microscopic particle.

Exact position, exact momentum, and unique path of a particle therefore make no sense at the microscopic
scale.

It is now widely accepted that all particles are described by probability amplitude psi x, and that the
assumption that they move in definite trajectories is ruled out by experiment.

The wave function psi contains the information about the distribution of the particle.

The wave function is a non-local quantity, we need to know its value at all position x to fully describe the
state the particle. Contrast this with classical mechanics where you need to only know the position and
corresponding momentum to fully describe the state of the particle.

How wave function describes the state of the particle?

Born's statistical interpretation of the wave function gives the probability of finding the particle at point x, at
time t
Physical origin of hup
Certain quantities, such as position, energy and time, are unknown as per Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle,
except by probabilities, probabilities give us most probable value for these quantities but physical origin of
these probabilities are not known.
Copenhagen-type interpretations include the idea that quantum mechanics is intrinsically indeterministic,
with probabilities calculated using the Born rule, and the principle of complementarity, which states that
objects have certain pairs of complementary properties which cannot all be observed or measured
simultaneously.

Heisenberg spoke of the wave function as representing available knowledge of a system, and did not use the
term "collapse", but instead termed it "reduction" of the wave function to a new state representing the
change in available knowledge which occurs once a particular phenomenon is registered by the apparatus

This video is on Quantum entanglement, Bell’s inequality, EPR paradox, nonlocality, determinism vs
nondeterminism and probability.

Bohr and Einstein argued passionately about their views on the essence of reality. And for 30 years, both
views were considered equally valid.
Then in 1964, Irish physicist John Bell devised a way to prove whether Einstein’s view of a classical,
deterministic view of reality was correct, and he put this in a simple elegant equation – called the Bell
Inequality. The weirdness of quantum mechanics can be demonstrated with a dice. If the dice was a
quantum system, it would be in superposition. It would be a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 all at the same time. Its
value can only be known once it is measured. Einstein, was bothered by this interpretation of quantum
mechanics.

Einstein along with Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen came up with what they thought disproved the
Copenhagen interpretation. The crux of their argument rested on the idea of a phenomenon in quantum
mechanics called entanglement. EPR argued that since nothing can travel faster than light according to
special relativity, this should invalidate the Copenhagen interpretation. This was the EPR paradox. in
1964, John bell proposed an equation to determine who was right. In a universe where local hidden
variables are true, when the two particles are emitted, they know what their state is going to be in all
three directions, Z, X, and Q from birth. And there are only 8 possibilities of spins that each particle could
have. what is the probability that Alice measures in the z direction, gets a positive spin, and Bob measures
 1

in the X direction and gets a positive spin? Well, if the above case is for Alice, there are 4 events where Z is
positive. In order for Bob to get X positive, Alice would have to have measured X as negative. So, these
would be in event 3 and event 4. To get the probability we have to divide by the total number of events, 8.
Let’s do this for two more scenarios. What is the probability that Alice measures positive in the Z
direction, and Bob measures positive in the Q direction? In this scenario, it would be event 2 and event 4.
Again, we divide by 8 to get the probability. And the third case is: What is the probability that Alice
measures positive in the Q direction, and Bob measures positive in the X direction? This would be event 3
and event 7, divided by 8 for probability. P: Z+, X+ = E3 + E4/8 P: Z+, Q+ = E2 + E4/8 P: Q+, X+ = E3 + E7/8
So these are the three probabilities given the hidden variables theory. Now here is big insight that John
Bell had: If I take the total number of Events, and multiply that by the probability that Alice measures Z
positive and Bob measures X positive, this has to be less than or equal to the total number of events times
the probability that Alice measures Z positive, and bob measures Q positive, plus the probability that Alice
measures Q positive, and bob measures X positive. P:Z+,X+ less than or equal to P:Z+,Q+ + P:Q+,X+ I can
prove this is true by doing simple math: E3 + E4 is less than or equal to E3 + E4 + E2 + E7 This makes total
sense, because E3 and E4 are on both sides of the equation. And E2 and E7 have to be positive. So this
inequality absolutely HAS to be true for any hidden variables theory to be true. But what happens in a
universe where the laws of quantum mechanics are correct, and not hidden variables theory? And that
probability of Bob measuring Q to be positive, after Alice has measured Z to be positive, is given by the
following equation: P: Z+,Q+ = sin^2 of 45 degrees/2 This is the critical difference between quantum
mechanics and hidden variables theory. The probability is not linear but looks like sine wave. When you
plot this out, this is what the probabilities look like: So you can see from the graph that at 0, and multiples
of 90 degrees, the two systems are in agreement. But in between, like at 45 degrees, the probability is
25% for hidden variables, and about 14.6% for quantum mechanics. #bellsinequality #eprparadox
#bellstheorem But the proof is in the pudding, because in test after test, the sine function correlation has
been confirmed. The particle does not behave linearly, and so the hidden variables theory cannot be
correct. So, most theorist do not think special relativity is violated, because we can’t communicate using
this seemingly faster than light phenomenon.

According to the above analysis, microscopic particles such as electrons are indeed particles. Here the
concept of particle is used in its usual sense. A particle is a small localized object with mass and charge, and it
is only in one position in space at an instant. Moreover, the motion of these particles is not continuous but
discontinuous in nature. We may say that an electron is a quantum particle in the sense that its motion is not
continuous motion described by classical mechanics, but discontinuous motion described by quantum
mechanics.

Position measurement
Wavefunction related to probability
Expectation value does not represent mean value of position from taking several consecutive measurements
of the particle
Expectation value does represent mean value of position found from taking single measurements of an
infinite collection of identical particle/wavefunction/system.