PHYSICAL REVIEW NUMBER 2 JANUARY 15, 1952 A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of “Hidden” Variables. I Davao Bow? Palmer Physical Laboratory, Princaton University, Prinedom, New Jersey (Received July 5, 1951) ‘The usual interpretation of the quantum theory is secon. sistent, but it involves an assumption that cannot be tested experimentally, sz, that the most complete posible specication ofan individual ystem is in terms of a wave function that dter- tines only probable results of actual measurement prooases, ‘The only way of Investigating the tuth ofthis assumption is by ‘uying to find some other interpeetation ofthe quanta theory ters of at present “hidden” variables, which in principle deter- tine the precise behavior ofan individual system, but which are In practice averaged over in measurements ofthe pes that ean now be cari out, Tn this paper and ina fusequent paper, a Interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of Just suck “hidien” variables is suggested, Iti shown that as Tong a8 the sathematieal theory retains its present general form, thes ipoted Interpretation leads to precisely the sme rests forall 1, INTRODUCTION ‘HE usual interpretation of the quantum theory is based on an assumption having very far-reaching implications, vis., that the physical state of an ine dividual system is completely specified by a wave function that determines only the probabilities of actual results that can be obtained in @ statistical ensemble of similar experiments, This assumption has been the object of severe criticisms, notably on the part of Einstein, who has alvvays believed that, even at the quantum level, there must exist precisely definable clements or dynamical variables determining (as in classical physics) the actual behavior of each individual system, and not merely its probable behavior. Since these elements or variables are not now included in the quantum theory and have not yet been detected experi- mentally, Einstein has always regarded the present form of the quantum theory as incomplete, although he admits its internal consistency.!-* ‘Most physicists have felt that objections such as those raised by Einstein are not relevant, first, because the present form of the quantum theory with its usual probability interpretation is in excellent agreement with an extremely wide range of experiments, at least in the domain of distancest larger than 10- em, and, secondly, because no consistent alternative interpreta- ‘Now at Univerade de Sio Paulo, Faculdade de Filosofia (ican, ¢ Leta, St0 Paulo, Bras "Hinaid, Pediky, snd Rocen, Phys Rew. 47, 777 (1933). 2D, Bin, Quantum Theory (Prentice Hal, Ine, New York, 1981); seo p-St Bob, Phys. Rev. 48,096 (1938), WF, Bhs Rev 4,83, 46 (1936, ‘Paul Arhor Sep ‘lite, diet Bian, Piopte Scie (Library af Living Philosophers, Evataton ln, 1949). This book contains & thorough the SORIA distances ofthe order of 10-4 cm or salle and for tines of the onder of this distance divided by the velocity of ight or Smaller, present theories besos fnaeguate that it is generally baled dat they are probably not applicable except perhaps ‘Suinmary of the eatire physical processes as docs the usual interpretation, Nevertheless, the suggestl interpretation provides a broader conceptual frame: wore than the usual interpretation, hecause it makes posible precise and continuous description of all processes, even at the ‘quantum level, This Broader conceptual framework slows more general mathematical formulations of the theory than those lowed by the usual interpretation, Now, the usta mathematical formulation seem to led to insole dlieates when ft it ex- trapolated Into the domain of distances of the order of 10" cm or les. Tes therefore entirely possible thatthe fterpetatin sug- ipod here may be needed forthe rezolution of thee diac, In any case, the mere possiblity of such an interpretation proves that itis not necesary for us io give up a precise, rational, aad objective description of individual systems at quantum level of tions have as yet been suggested. The purpose of this paper (and of a subsequent paper hereafter denoted by TD is, however, to suggest just such an alternative interpretation. In contrast to the usual interpretation, this alternative interpretation permits us to conceive of each individual system as being in a precisely de- finable state, whose changes with time are determined by definite laws, analogous to (but not identical with) the clasicl equations of motion. Quantum-mechanical probabilities are regarded (like their counterparts in classical statistical mechanics) as only a. practical necessity and not as a manifestation of an inherent lack of complete determination in the properties of matter at the quantum level. As long as the present general form of Schroedinger's equation is retained, the physical results obtained with our suggested alternative interpretation are precisely the same as those obtained with the usual interpretation, We shall see, however, that our alternative interpretation permits modifica: tions of the mathematical formulation which could not even be described in terms of the usual interpretation. Moreover, the modifications can quite easily be for- slated in such a way that ther effects are insigniticant in the atomic domain, where the present quantum theory is in such good agreement with experiment, but of crucial importance in the domain of dimensions of the order of 10- em, where, as we have seen, the present theory i totally inadequate. eis thus entirely possible that some of the modifications describable in terms of our suggested alternative interpretation, but fn avery exe sense, ‘Thu, itis generally expected that jn con- ‘ection vith phenoment associate wth ths s-aled funda. ientl Ingthx totally new theory wil probably be needed. Wiathpel that eis theory could not ly dell