Codex @codex  0

One half went to Roy J. Glauber for contributions to the quantum theory of optical coherence. One quarter each went to John L. Hall and Theodor W. Hänsch for developing precision laser spectroscopy, including the optical frequency comb technique.^[ref]

The Polyakov action has independent worldsheet metric ${\gamma }_{ab}$ and embedding fields $X^{\mu }$. Varying the metric before imposing a gauge givesWorldsheet diffeomorphisms and Weyl transformations allow conformal gauge ${\gamma }_{ab}=e^{2\omega }{\eta }_{ab}$ locally. The Weyl factor then cancels out of the classical action, leavingThese are free two-dimensional scalar fields, but the surviving metric equations requireEquivalently, ${\dot{X}}^2+X^{\prime 2}=0$ and $\dot{X}\cdot X^{\prime }=0$. Gauge fixing does not license dropping these Virasoro constraints.

For an ordinary open string, the boundary conditions relate the two chiral sectors. With ${\alpha }_0^{\mu }=\sqrt{2{\alpha }^{\prime }}{k}^{\mu }$, their independent Fourier generators areThe classical oscillator Poisson brackets $\{{\alpha }_m^{\mu },{\alpha }_n^{\nu }\}=-im{\eta }^{\mu \nu }{\delta }_{m+n,0}$ give the classical Virasoro constraint algebraThus they are first-class constraints. In the quantum theory one applies normal ordering to the product and uses $[{\alpha }_m^{\mu },{\alpha }_n^{\nu }]=m{\eta }^{\mu \nu }{\delta }_{m+n,0}$. The oscillator commutator givesFor example, for $m>0$ the extra vacuum term is $(D/2){\sum }_{r=1}^{m-1}r(m-r)=D(m^3-m)/12$. This exhibits the Virasoro central extension rather than concealing it in a classical constraint equation. The matter central charge is $D$; the worldsheet ghost fields have charge $-26$. Quantum consistency sets $D=26$ and the string intercept to one.

In old covariant string quantization the physical-state Virasoro conditions for an open string arePhysical string states are then identified modulo physical null string states. One does not impose both positive and negative generators as annihilation conditions: their central extension would obstruct that prescription. The resulting null-state quotient of a string agrees with the transverse light-cone spectrum at nonzero momentum.

At $N=0$, the oscillator vacuum $|k⟩$ is a single spacetime scalar field with ${\alpha }^{\prime }{M}^2=-1$: the bosonic tachyon. At $N=1$, write $|\Psi ⟩={ϵ}_{\mu }{\alpha }_{-1}^{\mu }|k⟩$. The zero-mode equation gives $k^2=0$, and $L_1$ gives $k\cdot ϵ=0$. The null descendant $L_{-1}|k⟩=\sqrt{2{\alpha }^{\prime }}k\cdot {\alpha }_{-1}|k⟩$ identifies $ϵ\sim ϵ+\lambda k$. This leaves 24 physical polarizations of a massless gauge vector.

At $N=2$, use the level-two open-string polarization decompositionThe mass is $M^2=1/{\alpha }^{\prime }$. The oscillator commutators give all the nontrivial positive-mode conditions:Higher positive modes annihilate this level. To see the quotient explicitly, the 25 transverse-parameter null states $L_{-1}(\xi \cdot {\alpha }_{-1}|k⟩)$, with $k\cdot \xi =0$, shiftThe additional level-two scalar Virasoro null state $(L_{-2}+\frac{3}{2}{L}_{-1}^2)|k⟩$ shiftsSubstitution into the two physical equations verifies the null-state conditions; the second residual is $(D-26)/2$. Because $k$ is timelike, these null shifts span all components of $b$, so choose a representative with $b=0$. The physical conditions then say $k^{\mu }{h}_{\mu \nu }=0$ and $h^{\mu }{}_{\mu }=0$. In the rest frame this is a traceless second-rank tensor in 25 spatial dimensions, with $25\cdot 26/2-1=324$ polarizations. The light-cone basis independently gives $24$ states ${\alpha }_{-2}^i|k⟩$ and $24\cdot 25/2=300$ symmetric states ${\alpha }_{-1}^i{\alpha }_{-1}^j|k⟩$. Hence

