A philosophic account of quantum physics. The thesis is divided into two parts. Part I is dedicated to laying the groundwork of quantum physics, and explaining some of the primary difficulties. Subjects of interest will include the principle of locality, the quantum uncertainty principle, and Einstein's criterion for reality. Quantum dilemmas discussed include the double-slit experiment, observations of spin and polarization, EPR, and Bell's theorem. The first part will argue that mathematical-physical descriptions of the world fall short of explaining the experimental observations of quantum phenomenon. The problem, as will be argued, is framework of the physical descriptive schema. Part I includes in-depth discussions of mathematical principles. Part II will discuss the Copenhagen interpretation as put forth by its founders. The Copenhagen interpretation will be expressed as a paradox: The classical physical language cannot describe quantum phenomenon completely and with certainty, yet this language is the only possible method of articulating the physical world. The paradox of Copenhagen will segway into Kant's critique of metaphysics. Kant's understanding of causality, things-in-themselves, and a priori synthetic metaphysics. The thesis will end with a conclusion of the quantum paradox by juxtaposing anti-materialist Martin Heidegger with quantum founder Werner Heisenberg. Our conclusion will be primarily a discussion of how we understand the world, and specifically how our understanding of the world creates potential for truth.
A philosophic account of quantum physics. The thesis is divided into two parts. Part I is dedicated to laying the groundwork of quantum physics, and explaining some of the primary difficulties. Subjects of interest will include the principle of locality, the quantum uncertainty principle, and Einstein's criterion for reality. Quantum dilemmas discussed include the double-slit experiment, observations of spin and polarization, EPR, and Bell's theorem. The first part will argue that mathematical-physical descriptions of the world fall short of explaining the experimental observations of quantum phenomenon. The problem, as will be argued, is framework of the physical descriptive schema. Part I includes in-depth discussions of mathematical principles. Part II will discuss the Copenhagen interpretation as put forth by its founders. The Copenhagen interpretation will be expressed as a paradox: The classical physical language cannot describe quantum phenomenon completely and with certainty, yet this language is the only possible method of articulating the physical world. The paradox of Copenhagen will segway into Kant's critique of metaphysics. Kant's understanding of causality, things-in-themselves, and a priori synthetic metaphysics. The thesis will end with a conclusion of the quantum paradox by juxtaposing anti-materialist Martin Heidegger with quantum founder Werner Heisenberg. Our conclusion will be primarily a discussion of how we understand the world, and specifically how our understanding of the world creates potential for truth.
In this project I am going to explore how the boundaries of our reality are conditioned by metaphysical principles. I will argue, in the spirit of Immanuel Kant, that these metaphysical principles also ground our knowledge and description of the natural sciences, and more specifically, within quantum physics. My main objective is to study the framework of our cognition of knowledge along the lines of model-dependent reality. We will see why in the science of physics, a paradigm shift was needed to be able to expand and account for new knowledge, along with novel discoveries. This newer theory of knowledge and newer framework, being quantum theory, reflects that our objective knowledge must always contain an element of the subjective observer. This leads us to re-think what we understand to be ‘objective’ reality. The so-called human standpoint becomes one of the main themes in this thesis, then. When we ask ourselves, “Where does reality begin and where does it end? What are the limits to our reality?” – I shall argue that it both starts and ends with the transcendental subject, as this specific subject is what conditions our experience, and is found at the boundaries of our reality. Thus, in thesis I will ultimately argue for a different notion of objective knowledge because of what sets the boundaries of our reality.
