arXiv:quant-ph/0606032 · Prespacetime journal

Quantum Mechanics: 44 Admissible Questions? -Not only Fapp-

Michele Caponigro, Helen Lynn

Published Jun 5, 2006• 0 citations

Abstract

The words: determinism, hidden variables, subjectivism, information, objectivism, informational-theoretic axioms,observers have some connection with physical reality? What we mean with "description" of physical reality? When we say that we understand this reality? Certain parameters:position, velocity are sufficient? We will focus only to conceptual considerations regarding the relation between the "questions" and the relative "answers" in general and specifically in quantum mechanics. It is usually believed that the answers are more important of the questions, for this reason we can read many answers everywhere and in different field of knowledge. We need to add and clarify some things: (i) usually an answers require a question, (ii) but, as we know, their relation is not so simple and immediate, (iii) For instance: a)an epistemic questions give us ontic answers? b)the answer has a connection with the question and vice versa? c)we could to infer a question starting from an answer? d)there are answers without questions? These answers could be in some framework considered as ontic answers? The relative scientific works are the same time ontic? Speaking of quantum mechanics we see around many answers in the meantime we do not see the correspondent questions, these answers seem completely independent, and this seem a right road, the road of the independent nature unlinked from human thoughts. We retain instead that questions can affect the possible answers. Exist "something" before the question?

DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/0606032

Related papers

Questions and Physical Reality -Simple Philosophical considerations-

Michele Caponigro, Helen Lynn

We argue, through some philosophical considerations, on (i)dependent or (ii) an independent existence of physical reality underlying quantum states. According these simple considerations, we conclude that is impossible to have a clear independent existence of physical reality, we need to search the reasons in the relationship between our questions (the observers) and the consequent answers (always estimated by the same observers). Finally, we infer that every theory is affected by our "questions", so we cannot speak about an unconditional and independent theory underlying physical reality. Plan of the paper. The existence of physical reality underlying quantum states: (i) it before bit,(ii)it without bit,(iii)it from bit.

arXiv:quant-ph/0608011Aug 1, 20060 citations

Hidden Variables: Ontology/Epistemology & Contextuality/Non-Classicality

Wolf, Fred Alan

What does quantum physics tell us about the nature of reality, specifically the parts of reality we do not directly perceive called hidden variables? One may think it could tell us a lot because of our enhanced technological sensing abilities that delve into the realms that quantum physics covers so well. Surprisingly, it seems to surround us in a deeper mystery rather than reveal more of nature's secrets. It seems that we cannot escape from philosophical consideration when dealing with what is hidden in quantum physics. In Part I we will look at how Epistemology and Ontology bear upon Hidden Variables. In Part II we will consider Hidden Variables in the light of Contextuality, and Non-Classicality. Inevitably questions of subjectivity and objectivity arise in dealing with states of observation. How should we think about these states? Perhaps it is a question of the meaning associated with our knowledge of a state-that is, a question of ontology or epistemology. The issue of ontic and epistemic states is particularly important when considering hidden variables in quantum physics because, as one may argue, the interpretation of quantum states as either ontic or epistemic will naturally lead to different assumptions about how reality is constructed; if it is constructed or not. It also raises the question of what attributes we are able to observe simultaneously and that brings contextuality into the discussion. If it turns out that reality is constructed contextually what does that imply about ontological realism? If on the other hand reality is constructed non-contextually what does that imply about ontological realism? Many implications can arise when considering these questions from a quantum physical point of view. In this paper I shall discuss how quantum physics provides some answers to these questions by considering quantum physical states and their measurements.

Cosmos and historyAug 25, 20180 citations

Some philosophical lessons from quantum mechanics

James T. Cushing

[I] think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. Richard Feynman, The Character of Physical Law Quantum mechanics [is] that mysterious, confusing discipline, which none of us really understands but which we know how to use. It works perfectly, as far as we can tell, in describing physical reality, but it is a ‘counter-intuitive discipline’… Murray Gell-Mann, Questions for the Future [The quantum] postulate implies a renunciation as regards the causal space-time co-ordination of atomic processes. Niels Bohr, Atomic Theory and the Description of Nature It should be emphasized, however, that the probability function does not in itself represent a course of events in the course of time. It represents a tendency for events and our knowledge of events. The probability function can be connected with reality only if one essential condition is fulfilled: if a new measurement is made to determine a certain property of the system. [T]he idea of an objective real world whose smallest parts exist objectively in the same sense as stones or trees exist, independently of whether or not we observe them…is impossible … Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy [In] quantum theory it is the principle of causality , or more accurately that of determinism , which must be dropped and replaced by something else.… We now have a new form of the law of causality.… It is as follows: if in a certain process the initial conditions are determined as accurately as the uncertainty relations permit, then the probabilities of all possible subsequent states are governed by exact laws. Max Born, The Restless Universe

Cambridge University Press eBooksJan 29, 19980 citations

Are quantum systems physical objects with physical properties?

