Book Review

The Beginning of Infinity:

Explanations That
Transform the World
Reviewed by William G. Faris

elements in the interior of an exploding supernova.

The Beginning of Infinity: Explanations That
Gold, among other elements, is created and then
Transform the World
distributed throughout the universe. A small
David Deutsch
fraction winds up on planets like Earth, where it can
Viking Penguin, New York, 2011
be mined from rock. The other source is intelligent
US$30.00, 496 pages
beings who have an explanation of atomic and
ISBN: 978-0-670-02275-5
nuclear matter and are able to transmute other
metals into gold in a particle accelerator. So gold
is created either in extraordinary violent stellar
The Cosmic Scheme of Things explosions or through the application of scientific
A number of recent popular scientific books treat insight.
a wide range of scientific and philosophical topics, In the claim there is a potential ambiguity in the
from quantum physics to evolution to the nature use of the word “people”. Deutsch characterizes
of explanation. A previous book by the physicist them (p. 416) as “creative, universal explainers”.
David Deutsch [2] touched on all these themes. His This might well include residents of other planets,
new work, The Beginning of Infinity, is even more which leads to a related point. Most physical effects
ambitious. The goal is to tie these topics together diminish with distance. However, Deutsch argues
to form a unified world view. The central idea is (p. 275):
the revolutionary impact of our ability to make There is only one known phenom-
good scientific explanations. enon which, if it ever occurred,
In books written by physicists one expects to find would have effects that did not fall
awe of the universe and delight that we have come off with distance, and that is the
to understand something about it. There might creation of a certain type of knowl-
also be an implicit assumption that people are not edge, namely a beginning of infinity.
particularly significant in the cosmic scheme of Indeed, knowledge can aim itself
things. Deutsch makes the contrary claim (p. 45): at a target, travel vast distances
People are significant in the cosmic having scarcely any effect, and then
scheme of things. utterly transform the destination.
He presents the following example. The atomic Deutsch is a physicist who believes that matter
composition of the universe consists mainly of is strictly governed by the laws of physics. However,
the light elements hydrogen and helium. Consider he is no reductionist. He believes that atoms are
a heavy element such as gold. Where can it be real, but also that abstractions are real. One level
found, and where did it come from? There are two of abstraction is knowledge, which he defines as
very different sources. One is the transmutation of “information which, when it is physically embodied
in a suitable environment, tends to cause itself to
William G. Faris is professor of mathematics at the remain so” (p. 130). This includes both knowledge
University of Arizona. His email address is faris@math. embedded in DNA and ideas in human brains.
arizona.edu. Biological knowledge is nonexplanatory, but hu-
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1090/noti821 man knowledge includes explanations that solve

544 Notices of the AMS Volume 59, Number 4

unexpected problems. The gold example shows they are used in his sys-

Library of the London School of Economics.

that an explanation can have physical effects just tem. Thus “instrumentalism”

