The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics assumes the existence of the classical deterministic Newtonian world. We argue that in fact the Newton determinism in classical world does not hold and in classical mechanics there is fundamental and irreducible randomness. The classical Newtonian trajectory does not have a direct physical meaning since arbitrary real numbers are not observable. There are classical uncertainty relations, i.e. the uncertainty (errors of observation) in the determination of coordinate and momentum is always positive (non zero). A "functional" formulation of classical mechanics was suggested. The fundamental equation of the microscopic dynamics in the functional approach is not the Newton equation but the Liouville equation for the distribution function of the single particle. Solutions of the Liouville equation have the property of delocalization which accounts for irreversibility. The Newton equation in this approach appears as an approximate equation describing the dynamics of the average values of the position and momenta for not too long time intervals. Corrections to the Newton trajectories are computed. An interpretation of quantum mechanics is attempted in which both classical and quantum mechanics contain fundamental randomness. Instead of an ensemble of events one introduces an ensemble of observers.
The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics assumes the existence of the classical deterministic Newtonian world. We argue that in fact the Newton determinism in classical world does not hold and in classical mechanics there is fundamental and irreducible randomness. The classical Newtonian trajectory does not have a direct physical meaning since arbitrary real numbers are not observable. There are classical uncertainty relations, i.e. the uncertainty (errors of observation) in the determination of coordinate and momentum is always positive (non zero). A "functional" formulation of classical mechanics was suggested. The fundamental equation of the microscopic dynamics in the functional approach is not the Newton equation but the Liouville equation for the distribution function of the single particle. Solutions of the Liouville equation have the property of delocalization which accounts for irreversibility. The Newton equation in this approach appears as an approximate equation describing the dynamics of the average values of the position and momenta for not too long time intervals. Corrections to the Newton trajectories are computed. An interpretation of quantum mechanics is attempted in which both classical and quantum mechanics contain fundamental randomness. Instead of an ensemble of events one introduces an ensemble of observers.
The notion of microscopic state of the system at a given moment of time as a point in the phase space as well as a notion of trajectory is widely used in classical mechanics. However, it does not have an immediate physical meaning, since arbitrary real numbers are unobservable. This notion leads to the known paradoxes, such as the irreversibility problem. A “functional” formulation of classical mechanics is suggested. The physical meaning is attached in this formulation not to an individual trajectory but only to a “beam” of trajectories, or the distribution function on phase space. The fundamental equation of the microscopic dynamics in the functional approach is not the Newton equation but the Liouville equation for the distribution function of the single particle. The Newton equation in this approach appears as an approximate equation describing the dynamics of the average values and there are corrections to the Newton trajectories. We give a construction of probability density function starting from the directly observable quantities, i.e., the results of measurements, which are rational numbers.
We propose that the Schrodinger equation results from applying the classical wave equation to describe the physical system in which subatomic particles play random motion, thereby leading to quantum mechanics. The physical reality described by the wave function is subatomic particle moving randomly. Therefore, the characteristics of quantum mechanics have a dual nature, one of them is the deterministic nature carried on from classical physics, and the other is the probabilistic nature coined by particle's random motion. Based on this model, almost all of open questions in quantum mechanics can be explained consistently, which include the particle-wave duality, the principle of quantum superposition, the interference pattern of double-slit experiments, and the boundary between the classical world and the quantum world. The current quantum mechanics is a mixture of matrix mechanics and wave mechanics, which are sharply conflicting in principle. Matrix mechanics treats quantum particles as classical particles with fixed relation between the particle's position and its momentum. The matrix mechanics, in fact, belongs to the old quantum theory. Both Born's non-commutative relation and Heisenberg uncertainty relation originate from matrix mechanics. However, in wave mechanics, there is no any fixed relation between the particle's position and its momentum, and the particle's position and its momentum belong to immeasurable physical quantities. Therefore, there is no need for non-commutative relation and uncertainty relation in wave mechanics.
