Knowing the mutual interconnection of everything with everything, it is no problem to interpret the interactions between the measuring and quantum systems as any other interactions between two or more systems consisting of elementary quantum dipoles. So, all relations between the measuring apparatus and measured quantum objects are only parts of the universal cosmic network of elementary quantum interactions creating the objective physical reality, independent of a human consciousness. But the observer, as a conscious subject, plays an active and creative role in his communication with the micro-world.
Knowing the mutual interconnection of everything with everything, it is no problem to interpret the interactions between the measuring and quantum systems as any other interactions between two or more systems consisting of elementary quantum dipoles. So, all relations between the measuring apparatus and measured quantum objects are only parts of the universal cosmic network of elementary quantum interactions creating the objective physical reality, independent of a human consciousness. But the observer, as a conscious subject, plays an active and creative role in his communication with the micro-world.
The quantum measurement problems are discussed from a new perspective.
One of the main ideas of this work is that the basic entities of our world are various types of particles, elementary or composite. It follows that each elementary process, hence each measurement process at its core, is a spacetime, pointlike, event. Another key idea is that, when a microsystem ψ gets into contact with the experimental device, factorization of ψ rapidly fails and entangled mixed states appear. The wave functions for the microsystem-apparatus coupled systems for different measurement outcomes then lack overlapping spacetime support. It means that the aftermath of each measurement is a single term in the sum: a ``wave-function collapse.
Our discussion leading to a diagonal density matrix, ρ=diag(∣c1∣2,…,∣cn∣2,…) shows how the information encoded in the wave function ∣ψ⟩=∑ncn∣n⟩ gets transcribed, via entanglement with the experimental device and environment, into the relative frequencies Pn=∣cn∣2 for various experimental results F=fn.
These results represent the first, significant steps towards filling in the logical gaps in the standard interpretation based on Born's rule, and replacing it with a more natural one. Accepting objective reality of quantum fluctuations, independent of any experiments, and independently of human presence, one renounces the idea that in a fundamental, complete theory of Nature the result of each single experiment must necessarily be predictable.
A few well-known puzzles such as the Schr\odinger cat conundrum and the EPR paradox are briefly reviewed: they can all be naturally explained away.
Abstract The so-called quantum measurement problems are solved from a new perspective. One of the main observations is that the basic entities of our world are particles, elementary or composite. It follows that each elementary process, hence each measurement process at its core, is a spacetime, pointlike, event. Another key idea is that, when a microsystem ψ gets into contact with the experimental device, factorization of ψ rapidly fails and entangled mixed states appear. The wave functions for the microsystem-apparatus coupled system for different measurement outcomes then lack overlapping spacetime support. It means that the aftermath of each measurement is a single term in the sum: a “wave-function collapse”. Our discussion leading to a diagonal density matrix, ρ = diag(|c 1|2,…,|cn |2,…) shows how the information encoded in the wave function <?CDATA $|\psi \rangle =\displaystyle {\sum }_{n}{c}_{n}|n\rangle $?> | ψ 〉 = ∑ n c n | n 〉 gets transcribed, via entanglement with the experimental device and environment, into the relative frequencies Pn = |cn |2 for various experimental outcomes F = fn . Our discussion represents the first, significant steps towards filling in the logical gaps in the conventional interpretation based on Born’s rule, replacing it with a clearer understanding of quantum mechanics. Accepting objective reality of quantum fluctuations, independent of any experiments, and independently of human presence, one renounces the idea that in a fundamental, complete theory of Nature the result of each single experiment must necessarily be predictable.