Reproduced with the permission of the

as real as those created by an exploding star. is defined as the “miscon-
Deutsch’s book is also a manifesto in praise of ception that science cannot
the notion of progress. His claim is that a new describe reality, only predict
kind of progress began with the Enlightenment. outcomes of observations”
In the best case the growth of knowledge may (p. 31). As is clear from this
proceed indefinitely in the future without bound. example, definitions often
This is the “beginning of infinity” of the title come with a judgment.
and of the quotation above. The argument has Deutsch’s main work as a
several threads. It begins with a definite position physicist has been on quan-
on philosophy of science, centered on an argument tum computing, and it is
that a notion of “good explanation” of reality is natural that he would test
his ideas in the framework Karl Popper:
the key to progress. It includes a theory of cultural
of quantum theory. This philosopher of
evolution, which explains obstacles to progress
and the lucky circumstance that swept them away. leads to a problem. Quan- “theory-laden”
tum theory is the accepted science.
There is extensive discussion of the anomalous
status of quantum theory, which on some accounts framework for understand-
is incompatible with a realistic world view. The ing properties of matter, viewed as consisting of
argument connects views on topics as varied as constituents on the molecular, atomic, and sub-
mathematical reality, voting systems, aesthetics, atomic scale. It explains such properties of matter
and sustainability. The author rejects sustainability as density and strength and conductivity and color.
as an aspiration or as a constraint on planning; It also underlies the deeper understanding of the
he favors an open-ended journey of creation and chemical bond. It is so pervasive in fundamental
exploration. physics that it is difficult to see how to make the
smallest modification to it without destroying the
Good Explanations whole edifice.
The problem is that the formulation of quantum
Deutsch attributes recent progress to the discov-
theory is abstract and mathematical, and, as usually
ery of how to create good explanations. A “good
presented, it also has a peculiar dual character.
explanation” is defined as an explanation “that
There is a law of time evolution given by the
is hard to vary while still accounting for what it
Schrödinger equation: For every time interval there
purports to account for” (p. 30). This philosophy
is a transformation U obtained by solving this
is inspired by the writings of Karl Popper. In his
equation. It maps the initial state of a system to the
influential works, Popper argued against empiri-
final state of a system. (The notation U indicates a
cism, the notion that we derive all our knowledge
unitary linear transformation.)
from sensory experience. There is no such thing
There is another law of time evolution, a random
as raw experience; scientific observation is always
transformation R that determines the result of
theory-laden. Furthermore, there is no principle
the measurement. Various possibilities for this
of inductive reasoning that says that patterns of transformation may occur, according to certain
the past will be repeated in the future. In Popper’s calculated probabilities. The state change under
view the path to scientific progress is to make this transformation is called reduction or collapse.
conjectures and then test them. Deutsch insists The origin of the transformation R is that
that even explanations that are testable are not it describes an intervention from the outside.
enough; they should be good explanations in the The system is in a certain state. A physicist
sense that he defines. sets up a measuring apparatus and performs the
His version of philosophy of science has two experiment. The observed outcome occurs. The
complementary strands. One is realism, the notion new state after the experiment is determined by the
that there is a physical world about which it particular R that corresponds to the experimental
is possible to obtain knowledge. The other is outcome. If the experiment is repeated under
fallibilism, the doctrine that there is no sure path identical conditions, then the outcomes vary, but
to justify the knowledge that has been obtained at the frequencies are predicted by the calculated
any stage. These together support the metaphor probabilities.
of a knowledge base of good explanations that is Such instrumentalist accounts have a long and
increasing but bounded above by a reality that is complicated history. An early version is sometimes
never fully knowable. referred to as the “Copenhagen interpretation”,
One useful feature of the book is the explicit since it stems from ideas of Niels Bohr and his
definitions of philosophical terms, explaining how school. (See [8] for a critical account.) Deutsch

April 2012 Notices of the AMS 545

 will have none of this. For him instrumentalism Deutsch contrasts two ways that a meme may
is defeat; the only acceptable account is realistic. successfully replicate itself. A meme may survive
Here is his explicit definition (or dismissal) of as a meme of conformity, because it is never ques-
Bohr’s approach (p. 324): tioned. It relies on disabling the recipients’ critical
Copenhagen interpretation facilities. When such memes dominate, the result is
Niels Bohr’s combination of instru- a static society in which dangerous dysfunctional
mentalism, anthropocentrism and memes are suppressed. The other possibility is
studied ambiguity, used to avoid a dynamic society. In such a society memes are
understanding quantum theory as replicated in a rapidly changing environment. This
being about reality. can take place in a culture of criticism, because
If the instrumentalist account is not acceptable, the memes embody new truths.
then what are the alternatives? One is to develop The transition from a static society to a dynamic
a theory that includes the deterministic U time society depends on an almost accidental shift in
evolution but also has additional structure. This how meme transmission is employed. A meme
structure should introduce randomness in some cannot be simply copied from behavior. There has
way; perhaps the reduction transformation R will to be a mental capacity to infer the idea from the
emerge as a consequence. The other way is to behavior. This creative ability developed in service
develop a theory with only the deterministic time to the task of replicating memes of conformity. It
evolution U . Such a theory must explain why the was hijacked to the task of creating new knowledge.
outcomes of experiments on quantum systems Deutsch considers the transition to a society
appear random. where there is deliberate creation of new knowledge
The final section of this review gives a more to begin with the Enlightenment. There is no precise
detailed discussion of these alternatives. It will date, but the founding of the Royal Society in 1660
come as no surprise that Deutsch prefers a realistic is a landmark. There may have been previous
version of quantum theory with only the dynamical transitions that did not survive. Deutsch calls such
time evolution given by U. This seems the happiest a period a “mini-enlightenment”. He speculates that
outcome, but we shall see the price he must pay. two such mini-enlightenments may have occurred.
One was at the time of the Athenian advances in
Cultural Evolution political freedom and openness to new ideas in
Many of the ideas in this book are related to philosophy and science. Another was when Florence
evolutionary theory. In biological became a center of creativity in art, accompanied by
evolution genes are replicated, advances in science, philosophy, and technology. In
and they change through variation both cases the initial spark was extinguished. This
and selection. In cultural evolution has major enduring consequences (pp. 220–221):
the analog of a gene is a “meme”. The inhabitants of Florence in 1494
(The term was coined by Richard or Athens in 404 BCE could be for-
Dawkins in 1976.) Memes are given for concluding that optimism
Copyright of Max Alexander, STARMUS.

