Since its inception, quantum mechanics has faced a series of “mysteries” that emerge from it if we consider this scientific theory from a realistic point of view. In the early development of the theory, scientists like Albert Einstein noticed the consequences of accepting a theory like this, which allow phenomena such as non-locality. This led a part of the scientific community to believe that quantum mechanics was an incomplete theory, since there should be variables that might explain those “disturbing” phenomena such as the correlation between entangled particles.Different interpretations of quantum mechanics have been proposed that have tried to reveal or explain the reality underlying its formalism. One of those interpretations is the “Transactional Interpretation” of quantum mechanics, advocated mainly by physicist John G. Cramer. According to this interpretation, quantum events are understood as causal interactions between delayed waves traveling forward in time and advanced waves traveling backward in time. This interpretation opens the door to accept a model of causation to the past or retrocausation.Authors like Phil Dowe or Huw Price have shown a favorable attitude toward the model of retrocausation because it seems to be capable of effectively solve some of the most disturbing features derived from quantum mechanics. Despite the intuitive cost is rather high, retrocausation is one of the possible interpretations for the results of the correlation between entangled particles to provide us with an explanatory framework with some interesting advantages.In this paper we explore such advantages, as the retrocausation gives us a generalizable explanatory model for all cases of this type and assumes processes and entities that are not only in the field of speculation but allow certain possibilities of testing. Also, we will rescue the importance of not-predictive explanatory models as has been the case in other fields of natural sciences, provided that those model do not be ad hoc due to restrictions that prevent its application to any case.
Since its inception, quantum mechanics has faced a series of “mysteries” that emerge from it if we consider this scientific theory from a realistic point of view. In the early development of the theory, scientists like Albert Einstein noticed the consequences of accepting a theory like this, which allow phenomena such as non-locality. This led a part of the scientific community to believe that quantum mechanics was an incomplete theory, since there should be variables that might explain those “disturbing” phenomena such as the correlation between entangled particles.Different interpretations of quantum mechanics have been proposed that have tried to reveal or explain the reality underlying its formalism. One of those interpretations is the “Transactional Interpretation” of quantum mechanics, advocated mainly by physicist John G. Cramer. According to this interpretation, quantum events are understood as causal interactions between delayed waves traveling forward in time and advanced waves traveling backward in time. This interpretation opens the door to accept a model of causation to the past or retrocausation.Authors like Phil Dowe or Huw Price have shown a favorable attitude toward the model of retrocausation because it seems to be capable of effectively solve some of the most disturbing features derived from quantum mechanics. Despite the intuitive cost is rather high, retrocausation is one of the possible interpretations for the results of the correlation between entangled particles to provide us with an explanatory framework with some interesting advantages.In this paper we explore such advantages, as the retrocausation gives us a generalizable explanatory model for all cases of this type and assumes processes and entities that are not only in the field of speculation but allow certain possibilities of testing. Also, we will rescue the importance of not-predictive explanatory models as has been the case in other fields of natural sciences, provided that those model do not be ad hoc due to restrictions that prevent its application to any case.
It has been claimed that quantum mechanics is a non-local theory, i.e., that the predictions of quantum mechanics are at odds with a conception of the world where all the interactions are mediated by local mechanisms. The cited reason is the violation of the Bell inequality in cases where measurements are performed on quantum systems of particles that have interacted in the past. Quantum mechanics predicts that the state of the particles in such a system are correlated, a result obtained from considering a thought-experiment often known as EPR. In this thesis, I will argue that the violation of the Bell inequality in EPR forces us to either accept that causes sometimes act both backwards and forwards in time, or give up some widely-held assumptions about causal relations or the role of causal explanations. First, I will present three principles regarding causality that I take be widely accepted. I will then present the background for the claim the quantum mechanics is a non-local theory, and discuss the implications of non-local causal influences in light of the Special Theory of Relativity. One argument against a causal explanation of the EPR-correlations will be discussed, and different models for the causal structure of EPR will be assessed. I will argue that a retrocausal model – models that include instances of retrocausation, where the direction of causation is the opposite of the direction of time – is the only viable option if we want to uphold the three principles presented in chapter 1. I will discuss the plausibility of rejecting one of these principles, and argue that at least one of the can be restricted in a way that still accounts for our commitment to it. Finally, I will assess the non-local models against the retrocausal models, and argue that a retrocausal model offers interpretational advantages over the non-local alternatives.