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. – Max Planck, 1936 The only way quantum theory allows us to interact with quantum systems is via quantum processes. Thus, the only way we can extract information about the state of a quantum system is to apply some non-deterministic process and observe which of the branches happened. For that reason, many people refer to the act of applying certain quantum processes as measurement and sometimes even as observation . A consequence of this unfortunate terminology is that one of the most touted ‘strange’ features of quantum theory is often misleadingly described as follows: ‘The mere act of observing a quantum state changes it.’ ‘Misleading’, since the concept of measurement described in the previous paragraph is far from the passive concept of observation familiar from our macroscopic world, but is rather a non-trivial process that will almost always drastically affect the quantum state. So, the mysterious aspect of quantum theory is not that ‘observation’ alters the quantum state but, rather, that it is impossible, even in principle, to ‘observe’ a quantum system in the classical sense. Given this fundamental restriction on how we can extract information from a quantum system, what can we learn about that system by means of a quantum process? The answer is, in fact, very little! First, performing a particular measurement could, for the vast majority of quantum states, yield any outcome i with a non-zero probability. In that case, obtaining an outcome i doesn't tell us much about what the state of the system was. Second, we say ‘was’, because the measurement will moreover irreversibly change the state according to the outcome. So rather than revealing the state of a system, a quantum measurement typically erases that state from history! Nonetheless, these quantum measurements are crucial to quantum theory since they constitute the only interface between us, in our classical world, and the quantum world. The great insight of the quantum computing community is that the non-deterministic changes induced by these quantum measurements are not a nuisance, but rather an extremely useful resource.
Humans are limited in what they know by the technical limitation of their cortical language network. A reality is a situation model. The universe is a collection of self-driven mathematical entities. If we are happy to accept randomness, it’s obviously possible that all other so-called “worlds” in the many-worlds interpretation don’t exist objectively. The so-called “physical interaction” (aka objective interaction) among any number of elementary particles is consistent with the so-called “physical law”. From the viewpoint of an imagined external observer (who is located somewhere outside of all worlds), in all worlds, every self-driven elementary particle is changing its state to match its fated state, together form a single fated self-driven state machine; the so-called “subjective reality” (aka the so-called “subjective conscious experience”) is actually the use of a mathematical model (MM) by a Turing machine (TM). The so-called “subjective reality” shouldn’t be able to alter/impact the fated world line of any elementary particle within this world. Except one objective MM which is a fitted MM of the objective reality, every other causality is not an objective MM but a Granger causality, and is an under-fitted MM of the objective reality.
In order to describe my findings/conclusions systematically, a new semantic system (i.e., a new language) has to be intentionally defined by the present article. Humans are limited in what they know by the technical limitation of their cortical language network. The conventionally-called “physical/objective reality” around my conventionally-called “physical/objective body” is actually a geometric mathematical model (being generated/mathematically-modeled by my brain) – it's actually a subset/component/part/element of my brain’s mind/consciousness. A reality is a situation model (SM). Our universe is an autonomous objective parallel computing automaton (aka state machine) which evolves by itself automatically/unintentionally – wave-particle duality and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle can be explained under this SM of my brain. Each elementary particle (as a building block of our universe) is an autonomous mathematical entity itself (i.e., a thing in itself). Our universe has the same nature as a Game of Life system – both are autonomous objective parallel-computing automata. If we are happy to accept randomness, then it is obviously possible that all other worlds in the many-worlds interpretation do not exist objectively. The conventionally-called “space” does not exist objectively. “Time” and “matter” are not physical. Consciousness is the subjective-form (aka quale) of the mathematical models (of the objective universe) which are intracorporeally/subjectively used by the control logic of a Turing machine’s program directly-fatedly. A Turing machine’s consciousness or deliberate decisions/choices should not be able to actually/objectively change/control/drive the (autonomous or directly-fated) worldline of any elementary particle within this world. Besides the Schrodinger equation (or another mathematical equation/function which is yet to be discovered) which is a valid/correct/factual causality of our universe, every other causality (of our universe) is either invalid/incorrect/counterfactual or can be proved by deductive inference based on the Schrodinger equation (or the aforementioned yet-to-be-discovered mathematical equation/function) only. Consciousness plays no causal role (“epiphenomenalism”), or in other words, any cognitive/behavioural activity can in principle be carried out without consciousness (“conscious inessentialism”). If the “loop quantum gravity” theory is correct, then time/space does not actually/objectively exist in the objective-evolution of the objective universe, or in other words, we should not use the subjective/mental concept of “time”, “state” or “space” to describe/imagine the objective-evolution of our universe.