The Physical Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

Enós E. Witmer

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.

Raoul S. Nakhmanson

Andrew Das Arulsamy

Interpreting quantum mechanics is a hard problem basically because it means explaining why and how the mathematics exploited to formulate wave-particle duality are related to observations or reality in classical physics. Consequently, interpretation of quantum mechanics and its formalism should involve proper physical mathematics, physical logic and classical physics, which is not the case from the Copenhagen interpretation. Here, we shall revisit all the postulates of quantum mechanics with proper physics and physical logic and reconstruct them to establish the less-complex interpretation of quantum mechanics with additional new postulates from classical physics. A new quantum mechanical postulate (Postulate 9) is also introduced to understand the meaning of the forbidden gap between discrete energy levels and/or electron orbitals in atoms that is valid for molecules and condensed matter based on quantum mechanics that is technically well-defined and experimentally observable. Here, we tackle all the problems arise from the Copenhagen interpretation systematically by revising and/or extending them with proper classical and quantum physics without violating established experiments and without proposing ideas that violate physical reality.

Roland L. Omnes

Pieter E. Vermaas

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.

Stig Stenholm, Luigi Accardi, Guillaume Adenier +5 more