replicated, and they also change just isn’t factually true. For they
through variation and selection. know nothing of such things as
The copying mechanism is dif- the reach of explanations or the
ferent for genes and memes. A power of science or even laws of
gene exists in a physical form nature as we understand them, let
as DNA that may be copied in- alone the moral and technological
tact through several generations progress that was to follow when
without ever being expressed as the Enlightenment got under way.
behavior. It acts much like a com- At the moment of defeat, it must
puter program. A meme can be have seemed at least plausible to
Richard Dawkins: copied only if it is enacted. In fact, the formerly optimistic Athenians
evolutionary a meme has two forms. It may be that the Spartans might be right,
theorist. an idea in a brain. This idea may and to the formerly optimistic Flo-
provoke a behavioral embodiment rentines that Savonarola might be.
of the meme, such as action or body language or Like every other destruction of
speech. The idea in the next recipient brain has optimism, whether in a whole civ-
to be guessed from the observed behavior. The ilization or in a single individual,
successful meme variant is the one that changes these must have been unspeakable
the behavior of its holders in such a way as to catastrophes for those who had
make itself best at displacing other memes from dared to expect progress. But we
the population. should feel more than sympathy

546 Notices of the AMS Volume 59, Number 4

 for these people. We should take Quantum Theory
it personally. For if any of those From here on this review concentrates on quantum
earlier experiments in optimism theory and is more technical. The formulation
had succeeded, our species would of quantum theory centers on the wave function,
be exploring the stars by now, and a quantity that is difficult to interpret in terms
you and I would be immortal. of a realistic world view. In compensation the
theory has an elegant mathematical structure.
As we have seen, Deutsch’s book combines What follows is a brief review of this structure,
various threads to create a vision of continuing followed by a discussion of three possibilities
progress in enlightenment and human flourishing. for interpretation. (Deutsch would not agree that
It is a unified portrait that explains scientific interpretation is an issue, since he sees only one
advance and puts it in a moral framework. The reasonable way to think of the theory.)
vision is supported by a great number of assertions, The state of a quantum system at a given
some of them extravagant. Take, for instance, his moment in time is described by a complex valued
claim that “everything that is not forbidden by laws wave function ψ(x). This depends on the positions
of nature is achievable, given the right knowledge” of all the particles in the system. For instance, say
(p. 76). Here is a supporting argument (p. 56): that there are N particles (no spin or statistics). The
position of particle i at fixed time is described by a
. . .every putative physical transfor-
coordinate xi in three-dimensional space. The wave
mation, to be performed in a given function depends on x = (x1 , . . . , xN ), which ranges
time with given resources or under over configuration space of dimension 3N. This is
any other conditions, is either: already an incredible picture of nature: everything
— impossible because it is for- is related to everything else through the wave
bidden by laws of nature; function. In particular, the joint probability density
or for the system of N particles is proportional to
— achievable, given the right
(1) ρ(x) = |ψ(x)|2 .
knowledge.
That momentous dichotomy exists It is possible for the different particles to be highly
because if there were transforma- correlated, even when they are widely separated in
space.
tions that technology could never
The change in the state over a given time
achieve regardless of what knowl-
interval is ordinarily given by a transformation
edge was brought to bear, then
U . This transformation is deterministic, and it is
this fact would itself be a testable computed by solving the Schrödinger equation.
regularity in nature. But all regulari- This is a complicated linear partial differential
ties in nature have explanations, so equation, and much of theoretical physics consists
the explanation of that regularity of attempts to solve it for some particular system.1
would itself be a law of nature, or a Since the Schrödinger equation is linear, the
consequence of one. And so, again, corresponding transformations U are also linear.
everything that is not forbidden by This naturally leads to a more abstract point of
laws of nature is achievable, given view. The characteristic feature of vectors is that it
the right knowledge. is possible to take linear combinations of vectors
to produce new vectors. In particular, if ψ1 and
A passage like this is tough to decipher.
ψ2 are vectors, then the sum ψ1 + ψ2 is also a
The question of whether to believe every detail
vector. Also, every scalar multiple of a vector is a
may be beside the point. A manifesto is not a
vector. Since wave functions share these properties,
scientific or philosophical treatise; it is an outline there is a convention of calling a wave function a
of a world view that one can try on for comfort. vector. This in turn leads to the use of geometrical
Some readers will find satisfaction in a systematic
view of the world that is compatible with notions 1
In some accounts the complete description of the physi-
of science and progress. Others may find it too cal state of a quantum system involves more than its wave
simple or too optimistic. In the latter case they are function; it brings in additional structure, namely the actual
positions of the particles. This leads to the question of how
violating yet another of Deutsch’s maxims (p. 212):
to specify the time evolution of particle positions. This issue
is not treated in orthodox quantum mechanics, but Bohmian
The Principle of Optimism mechanics and Féynes-Nelson stochastic mechanics each
All evils are caused by insufficient knowledge. specify a possible continuous time evolution for particle posi-
tions. The reviewer thanks Sheldon Goldstein for comments
So much the worse for them. on this topic.

April 2012 Notices of the AMS 547

 ψ1 + ψ2 = ψ
ψ2 (x) ❇
❇ ✒
ψ1 (x) ❇
❇ ψ
❇❇▼
❇ ✶✏
✏
ψ2
✏ ✏✏ ❇
❇ ✏✏ ψ1
❇ ✏ ✏✏
✏✏❇
✏✏✏
✏ ❇
✏✏
✏✏ ❇kψ1k2+kψ2k2= kψk2= 1
❇
❇
❇
❇
❇
❇

Figure 1. Example of orthogonal functions. Figure 2. Probability = Pythagoras.