Of all basic principles of classical physics, realism should arguably be the last to be given up when seeking a better interpretation of quantum mechanics. We examine the de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave theory as a well-developed example of a realistic theory. We present three challenges to a naive reading of pilot wave theory, each based on a system of several entangled particles. With the help of a coarse graining of pilot wave theory into a discrete system, we show how these challenges can be answered. However, this comes with a cost. In the description of individual systems, particles appear to scatter off empty branches of the wave function as if they were particles and conversely travel through particles as if they were waves. More generally, the ``particles'' of pilot wave theory are led by the guidance equation to move in ways no classical particle would, involving apparent violations of the principles of inertia and momentum conservation. We next argue that the aforementioned cost can be avoided within a retrocausal model. In the proposed version of the pilot wave theory, the particle is guided by a combination of advanced and retarded waves. The resulting account for quantum physics seems to have greater heuristic power, demands less damage to intuition, and moreover provides some general hints regarding spacetime and causality. This is the first of two papers. In the second [E. Cohen, M. Cort\^es, A. C. Elitzur, and L. Smolin, Realism and causality. II. Retrocausality in energetic causal sets, Phys. Rev. D 102, 124028 (2020).], we show that, in the context of an explicit model, retrocausality, with respect to an effective, emergent spacetime metric, can coexist with a strict irreversibility of causal processes.
The classical physical theories that prevailed in science from the time of Isaac Newton until the dawn of the twentieth century were empirically based on human experience and made predictions about our mental experiences, yet excluded from the dynamics all mental properties. But how can one rationally get mental things out if no mental elements are put in? The key step in the creation of quantum mechanics during 1925 by Heisenberg and his colleagues was to recognize and emphasize the essential dynamical role of mental properties in the creation of our mental empirical findings. This basic feature of quantum mechanics was cast into rigorous mathematical form by John von Neumann, and was made a central feature of contemporary relativistic quantum field theory by the work of Tomonaga and Schwinger. That theory is causally strictly forward in time. But it is explained here how it can nevertheless accommodate the seeming backward-in-time causal effects reported by D.J. Bem, and many others, by means of a slight biasing of the famous Born Rule. The purpose of this communication is to explain how those reported retrocausal findings can be explained by a strictly forward-in-time and nearly orthodox causal dynamics that, however, permits the Born Rule to be slightly biased under certain conditions. A feasible experiment is proposed that, if it gives the outcomes predicted by the proposed theory, will provide evidence in favor of this causally forward-in-time and nearly orthodox explanation of the reported retrocausal effects.
The possibility of retrocausation has been considered to explain the occurrence of anomalous phenomena in which the ostensible effects are preceded by their causes. A scrutiny of both experimental methodology and the experimental data is called for. A review of experimental data reveals the existence of such effects to be a serious possibility. The experimental methodology entails some conceptual difficulties, these depending on the underlying assumptions about the effects. A major point is an ambiguity between anomalous acquisition of information and retrocausation in exerted influences.A unifying theory has been proposed, based upon the fundamental randomness of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanical randomness may be regarded as a tenacious phenomenon, that apparently is only resolved by the human observer of the random variable in question. This has led to the “observational theory” of anomalous phenomena, which is based upon the assumption that the preference of a motivated observer is able to interact with the extant indefinite random variable that is being observed. This observational theory has led to a novel prediction, which has been corroborated in experiments. Moreover, different classes of anomalous phenomena can be explained by the same basic mechanism. This foregoes retroactive causation, but, instead, requires that macroscopic physical variables remain in a state of indefinite reality and thus remain influenceable by mental efforts until these are observed. More work is needed to discover the relevant psychological and neurophysiological variables involved in effective motivated observation. Besides these practicalities, the fundamentals still have some interesting loose ends.
Since its inception, the many counter-intuitive aspects and results of quantum mechanics have provoked strong philosophical debates and many interpretations. Even fundamental issues, such as Max Born's basic rules concerning probability amplitudes and probability distributions, took decades to be appreciated by society and many leading scientists. Richard Feynman once said, think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.[48] According to Steven Weinberg, There is now in my opinion no entirely satisfactory interpretation of quantum mechanics. The Copenhagen interpretation - due largely to the Danish theoretical physicist Niels Bohr - remains the quantum mechanical formalism that is currently most widely accepted amongst physicists, some 75 years after its enunciation. According to this interpretation, the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics is not a temporary feature which will eventually be replaced by a deterministic theory, but instead must be considered a final renunciation of the classical idea of causality. The full paper: http://www.iiste.org/PDFshare/APTA-PAGENO-307447-311734.pdf
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.