The atomic world view is based on the notion that matter is built of elementary constituents called atoms, and quantum mechanics was created in the pursuit of this view with probabilistic events caused by atomic particles. This conception involves unresolved ambiguities linked to the notion of an elementary quantum of action. The resolution of these problems in quantum mechanics requires a new, geometric, world view, which recognizes the occurrence of events, clicks in counters, coming without a cause, referred to as fortuitous. The possibility of a rational theory of probabilities for such events is based on the assignment to the individual click of a proper value of an element of (flat) space–time symmetry. Thereby, the distributions of uncaused clicks can be endowed with a geometric content in terms of the irreducible representations of space–time symmetry. Through fortuity, space–time invariance itself thus acquires a hitherto unrecognized role. Departing from the norms of physical theory, the uncaused click is not a measurement of something, and the reality mirrored in the distributions is the geometry of space time itself, and not a property of an imagined object. The geometric world view involves only the dimensions of space and time, and the absence of an irreducible dimension of mass is seen as the result of the discovery of new physical phenomena. Accordingly Planck's constant has no place in fundamental theory and is seen as a relic of dimensions that have become superfluous.
The atomic world view is based on the notion that matter is built of elementary constituents called atoms, and quantum mechanics was created in the pursuit of this view with probabilistic events caused by atomic particles. This conception involves unresolved ambiguities linked to the notion of an elementary quantum of action. The resolution of these problems in quantum mechanics requires a new, geometric, world view, which recognizes the occurrence of events, clicks in counters, coming without a cause, referred to as fortuitous. The possibility of a rational theory of probabilities for such events is based on the assignment to the individual click of a proper value of an element of (flat) space–time symmetry. Thereby, the distributions of uncaused clicks can be endowed with a geometric content in terms of the irreducible representations of space–time symmetry. Through fortuity, space–time invariance itself thus acquires a hitherto unrecognized role. Departing from the norms of physical theory, the uncaused click is not a measurement of something, and the reality mirrored in the distributions is the geometry of space time itself, and not a property of an imagined object. The geometric world view involves only the dimensions of space and time, and the absence of an irreducible dimension of mass is seen as the result of the discovery of new physical phenomena. Accordingly Planck's constant has no place in fundamental theory and is seen as a relic of dimensions that have become superfluous.
Philosophy is dissolved into quantum philosophy, which is really not the philosophy created by the hitherto existing human thought but its dissociation into ‘constituent’ aspects/processes/conversions such as time, space, matter, energy, measure, etc. Quantum world is a world of constant transformations, which is the only constant, from the point of view of the worldview. The quantum world leads to a rearrangement of the subject/object relationship. The nature of the reality or of what is being observed is qualitatively different from the one in the tangible world. When one applies quantum theory to the electrodynamics of “elementary” particles such as electrons, protons, etc. internal inconsistencies arise in theory. These inconsistencies are connected with the prediction of infinite values for values for various physical properties e.g. mass and charge of the electron.
The theory is based on a new hypothesis on the nature of matter. This hypothesis is that the elementary particles, atoms, and molecules we have found in nature are not part of the real world, but constitute information about the real world. They are the wave components of a generalized Fourier analysis of our observations (which in the final analysis are always space-time distributions of photon- or particle-counter clicks). This Fourier analysis should be so general that every observation can be expressed in its terms; it thereby becomes axiomatic. Physicists of past generations, with their sound instincts, were intuitively approaching this most general and most powerful possible analysis of our observations. With the discovery of quantum mechanics, this development had advanced so far that the precise formulation of this ultimate analysis could be guessed. The model which can guide us to this mathematical formulation is that of an ideal optical observation on a physical object. This observation is made by illuminating the object with a finite number of laser beams of known amplitude and phase, and observing the amplitude and phase of the finite number of light beams emerging from the object space. The assumption that this is all the information we can ever obtain about the object leads to a wave function of the object which consists of light waves, extrapolated from the photon detectors back to the object space. It is suggested that these light waves should be presented as a product of amplitudes in a 4n-dimensional space, where n is the number of light quanta in the signal. Most important, force, or interaction, can then be described as a linear transformation in this space. The actual mathematical formalism proposed on the basis of that model is Xf=dtitdf. X is the Hamiltonian of the whole universe with ${n}_{0}\ensuremath{\cong}{10}^{80}$ particles. It is a $4{n}_{0}\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}4{n}_{0}$ linear matrix operator. f is a 4n0-component vector wave function representing waves traveling at the speed of light. The coordinates are the homogeneous coordinates (xj,yj,zj,uj) of the n0 particles in the closed universe. The eigenvalue $\ensuremath{\omega}$, in $Xf=\ensuremath{\omega}f$, is a $4{n}_{0}\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}4{n}_{0}$ Hermitian matrix. It can be divided into ${n}_{0}\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}{n}_{0}$, 4 \ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{} 4 submatrices, each representing a complete set of dynamic and inertial quantities of elementary particles, or interaction quanta between particles. $\frac{\mathrm{it}df}{\mathrm{dt}}=\ensuremath{\omega}f$ is therefore a complete expression of the dynamic conservation laws. A special orthogonal transformation ${\ensuremath{\alpha}}_{0}$ transforms the solution into a standard solution with eigenvalue ${\ensuremath{\omega}}_{0}$, representing n0 identical elementary particles. The assumption that the universe is of maximum probability then leads to simple explicit expressions for all matrix elements of ${\ensuremath{\omega}}_{0}$. This means that the energy levels of all n-particle systems (atoms or molecules) of the theory can be directly calculated. The equations demand relations between cosmological constants and atomic constants. In a universe of the size and mass of our observed universe, the elementary particle would have to be the size of the proton.
