This Anti-Copenhagen interpretation [compare with N. R. Hanson, Am. J. Phys. 27, 1 (1959)] submits that the doctrine of an inherent double nature of matter (and of light) is a most uneconomical hypothesis which would never have been proposed (except for heuristic purposes) had it not been for an oversight of the mechanical particle theory of diffraction by Duane (1923), later incorporated into the quantum mechanics of 1926 in Born's unitary statistical interpretation of wavelike phenomena. Bohr's indeterminacy view comes from a verbal translation of a legitimate wave feature; it is contrasted to the uncertainty of prediction of exact results. The latter is supported by the experiment, the former is not, so that various “epistemological lessons” drawn from Bohr's view stand on brittle ground, which can hardly be reinforced by pointing to the transformation from the first to the second quantization, i.e., from one to another form of a complete and unitary theory. The simple quantum rules of the particle theory (first quantization) can be reduced to general postulates of symmetry and invariance.
This Anti-Copenhagen interpretation [compare with N. R. Hanson, Am. J. Phys. 27, 1 (1959)] submits that the doctrine of an inherent double nature of matter (and of light) is a most uneconomical hypothesis which would never have been proposed (except for heuristic purposes) had it not been for an oversight of the mechanical particle theory of diffraction by Duane (1923), later incorporated into the quantum mechanics of 1926 in Born's unitary statistical interpretation of wavelike phenomena. Bohr's indeterminacy view comes from a verbal translation of a legitimate wave feature; it is contrasted to the uncertainty of prediction of exact results. The latter is supported by the experiment, the former is not, so that various “epistemological lessons” drawn from Bohr's view stand on brittle ground, which can hardly be reinforced by pointing to the transformation from the first to the second quantization, i.e., from one to another form of a complete and unitary theory. The simple quantum rules of the particle theory (first quantization) can be reduced to general postulates of symmetry and invariance.
(1) The idea that diffraction of matter particles can only be understood in terms of a temporary wave transformation or ‘double manifestation’ is an uneconomical ad hoc hypothesis, shattered already in 1923 by the unitary quantum theory of diffraction of Duane which in 1926 became part of the quantum mechanics, with a statistical interpretation of wave-like appearances. (2) Bohr's re-interpretation of Heisenberg's uncertainty of prediction as an indeterminacy of existence rests on an illegitimate literal translation of a wave result into particle language which is at variance with experience as well as with the statistical interpretation. (3) The fact that one can transform the simple and unitary particle mechanics into a complicated wavelike form is only a weak substitute for genuine dualism — as if one would see dualism in the transformability from the geo- to the heliocentric reference system. (4) The strongest argument against a symmetry of the particle and the wave theory of matter is the explainability of the former in terms of simple postulates of invariance, leaving the wave formalism as a purely ad hoc construction.
The dominance of the Copenhagen interpretation is the result of a historical accident (Cushing, 1994). At the Solvay conference in 1927, Louis de Broglie put forward the deterministic pilot wave theory, described later. Never slow to criticize, Pauli jumped up and demolished de Broglie’s proposal, and de Broglie was so discouraged by this that he did not develop his interpretation any further. The Copenhagen interpretation was then developed by Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli and many others, as described in the previous chapter. It was strongly supported by von Neumann’s proof of the impossibility of hidden variables. Years later, in 1952, Bohm published a deterministic hidden variable theory, showing that there must be something wrong with von Neumann’s proof. The error was found by John Bell in 1966, as described in the last chapter, and he also showed how Pauli’s objections to de Broglie’s original idea can be answered. If this had been done at the conference in 1927, quantum mechanics could have been interpreted deterministically from the beginning. The essential mistake in the Copenhagen interpretation is to treat it as a complete account of the behaviour of each individual system. It is frequently claimed that it enables us to calculate, at least in principle, everything that can be measured. Thus Hooft (1997, p. 11) said that ‘The laws of quantum mechanics have been formulated very accurately. We know exactly how to compute anything we would like to know.’ Also Peierls (1997, p. 25) has said that quantum mechanics ‘had become a complete and consistent scheme capable of giving a unique answer to any questions relating to actual or possible observations’. Even if this were true, it would not imply that it is the final complete theory, for it is always possible that some new phenomenon might be found that cannot be calculated quantum-mechanically. However, it is not true: there are many phenomena such as the time of decay of a radioactive nucleus, or the direction a particle is scattered by a nucleus, that cannot be calculated, even in principle. Quantum mechanics is therefore an incomplete theory. We can only calculate the statistical properties of these systems, such as the half-life of a radioactive decay or the differential scattering cross-section that gives the probabilities that a particle is scattered through various angles. All measurements of quantum systems are of this statistical character. It might be thought that the possibility of making measurements on a single electron provides an exception to this. However, even in such cases the electron is continually bathed in a fluctuating background radiation from nearby atoms. Since this is variable, that electron is a member of an ensemble of electrons subject to different fluctuations. All these examples clearly demonstrate the statistical character of quantum mechanics. ‘I am rather firmly convinced’, Einstein (in Schilpp, 1949, pp. 666, 671) remarked, ‘that the essentially statistical character of contemporary quantum theory is solely to be ascribed to fact that this theory operates with an incomplete description of physical systems’. As a result, ‘the c-function is to be understood as the description not of a single system but of an ensemble of systems’. So, ‘if the statistical quantum theory does not pretend to describe the individual system completely, it appears unavoidable to look elsewhere for a complete description of the individual systems’. Thus ‘the difficulties of theoretical interpretation disappear, if one views the quantum-mechanical description as a description of an ensemble of systems’. If this is achieved, ‘the statistical theory would, within the framework of future physics, take an approximately analogous position to statistical mechanics within the framework of classical mechanics’. ‘Thus, essentially, nothing has changed since Galileo or Newton or Faraday concerning the status of the ‘‘observer’’ or our ‘‘consciousness’’ or of our ‘‘information’’ in physics’ (Popper, 1982, p. 46). Once this is accepted, the quantum paradoxes that plagued the Copenhagen interpretation are easily resolved, as described below. In any textbook of quantum mechanics problems such as the calculation of the energy levels of the hydrogen atom are solved as if that hydrogen atom is alone in the universe. As Feynman (1972) remarked, ‘when we solve a quantum-mechanical problem, what we really do is to divide the universe into two parts – the system in which we are interested and the rest of the universe. We then usually act as if the system in which we are interested comprised the whole universe.’ In fact, however, every hydrogen atom on which measurements are made is surrounded by other atoms and exposed to their radiations. Quantum mechanics somehow takes this into account and gives the average behaviour of an ensemble of hydrogen atoms. A more detailed theory takes these influences into account. One attempt to do this is stochastic electrodynamics, described in a later section.
