Most physicists use quantum mechanics every day in their working lives without needing to worry about the fundamental problem of its interpretation. Being sensible people with very little time to follow up all the ideas and data in their own specialties and not having to worry about this fundamental problem. Significantly, complex numbers must be used for amplitudes. In no other physical theory is this a necessity, rather than a calculational convenience. Instead of being a reason to doubt that complex-valued wave functions are representational of some aspect of the world. Classical physics is structured in a very deterministic way. Given a sufficiently detailed knowledge of the positions, momenta, and forces for every particle in the universe, classical physics.
Most physicists use quantum mechanics every day in their working lives without needing to worry about the fundamental problem of its interpretation. Being sensible people with very little time to follow up all the ideas and data in their own specialties and not having to worry about this fundamental problem. Significantly, complex numbers must be used for amplitudes. In no other physical theory is this a necessity, rather than a calculational convenience. Instead of being a reason to doubt that complex-valued wave functions are representational of some aspect of the world. Classical physics is structured in a very deterministic way. Given a sufficiently detailed knowledge of the positions, momenta, and forces for every particle in the universe, classical physics.
There are two ways to teach quantum mechanics. The first way – which for most physicists today is still the only way – follows the historical order in which the ideas were discovered. So, you start with classical mechanics and electrodynamics, solving lots of grueling differential equations at every step. Then, you learn about the “blackbody paradox” and various strange experimental results, and the great crisis these things posed for physics. Next, you learn a complicated patchwork of ideas that physicists invented between 1900 and 1926 to try to make the crisis go away. Then, if you're lucky, after years of study, you finally get around to the central conceptual point: that nature is described not by probabilities (which are always nonnegative), but by numbers called amplitudes that can be positive, negative, or even complex. Look, obviously the physicists had their reasons for teaching quantum mechanics that way, and it works great for a certain kind of student. But the “historical” approach also has disadvantages, which in the quantum information age are becoming increasingly apparent. For example, I’ve had experts in quantum field theory – people who've spent years calculating path integrals of mind-boggling complexity – ask me to explain the Bell inequality to them , or other simple conceptual things like Grover's algorithm. I felt as if Andrew Wiles had asked me to explain the Pythagorean Theorem.
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.
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 Quantum theory deals with the microscopic structure of the Universe that describes the finer details of nature at the subatomic domain.To a physicist, quantum mechanics is one of the three great pillars supporting our intuition of evocative, bewildering and fascinating natural World as we continuously struggle with the inescapable strangeness of the subatomic domain as if something strange is always afoot.It is well accepted fact that quantum mechanics is a physical theory that describes the way things behave at subatomic level which is quite dazzling in its precision and explanatory power.A test of quantum electrodynamics, the oldest and best understood of the modern quantum theory that involves measuring the way an electron behaves in the vicinity of a magnetic force. Many of the technological and social changes that have revolutionized our lives have actually risen out of the fundamental theoretical research carried out with only motivation to understand the World in a better way than ever. For example, the invention of transistor actually came with the fundamental theoretical research on the Uncertainty Principle which states that the uncertainty of the position of a particle times the uncertainty of its velocity is always a constant. If we double the certainty of the position of the particle, we have to make half the certainty of its velocity and vice versa. Quantum theory is perhaps the prime example of the infinitely esoteric in the sense that it describes a World in which a particle really can be in several places at once and it moves from one place to another by exploring the entire Universe simultaneously-the theory of simultaneity. The diverse and complex Universe is actually made of a few tiny particles according to the rules of quantum theory which is so simple that can be summarized on the back of an envelope. The more we understand about the elemental nature of the Universe, the simpler it looks. We have already discovered that everything in the diverse and complex Universe is nothing but the different assemblies of atoms, and the wide variety of atoms are constructed using the three building blocks at the sub-atomic domain i.e. subatomic particles: protons, neutrons and electrons. We have also discovered that protons and neutrons ate made up of combination of three entities called quarks. And that is where things stop as far as recent discovery is concerned. But the recent progress in particle physics inspiring the quest for the ultimate unified theory of physics that can describe everything in the Universe in one go. The discovery of Boson particle certainty will revolutionaries the Newton's mass concept and gravity into whole new looks. To an optimistic point of view, we must hope the best out of the progress in physics.
After eighty years of Quantum Mechanics (QM) we have learned to live with wave functions without worrying about their physical nature. This attitude is certainly justifled by the extraordinary success of the theory in predicting and explaining not only all the phenomena encountered in the domain of microphysics, but also some spectacular nonclassical macroscopic behaviors of matter. Nevertheless one cannot ignore that the wave{particle duality of quantum objects not only still raises conceptual problems among the members of the small community of physicists who are still interested in the foundations of our basic theory of matter, but also induces thousands and thousands of physics students all around the world to ask each year, at their flrst impact with Quantum Mechanics, embarrassing questions to their teachers without receiving really convincing answers. Remember that Feynman once said \It is fair to say that nobody understands
The measurement problem in quantum mechanics has been a cause of much puzzlement over the years. The very idea of having two different versions of reality for the same system has been a cause for much debate. Often quantum mechanics textbooks follow the ‘shut up and calculate’ paradigm. This denies the opportunity for the common student to understand the consequence of one of the most elegant and beautiful aspects of science. The state of the art textbooks give a purely algebraic, perfunctory and monotonous approach where the real consequence of the system is not fully appreciated. A good reason for this is the considerable deviation of the quantum mechanical process from the commonsensical idea of truth, reality and reason. We tend to look at the world in a materialistic, deterministic, causal and objectivistic way. We tend not to accept a world of contradictions. A quantum measurement is essentially an amalgamation of contradictions, mystery and duality. It encompasses an implicit dependence on subjectivity and contradicts with causality as we know it. We look at the world as in the present. But a quantum mechanical measurement is a prediction of the future influenced by the observer or the measurer. This offers a philosophical and pedagogical conundrum. It poses a challenge on not just how our perception of the world might change in addition to providing a big challenge on how to make it compatible with the other successful theories of physics. The most common text book interpretation of quantum mechanics has been the Copenhagen Interpretation suggests the ‘collapse of the wave function’ as a mechanism of transition between duality. But a more bizarre yet elegant theory, extending quantum formalism to the classical domain, called the Many Worlds Interpretation has been catching up very quickly; it stands for the split of the universe when we make a quantum mechanical measurement. Consequently, reality as we is redefined as a universal wave function which is a superposition of several outcomes, which is incompatible with many of the successful concepts of physics and has several problems like the correct idea about probability or basis. We adapt the idea of the universal wave function, but instead suggest a continuum interpretation of quantum mechanics where the universal wave function represents the entire singular universe and the concept of atoms or electrons as conceptually a continuous part of it rather than a distinct separate entity. Such an interpretation could be compatible with other continuum theories like the Superfluid vacuum theory or the Higgs Field.