The purpose is, first, to review the occurrences which led to the acceptance by the bulk of physicists of the instrumentalist approach to quantum mechanics (QM) as the only one worth considering as truly rendering nature at the atomic level. Formulated soon after the creation of QM it outright refused the local realist interpretation. Next, to bring out the successive waves of dissenting voices, which still go on unabated. Finally, to recall that – in spite of the pervading dominance of the Copenhagen reading of quantum phenomena – the manifold questions concerning the interpretation of QM continue to be the subject-matter of forceful interventions claiming that the foundational basis of QM is far from being definitely closed.
The purpose is, first, to review the occurrences which led to the acceptance by the bulk of physicists of the instrumentalist approach to quantum mechanics (QM) as the only one worth considering as truly rendering nature at the atomic level. Formulated soon after the creation of QM it outright refused the local realist interpretation. Next, to bring out the successive waves of dissenting voices, which still go on unabated. Finally, to recall that – in spite of the pervading dominance of the Copenhagen reading of quantum phenomena – the manifold questions concerning the interpretation of QM continue to be the subject-matter of forceful interventions claiming that the foundational basis of QM is far from being definitely closed.
Quantum mechanics is our most successful physical theory. It underlies our very detailed understanding of atomic physics, chemistry, and nuclear physics, and the many technologies to which physical systems in these regimes give rise. Additionally, relativistic quantum mechanics is the basis for the standard model of elementary particles, which very successfully gives a partial unification of the forces operating at the atomic, nuclear, and subnuclear levels. However, from its inception the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, and the fact that “quantum measurements” in the orthodox formulation appear to require the intervention of non-quantum mechanical “classical systems,” have led to speculations by many physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science that quantum mechanics may be incomplete. Among the Founding Fathers of quantum theory, Einstein and Schrödinger were both of the opinion that quantum mechanics is in some way unsatisfactory, and this view has been amplified in more recent profound work of John Bell, among others. In an opposing camp, many others in the physics, mathematics, and philosophy communities have attempted to provide an interpretational foundation in which quantum mechanics remains a complete and self-contained system. Among the Founding Fathers, Bohr, Born, and Heisenberg maintained that quantum mechanics is a complete system, and a number of recent proposals have been made to improve upon or to provide alternatives to their “Copenhagen Interpretation.” The debate continues, and has spawned an enormous literature.
The difficulties of the old quantum theory were largely dispelled by the development of quantum mechanics in the 1920s. First Heisenberg (1925) developed the rather abstract matrix mechanics and soon after Schro¨dinger (1926; see also Eckart, 1926) developed the physically more appealing wave mechanics. Subsequently he showed them to be mathematically equivalent. The physicists were greatly relieved; now they had once again a mathematical formalism that enabled the results of experiments to be calculated. It was possible to move forward. It is certainly a very elegant and indeed beautiful formalism, and does enable the results of many physical measurements to be calculated with great accuracy. It is used daily by atomic and nuclear physicists; there is no other way to make calculations. From the earliest days there has been intense debate about the interpretation of quantum mechanics, and it shows no signs of being settled; if anything it is becoming more intense over the years. As Penrose has remarked, no one understands quantum mechanics. Feynman (1967; see also Sykes, 1994) also admitted that ‘nobody understands quantum mechanics’, and Einstein once remarked: ‘I have thought a hundred times as much about the quantum problems as I have about general relativity theory’ (Pais, 1994, p. 57). It should therefore be evident that the most that can be done here is to try to show where the real difficulties lie, and how the failure to recognize that quantum mechanics is an essentially statistical theory has led to a series of confusing quantum paradoxes. It is just these paradoxes that have often been used to support theological speculations. It is useful to ask what ‘understanding quantum mechanics’ actually means. Certainly it means being able to calculate the results of many measurements. The same applies to Newton’s theory of gravitation, which we understand in the sense that we can use it as a basis of calculation, although we do not really understand the gravitational force itself. Very often, especially in modern physics, the mathematical formalism does not give us the sort of intuitive physical feeling for what is going on that we often obtain from classical mechanics. Perhaps we can never achieve more than this for quantum mechanics. In classical mechanics we can assume that a property that is measured objectively exists prior to the interaction of the measuring apparatus with the observed system. Quantum mechanics, however, ‘is incompatible with the proposition that measurement discovers some unknown but pre-existing property’ (Peres, 1997, p. 14). There is an important distinction between mysteries and absurdities. We may be forced to live with mysteries, but there is no reason why we should put up with absurdities such as the wave-particle duality, tunnelling through potential barriers, acausal events and the collapse of the wave function. These are the quantum paradoxes that will be discussed later on. They arise within the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and are solved by other interpretations. These alternative interpretations enable us to make conjectures about what is going on, even though we cannot understand it in detail. This is acceptable and a stimulus to further research. It is certainly difficult enough to understand quantum mechanics, but there is no need to try to visualize logical absurdities in the effort to do so. Quantum mechanics is a mathematical formalism that makes it possible to calculate the results of some experiments. Anything more than this, such as questions about the interpretation of what is measured and whether it tells us what is actually going on in the system being studied, belongs to philosophy. Thus we are concerned here with what is essentially a philosophical debate; if it were just a matter of physics the debate would have been settled long ago. One of the difficulties is that it invokes the results of experiments and uses the language of quantum mechanics. Inevitably this language uses philosophical terms and then it is easy to give the impression that the philosophical propositions are in some way entailed by the physical results. These in turn can influence theological thinking. In order to be quite clear which arguments are justified and which are not, it is essential to separate the three levels of discourse: physical, philosophical and theological. Our task is to relate these together, and this immediately raises the traditional problems of the philosophy of science, including the relation of experiment to theory, and of theory to explanation. We begin by discussing experiments, distinguishing between those that are real and those that are imaginary.
