This report investigates the flawed foundations of standard quantum theory based on a misunderstanding of the role of measurement. The report is major part of a research programme (UET) based on a new theory of the electromagnetism (EM), centered exclusively on the interaction between electrons. All the previous papers to date in this series have presented a realistic view of the dynamics of two or more electrons as they interact only between themselves. This paper now posits a theory of how this microscopic activity is perceived by human beings in attempting to extract information about atomic systems. The standard theory of quantum mechanics (QM) is 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 (the vast majority of the time) - this has generated almost 100 years of confusion and contradiction at the very heart of physics. All human beings (and all our instruments) are vast collections of electrons, our information about atomic-scale can only be obtained destructively and statistically. This theory now extends the realistic model of digital electrons by adding an explicit measurement model of how our macro instruments interfere with nature's micro-systems when such attempts result in human-scale information. The focus here is on the connection between the micro-world (when left to itself) and our mental models of this sphere of material reality, via the mechanism of atomic measurements. The mathematics of quantum mechanics reflects the eigenvalues of the combined target system plus equipment used for measurement together. Therefore, QM has constructed a theory that inseparably conflates the ontological and epistemological views of nature. This standard approach fails to examine isolated target systems alone. It is metaphysically deficient. This investigation concludes that the Quantum State function (Ψ) is not a representation of physical reality, within a single atom, but a generator function for producing the average statistical results on many atoms of this type. In contrast, the present theory builds on the physical reality of micro-states of single atoms, where (in the case of hydrogen), a single electron executes a series of fixed segments (corresponding to the micro-states) across the atom between a finite number of discrete interactions between the electron and one of the positrons in the nucleus. The set of serial segments form closed trajectories with real temporal periods, contra to Heisenberg’s ‘papal’ decree banning such reality because of his need to measure position and momentum at all times. This is the first paper in the multi-paper series (UET7n), which is dedicated to analyzing, criticizing and replacing existing theories of quantum mechanics.
This report investigates the flawed foundations of standard quantum theory based on a misunderstanding of the role of measurement. The report is major part of a research programme (UET) based on a new theory of the electromagnetism (EM), centered exclusively on the interaction between electrons. All the previous papers to date in this series have presented a realistic view of the dynamics of two or more electrons as they interact only between themselves. This paper now posits a theory of how this microscopic activity is perceived by human beings in attempting to extract information about atomic systems. The standard theory of quantum mechanics (QM) is 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 (the vast majority of the time) - this has generated almost 100 years of confusion and contradiction at the very heart of physics. All human beings (and all our instruments) are vast collections of electrons, our information about atomic-scale can only be obtained destructively and statistically. This theory now extends the realistic model of digital electrons by adding an explicit measurement model of how our macro instruments interfere with nature's micro-systems when such attempts result in human-scale information. The focus here is on the connection between the micro-world (when left to itself) and our mental models of this sphere of material reality, via the mechanism of atomic measurements. The mathematics of quantum mechanics reflects the eigenvalues of the combined target system plus equipment used for measurement together. Therefore, QM has constructed a theory that inseparably conflates the ontological and epistemological views of nature. This standard approach fails to examine isolated target systems alone. It is metaphysically deficient. This investigation concludes that the Quantum State function (Ψ) is not a representation of physical reality, within a single atom, but a generator function for producing the average statistical results on many atoms of this type. In contrast, the present theory builds on the physical reality of micro-states of single atoms, where (in the case of hydrogen), a single electron executes a series of fixed segments (corresponding to the micro-states) across the atom between a finite number of discrete interactions between the electron and one of the positrons in the nucleus. The set of serial segments form closed trajectories with real temporal periods, contra to Heisenberg’s ‘papal’ decree banning such reality because of his need to measure position and momentum at all times. This is the first paper in the multi-paper series (UET7n), which is dedicated to analyzing, criticizing and replacing existing theories of quantum mechanics.
