Early in the development of quantum theory Bohr introduced what came to be called the Copenhagen interpretation. Specifically, the square of the absolute value of the wave function was to be used as a probability density. There followed lengthy arguments about this ranging from alternative universes to Schrodinger's cat. Einstein famously remarked "I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice." The purpose of this paper is to present a mathematical model of the measuring process that shows that the Copenhagen interpretation can actually follow from the fact that the time development of quantum systems is governed by the usual one parameter group of unitary transformations exp-iHt and that probability enters into the theory in the way it usually does in physics, namely, by having a large number of deterministic equations that can only be handled probabilistically.
Early in the development of quantum theory Bohr introduced what came to be called the Copenhagen interpretation. Specifically, the square of the absolute value of the wave function was to be used as a probability density. There followed lengthy arguments about this ranging from alternative universes to Schrodinger's cat. Einstein famously remarked "I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice." The purpose of this paper is to present a mathematical model of the measuring process that shows that the Copenhagen interpretation can actually follow from the fact that the time development of quantum systems is governed by the usual one parameter group of unitary transformations exp-iHt and that probability enters into the theory in the way it usually does in physics, namely, by having a large number of deterministic equations that can only be handled probabilistically.
The interpretation of quantum mechanics has been disputed ever since the advent of the theory in the 1920’s. Famous are the discussions over long time between Einstein and Bohr. Einstein refused to accept the so‐called Copenhagen interpretation, where the wave function collapses at a measurement and where the outcome of the measurement is essentially accidental (“God does not play dice”). Alternative interpretations have appeared, but the Copenhagen school has dominated the thoughts throughout the decades. One interesting interpretation was formulated in 1957 by Hugh Everett at Princeton, a student of John Wheeler, which abandons the wave‐function collapse. In this model the universe is governed entirely by the Schrödinger equation, which does not allow for any collapse. In Everett’s model after a measurement the wave function is separated into different branches that do not interact. This model was left unnoticed for long time until Bryce DeWitt took it up in 1970 and termed it “Many‐Worlds Interpretation”, a term that in some sense is misleading. Everett’s model is incomplete, and it was later supplemented by the theory of decoherence, which explains how the different branches decouple as a result of the interaction with the environment. This extended model has in recent years gained increased respect, and some believe that it is the only model made available so far that is fully consistent with quantum mechanics. This interpretation can also shed some light on the development of the universe and, in particular, on the so‐called Anthropic principle, which puts human beings at the center of the development.
Einstein initially objected to the probabilistic aspect of quantum mechanics— the idea that God is playing at dice. Later he changed his ground, and focussed instead on the point that the Copenhagen Interpretation leads to what Einstein saw as the abandonment of physical realism. We argue here that Einstein’s initial intuition was perfectly sound, and that it is precisely the fact that quantum mechanics is a fundamentally probabilistic theory which is at the root of all the controversies regarding its interpretation. Probability is an intrinsically logical concept. This means that the quantum state has an essentially logical significance. It is extremely difficult to reconcile that fact with Einstein’s belief, that it is the task of physics to give us a vision of the world apprehended sub specie aeternitatis. Quantum mechanics thus presents us with a simple choice: either to follow Einstein in looking for a theory which is not probabilistic at the fundamental level, or else to accept that physics does not in fact put us in the position of God looking down on things from above. There is a widespread fear that the latter alternative must inevitably lead to a greatly impoverished,
Einstein initially objected to the probabilistic aspect of quantum mechanics—the idea that God is playing at dice. Later he changed his ground, and focussed instead on the point that the Copenhagen Interpretation leads to what Einstein saw as the abandonment of physical realism. We argue here that Einstein’s initial intuition was perfectly sound, and that it is precisely the fact that quantum mechanics is a fundamentally probabilistic theory which is at the root of all the controversies regarding its interpretation. Probability is an intrinsically logical concept. This means that the quantum state has an essentially logical significance. It is extremely difficult to reconcile that fact with Einstein’s belief, that it is the task of physics to give us a vision of the world apprehended sub specie aeternitatis. Quantum mechanics thus presents us with a simple choice: either to follow Einstein in looking for a theory which is not probabilistic at the fundamental level, or else to accept that physics does not in fact put us in the position of God looking down on things from above. There is a widespread fear that the latter alternative must inevitably lead to a greatly impoverished, positivistic view of physical theory. It appears to us, however, that the truth is just the opposite. The Einsteinian vision is much less attractive than it seems at first sight. In particular, it is closely connected with philosophical reductionism.