Quantum mechanics is often compared with classical mechanics because both may deal with a single particle subject to a potential. Classical mechanics is said to be deterministic describing x(t) and its derivatives i.e showing how a particle moves and accelerates while bound state quantum mechanics produces a real wavefunction W(x) such that W(x)W(x) yields a spatial density profile. The comparison is carried further with the correspondence principle which states that at high energy levels quantum mechanics should mimic classical mechanics. Classical mechanics does not simply describe x(t) and its derivatives i.e. deterministic motion. It also includes two body scattering, force and torque balances for a stationary object etc. In the case of the classical statistical mechanics of an equilibrium ideal gas, the Maxwell-Boltzmann (MB) distribution in the absence of a potential is C1 exp(- pp/(2mT) ). If a potential V(x) is added, one may find P(x) two different ways using Newtonian ideas. The first is to consider the gas as a collective entity like a tiny macroscopic classical object at x. Then one may argue that equilibrium means the system is stationary and apply Newtonian statics i.e. a balance of pressures and -dV/dx to obtain exp(-V(x)/T) as is often done in textbooks. Alternatively, one may consider a single particle and apply Newtonian mechanics differently, namely use a conservation of energy equation: p1p1/2m + V(x1) = p2p2/2m + V(x2). Again one obtains exp(-V(x)/T). The spatial part of probability may be based on Newtonian mechanics indicating that it is not stochastic. The stochastic function is C1 exp(-pp/2mT). Interestingly, however, the two Newtonian approaches are different with respect to a single particle. A collective nonmoving set of particles acts as a stationary object, yet within it each particle seems to be “bouncing” off of an imaginary wall creating pressure. Thus one has an impulse free particle picture yet obtains the correct result exp(-V(x)/T). Alternatively one may think of a single particle accelerating which it does if it is not colliding with other particles. This is a very different picture of the single particle than of one bouncing back and forth hitting an imaginary wall. In fact, there is usually a wall holding the gas together and pressure and bouncing particles are the real picture there, but within the gas one would normally think of a single particle accelerating. Nevertheless there are two scenarios which yield the same result. The idea of pressure balance is more in keeping with an overall statistical picture of the gas. In other words, one may actually ignore the idea of following a single particle as it accelerates. (That is not to say that single particle acceleration does not exist - it does.) Quantum mechanics we argue is a statistical theory. In the case of a single bound particle one has a momentum distribution W(x)=wavefunction = Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx). One may apply conservation of average energy at each x to obtain the time-independent Schrodinger equation. In such a picture, like with the statistical mechanical gas, we argue that one may imagine impulse hits with the potential instead of considering acceleration. The quantity vrms(x) from KEclassical= .5m vrms(x)vrms(x) = -1/2m d/dx dW/dx / W does display acceleration, but this is a mathematical average. As energy levels become higher the correspondence principle is said to apply, but a classical particle exhibits acceleration. The quantum bound state does not, but like in the case of the statistical mechanical gas it may be that two scenarios lead to the same result. In other words, the quantum bound W(x) still has crests and troughs, but with low resolution one may only see an envelope roughly touching W(x)W(x) which matches a classical C2/v(x) where v(x) is classical velocity. Given that quantum mechanics is a statistical theory it may not be necessary to have it explicitly display acceleration.
The true dynamical randomness is obtained as a natural fundamental property of deterministic quantum systems. It provides quantum chaos passing to the classical dynamical chaos under the ordinary semiclassical transition, which extends the correspondence principle to chaotic systems. In return one should accept the modified form of quantum formalism (presented by the Schroedinger equation) which, however, does not contradict the ordinary form and the main postulates of quantum mechanics. It introduces the principle of the fundamental dynamic multivaluedness (redundance) extending the quantum paradigm to complex dynamical behaviour. Moreover, a causal solution to the well-known problems of the foundation of quantum mechanics, those of quantum indeterminacy and wave reduction, is also found using the same method. The concept of the fundamental dynamic uncertainty thus established is universal in character and provides a unified scheme of the complete description of arbitrary complex system of any origin (physics/9806002). This scheme incorporates, in particular, universal definitions of complexity, (non)integrability, and general solution, as well as the physically complete notion of probability. One obtains thus a self-consistent hierarchic picture of the world characterised by a (high) non-zero complexity and containing the intrinsic causal randomness, where the causally extended quantum mechanics can be consistently interpreted as several lowest levels of complexity (quant-ph/990215,16).
Interpreting quantum mechanics is a hard problem basically because it means explaining why and how the mathematics exploited to formulate wave-particle duality are related to observations or reality in classical physics (due to Newtonian mechanics, special relativity, gravity and entropy). Here, we first prove the limitation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle by invoking the wave-particle duality and apply it to revise and/or extend the Copenhagen postulates. In particular, even though the said uncertainty exists due to non-commuting operators, but these operators do not commute simply because one of the operators is well-defined in classical physics (particle-like), while the other is wave-like (well-defined in quantum mechanics), or the eigenvalue is not at all defined in classical physics. We also construct a new quantum mechanical postulate (Postulate 9) to deduce why the forbidden gap between discrete energy levels should exist in atoms, molecules and condensed matter phases. In fact, we tackle all the problems arising from the Copenhagen interpretation without violating established experiments and without proposing ideas that violate physical reality.
Recent tremendous development of quantum information theory has led to a number of quantum technological projects, e.g. quantum random generators. This development had stimulated a new wave of interest in quantum foundations. One of the most intriguing problems of quantum foundations is the elaboration of a consistent and commonly accepted interpretation of a quantum state. Closely related problem is the clarification of the notion of quantum randomness and its interrelation with classical randomness. In this short review, we shall discuss basics of classical theory of randomness (which by itself is very complex and characterized by diversity of approaches) and compare it with irreducible quantum randomness. We also discuss briefly “digital philosophy”, its role in physics (classical and quantum) and its coupling to the information interpretation of quantum mechanics (QM).