Quantum Puzzles in the Metaworld of Heisenberg, Clauser, and Horne

2019

This article is devoted to the study of which appears as the most famous paradoxes of quantum theory (Schrodinger cat, EPR argument and Aspect experiments, delayed choice experiments and retrocausality problems). Through these experiments, physics raises so fundamental questions that it borders, at the limit, with metaphysics. The present article supports the idea that the difficulties encountered, so puzzling they are, manifest only a transitional state of the evolution of physics, that can be expected to be outdated one day. In the meantime, caution is necessary to avoid the excesses that could lead to metaphysical considerations a little too premature.

Compendium of Quantum Physics, Concepts, Experiments, History and Philosophy (eds. D. Greenberger, K. Hentschel, F. Weinert), pp. 281-283, 2009

The term Heisenberg uncertainty relation is a name for not one but three distinct trade-off relations which are all formulated in a more or less intuitive and vague way in Heisenberg's seminal paper of 1927 [1]. These relations are expressions and quantifications of three fundamental limitations of the operational possibilities of preparing and measuring quantum mechanical systems which are stated here informally with reference to position and momentum as a paradigmatic example of canonically conjugate pairs of quantities: It is impossible to prepare states in which position and momentum are simultaneously arbitrarily well localized. In every state, the probability distributions of these ► observables have widths that obey an uncertainty relation. It is impossible to make joint measurements of position and momentum. But it is possible to make approximate joint measurements of these observables, with inaccuracies that obey an uncertainty relation. It is impossible to measure position without disturbing momentum, and vice versa. The inaccuracy of the position measurement and the disturbance of the momentum distribution obey an uncertainty relation.

2002

2005

Quantum mechanics is not something you would have guessed. The moment you juxtapose quantum mechanics and everyday experience, the mysteries of how the former relates to, much less explains, the latter seem to have no end. Scientists are predisposed to take the obviousness of the world for granted (rightfully so) while trying to explain and justify quantum mechanics. Many philosophers also take the obviousness of the world for granted (improperly so). But there are a few philosophers who have taken note that the very obviousness of the world is rather surprising. It's surprising because that which is so obvious is at the same time so unobtrusive; it is so obvious it practically insists that we overlook it. Why does the world already make sense to us, at least in an unreflective way, the moment we turn our attention to it, before we've had a chance to formulate the first question about it? The child contends with and utilizes gravity long before its unceasing effects arouse curiosity. Upon a moment's reflection, we can see that our first tentative intellectual steps toward understanding, like learning our first musical tune, are already upheld by a robust commitment to the consistency and congruity of sensuous experience. We enter the world with a basic commitment to the world, what Merleau-Ponty called "perceptual faith."

2008

The term Heisenberg uncertainty relation is a name for not one but three distinct trade-off relations which are all formulated in a more or less intuitive and vague way in Heisenberg's seminal paper of 1927 [1]. These relations are expressions and quantifications of three fundamental limitations of the operational possibilities of preparing and measuring quantum mechanical systems which are stated here informally with reference to position and momentum as a paradigmatic example of canonically conjugate pairs of quantities: ... (A) It is impossible to prepare states in ...

1) We shall discuss what modern interpretations say about the Heisenberg's uncertainties. These interpretations explain that a quantity begins to 'lose' meaning when a conjugate property begins to 'acquire' definite meaning. We know that a quantity losing meaning means that it has no fixed value and has an uncertainty . In this paper we look deeper into this interpretation and the outcome reveals more evidence of the quantity losing meaning. Newer insights appear. 2) We consider two extreme cases of hypothetical processes nature undergoes, without interference by a measurement: One, a system collapses to an energy eigenstate under the influence of a Hamiltonian instantaneously at a time $t$. This is thus what would happen if we would measure the system's energy. Next, when a particle becomes localised to a point at a time $t_0$ under the influence of a Hamiltonian. This is thus what would happen if we would measure the system's position. We shall prove th...

It has long been clear, that human's ideas about the structure of surrounds him world are correspond to its world only partly. This truth is banal, but only recognition of this fact today is not sufficient. It appears that it's time to make the next step in scientific knowledge and to try to create (once again!) The New Model of the World which is to near understanding of the World as it is.

2022

The Quantum Measurement Problem is arguably one of the most debated issues in the philosophy of Quantum Mechanics, since it represents not only a technical difficulty for the standard formulation of the theory, but also a source of interpretational disputes concerning the meaning of the quantum postulates. Another conundrum intimately connected with the QMP is the Wigner friend paradox, a thought experiment underlining the incoherence between the two dynamical laws governing the behavior of quantum systems, i.e the Schrödinger equation and the projection rule. Thus, every alternative interpretation aiming to be considered a sound formulation of QM must provide an explanation to these puzzles associated with quantum measurements. It is the aim of the present essay to discuss them in the context of Relational Quantum Mechanics. In fact, it is shown here how this interpretative framework dissolves the QMP. More precisely, two variants of this issue are considered: on the one hand, I focus on the "the problem of outcomes" contained in Maudlin (1995) - in which the projection postulate is not mentioned - on the other hand, I take into account Rovelli's reformulation of this problem proposed in Rovelli (2022), where the tension between the Schrödinger equation and the stochastic nature of the collapse rule is explicitly considered. Moreover, the relational explanation to the Wigner's friend paradox is reviewed, taking also into account some interesting objections contra Rovelli's theory contained in Laudisa (2019). I contend that answering these critical remarks leads to an improvement of our understanding of RQM. Finally, a possible objection against the relational solution to the QMP is presented and addressed.

Research Gate, 2023

This paper presents a reinterpretation of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle (HUP) as a common fundamental principle of both Quantum mechanisms (QM) and General relativity (GR). Contrarily to the mainstream opinion in modern physics, this paper mathematically demonstrates that QM & GR are in fact reciprocally compatible (as the two “faces” of the same “coin”, a so-called physical monad), because having this profound direct connection two each other via time discreteness (TD), which TD is mathematically implied by both GR & HUP via the same common Planck units derived from GR and re-used in this reformulation of HUP in terms of Planck time. A future plausible TOE will surely and firmly stand on this reformulation of HUP based on Planck units derived directly from GR. The main implications of this newly discovered GR-QM compatibility will be discussed in a future version of this paper. #DONATIONS. Anyone can donate for dr. Dragoi’s independent research and original music at: www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=AQYGGDVDR7KH2

Journal of Statistical Physics, 1992

Dedicated to the memory of J. S. Bell.