Quantum mechanics (QM) has attracted a considerable amount of mysticism, in public opinion and even among academic researches, due to some of its conceptually puzzling features, such as the modification of reality by the observer and entanglement. We argue that many popular "quantum paradoxes" stem from a confusion between mathematical formalism and physics; We demonstrate this by explaining how the paradoxes go away once a different formalism, usually inconvenient to perform calculations, is used. we argue that some modern developments, well-studied in the research literature but generally overlooked by both popular science and teaching-level literature, make quantum mechanics (that is, "canonical" QM, not extensions of it) less conceptually problematic than it looks at first sight. When all this is looked at together, most "conceptual puzzles" of QM are not much different from the well-known paradoxes from probability theory. Consequently, "explanations of QM" involving physical action of consciouses or an infinity of universes are conceptually unnecessary
Quantum mechanics (QM) has attracted a considerable amount of mysticism, in public opinion and even among academic researches, due to some of its conceptually puzzling features, such as the modification of reality by the observer and entanglement. We argue that many popular "quantum paradoxes" stem from a confusion between mathematical formalism and physics; We demonstrate this by explaining how the paradoxes go away once a different formalism, usually inconvenient to perform calculations, is used. we argue that some modern developments, well-studied in the research literature but generally overlooked by both popular science and teaching-level literature, make quantum mechanics (that is, "canonical" QM, not extensions of it) less conceptually problematic than it looks at first sight. When all this is looked at together, most "conceptual puzzles" of QM are not much different from the well-known paradoxes from probability theory. Consequently, "explanations of QM" involving physical action of consciouses or an infinity of universes are conceptually unnecessary
Quantum mechanics is often perceived as conceptually paradoxical because it appears to conflict with deeply rooted intuitions about fixed reality, determinism, and observation. This paper does not propose a new physical theory. Instead, it offers an epistemological reframing of quantum mechanics: not as a direct mathematical unveiling of a fully fixed pre-existing reality, but as a highly precise description of phenomenological structures emerging through observational conditions and interaction. The paper explores: the distinction between mathematical predictive success and ontological completeness, the role of human perception in constructing “fixed reality” intuitions, the phenomenological nature of qualities such as color and temperature, the possibility that some conceptual tensions in quantum mechanics arise from assumptions inherited from macroscopic cognition, and how quantum theory may be interpreted as describing observable structures rather than fixed hidden states. The work intentionally avoids mystical, anti-scientific, or consciousness-centric interpretations of quantum mechanics. It does not deny the existence of reality, nor reject modern physics. Rather, it attempts to clarify what exactly mathematical models are describing when applied to quantum phenomena. This text is positioned as a conceptual and phenomenological reorganization of perspective — a small doorway toward reconsidering how humans frame “reality” itself.
Abstract Quantum mechanics (QM) has led to spectacular technological developments, including the discovery of new constituents of matter and new materials: however, there is still no consensus regarding its interpretation and limitations. Some scientists and scientific writers promote some exotic interpretations and evoke quantum magic. In this paper we point out that magical explanations mean the end of the science. Magical explanations are misleading and counterproductive. We explain how a simple probabilistic local causal model is able to reproduce quantum correlations in Bell tests. We also discuss the difficulties of mathematical modeling of the physical reality and dangers of incorrect mental images. We examine in detail when and how a probabilistic model may completely describe a random experiment. We give some arguments in favor of the contextual statistical interpretation of QM. We conclude that we still do not know whether quantum theory provides a complete description of physical phenomena and we explain how it may be tested. We also point out, that there remain several open questions and challenges in QM, in quantum field theory and in the Standard Model. Moreover, there is still no consensus about how to reconcile quantum theory with general relativity and cosmology.
We still lack any consensus about what one is actually talking about as one uses quantum mechanics. There is a gap between the abstract terms in which the theory is couched and the phenomena the theory enables each of us to account for so well. Because it has no practical consequences for how we each use quantum mechanics to deal with physical problems, this cognitive dissonance has managed to coexist with the quantum theory from the very beginning. The absence of conceptual clarity for almost a century suggests that the problem might lie in some implicit misconceptions about the nature of scientific explanation that are deeply held by virtually all physicists, but are rarely explicitly acknowledged. I describe here such unvoiced but widely shared assumptions. Rejecting them clarifies and unifies a range of obscure remarks about quantum mechanics made almost from the beginning by some of the giants of physics, many of whom are held to be in deep disagreement. This new view of physics requires physicists to think about science in an unfamiliar way. My primary purpose is to explain the new perspective and urge that it be taken seriously. My secondary aims are to explain why this perspective differs significantly from what Bohr, Heisenberg, and Pauli had been saying from the very beginning, and why it is not solipsism, as some have maintained. To emphasize that this is a general view of science, and not just of quantum mechanics, I apply it to a long-standing puzzle in classical physics: the apparent inability of physics to give any meaning to 'Now'-the present moment.
