All alternative interpretations have at their roots some form of disgust at the Copenhagen–Gottingen philosophy, and all have a desire to seek an alternative truth for the understanding of quantum mechanics. The alternative view is of an intrinsic reality prior to the measurement, as discussed by A. Einstein, and by most of the founders of the wave theory of quantum mechanics. A key point of Neils Bohr’s arguments with Einstein, particularly with regard to the Einstein–B. Podolsky–N. Rosen type of experiments, was that one could not make multiple measurements on the same particle, or quantum system. In his view, the measurement itself defined the quantum system. With the arrival of the Schrodinger equation, quantum mechanics had a causal, deterministic equation of motion for the wave function. Perturbation theory, based upon the Schrodinger equation, provided transition details that undermined the assertions of quantum jumps.
All alternative interpretations have at their roots some form of disgust at the Copenhagen–Gottingen philosophy, and all have a desire to seek an alternative truth for the understanding of quantum mechanics. The alternative view is of an intrinsic reality prior to the measurement, as discussed by A. Einstein, and by most of the founders of the wave theory of quantum mechanics. A key point of Neils Bohr’s arguments with Einstein, particularly with regard to the Einstein–B. Podolsky–N. Rosen type of experiments, was that one could not make multiple measurements on the same particle, or quantum system. In his view, the measurement itself defined the quantum system. With the arrival of the Schrodinger equation, quantum mechanics had a causal, deterministic equation of motion for the wave function. Perturbation theory, based upon the Schrodinger equation, provided transition details that undermined the assertions of quantum jumps.
For many years the physical interpretation of quantum theory has been dominated by the “wave-particle duality” attitude of the “Copenhagen school.” This point of view is eloquently described in Bohr's collection of essays on the subject. Despite persistent concerns with apparent paradoxes and limitations to this interpretation (as exemplified by Schrodinger's cat, the paradox of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen, among others), the Copenhagen view persists de facto in the daily life of the modern physicist. Traditional quantum theory has so successfully explained such a vast amount of data in atomic and molecular physics, solid state physics (and to a lesser extent, elementary particle physics) that little doubt can exist concerning its essential validity. As a consequence of the overwhelming practical success of the “Copenhagen interpretation, ” the latter has acquired the status of dogma. For many years, therefore, most physicists have found it expedient to relegate the puzzling aspects of the theory to philosophers, and mathematicians. Nevertheless, a persistent interest in this subject has produced a significant and fascinating literature, reviewed by Jammer. In recent years, concerns over the proper meaning to be ascribed to quantum theory have produced an increasingly deep and incisive series of investigations. These investigations fall generally into two categories: either (1) discussion of the philosophical content of the theory, or (2) analyses of the mathematical variants of the theory and their connection with differing interpretational schemes. Physicists tend to be detached from a commitment to philosophical issues, because of their realization of the transient character of the meanings attached to theories of the day. As a simple illustration of this we can mention the profound differences between nonrelativistic and relativistic quantum mechanics.
Quantum mechanics is our most successful physical theory. It underlies our very detailed understanding of atomic physics, chemistry, and nuclear physics, and the many technologies to which physical systems in these regimes give rise. Additionally, relativistic quantum mechanics is the basis for the standard model of elementary particles, which very successfully gives a partial unification of the forces operating at the atomic, nuclear, and subnuclear levels. However, from its inception the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, and the fact that “quantum measurements” in the orthodox formulation appear to require the intervention of non-quantum mechanical “classical systems,” have led to speculations by many physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science that quantum mechanics may be incomplete. Among the Founding Fathers of quantum theory, Einstein and Schrödinger were both of the opinion that quantum mechanics is in some way unsatisfactory, and this view has been amplified in more recent profound work of John Bell, among others. In an opposing camp, many others in the physics, mathematics, and philosophy communities have attempted to provide an interpretational foundation in which quantum mechanics remains a complete and self-contained system. Among the Founding Fathers, Bohr, Born, and Heisenberg maintained that quantum mechanics is a complete system, and a number of recent proposals have been made to improve upon or to provide alternatives to their “Copenhagen Interpretation.” The debate continues, and has spawned an enormous literature.
The issue of measurement has been part of the discussion of quantum mechanics. In addition, this has been complicated by the argument over reality and when and where it arises in the quantum system. One of the arguments of A. Einstein, with B. Podolsky and N. Rosen was for the existence of a reality in the system before the measurement. Modern approaches to time-resolved studies require the fast lasers simply because they provide the finest time scale over which measurements can be made at the present time. There are problems with the ideas, in that such measurements might be thought to be incompatible with the standard Copenhagen–Gottingen viewpoint. While the earlier measurements were simple spin measurements, more modern approaches have concentrated on a continuous measurement in which one integrates the weak signal over time. One problematic aspect of continuous measurements is the time evolution of the system, where what is being measured may be a function of time.