analogies. (The fact that the scalars are complex If kψk2 = 1, then the theorem of Pythagoras
numbers is only a minor problem.) has the special form
Each pair of vectors ψ1 and ψ2 has a scalar X
(6) 1= kψj k2 .
product hψ1 , ψ2 i. This too has an analog for wave j
functions; the scalar product is defined by the
definite integral These give positive numbers that sum to one,
Z just what is needed for probability. In fact, this
(2) hψ1 , ψ2 i = ψ1 (x)ψ2 (x) dx. is the standard framework for the interpretation
of quantum mechanics. For simplicity consider
The space of all wave functions is regarded as an observable quantity with discrete values, such
a vector space of functions, in fact, as a Hilbert as the energy of a bound system. The possible
space. Each vector ψ in the Hilbert space has a values are indexed by j. The observable quantity
norm (length) kψk which is determined by the determines a decomposition of the Hilbert space
usual formula kψk2 = hψ, ψi for the square of the into orthogonal subspaces.2 The state vector is a
norm. In the case of wave functions the explicit vector ψ of unit length. It is expressed as a sum
expression is (4) of the projected vectors. Different observable
Z quantities define different decompositions. For
(3) kψk2 = |ψ(x)|2 dx. each observable quantity there are probabilities
given by the terms in (6).
Vectors ψ1 and ψ2 are orthogonal (perpendicu- This geometrical picture of quantum mechanics,
lar) if their scalar product has the value zero, that abstract and beautiful, is immensely appealing.
is, hψ1 , ψ2 i = 0. (Figure 1 shows an example of The reviewer is tempted to summarize it in a
orthogonal wave functions. In this example ψ1 (x) slogan:
is even and ψ2 (x) is odd, so their product has Probability = Pythagoras
integral zero.) With these definitions various no- To see such a surprising and satisfying connection
tions of geometry have attractive generalizations. (Figure 2) is to be seduced by perfection. However,
Suppose, for instance, that there is a sequence of as we shall see, there are reasons to resist its allure.
orthogonal vectors ψj with sum ψ, so
X 2
(4) ψ= ψj . The mathematical structure
L is an orthogonal direct sum
j decomposition H = j Hj of the Hilbert space. There are
corresponding real numbers λj that are possible values for
In this situation the theorem of Pythagoras takes the observable quantity. These data determine a self-adjoint
the form operator A whose action on each Hj is multiplication by λj .
X If ψ is the state vector and ψj is the orthogonal projection
(5) kψk2 = kψj k2 . of ψ onto Hj , then the expected value of this quantity has
P
j the elegant expression j λj kψj k2 = hψ, Aψi.

548 Notices of the AMS Volume 59, Number 4

 The trouble begins with a counterexample. of experiments, saying nothing
Consider a quantum system. Each possible decom- (else) about reality. This move is
position (4) defines probabilities. It is tempting to still popular today, and is known
think of these probabilities as describing outcomes to its critics (and even to some
associated with this system. This is not a consistent of its proponents) as the ‘shut-
view. An early argument to this effect was given up-and-calculate interpretation of
by John Bell. A more recent example of Lucian quantum theory’.
Hardy [5] makes the same point in an even more In an instrumentalist account the relevant
convincing way. Something else is needed to select decomposition into orthogonal subspaces is de-
a particular decomposition relevant to a given termined by the measurement one performs on
situation. See the appendix for a brief account of the system. This leads to the nontrivial problem:
Hardy’s argument. how does one characterize measurement? There