Einstein's arguments concerning the interpretation of quantum mechanics are reviewed and contrasted with certain misconceptions regarding his attitude toward the theory. He considered Born's statistical interpretation to be the only satisfactory one, and he was not a supporter of hidden-variable theories such as that of Bohm. His criticism of the interpretation accepted, at least tacitly, by many physicists was that the quantum state function does not provide a description of an individual system but rather of an ensemble of similar systems. This criticism was not based merely upon his famous remark that God does not play dice, but upon some definite physical arguments which did not assume determinism.
The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics has become the standard way of explaining the physical philosophical meaning of the mathematics of microscopic behavior. It developed from the thought of people who attended the Institute for Theoretical Physics of the University of Copenhagen during the 40 years that Niels Bohr directed it, from 1920 to 1962. Bohr took a large part in developing the Copenhagen Interpretation, he didn't escape all controversy over it (although the quote above is a bit of an exaggeration). Bohr did die before the experimental theoretical developments that have transposed the debate over the appropriateness adequacy of the Copenhagen Interpretation into a new key, he may well have been lucky to have escaped when he did. There is no authoritative codification of CI [the Copenhagen Interpretation], write T Gornitz C. E von Weizsacker of the Max Planck Institute in Starnberg, West Germany in' their formal presentation to the recent Loyola Conference on Mathematical Interpretational Problems in Relativistic Quantum Theory, and under the conditions of its origin there probably could not be one.... All prominent authors of the time who wrote on these questions, like Bohr, [Werner] Heisenberg, [Wolfgang] Pauli, J[ohn] v[on] Neumann on one side, [Albert] Einstein [Erwin] Schrodinger on the other, fell, so we feel, into some stammering when they tried to express their own positions. Nevertheless there is what might be called a Copenhagen attitude. It concentrates on observable phenomena, makes statistics probability central to its understanding, considers quantum mechanics primarily a theory of knowledge or information becomes a kind of physica negativa (analogous to a theologia negativa) in trying not to say too much about things that can't be seen or felt. For example, it doesn't much care whether the orbits of electrons in atoms are real or not and, in fact, tends to regard them as unreal. It appears in most textbooks as the standard way of looking at things.
Objectives: This review advocates absolute determinism in our universe and reinterprets Quantum mechanics while doing so. Then it discusses some of its consequences across fields. Method: This study starts by proposing the absolute postulate of the universe and derives absolute determinism using concepts from both the classical and quantum mechanics. Then it advocates that though the universe is deterministic, it is unpredictable. Statistical outcomes of a classical experiment and probabilistic outcomes of a quantum experiment are not due to the indeterministic nature of the experiment but due to theoretical limit of calculation/ practical limit of measurement. The study then proposes that the "free will is an illusion". As the paths of the particles are determined, the paths and interactions of neurons and neurotransmitters are determined and thus the thoughts and actions are determined. Thus, free will is an illusion. Then it focuses on some consequences like the outcome of a radioactivity experiment, resolution of Schrodinger’s Cat Paradox and that of EPR Paradox. The study also touches upon chaos theory, Big Bang theory and consciousness. Findings: Based on Bohmian Mechanics, Superdeterminism and Cellular Automata Interpretation, this study proposes a new interpretation of quantum mechanics. Using absolute determinism, it also argues that free will is an illusion and support it with Benjamin Libet’s experimental findings in neuroscience and fMRI scans done later. The study discusses deterministic but unpredictable identification of the particle that will disintegrate next among N particles collected in a block. It also attempts resolution of Schrodinger’s Cat Paradox and that of EPR Paradox. Towards the end, the study explores chaos theory, Big Bang theory and consciousness. Novelty: In the new deterministic interpretation of QM, a distinction is made between what is real in the universe and what is measurable or calculable. For example, it reiterates that a particle’s position and momentum are fixed even if they can’t be measured or calculated precisely and simultaneously (a re-interpretation of HUP). In other words, the study implies that the famous quote of Albert Einstein – “God Does Not Play Dice With The Universe” holds true in the realm of quantum mechanics also as it already does in classical mechanics. Keywords: Universe, Determinism, Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, Quantum Mechanics, Laplace Demon, Free Will, Benjamin Libet, Consciousness, Theory of Everything