Is there a quantum reality which is distinct from a ‘classical reality’? Or is there only one reality determined by physical measurements? The observation by Dalitz and Duarte – ‘Already in 1948, observations agreed with quantum mechanics, not with local realism’ – appears to suggest a departure from classical reality. However, going back to the inescapable truth that Nature describes herself via the experiment , then such divergence between quantum and classical realities is not all that transparent since what made the quote above possible is the nonlocality of the photon . And the nonlocality of the photon is a measurable physical phenomenon. This observation suggests that quantum reality is grander and includes, as a subset, ‘classical reality.’
Is there a quantum reality which is distinct from a ‘classical reality’? Or is there only one reality determined by physical measurements? The observation by Dalitz and Duarte – ‘Already in 1948, observations agreed with quantum mechanics, not with local realism’ – appears to suggest a departure from classical reality. However, going back to the inescapable truth that Nature describes herself via the experiment , then such divergence between quantum and classical realities is not all that transparent since what made the quote above possible is the nonlocality of the photon . And the nonlocality of the photon is a measurable physical phenomenon. This observation suggests that quantum reality is grander and includes, as a subset, ‘classical reality.’
Quantum mechanics marks a radical departure from the classical understanding of Nature, fostering an inherent randomness which forbids a deterministic description; yet the most fundamental departure arises from something different. As shown by Bell [1] and Kochen-Specker [2], quantum mechanics portrays a picture of the world in which reality loses its objectivity and is in fact created by observation. Quantum mechanics predicts phenomena which cannot be explained by any theory with objective realism, although our everyday experience supports the hypothesis that macroscopic objects, despite being made of quantum particles, exist independently of the act of observation; in this paper we identify this behavior as classical. Here we show that this seemingly obvious classical behavior of the macroscopic world cannot be experimentally tested and belongs to the realm of ontology similar to the dispute on the interpretations of quantum mechanics [3,4]. For small systems such as a single photon [5] or a pair [6], it has been experimentally proven that a classical description cannot be sustained. Recently, there have also been experiments that claim to have demonstrated quantum behavior of relatively large objects such as interference of fullerenes [7], the violation of Leggett-Garg inequality in Josephson junction [8], and interference between two condensed clouds of atoms [9], which suggest that there is no limit to the size of the system on which the quantum-versus-classical question can be tested. These behaviors, however, are not sufficient to refute classical description in the sense of objective reality. Our findings show that once we reach the regime where an Avogadro number of particles is present, the quantum-versus-classical question cannot be answered experimentally.
Abstract In considering models of reality we must consider the fundamental nature of quantum mechanics, which has had great success in describing the spectrum of light from distant stars and galaxies, formulating the properties of the strong, electro-weak or electromagnetic and weak decay forces, and explaining atomic order formulated as the atomic periodic table and atomic spectra. A vast array of technologies has resulted from quantum theory, from semiconductors to NMR machines, nuclear reactors and possibly encryption secured, fast quantum computers. Quantum theory, however, has yet to fully engage with the gravitational force. With the advent of quantum theory, several major issues stand out, leaving us with major philosophical questions on the nature of physics and reality, and our ability to comprehend them. The issues involve the interpretation of quantum measurement, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle on the completeness of quantum theory and nonlocality. The frontiers of science continue to open new concepts based on a multidimensional reality which we use to address these issues, including solving the Schrödinger and Dirac equations in complex Minkowski eight space. We also formulate Bell’s theorem and the Young’s double slit experiment in Rauscher’s complex eight-space. We formulate an interpretation of the quantum that yields locality in a hyper-dimensional complex space and that maintains the completeness of quantum theory and nonlocality in usual four space, with local connectivity and the Lorentz invariant conditions, where subluminal and luminal signaling are maintained. Are we really forced to choose between two alternate views of reality? One view that external reality exists independent of the observer, and the other that the observer somehow is a participator or an integral part of all of nature. Must we choose between these or is there another way out? We find our way out and we satisfy both Bohr (Copenhagen) and Einstein (determinism) in bringing about a practical outcome of the debate. By developing and applying complex eight space, we can accommodate locality or local realism in terms of contiguous event connections in complex eight space. In four space, nonlocality dominates and also can be considered locality in eight space. The determination of the state of a system naturally collapses to its final state where quantum mechanics is functioning completely in four and in eight dimensional spaces.