For the fermionic extension, an explicit convention prevents ambiguity in the signs. Keep worldsheet signature $(-,+)$ and useTake $\psi =({\psi }_1,{\psi }_2{)}^T$ and the constant parameter $ϵ=({ϵ}_1,{ϵ}_2{)}^T$ to be real Grassmann-odd Majorana components, with $\bar{\psi }={\psi }^T{\rho }^0$. Put ${\partial }_{\pm }={\partial }_{\tau }\pm {\partial }_{\sigma }$. Apart from the common factor $1/(4\pi {\alpha }^{\prime })$, the combined Lagrangian isThe rigid transformations can be writtenor, in components,For the ${ϵ}_2$ part, the bosonic variation is $i{ϵ}_2({\partial }_{+}{\psi }_1\cdot {\partial }_{-}X+{\partial }_{+}X\cdot {\partial }_{-}{\psi }_1)$, while the fermionic variation is $-i{ϵ}_2{\partial }_{-}X\cdot {\partial }_{+}{\psi }_1+i{ϵ}_2{\psi }_1\cdot {\partial }_{+}{\partial }_{-}X$. Anticommuting the constant parameter past the fermion is essential in the second term. The first terms cancel. The other chiral component works in the same way, giving the chiral proof of rigid worldsheet supersymmetryThus the action is invariant off shell up to a boundary term. The transformation is a genuine supersymmetry: on $X$ its commutator for parameters $ϵ,\zeta$ is the translationOn $\psi$ the same translation follows using ${\partial }_{+}{\psi }_1=0$ and ${\partial }_{-}{\psi }_2=0$; the remaining cross terms are proportional to these Dirac equations. This is on-shell closure of rigid worldsheet supersymmetry. On a surface with boundary, compatible endpoint conditions must make the boundary flux vanish. On a compact worldsheet, a constant parameter must preserve the spin structure; the local identity alone does not make a constant transformation compatible with every antiperiodic sector.

The fermions contribute to the worldsheet stress-energy tensor and produce a fermionic superconformal current. In holomorphic normalization with ${\psi }^{\mu }(z){\psi }^{\nu }(w)\sim {\eta }^{\mu \nu }/(z-w)$,The free-field contractions give $G(z)G(w)\sim (2c/3)/(z-w{)}^3+2T(w)/(z-w)$ and conformal weight $3/2$ for $G$, where $c=D+D/2=3D/2$. Consequently the modes obey the N=1 super-Virasoro algebraDropping the central terms gives the classical graded constraint algebra. Integer $r$ gives the Ramond sector; half-integer $r$ gives the Neveu–Schwarz sector. In the displayed conformal-plane convention $G_0^2=L_0-c/24$ in the Ramond sector. Shifting to the Ramond vacuum-normal-ordered zero mode gives the usual Ramond supercurrent zero-mode square $G_0^2=L_0^{(R)}$.

Rigid symmetry of matter already supplies these currents, but promoting their vanishing to new gauge constraints requires coupling to worldsheet supergravity and varying its worldsheet gravitino. In superconformal gauge one retains $T=G=0$. The fermionic current constraints and their physical-state conditions extend the bosonic Virasoro conditions. The ghost charges are $-26+11=-15$, so cancellation with $3D/2$ gives the critical dimension of the RNS superstring $D=10$; the NS and Ramond intercepts are respectively $1/2$ and zero. This distinguishes the global supersymmetry established above from its locally gauged string completion.

The EPR criterion of reality proposes that a quantity has an element of physical reality if its value can be predicted with certainty without disturbing the system. To use remote predictions this way, one additionally assumes locality: the choice and execution of a measurement in quantum mechanics on separated particles cannot disturb the local physical properties of the remaining particle. The contradiction below is with this combination of the criterion and locality, rather than with a definition of reality alone.

Use the computational basis $|0⟩=|\uparrow ⟩$, $|1⟩=|\downarrow ⟩$ and the conventional Pauli matricesFor each site $j$, let $O_j$ be the tensor product of $X$ at that site and $Y$ at all other sites. For $N=4M+3$, the number of $Y$ factors is $N-1=4M+2$, soThe minus sign in the given GHZ state then impliesHence every one-$X$, remaining-$Y$ product has measurement outcome $+1$ with certainty, while the all-$X$ product has outcome $-1$ with certainty. These are experimentally separate local Pauli measurements on identically prepared copies, not joint measurements of $X$ and $Y$ on the same particle.

For a chosen site, the other $N-1$ sites can determine its $X$ outcome with certainty by measuring $Y$ and using the corresponding $O_j$ relation. They can determine its $Y$ outcome with certainty by selecting an $O_{\ell }$ with $\ell \ne j$, measuring $X$ at $\ell$ and $Y$ at all other remote sites. Since $N\ge 3$, both choices are available. Locality and the EPR criterion of reality therefore assign each site definite values $x_j,y_j\in \{+1,-1\}$, independent of which remote choice is made, even though quantum theory does not jointly measure the local $X$ and $Y$.

The certain one-$X$ correlations require those assigned values to obeyMultiplying these scalar equations givessince $N-1$ is even and $y_k^2=1$. Thus the all-$X$ product would necessarily be $+1$. But its quantum value is $-1$, givingThe equations cannot hold even for one assignment of values, so allowing a probability distribution over assignments cannot remove the contradiction. This is the GHZ contradiction for N congruent to 3 modulo 4 for every $M\ge 0$. Multiplying classical assigned values is crucial: one must not commute the incompatible local Pauli operators as though they were ordinary numbers. Their noncommutativity is exactly what permits the quantum correlations to evade the classical product argument.

