Abstract The results of the experiments described in the last chapter all point fairly unambiguously to a reality that is decidedly non-local in nature, at least in the quantum domain. Of course, these are results that come as no surprise to those willing to accept one of the most fundamental principles of the Copenhagen interpretation — that quantum phenomena are describable only in terms of the dual classical physical concepts of waves and particles. The wave properties of quantum entities lend them inherently non-local characteristics, and it is only when we forcibly ‘collapse’ the wave function by making a measurement that we are taken aback by what appears to be contradictory or counter-intuitive behaviour.
Abstract The results of the experiments described in the last chapter all point fairly unambiguously to a reality that is decidedly non-local in nature, at least in the quantum domain. Of course, these are results that come as no surprise to those willing to accept one of the most fundamental principles of the Copenhagen interpretation — that quantum phenomena are describable only in terms of the dual classical physical concepts of waves and particles. The wave properties of quantum entities lend them inherently non-local characteristics, and it is only when we forcibly ‘collapse’ the wave function by making a measurement that we are taken aback by what appears to be contradictory or counter-intuitive behaviour.
Abstract So, where do we go from here? It is apparent from the last two chapters that nature denies us the easy way out. The clear experimental demonstration of quantum entanglement rules out the idea of local hidden variables, one of the simpler solutions to the conceptual problems of quantum theory. For the time being at least, we are forced to live with the consequences of entanglement, non-locality, and ‘spooky’ action at a distance. This might make some of us uncomfortable, but there is no solace in the Copenhagen interpretation, which does not provide us with any answers and is still regarded by many to be no interpretation at all. And, lest we forget, there remain the problems of interpreting the meaning of quantum probability and the collapse of the wave function. Even those who adhere to the Copenhagen view tend to put aside or disregard the conceptual difficulties that these issues raise as they analyse the results from the latest particle-accelerator experiment. This is not a very satisfactory situation.
Abstract During the lectures to the students in Fribourg, as with other people foreign to the world of physics, I have stated that my audience was driven to raise the same questions as the physicists: can we accept randomness in physical phenomena? Is interference determined by the mechanisms, and correlations at a distance by an exchange of information? In the presence of non-separability of physical properties, can we still talk about distinct entities? We feel the need to interpret quantum phenomena because we are not at ease with the indistinguishability principle and with some of its consequences. The unease comes from the fact that this principle, which appears to be omnipresent in the microscopic world, is unknown in everyday life and even seems to contradict our normal perceptions – the reader must recall the game with the sets of cars in Chapter 2. Seen from this point of view, the interpretations can be divided into three broad categories:
Understanding the nature of reality has been a central theme in philosophy for centuries. Classical science presented a well-defined, deterministic view of reality as objects are governed by clear laws. However, quantum mechanics introduced a radically different perspective that suggests a “quantum reality” where particles exhibit wave-like behavior and defy classical intuitions. This chapter delves into the evolution of reality, exploring its characteristics in classical physics and its transformation in the face of quantum mechanics. One key aspect of quantum reality is the wave function, as in whether the wave function is of reality. The Copenhagen interpretation posits that the wave function is a probabilistic tool, rather than a description of the real state of microscopic particles. However, the fundamental principles of quantum control and the very objects it manipulates challenge this view. By directly or indirectly influencing the wave function, quantum control techniques provide compelling evidence for its quantum reality. The PBR theorem suggests that the wave function reflects a real physical state, not merely a mathematical tool. This chapter argues that the wave function is of the “reality of relative entity-structure”. In addition, the “quantum Cheshire cat” experiment further highlights the unusual nature of quantum reality, which shares some connections with the concept of “Tao” in Chinese Taoism that suggests that everything arises from a fundamental nothingness that itself is real. Quantum technology brings forth a “quantum technological reality” characterized by new properties and applications.