What is it that determines which decomposition is no universally accepted solution. The notion
is relevant? If in a given situation probabilities are of “measurement” is defined with varying degrees
to predict frequencies, then which probabilities of precision. In some versions a measurement
are to be used, and which are to be discarded? is said to necessarily involve interactions on a
Any serious account of quantum mechanics must macroscopic scale. This is in spite of the fact that
consider this problem. There are various ways to the macroscopic world is supposed to be made of
address it, but in the reviewer’s view they fall into atoms.
three general classes: The mathematical formulation ignores most
• Instrumentalism of this detail. The particular measurement is
• Quantum theory with additional structure specified by an orthogonal decomposition, which
• Pure quantum theory then determines a decomposition of the state
The instrumentalist account of quantum the- vector ψ as a sum of components ψj as in (4). For
ory emphasizes its ability to make experimental each j there is a reduction operator Rj . The effect
predictions. This solves the problem, because the of reduction on the state vector ψ is another vector
outcomes emerge as a result of the particular ex- χj = Rj ψ. In some accounts it is required that
perimental setup. Deutsch summarizes the usual χj = ψj , but this is unnecessarily restrictive. All
rule for such predictions (p. 307): that is needed is that kχj k2 = kψj k2 . The particular
j that is used is random; its probability is given
With hindsight, we can state the
by the squared norm kψj k2 . Strictly speaking, the
rule of thumb like this: whenever
vector χj is not a state vector, since it does not
a measurement is made, all the
have norm one. However, it may be multiplied by
histories but one cease to exist.
a scalar to give a normalized state vector, which
The surviving one is chosen at
could be taken as a new state of the system.
random, with the probability of
In general, a probability describes the statistics
each possible outcome being equal
of what happens when an experiment is repeated
to the total measure of all the
many times. But what happens in a particular
histories in which that outcome
experiment? As always in probability, when the
occurs.
experiment is performed, a particular outcome
He then describes the adoption of the instrumen- value j ′ occurs. In this instrumentalist version
talist interpretation (p. 307): of quantum mechanics there is an additional
At that point, disaster struck. In- postulate: the new reduced wave function is
stead of trying to improve and χj ′ = Rj ′ ψ. No mechanism is given.
integrate these two powerful but Another direction is quantum theory with addi-
slightly flawed explanatory theo- tional structure. One ingredient might be to try to
ries [of Schrödinger and Heisen- model the experimental apparatus along with the
berg], and to explain why the system of interest. There can also be an explicit
rule of thumb worked, most of mechanism for introducing randomness. Some of
the theoretical-physics community the ideas go back to von Neumann; others have
retreated rapidly and with remark- been elaborated by various authors. There is no
able docility into instrumentalism. agreement on details. Here is a brief account of
If the predictions work, they rea- a possible view, taken from [4]. It is not univer-
soned, then why worry about the sally accepted; in particular, Deutsch presumably
explanation? So they tried to regard would be appalled at the ad hoc introduction of
quantum theory as being nothing randomness.
but a set of rules of thumb for The complete description involves the system
predicting the observed outcomes of interest together with an environment, forming