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, as Kant suggested. This paper includes an original analysis of several major assumptions that have been implicit in Classical Mechanics (CM) that were acceptable in the macroscopic domain of reality, demonstrated by its proven successes. Unfortunately, only a few of these assumptions were challenged by the developers of QM. We now show that these other assumptions are still generating confusions in the interpretation of QM and blocking further progress in the understanding of the microscopic domain. Several of these flawed assumptions were introduced by Newton to support the use of continuum mathematics as a model of nature. 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 at understanding 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. A related paper demonstrates that it is possible to create a point-particle theory of electrons that explains all their peculiar (and ‘paradoxical’) behavior using only physical hypotheses and discrete mathematics without introducing the continuum mathematical ideas of fields or waves. Another (related) paper proves that all the known results for the hydrogen atom can also be exactly calculated from this new perspective with the discrete mathematics. * Surrey, B.C. Canada (604) 542-2299 spsi99@telus.net Version 2.015 08-05-2017 Begun 23-06-2008 {pp. 82, 70.2 Kw; 800 KB}
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}
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. – Max Planck, 1936 The only way quantum theory allows us to interact with quantum systems is via quantum processes. Thus, the only way we can extract information about the state of a quantum system is to apply some non-deterministic process and observe which of the branches happened. For that reason, many people refer to the act of applying certain quantum processes as measurement and sometimes even as observation . A consequence of this unfortunate terminology is that one of the most touted ‘strange’ features of quantum theory is often misleadingly described as follows: ‘The mere act of observing a quantum state changes it.’ ‘Misleading’, since the concept of measurement described in the previous paragraph is far from the passive concept of observation familiar from our macroscopic world, but is rather a non-trivial process that will almost always drastically affect the quantum state. So, the mysterious aspect of quantum theory is not that ‘observation’ alters the quantum state but, rather, that it is impossible, even in principle, to ‘observe’ a quantum system in the classical sense. Given this fundamental restriction on how we can extract information from a quantum system, what can we learn about that system by means of a quantum process? The answer is, in fact, very little! First, performing a particular measurement could, for the vast majority of quantum states, yield any outcome i with a non-zero probability. In that case, obtaining an outcome i doesn't tell us much about what the state of the system was. Second, we say ‘was’, because the measurement will moreover irreversibly change the state according to the outcome. So rather than revealing the state of a system, a quantum measurement typically erases that state from history! Nonetheless, these quantum measurements are crucial to quantum theory since they constitute the only interface between us, in our classical world, and the quantum world. The great insight of the quantum computing community is that the non-deterministic changes induced by these quantum measurements are not a nuisance, but rather an extremely useful resource.
The quantum measurement problems are discussed from a new perspective.
One of the main ideas of this work is that the basic entities of our world are various types of particles, elementary or composite. It follows that each elementary process, hence each measurement process at its core, is a spacetime, pointlike, event. Another key idea is that, when a microsystem ψ gets into contact with the experimental device, factorization of ψ rapidly fails and entangled mixed states appear. The wave functions for the microsystem-apparatus coupled systems for different measurement outcomes then lack overlapping spacetime support. It means that the aftermath of each measurement is a single term in the sum: a ``wave-function collapse.
Our discussion leading to a diagonal density matrix, ρ=diag(∣c1∣2,…,∣cn∣2,…) shows how the information encoded in the wave function ∣ψ⟩=∑ncn∣n⟩ gets transcribed, via entanglement with the experimental device and environment, into the relative frequencies Pn=∣cn∣2 for various experimental results F=fn.
These results represent the first, significant steps towards filling in the logical gaps in the standard interpretation based on Born's rule, and replacing it with a more natural one. Accepting objective reality of quantum fluctuations, independent of any experiments, and independently of human presence, one renounces the idea that in a fundamental, complete theory of Nature the result of each single experiment must necessarily be predictable.
A few well-known puzzles such as the Schr\odinger cat conundrum and the EPR paradox are briefly reviewed: they can all be naturally explained away.
Mathematics is an artificial symbolic logical system whose evaluation standard lies only in internal self consistency. Its core function is to fit observed phenomena. When deduction hits obstacles, mathematics can expand definitions extend number fields or change calculation frameworks to bypass difficulties. As long as logic forms a closed loop this operation is valid within the scope of mathematics. Imaginary number systems and calculus are typical examples. They are internally self consistent and efficient for calculation as computing tools but the tools themselves do not equal objective reality. Mathematical systems face no punishment from objective reality. When contradictions appear in deduction researchers only need to adjust rules and refit data. Physics takes objective reality and causal chains independent of human cognition as its foundation. The only judging standard comes from the real natural world. Physics cannot bypass fundamental contradictions by makeshift assumptions. This paper clarifies a critical dividing line. Success in engineering application never proves the correctness of the underlying physical theory supporting that engineering. Many technical achievements come from empirical exploration and repeated trial and error. Researchers build devices and obtain effects first. Theories are proposed later to fit collected data. Those theories do not reveal the real causal mechanism in advance. Newtonian mechanics is an approximate description valid under limited conditions. It has clear application boundaries and its underlying causal framework does not deliberately avoid core contradictions. Interpretations such as superposition and Schrodinger cat that describes simultaneous life and death are different. They deliberately bypass microscopic dynamic mechanisms and modify the inherent properties of matter to adapt to mathematical frameworks. These two cases have essential differences. Even if a deviated underlying physical mechanism can produce usable calculation schemes or even drive engineering progress it does not prove the foundation is correct. If basic assumptions depart from reality all derived conclusions must be revised from the root instead of adding surface patches. Part of the difficulties in modern fundamental physics arise from three types of confusion. Confusion between mathematical fitting and physical reality. Confusion between empirical engineering success and the truth of underlying physical mechanism. Confusion between well bounded approximate theories and patchwork assumptions made to avoid contradictions. If researchers keep stacking derived models on a shifted physical foundation the system will accumulate internal inconsistencies. Even with delicate local mathematical fitting the whole theory will eventually collapse logically just like a tall dangerous building built on skewed ground. This paper analyzes the differences between mathematics and physics the long term theoretical risks of bypassing contradictions and the boundary between engineering success and physical theoretical success. It proposes that fundamental physics must stick to objective reality and closed causality.