THE conceptual problems raised by the discovery of quantum effects have not been fully resolved after half a century. Part of the reason for this is undoubtedly to be found in the mutual ignorance which prevails between physicists and philosophers. In his book Heisenberg brings together a philosophically inclined temperament with an unrivalled knowledge of physics. The result is a book of very great interest, however much one might disagree with his conclusions. The collection of essays of which the other book is made up is intended to bring crucial conceptual problems in physics especially to the notice of philosophers. The design and intention of the collection is admirable for this is the proper way to overcome the departmentalization of interest that has left the deep conceptual problems still unresolved. Men like Heisenberg who combine philosophical temperament with scientic knowledge of great distinction are rare, and yet the difficulties can only be cleared up by the application of philosophical techniques of analysis to problems which are an intimate and difficult part of physics. A great deal of the interest of Heisenberg's book lies in the very comprehensive account he gives of the origin and growth of the Copenhagen school, and the way the new phenomena forced a largely unwelcome picture of nature upon Bohr and his friends. The most important chapter from a philosophical point of view is that in which Heisenberg defends this interpretation against the attacks to which it has been subjected. The essence of his argument for the interpretation can be summed up in two propositions. (i) The Copenhagen interpretation of physical theory, which depends upon the acceptance of the so-called Principle of Complementarity, is an inevitable and final interpretation. The reason for this is that there are only two possible general models for understanding given physical phenomena; a particle model or a wave model. These are exhaustive and exclusive because the former depends upon discontinuous and the latter upon continuous (using substance here in the traditional philosophical sense). If we find, as we do, that the two fundamental constituents of the universe, matter and radiation, each exhibit two classes of phenomena, one explainable only on a particle model and one on a wave model, then we are compelled to adopt a complementarity hypothesis and give up the idea of finding a single and uniform model for the understanding of phenomena. There are only two kinds of models; they are mutually exclusive; both are required; hence we either despair before an insoluble problem or adopt the Copenhagen interpretation. (2) Any serious criticism of this interpretation must offer an alternative
This chapter completes the physical groundwork of the thesis by examining quantum mechanics, the second of the two theories that the following chapters interpret philosophically. Rather than offering an exhaustive mathematical treatment, it selects the concepts required to follow the two transversal principles identified in Chapter 3: causality and the principle of stationary action. It presents the emergence of the quantum of action, the formal structure of the theory (states, observables, Born’s rule, Schrödinger dynamics, superposition and entanglement), the double-slit experiment, the uncertainty principle, the measurement problem, and the sequence formed by the EPR argument, Bell’s theorem and its experimental tests. Using the three senses of causality distinguished in Chapter 3, the chapter shows that Heisenberg’s 1927 attempt to refute the law of causality did not succeed: unitary evolution preserves dynamical determination at the level of the quantum state, while the no-signalling condition and relativistic microcausality preserve causal precedence and causal propagation, even though Bell-local models fail. It then shows that action, present at the very birth of the theory as Planck’s quantum of action, governs quantum dynamics through Feynman’s path integral and Schwinger’s quantum action principle, and that the classical principle of stationary action re-emerges in the classical limit. The principal result, restricted to physics, is that causality and stationary action are transversal to classical, relativistic and quantum physics, although their mathematical formulation changes. Ontological conclusions are reserved for the following chapters.
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}
Nature of Reality has been subject of investigations since historical times both in science and religion. The physical interpretation of Reality has experienced a dynamic change from Aristotle to Einstein. Relativity theory and Quantum mechanics have led to formulations of new concepts regarding space, time, matter and reality. Uncertainty Principle by Heisenberg and the concept of dual nature of matter and radiation by Louis de Broglie gave a serious blow to the philosophy of determinism based on Newtonian Mechanics and Cartesian world view. The great debates between Einstein and Bohr at Solvay Conferences about the inadequacy of quantum mechanics to describe physical aspect of Reality are a part of history of science now. EPR paradox and Bell’s theorem have introduced the idea of connectedness and consciousness in Quantum Reality. Experience is the ultimate test of truth or Reality for the Indian philosopher. The Reality is trans-empirical, hence, it cannot be known through sense experience in the way in which empirical/scientific knowledge is gained. Reality is better understood or comprehended through intuitive experience for it transcends both the rational and the sensory aspects of human experience. Keywords: Reality, Newtonian World view, Copenhagen Interpretation, Uncertainty Principle, EPR Paradox, Metaphysics, Mysticism Cite this Article Hardev Singh Virk. Nature of Reality: Physical, Metaphysical and Mystical Aspects. Omniscience: A Multi-disciplinary Journal (OSMJ). 2015; 5(2): 10–15p.
This article surveys a selection of key conceptual and interpretational developments in quantum mechanics, tracing the theory from its foundational postulates to contemporary discussions of measurement, nonlocality, and the emergence of classicality. Beginning with the structure of Hilbert space and the postulates governing state evolution and measurement, the epistemic stance of the Copenhagen interpretation and its modern reformulations are examined. The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen argument, Bell's theorem, and Hardy's paradox are then discussed as probes of locality and realism, alongside the deterministic but explicitly nonlocal de Broglie-Bohm theory. The measurement problem and the implications of contextuality are analyzed in relation to objective collapse models, which introduce new physical dynamics to account for definite outcomes. Finally, the role of decoherence in the suppression of interference and the emergence of classical behavior is explored, together with the interpretational frameworks of many-worlds and consistent histories. This material aims to provide a coherent introductory overview of how several of the most prominent interpretations address the central concern of what quantum mechanics tells us about the nature of physical reality.