Here, the misunderstandings on quantum mechanics listed in the previous chapter are directly confronted, with known physics. Next, we provide a preview via a couple of those misunderstandings. First, a popular confusion is that quantum mechanics means the existence of ‘parallel universes.’ No. The parallel universe notion is just one of many alternative interpretations of quantum mechanics. Another popular misunderstanding is that quantum mechanics is at odds with reality . Not so. The statement, by Dalitz and Duarte, ‘Already in 1948, observations agreed with quantum mechanics, not with local realism’ might appear, at first, to introduce a divergence between quantum mechanics and reality. However, this apparent divergence immediately disappears if we adopt the experimentally verified nonlocality of the photon as part of our reality .
Abstract We discuss the possibilities of determinism in reality, taking under consideration both quantum and classical physics. We present this firstly by questioning the supposed nature of quantum physics as non-deterministic, following the proposal of Penrose: the collapse of the wavefunction interpreted as particular measurements which seem to indicate certain contingency does not actually give the full picture of the reality of the former. In addition to what Penrose suggests, we consider this collapse as part of a bigger deterministic picture. Secondly, we analyse the distinction between this microphysical scenario and our macrophysical experience, in the light of determinism as well. We suggest that this experience can be understood as particular “measurements” similar to what happens in quantum mechanics. For instance, the image of a person with certain identity features is a highlight or particularization of all the possibilities the identity of this person experienced, experiences and will experience through time. The “collapse” is thus linked to individuation, not less real, but incomplete of reality. By linking the domain of quantum physics in a deterministic fashion to the phenomenological or macrophysical realm, we aim to show that a non-contingent character of reality is possible when accepting measurements or particular instances of things as forms of comprehension given by the physical world (thus not just mere subjective interventions). We argue that the complete picture (closer to the wavefunction) cannot give distinctive information (understanding this as differentiation of elements, such as particles in the microphysical domain and a certain colour in the macrophysical one).
This article reconsiders the concept of physical reality in quantum theory and the concept of quantum measurement, following Bohr, whose analysis of quantum measurement led him to his concept of a (quantum) "phenomenon," referring to "the observations obtained under the specified circumstances," in the interaction between quantum objects and measuring instruments. This situation makes the terms "observation" and "measurement," as conventionally understood, inapplicable. These terms are remnants of classical physics or still earlier history, from which classical physics inherited it. As defined here, a quantum measurement does not measure any preexisting property of the ultimate constitution of the reality responsible for quantum phenomena. An act of measurement establishes a quantum phenomenon by an interaction between the instrument and the quantum object or in the present view the ultimate constitution of the reality responsible for quantum phenomena and, at the time of measurement, also quantum objects. In the view advanced in this article, in contrast to that of Bohr, quantum objects, such as electrons or photons, are assumed to exist only at the time of measurement and not independently, a view that redefines the concept of quantum object as well. This redefinition becomes especially important in high-energy quantum regimes and quantum field theory and allows this article to define a new concept of quantum field. The article also considers, now following Bohr, the quantum measurement as the entanglement between quantum objects and measurement instruments. The argument of the article is grounded in the concept "reality without realism" (RWR), as underlying quantum measurement thus understood, and the view, the RWR view, of quantum theory defined by this concept. The RWR view places a stratum of physical reality thus designated, here the reality ultimately responsible for quantum phenomena, beyond representation or knowledge, or even conception, and defines the corresponding set of interpretations quantum mechanics or quantum field theory, such as the one assumed in this article, in which, again, not only quantum phenomena but also quantum objects are (idealizations) defined by measurement. As such, the article also offers a broadly conceived response to J. Bell's argument "against 'measurement'".
The notion of macroscopic realism has been used in attempts to achieve consistency between physics and everyday experience and to locate some boundary between the realms of classical mechanics and quantum meachanics. Its ostensibly underlying conceptual components, realism and macroscopicity, have most often appeared in the foundations of physics in relation to quantum measurement: reality became a prominent topic of discussion in quantum physics after the notion of element of reality was defined and used by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen in that context, and macroscopicity is often explicitly assumed to be an essential property of any measuring apparatus. However, macroscopicity turns out to be a rather vaguer and less consistently understood notion than typically assumed by physicists who have not explicitly explored the notion themselves. For this reason, it behooves those investigating the foundations of quantum mechanics from a realist perspective to look for alternative notions for grounding quantum measurement. Here, the merits of treating the measuring instrument as a ‘natural kind’ as a means of avoiding anthropocentrism in the foundations of quantum measurement are pointed out as a means of advancing quantum measurement theory.