Following the view of several leading quantum-information theorists, this paper argues that quantum phenomena, including those exhibiting quantum correlations (one of their most enigmatic features), and quantum mechanics may be best understood in quantum-informational terms. It also argues that this understanding is implicit already in the work of some among the founding figures of quantum mechanics, in particular W. Heisenberg and N. Bohr, half a century before quantum information theory emerged and confirmed, and gave a deeper meaning to, to their insights. These insights, I further argue, still help this understanding, which is the main reason for considering them here. My argument is grounded in a particular interpretation of quantum phenomena and quantum mechanics, in part arising from these insights as well. This interpretation is based on the concept of reality without realism, RWR (which places the reality considered beyond representation or even conception), introduced by this author previously, in turn, following Heisenberg and Bohr, and in response to quantum information theory.
Following the view of several leading quantum-information theorists, this paper argues that quantum phenomena, including those exhibiting quantum correlations (one of their most enigmatic features), and quantum mechanics may be best understood in quantum-informational terms. It also argues that this understanding is implicit already in the work of some among the founding figures of quantum mechanics, in particular W. Heisenberg and N. Bohr, half a century before quantum information theory emerged and confirmed, and gave a deeper meaning to, to their insights. These insights, I further argue, still help this understanding, which is the main reason for considering them here. My argument is grounded in a particular interpretation of quantum phenomena and quantum mechanics, in part arising from these insights as well. This interpretation is based on the concept of reality without realism, RWR (which places the reality considered beyond representation or even conception), introduced by this author previously, in turn, following Heisenberg and Bohr, and in response to quantum information theory.
The article argues that-at least in certain interpretations, such as the one assumed in this article under the heading of "reality without realism"-the quantum-theoretical situation appears as follows: While-in terms of probabilistic predictions-connected to and connecting the information obtained in quantum phenomena, the mathematics of quantum theory (QM or QFT), which is continuous, does not represent and is discontinuous with both the emergence of quantum phenomena and the physics of these phenomena, phenomena that are physically discontinuous with each other as well. These phenomena, and thus this information, are described by classical physics. All actually available information (in the mathematical sense of information theory) is classical: it is composed of units, such as bits, that are-or are contained in-entities described by classical physics. On the other hand, classical physics cannot predict this information when it is created, as manifested in measuring instruments, in quantum experiments, while quantum theory can. In this epistemological sense, this information is quantum. The article designates the discontinuity between quantum theory and the emergence of quantum phenomena the "Heisenberg discontinuity", because it was introduced by W. Heisenberg along with QM, and the discontinuity between QM or QFT and the classical physics of quantum phenomena, the "Bohr discontinuity", because it was introduced as part of Bohr's interpretation of quantum phenomena and QM, under the assumption of Heisenberg discontinuity. Combining both discontinuities precludes QM or QFT from being connected to either physical reality, that ultimately responsible for quantum phenomena or that of these phenomena themselves, other than by means of probabilistic predictions concerning the information, classical in character, contained in quantum phenomena. The nature of quantum information is, in this view, defined by this situation. A major implication, discussed in the Conclusion, is the existence and arguably the necessity of two-classical and quantum-or with relativity, three and possibly more essentially different theories in fundamental physics.
We start with discussion on Bohr’s response to the EPR argument andexplain how Bohr was able to sail between Scylla (incompleteness) andCharybdis (nonlocality) towards the consistent interpretation of quantumtheory. We call the latter the Bohr interpretation and distinguish it fromthe commonly used orthodox Copenhagen interpretation. We point to connectionbetween the complementarity principle and the information interpretationof QM and briefly discuss its versions, starting withSchrödinger and continuing to the information quantization interpretation(Zeilinger, Brukner), QBism (Fuchs et al.), reality without realism (RWR,Plotnitsky), the Växjö interpretation (Khrennikov), and derivations of thequantum formalism from the information axioms (e.g., D’Ariano et al.). Oneof the main distinguishing features of the information interpretation is the possibility of structuring thequantum foundations without nonlocality and spooky actionat a distance.
