Many physicists limit oneself to an instrumentalist description of quantum phenomena and ignore the problems of foundation and interpretation of quantum mechanics. This instrumentalist approach results to "specialization barbarism" and mass delusion concerning the problem, how a quantum computer can be made. The idea of quantum computation can be described within the limits of quantum formalism. But in order to understand how this idea can be put into practice one should realize the question: "What could the quantum formalism describe?", in spite of the absence of an universally recognized answer. Only a realization of this question and the undecided problem of quantum foundations allows to see in which quantum systems the superposition and EPR correlation could be expected. Because of the "specialization barbarism" many authors are sure that Bell proved full impossibility of any hidden-variables interpretation. Therefore it is important to emphasize that in reality Bell has restricted to validity limits of the no-hidden-variables proof and has shown that two-state quantum system can be described by hidden variables. The later means that no experimental result obtained on two-state quantum system can prove the existence of superposition and violation of the realism. One should not assume before unambiguous experimental evidence that any two-state quantum system is quantum bit. No experimental evidence of superposition of macroscopically distinct quantum states and of a quantum bit on base of superconductor structure was obtained for the present. Moreover same experimental results can not be described in the limits of the quantum formalism.
Many physicists limit oneself to an instrumentalist description of quantum phenomena and ignore the problems of foundation and interpretation of quantum mechanics. This instrumentalist approach results to "specialization barbarism" and mass delusion concerning the problem, how a quantum computer can be made. The idea of quantum computation can be described within the limits of quantum formalism. But in order to understand how this idea can be put into practice one should realize the question: "What could the quantum formalism describe?", in spite of the absence of an universally recognized answer. Only a realization of this question and the undecided problem of quantum foundations allows to see in which quantum systems the superposition and EPR correlation could be expected. Because of the "specialization barbarism" many authors are sure that Bell proved full impossibility of any hidden-variables interpretation. Therefore it is important to emphasize that in reality Bell has restricted to validity limits of the no-hidden-variables proof and has shown that two-state quantum system can be described by hidden variables. The later means that no experimental result obtained on two-state quantum system can prove the existence of superposition and violation of the realism. One should not assume before unambiguous experimental evidence that any two-state quantum system is quantum bit. No experimental evidence of superposition of macroscopically distinct quantum states and of a quantum bit on base of superconductor structure was obtained for the present. Moreover same experimental results can not be described in the limits of the quantum formalism.
Many physicists limit oneself to an instrumentalist description of quantum phenomena and ignore the problems of foundation and interpretation of quantum mechanics. This instrumentalist approach results to "specialization barbarism" and mass delusion concerning the problem, how a quantum computer can be made. The idea of quantum computation can be described within the limits of quantum formalism. But in order to understand how this idea can be put into practice one should realize the question: "What could the quantum formalism describe?", in spite of the absence of an universally recognized answer. Only a realization of this question and the undecided problem of quantum foundations allows to see in which quantum systems the superposition and EPR correlation could be expected. Because of the "specialization barbarism" many authors are sure that Bell proved full impossibility of any hidden-variables interpretation. Therefore it is important to emphasize that in reality Bell has restricted to validity limits of the no- hidden-variables proof and has shown that two-state quantum system can be described by hidden variables. The later means that no experimental result obtained on two-state quantum system can prove the existence of superposition and violation of the realism. One should not assume before unambiguous experimental evidence that any two-state quantum system is quantum bit. No experimental evidence of superposition of macroscopically distinct quantum states and of a quantum bit on base of superconductor structure was obtained for the present. Moreover same experimental results can not be described in the limits of the quantum formalism.
Quantum mechanics is an immensely successful theory, occupying a unique position in the history of science. It has solved mysteries ranging from macroscopic superconductivity to the microscopic theory of elementary particles and has provided deep insights into the nature of vacuum on the one hand and the description of the nucleon on the other. Whole new fields such as quantum optics and quantum electronics owe their very existence to this body of knowledge. However, despite the stunning successes of quantum mechanics, there is no general agreement on the conceptual foundations and interpretation of the subject. The theory provides unambiguous information about the outcome of a measurement of a physical object. However, many feel that it does not provide a satisfactory answer to the nature of the “reality” we should attribute to the physical objects between the acts of measurement. The conceptual difficulty comes about because the wave function |ψ〉 is usually given by a coherent superposition of various distinguishable experimental outcomes. If we denote the collection of states that represent the possible outcomes of an experiment by |ψ j 〉, then |ψ〉 = ∑ j c j |ψ j 〉 where c j = 〈ψ j |ψ〉. The probability of the outcome |ψ j 〉 is P j =|c j | 2 . In the process of measurement, the so called collapse of the wave function takes place and a single, definite state |ψ i 〉 of the physical object is chosen. The difficulty comes about in the interpretation of the mechanism by which this definite state is chosen from amongst all the possible outcomes.