For a spin singlet state, quantum spin measurements along unit vectors $\mathbf{a},\mathbf{b}$ predict $E(\mathbf{a},\mathbf{b})=-\mathbf{a}\cdot \mathbf{b}$. Take ${\mathbf{a}}_0=\mathbf{z}$, ${\mathbf{a}}_1=\mathbf{x}$, ${\mathbf{b}}_0=(\mathbf{z}+\mathbf{x})/\sqrt{2}$ and ${\mathbf{b}}_1=(\mathbf{z}-\mathbf{x})/\sqrt{2}$. These giveThe violation therefore excludes the whole conjunction of the sufficient assumptions, for any model reproducing these correlations. It does not identify which premise fails without further commitments about causal explanation, state completeness and measurement setting generation.

A defensible verdict is to retain ordinary independent setting preparation and reject Bell local causality, specifically its classical screening-off factorization. In standard quantum theory, taking the pure entangled state as the complete state preserves parameter independence: each local marginal is $1/2$, regardless of the distant setting. Yet outcome independence fails. For equal spin axes, $P(A=+,B=-)=1/2$, whereas $P(A=+)P(B=-)=1/4$. The distant outcome changes the conditional prediction even after the quantum state is specified. This failure is compatible with quantum no-signalling, since conditioning on that outcome requires learning a result which cannot itself be controlled.

Adding further past variables does not restore the entire Bell conjunction while retaining the violating correlations; the CHSH inequality already allowed arbitrary such $\lambda$. Alternatively, one may reject measurement independence, permit retrocausal setting dependence in the relevant past state, or adopt another non-Bell-local description. Those are logically possible responses, but each must explain its replacement probability and causal model rather than treating the inequality as a failed algebraic theorem. A deterministic theory is not exempt from this requirement.

The assumption of measurement independence is supported by the purpose and design of independently varied settings, but cannot be proved for every conceivable hidden variable merely by inspecting observed setting frequencies. Conversely, a rejection of Bell factorization does not alone establish a controllable superluminal signal or select a unique ontology. The reasoned verdict is against Bell's screening-off locality, conditional on the other stated premises; the unconditional conclusion concerns their conjunction.

Locality in quantum theory is not one interchangeable condition. Spatial concentration of a wave packet concerns a state description. Quantum no-signalling restricts operational changes of remote statistics. Microcausality concerns commutation of spacelike observable algebras. The spectrum condition constrains energy-momentum and stability, while primitive causality concerns determination of future-domain expectations by initial-region data. The distinctions are clearest when all five are discussed; none should be replaced silently by the Bell factorization examined elsewhere.

Wave-function tails and entangled correlations are not by themselves controllable signals. Conversely, absence of signals does not by itself supply a local initial-value dynamics or positive-energy spectrum. Each claim must specify the observable algebras, allowed operations and relevant causal regions.

Original solutions to past quantum theory examinations at the University of Oxford.

Solutions to all three questions of the University of Oxford Part A quantum theory paper, sat on 16 June 2021. Source: original released PDF, bundle pages 145–148; paper pages 1–4. The symbol $\hslash$ denotes the reduced Planck constant. All four measurement experiments in question 1(c) start independently from the wavefunction in question 1(b).

Solutions to all three questions of the University of Oxford Part A quantum theory paper, sat on 22 June 2023. Source: original released PDF, bundle pages 153–156; paper pages 1–4. Question statements are omitted. The symbol $\hslash$ denotes the reduced Planck constant.

Quantum field theory combines special relativity with quantum theory by treating fields as operator-valued distributions and particles as field excitations.

A physicist working on the quantum theory of optical coherence.^[ref]

The 1922 interpretation concerned space quantization of atomic magnetic moments in the old quantum theory. The modern electron spin proposal came in 1925; the original observers did not identify intrinsic electron spin as the cause of their splitting. An orbital interpretation then seemed plausible, but the later spin explanation gives a different account of the same two-component evidence.^[ref]

Modern atomic data assign neutral silver the ground state electron configuration $[\mathrm{Kr}]4d^{10}5s$ and electronic term ${}^2{S}_{1/2}$. The filled electron shells contribute zero net electronic angular momentum; the outer unpaired electron has orbital angular momentum $L=0$, spin $S=1/2$, and electronic total angular momentum $J=1/2$. The magnetic quantum number has two values $m_J=\pm 1/2$.^[ref]

In the effective electronic description,The minus sign matters: for positive $G$, the component with $m_J=+1/2$ has negative electronic magnetic moment and deflects toward negative $z$ in our coordinates. Calling the upper spot “spin up” without specifying the magnetic field and channel calibration can therefore reverse the assignment. The total angular momentum operator here sums electronic orbital angular momentum and electronic spin; $J$ is not a claim that the atomic nucleus has no spin. Hyperfine structure and nuclear magnetic moments can require additional internal levels, so a two-channel electronic approximation must be justified for the field and resolution being used.

This is a neutral atomic beam, not a beam of free electrons. The deflected mass in the flight equations is the entire silver chemical atom; its dominant electronic magnetic moment supplies the state-dependent force. Replacing that atom by a free electron would also introduce the charged particle's Lorentz force and a different preparation problem. The ideal two-state model is useful because it isolates the connection between discrete internal components and spatially resolved outputs; it does not retroactively turn the 1922 deposit into a direct contemporary identification of intrinsic electron spin.

A physicist researching quantum theory and the Aharonov-Bohm effect.^[ref]