What quantum mechanics is trying to tell us

Quantum Studies: Mathematics and Foundations, 2014

Quantum theory's irreducible empirical core is a probability calculus. While it presupposes the events to which (and on the basis of which) it serves to assign probabilities, and therefore cannot account for their occurrence, it has to be consistent with it. It must make it possible to identify a system of observables that have measurementindependent values.What makes this possible is the incompleteness of the spatiotemporal differentiation of the physical world. This is shown by applying a novel interpretive principle to interfering alternatives involving distinctions between regions of space. Applying the same interpretive principle to alternatives involving distinctions between things makes it safe to claim that the macroworld comes into being through a progressive differentiation of a single, intrinsically undifferentiated entity. By entering into reflexive spatial relations, this entity gives rise to (1) what looks like a multiplicity of relata if the reflexive quality of the relations is not taken into account, and (2) what looks like a substantial expanse if the spatial quality of the relations is reified. The necessary distinction between two domains (classical and quantum, or macro and micro) and their mutual dependence is best understood as a distinction between the manifested world and its manifestation. Keywords Localizable particles • Macroscopic objects • Manifestation • Measurement problem • Spacetime Paper presented at Berge Fest, a conference celebrating the 60th birthday of Berge Englert (Centre for Quantum Technologies,

Foundations of Science, 2016

Although the present paper looks upon the formal apparatus of quantum mechanics as a calculus of correlations, it goes beyond a purely operationalist interpretation. Having established the consistency of the correlations with the existence of their correlata (measurement outcomes), and having justified the distinction between a domain in which outcome-indicating events occur and a domain whose properties only exist if their existence is indicated by such events, it explains the difference between the two domains as essentially the difference between the manifested world and its manifestation. A single, intrinsically undifferentiated Being manifests the macroworld by entering into reflexive spatial relations. This atemporal process implies a new kind of causality and sheds new light on the mysterious nonlocality of quantum mechanics. Unlike other realist interpretations, which proceed from an evolving-states formulation, the present interpretation proceeds from Feynman's formulation of the theory, and it introduces a new interpretive principle, replacing the collapse postulate and the eigenvalueeigenstate link of evolving-states formulations. Applied to alternatives involving distinctions between regions of space, this principle implies that the spatiotemporal differentiation of the physical world is incomplete. Applied to alternatives involving distinctions between things, it warrants the claim that, intrinsically, all fundamental particles are identical in the strong sense of numerical identical. They are the aforementioned intrinsically undifferentiated Being, which manifests the macroworld by entering into reflexive spatial relations.

1999

This article presents a novel interpretation of quantum mechanics. It extends the meaning of ``measurement'' to include all property-indicating facts. Intrinsically space is undifferentiated: there are no points on which a world of locally instantiated physical properties could be built. Instead, reality is built on facts, in the sense that the properties of things are extrinsic, or supervenient on property-indicating facts. The actual extent to which the world is spatially and temporally differentiated (that is, the extent to which spatiotemporal relations and distinctions are warranted by the facts) is necessarily limited. Notwithstanding that the state vector does nothing but assign probabilities, quantum mechanics affords a complete understanding of the actual world. If there is anything that is incomplete, it is the actual world, but its incompleteness exists only in relation to a conceptual framework that is more detailed than the actual world. Two deep-seated misconceptions are responsible for the interpretational difficulties associated with quantum mechanics: the notion that the spatial and temporal aspects of the world are adequately represented by sets with the cardinality of the real numbers, and the notion of an instantaneous state that evolves in time. The latter is an unwarranted (in fact, incoherent) projection of our apparent ``motion in time'' into the world of physics. Equally unwarranted, at bottom, is the use of causal concepts. There nevertheless exists a ``classical'' domain in which language suggestive of nomological necessity may be used. Quantum mechanics not only is strictly consistent with the existence of this domain but also presupposes it in several ways.

American Journal of Physics, 1979

We reformulate the problem of the "interpretation of quantum mechanics" as the problem of DERIVING the quantum mechanical formalism from a set of simple physical postulates. We suggest that the common unease with taking quantum mechanics as a fundamental description of nature could derive from the use of an incorrect notion, as the unease with the Lorentz transformations before Einstein derived from the notion of observer independent time. Following an an analysis of the measurement process as seen by different observers, we propose a reformulation of quantum mechanics in terms of INFORMATION THEORY. We propose three different postulates out of which the formalism of the theory can be reconstructed; these are based on the notion of information about each other that systems contain. All systems are assumed to be equivalent: no observer-observed distinction, and information is interpreted as correlation. We then suggest that the incorrect notion that generates the unease with quantum mechanichs is the notion of OBSERVER INDEPENDENT state of a system.

