The overwhelming majority of scientists still takes it for granted that classical mechanics (ClM) is nothing but a limiting case of quantum mechanics (QM). Although some physicists restrict this belief to a generalized QM as represented, e. g., by the algebra of observables, it will be shown in this contribution that the view of ClM as a mere sub-set of QM is nevertheless unfounded. The usual attempts to derive the laws of ClM from QM are either insufficient or not universally applicable. The transition from traditional to algebraic QM does not add any further insight. It is demonstrated that typical constituents of the classical macroscopic world i) cannot be described reasonably in terms of QM and/or ii) do not show up the typical quantum behavior which manifests in the double-slit interference and in the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen correlations. Moreover, both attempts to recover ClM from QM and approaches based on vacuum fluctuations are critically inspected, and we arrive at the conclusion: QM does not comprehend ClM, i. e., a wavefunction of the universe does not exist.
The overwhelming majority of scientists still takes it for granted that classical mechanics (ClM) is nothing but a limiting case of quantum mechanics (QM). Although some physicists restrict this belief to a generalized QM as represented, e. g., by the algebra of observables, it will be shown in this contribution that the view of ClM as a mere sub-set of QM is nevertheless unfounded. The usual attempts to derive the laws of ClM from QM are either insufficient or not universally applicable. The transition from traditional to algebraic QM does not add any further insight. It is demonstrated that typical constituents of the classical macroscopic world i) cannot be described reasonably in terms of QM and/or ii) do not show up the typical quantum behavior which manifests in the double-slit interference and in the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen correlations. Moreover, both attempts to recover ClM from QM and approaches based on vacuum fluctuations are critically inspected, and we arrive at the conclusion: QM does not comprehend ClM, i. e., a wavefunction of the universe does not exist.
One of the main unsolved question in Quantum Mechanics (QM) is its compatibility with classical mechanics. The laws of QM, which describe the microscopic world, must merge into the classical ones for large enough physical systems, but it is still unknown at which point, if any, the transition occurs and if the transition is smooth or sudden as the size increases. Furthermore, a strict extension of QM to the macroscopic world leads to well known 'paradoxes', which is not straightforward to solve. This question is tightly connected with the measurement problem, since any measurement apparatus must give a response which can be described at classical level. Many experiments have been performed to answer to this question. They mainly try to find to which extent the number of particles can be increased in order to observe clear evidence of violation of standard QM. In this paper we argue that the macroscopicity parameter is not the number of particles but the number of independent degrees of freedom, as proposed in a recent model for the completion of QM. This introduces a sort of change of paradigm. To support this claim a representative set of well known experiments are analyzed from this point of view. This brings to a new interpretation of the experiments. A general scheme for the quantum-classical transition is discussed in some details.
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. 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 to understand 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. Additionally, several hidden major assumptions have been present in Classical Mechanics (represented by continuum mathematics) since its inception by Newton that are blocking progress and understanding of quantum mechanics. A related paper demonstrates that it is possible to create a point-particle theory of electrons that explains all their peculiar (and ‘paradoxical’) behavior without introducing the continuum mathematical ideas of fields or waves. * Surrey, B.C. Canada (604) 542-2299 spsi99@telus.net Version 1.195 10-07-2016 Begun 23-06-2008 {pp. 80, 70.4 Kw; 800 KB}
Despite its successes, quantum mechanics (QM) has remained mysterious to all who have encountered it. Starting with Bohr and progressing into the present, the departure from intuitive, physical reality has widened. The connection between QM and reality is more than just a “philosophical” issue. It reveals that QM is not a correct or complete theory of the physical world and that inescapable internal inconsistencies and incongruities arise when attempts are made to treat it as physical as opposed to a purely mathematical “tool.” Some of these issues are discussed in a review by F. Laloe [Am. J. Phys. 69, 655 (2001)]. In an attempt to provide some physical insight into atomic problems and starting with the same essential physics as Bohr of e moving in the Coulombic field of the proton and the wave equation as modified by Schrodinger, a classical approach is explored that yields a remarkably accurate model and provides insight into physics on the atomic level. The proverbial view, deeply seated in the wave-particle duality notion, that there is no large-scale physical counterpart to the nature of the electron may not be correct. Physical laws and intuition may be restored when dealing with the wave equation and quantummechanical problems. Specifically, a theory of classical quantum mechanics (CQM) is derived from first principles that successfully applies physical laws on all scales. Rather than using the postulated Schrodinger boundary condition “Ψ → 0 as r → ∞,” which leads to a purely mathematical model of the electron, the constraint is based on experimental observation. Using Maxwell’s equations, the classical wave equation is solved with the constraint that the bound (n = 1)state electron cannot radiate energy. By further application of Maxwell’s equations to electromagnetic and gravitational fields at particle production, the Schwarzschild metric is derived from the classical wave equation, which modifies general relativity to include conservation of spacetime in addition to momentum and matter/energy. The result gives a natural relationship among Maxwell’s equations, special relativity, and general relativity. CQM holds over a scale of spacetime of 85 orders of magnitude — it correctly predicts the nature of the universe from the scale of the quarks to that of the cosmos. A review is given by G. Landvogt [Internat. J. Hydrogen Energy 28, 1155 (2003)].
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}
The contemporary controversy about the fundamental obscurity in quantum mechanics keeps on the old one about the aim of science, which was between the founders of the quantum theory. The orthodox quantum mechanics could be created only at the cost of renunciation of reality as the aim of natural science. The description only of phenomena, i.e. results of observation, should not be universal if no one believes that these phenomena are manifestation of a unique reality. Such belief concerning quantum mechanics is quite unacceptable because of irremediably conflict with special relativity. Nevertheless the quantum mechanics was developed and apprehended by most physicists as a universal theory of a quantum world. This fundamental discrepancy between the essence of the orthodox quantum mechanics and its history of development and studying has resulted both to an illusion about the aim of its description among most physicists and to the consideration of its fundamental obscurity as a universal problem among experts in quantum foundation. The aim of this paper is to show that quantum phenomena can not be described universally. It is indicated that rather the Schrodinger's than Born's interpretation of the wave function is valid for description of many quantum phenomena. The fundamental obscurity with which we are faced at the description, for example, macroscopic quantum phenomena differs fundamentally from the one with which the founders of the quantum theory were faced on atomic level.
Ever since the advent of quantum mechanics, it has been clear that the atoms composing matter do not obey Newton's laws. Instead, their behavior is described by the Schroedinger equation. Surprisingly though, until recently, no clear explanation was given for why everyday objects, which are merely collections of atoms, are observed to obey Newton's laws. It would seem that, if quantum mechanics explains all the properties of atoms accurately, they, too, should obey quantum mechanics. This reasoning led some scientists to believe in a distinct macroscopic, or ``big and complicated,'' world in which quantum mechanics fails and classical mechanics takes over, although there has never been experimental evidence for such a failure. Even those who insisted that Newtonian mechanics would somehow emerge from the underlying quantum mechanics as the system became increasingly macroscopic were hindered by the lack of adequate experimental and theoretical tools. In the last decade, however, this quantum-to-classical transition has become accessible to experimental study and quantitative description, and the resulting insights are the subject of this article.