The traditional view is that a theory is a conceptual framework providing predictions, and the results of experiments or observations decide whether the theory is right or wrong. It will be contrasted with the modern view that one must incorporate the conditions of applicability of a concept into the very meaning of the concept (measurability analysis), and that only a series of theories (scientific research program) can be said to be scientific or unscientific. This modern view will be applied to a number of questions in quantum mechanics (what is quantization?, states vs processes, open vs closed systems) and quantum field theory (particles and field quanta, bosons vs fermions), and to the search for a theory of quantum gravity (background independent vs fixed background theories).
The traditional view is that a theory is a conceptual framework providing predictions, and the results of experiments or observations decide whether the theory is right or wrong. It will be contrasted with the modern view that one must incorporate the conditions of applicability of a concept into the very meaning of the concept (measurability analysis), and that only a series of theories (scientific research program) can be said to be scientific or unscientific. This modern view will be applied to a number of questions in quantum mechanics (what is quantization?, states vs processes, open vs closed systems) and quantum field theory (particles and field quanta, bosons vs fermions), and to the search for a theory of quantum gravity (background independent vs fixed background theories).
In this paper, we try to give a new approach to the quantum mechanics(QM) on the framework of quantum field theory(QFT). Firstly, we make a detail study on the (non-relativistic) Schrodinger field theory, obtaining the Schrodinger equation as a field equation, after field quantization, the Heisenberg equations for the momentum and position operators of the particles excited from the (Schrodinger) field and the Feynman path integral formula of QM are also obtained. We then give the probability concepts of quantum mechanics in terms of a statistical ensemble, realizing the ensemble(or statistical) interpretation. With these, we make a series of conceptual modifications to the standard quantum mechanics, especially propose a new assumption about the quantum measurement theory which can solve the EPR paradox from the view of the QFT. Besides, a field theoretical description to the double-slit interference experiment is developed, obtaining the required particle number distribution. In the end, we extend all the above concepts to the relativistic case so that the ensemble interpretation is still proper. Two extra topics are added, in the first one, an operable experiment is proposed to distinguish the Copenhagen interpretation from the ensemble one via very different experimental results. While the second topic concerns with the extensions of the concept of coherent state to both the Bosonic and Fermionic field cases, to obtain the corresponding classical fields. And in the concluding section, we make some general comparisons between the standard QM and the one derived from the QFT, from which we claim that the QFT is the fundamental theory.
I take a pragmatist perspective on quantum theory. This is not a view of the world described by quantum theory. In this view quantum theory itself does not describe the physical world, nor our observatons, experiences or opinions of it. Instead, the theory offers reliable advice on when to expect an event of one kind or another, and on how strongly to expect each possible outcome of that event. The actual outcome is a perspectival fact: a fact relative to a physical context of assessment. Measurement outcomes and quantum states are both perspectival. By noticing that each must be relativized to an appropriate physical context one can resolve the measurement problem and the problem of nonlocal action. But if the outcome of a quantum measurement is not an absolute fact, then why shoud the statistics of such outcomes give us any objective reason to accept quantum theory? One can describe extensions of the scenario of Wigner's friend in which a statement expressing the outcome of a quantum measurement would be true relative to one such context but not relative to another. However, physical conditions in our world prevent us from realizing such scenarios. Since the outcome of every actual quantum measurement is certified at what is essentially a single context of assessment, the outcome relative to that context is an objective fact in the only sense that matters for science. We should accept quantum theory because the statistics these outcomes display are just those it leads us to expect.
In this paper, we try to give a new approach to the quantum mechanics(QM) on the framework of quantum field theory(QFT). Firstly, we make a detail study on the (non-relativistic) Schrödinger field theory, obtaining the Schrödinger equation as a field equation, after field quantization, the Heisenberg equations for the momentum and position operators of the particles excited from the (Schrödinger) field and the Feynman path integral formula of QM are also obtained. We then give the probability concepts of quantum mechanics in terms of a statistical ensemble, realizing the ensemble(or statistical) interpretation. With these, we make a series of conceptual modifications to the standard quantum mechanics, especially propose a new assumption about the quantum measurement theory which can solve the EPR paradox from the view of the QFT. Besides, a field theoretical description to the double-slit interference experiment is developed, obtaining the required particle number distribution. In the end, we extend all the above concepts to the relativistic case so that the ensemble interpretation is still proper. Two extra topics are added, in the first one, an operable experiment is proposed to distinguish the Copenhagen interpretation from the ensemble one via very different experimental results. While the second topic concerns with the extensions of the concept of coherent state to both the Bosonic and Fermionic field cases, to obtain the corresponding classical fields. And in the concluding section, we make some general comparisons between the standard QM and the one derived from the QFT, from which we claim that the QFT is the fundamental theory.