Taking into account the results that we have been obtained during the last decade in the foundations of quantum mechanic we put forward a view on reality that we call the 'creation discovery view'. In this view it is made explicit that a measurement is an act of a macroscopic physical entity on a microphysical entity that entails the creation of new elements of reality as well as the detection of existing elements of reality. Within this view most of the quantum mechanical paradoxes are due to structural shortcomings of the standard quantum theory, which means that our analysis agrees with the claim made in the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paper, namely that standards quantum mechanics is an incomplete theory. This incompleteness is however not due to the absence of hidden variables but to the impossibility for standard quantum mechanics to describe separated quantum entities. Nonlocality appears as a genuine property of nature in our view and makes it necessary to reconsider the role of space in reality. Our proposal for a new interpretation for space makes it possible to put forward an new hypothesis for why it has not been possible to unify quantum mechanics and relativity theory.
The general view is that all fundamental physical laws should be formulated within the framework given by quantum mechanics (QM). In a sense, QM therefore has the character of a metaphysical theory. Consequently, if it is possible to derive QM from more basic principles, these principles should be of general, philosophical nature. Here, we derive the formalism of QM from well-motivated epistemic principles. A key assumption is that a physical theory that relies on entities or distinctions that are unknowable in principle gives rise to wrong predictions. First, an epistemic formalism is developed, using concepts like knowledge and potential knowledge, identifying a physical state S with the potential knowledge of the physical world. It is demonstrated that QM emerges from this formalism. However, Hilbert spaces, wave functions and probabilities are defined in certain well-defined observational contexts only. This means that the epistemic formalism is broader than QM. In the fundamental layer of description, the physical state S is a subset of a state space S={Z}, such that S always contains many elements Z. These elements correspond to unattainable states of complete knowledge of the world. The evolution of S cannot be determined in terms of the individual evolution of the elements Z, unlike the evolution of an ensemble in classical phase space. The evolution of S is described in terms of sequential time n∈N, which is updated according to n→n+1 each time an event occurs, each time potential knowledge changes. Sequential time n can be separated from relational time t, which describes distances between events in space-time. There is an entire space-time associated with each n, in which t represents the knowledge at sequential time n about the temporal relations between present and past events.
In classical physics there is, in accordance with common sense, an objective world ‘out there’. That world evolves in a clear and deterministic way, being governed by precisely formulated mathematical equations. This is as true for the theories of Maxwell and Einstein as it is for the original Newtonian scheme. Physical reality is taken to exist independently of ourselves; and exactly how the classical world ‘is’ is not affected by how we might choose to look at it. Moreover, our bodies and our brains are themselves to be part of that world. They, also, are viewed as evolving according to the same precise and deterministic classical equations. All our actions are to be fixed by these equations - no matter how we might feel that our conscious wills may be influencing how we behave. Such a picture appears to lie at the background of most serious 1 philosophical arguments concerned with the nature of reality, of our conscious perceptions, and of our apparent free will. Some people might have an uncomfortable feeling that there should also be a role for quantum theory - that fundamental but disturbing scheme of things which, in the first quarter of this century, arose out of observations of subtle discrepancies between the actual behaviour of the world and the descriptions of classical physics. To many, the term ‘quantum theory’ evokes merely some vague concept of an ‘uncertainty principle’, which, at the level of particles, atoms or molecules, forbids precision in our descriptions and yields merely probabilistic behaviour. Actually, quantum descriptions are very precise, as we shall see, although radically different from the familiar classical ones. Moreover, we shall find, despite a common view to the contrary, that probabilities do not arise at the minute quantum level of particles, atoms, or molecules - those evolve deterministically - but, seemingly, via some mysterious larger-scale action connected with the emergence of a classical world that we can consciously perceive. We must try to understand this, and how quantum theory forces us to change our view of physical reality.
The concept of position and its measurement are fundamental to modern navigation technology as well as to theoretical physics. Nevertheless, a consistent notion of position has not been found in modern physics because of apparent inconsistencies between quantum mechanics and relativity. In quantum mechanics the probability distribution for a particle's position is determined by its wave function. A wave function strictly localized in space describes a particle within that locality, and nowhere else. But the quantum equations of motion predict the function will disperse, after any length of time at all, to occupy all space. Therefore the theoretical prediction is that, shortly after detection in a laboratory, a particle may be found anywhere in the universe, including regions requiring faster-than-light travel to reach. This contradicts the theory of relativity, which precludes a body traveling faster than the speed of light. The conflict arises from unexamined assumptions regarding the time of the measurement event and the time of the system under measurement. The prevailing view in physics is that time is only a parameter, having a definite value, describing dynamic changes in physical systems. This view endures even though quantum mechanics recognizes position as a quantum variable with inherent uncertainty, and relativity indicates that time should be placed on the same footing as position. But if time is recognized as a quantum variable with inherent uncertainty, the conceptual problems with position are resolved. The particle has finite probability of being in the past (or future) of the observer, while the quantum mechanical operator describing the position measurement contains a term which extrapolates from the intrinsic time of the particle to the time of the observer. Being potentially well in the past of the measurement event, the particle has time to travel to remote regions without exceeding the speed of light, and the conflict with relativity is resolved. A relativistic quantum theory can therefore be constructed incorporating a well-defined concept of position.