Some aspects of the interpretation of quantum theory are discussed. It is emphasized that quantum theory is formulated in the Cartesian coordinate system; in other coordinates the result obtained with the help of the Hamiltonian formalism and commutator relations between “canonically conjugated” coordinate and momentum operators leads to a wrong version of quantum mechanics. The origin of time is analyzed by the example of atomic collision theory in detail; it is shown that the time-dependent Schrödinger equation is meaningless since in the high-impact-energy limit it transforms into an equation with two time-like variables. Following the Einstein-Rozen-Podolsky experiment and Bell’s inequality, the wave function is interpreted as an actual field of information in the elementary form. The concept “measurement” is also discussed.
Some aspects of the interpretation of quantum theory are discussed. It is emphasized that quantum theory is formulated in the Cartesian coordinate system; in other coordinates the result obtained with the help of the Hamiltonian formalism and commutator relations between “canonically conjugated” coordinate and momentum operators leads to a wrong version of quantum mechanics. The origin of time is analyzed by the example of atomic collision theory in detail; it is shown that the time-dependent Schrödinger equation is meaningless since in the high-impact-energy limit it transforms into an equation with two time-like variables. Following the Einstein-Rozen-Podolsky experiment and Bell’s inequality, the wave function is interpreted as an actual field of information in the elementary form. The concept “measurement” is also discussed.
Some aspects of the interpretation of quantum theory are discussed.It is emphasized that quantum theory is formulated in a Cartesian coordinate system; in other coordinates the result obtained with the help of the Hamiltonian formalism and commutator relations between 'canonically conjugated' coordinate and momentum operators leads to a wrong version of quantum mechanics.In this connection the Feynman integral formalism is also discussed.In this formalism the measure is not well-defined and there is no idea how to distinguish between the true version of quantum mechanics and an incorrect one; it is rather a mnemonic rule to generate perturbation series from an undefined zero order term.The origin of time is analyzed in detail by the example of atomic collisions.It is shown that the time-dependent Schrödinger equation for the closed three-body (two nuclei + electron) system has no physical meaning since in the high impact energy limit it transforms into an equation with two independent time-like variables; the time appears in the stationary Schrödinger equation as a result of extraction of a classical subsystem (two nuclei) from a closed three-body system.Following the Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky experiment and Bell's inequality the wave function is interpreted as an actual field of information in the elementary form.The relation between physics and mathematics is also discussed.
Some aspects of the interpretation of microscopic physics in terms of quantum theory are discussed. It is first emphasized that quantum theory is formulated in a Cartesian coordinate system; in other coordinates the result obtained with the help of the Hamiltonian formalism and commutation relations between ''canonically conjugated'' coordinate and momentum operators leads to a wrong version of quantum mechanics. In this connection the Feynman integral formalism is also discussed. In this formalism the measure is not well defined, and there is no idea how to distinguish between the true version of quantum mechanics and an incorrect one. In this respect, the Feynman approach consists of a mnemonic rule to generate perturbation series from an undefined zero-order term. The origin of time in the quantum framework is then analyzed in detail and illustrated by the example of atomic collisions. It is shown that the time-dependent Schr ¨ odinger equation for the closed three-body (two nuclei + electron) system has no physical meaning because in the high-impact energy limit it transforms into an equation with two independent time-like variables; time naturally appears in the stationary Schr ¨ odinger equation as a result of extraction of a classical subsystem (two nuclei) from a closed three-body system. Finally, following the well-known Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky experiment and Bell's inequality, we reiterate that the wave function must be interpreted as an actual field of information, in a form as elementary as the usual material particles and electromagnetic fields. In fact, experimental measurements transfer this quantum information field into the classical world, which is directly discernable. In my conclusion, the relation between physical reality and its mathematical formulation is discussed. 2012 Physics Essays Publication. (DOI: 10.4006/0836-1398-25.1.27) R ´
This paper gives interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (QM) by redefining the theory using 3 new postulates. The first of these postulates specifies the underlying structure that every massive fundamental particle must possess. The mass-Energy equivalence and wave nature of matter emerge as a direct consequence. The second postulate describes the quantum state of particles. Wave function, its conjugate, Born interpretation and the Energy-momentum operators can be derived from these two postulates. The third postulate describes the effect of measurement and interaction on the wave function. The equations of QM starting from Schrodinger’s equation are described. The phenomenon of Quantum entanglement and Schrodinger’s cat thought experiment are described under this interpretation. Finally, the origin of spin resulting from the first postulate is discussed.
