A new interpretation to quantum theory

Stephen Bruce Sontz

John R. Carlson

We propose a new interpretation of quantum mechanics to address challenges of the Copenhagen Interpretation and to explain observations from certain double-slit experiments. We explore some characteristics of quantum mechanics and analyze a quantum mechanical model which leads us to the assumptions for our new interpretation. We show how quantized waves, like those in Schrodinger’s wave equation, might exist in nature and explain the fundamentals of quantum-scale processes including: the above-mentioned double-slit experiments, wave function collapse, quantum entanglement and quantum tunneling. We classify our interpretation based on commonly used criteria. Finally, we consider some future theoretical points and list some experimental questions. Our new interpretation has the potential to facilitate new theory and experiments leading to a better understanding of fundamental processes in nature and possibly new applications for quantum theory. Page 18 is updated and there is a new suggestion about entanglement on page 20.

Benjamin Liebowitz

Frederico Rodrigues Pfrimer

What is the nature of reality? How should be an answer to this question? At this level, we are so deep that all our concepts are obscure. Quantum theory (QT) is at this level. The quest for interpreting it fails because the clarity of our actual fundamental concepts in ordinary language cannot match the precision of the theory's mathematical formalism. The interpretation of quantum mechanics should define and bring clarity to fundamental concepts; not simply rely over them. Quantum theory requires a new worldview, the one that will make it understandable. We discuss on the formulation and interpretation of closed, and final theories, in other words, completely axiomatic theories that define their own conceptual framework, and closed theories that cannot be made simpler. We claim that everything we can properly say about a theory follows from its interpretation, and that interpreting is saying the meaning of each of its mathematical statements. We argue that quantum mechanics is a closed theory; and, therefore, that part of it is part of the final or fundamental theory of physics (FTP). We propose a new entirely axiomatic formulation of part of quantum theory (including all its mathematical framework) in which new powerful and useful elements are added to the existing formalism. Our interpretation is straightforward: it allows us reading or saying the meaning of each of the theory's axiom, theorem or element. We state that the proposed theory is the FTP. Its interpretation may dissolve most of the existing paradoxes around QT. The principle of excluded middle is not valid in general. Both epistemic and ontic elements are present in the theory since it is a theory of knowledge and truth. This and other fundamental concepts are defined by the theory, which can represent both reality and our knowledge about it. Aesthetics is one of its key features.

Roland L. Omnes

Peter Gibbins

Of all the many rival interpretations of quantum mechanics, none is more important or influential than the Copenhagen interpretation. Unfortunately, there is no one Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. If one uses the expression, and everyone does, one should not think of the Copenhagen interpretation as a single consistent interpretation of the theory. Philosophers of physics tend to use the expression ‘the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics’ as a label covering a variety of different interpretations all of which either originate with Niels Bohr or were invented by him, his colleagues and guests at the Institute for Theoretical Physics in Copenhagen beginning in the middle 1920s. Perhaps one should say that the Copenhagen interpretation in this diffuse sense goes back farther than this, back even before the rise of the new quantum mechanics. Heisenberg tells the story of a boat trip he, Bohr, and some friends took from Copenhagen to the island of Fyn around the time when the then new quantum mechanics was being developed. Bohr, ‘full of the new interpretation of quantum theory’, talked of ‘the difficulties of language, of the limitations of all our means of expressing ourselves’ and of how these limitations had been expressed ‘in the foundation of atomic theory in a mathematically lucid way’. ‘Finally,’ Heisenberg ends the story, ‘one of the friends remarked drily, “But, Niels, this is not really new, you said exactly the same ten years ago”