precscly with auch Droceses as meson prodction and seatering Of lementary Pa sth would so satenatically rt the mas, charges, pi, tof the lange muber of so-called “elemeatary™ ‘artlesthat haw len fren Touma wll as howe of nw Darts whieh might be found In the ature, 166QUANTUM THEORY IN TERMS not in terms ofthe usual interpretation, may be needed for a more thorough understanding’ of phenomena associated with very small distances. We shall not, however, actually develop such modifications in any detail in these papers. Aer this article was completed, the author’s atten tion was called to similar proposals for an alternative interpretation of the quantum theory made by de Broglie’ in 1926, but later given up by him partly as a result of certain criticisms made by Pauli and partly hpecause of additional objections raised by de Broglie? himself As we shall show. in Appendix 3 of Paper IT, however, all of the objections of de Broglie and Pauli could have been met if only de Broglie had caried his ideas to thei logical conclusion. The essential new step in doing this is to apply our interpretation in the theory of the measurement process itself as well as in the description of the observed system. Such a development ‘of the theory of measurements is given in Paper II,? ‘where it will be shown in detail that our interpretation leads to precisely the same results for all experiments a5 are obtained with the usual interpretation. ‘The foundation for doing this is lid in Paper I, where we develop the basis of our interpretation, contrast it with the usual interpretation, and apply it to a few imple examples, in order to’illustrate the principles involved. 2. THE USUAL PHYSICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE QUANTUM THEORY The usual physical interpretation of the quantum theory centers around the uncertainty principle. Now, the uncertainty principle can be derived in two diferent ways. First, we may start with the assumption already citicized by Einstein,! namely, that a wave function that determines only probabilities of actual experi- ‘mental results nevertheless provides the most complete possible specification of the so-called “quantum state” of an individual system, With the aid of this assump- tion and with the aid of the de Broglie relation, p=hk, where k is the wave number associated with par- ticular fourier component of the wave function, the 7 Rt ett. uy tet ota ae ee iia oe Ee compa (tinier «C ny EE ect rea ot Ugh cus Satan tae Feige er ram no kat Quantum Theory (London, 1931). PER EOS se om or pot cat te daca mora wi Julius Springer, Berlin, 1932) that quantum cece noite ee psettinchos Subislet Pass rae caer a i eva ofiscaetcicne Sega ees me neeracis ee et OF "HIDDEN" VARIABLES. 1 167 uncertainty principle is readily deduced. From this derivation, we aze led to interpret the uncertainty principle as an inkerent and irreducible limitation on the precision with which itis correct for us even to conceive of momentum and position as simultaneously defined quantities. For if, as is done in the usual inter- pretation of the quantum theory, the wave intensity fs assumed to determine only the probability ofa given position, and ifthe kth Fourier component of the wave function is assumed to determine only the probability of a corresponding momentum, p=/ik, then it becomes 4 contradiction in terms to ask for @ state in which ‘momentum and position are simultaneously and pre- cisely defined. ‘A second possible derivation of the uncertainty principle is based on a theoretical analysis of the processes with the aid of which physically significant quantities such as momentum and position can be measured. In such an analysis, one finds that because the measuring apparatus interacts with the observed system by meansof indivisible quanta there will always be an irreducible disturbance of some observed prop- erty of the system. If the precise effects of this dis- turbance could be predicted or controled, then one could correct for these effects, and thus one could still in principle obtain. simultaneous measurements. of ‘momentum and positon, having unlimited precision. But if one could do this, then the uncertainty principle ‘would be violated. The uncertainty principle is, as we have seen, however, a necessary consequence of the assumption that the wave function and its probability interpretation provide the most complete possible specification of the state of an individual system. In arder to avoid the possibility of a contradiction with this assumption, Bohr! and others have suggested ‘an additional assumption, namely, that the process of transfer of a single quantum fom observed system to ‘measuring apparatus is inherently unpredictable, un- controllable, and not subject toa detailed rational analysis or description. With the ai of this assumption, fone can show"® that the same uncertainty principle that is deduced from the wave function and its proba- bility interpretation is also obtained as an inherent and ‘unavoidable limitation on the precision of all posible measurements, Thus, one is able to obtain a set of assumptions, which permit a self-consistent formula- tion of the usual interpretation of the quantum theory. ‘The above point of view has been given its most consistent and systematic expression by Bohr,>*s® in terms of the “principle of complementarity.” In for- mulating this principle, Bobr suggests that at the ‘omic level we must renounce our hitherto successful practice of conceiving of an individual system as a Unified and precisely definable whole, all of whose as- pects are, n'a manner of speaking, simultaneously and SSIES oe pono yt eee ran om wk aa168 DAVID ‘unambiguously accessible to our conceptual gaze. Such ‘a system of concepts, which is sometimes called a “model,” need not be restricted to pictures, but may also include, for example, mathematical