Michel Paty

Despite its power as the conceptual basis for a huge range of physical phenomena in atomic and subatomic physics, quantum mechanics still suffers from a lack of clarity regarding the physical meaning of its fundamental theoretical concepts, such as those of quantum state and of quantum theoretical quantities or variables , dealt with by the known mathematical-theoretical rules. These concepts have generally been considered as not giving a direct description of physical systems, for they do not correspond to what is usually understood by `physical states' or `physical properties', notably characterized by definite numerical values such as those obtained from measurement. The situation has been tentatively expressed in terms of various `interpretations', conceived not only with regard to the physical meanings of mathematical quantities, but also in connection with philosophical statements about `physical reality'. The question of whether or not quantum theoretical quantities describe definite physical systems existing in nature has therefore generally been considered as beyond the possibilities of physics, because of the definitions that are commonly taken for `physical state' and `physical quantity'. We sketch the main ideas on this problem and propose a possible way out of the puzzle, in terms of an extension of the meaning given to the concepts of the physical state and physical quantity of a system, which would allow one, without any theoretical change in quantum mechanics, to speak consistently of real quantum systems as having definite physical properties .

European Journal of PhysicsNov 1, 199931 citations

Question of Consciousness: to Quantum Mechanics for the Answers

Карпенко Иван Александрович

Abstract The article presents the possible role of consciousness in quantum-mechanical description of physical reality. The widely spread interpretations of quantum phenomena are considered as indicating the apparent connection between conscious processes (such as observation) and the properties of the microcosm. The reasons for discrepancies between the results of observations of the microcosm and macrocosm and the potential association of consciousness with these reasons are closely investigated. The mentioned connection is meant to be interpreted in the sense that the probable requirement for a complete understanding of quantum theory is the adequate description of consciousness within it and that the correct theory of consciousness should include quantum-mechanical theoretical apparatus. In this context, the question about the methods of scientific cognition is discussed, in particular, the problem of the place and the importance of intellectual intuition in science and philosophy of science. The author draws the conclusions about the current state of the “measuring” consciousness. problem in its relationship with

Studia HumanaSep 1, 20141 citation

On the Nature of Reality

Frederico Rodrigues Pfrimer

What is the nature of reality? How should be an answer to this question? At this level, we are so deep that all our concepts are obscure. Quantum theory (QT) is at this level. The quest for interpreting it fails because the clarity of our actual fundamental concepts in ordinary language cannot match the precision of the theory's mathematical formalism. The interpretation of quantum mechanics should define and bring clarity to fundamental concepts; not simply rely over them. Quantum theory requires a new worldview, the one that will make it understandable. We discuss on the formulation and interpretation of closed, and final theories, in other words, completely axiomatic theories that define their own conceptual framework, and closed theories that cannot be made simpler. We claim that everything we can properly say about a theory follows from its interpretation, and that interpreting is saying the meaning of each of its mathematical statements. We argue that quantum mechanics is a closed theory; and, therefore, that part of it is part of the final or fundamental theory of physics (FTP). We propose a new entirely axiomatic formulation of part of quantum theory (including all its mathematical framework) in which new powerful and useful elements are added to the existing formalism. Our interpretation is straightforward: it allows us reading or saying the meaning of each of the theory's axiom, theorem or element. We state that the proposed theory is the FTP. Its interpretation may dissolve most of the existing paradoxes around QT. The principle of excluded middle is not valid in general. Both epistemic and ontic elements are present in the theory since it is a theory of knowledge and truth. This and other fundamental concepts are defined by the theory, which can represent both reality and our knowledge about it. Aesthetics is one of its key features.

arXiv:1208.4474Aug 15, 20120 citations