Ever since quantum mechanics was first developed, it has been unclear what it really tells us about reality. A novel framework, based on 5 axioms, is presented here which offers an interpretation of quantum mechanics unlike any considered thus far: It is postulated that physical objects can exist in one of two distinct modes, based on whether they have an intrinsic actual spacetime history or not. If they do, their mode of existence is actual and they can be described by classical physics. If they do not, then their mode of existence is called actualizable and they must be described in terms of an equal-weight superposition of all possible actualizable (not actual) histories. The distinction is based on an axiom according to which there exists a limit in which spacetime reduces to a one-dimension reduced version, called areatime, and that objects which merely actualizably exist in spacetime actually exist in areatime. The operational comparison of the passage of time for such objects to the passage of time for a spacetime observer is postulated to be made possible by what is called an angular dual bilateral symmetry. This symmetry can be decomposed into the superposition of two imaginary phase angles of opposite sign. To mathematically describe the spacetime manifestation of objects which actually exist in areatime, each actualizable spacetime history is associated with an
Ever since quantum mechanics was first developed, it has been unclear what it really tells us about reality. A novel framework, based on 5 axioms, is presented here which offers an interpretation of quantum mechanics unlike any considered thus far: It is postulated that physical objects can exist in one of two distinct modes, based on whether they have an intrinsic actual spacetime history or not. If they do, their mode of existence is actual and they can be described by classical physics. If they do not, then their mode of existence is called actualizable and they must be described in terms of an equal-weight superposition of all possible actualizable (not actual) histories. The distinction is based on an axiom according to which there exists a limit in which spacetime reduces to a one-dimension reduced version, called areatime, and that objects which merely actualizably exist in spacetime actually exist in areatime. The operational comparison of the passage of time for such objects to the passage of time for a spacetime observer is postulated to be made possible by what is called an angular dual bilateral symmetry. This symmetry can be decomposed into the superposition of two imaginary phase angles of opposite sign. To mathematically describe the spacetime manifestation of objects which actually exist in areatime, each actualizable spacetime history is associated with an
Ever since quantum mechanics was first developed, it has been unclear what it really tells us about reality. A novel framework, based on 5 axioms, is presented here which offers an interpretation of quantum mechanics unlike any considered thus far: It is postulated that physical objects can exist in one of two distinct modes, based on whether they have an intrinsic actual spacetime history or not. If they do, their mode of existence is actual and they can be described by classical physics. If they do not, then their mode of existence is called actualizable and they must be described in terms of an equal-weight superposition of all possible actualizable (not actual) histories. The distinction is based on an axiom according to which there exists a limit in which spacetime reduces to a one-dimension reduced version, called areatime, and that objects which merely actualizably exist in spacetime actually exist in areatime. The operational comparison of the passage of time for such objects to the passage of time for a spacetime observer is postulated to be made possible by what is called an angular dual bilateral symmetry. This symmetry can be decomposed into the superposition of two imaginary phase angles of opposite sign. To mathematically describe the spacetime manifestation of objects which actually exist in areatime, each actualizable spacetime history is associated with an actualizable path, which in turn is associated with the imaginary phases. For a single free particle, the complex exponent is identified with a term proportional to its relativistic action, thus recovering the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics. Although based on some highly unfamiliar ideas, this framework appears to render at least some of the usual mysteries connected with quantum mechanics amenable to simple conceptual understanding. It also appears to connect the foundations of quantum theory to the foundation of the special theory of relativity while clarifying its relationship to the general theory of relativity and yields a testable prediction about a type of experiment, as yet unperformed, which under the current paradigm is utterly unexpected, namely, that the gravitational field of radiation is zero. The paper concludes with some speculations about how the theory may be extended to a metatheory of nature.(Note the paper was edited on 3-October-2011 to remove one sentence on page 7)
This article presents a novel interpretation of quantum mechanics. It extends the meaning of “measurement” to include all property-indicating facts. Intrinsically, space is undifferentiated: There are no points on which a world of locally instantiated physical properties could be built. Instead, reality is built on facts, in the sense that the properties of things are extrinsic, or supervenient on property-indicating facts. The actual extent to which the world is spatially and temporally differentiated (that is, the extent to which spatiotemporal relations and distinctions are warranted by the facts) is necessarily limited. Notwithstanding that the state vector does nothing but assign probabilities, quantum mechanics affords a complete understanding of the actual world. If there is anything that is incomplete, it is the actual world, but its incompleteness exists only in relation to a conceptual framework that is more detailed than the actual world. Two deep-seated misconceptions are responsible for the interpretational difficulties associated with quantum mechanics: the notion that the spatial and temporal aspects of the world are adequately represented by sets with the cardinality of the real numbers, and the notion of an instantaneous state that evolves in time. The latter is an unwarranted (in fact, incoherent) projection of our apparent “motion in time” into the world of physics. Equally unwarranted, at bottom, is the use of causal concepts. There nevertheless exists a “classical” domain in which language suggestive of nomological necessity may be used. Quantum mechanics not only is strictly consistent with the existence of this domain but also presupposes it in several ways.
