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.
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.
Abstract Quantum Mechanics (QM) stands alone as a (very) successful physical theory, but the meaning of its variables and the status of many quantities in the mathematical formalism is obscure. This unique situation prompted the need for attribution of a physical meaning to the latter, a procedure known as interpretation. On the other hand, the study of QM is usually presented, even to future scientists, within the only framework developed by Bohr and the Copenhagen researchers, known as the Copenhagen interpretation. As a contribution to the understanding and teaching of Quantum Mechanics, aimed to a broader and deeper appreciation of its fundamentals, including contemplating alternatives and updated interpretations for physicists and philosophers interested in the study of exact sciences (through Ontology, Epistemology, Logic or the Theory of Knowledge), we present a set of Conceptual Diagrams elaborated and designed to expose and facilitate the visualization of elements intervening in any interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and apply them to several well‐developed cases of the latter.
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 deals with the development of, and the current discussion about, the interpretation of quantum mechanics. The following topics are discussed: 1. The Copenhagen Interpretation, 2. Formal Problems of Quantum Mechanics, 3. Process of Measurement and the Equation of Motion, 4. Macroscopic Level of Description, 5. Search for Hidden Variables, 6. The Notion of “Reality” and Epistemology of Quantum Mechanics, 7. Quantum Mechanics and the Explanation of Life. The Bohr-Einstein dialogue on the validity of the quantum mechanical description of physical reality lasted over two decades. Since the early nineteen fifties, Wiper has provided much of the point and counterpoint of the continuing discussion on the interpretation and epistemology of quantum mechanics. We have explored Wiper's views in some detail against the background of historical development and current debate.
Quantum mechanics allows a remarkably accurate description of nature and powerful predictive capabilities. The analyses of quantum systems and their interpretation lead to many surprises, for example, the ability to detect the characteristics of an object without ever touching it in any way, via "interaction-free measurement," or the teleportation of an atomic state over large distances. The results can become downright bizarre. Quantum mechanics is a subtle subject that usually involves complicated mathematics -- calculus, partial differential equations, etc., for complete understanding. Most texts for general audiences avoid all mathematics. The result is that the reader misses almost all deep understanding of the subject, much of which can be probed with just high-school level algebra and trigonometry. Thus, readers with that level of mathematics can learn so much more about this fundamental science. The book starts with a discussion of the basic physics of waves (an appendix reviews some necessary classical physics concepts) and then introduces the fundamentals of quantum mechanics, including the wave function, superposition, entanglement, Bell's theorem, etc., and applications to Bose--Einstein condensation, quantum computing, and much more. The interpretation of the mathematics of quantum mechanics into a world view has been the subject of much controversy. The result is a variety of conflicting interpretations, from the famous Copenhagen view of Bohr to the multiple universes of Everett. We discuss these interpretations in the chapter "What is a wave function?" and include some very recent advances, for example, quantum Bayesianism, and measurements of the reality of the wave function.
When investigating various interpretations of quantum mechanics one notices that each interpretation contains an element which escapes a complete and full description. This element is always associated with the stochasticity of the individual event in the quantum measurement process. It appears that the implications of this limit to any description of the world has not been sufficiently appreciated with notable exceptions of, for example, Heisenberg, Pauli and Wheeler. If we assume that a deeper foundation of quantum mechanics is possible, the question arises which features such a philosophical foundation might have. It is suggested that the objective randomness of the individual quantum event is a necessity of a description of the world in view of the significant influence the observer in quantum mechanics has. It is also suggested that the austerity of the Copenhagen interpretation should serve as a guiding principle in a search for deeper understanding. In recent years, a significant increase of interest in the foundations of quantum mechanics can be observed. This increase is certainly related to the immense progress made during the last two decades in experiments with individual quantum systems. This technological progress has made it possible to really perform more and more of the famous gedanken experiments which were so important in the early days of the theory. Not only did these experiments confirm the theory in every detail, they also opened up avenues for new experimental directions which might even lead some day to new technology. While such applications are certainly still far away, areas like quantum cryptography[1], quantum computation[2] and interaction-free measurement[3], just to name a few examples, certainly deserve the attention they receive. All this activity has also drawn more attention to the problems of understanding and interpreting quantum mechanics. It seems that there, a definitive consensus has not yet been reached. As witnesses quote authorities like Feynman as saying[4]: I think can safely say that nobody today understands quantum mechanics, whereby he apparently included himself, or like Roger Penrose[5], who describes his opinion remarking that while the theory agrees incredibly well with experiment and while it is of profound mathematical beauty, it makes absolutely no sense. Why did even physicists who have contributed so significantly to quantum theory Feynman was even rewarded the Nobel Prize for one of its mathematical formulations choose such emphatic and strong formulations? Why is it that the average physicist hears very little about such problems during his/her education? Why is the comprehension of the theory very often focused on formalism while questions that probe for deeper meaning are usually not tackled? To take a closer look at the situation, let us turn to a brief analysis of the interpretation of quantum mechanics. We note that there are at least two levels of interpreting a formalism, a physical theory. The first, basic, level supplies the rules that determine which element of the formalism corresponds to which measurable quantity or to which observable fact in a concrete experimental situation. Theses rules are a large, mostly not explicated but only implicit, set of instructions. These instructions concern the manner of working with the statements of the theory in order to obtain predictions for future experiments or events, and they concern the instructions on how to proceed in experiment in order to demonstrate or test a theoretical
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.