concepts, as Jong as these are supposed to be in a. precise (ie. one-to-one) correspondence with the objects that are being described. ‘The principle of complementarity requires us, however, to renounce even mathematical ‘models, Thus, in Bohr’s point of view, the wave func- tion is inno sense a conceptual model of an individual system, since itis not in a precise (one-to-one) corre- spondence with the behavior of this system, but only ina statistical correspondence. In place of a precisely defined conceptual model, the principle of complementarity states that we are re- stricted to complementarity. pairs of inherently im- precisely defined concepts, such as position and mo- mentum, particle and wave, etc. The maximuin degree ‘of precision of definition of either member of such a pair is reciprocally related to that of the opposite ‘member. This need for an inherent lack of complete precision can be understood in two ways. First, it can be regarded as a consequence of the fact that the ex- perimental apparatus needed for a precise measure- ment of one member of a complementary pair of vari ables must always be such as to preclude the possibility of a simultaneous and precise measurement of the other member. Secondly, the assumption that an individual system is completely specified by the wave function and its probability interpretation implies a corresponding unavoidable lack of precision in the very conceptual structure, with the aid of which we can think about and describe the behavior ofthe system. Tis only at the classical level that we can correctly neglect the inherent lack of precision in all of our con- ceptual models; for here, the incomplete determination of physical properties implied by the uncertainty prin- ciple produces effects that are too small to be of prac- tical significance. Our ability to describe classical systems in terms of precisely definable models is, how- ever, an integral part of the usual interpretation of the theory. For without such models, we would have no way to describe, or even to think of, the result of an observation, which is of course always finally carried ‘out at a classical level of accuracy. If the relationships of a given set of classically describable phenomena depend significantly on the essentially quantum-me- chanical properties of matter, however, then the prin- ciple of complementarity states that no single model is possible which could provide a precise and rational analysis of the connections between these phenomena In such a case, we are not supposed, for example, to attempt to describe in detail how future phenomena arise out of past phenomena. Instead, we should simply accept without further analysis the fact that future phenomena do in fact somehow manage to be produce, in a way that is, however, necessarily beyond the possic bility of a detailed description. The only aim of a BOHM mathematical theory is then to predict the statistical relations, if any, connecting these phenomena, 3. CRITICISM OF THE USUAL INTERPRETATION OF ‘THE QUANTUM THEORY ‘The usual interpretation of the quantum theory can be criticized on many grounds. In this paper, however, we shall stress only the fact that it requires us to give up the possibility of even conceiving precisely what might determine the behavior of an individual system at the quantum level, without providing adequate proof that such a renunciation is necessary.? The usual interpretation is admittedly consistent; but the mere demonstration of such consistency does not exclude the possibility of other equally consistent interpretations, which would involve additional elements or parameters permitting a detailed causal and continuous description of all processes, and not requiring us to forego the possibility of conceiving the quantum level in precise terms. From the point of view of the usual interpreta tion, these additional elements or parameters could be called “hidden” variables. As a matter of fact, when- ever we have previously had recourse to statistical theories, we have always ultimately found that the laws governing the individual members of a statistical ensemble could be expressed in terms of just such hidden variables. For example, from the point of view of macroscopic physics, the coordinates and momenta of individual atoms are hidden variables, which in a large scale system manifest themselves only as sta- tistical averages. Perhaps then, our present quantum- mechanical averages are similarly a manifestation of hidden variables, which have not, however, yet been detected directly. ‘Now it may be asked why these hidden variables should have so long remained undetected. To answer this question, it is helpful to consider as an analogy the carly forms of the atomic theory, in which the existence of atoms was postulated in order to explain certain large-scale effects, such as the laws of chemical com- bination, the gas laws, ete. On the other hand, these same effects could also be described directly in terms of existing macrophysical concepts (such as pressure, volume, temperature, mass, etc.); and a correct de- scription in these terms did not require any reference to atoms. Ultimately, however, effects were found which contradicted the predictions obtained by extrapolating certain purely macrophysical theories to the domain of the very small, and which could be understood cor- rectly in terms of the assumption that matter is com- posed of atoms. Similarly, we suggest that if there are hidden variables underlying the present quantum theory, it is quite likely that in the atomic domain, they will [ead to effects that can also be described adequately the terms of the usual quantum-mechanical concepts; while in a domain associated with much smaller dimen- sions, such as the level associated with the “fundamental length” of the order of 10 cm, the hidden variables