Abstract The influence of various choices of dynamic variables in quantum theory on the interpretation of measurement results and experiments are discussed. Dynamic variables in the generally accepted quantum mechanics have no visual sense, which in turn leads to the loss of the image of the studied phenomena and processes of the microworld. Thus, quantum mechanics forces us to abandon the possibility of even mentally imagining the conditions that determine the behavior of an individual system in a quantum region. Also, various representations of the wave function and their use in solving dynamic equations are shown. By now, quantum mechanics is not a complete theory. It resembles classical (Newtonian) mechanics, which explains how movement occurs as a result of the action of certain forces, but does not say what kind of forces it is. Thus, before the advent of basic theories, the application of quantum mechanics to specific physical problems always implied the need to build certain guesses about the nature of these forces.
Abstract The influence of various choices of dynamic variables in quantum theory on the interpretation of measurement results and experiments are discussed. Dynamic variables in the generally accepted quantum mechanics have no visual sense, which in turn leads to the loss of the image of the studied phenomena and processes of the microworld. Thus, quantum mechanics forces us to abandon the possibility of even mentally imagining the conditions that determine the behavior of an individual system in a quantum region. Also, various representations of the wave function and their use in solving dynamic equations are shown. By now, quantum mechanics is not a complete theory. It resembles classical (Newtonian) mechanics, which explains how movement occurs as a result of the action of certain forces, but does not say what kind of forces it is. Thus, before the advent of basic theories, the application of quantum mechanics to specific physical problems always implied the need to build certain guesses about the nature of these forces.
The usual interpretation of the quantum theory is self-consistent, but it involves an assumption that cannot be tested experimentally, viz., that the most complete possible specification of an individual system is in terms of a wave function that determines only probable results of actual measurement processes. The only way of investigating the truth of this assumption is by trying to find some other interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of at present "hidden" variables, which in principle determine the precise behavior of an individual system, but which are in practice averaged over in measurements of the types that can now be carried out. In this paper and in a subsequent paper, an interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of just such "hidden" variables is suggested. It is shown that as long as the mathematical theory retains its present general form, this suggested interpretation leads to precisely the same results for all physical processes as does the usual interpretation. Nevertheless, the suggested interpretation provides a broader conceptual framework than the usual interpretation, because it makes possible a precise and continuous description of all processes, even at the quantum level. This broader conceptual framework allows more general mathematical formulations of the theory than those allowed by the usual interpretation. Now, the usual mathematical formulation seems to lead to insoluble difficulties when it is extrapolated into the domain of distances of the order of ${10}^{\ensuremath{-}13}$ cm or less. It is therefore entirely possible that the interpretation suggested here may be needed for the resolution of these difficulties. In any case, the mere possibility of such an interpretation proves that it is not necessary for us to give up a precise, rational, and objective description of individual systems at a quantum level of accuracy.
Abstract The new quantum mechanics consists of a scheme of equations which are very closely analogous to the equations of classical mechanics, with the fundamental difference that the dynamical variables do not obey the commutative law of multiplication, but satisfy instead the well-known quantum conditions. It follows that one cannot suppose the dynamical variables to be ordinary numbers (c-numbers), but may call them numbers of a special type (q-numbers). The theory shows that these q-numbers can in general be represented by matrices whose elements are c-numbers (functions of a time parameter). When one has performed the calculations with the q-numbers and obtained all the matrices one wants, the question arises how one is to get physical results from the theory, i. e., how can one obtain c-numbers from the theory that one can compare with experimental values ? Hitherto this has been done with the help of a number of special assumptions. In Heisenberg’s original matrix mechanics it was assumed that the elements of the diagonal matrix that represents the energy are the energy levels of the system, and the elements of the matrix that represents the total polarisation, which are periodic functions of the time, determine the frequencies and intensities of the spectral lines in analogy to the classical theory. Schrodinger’s wave representation of the quantum mechanics has provided new ways of obtaining physical results from the theory, based on the assumption that the square of the amplitude of the wave function can in certain cases be interpreted as a probability. From this assumption one can, for instance, work out the probability of a transition being produced in a system (or the number of transitions produced in an assembly of like systems) by an arbitrary external perturbing force, and can thus, by supposing the perturbation to consist of incident radiation, obtain directly Einstein’s B coefficients. Again in Born’s treatment of collision problems it is assumed that the square of the amplitude of the wave function scattered in any direction determines the probability of the colliding electron (or other body) being scattered in that direction.
