Arguments that quantum mechanics cannot be explained in terms of any classical theory using only classical logic seem to be based on sound mathematical considerations: there cannot be physical laws that require 'conspiracy'. It may therefore be surprising that there are several explicit quantum systems where these considerations apparently do not apply. In this report, several such counterexamples are shown. These are quantum models that do have a classical origin. The most curious of these models is superstring theory. So now the question is asked: how can such a model feature 'conspiracy', and how bad is that? Is there conspiracy in the vacuum fluctuations? Arguments concerning Bell's theorem are further sharpened.
Arguments that quantum mechanics cannot be explained in terms of any classical theory using only classical logic seem to be based on sound mathematical considerations: there cannot be physical laws that require 'conspiracy'. It may therefore be surprising that there are several explicit quantum systems where these considerations apparently do not apply. In this report, several such counterexamples are shown. These are quantum models that do have a classical origin. The most curious of these models is superstring theory. So now the question is asked: how can such a model feature 'conspiracy', and how bad is that? Is there conspiracy in the vacuum fluctuations? Arguments concerning Bell's theorem are further sharpened.
Nature's laws in the domain where relativistic effects, gravitational effects and quantum effects are all comparatively strong are far from understood. This domain is called the Planck scale. Conceivably, a theory can be constructed where the quantum nature of phenomena at such scales can be attributed to something fundamentally simpler. However, arguments that quantum mechanics cannot be explained in terms of any classical theory using only classical logic seem to be based on sound mathematical considerations: there can't be physical laws that require "conspiracy". It may therefore be surprising that there are several explicit quantum systems where these considerations apparently do not apply. In the lecture we will show several such counterexamples. These are quantum models that do have a classical origin. The most curious of these models is superstring theory. This theory is often portrayed as to underly the quantum field theory of the subatomic particles, including the "Standard Model". So now the question is asked: how can this model feature "conspiracy", and how bad is that? Is there conspiracy in the vacuum fluctuations?
Although the suspicion that quantum mechanics is emergent has been lingering for a long time, only now we begin to understand how a bridge between classical and quantum mechanics might be squared with Bell's inequalities and other conceptual obstacles. Here, it is shown how mappings can be formulated that relate quantum systems to classical systems. By generalizing these ideas, one gets quite general models in which quantum mechanics and classical mechanics can merge. It is helpful to have some good model examples such as string theory. It is suggested that notions such as 'super determinism' and 'conspiracy' should be looked at much more carefully than in the, by now, standard arguments.
It has long been recognized that a local hidden variable theory of quantum mechanics can in principle be constructed, provided one is willing to countenance pre-measurement correlations between the properties of measured systems and measuring devices. However, this ‘conspiratorial’ approach is typically dismissed out of hand. In this article I examine the justification for dismissing conspiracy theories of quantum mechanics. I consider the existing arguments against such theories, and find them to be less than conclusive. I suggest a more powerful argument against the leading strategy for constructing a conspiracy theory. Finally, I outline two alternative strategies for constructing conspiracy theories, both of which are immune to these arguments, but require one to either modify or reject the common cause principle. 1. Introduction 2. The incompleteness of quantum mechanics 3. Hidden variables 4. Hidden mechanism conspiracy theories 5. Existing arguments against hidden mechanisms 6. A new argument against hidden mechanisms 7. Backwards-causal conspiracy theories 8. Acausal conspiracy theories 9. Conclusion
In order to solve the problem of which is the real logic of Quantum Mechanics (QM), we suggest to study the mutual relationships between the physical theory (as a whole, that is both its experimental part and its theoretical part), its mathematics and its logic. That results to be a more general problem than what is considered by traditional studies on Quantum Logic (QL). These studies focus attention on the problem of the relationship between the experimental part of the physical theory and only its mathematics, from which logic is then derived. The new approach, that we suggest, generalises the interpretation that one of us (A. D.) successfully tested on the foundations of classical physical theories. The foundations of a theory are interpreted in terms of two options on the kind of mathematics, either classical one or constructive one, and the kind of logic, either classical logic or intuitionistic logic. It is remarkable that each theory making use of intuitionistic logic – i. e. L. Carnot’s classical mechanics, S. Carnot’s thermodynamics, Lobacevskij’s non-Euclidean geometry is organised in order to solve an universal problem (expressed by a double negated sentence), rather than in an entirely deductive way; hence, a non-classical logic does not belong exclusively to QM. From an historical and foundational