The founding fathers of quantum mechanics had already perceived the essence of the difficulties of quantum mechanics; today, after almost a century, the discussions are still lively and, if some very interesting new aspects have emerged, at a deeper level the questions have not changed so much. What is more recent, nevertheless, is a general change of attitude among physicists: until about 1970 or 1980, most physicists thought that the essential questions had been settled, and that “Bohr was right and proved his opponents to be wrong”. This was probably a consequence of the famous discussions between Bohr, Einstein, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Pauli, de Broglie, and others (in particular at the Solvay meetings [1–3], where Bohr's point of view had successfully resisted Einstein's extremely clever attacks). The majority of physicists did not know the details of the arguments. They nevertheless thought that the standard “Copenhagen interpretation” had clearly emerged from the infancy of quantum mechanics as the only sensible attitude for good scientists. This interpretation includes the idea that modern physics must contain indeterminacy as an essential ingredient: it is fundamentally impossible to predict the outcome of single microscopical events; it is impossible to go beyond the formalism of the wave function (or its generalization, the state vector ∣ψ) and complete it.
Probably no theory in the history of science has produced such a profound cultural and scientific revolution as is determined by quantum mechanics. Founded around 1920 by illustrious physicists, all Nobel Prize winners, it has completely subverted the conception of matter and the universe. The theory that all matter is made up of atoms has already been formulated by Greek philosophers, starting with Democritus. Quantum mechanics provided a description based on a new conception of the elementary structure of atoms, and formulated the fundamental laws to which atoms obey. Quantum theory has obtained the unanimous and shared consent of the scientific world, although some aspects have not been definitively confirmed. Strengthened by the universal acceptance of his theories, quantum mechanics claims its intellectual primacy over all the other sciences, and the scientific world seems to grant it, so much so as to archive all the knowledge and achievements gathered in its thousand-year history. From the epistemological point of view all established theories are worthy of consideration and must be shared and accepted until proven groundless. Dating, quantum mechanics still enjoys the consent of many scientists, but this does not mean that it can claim to be the repository of all truth, based on an unacceptable and anti-scientific syllogism for which: A) all organic and inorganic matter is formed by atoms and molecules; B) quantum mechanics has founded theories and formulas to which atoms and molecules obey; C) accordingly quantum mechanics can control all universal matter. But the presumption of its predominance goes further than willing to dominate living matter. In this article we are going to examine with a sharp criticism, the aberrant and anti-scientific claim of this discipline to dominate not only science but also universal matter. We propose a more moderate and considered vision of the observable natural phenomena and consider them events in continuous evolution, and to adapt our hypotheses and theories with an equal evolutionary approach.
Although there are many textbooks that deal with the formal apparatus of quantum mechanics (QM) and its application to standard problems, none take into account the developments in the foundations of the subject which have taken place in the last few decades. There are specialized treatises on various aspects of the foundations of QM, but none that integrate those topics with the standard material. This book aims to remove that unfortunate dichotomy, which has divorced the practical aspects of the subject from the interpretation and broader implications of the theory.The book is intended primarily as a graduate level textbook, but it will also be of interest to physicists and philosophers who study the foundations of QM. Parts of it could be used by senior undergraduates too.
The famous 1927 Solvay Conference was considered a turning point in the world of Physics. The scientific realists like Albert Einstein had lost and the instrumentalists like Niels Bohr had won the fundamental conflict. Since then Physics has followed the path of the instrumentalists in which Quantum Physics has been determined by the concept of Elementary Particles and Probability Waves. Until May 2013, when for the first time a photo had been made of the Probability Waves Inside the Hydrogen Atom . It should be impossible to make a photo of a non-existing complex probability wave with mass zero But the fact could not be denied anymore that scientists had succeeded to make the “complex” and the “non-existing” quantum mechanical “Probability Wave” visible. New discoveries like “Photonic Molecules” and “Photon-Photon Interaction” require a new interpretation of the Copenhagen Interpretation . Since the Copenhagen Interpretation there is still no clarity about the physical interpretation of the Quantum Mechanical “Probability Wave Function”This Manuscript describes a third unknown interpretation of the Quantum Mechanical “Probability Wave Function”. A fundamental physical interpretation that will change the generally accepted Copenhagen Interpretation. This Manuscript will answer the fundamental question: Does an alternative theory exist in which the existence of this particular photo, of the Quantum Mechanical Probability Wave within the Hydrogen Atom, could be explained. And that the famous photo of the Hydrogen Atom can be explained in a logical and a simple way. To find the answer, we have to go back in time. Back 300 years in time to the moment when Isaac Newton discovered the beauty and one of the many secrets of the light. The moment when science walked away from light. And we return to the fundamental question: “Is it possible to build Matter out of Light (confined electromagnetic waves)?” To answer this question if it is possible to build Matter out of Light, we first have to answer the question how we have come to this world of Probability Waves and Elementary Particles and Quantum Physics.