MEASUREMENT INTERACTIONS In the present interpretation terms such as ‘measurement,’ ‘observation,’ ‘find,’ ‘classical,’ and ‘apparatus’ do not appear in the formulation of quantum mechanics. Yet it must of course be true that quantum mechanics can be used to predict features of the results of measurements – in particular their statistics. What is required, then, is an account in quantum mechanical terms of those physical interactions capable of being used to perform measurements of quantum dynamical variables, from which it follows that the predicted probabilities for specified behavior of certain quantum systems in these interactions coincide with what, on a more conventional interpretation, are simply postulated as the quantum mechanical probabilities for various measurement results on a system with a given quantum state. It is necessary to see how this consequence may be derived, not only in order to explicate the Born rules, but also to explain the role of quantum states within the present interpretation. The first step toward the required account is to analyze the nature of an interaction capable of being used to perform a measurement of the value of a quantum dynamical variable in a quantum system. Any such interaction will be called an M -type interaction, whether or not it is in fact used to perform a measurement. The basic characteristic of an M -type interaction is that it establishes a correlation between the initial dynamical state of one quantum system σ (the object system) and the final dynamical state of another quantum system α (the apparatus system).
We present a historical-epistemological analysis of the foundations of quantum mechanics, highlighting the relationships between quantum mechanics and scientific realism, as well as the influence of the neo-positivist philosophy of the first decades of the 20th century. The great significance of the measurement process in the context of quantum mechanics is underlined as an essential element in providing a coherent description of reality, moving from micro to macrocosm, as well as the role that the measurement apparatus and the consciousness of the observer assume during the act of measurement, the related ontological problems, the question of the objectification of the wave function, and that of the definition of discernibility. We consider also an overview of the most important alternative proposals to the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics (Copenhagen interpretation), with particular reference to hidden variable theories and other alternatives to standard quantum mechanics philosophical approach, that are modifying the vision of reality, such as the Everett’s many-worlds theory, the QBism and unified holistic approaches, such as the Primordial Dynamic Space.
Quantum mechanics is based on Schrodinger’s wave function with linear superposition of vectors in a Hilbert space. Due to superposition, multiple physical states are considered simultaneously for the same time point, but when the corresponding quantum mechanical experiments are realized, there is only one outcome and not a superposition of pointer positions. This observation characterizes the quantum mechanical measurement problem, which for about a century found multiple interpretations, which can be classified as potentiality, as proposed by Heisenberg, or as real physical entities, for instance fields. Potentialities are yet inexistent in reality and unobservable in the present, since they represent a possible future. Thus, they can only be an intra-mental representation of a future process and not a physical extra-mental process ongoing in the present. There is coexistence of a physical object observable in reality and a mental prediction by an observer concerning the future behavior of this object. The characterization of quantum mechanical formalism by some physicists corresponds to a prediction and therefore to a mental representation of the future behavior of elementary particles and not to a description of an ongoing extra-mental process. Prediction in life and science has some characteristics, which resemble the measurement problem, since it undergoes a “multiple to one” reduction of mental potentialities to only one observable real outcome. Besides quantum mechanics, such reductions can also be found with many kinds of predictions, in classical physics for regular and irregular dynamical processes and in humans for programming future actions. Superposition in classical physics only concerns variable effects, but in quantum mechanics includes variable effects and non-localizable causes. Quantum mechanics, interpreted as prediction of future outcomes with multiple potentialities but only one realization, would resemble the general prediction problem in life and science and thereby loos its weird aspects.
We have developed an app for iOS-based smart-phones/tablets that allows a 3-D, complex phase-based colorful visualization of hydrogen atom wave functions. Several important features of the quantum behavior of atomic orbitals can easily be made evident, thus making this app a useful companion in introductory modern physics classes. There are many reasons why quantum mechanical systems and phenomena are difficult both to teach and deeply understand. They are described by equations that are generally hard to visualize, and they often oppose the so-called “common sense” based on the human perception of the world, which is built on mental images such as locality and causality. Moreover students cannot have direct experience of those systems and solutions, and generally do not even have the possibility to refer to pictures, videos, or experiments to fill this gap. Teachers often encounter quite serious troubles in finding out a sensible way to speak about the wonders of quantum physics at the high school level, where complex formalisms are not accessible at all. One should however consider that this is quite a common issue in physics and, more generally, in science education. There are plenty of natural phenomena whose models (not only at microscopic and atomic levels) are of difficult, if not impossible, visualization. Just think of certain kinds of waves, fields of forces, velocities, energy, angular momentum, and so on. One should also notice that physical reality is not the same as the images we make of it. Pictures (formal, abstract ones, as well as artists' views) are a convenient bridge between these two aspects.