We present and discuss selected issues related to the problem of representing in a machine-readable way data and knowledge about the quantum level of reality. In particular, we propose a method of creating an ontology for the quantum world. The method uses a mathematical structure of quantum mechanics. We apply the method to obtain a toy ontology corresponding to the Hilbert space formulation of quantum mechanics. We use the terms from the ontology to describe a simple quantum system. We also show how we can use the ontology to create semantic enhancements of scientific publications on quantum mechanics.
We present and discuss selected issues related to the problem of representing in a machine-readable way data and knowledge about the quantum level of reality. In particular, we propose a method of creating an ontology for the quantum world. The method uses a mathematical structure of quantum mechanics. We apply the method to obtain a toy ontology corresponding to the Hilbert space formulation of quantum mechanics. We use the terms from the ontology to describe a simple quantum system. We also show how we can use the ontology to create semantic enhancements of scientific publications on quantum mechanics.
What is quantum mechanics about? The most natural way to interpret quantum mechanics realistically as a theory about the world might seem to be what is called wave function ontology: the view according to which the wave function mathematically represents in a complete way fundamentally all there is in the world. We argue that: • Strictly speaking, it is not possible to interpret quantum theories as theories about the wave function; • Even if the wave function is supplemented by additional non-ontological structures, there are reasons not to take the resulting theory seriously; • All quantum theories should be regarded as theories in which physical objects are constituted by a primitive ontology. The primitive ontology is mathematically represented in the theory by a mathematical entity in three-dimensional space, or space-time.
Applications of quantum mechanics have led to many successful predictions and explanations of puzzling phenomena, and we now apply quantum mechanics to gain, process, and communicate information in novel ways. We can understand quantum mechanics by understanding how we have applied it. We should not seek agreement on the nature of the world it represents, because this theory does not itself represent the physical world (though its applications do help us to represent it better). When applied to a quantum state, quantum mechanics yields probabiities for physical events: both state and probability are objective--not because they represent elements of phyiscal reality, but because each exerts norrmative authority over the beliefs of anyone who accepts quantum mechanics and applies it relative to a physical situation they may (but need not) occupy. These events may be described by statements that are meaningful in an appropriate environmental context, and quantum mechanics can help one to say when that is. Measurement creates an appropriate context, so here the Born rule indirectly yields probabilities of measurement outcomes. The quantum state of a system does not "collapse" on measurement: a new state must be assigned relative to a physical situation in which information about the outcome is accessible. Understood this way, there is no measurement problem, and violations of Bell inequalities does not demonstrate "spooky" non-local action. Quantum field theories have no physical ontology of their own: a quantum field is a mathematical object in a model whose application helps us to improve and extend our descriptions of the world in other terms. We cannot realise the scenario of Wigner's friend and its recent extensions: but the data that provide overwhelming evidence for quantum mechanics are objective in the same sense as the relative measurement outcomes described in those scenarios.
We observe that there exists a presumed ontology, on the basis of which a dynamical theory is formulated. Extracting the essence of the ontology underlying classical mechanics, we revise it suitably to accommodate quantum mechanics seamlessly. The revision goes through two stages: First, we elaborate the concept of “state” as the propensity of an object to arouse events on discerners. Second, we integrate the position and momentum spaces into a single entity, related via the Fourier transform. Based on this revised ontology, quantum mechanics is deduced naturally without relying upon any artificial assumptions like the “quantum condition” or mathematical apparatuses like the Hilbert space and self-adjoint operators. In consequence, such thorny issues as the “measurement problem” are shown to either resolve or simply disappear.
We combine the ideas of Dirac's orthonormal representation, Everett's relative state, and 't Hooft's ontological basis to define the notion of a world for quantum mechanics. Mathematically, for a quantum system Q with an associated Hilbert space H, a world of Q is defined to be an orthonormal basis of H. The evolution of the system is governed by Schrödinger's equation for the worlds of it. An observable in a certain world is a self-adjoint operator diagonal under the corresponding basis. Moreover, a state is defined in an associated world but can be uniquely extended to the whole system as proved recently by Marcus, Spielman, and Srivastava. Although the states described by unit vectors in H may be determined in different worlds, there are the so-called topology-compact states which must be determined by the totality of a world. We can apply the Copenhagen interpretation to a world for regarding a quantum state as an external observation, and obtain the Born rule of random outcomes. Therefore, we present a mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics based on the notion of a world instead of a quantum state.
Applications of quantum mechanics have led to many successful predictions and explanations of puzzling phenomena, and we now apply quantum mechanics to gain, process, and communicate information in novel ways. We can understand quantum mechanics by understanding how we have applied it. We should not seek agreement on the nature of the world it represents, because this theory does not itself represent the physical world (though its applications do help us to represent it better). When applied to a quantum state, quantum mechanics yields probabilities for physical events: both state and probability are objective—not because they represent elements of physical reality, but because each exerts normative authority over the beliefs of anyone who accepts quantum mechanics and applies it relative to a physical situation they may (but need not) occupy. These events may be described by statements (about values of magnitudes) that are meaningful in an appropriate environmental context, and quantum mechanics can help one to say when that is. Measurement creates an appropriate context, so here the Born rule indirectly yields probabilities of measurement outcomes. The quantum state of a system does not “collapse” on measurement: a new state must be assigned relative to a physical situation in which information about the outcome is accessible. Understood this way, there is no measurement problem, and violation of Bell inequalities does not demonstrate “spooky” non-local action. Quantum field theories have no physical ontology of their own: a quantum field is a mathematical object in a model whose application helps to improve and extend our descriptions of the world in other terms. We cannot realise the scenario of Wigner’s friend and its recent extensions: but the data that provide overwhelming evidence for quantum mechanics are objective in the same sense as the relative measurement outcomes described in those scenarios.
Modern scientists describe the universe in terms of two basic partial theories: firstly, the general theory of relativity proposed by Albert Einstein, and secondly, the theory of quantum mechanics. This theory introduces an immense reality and simultaneously creates complex questions for the world of physics. Quantum mechanics is an incompletable knowledge however scientists are finding the basic theories from this theory. They propose complex mathematical expressions from quantum mechanics to prove the basic law of atoms. Quantum mechanics is the entire knowledge of subatomic particles such as electrons, protons, and neutrons. Quantum mechanics reveals that what we see is just a part of a deeper reality. Then we can grasp from this theory that the material world is not the completed reality; there are other things beyond human physical senses. The concept of quantum mechanics describes particles that can exist in multiple states. The concept of quantum mechanics is directly proportional to contemporary world technologies. The super specialty of this theory is that scientists cannot be explained universe without quantum mechanics. The uncertainty principle of Heisenberg in quantum mechanics suggests that there are limits to what we can know about a particle state of an atom. Humans cannot yet find out what it looks like and how we can imagine the existence of subatomic particles in an atom. That was an unseen dynamite for humans' perspective observation of the material world.