By Invoking symmetry principle, we present a self-consistent interpretation of the existing quantum theory which explains why our world is fundamentally indeterministic and that why non-local quantum jumps occur. Symmetry principle dictates that the concept of probability is more fundamental than the notion of the wave function in that the former can be derived directly from symmetries rather than have to be assumed as an additional axiom. It is argued that the notion of quantum probability and that of the wavefunction are intimately connected.
By Invoking symmetry principle, we present a self-consistent interpretation of the existing quantum theory which explains why our world is fundamentally indeterministic and that why non-local quantum jumps occur. Symmetry principle dictates that the concept of probability is more fundamental than the notion of the wave function in that the former can be derived directly from symmetries rather than have to be assumed as an additional axiom. It is argued that the notion of quantum probability and that of the wavefunction are intimately connected.
PROBABILITY IN THE OLD QUANTUM THEORY Probability was connected to quantum theory right from the start, in 1900, through the derivation of Planck's radiation law. But not much attention has been paid to the concept of probability in quantized radiation, or in the ‘quantum jumps’ from one energy level to another in an atom, and related problems. A whole chapter or book, instead of a section, could be written on the background of quantum theory in statistical mechanics and spectral analysis with this aspect in mind. Probabilistic properties were included in very many of the most important papers dealing with radiation between 1900 and 1925. It became also clear in time that Planck's law could not be derived from classical physics. Einstein admits this around 1908. Later he said, in a work of 1917, that it is a weakness of the theory of photon emission that ‘it leaves to “chance” the time and direction of the elementary processes,’ thereby, according to Pais (1982, p. 412), making explicit ‘that something was amiss with classical causality.’ It remains somewhat open how the origins and shifting interpretations of probability in the old quantum theory affected the acceptance of the probabilistic interpretation of the new quantum mechanics of 1925–1926, and of the indeterminism that found its confirmation in Heisenberg's uncertainty relation in 1927.
This book examines in detail two of the fundamental questions raised by quantum mechanics. Is the world indeterministic? Are there connections between spatially separated objects? In the first part of the book after outlining the formalism of quantum mechanics and introducing the measurement problem, the author examines several interpretations, focusing on how each proposes to solve the measurement problem and on how each treats probability. In the second part, the author argues that there can be non-trivial relationships between probability (specifically, determinism and indeterminism) and non-locality in an interpretation of quantum mechanics. The author then re-examines some of the interpretations of part one of the book in the light of this argument, and considers how they are with regard to locality and Lorentz invariance. One of the important lessons that comes out of this discussion is that any examination of locality, and of the relationship between quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity, should be undertaken in the context of a detailed interpretation of quantum mechanics. The book will appeal to anyone with an interest in the interpretation of quantum mechanics, including researchers in the philosophy of physics and theoretical physics, as well as graduate students in those fields.
All the concepts and principles necessary to understand quantum mechanics on an initial level are given in a form suitable for the non-expert. The concepts explained include visualizing the wave function, wave-particle duality, the implications of Schrodinger's cat, probability, the uncertainty principle, collapse of the wave function, and others. However, because of the peculiar, non-intuitive nature of quantum mechanics, one must understand the potential interpretations of its mathematics before one can properly understand these concepts. Thus the paper is organized aorund interpretations, conceptual pictures that explain the peculiar properties of the theory. The only interpretation that currently satisfies all the constraints imposed by experiments and the theory itself makes use of a perceiving Mind which is outside the laws of quantum mechanics.
We consider symmetry as a foundational concept in quantum mechanics and rewrite quantum mechanics and measurement axioms in this description. We argue that issues related to measurements and physical reality of states can be better understood in this view. In particular, the abstract concept of symmetry provides a basis-independent definition for observables. Moreover, we show that the apparent projection/collapse of the state as the final step of measurement or decoherence is the result of breaking of symmetries. This phenomenon is comparable with a phase transition by spontaneous symmetry breaking, and makes the process of decoherence and classicality a natural fate of complex systems consisting of many interacting subsystems. Additionally, we demonstrate that the property of state space as a vector space representing symmetries is more fundamental than being an abstract Hilbert space, and its L2 integrability can be obtained from the imposed condition of being a representation of a symmetry group and general properties of probability distributions.
This paper introduces Axiom 0, a minimal foundational principle for physical reality: the impossibility of any globally closed description of the total correlational structure. Rather than postulating space, time, dynamics, locality, or physical laws as primitive, the framework assumes only: (i) the existence of a correlational structure, (ii) the structural impossibility of complete self-closure, and (iii) consistency under partial comparison. From these ingredients, the paper shows how: physical laws emerge as stabilizing regularities of incomplete descriptions, time, dynamics, and geometry arise as effective, regime-dependent structures, irreversibility follows from projection and information loss, and why no description can be both exact and globally complete. Non-closure is treated as an ontological constraint, not as epistemic ignorance or observer dependence. Physical reality exists precisely because complete closure is impossible, independently of observation or modeling. The paper does not attempt to replace existing physical theories or derive numerical constants. Instead, it provides a structural foundation within which effective physical theories (quantum, classical, relativistic, and open-system regimes) can be consistently understood as emergent and domain-limited. This work is intended as a conceptual and structural foundation for correlational and relational approaches to fundamental physics, clarifying the origin of laws, dynamics, and physical regularity without invoking additional ontological postulates.
Quantum theory is a probabilistic calculus that enables the calculation of the probabilities of the possible outcomes of a measurement performed on a physical system. But what is the relationship between this probabilistic calculus and probability theory itself? Is quantum theory compatible with probability theory? If so, does it extend or generalize probability theory? In this paper, we answer these questions, and precisely determine the relationship between quantum theory and probability theory, by explicitly deriving both theories from first principles. In both cases, the derivation depends upon identifying and harnessing the appropriate symmetries that are operative in each domain. We prove, for example, that quantum theory is compatible with probability theory by explicitly deriving quantum theory on the assumption that probability theory is generally valid.