Recent investigations concerning foundations of quantum theory require new approaches to the problem of observation of physical events. V. Belavkin showed that standard quantum mechanics describes only the closed microworld in which there is no place for some macroscopically visible events. Though any quantum phenomenon is observable from the macroworld. That situation means non‐equivalence of Heisenberg’s representation to Schrodinger’s one in quantum mechanics. It would seem quantum theory is more general than classical mechanics. It is expressed, in particular, by well‐known Bohr’s principle of correspondence. I think the above‐mentioned Belavkin’s result puts under doubt the opinion concerning universal character of quantum theory. What ontological meaning has the concept of existence of physical event? Is distinction between observable event and non‐observable one anthropological, or not? In that context I discuss the new aspects of the observation problem in the physical theory. In my report I discuss philosophical arguments for the thesis that distinction between observable event and non‐observable one is ontological. In this connection I consider a number of objective ontological criteria of observability / non‐observability such as distinguishableness / indistinguishableness of physical states, symmetricalness and asymmetricalness of observation relations. The ontological sense of observation is analyzed in the context of relations between objects which are into spaces with different dimensions.
Recent investigations concerning foundations of quantum theory require new approaches to the problem of observation of physical events. V. Belavkin showed that standard quantum mechanics describes only the closed microworld in which there is no place for some macroscopically visible events. Though any quantum phenomenon is observable from the macroworld. That situation means non‐equivalence of Heisenberg’s representation to Schrodinger’s one in quantum mechanics. It would seem quantum theory is more general than classical mechanics. It is expressed, in particular, by well‐known Bohr’s principle of correspondence. I think the above‐mentioned Belavkin’s result puts under doubt the opinion concerning universal character of quantum theory. What ontological meaning has the concept of existence of physical event? Is distinction between observable event and non‐observable one anthropological, or not? In that context I discuss the new aspects of the observation problem in the physical theory. In my report I discuss philosophical arguments for the thesis that distinction between observable event and non‐observable one is ontological. In this connection I consider a number of objective ontological criteria of observability / non‐observability such as distinguishableness / indistinguishableness of physical states, symmetricalness and asymmetricalness of observation relations. The ontological sense of observation is analyzed in the context of relations between objects which are into spaces with different dimensions.
Several experiments have suggested that the complete indistinguishability of quantum systems is to be considered a real phenomenon. Experiments such as the HOM effect, the existence of BECs, the path identity cases, and many others are physical realities of today. Physicists `explain’ these phenomena using different models, such as Bohmian mechanics, relational quantum mechanics or the QBism approach. Most of these models are constructed within a standard mathematical framework, meaning standard mathematics, where all things can, even if only in principle, be distinguished from one another, so complete indistinguishability can only be mimicked. These approaches may work for physical purposes but are debatable regarding logical and metaphysical questions. If we accept that such questions are at least part of the philosophical aspect of quantum physics, then we are authorised to analyse them and try to offer an alternative. Looking for an alternative, we consider Alain Aspect’s and Anton Zeilinger’s views about quantum realism, opting for Aspect’s acceptance of some kind of reality behind the wave-function, while Zeilinger suggests that everything comes from information. In our opinion, the case is the opposite: it is information that comes from the existence of things. The aim of this paper is to justify why we think that the underlying reality (in Aspect’s sense) can be seen as a quantum ontology of non-individuals.
What is a physical object according to the theory of quantum mechanics? The first answer to be considered is that given by Bohr in terms of the concept of complementarity. This interpretation is illustrated by way of an example, the two slit experiment, which highlights some of the associated problems of ontology. One such problem is the so-called problem of measurement or observation. Various interpretations of measurement in Quantum Theory, including those of Heisenberg, von Neumann, Everett and Bohr, are compared and contrasted. A second problem concerns whether or not QT can be considered complete and therefore satisfactory as a basis for physics. Various attempts to complete QT by means of the addition of ‘hidden variables’ to the quantum mechanical state function are considered and their aims and achievements assessed. Finally, we investigate some of the characteristic ontological problems for the orthodox interpretation of Relativistic Quantum Theory.
This paper is concerned with the description of the process of measurement within the context of a quantum theory of the physical world. It is noted that quantum mechanics permits a quasi-classical description (classical in the limited sense implied by the correspondence principle of Bohr) of those macroscopic phenomena in terms of which the observer forms his perceptions. Thus, the process of measurement in quantum mechanics can be understood on the quasi-classical level by transcribing from the strictly classical observables of Newtonian physics to their quasi-classical counterparts the known rules for the measurement of the former. The remaining physical problem is the delineation of the circumstances in which the correlation of a peculiarly quantum mechanical observable A with a classically measurable observable B can result in a significant measurement of A. This is undertaken within the context of quantum theory. The resulting clarification of the process of measurement has important implications relative to the philosophic interpretation of quantum mechanics.
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}
We begin by discussing ``What exists?'', i.e. ontology, in Classical Physics which provided a description of physical phenomena at the macroscopic level. The microworld however necessitates a introduction of Quantum ideas for its understanding. It is almost certain that the world is quantum mechanical at both microscopic as well as at macroscopic level. The problem of ontology of a Quantum world is a difficult one. It also depends on which interpretation is used. We first discuss some interpretations in which Quantum Mechanics does not provide a complete framework but has to be supplemented by extra ingredients e.g. (i) Copenhagen group of interpretations associated with the names of Niels Bohr, Heisenberg, von-Neumann, and (ii) de-Broglie-Bohm interpretations. We then look at some interpretations in which Quantum mechanics is supposed to provide the entire framework such as (i) Everett-deWitt many world, (ii) quantum histories interpretations. We conclude with some remarks on the rigidity of the formalism of quantum mechanics, which is sharp contrast to it's ontological fluidity.
The concept of “objective reality” is addressed, and an ontological model is suggested, in which correlations of events in the configuration space of the wave function are considered invariant with respect to changes of observer. It is suggested that these statements make the best sense when considered from within a fifth-dimensional framework, extrapolated from the four dimensions of spacetime in a direct way. A pair of postulates is then suggested which strengthens two current models of quantum theory into a broader picture, giving a physical interpretation of Macroscopic Quantum Superposition (MQS) states. Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM) from Rovelli and Consistent Histories (“CH”) from Griffiths are discussed and related to the postulates. By dropping the assumption that unobserved macroscopic events are “in a definite state” determined independently of an observer, a surprising but consistent theory of quantum macroscopic reality is arrived at (with fewer fundamental assumptions about everyday reality) that does not contradict experiment or everyday experience. As a result, a concept herein termed “retroactive event determination” is extended from a quantum principle (in CH) to a macroscopic principle. Macroscopic events that have not been observed by a particular observer are free to be retroactively determined. The feasibility of applying the physics of quantum operators to macro systems is analyzed using the concept of “macro projectors.” Various concerns with this model are addressed, such as solipsism and decoherence of the wave function for macro objects. A discussion is also made of the philosophical context of the ideas suggested. Some experimental ideas are offered.Keywords: Macroscopic quantum superposition—MQS—consistent histories—relational quantum mechanics—time—spacetime—retrocausation—framework—single-framework rule—macro pointers—synchronicity—meaningful coincidence—positivism—observer effect—measurement problem—delayed choice experiment—retroactive event determination—existential behavior—Many-Worlds model