This chapter surveys some of the ways in which the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics has led to a various views of the world with spiritual and moral implications; the perspective of this chapter is that most of these views are not demanded by the actual theory and experiments of quantum mechanics.
Long ago, and almost in parallel with the “orthodox” Copenhagen/standard interpretation, other interpretations of quantum mechanics were proposed. Giving an exhaustive discussion of all points of view that have been put forward since then would probably be an impossible task. Moreover, while one can distinguish big families among the interpretations, it is also possible to combine them in many ways, with an almost infinite number of nuances. The Copenhagen/standard interpretation itself, as we have seen, is certainly not a monolithic construction, but can be declined in various forms. In this chapter, we will therefore limit ourselves to a general description of the major families of interpretations. We will begin with a brief description of some frequent attitudes observed among scientists in laboratories, who do not necessarily pay extreme attention to the foundations of quantum mechanics, even when they do experiments in quantum physics. In practice, they often use pragmatic rules, which are sufficient to interpret all their experiments, and prefer to avoid difficult questions about the very nature of the measurement process. For instance, one popular point of view is the “correlation interpretation”, which can be considered as a “minimal interpretation” – minimal but sufficient for all practical purposes; it is accepted as a valid rule by a large majority of physicists, even those who prefer to supplement it with other elements in order to reach a more precise interpretation for the whole theory. We will then proceed to discuss various families of interpretations that are less common, including additional variables, modified Schrödinger dynamics, consistent histories, Everett interpretation, etc.
Abstract This chapter surveys various proposals to interpret—that is, make sense of—quantum mechanics. We could attempt to think of quantum mechanics in purely instrumentalist terms, as an algorithm to predict observed experimental results. But this fits badly with scientific practice and is probably not viable. We could attempt to modify quantum mechanics itself to resolve the paradoxes, and there are some simple models that attempt to do that: some are ‘hidden-variable’ theories that add extra properties to the theory, some are ‘dynamical-collapse’ theories that modify the theory’s equations. But none of these models succeed in reproducing quantum theory’s predictions outside a relatively narrow range of applications. Or we could try to take the apparent indefiniteness of quantum mechanics literally, and interpret it as a theory of many parallel worlds. The correct interpretation of quantum mechanics remains controversial, but the search for understanding and interpretation of the theory has led to very substantial scientific results and is likely to lead to more.
Ontological questions, concerning the nature of reality, continue to be argued in both the scientific and general literature, and new experiments may be proposed to move ontological questions into the instrumental category for resolution. This chapter contends that all interpretations of quantum mechanics are weird when considered from classical, everyday viewpoints. Readers holding classical world views should not expect to find intuitively-pleasing explanations of quantum mechanics; scientists much smarter than us have failed in this quest over the past century.
Quantum mechanics, a cornerstone of modern physics, elucidates the behavior of particles at the most fundamental level. This paper delves into the foundational aspects and diverse interpretations of quantum mechanics, shedding light on its enigmatic principles and implications. Beginning with a comprehensive overview of the mathematical framework underlying quantum mechanics, including wave functions, operators, and probabilistic interpretations, the study explores key foundational principles such as superposition, uncertainty, and entanglement. Moreover, it critically examines various interpretations of quantum mechanics, including the Copenhagen interpretation, many-worlds interpretation, and pilot-wave theory, elucidating their philosophical underpinnings and empirical consequences. Through a synthesis of theoretical analysis and empirical evidence, this paper navigates the intricate landscape of quantum mechanics, offering insights into its profound implications for our understanding of reality.
