In this contribution I consider the consequences of using quantum me- chanics in nanoscale technology. I argue that this use leads to a problem that poses a two-sided challenge for interpretations of quantum mechanics. Firstly I present the problem: engineers typically ascribe technical functions to artifacts; function ascrip- tions imply particular physical descriptions of artifacts, and quantum mechanics sometimes fails to reproduce these descriptions. This problem may be solved by adopting an interpretation of quantum mechanics. An interpretation turns quantum mechanics into a theory that gives richer physical descriptions and that may repro- duce the physical descriptions implied by function ascriptions. It can be shown, however, that not all interpretations fulfill this promise. Secondly I argue that these results amount to a two-sided challenge. It challenges philosophers of physics to provide an interpretation that gives nano-engineers rich enough quantum-mechanical descriptions to ascribe functions to artifacts. And it challenges engineers to help phi- losophers of physics with selecting tenable interpretations. Philosophers of physics are in need of tests for judging the different existing interpretations, and nano- engineers can provide such tests by requiring that interpretations should reproduce the function ascriptions to the artifacts they design. A nanoscale technology example I consider is quantum teleportation.
In this contribution I consider the consequences of using quantum me- chanics in nanoscale technology. I argue that this use leads to a problem that poses a two-sided challenge for interpretations of quantum mechanics. Firstly I present the problem: engineers typically ascribe technical functions to artifacts; function ascrip- tions imply particular physical descriptions of artifacts, and quantum mechanics sometimes fails to reproduce these descriptions. This problem may be solved by adopting an interpretation of quantum mechanics. An interpretation turns quantum mechanics into a theory that gives richer physical descriptions and that may repro- duce the physical descriptions implied by function ascriptions. It can be shown, however, that not all interpretations fulfill this promise. Secondly I argue that these results amount to a two-sided challenge. It challenges philosophers of physics to provide an interpretation that gives nano-engineers rich enough quantum-mechanical descriptions to ascribe functions to artifacts. And it challenges engineers to help phi- losophers of physics with selecting tenable interpretations. Philosophers of physics are in need of tests for judging the different existing interpretations, and nano- engineers can provide such tests by requiring that interpretations should reproduce the function ascriptions to the artifacts they design. A nanoscale technology example I consider is quantum teleportation.
In this paper I consider the problem of interpreting quantum mechanics. I argue that this problem has evolved in part into the problem of selecting tenable interpretations from a set of available interpretations. We lack the means to make this selection. There is consensus that interpretations should be consistent and empirically adequate. But these conditions are not particularly discriminative. Other conditions may be discriminative but are not generally accepted. I propose two new conditions for selecting tenable interpretations, motivated by the use of quantum mechanics in technology. The first requires that interpretations ascribe the physical properties to technical artefacts that are entailed by the ascription of technical functions to those artefacts. The second requires that they ascribe the physical properties represented by engineering sketches of those artefacts. I consider the example of quantum teleportation in some detail. 1. Introduction 2. The problem of interpreting quantum mechanics 3. Technical functions 4. Decoders in quantum teleportation 5. Engineering sketches 6. Conclusions Appendix: Quantum teleportation
The epistemological interpretation of quantum mechanics is still in an unacceptable status. This becomes obvious if looking on the variety of interpretations currently under discussion. However, the physical community together with philosophers seem not to be willing to really face the problem and to find an explanation for the oddness of the foundation of nature, as the mathematical treatment of quantum physics can be judged as finished and perfect for the use. The epistemology of quantum physics is often treated as a negligible side effect, not worth to put effort in, as any outcome will not affect the calculation results at all. For the sake of human curiosity and to get a better understanding of the universe we are living in, this attitude should be changed. A possibly interesting new approach is outlined in this article, which may help to adjust the focus.
The main theme of this book is the idea that quantum mechanics is valid not only for microscopic objects but also for the macroscopic apparatus used for quantum mechanical measurements. The author demonstrates the intimate relations that exist between quantum mechanics and its interpretation which are induced by the quantum mechanical measurement process. Consequently, the book is concerned both with the philosophical, metatheoretical problems of interpretations and with the more formal problems of quantum object theory. The consequences of this approach turn out to be partly very promising and partly rather disappointing. On the one hand, it is possible to give a rigorous justification of some important parts of interpretation, such as probability, by means of object theory. On the other hand, the problem of the objectification of measurement results leads to inconsistencies which cannot be resolved in an obvious way. This open problem has far-reaching consequences for the possibility of recognising an objective reality in physics.