Abstract The book starts with a description of classical mechanics then discusses the quantum phenomena that require us to give up our commonsense classical intuitions. We consider the physical and conceptual arguments that led to the standard von Neumann-Dirac formulation of quantum mechanics and how the standard theory explains quantum phenomena. This includes a discussion of how the theory’s two dynamical laws work with the standard interpretation of states to explain determinate measurement records, quantum statistics, interference effects, entanglement, decoherence, and quantum nonlocality. A careful understanding of how the standard theory works ultimately leads to the quantum measurement problem. We consider how the measurement problem threatens the logical consistency of the standard theory then turn to a discussion of the main proposals for resolving it. This includes collapse formulations of quantum mechanics like Wigner’s extension of the standard theory and the GRW approach and no-collapse formulations like pure wave mechanics, the various many-worlds theories, and Bohmian mechanics. In discussing alternative formulations of quantum mechanics we pay particular attention to the explanatory role played by each theory’s empirical ontology and associated metaphysical commitments and the conceptual trade-offs between theoretical options.
This paper analyzes the modified canonical Heisenberg commutation relations or GUP, from a standard Hamiltonian point of view. For a one-dimensional system, a such modified canonical Heisenberg commutation relation is defined by the commutator between a position x^ and a momentum operator p^ (called the deformed momentum), which becomes a function F of the same operators: x^,p^=F(x^,p^), that is, the Heisenberg algebra closes itself in general in a nonlinear way. The function F also depends on a parameter that controls the deformation of the Heisenberg algebra in such a way that for a null parameter value, one recovers the usual Heisenberg algebra x^,p^0=iℏI. Thus, it naturally raises the following questions: What does a relation of this type mean in Hamiltonian theory from a standard point of view? Is the deformed momentum the canonical variable conjugate to the position in such a relation? Moreover, what are the canonical variables in this model? The answer to these questions comes from the existence of two different phase spaces: The first one, called the non-deformed phase (which is obtained for control parameter value equal to zero), is defined by the Cartesian x^ coordinate and its non-deformed conjugate momentum p^0, which satisfies the standard quantum mechanical Heisenberg commutation relation. The second phase space, the deformed one, is given by the deformed momentum p^ and a new position coordinate y^, which is its canonical conjugate variable, so y^ and p^ also satisfy standard commutation relations. We construct a classical canonical transformation that maps the non-deformed phase space into the deformed one for a specific class of deformation functions F. Additionally, a quantum mechanical operator transformation is found between the two non-commutative phase spaces, which allows the Schrödinger equation to be written in both spaces. Thus, there are two equivalent quantum mechanical descriptions of the same physical process associated with a deformed commutation relation.
This chapter, based on the background information of the previous chapter, will review the formalism of quantum mechanics – its fundamental mathematical structure (the basic contents of Hilbert space representation and operator algebra representation) and physical assumptions (kinematics, dynamics, and measurement theory). These are the premise and foundation for discussing the quantum histories interpretation. Then, in combination with the viewpoints of some literature in recent years, we will explore what is the interpretation of quantum mechanics, analyze the relationship between the theory of quantum mechanics and its interpretation, and declare the author’s basic stance on these two issues. These two are the primary issues that all interpretive work in the philosophy of physics will face (not limited to the interpretation of quantum mechanics), and the necessary clarification here is also conducive to the subsequent discussion. Three common terms – theory, formalism, and interpretation – are explicated and differentiated by offering the necessary definitions of their meanings, based on the works of Acuña and Ruetsche. The clarification will help to make the subsequent related discussions more precise.