In a complete quantum theory, one would construct it based on what we can observe in a system and operationally define in our universe. This philosophy goes back to some of the original ideals of quantum theory defined by W. Heisenberg, N. Bohr, and others as part of the Copenhagen school of thought. We argue in this letter that that if one wishes to construct a complete quantum field theory, that it is most natural to construct it based on a nonlocal theory of observable principles. If this interpretation is valid, then the one-particle nonrelativistic limit that recovers quantum mechanics would as well be dynamically nonlocal. In this interpretation we derive the nonlocal Schrödinger equation. We will as well demonstrate that the canonical position--momentum commutator and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle emerge from translation covariance.
In a complete quantum theory, one would construct it based on what we can observe in a system and operationally define in our universe. This philosophy goes back to some of the original ideals of quantum theory defined by W. Heisenberg, N. Bohr, and others as part of the Copenhagen school of thought. We argue in this letter that that if one wishes to construct a complete quantum field theory, that it is most natural to construct it based on a nonlocal theory of observable principles. If this interpretation is valid, then the one-particle nonrelativistic limit that recovers quantum mechanics would as well be dynamically nonlocal. In this interpretation we derive the nonlocal Schrödinger equation. We will as well demonstrate that the canonical position--momentum commutator and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle emerge from translation covariance.
According to the orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics (Bohr being its leading voice), the attributes of a physical object (position, momentum, spin, etc.) can be assigned only when they have been measured. Einstein advocated the local realist viewpoint that an object had definite attributes whether they had been measured or not. The Copenhagen school view that measurement actually produces an object’s property would imply that the measurement of one part of an entangled quantum state can instantaneously fix the value of another part, no matter how far the two parts have been separated. Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen devised a thought experiment to shine a light on this “spooky action-at-a-distance” feature; its discussion and debate have illuminated the meaning of quantum mechanics (QM). It led later to Bell’s theorem showing that these seemingly philosophical questions can lead to observable results. The experimental vindication of the orthodox theory has sharpened our appreciation of the nonlocal features of quantum mechanics. Nevertheless, the counter-intuitive QM picture of objective reality still troubles many, leaving one to wonder whether quantum mechanics is ultimately a complete theory.
In 1935, Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen published their thought experiment I a paper entitled, “Can Quantum – Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be considered complete?”. At that time, Bohr, Heisenberg, and the proponents of the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum mechanics, were saying that Quantum theory is a complete and the last theory in physics event though it does not provide any picture of the world separate from our observations of it. The message Einstein conveyed to his colleagues was that the quantum theory is not a “complete” theory because it does not describe certain important aspects of reality which are physically real event if they are not observed. In sympathy with Einstein's position, this paper argues that, the real nature of physical reality cannot be explained “at once” by a single theory. Reality is still unfolding and a new theory that will surpass the predictive ability of Quantum Mechanics will soon emerge. SOPHIA: An African Journal of Philosophy Vol. 8 (2) 2006: pp.14-19
In this work, we propose an alternative formulation for the description of quantum dynamics based on a displacement interpretation of the Schrödinger equation. Startingfrom a generalized wave propagation framework, we show that the Schrödinger equation can be recovered in a form that admits a displacement-type interpretation ofthe wave function. Within this formulation, we derive a momentum-related relation, referred to as the Schrödinger momentum equation, which provides an effective description of quantumpropagation. This relation allows for a unified discussion of several foundational aspects of quantum mechanics, including interference phenomena, coherence anddecoherence, and quantum correlations. The proposed framework is deterministic and explicitly nonlocal, and remains consistent with established experimental observations. In addition, we examine theimplications of this formulation for the interpretation of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, showing that uncertainty-type relations can be naturally obtained within thisapproach while preserving measurement-dependent limitations. Overall, the present work offers a complementary perspective on quantum mechanics that may contribute to ongoing discussions on its conceptual foundations.
I distinguish two senses in which one can take a given physical theory to be `complete'. On the first, a complete physical theory is one that, in principle, completely describes physical reality. On the second, a complete physical theory is one that provides all of the conceptual resources one needs to describe any (in general probabilistic) physical phenomenon to any level of detail one likes, in principle. I argue that while the (neo-)Everettian approach to interpreting quantum mechanics aims to show that it is complete in the first sense, the (neo-)Bohrian approach begins from an understanding of quantum mechanics as being complete in the second sense. I then discuss some of the essential differences between how classical and quantum theory describe phenomena, and the way in which the quantum description can be thought of as a ``natural generalisation'' (to use Bohr's phrase) of the classical description. Finally, I elaborate upon the two visions of physics from which one can motivate the first and the second sense of completeness, respectively: \emph{metaphysical realism}, on the one hand, and what I will call \emph{methodological realism}, on the other -- and discuss what one can say about the significance of the differences between quantum and classical description from each of these points of view. I suggest that there is a sense in which the views of (neo-)Everett and the views of (neo-)Bohr can be understood to be mutually supporting positions, from their respective perspectives, even though they are diametrically opposed.
The long-standing conceptual controversies concerning the interpretation of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics are argued, on one hand, to be due to its incompleteness, as affirmed by Einstein. But on the other hand, it appears to be possible to complete it at least partially, as Bohr might have appreciated it, in the framework of its standard mathematical formalism with observables as appropriately defined self-adjoint operators. This completion of quantum mechanics is based on the requirement on laboratory physics to be effectively confined to a bounded space region and on the application of the von Neumann deficiency theorem to properly define a set of self-adjoint extensions of standard observables, e.g. the momenta and the Hamiltonian, in terms of certain isometries on the region boundary. This is formalized mathematically in the setting of a boundary ontology for the so-called Qbox in which the wave function acquires a supplementary dependence on a set of Additional Boundary Variables (ABV). It is argued that a certain geometric subset of the ABV parametrizing Quasi-Periodic Translational Isometries (QPTI) has a particular physical importance by allowing for the definition of an ontic wave function, which has the property of epitomizing the spatial wave function “collapse.” Concomitantly the standard wave function in an unbounded geometry is interpreted as an epistemic wave function, which together with the ontic QPTI wave function gives rise to the notion of two-wave duality, replacing the standard concept of wave-particle duality. More generally, this approach to quantum physics in a bounded geometry provides a novel analytical basis for a better understanding of several conceptual notions of quantum mechanics, including reality, nonlocality, entanglement and Heisenberg’s uncertainty relation. The scope of this analysis may be seen as a foundational update of the multiple versions 1.x of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is sufficiently incremental so as to be appropriately characterized as Copenhagen 2.0.
Interpreting quantum mechanics is a hard problem basically because it means explaining why and how the mathematics exploited to formulate wave-particle duality are related to observations or reality in classical physics (due to Newtonian mechanics, special relativity, gravity and entropy). Here, we first prove the limitation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle by invoking the wave-particle duality and apply it to revise and/or extend the Copenhagen postulates. In particular, even though the said uncertainty exists due to non-commuting operators, but these operators do not commute simply because one of the operators is well-defined in classical physics (particle-like), while the other is wave-like (well-defined in quantum mechanics), or the eigenvalue is not at all defined in classical physics. We also construct a new quantum mechanical postulate (Postulate 9) to deduce why the forbidden gap between discrete energy levels should exist in atoms, molecules and condensed matter phases. In fact, we tackle all the problems arising from the Copenhagen interpretation without violating established experiments and without proposing ideas that violate physical reality.