Abstract In considering models of reality we must consider the fundamental nature of quantum mechanics, which has had great success in describing the spectrum of light from distant stars and galaxies, formulating the properties of the strong, electro-weak or electromagnetic and weak decay forces, and explaining atomic order formulated as the atomic periodic table and atomic spectra. A vast array of technologies has resulted from quantum theory, from semiconductors to NMR machines, nuclear reactors and possibly encryption secured, fast quantum computers. Quantum theory, however, has yet to fully engage with the gravitational force. With the advent of quantum theory, several major issues stand out, leaving us with major philosophical questions on the nature of physics and reality, and our ability to comprehend them. The issues involve the interpretation of quantum measurement, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle on the completeness of quantum theory and nonlocality. The frontiers of science continue to open new concepts based on a multidimensional reality which we use to address these issues, including solving the Schrödinger and Dirac equations in complex Minkowski eight space. We also formulate Bell’s theorem and the Young’s double slit experiment in Rauscher’s complex eight-space. We formulate an interpretation of the quantum that yields locality in a hyper-dimensional complex space and that maintains the completeness of quantum theory and nonlocality in usual four space, with local connectivity and the Lorentz invariant conditions, where subluminal and luminal signaling are maintained. Are we really forced to choose between two alternate views of reality? One view that external reality exists independent of the observer, and the other that the observer somehow is a participator or an integral part of all of nature. Must we choose between these or is there another way out? We find our way out and we satisfy both Bohr (Copenhagen) and Einstein (determinism) in bringing about a practical outcome of the debate. By developing and applying complex eight space, we can accommodate locality or local realism in terms of contiguous event connections in complex eight space. In four space, nonlocality dominates and also can be considered locality in eight space. The determination of the state of a system naturally collapses to its final state where quantum mechanics is functioning completely in four and in eight dimensional spaces.
Abstract In considering models of reality we must consider the fundamental nature of quantum mechanics, which has had great success in describing the spectrum of light from distant stars and galaxies, formulating the properties of the strong, electro-weak or electromagnetic and weak decay forces, and explaining atomic order formulated as the atomic periodic table and atomic spectra. A vast array of technologies has resulted from quantum theory, from semiconductors to NMR machines, nuclear reactors and possibly encryption secured, fast quantum computers. Quantum theory, however, has yet to fully engage with the gravitational force. With the advent of quantum theory, several major issues stand out, leaving us with major philosophical questions on the nature of physics and reality, and our ability to comprehend them. The issues involve the interpretation of quantum measurement, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle on the completeness of quantum theory and nonlocality. The frontiers of science continue to open new concepts based on a multidimensional reality which we use to address these issues, including solving the Schrödinger and Dirac equations in complex Minkowski eight space. We also formulate Bell’s theorem and the Young’s double slit experiment in Rauscher’s complex eight-space. We formulate an interpretation of the quantum that yields locality in a hyper-dimensional complex space and that maintains the completeness of quantum theory and nonlocality in usual four space, with local connectivity and the Lorentz invariant conditions, where subluminal and luminal signaling are maintained. Are we really forced to choose between two alternate views of reality? One view that external reality exists independent of the observer, and the other that the observer somehow is a participator or an integral part of all of nature. Must we choose between these or is there another way out? We find our way out and we satisfy both Bohr (Copenhagen) and Einstein (determinism) in bringing about a practical outcome of the debate. By developing and applying complex eight space, we can accommodate locality or local realism in terms of contiguous event connections in complex eight space. In four space, nonlocality dominates and also can be considered locality in eight space. The determination of the state of a system naturally collapses to its final state where quantum mechanics is functioning completely in four and in eight dimensional spaces.