This paper re-opens the debate on the failure of quantum mechanics to provide an understandable view of micro-reality. A critique is offered of the commonly accepted ‘Copenhagen Interpretation’ of a theory that is only a mathematical approach to the level of reality characterized by atoms and electrons. This critique is based on the oldest approach to thinking about nature for over 2500 years, known as Natural Philosophy. Quantum mechanics (QM) was developed over the first quarter of the 20th Century, when scientists were enthralled by a new philosophy known as Positivism, whose foundations were based on the assumption that material objects exist only when measured by humans – this central assumption conflates epistemology (knowledge) with ontology (existence). The present critique rejects this human-centered view of reality by assuming material reality has existed long before (and will persist long after) human beings (“Realism”). The defensive view that the micro-world is too different to understand using regular thinking (and only a mathematical approach is possible) is rejected totally. At least 12 earlier QM interpretations are critically analyzed, indicating the broad interest in “what does QM mean?” The standard theory of quantum mechanics is thus constructed on only how the micro-world appears to macro measurements - as such, it cannot offer any view of how the foundations of the world are acting when humans are not observing it - this has generated almost 100 years of confusion and contradiction at the very heart of physics. Significantly, we live in a world that is not being measured by scientists but is interacting with itself and with us. QM has failed to provide explanations: only recipes (meaningless equations), not insights. Physics has returned to the pre-Newtonian world of Ptolemaic phenomenology: only verifiable numbers without real understanding. The focus needs to be on an explicit linkage between the micro-world, when left to itself, and our mental models of this sphere of material reality, via the mechanism of measurement. This limits the role of measurement to confirming our mental models of reality but never confusing these with a direct image of ‘the thing in itself’. This implies a deep divide between reality and appearances, as Kant suggested. This paper includes an original analysis of several major assumptions that have been implicit in Classical Mechanics (CM) that were acceptable in the macroscopic domain of reality, demonstrated by its proven successes. Unfortunately, only a few of these assumptions were challenged by the developers of QM. We now show that these other assumptions are still generating confusions in the interpretation of QM and blocking further progress in the understanding of the microscopic domain. Several of these flawed assumptions were introduced by Newton to support the use of continuum mathematics as a model of nature. This paper proposes that it is the attempt to preserve continuum mathematics (especially calculus), which drives much of the mystery and confusion behind all attempts at understanding quantum mechanics. The introduction of discrete mathematics is proposed to help analyze the discrete interactions between the quintessential quantum objects: the electrons and their novel properties. A related paper demonstrates that it is possible to create a point-particle theory of electrons that explains all their peculiar (and ‘paradoxical’) behavior using only physical hypotheses and discrete mathematics without introducing the continuum mathematical ideas of fields or waves. Another (related) paper proves that all the known results for the hydrogen atom can also be exactly calculated from this new perspective with the discrete mathematics. * Surrey, B.C. Canada (604) 542-2299 spsi99@telus.net Version 2.015 08-05-2017 Begun 23-06-2008 {pp. 82, 70.2 Kw; 800 KB}
Reality, and the pursuit of understanding it, is a fundamental core shared by both scientific inquiry and religious and spiritual belief. In the science of quantum mechanical theory, there has been a radical shift in the way that we recognize and conceptualize the reality of the world around us. A world once considered determinate and complete at the subatomic and constitutive level is now viewed as essentially probabilistic. Furthermore, the tenets of quantum theory introduced by Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg in their Copenhagen Interpretation assert that world is essentially unknowable in a complete and whole sense. Relative-State quantum mechanical theory, a contemporary topic of philosophical debate, is predicated on an ontology in which the breadth of reality is a unified, superposed wave function. Within the metaphysics of the Advaita Vedanta school of Hindu thought there exists a similar affirmation of fundamental unity. Shankara, the prominent figure in Advaita Vedantic thought, affirms that all has its being in Brahman, the Ultimate Reality. Both relative-state QMT and Shankara?s philosophy entail a dual-hierarchy of truth. Our own experiences and sense have their own truth, but pale in comparison to the truth of reality as it truly is. Each also describes reality in a way that is essentially unknowable through our sensory experience. This project explores the metaphysical claims that each of these philosophies makes. Furthermore, it analyses their intersections as a basis for pursuing a synthesis and reconciliation of science and religion.