The difficulties of the old quantum theory were largely dispelled by the development of quantum mechanics in the 1920s. First Heisenberg (1925) developed the rather abstract matrix mechanics and soon after Schro¨dinger (1926; see also Eckart, 1926) developed the physically more appealing wave mechanics. Subsequently he showed them to be mathematically equivalent. The physicists were greatly relieved; now they had once again a mathematical formalism that enabled the results of experiments to be calculated. It was possible to move forward. It is certainly a very elegant and indeed beautiful formalism, and does enable the results of many physical measurements to be calculated with great accuracy. It is used daily by atomic and nuclear physicists; there is no other way to make calculations. From the earliest days there has been intense debate about the interpretation of quantum mechanics, and it shows no signs of being settled; if anything it is becoming more intense over the years. As Penrose has remarked, no one understands quantum mechanics. Feynman (1967; see also Sykes, 1994) also admitted that ‘nobody understands quantum mechanics’, and Einstein once remarked: ‘I have thought a hundred times as much about the quantum problems as I have about general relativity theory’ (Pais, 1994, p. 57). It should therefore be evident that the most that can be done here is to try to show where the real difficulties lie, and how the failure to recognize that quantum mechanics is an essentially statistical theory has led to a series of confusing quantum paradoxes. It is just these paradoxes that have often been used to support theological speculations. It is useful to ask what ‘understanding quantum mechanics’ actually means. Certainly it means being able to calculate the results of many measurements. The same applies to Newton’s theory of gravitation, which we understand in the sense that we can use it as a basis of calculation, although we do not really understand the gravitational force itself. Very often, especially in modern physics, the mathematical formalism does not give us the sort of intuitive physical feeling for what is going on that we often obtain from classical mechanics. Perhaps we can never achieve more than this for quantum mechanics. In classical mechanics we can assume that a property that is measured objectively exists prior to the interaction of the measuring apparatus with the observed system. Quantum mechanics, however, ‘is incompatible with the proposition that measurement discovers some unknown but pre-existing property’ (Peres, 1997, p. 14). There is an important distinction between mysteries and absurdities. We may be forced to live with mysteries, but there is no reason why we should put up with absurdities such as the wave-particle duality, tunnelling through potential barriers, acausal events and the collapse of the wave function. These are the quantum paradoxes that will be discussed later on. They arise within the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and are solved by other interpretations. These alternative interpretations enable us to make conjectures about what is going on, even though we cannot understand it in detail. This is acceptable and a stimulus to further research. It is certainly difficult enough to understand quantum mechanics, but there is no need to try to visualize logical absurdities in the effort to do so. Quantum mechanics is a mathematical formalism that makes it possible to calculate the results of some experiments. Anything more than this, such as questions about the interpretation of what is measured and whether it tells us what is actually going on in the system being studied, belongs to philosophy. Thus we are concerned here with what is essentially a philosophical debate; if it were just a matter of physics the debate would have been settled long ago. One of the difficulties is that it invokes the results of experiments and uses the language of quantum mechanics. Inevitably this language uses philosophical terms and then it is easy to give the impression that the philosophical propositions are in some way entailed by the physical results. These in turn can influence theological thinking. In order to be quite clear which arguments are justified and which are not, it is essential to separate the three levels of discourse: physical, philosophical and theological. Our task is to relate these together, and this immediately raises the traditional problems of the philosophy of science, including the relation of experiment to theory, and of theory to explanation. We begin by discussing experiments, distinguishing between those that are real and those that are imaginary.
The measurement problem in quantum mechanics has been a cause of much puzzlement over the years. The very idea of having two different versions of reality for the same system has been a cause for much debate. Often quantum mechanics textbooks follow the ‘shut up and calculate’ paradigm. This denies the opportunity for the common student to understand the consequence of one of the most elegant and beautiful aspects of science. The state of the art textbooks give a purely algebraic, perfunctory and monotonous approach where the real consequence of the system is not fully appreciated. A good reason for this is the considerable deviation of the quantum mechanical process from the commonsensical idea of truth, reality and reason. We tend to look at the world in a materialistic, deterministic, causal and objectivistic way. We tend not to accept a world of contradictions. A quantum measurement is essentially an amalgamation of contradictions, mystery and duality. It encompasses an implicit dependence on subjectivity and contradicts with causality as we know it. We look at the world as in the present. But a quantum mechanical measurement is a prediction of the future influenced by the observer or the measurer. This offers a philosophical and pedagogical conundrum. It poses a challenge on not just how our perception of the world might change in addition to providing a big challenge on how to make it compatible with the other successful theories of physics. The most common text book interpretation of quantum mechanics has been the Copenhagen Interpretation suggests the ‘collapse of the wave function’ as a mechanism of transition between duality. But a more bizarre yet elegant theory, extending quantum formalism to the classical domain, called the Many Worlds Interpretation has been catching up very quickly; it stands for the split of the universe when we make a quantum mechanical measurement. Consequently, reality as we is redefined as a universal wave function which is a superposition of several outcomes, which is incompatible with many of the successful concepts of physics and has several problems like the correct idea about probability or basis. We adapt the idea of the universal wave function, but instead suggest a continuum interpretation of quantum mechanics where the universal wave function represents the entire singular universe and the concept of atoms or electrons as conceptually a continuous part of it rather than a distinct separate entity. Such an interpretation could be compatible with other continuum theories like the Superfluid vacuum theory or the Higgs Field.
The interpretation of quantum mechanics has been disputed ever since the advent of the theory in the 1920’s. Famous are the discussions over long time between Einstein and Bohr. Einstein refused to accept the so‐called Copenhagen interpretation, where the wave function collapses at a measurement and where the outcome of the measurement is essentially accidental (“God does not play dice”). Alternative interpretations have appeared, but the Copenhagen school has dominated the thoughts throughout the decades. One interesting interpretation was formulated in 1957 by Hugh Everett at Princeton, a student of John Wheeler, which abandons the wave‐function collapse. In this model the universe is governed entirely by the Schrödinger equation, which does not allow for any collapse. In Everett’s model after a measurement the wave function is separated into different branches that do not interact. This model was left unnoticed for long time until Bryce DeWitt took it up in 1970 and termed it “Many‐Worlds Interpretation”, a term that in some sense is misleading. Everett’s model is incomplete, and it was later supplemented by the theory of decoherence, which explains how the different branches decouple as a result of the interaction with the environment. This extended model has in recent years gained increased respect, and some believe that it is the only model made available so far that is fully consistent with quantum mechanics. This interpretation can also shed some light on the development of the universe and, in particular, on the so‐called Anthropic principle, which puts human beings at the center of the development.