The political attitude and the ideology of a very small elite of physicists (Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Max Born and view other) played a major role in the construction of the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics in the 1920s.Lastly, the hegemonic standard acausal Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics abandoned the principle of causality in quantum mechanics and opened a very wide door to mysticism, logical fallacies and wishful thinking in physics and in science as such.Historically, the Second International Congress for the Unity of Science (Copenhagen, June 21-26, 1936) tried to solve the problem of causality within physics but without a success.Thus far, 80 years after the Second International Congress for the Unity of Science this publication will expel Bohr's and Heisenberg's dogma of non-causality out of quantum mechanics and re-establish the unrestricted validity of the principle of causality at quantum level and under conditions of relativity theory by mathematizing the relationship between cause and effect in the form of the mathematical formula of the causal relationship k.In contrast to Bohr, Heisenberg and other representatives of the Copenhagen interpretation quantum mechanics, a realistic interpretation of quantum theory grounded on the unrestricted validity of the principle of causality will expel any kind of mysticism from physics and enable a quantization of the gravitational field too.
Wonderful news from Copenhagen Heisenberg and Schrödinger invented mathematical formalisms that provided correct answers to all the various problems of (non-relativistic) quantum theory. It was Bohr who uncovered the underlying significance of the theory; in particular he showed how the profound conceptual difficulties encountered as the theory developed – the so-called wave–particle duality, the totally unclassical nature of the uncertainty principle – could be neutralised by a revision, or more accurately a generalisation, of our use of physical concepts. Such was the generally accepted view of things from soon after 1927, when Bohr first put forward his ideas on complementarity at an international meeting of physicists at Como, through the 1930s, when it was felt that Bohr destroyed Einstein's contrary opinions, and certainly up to the time of Bohr's death in 1962. Bohr's analysis is usually spoken of as the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory, though it is instructive to realise that such a term was frowned upon by those closest to Bohr, since it appears to suggest that the interpretation is just one among (conceivably) many. Let us examine, for example, the words of Léon Rosenfeld, Bohr's disciple and long-term collaborator, as expounded at a conference in 1957 [52]. Rosenfeld maintained that any idea of ‘interpreting a formalism’ was a ‘false problem’, that in a good theory, the ‘ordinary language (spiced with technical jargon for the sake of conciseness)’ in which it is described, is ‘ inseparably united … with whatever mathematical apparatus is necessary’, that ‘we are here not faced with a matter of choice between two possible languages or two possible interpretations, but with a rational language intimately connected with the formalism and adapted to it, on the one hand, and with rather wild, metaphysical speculations … on the other’.
In previous chapters we presented and discussed the standard, generally accepted Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics according to which there exists in nature at the most fundamental level an irreducible and ineliminable indeterminism. Although we saw that what historically constituted the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is difficult to specify with precision, three central commitments do characterize it. (1) In general, no particle trajectories can exist in a space–time background. (2) No deterministic description of fundamental physical phenomena is possible. (3) There exists in the laws of the fundamental physical phenomena of nature an essential and ineliminable indeterminism or probability (unlike the probability of classical physics, that there reflects our ignorance of the finer details of complex physical phenomena). A flavor of these features of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics can be gotten from the quotations at the beginning of Part VIII ( Some philosophical lessons from quantum mechanics ). On this view, it is in principle impossible to predict, say, the exact future behavior of an electron (that is, to give its position and velocity as functions of the time). According to the Copenhagen school, there can be no causal description of microphenomena in terms of a continuous space–time background (as there is in classical physics). It is generally believed that a causal interpretation of quantum mechanics is impossible, although no proof of this exists.
Part III of this series [A. Landé, Amer. J. Phys. 33, 123 (1965), and 34, 160 (1966), quoted as Parts I and II] continues the critique of the customary interpretation of quantum mechanics. It is directed against the idea that electrons, in opposition to the Born statistical particle interpretation of the wave function, are “wavicles.” Serious conceptual and elementary mathematical defects in Bohr's famous “Discussion with Einstein” are pointed out. The doctrine that position q and momentum p of a particle are blurred over an uncertainty range because both allegedly cannot be measured simultaneously, that q and p do not exist simultaneously, is due to a confusion of analogy with identity of qualities. In its second part, the paper offers a nonquantal derivation of the probability interference law as a necessity under the postulate that the general interdependence between probabilities is to become the ordinary probability addition law in the average. The wave picture of matter violates the postulate of relativity.