Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics

It has been claimed by some in creationist circles that modern physics is derived from a priori atheistic reductionistic presuppositions. On the contrary, it is claimed in this paper that it is possible to construct a Christian theistic interpretation of the experimental facts which is consistent with the Biblical doctrines of man, creation, revelation, and God. This reconciliation is derived by the correct method which subordinates "scientific" interpretation to the authority of special revelation. It is also demonstrated that some of the presuppositions and arguments of creationists against theories such as quantum mechanics and relativity actually exhibit anti-theistic philosophies (Thomism and Arminianism) or fundamental misunderstandings of these theories. A Christian theistic view of the phenomena and theories of moderr physics is presented.

In questo articolo prendo in esame gli argomenti proposti dal fisico Carlo Rovelli nel suo recente libro Helgoland. In particolare, dimostro che le sue conclusioni contraddicono l'esperienza e che il suo "naturalismo senza sostanza" non fornisce una visione soddisfacente del rapporto tra la coscienza umana e il mondo esterno. Quindi introduco gli elementi di un'impostazione alternativa che possa fornire una tale visione. Questi elementi rappresentano una componente importante nel dibattito scientifico contemporaneo su temi fondamentali quali la comprensione dell'esperienza cosciente e la realtà fisica del tempo.

In a previous paper we outlined a series of historical touchpoints between classical aether theories and modern theoretical physics which showed a shared conceptual lineage for the modern tools and methods of the most common interpretations and fluid based "Hydrodynamic" treatments of an electromagnetic medium. It was proposed that, though the weight of modern experimentation leaves an extremely narrow and convoluted window for even a reconceptualization of a medium, all of modern physics recognizes a plethora of behaviors and attributes for free space and these physics are interchangeable with modern methods for treating superfluid-like continuums. Thus the mathematical equivalence of the methods do not comprise alternative physics but an alternative interpretation of the same physics. Though many individual components describing a "neo-aether" or "quintessence" are available, an overarching structural outline of how these tools can work together to pr...

In this monograph, I develop 1) a new interpretation of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, 2) an interpretation of Kant's philosophy of science in his Critique of the Power of Judgment that is consistent with 1) and 3) a new Kantian interpretation of quantum physics. These interpretations are not independent of each other – together they constitute a consistent interpretation of the First and Third Critiques (and the Critique of Practical Reason, although that is not included in the discussion) that is also consistent with contemporary science. In general, my interpretation of Kant's Critical metaphysics is consistent with special and general relativity as well as quantum physics (quantum field theory and quantum mechanics).
In the first part, I present a weak ontological reading of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason in which I argue that the most viable interpretation of the noumenal realm in this Critique (and also in his Critical philosophy in general) is to understand it as a realm outside Kant's conception of nature (systemic nature governed by mechanism), regulated by the transcendental principle of freedom (as an absolute spontaneous, albeit, effective causality). In this manner this principle of freedom does not merely become logically possible; it becomes conceivable as something that could really exist if the world is perceived in accordance with Kant’s Critical metaphysics.
In the second part, I present a new reading of Kant's philosophy of science in the Critique of the Power of Judgment. I show that Kant's conception of the noumenal realm, now called the supersensible realm, is essential to the concepts that he develops in this part of his philosophy of science. As such this realm should not be ignored; it actually gives a certain advantage to Kant's conceptual framework in the context of the current scientific debate. I argue that Kant argues that at least some products of nature may conceivably be produced non-mechanistically if a supersensible realm, as well as a different kind of effective causality, exist. Such a causality would involve a potentiality that non-extended wholes-and-parts (in the supersensible realm) have to produce material parts and aggregated wholes in nature. As such this causality builds upon the transcendental idea of freedom introduced in the First Critique.
In the third part, I present a new interpretation of quantum physics in accordance with my weak ontological reading of Kant's philosophy of science in the Critique of the Power of Judgement. In this interpretation, the pre-measurement quantum and classical ‘worlds’ are regarded as two distinct modes of existence, which respectively ground two heterogeneous kinds of effective causality, namely deterministic causality and spontaneous causality, which is taken as manifest in the reduction of the wave packet. In the Third Critique this last kind of causality is conceptualized as a spontaneous potentiality that allows non-extended wholes-and-parts (now taken as superpositions of states) to produce material parts and aggregated wholes (now taken as observable outcomes) in nature. I relate this spontaneous potentiality to the Bohm potential. A solution to the well-known measurement problem is developed and some features in quantum mechanics, for example non-separability and non-locality, are discussed in this context.