Quantum nonlocality has been a long-standing and fascinating problem in the foundations of quantum theory since its proof by the Bell inequality. It seems to contradict our intuitive picture of space-time and thus urges us to reconsider its foundation. With the advent of quantum information science, it has attracted renewed interest from a fundamental point of view as well as from a quantum information-theoretic one. Another fundamental question on the nature of quantum theory is how we understand what quantum states represent. (Quantum states hereafter refer to pure states.) This is also a long-standing problem since the early days of quantum theory. Roughly speaking, there are two conflicting views on this matter: one is ontology and the other is epistemology. Ontological models of quantum theory are models in which we assume some underlying reality for physical systems and require that all the predictions of quantum theory should be reproduced. The ontological models are divided into two categories, depending on which views the models are based on, ontology or epistemology. In the models based on ontology, quantum states represent the underlying reality in some sense, and different quantum states correspond to different realities. In the models based on epistemology, quantum states do not necessarily correspond to the underlying realities, and even different quantum states can be consistent with a common underlying reality. The former type of ontological models of quantum theory is called 1⁄4-ontic. The latter is called 1⁄4-epistemic. Thus, it might be rather confusing that ontological models are classified further into 1⁄4-ontic models and 1⁄4-epistemic ones. We use these terms here in accordance with the recent literature on quantum foundations. (For details of these notions in the ontological models of quantum theory, see the paper by Harrigan and Spekkens.) Quite recently, the question just mentioned has been answered by Pusey et al., and one of the above models has been refuted. It was shown that 1⁄4-epistemic models are inconsistent with the predictions of quantum theory. In other words, epistemological views on quantum states turned out to be false as long as we assume some underlying reality for physical systems. Therefore, only 1⁄4-ontic models of quantum theory are valid for describing quantum systems. This significantly advances our understanding on the nature of quantum states. It is expected that various conclusions will be drawn from this fact. In this paper, we will discuss a connection with nonlocality. The above two fundamental questions, nonlocality and the nature of quantum states, are intimately connected, and the connection was first implicitly recognised by Einstein in the early days of quantum theory. In a private correspondence with Schrodinger, Einstein constructed a fascinating argument that relates the above two. (That argument is distinctly different from the well-known EPR argument.) Recently, it was revisited and reconstructed in accordance with more rigorous notions in quantum foundations. Nonlocality is usually shown by violations of Bell inequalities. (Bell inequalities hereafter include all the subsequent developments such as the CHSH inequality.) Even if it is not clear whether the models of quantum theory are 1⁄4-ontic or 1⁄4-epistemic, we can prove nonlocality just by showing the violation of Bell inequalities. However, the above argument originated by Einstein implies that if we know the models are 1⁄4-ontic in advance (as we do now), we can prove nonlocality in a simpler way without Bell inequalities. (This argument had been known in quantum foundations before the refutation of 1⁄4-epistemic models.) Nonlocality is rigorously defined as a violation of the notion of local causality defined by Bell. Showing the violation of Bell inequalities is one way of demonstrating the violation of local causality. Since the simpler proof initiated by Einstein directly demonstrates the violation of local causality, it is a more straightforward proof of nonlocality from a conceptual point of view. In the following, we will see that this simple argument of nonlocality without Bell inequalities can be used to show multipartite nonlocality as well. Before moving onto multipartite cases, first let us define the necessary notions for presenting our result. First of all, we assume that there exists a complete specification of the properties of a physical system, which we refer to as the ontic state of that system. The ontic states represent the underlying realities and are not necessarily equal to ordinary quantum states. (In other words, the ontic states correspond to hidden variables.) Ontological models of quantum theory are models that assume ontic states and reproduce all the predictions of quantum theory. An important question is how ontic states correspond to quantum states in quantum theory. In order to frame the question accurately, we need the notion of an epistemic state, which represents the relation between them. Suppose we prepare a physical system in a quantum state 1⁄4. Although the system is uniquely specified as 1⁄4 in quantum theory, there still remains a possibility that it allows a more detailed specification in the ontic state space, in which case many different ontic states turn out to be consistent with 1⁄4. The relation between ontic states and the preparation procedure, P1⁄4, is described by a conditional probability distribution over the ontic state space, pð jP1⁄4Þ, which we refer to as an epistemic state. In general, the preparation P can be a preparation of a physical system in a mixed sate. Unless there exists a one-to-one correspondence between ontic states and quantum states, the probability distribution spreads over . (See Fig. 1.) The question of whether an ontological model is 1⁄4-ontic or 1⁄4-epistemic is concerned with the behaviour of the epistemic states for two distinct preparations of quantum states. Consider two distinct preparations of quantum states, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 82 (2013) 055003
For over nine decades, quantum mechanics has profoundly shaped our understanding of nature, offering explanations for the stability of atoms, the formation of mole cules, the properties of materials, and phenomena such as light or radioactivity. It is essential to modern technologies—from microchips to lasers—and underpins the physics of elementary particles. Yet, despite its successes, it remains a deeply mysterious theory, confronting a central enigma: why does the quantum world behave so differently from everyday reality? Elements such as superposition and quantum entanglement—which allow particles to exist simultaneously in multiple states or remain interconnected regardless of distance—contradict classical world intuitions. This gap between microscopic and macroscopic behavior has given rise to what is known as the “measurement problem,” raising fundamental questions about the nature of reality. Diverging interpretations have led to two major schools of thought: anti-realism, promoted by Niels Bohr, which holds that reality depends on the observer and their interaction with measurement instruments; and realism, supported by Albert Einstein, which argues that quantum mechanics is incomplete and that eality exists independently of observation. Bohr’s complementary philosophy and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle were central to the formulation of the “Copenhagen interpretation,” which became dominant in the 20th century. However, the persistent opposition of scientists like Einstein and Schrödinger inspired generations of physicists to seek a unification between quantum mechanics and relativity, culminating in new theories such as loop quantum gravity and string theory. Thus, the debate between realism and anti-realism remains alive, and philosophy continues to play a crucial role in exploring the new foundations of physics.