A type of mechanics will be presented that possesses some distinctive properties. On the one hand, its physical description & rules of operation are readily comprehensible & intuitively clear. On the other, it fully satisfies all observable predictions of non-relativistic quantum mechanics. Within it, particles exist at points in space, follow continuous, piecewise differentiable paths, and their linear momentum is equal to their mass times their velocity along their path. Yet the probabilities for position and momentum, conditioned on the state of the particle's environment, follow the rules of quantum theory. Indeed, all observable consequences of quantum theory are satisfied; particles can be entangled, have intrinsic spin, this spin is not local to the particle, particle identity can effect probabilities, and so forth. All the rules of quantum mechanics are obeyed, and all arise in a straightforward fashion. After this is established, connections will be drawn out between this type of mechanics and other types of quantum worlds; those that obey Bohmian mechanics, stochastic mechanics, the many worlds interpretation, and physical collapse. In the final section, a relativistic version of the mechanics will be presented.
Quantum mechanics is usually defined in terms of some loosely connected axioms and rules. Such a foundation is far from the beauty of, e.g., the `principles' underlying classical mechanics. Motivated, in addition, by notorious interpretation problems, there have been numerous attempts to modify or `complete' quantum mechanics. A first attempt was based on so-called hidden variables; its proponents essentially tried to expel the non-classical nature of quantum mechanics. More recent proposals intend to complete quantum mechanics not within mechanics proper but on a `higher (synthetic) level'; by means of a combination with gravitation theory (R Penrose), with quantum information theory (C M Caves, C A Fuchs) or with psychology and brain science (H P Stapp). I think it is fair to say that in each case the combination is with a subject that, per se , suffers from a very limited understanding that is even more severe than that of quantum mechanics. This was acceptable, though, if it could convincingly be argued that scientific progress desperately needs to join forces. Quantum mechanics of a closed system was a beautiful and well understood theory with its respective state being presented as a point on a deterministic trajectory in Liouville space---not unlike the motion of a classical N -particle system in its 6N -dimensional phase-space. Unfortunately, we need an inside and an outside view, we need an external reference frame, we need an observer. This unavoidable partition is the origin of most of the troubles we have with quantum mechanics. A pragmatic solution is introduced in the form of so-called measurement postulates: one of the various incompatible properties of the system under consideration is supposed to be realized (i.e. to become a fact, to be defined without fundamental dispersion) based on `instantaneous' projections within some externally selected measurement basis. As a result, the theory becomes essentially statistical rather than deterministic; furthermore there is an asymmetry between the observed and the observing. This is the point where consciousness may come in. Complemented by an introduction and several appendices, Henry Stapp's book consists essentially of three parts: theory, implications, and new developments. The theory part gives a very readable account of the Copenhagen interpretation, some aspects of a psychophysical theory, and, eventually, hints towards a quantum foundation of the brain--mind connection. The next part, `implications', summarizes some previous attempts to bridge the gap between the working rules of quantum mechanics and their possible consequences for our understanding of this world (Pauli, Everett, Bohm, Heisenberg). The last section, `new developments', dwells on some ideas about the conscious brain and its possible foundation on quantum mechanics. The book is an interesting and, in part, fascinating contribution to a field that continues to be a companion to `practical' quantum mechanics since its very beginning. It is doubtful whether such types of `quantum ontologies' will ever become (empirically) testable; right now one can hardly expect more than to be offered some consistent `grand picture', which the reader may find more or less acceptable or even rewarding. Many practicing quantum physicists, though, will remain unimpressed. The shift from synthetic ontology to analytic ontology is the foundation of the present work. This means that fundamental wholes are being partitioned into their ontologically subordinate components by means of `events'. The actual event, in turn, is an abrupt change in the Heisenberg state describing the quantum universe. The new state then defines the tendencies associated with the next actual event. To avoid infinite regression in terms of going from one state of tendencies to the next, consciousness is there to give these events a special `feel', to provide a status of `intrinsic actuality'. The brain of an alert human observer is similar in an important way to a quantum detection device: it can amplify small signals to large macroscopic effects. On the other hand, actual events are not postulated to occur exclusively in brains. They are more generally associated with the formation of records. Records are necessarily part of the total state of the universe: it is obvious that the state of the universe cannot undergo a Schrödinger dynamics and at the same time record its own history. `The full universe consists therefore of an exceedingly thin veneer of relatively sluggish, directly observable properties resting on a vast ocean or rapidly fluctuating unobservable ones.' The present ideas also bear on how the world should be seen to develop. While conventional cosmology encounters problems as