In 2005, an essay was published in Nature asserting that the universe is mental and that we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things. Since then, experiments have confi rmed that — as predicted by quantum mechanics — reality is contextual, which contradicts at least intuitive formulations of realism and corroborates the hypothesis of a mental universe. Yet, to give this hypothesis a coherent rendering, one must explain how a mental universe can — at least in principle — accommodate (a) our experience of ourselves as distinct individual minds sharing a world beyond the control of our volition; and (b) the empirical fact that this world is contextual despite being seemingly shared. By combining a modern formulation of the ontology of idealism with the relational interpretation of quantum mechanics, the present paper attempts to provide a viable explanatory framework for both points. In the process of doing so, the paper also addresses key philosophical qualms of the relational interpretation.

In this paper, we revisit the oscillator model of an electron, applying Wheeler's 'mass without mass' concept to the Zitterbewegung model of an electron. We then use this model to derive the electron properties (spin, magnetic moment, energy, etcetera). We also use this model to calculate the Zitterbewegung force and the implied energy densities inside of the electron. Finally, we offer some reflections on how this simple but complete 'mass without mass' model may provide a basis for a more complete realist interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Nanotechnology (the mechanics of Quantum Theory) is science, engineering, medicine and technology conducted at the Nanoscale, which is about 1 to 100 Nanometers (1 billionth of a meter) on the metric scale and involves imaging, measuring, modeling, and manipulating matter at this length scale (10 -9).  Therefore the subsets of Nanotechnology – Nanoscience, Nano-biology and Nanomedicine -- involve the ability to see and to control individual atoms and molecules “the internal movement of matter with a certain external cause” (Tudor 227) at the Nanoscale. The focus of this discussion is the “miracles” described in the Judeo/Christian Old Testament and the Christian New Testament. This paper postulates that God, Jesus, the heavenly angels, and their human emissaries (Moses, Aaron, Elijah, the disciples/apostles) tapped, harnessed and applied similar scientific techniques (albeit far advanced beyond what mankind has done today) to accomplish what are often referred to as “miracles” (secular “magic”).

The status and justification of the quantum equilibrium hypothesis (QEH) in Bohmian mechanics is "a rather delicate matter". In this paper, I present a new analysis of this hypothesis. It is argued that the QEH should be regarded not as a mere initial condition but more appropriately as one part of the law of motion. Moreover, it is more reasonable and simpler to assume that the QEH holds true consistently at all time. The resulting theory is a many-worlds theory of random discontinuous motion of particles in three-dimensional space. This new theory agrees with experiments, and it is arguably the simplest realist version of quantum mechanics.

