Abstract Chapter 1 points out that the mystery of entanglement has led Physics Nobel Laureates to claim “nobody understands quantum mechanics.” The Chapter goes on to introduce: the EPR and EPR–Bell paradoxes, various attempts to resolve them, our proposed resolution whereby the relativity principle (no preferred reference frame, NPRF) justifies the Planck postulate (NPRF + h) exactly like the relativity principle justifies the light postulate (NPRF + c), the Planck postulate as a result of Information Invariance & Continuity from quantum information theory, the importance of the relativity principle, subjective versus objective spacetime models of reality, spacelike and timelike relations in spacetime, and four experiments leading to our Poincaré symmetric ontology.
Abstract Chapter 1 points out that the mystery of entanglement has led Physics Nobel Laureates to claim “nobody understands quantum mechanics.” The Chapter goes on to introduce: the EPR and EPR–Bell paradoxes, various attempts to resolve them, our proposed resolution whereby the relativity principle (no preferred reference frame, NPRF) justifies the Planck postulate (NPRF + h) exactly like the relativity principle justifies the light postulate (NPRF + c), the Planck postulate as a result of Information Invariance & Continuity from quantum information theory, the importance of the relativity principle, subjective versus objective spacetime models of reality, spacelike and timelike relations in spacetime, and four experiments leading to our Poincaré symmetric ontology.
Quantum mechanics presently has many unanswered questions, paradoxes, and even outright logical contradictions. To make progress in understanding quantum mechanics, we begin by proposing that relativity be set aside in favor of an absolute aetherial theory. Once that step is taken, we can understand quantum collapse as a description of real wave-packets collapsing in a faster-than-light way. By assuming that a partially observable reality exists, we can then extend our analysis of wave-packets into the subquantum, and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle then follows from the Fourier uncertainty principle coupled with the de Broglie relation. Further progress in understanding quantum mechanics is possible by modifying the de Broglie and Planck relations. Those modifications lead to matter-waves moving at the speed of light rather than superluminally as presently theorized, and they allow the results of matter-wave two-slit experiments to be understood from any reference frame. A modified time-dependent Schrödinger Equation results from our modifications, but the spatial time-independent Schrödinger equation is retained.
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.
Richard Feynman once said, “I think it is safe to say that no one understands Quantum Mechanics”. The well-known article on the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox brought forth further doubts on the interpretation of quantum theory. Einstein’s doubt on quantum theory is a doubleedged sword: experimental verification of quantum theory would contradict the hypothesis that speed of light is finite. It has been almost a century since the creation of quantum theory and special relativity, and the relevant doubts brought forward remain unresolved. We posit that the existence of discontinuity points and quantum wormholes would imply superluminal phenomenon or infinite speed of light, which provides for an important supplement to the invariance principle of the speed of light and superluminal phenomena. This can potentially resolve the inconsistency between special relativity and quantum theory.
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.
Unlike special relativity, quantum mechanics was not the inspired product of one mind. It developed, in fits and starts, over a period of 25 years (1900–1925), and many cooks stirred the broth. Even now, a century later, quantum mechanics raises profound conceptual questions. Every competent physicist can “do” quantum mechanics, and the predictions it makes are in spectacularly good agreement with experimental results; there can be little doubt that quantum mechanics is “right.” On the other hand, as Richard Feynman once remarked, “nobody understands quantum mechanics.” I'll tell the story in two parts. First the history (how the essential pieces of the puzzle were assembled), and then the implications (what the finished picture has to say about our world). Photons Like relativity, quantum mechanics began with the study of light. In both cases, this historical association is misleading. Relativity, really, has nothing to do with light – to be sure, it involves that magic speed limit, c , and of course the most familiar thing that travels at speed c is light. So light is a convenient vehicle for introducing the subject. But it is perfectly possible to imagine a universe in which there is no such thing as light, and yet relativity might still be valid. Quantum mechanics, too, starts with light – in this case the “quantum” of light (the photon). But, as it turns out, this is just one rather specialized example of much more general principles – in fact, a rather bad example, because photons are by their nature relativistic (they travel at the speed of light), and it would be more natural to begin with the quantum mechanics of slow-moving objects, in analogy with Newtonian mechanics.
Abstract Maxwell unified the disparate concepts of electric and magnetic fields with one theory (electromagnetism) and Einstein then unified the disparate theories of electromagnetism and mechanics with one kinematics (Minkowski space of special relativity). In this talk, we will briefly explain how the disparate kinematics of quantum mechanics (finite-dimensional Hilbert space) and special relativity can be unified with one principle (relativity principle). This result follows from the axiomatic reconstruction of quantum mechanics via information-theoretic principles, which has successfully recast quantum mechanics as a principle theory a la Einstein, i.e., the formalism of the theory follows from an empirically discovered fact, just like special relativity. According to the quantum reconstruction program, the empirically discovered fact whence the Hilbert space formalism of quantum mechanics is Information Invariance & Continuity. Of course, the empirically discovered fact whence the Lorentz transformations of special relativity is the light postulate, i.e., everyone measures the same value for the speed of light c, regardless of their relative motions. Obviously, the light postulate can be justified by the relativity principle—the laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames—because c is a constant of Nature per Maxwell’s electromagnetism. [We label this “NPRF + c” for short, where NPRF stands for “no preferred reference frame.”] As we will show, Information Invariance & Continuity can also be justified by the relativity principle by first spatializing the quantum reconstruction program’s operational notion of measurement. In that case, Information Invariance & Continuity entails the empirically discovered fact that everyone measures the same value for Planck’s constant h, regardless of their relative spatial orientations or locations (Planck postulate). Since Poincar’e transformations relate inertial reference frames via spatial rotations and translations as well as boosts, and h is a constant of Nature per Planck’s radiation law, the relativity principle justifies the Planck postulate (NPRF + h) just like it justifies the light postulate (NPRF + c). Thus, the kinematics of quantum mechanics and special relativity are unified in that both follow most fundamentally from the relativity principle in the adynamical global constraints NPRF + h and NPRF + c. This approach provides a principle solution to the mystery of quantum entanglement that does not violate locality, statistical independence, intersubjective agreement, or the uniqueness of experimental outcomes and it does not alter quantum mechanics as a principle theory. An ontology consistent with this unification is introduced and we deflate both the ‘big’ and ‘small’measurement problems.