In this work we argue against the interpretation that underlies the "Standard" account of Quantum Mechanics (SQM) that was established during the 1930s by Niels Bohr and Paul Dirac. Ever since, following this orthodox narrative, physicists have dogmatically proclaimed -- quite regardless of the deep contradictions and problems -- that the the theory of quanta describes a microscopic realm composed of elementary particles (such as electrons, protons and neutrons) which underly our macroscopic world composed of tables, chairs and dogs. After critically addressing this atomist dogma still present today in contemporary (quantum) physics and philosophy, we present a new understanding of quantum individuals defined as the minimum set of relations within a specific degree of complexity capable to account for all relations within that same degree. In this case, quantum individuality is not conceived in absolute terms but -- instead -- as an objectively relative concept which even though depends of the choice of bases and factorizations remain nonetheless part of the same invariant representation.
In this work we argue against the interpretation that underlies the "Standard" account of Quantum Mechanics (SQM) that was established during the 1930s by Niels Bohr and Paul Dirac. Ever since, following this orthodox narrative, physicists have dogmatically proclaimed -- quite regardless of the deep contradictions and problems -- that the the theory of quanta describes a microscopic realm composed of elementary particles (such as electrons, protons and neutrons) which underly our macroscopic world composed of tables, chairs and dogs. After critically addressing this atomist dogma still present today in contemporary (quantum) physics and philosophy, we present a new understanding of quantum individuals defined as the minimum set of relations within a specific degree of complexity capable to account for all relations within that same degree. In this case, quantum individuality is not conceived in absolute terms but -- instead -- as an objectively relative concept which even though depends of the choice of bases and factorizations remain nonetheless part of the same invariant representation.
In this work we address the contemporary debate about quantum individuality expressed as an opposition between those who, like Décio Krause, defend the reference of the theory to "non-individual particles", and those like Dennis Dieks, who propose instead to preserve the notion of "classical particle" as commonly applied by contemporary physicists. We will argue that these viewpoints rather than truly opposed share a common methodology which has helped to reinforce the doctrine of classical concepts that was imposed by Bohr and Dirac within the "standard" formulation --which remains the orthodox physical account of the theory of quanta. We will also discuss a recently proposed relativist yet objective relational account of quantum individuality [25] which, going back to Einstein's methodological approach, opens the doors to a completely new, truly realist understanding of quantum individuality.
Quantum Mechanics (QM) has faced deep controversies and debates since its origin when Werner Heisenberg proposed the first mathematical formalism capable to operationally account for what had been recently discovered as the new field of quantum phenomena. Today, even though we have reached a standardized version of QM which is taught in Universities all around the world, there is still no consensus regarding the conceptual reference of the theory and, if or if not, it can refer to something beyond measurement outcomes. In this work we will argue that the reason behind the impossibility to reach a meaningful answer to this question is strictly related to the 20th Century Bohrian-positivist re-foundation of physics which is responsible for having introduced within the theory of quanta a harmful combination of metaphysical dogmatism and naive empiricism. We will also argue that the possibility of understanding QM is at plain sight, given we return to the original framework of physics in which the meaning of understanding has always been clear.
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}
The notion of quantum state plays a fundamental role within the Standard account of Quantum Mechanics (SQM) as established by Dirac and von Neumann during 1930s and up to the present. In this work we expose the deep inconsistencies that exist within the multiple definitions of the notion of quantum state that are provided within this axiomatic formulation. As we will argue, these different inconsistent definitions continue to be -- even today -- uncritically confused within the mainstream physical and philosophical literature leading to self-contradictory statements and wrong conclusions. We end with a discussion regarding the untenability of this concept for any rational understanding of theoretical physics.
One of the most famous metaphysical problems in the philosophy of quantum mechanics concerns the individuality status of quantum entities: are they individuals, or non-individuals? The typical approach to the problem consists in defending one of the options by appealing directly to features of quantum mechanics with the addition, eventually, of theoretical virtues the favoured proposal may have. In this paper, we argue that this strategy is inappropriate, because the problem of individuality is ill formulated in the case of quantum mechanics. In a nutshell, our point is that considerations exclusively from quantum mechanics are too general and generic to grant the level of particularity required for providing for a principle of individuality. Problems of individuality appear only at the level of particular applications of the theory in specific contexts, and in these cases, we shall argue, search for a metaphysical notion of individuality may be substituted by an epistemic notion of individuation. The approach also has the benefits of dissolving the problems created by metaphysical underdetermination on this front. This article is part of the theme issue 'Identity, individuality and indistinguishability in physics and mathematics'.
In July 1925, exactly one century ago, Werner Heisenberg created Quantum Mechanics (QM) as an invariant-operational formalism by taking as a standpoint the intensive patterns that had been already observed by experimentalists in the lab. One of the few drawbacks of this proposal was the impossibility to conceptualize it in classical terms. Attempting to restore a somewhat classical spatiotemporal representation, six months later, Erwin Schrödinger would present a formalism grounded on a wave equation in configuration space. Taking as a standpoint Schrödinger’s wave mechanics together with the methodological guide of Bohr and logical positivists, Dirac would present in 1930 an axiomatic re-formulation of the theory of quanta that would become known as the “standard” version of QM (SQM). This new version of the theory, that is still today taught in physics classrooms all around the world, would become accepted regardless of its inconsistent narrative as a “recipe” intended (but unable) to predict (binary) measurement outcomes. After pointing out some of the many problems of SQM, in this work we propose to go back to Heisenberg’s matrix mechanics (and also to his understanding of physical theories). We will argue that his matrix mechanics, as an operationally-invariant standpoint, opens the door to a tensorial enlargement of the mathematical formalism capable to account for new phenomena.