to how to define the intial conditions, which would enter the governing equations of motion, here `the boundary conditions are set not at some initial time, but gradually by a sequence of acts that imposes a sequence of constraints. After any sequence of acts there remains a collection of possible worlds, some of which will be eliminated by the next act.' Connected with those acts is `meaning': there has always been some speculation about the special significance of local properties in our understanding of the world. One could argue that correlations (even the quantum correlations found, e.g., in the EPR-experiments) were as real as anything else. But also Stapp stresses the special role of locality: the `local observable properties, or properties similar to them are the natural, and perhaps exclusive, carriers of meaning in the quantum universe. From this point of view the quantum universe tends to create meaning.' This sounds like an absolute concept: meaning not with respect to something else, but defined intrinsically---not easy to digest. The role of consciousness in the developing quantum universe requires more attention. `The causal irrelevance of our thoughts within classical physics constitutes a serious deficiency of that theory, construed as a description of reality.' This is taken to be entirely different within quantum mechanics. `The core idea of quantum mechanics is to describe our activities as knowledge-seeking and knowledge-using agents.' `21st century science does not reduce human beings to mechanical automata. Rather it elevates human beings to agents whose free choices can, according to the known laws, actually influence their behaviour.' An example with respect to perception is discussed: `Why, when we look at a triangle, do we experience three lines joined at three points and not some pattern of neuron firings?' The brain `does not convert an actual whole triangle into some jumbled set of particle motions; rather it converts a concatenation of separate external events into the actualization of some single integrated pattern of neural activity that is congruent to the perceived whole triangle.' How convincing is this proposal? It is hard to tell. I think Henry Stapp did a good job, but there are tight limitations to any such endeavour. Quantum mechanics is often strange indeed, but it also gives rise to our classical world around us. For the emergence of classicality jumps and measurement projections (the basic phenomena connected with those fundamental events of choice) are not needed. Therefore, I doubt whether the explanation of the evolution of our world really allows (or requires) that much free choice. On the other hand, most scientist will agree that empirical science was not possible without free will: we could not ask independent questions if this asking was part of a deterministic trajectory. The fact that the result of a quantum measurement is indeterminate (within given probabilities) does certainly not explain free will. How about the type of measurment? The experimentalist will have to assume that he can select the pertinent observable within some limits. But given a certain design the so-called pointer basis (producing stable measurement results) is no longer a matter of free choice. `The main theme of classical physics is that we live in a clocklike universe.' Today it is often assumed that the universe was a big (quantum-) computer or a cellular automaton. Many would be all too happy to leave that rather restrictive picture behind. But where to go? Stapp suggests giving consciousness a prominent role: `The most profound alteration of the fundamental principles was to bring consciousness of human beings into the basic structure of the physical theory.' How far we are able to go in this direction will depend on the amount of concrete research results becoming available to support this view.
The quantum superposition principle, which expresses the idea that a system can exist simultaneously in two or more mutually exclusive states is at the heart of the mystery of quantum mechanics. This paper presents an axiom, called the principle of actualizable histories, which naturally leads to the quantum superposition principle. However, in order to be applicable to massive systems, it requires introducing a novel distinction between actualizable and actual mass. By means of arriving in conjunction with two previously introduced axioms at the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics, it is shown that actualizable mass is the central concept of mass in quantum theory, whereas actual mass is the central concept in classical theories, and in particular general relativity. This distinction sharply segregates the domains of validity of the two theories, making it incompatible with any theory of quantum gravity which does not respect this segregation. Finally, an experiment is suggested to test this idea.
After a providing a review of the EPR paradox which draws a distinction between what is here called the locality and the in uence paradoxes, this paper presents a qualitative overview of a framework recently introduced by this author in which spacetime is assumed to emerge from areatime. Two key assumptions from this framework allow one to make the notion of quantum e ects originating from `outside' spacetime intelligible. In particular, this framework assumes that until a quantum object is measured, it does not actually exist in spacetime and that there are connections between quantum particles in areatime which are independent of metric relations in spacetime. These assumptions are then shown to permit one to conceptually understand both the locality and the in uence paradoxes, and lead to the overall conclusion that spacetime is emergent in the sense that a very large number of discrete events which correspond to `measurements' in quantum mechanics aggregate to give rise on a large scale to the apparently smooth reality we experience in our daily lives.