The need for revolution in modern physics is a well known and often broached subject, however, the precision and success of current models narrows the possible changes to such a great degree that there appears to be no major change possible. We provide herein, the first step toward a possible solution to this paradox via reinterpretation of the conceptual-theoretical framework while still preserving the modern art and tools in an unaltered form. This redivision of concepts and redistribution of the data can revolutionize expectations of new experimental outcomes. This major change within finely tuned constraints is made possible by the fact that numerous mathematically equivalent theories were direct precursors to, and contemporaneous with, the modern interpretations. In this first of a series of papers, historical investigation of the conceptual lineage of modern theory reveals points of exacting overlap in physical theories which, while now considered cross discipline, originally split from a common source and can be reintegrated as a singular science again. This revival of an older associative hierarchy, combined with modern insights, can open new avenues for investigation. This reintegration of cross-disciplinary theories and tools is defined as the Neoclassical Interpretation.
The need for revolution in modern physics is a well known and often broached subject, however, the precision and success of current models narrows the possible changes to such a great degree that there appears to be no major change possible. We provide herein, the first step toward a possible solution to this paradox via reinterpretation of the conceptual-theoretical framework while still preserving the modern art and tools in an unaltered form. This redivision of concepts and redistribution of the data can revolutionize expectations of new experimental outcomes. This major change within finely tuned constraints is made possible by the fact that numerous mathematically equivalent theories were direct precursors to, and contemporaneous with, the modern interpretations. In this first of a series of papers, historical investigation of the conceptual lineage of modern theory reveals points of exacting overlap in physical theories which, while now considered cross discipline, originally split from a common source and can be reintegrated as a singular science again. This revival of an older associative hierarchy, combined with modern insights, can open new avenues for investigation. This reintegration of cross-disciplinary theories and tools is defined as the Neoclassical Interpretation.
More than a century after the beginning of the quantum revolution, historians continue to explore new facets in the history of quantum physics, and to re-examine some of its better-known aspects. The thirteen papers collected in this volume, by authors from five continents, present central trends in the current study of quantum physics within its theoretical, experimental, philosophical, technological and social contexts. They discuss developments from the late nineteenth to the early twenty-first century and go beyond the traditional focus on Europe and North America to include China and Japan, and beyond the Heisenbergs and Diracs to reveal the role of actors who hitherto have played only a marginal role in historical account, but left their mark on the development of quantum physics. Also a wider array of subdisciplines comes into view, from optics to quantum gravity through quantum electrodynamics, from atomic and nuclear to condense matter physics and foundations of physics. Moreover, the volume shows that fields such as dispersion, physical chemistry and solid state physics should not be seen merely as areas of applications of ideas that evolved in other contexts, but should be regarded as birthplaces of important theoretical insights. The perspective of the papers ranges from local histories to global discussions, from conceptual changes via the role of experimentation to interactions with social and technological forces and to the interpretation of the theory.
In the 1920s, physics was shaken by the quantum revolution. Experimental data could not be reconciled with the older classical paradigms. A new view was required, along with a radical revision to concepts that had seemed completely secure. Arguably, the quantum revolution still rumbles on, although the aftershocks are somewhat more muted now. While we have a complete mathematical grasp of quantum theory, its interpretation remains open to debate (although not that many working physicists engage with the debate, taking a more “shut up and calculate” approach). It is entirely possible that the ambiguity over interpretation is a signal that we are still not in possession of the correct fundamental concepts. That would also chime with the difficulties inherent with reconciling the quantum and relativistic pictures. Modern theoretical developments towards a quantum gravity may also shed some light on entropy, or at least information. Consequently, for a variety of reasons, we need to engage with the quantum description of the microworld and to see how that impacts on our understanding of entropy .
Quantum mechanics is one of the great success stories of modern physics, making sense of the very small just as Einstein's theory of relativity made sense of the very large. But, for most students, the ideas that make quantum mechanics powerful can be confusing and counterintuitive. This volume in the Greenwood Guides to Great Ideas in Science series provides a history of quantum mechanics from the early breakthroughs of Planck and Einstein, at the beginning of the 20th century, to the present frontiers of quantum computing and quantum gravity. The approach is entirely non-technical, and is aimed at the general reader who may not have much mathematical background but who has a strong curiosity about some of the most important developments in modern science. Quantum Mechanics: A Historical Perspectivetraces the history of this powerful theory, including: ; The early discoveries by Max Planck and Albert Einstein regarding the quantization of radiation ; The early quantum theory, including Neils Bohr's theory of the atom ; The birth of modern quantum mechanics through the work of Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Born, Dirac and others ; Applications of quantum mechanics in chemistry, nuclear physics, electronics, and many other areas ; Recent work in quantum computation and quantum information theory The book emphasizes the fact that despite the great success of quantum mechanics, many exciting intellectual frontiers remain open for further researchers to explore. It includes a glossary, a timeline, and a bibliography of accessible resources for further research.
To date, quantum mechanics has proven to be our most successful theoretical model. However, it is still surrounded by a "mysterious halo" that can be summarized in a simple but challenging question: Why quantum phenomena are not understood under the same logic as classical ones? Although this is an open question (probably without an answer), from a pragmatist's point of view there is still room enough to further explore the quantum world, marveling ourselves with new physical insights. We just need to look back in the historical evolution of the quantum theory and thoroughly reconsider three key issues: (1) how this has developed since its early stages at a conceptual level, (2) what kind of experiments can be performed at present in a laboratory, and (3) what nonstandard conceptual models are available to extract some extra information. This contribution is aimed at providing some answers (and, perhaps, also raising some issues) to these questions through one of such models, namely Bohmian mechanics, a hydrodynamic formulation of the quantum theory, which is currently trying to open new pathways of understanding. Specifically, the Chapter constitutes a brief and personal overview on the historic and contextual evolution of this quantum formulation, its physical meaning and interest (leaving aside metaphysical issues), and how it may help to overcome some preconceived paradoxical aspects of the quantum theory.
Interpretation is not the only way to explain a theory's success, form and features, and nor is it the only way to solve problems we see with a theory. This can also be done by giving a reductive explanation of the theory, by reference to a newer, more accurate, and/or more fundamental theory. We are seeking a theory of quantum gravity, a more fundamental theory than both quantum mechanics and general relativity, yet, while this theory is supposed to explain general relativity, it's not typically been thought to be necessary, or able, to explain quantum mechanics -- a task instead assigned to interpretation. Here, I question why this is. I also present a new way of assessing the various interpretations of quantum mechanics, in terms of their heuristic and unificatory potential in helping us find a more fundamental theory.