While physicists pursue the search for the Grand Unified Theory (GUT) and the expedition to find the Higgs that ought to solidify the Standard Model, philosophers keep inquiring as to what the nature of matter and mind might be and propose various theories. At first sight, the high energy physicist or the philosopher, both human, and the elementary particle seem to have nothing in common, however we contend and argue in this paper that we are looking at different scales of what constitutes universal behaviour and use Herman Dooyeweerd's theory of Modal Aspects to bridge the particle to the mind. To other than a physicist the dual nature of the atom or the so-called elementary particles may be difficult to comprehend and certainly appears unfathomable to intuit. This is due to the fact that the dual nature of matter finds its anchoring within the theoretical and mathematical frameworks provided by quantum mechanics, the latter tends to not be easily accessible to most individual's intuition. What would the consequences be if human nature itself had a dual character? We all know that human nature is both egoistic and altruistic, however it is not often that one considers the fact that egoism is an individual behaviour, while altruism is a collective behaviour. Likewise a particle is an individual manifestation of what we call matter, while wave nature can be considered characteristic of collective behaviour of the same matter.
Recent advances in experimental physics—the queen of reductionist science—aimed at solving the mysteries of the quantum world has led to a deepening of the mystery rather than easing it, dispelling the EPR paradox and pointing out a conceptional error in this now famous gedanken experiment, while lending some authority and validation to quantum mechanics. The strange features of the quantum world are founded on what Bohr dubbed complementarity, or the way a sub-particle entity can behave either as a wave or as a particle; and on Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which says that a quantum entity such as an electron does not avail itself to a deterministic exact measurement of both position and momentum simultaneously. Such postulates seem to contradict deeply held assumptions by the deterministic and materialistically oriented world of experimental physics where everything, including the atom, can be reduced to a single aspect. There are mounting calls for newer ways of understanding reality that are capable of handling these apparently strange incomprehensible phenomena revealed through the classical observation of the microscopic quantum world. There is also fundamental progress made in bouncing cosmology theories that bridge general relativity to quantum mechanics and provide some insight into the nature of the universe and its transition and pre-history through the big bang.
The thrust of this paper evolves around two pillars. One, is that that the apparent logical fissure emergent in reductionist thought, coming from orthodox science and the application of the scientific method that is manifest in what we know and do not understand in quantum mechanics, can be liaised to our intellectual understanding through the perspective offered by Herman Dooyeweerd's theory of Modal Aspects. The other, is the central and special role humans have in relation to the universe. Through this approach, we will argue that the dual nature of the atom or elementary particles is, rather than being a strange phenomenon, in fact an essential characteristic of what constitutes its nature
Ninety years ago in 1927, at an international congress in Como, Italy, Niels Bohr gave an address which is recognized as the first instance in which the term "complementarity", as a physical concept, was spoken publicly [1], revealing Bohr's own thinking about Louis de Broglie's "duality". Bohr had very slowly accepted duality as a principle of physics: close observation of any quantum object will reveal either wave-like or particle-like behavior, one or the other of two fundamental and complementary features. Little disagreement exists today about complementarity's importance and broad applicability in quantum science. Book-length scholarly examinations even provide speculations about the relevance of complementarity in fields as different from physics as biology, psychology and social anthropology, connections which were apparently of interest to Bohr himself (see Jammer [2], Murdoch [3] and Whitaker [4]). Confusion evident in Como following his talk was not eliminated by Bohr's article [1], and complementarity has been subjected to nine decades of repeated examination ever since with no agreed resolution. Semi-popular treatments [5] as well as expert examinations [6-9] show that the topic cannot be avoided, and complementarity retains its central place in the interpretation of quantum mechanics. However, recent approaches by our group [10-13] and others [14-20] to the underlying notion of coherence now allow us to present a universal formulation of complementarity that may signal the end to the confusion. We demonstrate a new relationship that constrains the behavior of an electromagnetic field (quantum or classical) in the fundamental context of two-slit experiments. We show that entanglement is the ingredient needed to complete Bohr's formulation of complementarity, debated for decades because of its incompleteness.