According to the orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics (Bohr being its leading voice), the attributes of a physical object (position, momentum, spin, etc.) can be assigned only when they have been measured. Einstein advocated the local realist viewpoint that an object had definite attributes whether they had been measured or not. The Copenhagen school view that measurement actually produces an object’s property would imply that the measurement of one part of an entangled quantum state can instantaneously fix the value of another part, no matter how far the two parts have been separated. Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen devised a thought experiment to shine a light on this “spooky action-at-a-distance” feature; its discussion and debate have illuminated the meaning of quantum mechanics (QM). It led later to Bell’s theorem showing that these seemingly philosophical questions can lead to observable results. The experimental vindication of the orthodox theory has sharpened our appreciation of the nonlocal features of quantum mechanics. Nevertheless, the counter-intuitive QM picture of objective reality still troubles many, leaving one to wonder whether quantum mechanics is ultimately a complete theory.
Wave functions live on configuration space. Schrodinger called this entanglement. The linearity of the Schrodinger equation prevents the wave function from representing reality. If the equation were non-linear (e.g., reduction models) the wave function living on configuration space still by itself could not represent reality in physical space. In this paper, we continue the line of reasoning discussed in our previous paper, "The Fundamental Importance of Discourse in Theoretical Physics", [arXiv:1001.4111], to explore the "measurement problem" in quantum mechanics. In particular we present a new interpretation of quantum decoherence, and a novel critique of the double slit experiment. In addition, we review the use of "determinism" in the discourse of quantum mechanics, resolving the confusion created by theories which attempt to restore determinism to quantum mechanics while confusing determinism with ontological necessity. Finally, we review Bell's Theorem in order to demonstrate that nonlocality is an inherent ontological quality of the configuration space of the universe regardless of deterministic or non-deterministic character of quantum mechanics.
Abstract Ontology is integral to the two most fundamental scientific theories of the twentieth century: quantum theory and the special and general theories of relativity. Issues that drove the development of quantum theory include the reality of quanta, the simultaneous wave- and particle-like nature of matter and energy, determinism, probability and randomness, Schrodinger’s wave equation, and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. So did the reality of the predictions about space, time, matter, energy, and the universe itself that were deduced from the special and general theories of relativity. Dirac’s prediction of antimatter based solely on the mathematics of his theory of the electron and Pauli’s prediction of the neutrino based on his belief in quantum mechanics are cases in point. Ontological interpretations of the uncertainty principle, of quantum vacuum energy fields, and of Schrodinger’s probability waves in the form of multiple universe theories further illustrate this point.
The foundations and meaning of quantum theory became a central issue to Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr since the onset of their impassioned debate in the 1920s, enriched by the contributions of many other distinguished scientists and philosophers.The questions are not settled down at all, despite the great achievements of the theory, its impressive accordance with experiment and predictive power.The fundamental and technological applications range from cosmology to biology, with the development of invaluable instruments and the design of new materials.Is quantum mechanics a complete or an incomplete theory?Is there an objective reality independent of the observer or is the reality created by the measurements?Are hidden-variable theories justifiable?Is there a quantum theory founded in a local-causal and non-linear approach that formally contains the orthodox linear theory as a special case?Can such a formulation unify classical and quantum physics?Are Heisenberg's uncertainty relations valid in all cases?Here, the subject is addressed as an adaptation of our contribution to the Colloquium "Quantal aspects in Chemistry and Physics.