Quantum information, which studies the representation of information by quantum mechanical systems and the type of information processing this makes possible, is a relatively new field. Its roots, however, go back to early discussions of the interpretation of the quantum mechanical formalism. In 1935 Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen suggested that there were interpretational issues with quantum mechanics, having to do with local realism. Einstein was puzzled by an apparent lack of locality in quantum mechanical descriptions of reality, and suggested that quantum mechanics was not a complete theory. This stimulated a subsequent series of theoretical and experimental investigations. In particular, John Bell realized that Einstein's proposal for a ‘completion’ of quantum mechanics by the addition of more variables – called ‘hidden’ variables – was not consistent with quantum predictions, and could not be carried out. While these interpretational issues set the stage for what followed, the modern field of quantum information arose in the 1980s stimulated by the ever decreasing size of the elements in information processing circuits. It was realized that at some point a threshold would be crossed and the devices would start to exhibit quantum mechanical behavior. It was first determined that, if they did, it would not present a problem, and, in addition, it could even be advantageous. This led to the idea of a quantum computer that stores information in quantum states, or ‘qubits’, rather than as binary digits, or ‘bits’, in a standard digital computer. The field took off when, in 1994, Peter Shor found an efficient quantum algorithm for finding the prime factors of an integer.
The confidence of many authors in the possibility to use superconducting loop interrupted by Josephson junctions as a basis for quantum bit, flux qubit, presumes the assumption on superposition of two macroscopically distinct quantum states with macroscopically different angular momentum. The contradiction of this assumption with macroscopic realism and the conservation law must call the numerous publications about flux qubit in question. These publications uncover misunderstanding by many modern physicists of the essence of the superposition principle. The Einstein - Podolsky - Rosen (EPR) correlation or entanglement, introduced in 1935 by opponents of the Copenhagen interpretation in order to reveal the contradiction of this principle with realism, has provided a basis of the idea of quantum computation. The problem of the EPR correlation has emerged thanks to philosophical controversy between the creators of the quantum theory about the subject of its description. Therefore it is impossible to solve correctly the problem of quantum computer creation without the insight into the essence of this philosophical controversy. The total neglect of the philosophical problems of quantum foundation results to concrete mistakes, the example of which are the publications about flux qubit. In order to prevent such mistakes in the future the philosophical questions about the essence of superposition and entanglement and about the subject of quantum description are considered.
The usual interpretation of the quantum theory is self-consistent, but it involves an assumption that cannot be tested experimentally, viz., that the most complete possible specification of an individual system is in terms of a wave function that determines only probable results of actual measurement processes. The only way of investigating the truth of this assumption is by trying to find some other interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of at present "hidden" variables, which in principle determine the precise behavior of an individual system, but which are in practice averaged over in measurements of the types that can now be carried out. In this paper and in a subsequent paper, an interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of just such "hidden" variables is suggested. It is shown that as long as the mathematical theory retains its present general form, this suggested interpretation leads to precisely the same results for all physical processes as does the usual interpretation. Nevertheless, the suggested interpretation provides a broader conceptual framework than the usual interpretation, because it makes possible a precise and continuous description of all processes, even at the quantum level. This broader conceptual framework allows more general mathematical formulations of the theory than those allowed by the usual interpretation. Now, the usual mathematical formulation seems to lead to insoluble difficulties when it is extrapolated into the domain of distances of the order of ${10}^{\ensuremath{-}13}$ cm or less. It is therefore entirely possible that the interpretation suggested here may be needed for the resolution of these difficulties. In any case, the mere possibility of such an interpretation proves that it is not necessary for us to give up a precise, rational, and objective description of individual systems at a quantum level of accuracy.
Several decades of theory and experiment into EPR correlations have led to the widely held belief that reality is non-local, in spite of the fact that this violates special relativity. To date, no experiment has shown a violation of special relativity, and EPR experiments do not demonstrate the existence of superluminal information exchange, merely correlations which violate certain inequalities. Every “loophole” in these hidden variable theories has been thought plugged. However, there is much confusion in the literature due to conflation of the terms ‘locality”, “realism”, “hidden variables”, “non-contextuality”. The presence of local hidden variables is thought to necessarily lead to a Kolmogorov probability structure (hence non-contextuality), but this is an assumption, one which is not true in general once context effects are taken into account. Treated as an observational theory, several authors have shown no incompatibility between quantum mechanics and locality, and that the Bell scenario is actually about whether reality is contextual. This paper proposes a descriptive theory by assuming a generated reality (following Whitehead’s Process Theory) which can violate the principle of continuity and possess non-Kolmogorov probability structure, and reproduce the results of non-relativistic quantum mechanics, while allowing only causally local information exchange, without hidden variables. A generated reality is thus compatible with both quantum mechanics and special relativity, reproducing all of the results expected from quantum mechanics while still maintaining causally local realism. This process model thus appears to be an ideal candidate for developing theories for the unification of quantum mechanics and general relativity.