April 2012 Notices of the AMS 549

 what one might call the total system. The system y
ψ(x) = ψ1 (x) + ψ2 (x)
of interest might be a particle, an atom, or a
molecule. To make the description concrete, it
will be called an atomic system. The environment
could be an experimental apparatus or, more initial final
generally, a larger system of some complexity. ✞ ☎
ψ(x)φ0 (y)
For brevity call it the apparatus. The combined ✞ ☎ ✝ 2 ✆
system is described by a wave function Ψ (x, y), ✝ ✆ χ1 (x)φ1 (y) + χ2 (x)φ2 (y)
where x describes the positions of particles in the ✞ ☎
atomic system, and y describes the positions of ✝ 1 ✆
particles in the apparatus. Typically there is no
natural way for the wave function for the combined x
system to determine a wave function for the atomic
subsystem.
One situation where it is meaningful to have Figure 3. Support of system-apparatus wave
a wave function ψ(x) for the atomic subsystem function.
is when the total system wave function is of the
product form
Suppose that there is such
(7) Ψ0 (x, y) = ψ(x)φ0 (y).
an interaction. Since the transformation is linear,
Suppose that this is an initial state that has no it maps Ψ0 to a state Ψ in which the atomic system
immediate interaction between the atomic system is coupled to the states of the apparatus. The new
and apparatus. This means that the wave function wave function is
is nonzero only if the xi are so far away from the X
(9) Ψ (x, y) = χj (x)φj (y).
yj that the interaction is negligible. The atoms j
are headed toward the apparatus, but they are
not there yet. As long as the combined wave One can think of χj (x) as the result of applying
function has this form, the dynamics of the atomic a reduction operator Rj to the state ψ(x). The
subsystem is described by the Schrödinger time probability associated with such an atomic wave
evolution U for the atomic system alone. function is kχj k2 = kψj k2 .
Now the system is to interact with the apparatus. The apparatus wave functions φj (y) are
The starting point is a decomposition of the wave functions of the apparatus configuration
function ψ(x) of the atomic system as a sum y = (y1 , y2 , . . . , yM ), where M is the number
X of particles in the apparatus. When M is very large
(8) ψ(x) = ψj (x). it is plausible that the apparatus wave functions
j
φj (y) with various indices j are macroscopically
The measurement itself is accomplished by the different. Such effects have been studied under the
unitary dynamics of the combined system. This name quantum decoherence. (See [7] for a recent
deterministic transformation must be appropriate survey.) In the present account the condition
to the decomposition (8) in the following sense. that the apparatus states are macroscopically
It should map each wave func- different is interpreted to mean that the wave
tion ψj (x)φ0 (y) to a new wave functions φj (y) with different j are supported
function χj (x)φj (y) for which on subsets with negligible overlap in apparatus
the new environment wave func- configuration space (Figure 3). The corresponding
tion φj (y) factor also depends atomic wave functions χj (x) are the result of
on j. These wave functions dynamical interaction. Each of them is a candidate
φj (y) should be normalized for the result of the reduction process.
Courtesy of Mark Everett.