Foundation Physics (2015) 45:1269–1300, 2015

First, this article considers the nature of quantum reality (the reality responsible for quantum phenomena) and the concept of realism (our ability to represent this reality) in quantum theory, in conjunction with the roles of locality, causality, and probability and statistics there. Second, it offers two interpretations of quantum mechanics, developed by the authors of this article, the second of which is also a different (from quantum mechanics) theory of quantum phenomena. Both of these interpretations are statistical. The first interpretation, by A. Plotnitsky, "the statistical Copenhagen interpretation ," is nonrealist, insofar as the description or even conception of the nature of quantum objects and processes is precluded. The second, by A. Khrennikov, is ultimately realist, because it assumes that the quantum-mechanical level of reality is underlain by a deeper level of reality, described, in a realist fashion, by a model, based in the pre-quantum classical statistical field theory, the predictions of which reproduce those of quantum mechanics. Moreover, because the continuous fields considered in this model are transformed into discrete clicks of detectors, experimental outcomes in this model depend on the context of measurement in accordance with N. Bohr's interpretation and the statistical Copenhagen interpretation, which coincides with N. Bohr's interpretation in this regard.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.10666, 2024

We suggest a contextual realist interpretation of relational quantum mechanics. The principal point is a correct understanding of the concept of reality and taking into account the categorical distinction between the ideal and the real. Within our interpretation, consciousness of the observer does not play any metaphysical role. The proposed approach can also be understood as a return to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, corrected within the framework of contextual realism. The contextual realism allows one to get rid of the metaphysical problems encountered by various interpretations of quantum mechanics, including the relational one.

Integral Review Journal, 2018

A new interpretation of quantum mechanics (QM) shows that all of the baffling behavior of fundamental particles that make QM so hard to comprehend are consistent with the behavior of biological lifeforms involved in receptive-responsive relationships with one another and their environment. This raises a radical possibility that fundamental particles possess a form of sentience and this sentience enables them to form relationships that create all of the tangible matter and energy and the spatiotemporal dimensions of our universe. This paper proposes a set of underlying principles to explain how this works at the quantum level. These principles are shown to be consistent with quantum formalism. Further, this paper shows that these principles offer an intuitive explanation for why the formalism of QM takes the form that it does. Quantum formalism tells us that quantum states cannot be measured directly in their natural "coherent" form, and that quantum states must evolve gradually and linearly until a measurement occurs. Why? And why is all matter and energy quantized into packets that behave like particles when they are measured, but act more like waves when they are not being measured? And why do entangled particles act as if they "know" and "respond" to each other's state no matter how far apart they are? This paper proposes that if sentience is the cause of this strange behavior, then the irrational nature of human relationships that we experience every day can offer insights that directly relate to the strange behavior of quanta. This opens the door to an intuitive understanding of QM. This paper shows that there are three fundamental lenses of perception (sentient ways of sensing and responding) that appear to guide the behavior of all quanta and living organisms: first-person, second-person, and third-person perception. Quanta and life forms use these three lenses to form different types of relationships, and these relationships are what create the natural universe. These principles reveal an intangible aspect to sentient relationships, represented by quantum states that shape everything happening in the tangible, measurable world. However, the main value of an interpretation of QM is its ability to offer potential solutions to existing problems in science. Two speculative proposals will be reviewed briefly. The first offers new insights into how the field of space may emerge at the quantum level. This has the potential to resolve the problems with developing a 1 Doug Marman has been lecturing, writing, and leading classes on the exploration of consciousness for more than forty years. His recent book,

In Quantum and Consciousness Revisited. M.C. Kafatos, D. Banerji, and D. Struppa (editors). DK Publisher, New Delhi., 2024

Classical reality is described in terms of objects and things and their mutual relationships. On the other hand, in the case of quantum reality, the collapse of the state in an interaction assigns a unique position to the observer. These two disparate views are based on different logics of representation, the history of which can be traced back to Greek and Indian thought. In this chapter, we first summarize the early evolution of these ideas and then go beyond the implicit dependence of the quantum theory framework on the mathematical apparatus of calculus and vector spaces, by delving one layer deeper to an information-theoretic understanding of symbol representation. We examine some epistemic implications of the fact that, mathematically, e-symbol representation is optimal and three symbols are more efficient than two symbols and this optimality leads to the idea that space itself is e-dimensional and not three-dimensional. We also discuss the principle of veiled non-locality as a way to understand the split between the observer and the physical process. By considering how information is obtained from a quantum system, we argue that consciousness is not computable, which means that it cannot be generated by machines.

The foundations and meaning of quantum theory became a central issue to Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr since the onset of their impassioned debate in the 1920s, enriched by the contributions of many other distinguished scientists and philosophers. The questions are not settled down at all, despite the great achievements of the theory, its impressive accordance with experiment and predictive power. The fundamental and technological applications range from cosmology to biology, with the development of invaluable instruments and the design of new materials. Is quantum mechanics a complete or an incomplete theory? Is there an objective reality independent of the observer or is the reality created by the measurements? Are hidden-variable theories justifiable? Is there a quantum theory founded in a local-causal and non-linear approach that formally contains the orthodox linear theory as a special case? Can such a formulation unify classical and quantum physics? Are Heisenberg’s uncertainty relations valid in all cases? Here, the subject is addressed as an adaptation of our contribution to the Colloquium “Quantal aspects in Chemistry and Physics. A tribute in memory of Professor Ruy Couceiro da Costa” held at Academia das Ciências de Lisboa, November 27, 2009. Ruy Couceiro da Costa (1901-1955), University of Coimbra, was one of the first professors and researchers to apply and teach quantum mechanics at Portuguese universities. The above questions presumably crossed his mind as they do pervade, presently, the minds of teachers and researchers interested in the interpretation, philosophy and epistemology of quantum theory.