The golden ring to which most physicists aspire is a unified field theory that incorporates all of modern and classical physics. Some scientists and others call this a TOE or ‘theory of everything’, but it is no more than false hubris to believe that humans could possibly know and explain everything about the universe at this time. Einstein chased this goal for the last three decades of his life, basing his theoretical research on his general theory of relativity. Meanwhile, the vast majority of scientists supporting the other major accomplishment of the Second Scientific Revolution were investing all of their time and efforts to advancing the quantum theory and their quest has been extremely successful. They originally had no interest in a unified field theory. After Einstein died in 1955, his efforts were all but abandoned because of his philosophical stance against the prevalent Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum theory even though he had been one of quantum theory’s founders. During the 1970s the tables started to turn and quantum theorists became interested in unifying physics, although not from the foundational principles of relativity theory. They claimed that quantum theory was more fundamental than relativity so they began the same quest from a totally different direction despite their claims to be continuing Einstein’s quest.  Throughout the development of the ensuing standard quantum model, superstring theory and many other theoretical schemes, quantum theorists have remained resolute in their conviction that the quantum and relativity are mutually incompatible so the quantum must completely do away with and replace relativity once and for all. However, the quantum theory and relativity are not actually incompatible and, in fact, say the some of the same things about the nature of physical reality. When the similarities are fully defined and studied and the basic assumptions behind each of the theories are altered to reflect the similarities instead of the incompatibilities, only then can the point of their compatibility be determined and act as a unifying principle resulting in a completed unified field theory of the type that Einstein once sought. The development of this physical model of reality is not without irony. Not only is the quantum theory incomplete as Einstein argued in EPR, but Einstein’s general relativity is also seriously incomplete and true unification cannot be rendered complete at any level of reality until all the theoretical models being unified are themselves complete.

This paper summarizes the basic principles of the common-sense interpretation of quantum physics that we have been exploring over the past few years. We also touch on some areas we did not explore before. We note, for example, that the ring current model of matter-particles must also come with a dynamic view of the fields surrounding charged particles. Potential barriers -or their corollary: potential wells – should, therefore, not be thought of as static fields: they vary in time. They result from two or more charges moving around and creating some joint or superposed field. Hence, a particle breaking through a ‘potential wall’ or coming out of a potential ‘well’ probably just uses an opening which corresponds to a classical trajectory. This should offer a new perspective on the foundations of quantum mechanics.

Cognitive psychology researchers have developed techniques that can detect the effects subliminal priming has on human reaction time. These methods can be used to bring the Von Neumann/Wigner Consciousness Causes Collapse interpretation of quantum mechanics to a falsifiable empirical test. An experimental condition can be constructed that, according to this interpretation, would produce an unconsciousness semantic prime existing in a state of superposition. By measuring the effects that this uncollapsed and unconscious prime has on subjects’ reaction time to semantically congruent stimuli as compared to control conditions researchers should be able to determine whether or not it is possible to produce a wave function collapse prior to any interaction with consciousness. This brief paper will endeavor to present the design of such an experiment. The potential findings may have far reaching implications regarding the notion of objective realism.

The first famous t.hought experiment of Einstein gives rise to his theories of relativity. the bedrock of modern astrophysics and cosmology. His second famous thought experiment begin..c; the investigation iuto the foundations of quantum mechanics. It leads to a paradox. inspiring \'arious 'no-go' theorems pro....en by Bell, Kochen. and Spe~ker. Physi~ists and philosophers worldwide become increasingly dissatisfied with the probabilistic complemen tarity interpretation (Born-Bohr) and eventually offer their own accounts of the theory. By the end of the 20 th century. two alternative approaches stand out as the best candidates: Both the hidden \'ariables int.erpretation (de Broglie-Bohm) and the many worlds interpre tation (Everett-De\Yitt) give compelling descriptions of what the true nature of quantum reality could be. In this paper, a chronological O\'erview of all these events is given, followed by a philosophical analysis of the three aforementioned interpretations. Ultimately. it is con cluded that the many worlds interpretation should be adopted as the best understanding of the formalism of quantum mechanics and. therefore, should be used in the multiversity textbooks.

When David Bohm published his alternative theory of quantum mechanics in 1952, it was not received well; a recurring criticism was that it formed a reactionary attempt to return to classical physics. In response, Bohm emphasized the progressiveness of his approach, and even turned the accusation of classicality around by arguing that he wanted to move beyond classical elements still inherent in orthodox quantum mechanics. In later years, he moved more and more towards speculative and mystical directions. This paper aims to explain this discrepancy between the ways in which Bohm's work on quantum mechanics has been received and the way in which Bohm himself presented it. I reject the idea that Bohm's early work can be described as mechanist, determinist, and realist, in contrast to his later writings, and argue that there is in fact a strong continuity between his work on quantum mechanics from the early 1950s and his later, more speculative writings. In particular, I argue that Bohm was never strongly committed to determinism and was a realist in some ways but not in others. A closer look at Bohm's philosophical commitments highlights the ways in which his theory of quantum mechanics is non-classical and does not offer a way to avoid all 'quantum weirdness'.