This article reconsiders the concept of physical reality in quantum theory and the concept of quantum measurement, following Bohr, whose analysis of quantum measurement led him to his concept of a (quantum) "phenomenon," referring to "the observations obtained under the specified circumstances," in the interaction between quantum objects and measuring instruments. This situation makes the terms "observation" and "measurement," as conventionally understood, inapplicable. These terms are remnants of classical physics or still earlier history, from which classical physics inherited it. As defined here, a quantum measurement does not measure any preexisting property of the ultimate constitution of the reality responsible for quantum phenomena. An act of measurement establishes a quantum phenomenon by an interaction between the instrument and the quantum object or in the present view the ultimate constitution of the reality responsible for quantum phenomena and, at the time of measurement, also quantum objects. In the view advanced in this article, in contrast to that of Bohr, quantum objects, such as electrons or photons, are assumed to exist only at the time of measurement and not independently, a view that redefines the concept of quantum object as well. This redefinition becomes especially important in high-energy quantum regimes and quantum field theory and allows this article to define a new concept of quantum field. The article also considers, now following Bohr, the quantum measurement as the entanglement between quantum objects and measurement instruments. The argument of the article is grounded in the concept "reality without realism" (RWR), as underlying quantum measurement thus understood, and the view, the RWR view, of quantum theory defined by this concept. The RWR view places a stratum of physical reality thus designated, here the reality ultimately responsible for quantum phenomena, beyond representation or knowledge, or even conception, and defines the corresponding set of interpretations quantum mechanics or quantum field theory, such as the one assumed in this article, in which, again, not only quantum phenomena but also quantum objects are (idealizations) defined by measurement. As such, the article also offers a broadly conceived response to J. Bell's argument "against 'measurement'".
Quantum mechanics is a solidly founded mathematical theory, but it has yet to be explained in first conceptual principles. The most obvious aberration to explanation that quantum mechanics has is interference and coherence. We simply do not understand why the preparation of a quantum mechanical system must not allow knowledge of path in order to display interference effects. We present the first principles of the information interpretation which provide a proper conceptual foundation of quantum mechanics and also lead to an explanation of interference and coherence. The Information Interpretation In the history of the information interpretation of quantum mechanics there are many authors 1,2,3 whom argued that quantum mechanical systems are information, but these presentations of the interpretation have not been able to fully explain the demands of coherence and interference. We argue here that the other interpretations have lacked a “second principle ” that could properly clarify the issue. Specifically, they have lacked a principle that much like the principle of relativity theory is founded on a reasoning of consistency of all perspectives. The earliest of interpretations would all have presented the same underlying argument, that quantum mechanical systems are information, and some formalize this in the manner of truth value to proposition.
We still lack any consensus about what one is actually talking about as one uses quantum mechanics. There is a gap between the abstract terms in which the theory is couched and the phenomena the theory enables each of us to account for so well. Because it has no practical consequences for how we each use quantum mechanics to deal with physical problems, this cognitive dissonance has managed to coexist with the quantum theory from the very beginning. The absence of conceptual clarity for almost a century suggests that the problem might lie in some implicit misconceptions about the nature of scientific explanation that are deeply held by virtually all physicists, but are rarely explicitly acknowledged. I describe here such unvoiced but widely shared assumptions. Rejecting them clarifies and unifies a range of obscure remarks about quantum mechanics made almost from the beginning by some of the giants of physics, many of whom are held to be in deep disagreement. This new view of physics requires physicists to think about science in an unfamiliar way. My primary purpose is to explain the new perspective and urge that it be taken seriously. My secondary aims are to explain why this perspective differs significantly from what Bohr, Heisenberg, and Pauli had been saying from the very beginning, and why it is not solipsism, as some have maintained. To emphasize that this is a general view of science, and not just of quantum mechanics, I apply it to a long-standing puzzle in classical physics: the apparent inability of physics to give any meaning to 'Now'-the present moment.
The quantum of action was found more then a century ago, but until now the meaning of quantum theory is often claimed to be “unclear” or even “not truly understandable.” Another prejudice is that quantum theory is only relevant for the range of atomic and sub-atomic phenomena. After a century of successful applications without any evidence at odds with the predictions of quantum theory, and in view of the fact that at present quantum theory is at the economic bottom of about one third of the Gross National Product, the need for a comprehensive and even popular understanding of the principles of quantum theory, preferably dispensing with the burden of the full mathematical apparatus, is more urgent than ever. Interestingly, there is a connection between quantum theory and your daily-life experience, suggesting to extend and generalize the Copenhagen interpretation in such a way that the observer and his consciousness is no longer excluded from scientific description. Moreover, Quantum theory is easier to understood, if one realizes that its range of applicability surpasses widely that of quantum mechanics, comparable to the way classical physics surpasses classical mechanics. The essential new aspect is the role of abstract quantum information, referred to as Protyposis. The idea that quantum information can have an ontological status equivalent to matter or energy was developed more than half a century ago, but it is only rather recently that, in view of the success of experimental work, the relevance of quantum information has been widely acknowledged. The concept of abstract quantum information is especially helpful in the understanding of the measuring process.