and form an orthogonal family. In order to have an actual result, additional

This implies that the atomic structure is required. This is obtained by introduc-
wave function normalization is ing a new dynamics with random outcome. One of
preserved, in the sense that the indices is randomly selected. Say that this is
kχj k2 = kψj k2 . For such a the j ′ index. Then the corresponding reduced wave
transformation to exist, there function of the atomic system is the χj ′ (x) given by
must be a physical interac- applying Rj ′ to ψ(x). This reduction process does
Hugh Everett: originator
tion of a suitable type—for not contradict the unitary dynamics for the atomic
of many-worlds
instance, electric or magnetic— subsystem. The wave function for the atomic sub-
quantum theory.
between the atomic system and system is not even defined while the atomic system
apparatus. and apparatus are interacting; it is only defined

550 Notices of the AMS Volume 59, Number 4

before the interaction and after the interaction is fundamental constants of nature
over. Suppose that for a subsequent time interval such as the speed of light or the
a decomposition (9) with nonoverlapping φj (y) charge on an electron are different.
persists and there is no immediate interaction As with much of what Deutsch writes, the question
between the atomic system and apparatus. Then is not so much whether to believe it as whether to
over this interval of time the wave function of the march under his banner.
atomic subsystem continues to be defined, and
the deterministic dynamics U describes its time References
evolution. [1] Valia Allori, Sheldon Goldstein, Roderich
The reader will notice that the above account is Tumulka, and Nino Zanghì, Many-worlds and
complicated and artificial. However, it is at least Schrödinger’s first quantum theory, British Journal
consistent. This is because it is a consequence of a for the Philosophy of Science 62 (2011), 1–27.
[2] David Deutsch, The Fabric of Reality: The Science
variant of quantum theory [3] that is itself known
of Parallel Universes—and Its Implications, Allen Lane
to be consistent. (Viking Penguin), New York, 1997.
The final possibility is pure quantum theory. [3] Detlef Dürr, Sheldon Goldstein, and Nino Zanghì,
Almost everyone agrees on the deterministic Quantum equilibrium and the role of operators as ob-
dynamics given by the Schrödinger equation. servables in quantum theory, J. Statistical Physics 116
Perhaps this is all that is needed. This idea is the (2004), 959–1055.
genesis of the many-worlds theory (see [6] for a [4] William G. Faris, Outline of quantum mechanics, pp.
1–52 in Entropy and the Quantum, edited by Robert
recent survey). This theory began with hints by
Sims and Daniel Ueltschi, Contemporary Mathematics,
Schrödinger himself as early as 1926 (see [1] for 529, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI,
a modern account) and was developed in more 2010.
detail by Everett in 1957. The rough idea is that [5] Lucian Hardy, Nonlocality for two particles without
when there are macroscopically separated wave inequalities for almost all entangled states, Phys. Rev.
functions φj (y), each of these describes a world Letters 71 (1993), 1665–1668.
[6] Simon Saunders, Jonathan Barrett, Adrian Kent,
with its own history. We live in and experience only
and David Wallace (editors), Many Worlds? Everett,
one such world, but they are all equally real. There
Quantum Theory, and Reality, Oxford University Press,
is no miraculous reduction of the wave function New York, 2010.
and no randomness. The apparent randomness [7] Maximilian Schlosshauer, Decoherence and the
is perhaps due to the effect that we experience a Quantum-to-Classical Transition, Springer, Berlin, 2010.
history that is typical and hence appears random. [8] David Wick, The Infamous Boundary: Seven Decades
Or there may be some other mechanism. of Heresy in Quantum Physics, Copernicus (Springer-
Verlag), New York, 1996.
Deutsch is an enthusiastic proponent of such
a theory. It does everything he wants, avoiding
instrumentalism and ad hoc introduction of ran- Appendix: The Hardy Example
domness. He refers to the resulting picture of In quantum mechanics each observable defines a
physics as the “multiverse,” and he is willing to decomposition of the Hilbert space into orthogonal
draw the consequences (p. 294): subspaces. Each state vector ψ (length one) is
then written as a sum of projections ψj onto
. . .there exist histories in which any
these subspaces. The probability corresponding
given person, alive in our history
to j is kψj k2 . The Hardy example shows that
at any time, is killed soon after-
these probabilities cannot simultaneously predict
wards by cancer. There exist other
outcomes for all the observables together.
histories in which the course of a
First consider a single particle. Suppose that for
battle, or a war, is changed by such
such a particle there are two distinct observable
an event, or by a lightning bolt at
quantities D and U . Each can have either of two
exactly the right place and time, or
values, 1 or 0. The event that D = 1 is denoted d,
by any of countless other unlikely, ¯ Similarly,
and the event that D = 0 is denoted d.
‘random’ events.
the event that U = 1 is denoted u, and the event
It is not the case that everything is permitted. that U = 0 is denoted ū.
A great deal of fiction is therefore Now consider two particles, perhaps widely
close to a fact somewhere in the separated in space. For the first particle one
multiverse. But not all fiction. For can observe either D or U , and for the second
instance, there are no histories in particle one can observe either D or U . This gives
which my stories of the transporter four possibilities for observation. There are four
malfunction are true, because they corresponding decompositions of the state vector
require different laws of physics. describing the two particles:
Nor are there histories in which the