This paper explores the assumptions underpinning de Broglie’s concept of a wavepacket and related questions and issues. It also explores how the alternative – the ring current model of an electron (or of matter-particles in general) – relates to Louis de Broglie’s λ = h/p relation and rephrases the theory in terms of the wavefunction as well as the wave equation(s) for an electron in free space.

The domain of applications of quantum mechanics (QM) is enormously successful. However, as diverse ontologies emerge from different interpretations of QM, it is difficult to find a satisfactory interpretation of the theory. This article presents a review of the main questions QM posed to theological discussion.  The question of quantum indeterminism is addressed with the aim to show that there is no unanimous answer to this point.  According to some interpretations of QM indeterminism is real, whereas for others indeterminism is only apparent. Given the plurality of interpretations and ontologies arising from QM, it is reasonable to discuss whether it makes sense to inquire into the theological implications of the quantum world. I suggest that future work could analyze whether this ontological-pluralist view is distinctive of how science objectifies reality, but is not necessarily present in other kinds of knowledge, such as metaphysics or theology.

The article offers a historical genealogy of the so-called "quantum mysticism" argument, i.e. the tendency to consider quantum mechanics in accordance with issues coming from Eastern mysticism or New Age spirituality. Specifically, the article retraces the four historical phases of the debate on quantum consciousness, namely, the idea that consciousness (the human mind) plays a determining role in the process of quantum reduction, showing how the debates within the scientific community and the pseudoscientific drifts in mass culture are closely intertwined.

In this paper, we try to show where and why quantum mechanics went wrong – and why and when the job of both the academic physicist as well as the would-be student of quantum mechanics turned into calculating rather than explaining what might or might not be happening. Modern quantum physicists effectively resemble econometrists modeling input-output relations: if they are lucky, they will get some kind of mathematical description of what goes in and what goes out, but the math does not tell them how stuff actually happens.

To show what an actual explanation might look like, we bring the Zitterbewegung electron model and our photon model together to provide a classical explanation of Compton scattering of photons by electrons so as to show what electron-photon interference might actually be: two electromagnetic oscillations interfering (classically) with each other. While developing the model, we also offer some reflections on the nature of the Uncertainty Principle.

Finally, we also offer a brief history of the bad ideas which led to the current mess in physics.

Recently I published an article in this journal entitled “Less interpretation and more decoherence in quantum gravity and inflationary cosmology” (Crull in Found Phys 45(9):1019–1045, 2015). This article generated responses from three pairs of authors: Vassallo and Esfeld (Found Phys 45(12):1533–1536, 2015), Okon and Sudarsky (Found Phys 46(7):852–879, 2016) and Fortin and Lombardi (Found Phys, 2017). In what follows, I reply to the criticisms raised by these authors.

This paper analyzes Albert Einstein's statement in a 1926 letter to Max Born saying, "Quantum theory yields much, but it hardly brings us close to the Old One's secrets. I, in any case, am convinced He does not play dice with the universe."

A brief explanation of the development of the continuous concept of matter, as represented by the general theory of relativity and the unified field theory, is offered, as opposed to the discrete theory of matter represented by quantum mechanics which has been normally interpreted by the Copenhagen School. Throughout the modern development of these two concepts - the discrete and continuous aspects of nature - the thread of wave/particle duality is intimately woven. Yet they do not seem to be compatible. Wave/particle duality is a unifying concept while the debate over the discrete and continuous natures of matter is anything but unifying. In spite of the overwhelming presence of the discrete-continuity debate in physics, wave/particle duality remains important because the concept is an honest attempt to bring these two opposing views together as one universal concept. It seems strange that the physics community can allow this vast discrepancy in basic notions of nature to exist and persist, but it does so in spite of all attempts to describe nature within the context of either one or the other of these seemingly incompatible concepts. This paper was written well before the Standard Particle Model became the dominant theory of the quantum. Yet, paradoxically, parts of this argument have become ever more relevant because of the dominance of the Standard Model, which is supposedly a unifying theory, but seems to stress the differences between discrete and continuous rather than attempt to either unify them or demonstrate their physical compatibility in any manner.

