The form of quantum mechanics is established ahead of of a system of physics interpretation,which is a realistic possibility premise for the group explained of quantum mechanics.But quantum mechanics and the classical physics language system contain different noumenon suppose.It is intrinsically different between the classical physics which describes the macro world and quantum mechanism which describes the micro world in the function mechanism,particle abstract,the probability application.Thus,the concept of classical physics language describing the micro-world will be no adaptation in essence,just as using Euclidean geometry can not explain non-Euclidean geometry.In this context,we believe there is no any interpretation system which is better than the Copenhagen School on the whole,though it has some shortage.
The form of quantum mechanics is established ahead of of a system of physics interpretation,which is a realistic possibility premise for the group explained of quantum mechanics.But quantum mechanics and the classical physics language system contain different noumenon suppose.It is intrinsically different between the classical physics which describes the macro world and quantum mechanism which describes the micro world in the function mechanism,particle abstract,the probability application.Thus,the concept of classical physics language describing the micro-world will be no adaptation in essence,just as using Euclidean geometry can not explain non-Euclidean geometry.In this context,we believe there is no any interpretation system which is better than the Copenhagen School on the whole,though it has some shortage.
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.
Quantum mechanics describes the behavior of the quantum objects, but the description and the interpretation of its basic principles; (nature of the wave, interpretations of: superposition principle, complementary principle, and uncertainly principle), these latter have had many debates concerning their meanings and their concepts between the scientists. Since\nthe beginning of its appearance until today, many different interpretations between many schools and scientists have emerged, about the descriptions of quantum mechanics. In our present contribution, a modest modeling for many worlds interpretation is presented, followed by solving and interpreting a famous example “particle in an infinite square potential\nwell”, using our modeling and then, a comparison between Copenhagen and many world interpretations.
This paper deals with the problem of the interpretation of quantum mechanics, the nature of physical theory, and the future of physics. First, the question of why there are so many different interpretations of quantum mechanics proposed and accepted by outstanding quantum experts is treated. This requires a discussion of the relation between physics and philosophy and drawing a distinction between a physical formalism and a physical explanation. The Copenhagen interpretation is considered, criticized, and found to be unsatisfactory in some respects. Finally, an interpretation that contains ideas from previous interpretations but which may itself be new, is proposed. Hopefully, this is superior to the previous interpretations. It has, I believe, the advantage of logical clarity. In the process of doing this, I introduce a theory of levels of physical theory, according to which microscopic physical theory, as it develops in successive stages, becomes more and more adaptable to explaining—or at least taking cognizance of—fundamental biological or ultimately psychological phenomena.
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. 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 to understand 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. Additionally, several hidden major assumptions have been present in Classical Mechanics (represented by continuum mathematics) since its inception by Newton that are blocking progress and understanding of quantum mechanics. A related paper demonstrates that it is possible to create a point-particle theory of electrons that explains all their peculiar (and ‘paradoxical’) behavior without introducing the continuum mathematical ideas of fields or waves. * Surrey, B.C. Canada (604) 542-2299 spsi99@telus.net Version 1.195 10-07-2016 Begun 23-06-2008 {pp. 80, 70.4 Kw; 800 KB}
Difficulties and discomfort with the interpretation of quantum mechanics are due to differences in language between it and classical physics. Analogies to The Special Theory of Relativity, which also required changes in the basic worldview and language of non-relativistic classical mechanics, may help in absorbing the changes called for by quantum physics. There is no need to invoke extravagances such as the many worlds interpretation or specify a central role for consciousness or neural microstructures. The simple, but basic, acceptance that what is meant by the state of a physical system is different in quantum physics from what it is in classical physics goes a long way in explaining its seeming peculiarities.
Abstract Quantum physics is changed in an unexpected way. Scientists believe that the study of quantum physics will play an important role in future technology. Therefore, it is meaningful to study quantum physics. The aim of this paper is to provide an initial explanation of the quantum world through the classical single particle double-slit interpretation experiment, and to answer a few questions about the experiment using mainstream quantum mechanical interpretations, such as the Copenhagen interpretation and the Many-Worlds interpretation. The superposition state, which is the core of the Copenhagen interpretation, is then introduced. The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox and locality are also introduced, and the relationship between the latter and special relativity is analyzed. The author also discusses whether non-locality leads to retrocausality. Finally, the author discusses the relationship between multi-world interpretation and Schrodinger’s cat, but this may raise some philosophical questions. However, realist and hidden variable interpretation are also consistent as long as locality is abandoned.