This paper re-opens the debate on the failure of quantum mechanics to provide an understandable view of micro-reality. A critique is offered of the commonly accepted ‘Copenhagen Interpretation’ of a theory that is only a mathematical approach to the level of reality characterized by atoms and electrons. This critique is based on the oldest approach to thinking about nature for over 2500 years, known as Natural Philosophy. Quantum mechanics (QM) was developed over the first quarter of the 20th Century, when scientists were enthralled by a new philosophy known as Positivism, whose foundations were based on the assumption that material objects exist only when measured by humans – this central assumption conflates epistemology (knowledge) with ontology (existence). The present critique rejects this human-centered view of reality by assuming material reality has existed long before (and will persist long after) human beings (“Realism”). The defensive view that the micro-world is too different to understand using regular thinking (and only a mathematical approach is possible) is rejected totally. At least 12 earlier QM interpretations are critically analyzed, indicating the broad interest in “what does QM mean?” The standard theory of quantum mechanics is thus constructed on only how the micro-world appears to macro measurements - as such, it cannot offer any view of how the foundations of the world are acting when humans are not observing it - this has generated almost 100 years of confusion and contradiction at the very heart of physics. Significantly, we live in a world that is not being measured by scientists but is interacting with itself and with us. QM has failed to provide explanations: only recipes (meaningless equations), not insights. Physics has returned to the pre-Newtonian world of Ptolemaic phenomenology: only verifiable numbers without real understanding. The focus needs to be on an explicit linkage between the micro-world, when left to itself, and our mental models of this sphere of material reality, via the mechanism of measurement. This limits the role of measurement to confirming our mental models of reality but never confusing these with a direct image of ‘the thing in itself’. This implies a deep divide between reality and appearances, as Kant suggested. This paper includes an original analysis of several major assumptions that have been implicit in Classical Mechanics (CM) that were acceptable in the macroscopic domain of reality, demonstrated by its proven successes. Unfortunately, only a few of these assumptions were challenged by the developers of QM. We now show that these other assumptions are still generating confusions in the interpretation of QM and blocking further progress in the understanding of the microscopic domain. Several of these flawed assumptions were introduced by Newton to support the use of continuum mathematics as a model of nature. This paper proposes that it is the attempt to preserve continuum mathematics (especially calculus), which drives much of the mystery and confusion behind all attempts at understanding quantum mechanics. The introduction of discrete mathematics is proposed to help analyze the discrete interactions between the quintessential quantum objects: the electrons and their novel properties. A related paper demonstrates that it is possible to create a point-particle theory of electrons that explains all their peculiar (and ‘paradoxical’) behavior using only physical hypotheses and discrete mathematics without introducing the continuum mathematical ideas of fields or waves. Another (related) paper proves that all the known results for the hydrogen atom can also be exactly calculated from this new perspective with the discrete mathematics. * Surrey, B.C. Canada (604) 542-2299 spsi99@telus.net Version 2.015 08-05-2017 Begun 23-06-2008 {pp. 82, 70.2 Kw; 800 KB}
Recent years have seen increased interest towards quantum physics education research, and the topic has been studied from many perspectives both empirically and theoretically. The consensus of previous studies has been that the theory poses an exceptional challenge for learning and teaching, warranting more attention and further research. This dissertation aims to contribute to this discussion by asking what the underlying reasons for these challenges are and how they could potentially be alleviated. On one hand, the topic is approached from an interpretational point of view, considering the ontological foundations of the theory. It is argued that many of the fundamental difficulties in learning and teaching quantum mechanics stem from the ontological foundations of the theory. On the other hand, the historical development and the mathematical structure of the theory are discussed from an educational point of view. The dissertation consists of five articles that explore the above themes from different perspectives. The first study considers the development of one historical formulation of quantum mechanics, namely matrix mechanics. In general, the historical development of quantum theory has been complex and meandering, and its results may seem confusing to students. In our study, we discuss the use of matrix mechanics in quantum mechanics instruction to provide students with a clearer picture of the theory, its historical development, and the relations between its various formulations and used formalisms. The second and third studies add to the discussion on the roles of mathematics in physics and physics education. In quantum mechanics, the role of mathematics is especially pronounced, as the understanding of the theory heavily relies on its mathematical framework. Therefore, we argue that the focus of quantum mechanics instruction should be shifted away from calculational aspects to a more integrated approach that treats the conceptual and mathematical sides of the theory intertwined. In our studies, we provide an overview of the roles assigned to mathematics in previous physics education research literature and present our own layered characterisation of the roles, aiming at diversifying the discussion on the roles of mathematics within the physics education research community and in physics instruction. The fourth and fifth studies empirically examine the challenges of quantum mechanics instruction in the context of an introductory quantum mechanics course. In the fourth study, we explore the effect of initial mathematics knowledge and self-efficacy on student learning, while in the fifth study, we consider the effects of the instructional approach and different teaching strategies on student conceptual knowledge and self-efficacy. The specific focus is on the impact of implementing a new instructional approach, the so-called spin first approach, that emphasises the mathematical basis and conceptual understanding of the theory instead of repeated mathematical calculations. Our results show that the spin-first approach, combined with an active learning model, is able to foster a high level of student self-efficacy and conceptual learning. Quantum mechanics is one of the most successful theories in the history of physics. Nevertheless, learning and teaching its basic principles continue to pose significant challenges for both instructors and students. In this dissertation, we argue for an approach to teaching the theory that places greater emphasis on its mathematical foundations and treats physics and mathematics as intertwined disciplines.
It has been frequently said that "Quantum Mechanics is Magic".e real fact is just the opposite: quantum mechanics is not magic, it is rather one of the best scientific theories in terms of the amplitude and exactness of its predictions.Quantum Mechanics surprises us as it does not satisfy some a priori principles usually considered to be necessary preconditions to build up physics (as Einstein dixit).As these principles are also the basis of some important philosophical theories of science, these philosophical theories cannot be well founded.After criticizing them, we offer the preliminary lines of a methodology of physics adapted to the formalism of quantum mechanics.