analysis about QM, we conclude that in QM it is the law of double negation and not modular law (introduced by Birkhoff and von Neumann without giving physical evidence to it) which fails, i. e. which represents the true difference between Classical Logic (CL) and QL. We have looked for previous works on QL supporting our suggestion; in the past Destouches-Fevrier (1948), Fine (1974), Bell-Hallett (1981), Gauthier (1983), Adelman-Corbett (1995) already defended this thesis on the relevance of double negation law for QL. Under this light, QL results to have the same logic of a classical theory organised in a problematic manner. Hence, QM has to be referred to intuitionistic logic, in the same way every theory which is developed around a fundamental problem, expressed by a double negated sentence, does. In particular, by following the founder of intuitionism, Brouwer, we reject the identification of intuitionistic logic with an entirely deductive system; rather, the logical system of QL, as a theory, is organised in such a way to put a crucial problem to be solved. In agreement with this kind of organisation, among the several QM formulations we choose Heisenberg’s formulation, which was ignored by previous authors on QL. This formulation is aimed to solve the problem of quantum measurement, that originates the uncertainty methodological principle. Moreover, it is remarkable that it makes use of an operational mathematics (discrete matrices only). We interpret its characteristic arguing about its principal problem through double negated sentences; it results to be a moving from arguments belonging to non-classical logic expressed by a double negated sentence to the recognition of a suitable mathematics for QM formulation. In sum, QL shows how it is possible to state the relationship between QM and mathematics. This point has been almost ignored by the most traditional approaches to QL, which rather drew it from an a priori mathematics of QM (commonly, Hilbert space). As a verification of our approach, we show that even both Lobachevskij’s geometry and S. Carnot’s thermodynamics argued in order to achieve mathematical formulas expressing the content of the basic double negated sentences of respective theory. In the same way the recent book on QM by T. F. Jordan formalised his matrix mechanics. 1. Logic in classical physics and in Quantum Mechanics An historical analysis of Quantum Mechanics (QM) shows that there were at the origin of the theory two distinct formulations: Matrix Mechanics (Heisenberg, 1925) and Wave Mechanics (Schroedinger, 1926). Although Dirac subsumed these two formulations in a comprehensive mathematical framework (Hilbert space), we think that the organisation of the principles is different in Matrix Mechanics from that in Wave Mechanics, and this difference implies different logics. So we think that in order to characterise the logic of QM it is necessary to distinguish between this two formulations. In Matrix Mechanics, Heisenberg’s basic idea was to explain atomic spectra not in terms of atomic orbits (as Old Quantum Theory tried to make), but only by means of the study of experimental data; i. e., frequencies and intensities of light both emitted and absorbed by matter. Through a
When investigating theories at the tiniest conceivable scales in nature,
quantum logic is taking over from logic in the minds of almost
all researchers today. Dissatisfied, the author investigated how one can look
at things differently. This report is an overview of older material, but also
contains many new observations and calculations. Quantum mechanics is looked
upon as a tool, not as a theory. Examples are displayed of models that are
classical in essence, but can be analysed by the use of quantum techniques, and
we argue that even the Standard Model, together with gravitational
interactions, may be viewed as a quantum mechanical approach to analyse a
system that could be classical at its core. We then explain how these
apparently heretic thoughts can be reconciled with Bell's theorem and the usual
objections voiced against the notion of 'super determinism'. Our proposal would
eradicate the collapse problem and the measurement problem.
Familiar formulations of classical and quantum mechanics are shown to follow from a general theory of mechanics based on pure states with an intrinsic probability structure. This theory is developed to the stage where theorems from quantum logic enable expression of the state geometry in Hilbert space. Quantum and classical mechanics are then elaborated and applied to subsystems and the measurement process. Consideration is also given to space-time geometry and the constraints this places on the dynamics. Physics and Mathematics, it is argued, are growing apart; the inadequate treatment of approximations in general and localisation in quantum mechanics in particular are seen as contributing factors. In the description of systems, the link between localisation and lack of knowledge shows that quantum mechanics should reflect the domain of applicability. Restricting the class of states provides a means of achieving this goal. Localisation is then shown to have a mathematical expression in terms of compactness, which in turn is applied to yield a topological theory of bound and scattering states. Finally, the thesis questions the validity of classical limits and quantisations in intertheoretic reduction, and demonstrates that a widely accepted classical limit does not constitute a proof of reduction. It proposes a procedure for determining whether classical and quantum mechanics are weakly equivalent over a domain of applicability, and concludes that, in this restricted sense, classical mechanics reduces to quantum mechanics.