April 2012 Notices of the AMS 551

 MATH E MATI CS AT TH E N ATI O N A L S EC UR I TY A G E N CY
(1) ψ = ¯ + ψd¯d¯,
ψdd + ψd d¯ + ψdd
Make a calculated difference (2) ψ = ¯ + ψd¯ū ,
ψdu + ψd ū + ψdu
with what you know. (3) ψ = ψud + ψud¯ + ψūd + ψūd¯,
(4) ψ = ψuu + ψuū + ψūu + ψūū .
Furthermore, Hardy constructs the quantities D
and U and the state ψ in such a way that
(5) ψdd ≠ 0,
(6) ψd ū = 0,
(7) ψūd = 0,
(8) ψuu = 0.
For fixed ψ he chooses the parameters that define
D and U to satisfy the last three of these equations.
He then optimizes the parameters that specify ψ to
maximize the probability√kψdd k2 . The maximum
value works out to be 12 (5 5 − 11), which is about
9 percent.
Suppose that in a given physical situation the
observables all have values. According to the first
equation above, the probability of dd is greater
than zero. So it is possible that the outcome is d
Tackle the coolest problems ever. for the first particle and d for the second particle.
You already know that mathematicians like complex challenges. Suppose that this is the case. The second equation
But here’s something you may not know. says that d for the first particle implies u for the
The National Security Agency is the nation’s largest employer of second particle, and the third equation says that
mathematicians. In the beautiful, complex world of mathematics, d for the second particle implies u for the first
we identify structure within the chaotic and patterns among particle. It follows that the outcome is u for the first
the arbitrary. particle and u for the second particle. However,
the fourth equation says that this is impossible.
Work with the finest minds, on the most challenging problems, The conclusion is that in a given physical situa-
using the world’s most advanced technology. tion the observables cannot all have values. The
usual explanation for this is that measurement in
KNOWINGMATTERS quantum mechanics does not reveal preexisting
values but in effect creates the values. The four
Excellent Career Opportunities for Experts in the Following: decompositions correspond to four different ex-
periments, and each decomposition provides the
n Number Theory n Combinatorics
correct probabilities for the result of the corre-
n Probability Theory n Linear Algebra sponding experiment. For a given experiment, only
n Group Theory >> Plus other opportunities one of the four decompositions is relevant to de-
n Finite Field Theory termining what actually happens. The other three
decompositions give mathematical probabilities
that are not relevant to this context.

Search NSACareers

Search NSA to Download

W H E R E I N T E L L I G E N C E G O E S T O W O R K®
U.S. citizenship is required. NSA is an Equal Opportunity Employer.

552 Notices of the AMS Volume 59, Number 4