In this paper, we bring the Zitterbewegung electron model and our photon model together to provide a classical explanation of the scattering of photons by electrons. We understand electron-photon interference (which is usually referred to as Compton scattering) as two electromagnetic oscillations interfering (classically) with each other. While developing the model, we offer some reflections on the Uncertainty Principle (Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics). We conclude there is no need for it: God doesn’t play dice.

I argue that quantum decoherence—understood as a dynamical process entailed by the standard formalism alone—carries us beyond conceptual aspects of non-relativistic quantum mechanics deemed insurmountable by many contributors to the recent quantum gravity and cosmology literature. These aspects include various incarnations of the measurement problem and of the quantum-to-classical puzzle. Not only can such problems be largely bypassed or dissolved without default to a particular interpretation, but theoretical work in relativistic arenas stands to gain substantial physical and philosophical insight by incorporating decoherence phenomena.

An exploration of how Hegel’s triadic “logic” as developed in Phenomenology of Spirit might be applied to the functional role of light in relativity theory. In this exploration, the triadic form of light produces an exteriorization of spacetime separation at the same time as it interiorizes orientation in the form of quantum spin. Spacetime embeds quantum properties as a result of the three-fold relational nature of substance, namely: being in relation to self (sameness), being in relation to another (alterity), and being in relation to a whole (return).

Any realist model of an atom must explain its properties in terms of its parts: the electrons and protons. We, therefore, need a realist model of an electron and a proton. Such model must explain their properties, including their mass, radius and magnetic moment – and the anomaly therein, of course. Indeed, these properties are not to be thought of as mysterious intrinsic properties of a pointlike or dimensionless particle: the model should generate them. We think our ring current model does that rather convincingly.

In this paper, we take the next logical step. We relate these models to the four quantum numbers that define electron orbitals. In the process, we also offer the basics of a classical explanation of the Lamb shift. This should complete our realist interpretation of quantum physics.

This essay is written by a true believer in the Possibilist Transactional Interpretation (PTI) of quantum mechanics, certain that it is right (although criticism and coherent disagreement is encouraged). There are scientifically more relevant publications out there, but hopefully this text provides a different perspective on PTI as something that makes much more " sense " than for instance determinism.

The inability to measure “definite locations, energies, or any other property, until the time of measurement.” as phrased by Bohr, can be due to the lack of degrees of freedom. If there are 4 large spatial dimensions (or more) instead of the 3 known dimensions, the extra degrees of freedom enable the existence of definite properties that cannot be measured in a 3-dimensional world. It can solve many other enigmas as well.

Those who are acquainted with Grete Hermann’s 1935 essay on the natural- philosophical foundations of quantum mechanics have, rightly, understood one of her main aims to be in line with that of many neo-Kantians: to preserve the law of causality in light of quantum mechanics’ apparent in- determinism. Because Hermann’s solution to the question of quantum mechanical indeterminism—and, relatedly, the question of quantum mechanical completeness—is uniquely posed and answered by appeal to retrodictive causality, what little philosophical scholarship has been done on Hermann’s 1935 essay has focused on this aspect of her work.

Historians, on the other hand, have tended to regard more closely the natural-philosophical tradition in their analysis of Hermann. The locus of their investigations has been to understand the extent to which this tradition’s specific interpretation of Kantian categories as analogies influences Hermann’s discussion of the physics, as a student in Nelson’s Friesian school.

