Quantum mechanics deals with complex waves and fields. Quantum mechanics does not deal directly with everyday objects that we can see, touch, and smell. This has provided critics and commentators the opportunity to construct a large edifice of misunderstandings. However, commentators outside physics should be forgiven since most of these misunderstandings have originated among the files of physics practitioners themselves. Here, we list more than a dozen misunderstandings, knowing full well that perhaps there are more. These misunderstandings belong to basically two camps: a physics category and a beyond physics category, all the way to the meaning of reality. In the next chapter we neutralize these misunderstandings one by one.
Quantum mechanics deals with complex waves and fields. Quantum mechanics does not deal directly with everyday objects that we can see, touch, and smell. This has provided critics and commentators the opportunity to construct a large edifice of misunderstandings. However, commentators outside physics should be forgiven since most of these misunderstandings have originated among the files of physics practitioners themselves. Here, we list more than a dozen misunderstandings, knowing full well that perhaps there are more. These misunderstandings belong to basically two camps: a physics category and a beyond physics category, all the way to the meaning of reality. In the next chapter we neutralize these misunderstandings one by one.
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 .
Quantum Mechanics is a fundamental physical theory about atomic-scale processes. It was built between 1920 and 1940 by the most distinguished physicists of that time. The accordance between the predictions of the theory and experimental results is remarkable. The physical interpretation of its mathematical constructs, however, raised unprecedented controversies. Ontological, semantic, and epistemic vagueness abound in the orthodox interpretations and have resulted in serious misunderstandings that are often repeated in textbooks and elsewhere. In this work, we identify, criticize, and clarify the most spread ones.
Quantum mechanics allows a remarkably accurate description of nature and powerful predictive capabilities. The analyses of quantum systems and their interpretation lead to many surprises, for example, the ability to detect the characteristics of an object without ever touching it in any way, via "interaction-free measurement," or the teleportation of an atomic state over large distances. The results can become downright bizarre. Quantum mechanics is a subtle subject that usually involves complicated mathematics -- calculus, partial differential equations, etc., for complete understanding. Most texts for general audiences avoid all mathematics. The result is that the reader misses almost all deep understanding of the subject, much of which can be probed with just high-school level algebra and trigonometry. Thus, readers with that level of mathematics can learn so much more about this fundamental science. The book starts with a discussion of the basic physics of waves (an appendix reviews some necessary classical physics concepts) and then introduces the fundamentals of quantum mechanics, including the wave function, superposition, entanglement, Bell's theorem, etc., and applications to Bose--Einstein condensation, quantum computing, and much more. The interpretation of the mathematics of quantum mechanics into a world view has been the subject of much controversy. The result is a variety of conflicting interpretations, from the famous Copenhagen view of Bohr to the multiple universes of Everett. We discuss these interpretations in the chapter "What is a wave function?" and include some very recent advances, for example, quantum Bayesianism, and measurements of the reality of the wave function.
In this monograph I present the basic structure of an interpretation of quantum mechanics. Chapter 1 outlines the central ideas behind the interpretation and illustrates them by means of examples: Subsequent chapters fill in the details of the interpretation. But it is important to begin by explaining what I take an interpretation of quantum mechanics to be, and why any further interpretation needs to be offered. After all, quantum mechanics (in some form) is by now both a foundation for much of contemporary physics and a veteran of more than sixty years of intermittent but sometimes intense reflection on its content and meaning. What more can be, or should be, said about the interpretation of this theory? Many physicists believe that no more needs to be said: that there is basically only one way of understanding quantum mechanics, due to Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli, and others, and that the only remaining interpretative task is that of the physics teacher, who seeks to perfect ways of conveying this understanding to new generations of students. Sir Rudolf Peierls, one of the more lucid and distinguished of these physicists, even objects to the use of the familiar term ‘Copenhagen interpretation’ to refer to the way of understanding quantum mechanics due to Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli, and others. Because this sounds as if there were several interpretations of quantum mechanics. There is only one. There is only one way in which you can understand quantum mechanics.[…]
Introduction Chapter 1 dealt with one of the deepest mysteries in modern science: how to explain consciousness. This Part deals with another mystery: how to make sense of quantum mechanics. Both involve a problem of reconciliation with the classical worldview, which is one hint that the two mysteries might be related. A second is that, unlike classical physics, which makes no reference to or allowance for consciousness, quantum theory raises the issue of consciousness and its relationship to the physical world in a very direct way. These hints do not necessarily mean there is a connection between the two mysteries, but by the end of this Part I hope to have shown why it would be natural to look for one. My more immediate aim here is to give the social scientific reader an introductory understanding of the experimental findings of quantum theory, its key concepts, and the debates about its interpretation. The discussion assumes no prior knowledge of quantum physics and makes no use of mathematics. Quantum theory without equations might seem like an oxymoron, and certainly reading this Part will not enable anyone to use quantum theory. But to a perhaps surprising degree it is possible to understand quantum theory without being able to use it. Its findings can be communicated in ordinary language, and the same goes for its main concepts and interpretive debates. One consequence of this has been the emergence of a virtual cottage industry of books on quantum theory for a lay audience. Most are written by physicists, and many are quite good. However, it is not just popular treatments that do without equations: much of the professional philosophical literature does as well. (I draw on both kinds of literature below.) Philosophers of physics are trained to understand the math, of course, which is necessary for a full appreciation of the issues.
We outline how Bohmian mechanics works: how it deals with various issues in the foundations of quantum mechanics and how it is related to the usual quantum formalism. We then turn to some objections to Bohmian mechanics, for example the fact that in Bohmian mechanics there is no back action of particle configurations upon wave functions. These lead us to our main concern: a more careful consideration of the meaning of the wave function in quantum mechanics, as suggested by a Bohmian perspective. We propose that the reason, on the universal level, that there is no action of configurations upon wave functions, as there seems to be between all other elements of physical reality, is that the wave function of the universe is not an element of physical reality. We propose that the wave function belongs to an altogether different category of existence than that of substantive physical entities, and that its existence is nomological rather than material. We propose, in other words, that the wave function is a component of physical law rather than of the reality described by the law.