The EPR controversy between Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr about the completeness of the quantum mechanics is one of the most essential contemporary debates in physics with respect to the issue of realism. Initially considered as a though-experiment, the EPR paradox was meant to evidence the inadequacy of quantum mechanics with respect to the traditional leading principle of physics such as locality, independence of the system elements of reality with respect to the observer or semantic reference of theories to elements of the reality in itself. Bell’s mathematical inquiry opened the possibility to empirically discriminate between the view of Bohr and Einstein through the so-called Bell’s inequalities. Based on these inequalities, the experimental test provided in particular by the work of Alain Aspect settled the debate in favor of Bohr and the completeness of quantum mechanics. The previously evident assumption that physical theories are describing the reality in it-self can thus be questioned. Several approaches have been proposed to face that challenge, such as the orthodox quantum physics formulation coupled with the interpretation of Bernard d’Espagnat , the non-local theory of De Broglie-Bohm or the quantum mechanics approach with extended probability of James B. Hartle . In this paper, we consider the idea according to which the field of experiments and measurements on quantum systems is a research context where several epistemic values traditionally leading the scientific activity are in conflict. Instead of conceiving the transition from classical to quantum physics along Thomas Kuhns’ theory of revolutionary paradigm change , characterized by a strong incommensurability between the old and the new approaches, we argue that this epistemological shift could be rationally understood as an incremental evolution of the epistemic values leading scientific activity. As the analysis in this paper aims to show, such a rational reconstruction shows a process of gradual change, where core epistemic values are maintained, while others are broadened to account for the new scientific approaches. The settling of the EPR controversy could be understood as the indication that the previously assumed epistemic values cannot be consistently held together in the quantum context. The values of logical consistency and empirical adequacy remained universally shared, but the controversy leads to question the other traditionally admitted principles, such as the locality, the requirement of semantic references to the reality in itself and the independence of experimental results with respect to the observer, all tightly connected with the realistic conceptions of the world. This first part of the paper characterizes the selected contemporary approaches in quantum context with respect to the modification of the epistemic principles they adopt to restore their consistency. While the de Broglie-Bohm theory explicitly follows the requirement of referring to the reality in itself at the expense of the locality principle, the approaches of d’Espagnat and of Hartle give priority to the values of theoretical framework simplicity and predictive power. In the case of d’Espagnat, the descriptive purpose of the scientific activity remains, but only in a weak objectivity perspective, restricted to the “empirical reality” in which the observer is involved. In the case of Hartle, the extended probability formulation of quantum mechanics is conceived as “an extension of familiar probability theory that incorporates negative probabilities”6, which relies on the Bayesian conception of “probabilities as instruction for betting” (negative probability is thus associated to the instruction “don’t bet”). In a second part, the paper uses this reconstruction of the various theories in order to address the epistemic status of the principles of descriptive power and of independence of the observed system with respect to the observer. In particular, our analysis aims to assess if a reference to the observer is part of the reality description or if such reference is avoidable. This is of prior interest in exploring the main characteristics of a realistic approach that would be applicable in the context of experiments and measurements on quantum systems. In that perspective, we argue that the direct holistic realism, developed by Hilary Putnam in The Threefold Cord , could be a promising intermediate option between a classical realism, which assumes that theoretical structures are describing the reality in it-self, and a more instrumentalist view, focusing mainly on the modeling of the empirical reality as a result of experimental operations while rejecting access to the reality in itself.
What is quantum theory? For much of the twentieth century, it was widely believed that the interpretation of quantum theory had been essentially settled by Bohr and Heisenberg in 1927. But not only were the ‘dissenters’ of 1927 – in particular de Broglie, Einstein and Schrödinger – unconvinced at the time: similar dissenting points of view are not uncommon even today. What Popper called ‘the schism in physics’ (Popper 1982) never really healed. Soon after 1927 it became standard to assert that matters of interpretation had been dealt with, but the sense of puzzlement and paradox surrounding quantum theory never disappeared. As the century wore on, many of the concerns and alternative viewpoints expressed in 1927 slowly but surely revived. In 1952, Bohm revived and extended de Broglie's theory (Bohm 1952a,b), and in 1993 the de Broglie–Bohm theory finally received textbook treatment as an alternative formulation of quantum theory (Bohm and Hiley 1993; Holland 1993). In 1957, Everett (1957) revived Schrödinger's view that the wave function, and the wave function alone, is real (albeit in a very novel sense), and the resulting ‘Everett’ or ‘many-worlds’ interpretation (DeWitt and Graham 1973) gradually won widespread support, especially among physicists interested in quantum gravity and quantum cosmology.