In this final part I analyse the modal interpretations from a more philosophical point of view. In Chapter 12 I start by arguing that modal interpretations describe noumenal states of affairs and that therefore metaphysically tenable interpretations need only to meet the criteria of Consistency and Internal Completeness. Then I analyse the relations between properties, states and outcomes of measurements in the modal description of reality. I end by discussing how modal interpretations, when restricted to the description of measurement outcomes, recover the standard formulation of quantum mechanics. Chapter 13 concerns the relations between the properties ascribed to composite systems and subsystems. I show that the property ascriptions of the bi and spectral modal interpretations can be characterised as holistic and non-reductionistic, whereas the property ascription of the atomic modal interpretation is non-holistic and to a large extent reductionistic. I argue that notwithstanding the lack of reductionism, the bi and spectral modal interpretations are empirically adequate and metaphysically tenable. I also discuss the possibility of saving the metaphysical tenability of the atomic modal interpretation by taking holistic properties as dispositional properties. In Chapter 14 I give a survey of the possibilities and impossibilities of modal interpretations and in Chapter 15 I end with general conclusions.
Quantum phenomena are typically observable at length and time scales smaller than those of our everyday experience, often involving individual particles or excitations. The past few decades have seen a revolution in the ability to structure matter at the nanoscale, and experiments at the single particle level have become commonplace. This has opened wide new avenues for exploring and harnessing quantum mechanical effects in condensed matter. These quantum phenomena, in turn, have the potential to revolutionize the way we communicate, compute and probe the nanoscale world. Here, we review developments in key areas of quantum research in light of the nanotechnologies that enable them, with a view to what the future holds. Materials and devices with nanoscale features are used for quantum metrology and sensing, as building blocks for quantum computing, and as sources and detectors for quantum communication. They enable explorations of quantum behaviour and unconventional states in nano- and opto-mechanical systems, low-dimensional systems, molecular devices, nano-plasmonics, quantum electrodynamics, scanning tunnelling microscopy, and more. This rapidly expanding intersection of nanotechnology and quantum science/technology is mutually beneficial to both fields, laying claim to some of the most exciting scientific leaps of the last decade, with more on the horizon.
The measurement problem in quantum mechanics has been a cause of much puzzlement over the years. The very idea of having two different versions of reality for the same system has been a cause for much debate. Often quantum mechanics textbooks follow the ‘shut up and calculate’ paradigm. This denies the opportunity for the common student to understand the consequence of one of the most elegant and beautiful aspects of science. The state of the art textbooks give a purely algebraic, perfunctory and monotonous approach where the real consequence of the system is not fully appreciated. A good reason for this is the considerable deviation of the quantum mechanical process from the commonsensical idea of truth, reality and reason. We tend to look at the world in a materialistic, deterministic, causal and objectivistic way. We tend not to accept a world of contradictions. A quantum measurement is essentially an amalgamation of contradictions, mystery and duality. It encompasses an implicit dependence on subjectivity and contradicts with causality as we know it. We look at the world as in the present. But a quantum mechanical measurement is a prediction of the future influenced by the observer or the measurer. This offers a philosophical and pedagogical conundrum. It poses a challenge on not just how our perception of the world might change in addition to providing a big challenge on how to make it compatible with the other successful theories of physics. The most common text book interpretation of quantum mechanics has been the Copenhagen Interpretation suggests the ‘collapse of the wave function’ as a mechanism of transition between duality. But a more bizarre yet elegant theory, extending quantum formalism to the classical domain, called the Many Worlds Interpretation has been catching up very quickly; it stands for the split of the universe when we make a quantum mechanical measurement. Consequently, reality as we is redefined as a universal wave function which is a superposition of several outcomes, which is incompatible with many of the successful concepts of physics and has several problems like the correct idea about probability or basis. We adapt the idea of the universal wave function, but instead suggest a continuum interpretation of quantum mechanics where the universal wave function represents the entire singular universe and the concept of atoms or electrons as conceptually a continuous part of it rather than a distinct separate entity. Such an interpretation could be compatible with other continuum theories like the Superfluid vacuum theory or the Higgs Field.