Quantum mechanics, classical reality, and Copenhagen

N. Rosen

Andrew Das Arulsamy

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. Consequently, interpretation of quantum mechanics and its formalism should involve proper physical mathematics, physical logic and classical physics, which is not the case from the Copenhagen interpretation. Here, we shall revisit all the postulates of quantum mechanics with proper physics and physical logic and reconstruct them to establish the less-complex interpretation of quantum mechanics with additional new postulates from classical physics. A new quantum mechanical postulate (Postulate 9) is also introduced to understand the meaning of the forbidden gap between discrete energy levels and/or electron orbitals in atoms that is valid for molecules and condensed matter based on quantum mechanics that is technically well-defined and experimentally observable. Here, we tackle all the problems arise from the Copenhagen interpretation systematically by revising and/or extending them with proper classical and quantum physics without violating established experiments and without proposing ideas that violate physical reality.

Martin Macháček

The presented dissertation deals with how to interpret the conception of reality within both the assumed metaphysical frameworks of the proponents of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox and the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. The hypothesis of the dissertation is based on assumption that EPR operated with presuppositions stemming from classical-physical determinism (e.g., the concept of particle independence) that, at the time of their paradox's formulation, no longer corresponded to the contemporary level of knowledge. In contrast, the Copenhagen interpretation operates with a concept of reality that significantly differs from the metaphysics of classical physics. This dissertation identifies the EPR proponents' approach to reality as philosophical foundationalism and interprets it using the philosophy and semiotics of Charles Sanders Peirce as a dualism that does not respect the essential role of representation in development of scientific theories. The aim is to present a metaphysical and semiotic framework that would be complementary to the interpretation of quantum mechanics as an indeterministic theory which understands the representation of probability and uncertainty inherent in quantum mechanical descriptions as intrinsic parts of the conception of reality, rather...

Niels Henrik David Bohr

Hugh C. Wolfe

Andrew Das Arulsamy

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.