The problem of quantum measurement is considered in the framework of a naturalized and evolutionary epistemology. Consider two simple textbook observations: a) quantum measurement is an information processing method invented for the purpose of exploring domains of the external world which are not accessible otherwise b) quantum measurement interprets signals from the external world with the help of a computing algorithm invented specifically for this purpose. Replace the words “quantum measurement” and “invented” in a) and b) by “vision” and “evolved respectively”. Both sentences remain simple textbook observations; this time about vision and its biological evolution. Since both a) and b) are substantial statements whether they refer to vision or to quantum measurement the analogy between these processes suggests that quantum measurement may be viewed as a culturally evolved perceptual mode. This idea is explored further by comparing the developments of vision and of quantum measurement. The comparison reveals some interesting similarities between the two processes. One result of the comparison and of viewing quantum measurement as a perceptual mode is a realistic formulation of the Copenhagen interpretation which in turn permits a rational explanation of why, in quantum measurement, some observables exist in nature only when observed.
The problem of quantum measurement is considered in the framework of a naturalized and evolutionary epistemology. Consider two simple textbook observations: a) quantum measurement is an information processing method invented for the purpose of exploring domains of the external world which are not accessible otherwise b) quantum measurement interprets signals from the external world with the help of a computing algorithm invented specifically for this purpose. Replace the words “quantum measurement” and “invented” in a) and b) by “vision” and “evolved respectively”. Both sentences remain simple textbook observations; this time about vision and its biological evolution. Since both a) and b) are substantial statements whether they refer to vision or to quantum measurement the analogy between these processes suggests that quantum measurement may be viewed as a culturally evolved perceptual mode. This idea is explored further by comparing the developments of vision and of quantum measurement. The comparison reveals some interesting similarities between the two processes. One result of the comparison and of viewing quantum measurement as a perceptual mode is a realistic formulation of the Copenhagen interpretation which in turn permits a rational explanation of why, in quantum measurement, some observables exist in nature only when observed.
Quantum are objective probability measures. Because their dependence on a time is not time dependence of an evolving state, they are neither of Nature nor states of knowledge. There is no such thing as an evolving state. This disposes of problem posed by apparent existence of two modes of evolution. What essentially stands in way of a consistent ontological interpretation of quantum theory is our habit of projecting into quantum world detached, intrinsically differentiated spatiotemporal background of classical physics, for this is what entails existence of an evolving state. An objective probability measure is formal expression of an objective indefiniteness, such as positional indefiniteness that contributes to fluff out matter. An objective indefiniteness entails that values of certain observables are extrinsic (possessed because they are indicated) rather than intrinsic (indicated because they are possessed). This dependence on value-indicating facts is not a dependence on anything external to quantum world. The latter constitutes a free-standing reality that owes nothing to observers, information, or our interventions into the course of Nature.
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}
Quantum physicists have made many attempts to solve the quantum measurement problem, but no solution seems to have received widespread acceptance. The time has come for a new approach. In Sense Perception and Reality: A Theory of Perceptual Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and the Observer Dependent Universe and in a new paper The End of Realism I suggest the quantum measurement problem is caused by a failure to understand that each species has its own sensory world and that when we say the wave function collapses and brings a particle into existence we mean the particle is bought into existence in the human sensory world by the combined operation of the human sensory apparatus, particle detectors and the experimental set up. This is similar to the Copenhagen Interpretation suggested by Niels Bohr and others, but the understanding that the collapse of the wave function brings a particle into existence in the human sensory world removes the need for a dividing line between the quantum world and the macro world. The same rules can apply to both worlds and the ideas stated in this paper considerably strengthen the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Quantum "states" are objective probability measures. Because their dependence on a time is not the time dependence of an evolving state, they are neither states of Nature nor "states of knowledge." There is no such thing as an evolving state. This disposes of the problem posed by the apparent existence of two modes of evolution. What essentially stands in the way of a consistent ontological interpretation of the quantum theory is our habit of projecting into the quantum world the detached, intrinsically differentiated spatiotemporal background of classical physics, for this is what entails the existence of an evolving state. An objective probability measure is the formal expression of an objective indefiniteness, such as the positional indefiniteness that contributes to "fluff out" matter. An objective indefiniteness entails that the values of certain observables are extrinsic (possessed because they are indicated) rather than intrinsic (indicated because they are possessed). This dependence on value-indicating facts is not a dependence on anything external to the quantum world. The latter constitutes a free-standing reality that owes nothing to observers, "information," or our interventions into "the course of Nature."
In this paper, I attempt a personal account of my understanding of the measurement problem in quantum mechanics, which has been largely in the tradition of the Copenhagen interpretation.I assume that (i) the quantum state is a representation of knowledge of a (real or hypothetical) observer relative to her experimental capabilities; (ii) measurements have definite outcomes in the sense that only one outcome occurs; (iii) quantum theory is universal and the irreversibility of the measurement process is only "for all practical purposes".These assumptions are analyzed within quantum theory and their consistency is tested in Deutsch's version of the Wigner's friend gedanken experiment, where the friend reveals to Wigner whether she observes a definite outcome without revealing which outcome she observes.The view that holds the coexistence of the "facts of the world" common both for Wigner and his friend runs into the problem of the hidden variable program.The solution lies in understanding that "facts" can only exist relative to the observer.
This paper deals with the development of, and the current discussion about, the interpretation of quantum mechanics. The following topics are discussed: 1. The Copenhagen Interpretation, 2. Formal Problems of Quantum Mechanics, 3. Process of Measurement and the Equation of Motion, 4. Macroscopic Level of Description, 5. Search for Hidden Variables, 6. The Notion of “Reality” and Epistemology of Quantum Mechanics, 7. Quantum Mechanics and the Explanation of Life. The Bohr-Einstein dialogue on the validity of the quantum mechanical description of physical reality lasted over two decades. Since the early nineteen fifties, Wiper has provided much of the point and counterpoint of the continuing discussion on the interpretation and epistemology of quantum mechanics. We have explored Wiper's views in some detail against the background of historical development and current debate.