It is clear Hermann’s 1935 paper yields riches for each discipline her analysis touches upon. What I aim to do in the following is suggest that while the above-mentioned investigations of her paper have gone a long way to showcase these riches, perhaps one of her most novel—and I argue, central— claims gets lost between the historical perspective (specifically neo-Kantian or natural-philosophical) and the philosophical one (specifically philosophy of physics). More plainly, one might be tempted to read Hermann’s investigation of quantum mechanics as a means to a premeditated end, namely the salvaging of causality. But one can discern in this work a far deeper claim: that what she calls the ‘most important lesson from quantum mechanics’— the relative context of observation—applies not just metaphorically and only to quantum mechanics, but to the full range of natural knowledge.

Triadic (systemical) logic can provide an interpretive paradigm for understanding how quantum indeterminacy is a consequence of the formal nature of light in relativity theory. This interpretive paradigm is coherent and constitutionally open to ethical and theological interests.

In this statement:

(1) Triadic logic refers to a formal pattern that describes systemic (collaborative) processes involving signs that mediate between interiority (individuation) and exteriority (generalized worldview or Umwelt). It is also called systemical logic or the logic of relatives. The term "triadic logic" emphasizes that this logic involves mediation of dualities through an irreducibly triadic formalism. The term "systemical logic" emphasizes that this logic applies to systems in contrast to traditional binary logic which applies to classes. The term "logic of relatives" emphasizes that this logic is background independent (in the sense discussed by Smolin ).

(2)  An interpretive paradigm refers to a way of thinking that generates an understanding through concepts, their inter-relationships and their connections with experience.

(3) Coherence refers to holistic integrity or continuity in the meaning of concepts that form an interpretation or understanding.

(4) Constitutionally open refers to an inherent dependence in principle of an interpretation or understanding on something outside of a specific discipline's discourse or domain of inquiry (epistemic system). Interpretations that are constitutionally open are incomplete in themselves and open to responsive, interdisciplinary discourse and collaborative learning.

This groundbreaking work is bringing together quantum physicists and philosophers in an unprecedented way... Making a tabula rasa from all its historical and heuristical developments, it presents Quantum Field Theory in its modern form in a exquisitely simple mathematical apparatus, nonetheless completely well-defined and fully functional... Focusing on the underlying ontology of Quantum Field Theory, which turns out to be very similar to the classical metaphysics of Spinoza's Ethics, it provides a solid fundament for any philosophical discussion of its interpretation.
This book ought to become compulsory reading not only for all philosophers interested by the metaphysical and ethical implications of Quantum Physics, but also for all physicists working on the foundations of Physics, on Quantum Measurement and on Decoherence Theory.

Science does not " wander " , it is not like the proverbial drunken sailor who let go of the light pole that is holding him up and tries to walk away, and it certainly does not wander toward any 'specific' goal. Science does not 'specifically' know what hand nature will deal it in the future explorations. The general goal, if it can be called that, is to describe nature as truthfully as possible. Science goes where nature and the universe lead and explains what nature and the universe present to science. Science is a straightforward logical process by which human thought evolves and sometimes revolutionizes how we view our world. In general, the only thing that could be construed as a goal in science is a complete understanding of how nature works and presents itself to us. In other words, science answers to nature, nature does not answer to science and especially not to any specific goal in the minds of scientists or others. Given this, once the obtuse nature of the given question is determined and the given question is translated into common English, the answer is just as easy as the question is ridiculous. The answer is simply that mathematical laws cannot give rise to aims and intentions which are normally considered aspects of consciousness. However, this raises the new question of why the given question is so obtuse in nature and needs to be translated to an answerable question, while answering this new question is significantly telling.

Sommario
E’ sempre più diffusa l'idea di una scienza "pura" che indaga le "verità ultime” dell'uomo e dell'universo. Questa tendenza è proporzionale e funzionale ai processi di mercificazione e spettacolarizzazione dell'attività scientifica. Al contrario, la scienza effettiva non è "altrove", dunque contiene e riflette, in misura varia, lo spirito del tempo
Parole chiave
Mito, scienza, mediaticità, nascita della scienza, occidente, oriente, fisica quantistica, archivi, peer review, economia, ecologia.
Summary It is increasingly widespread the idea of a “pure” science, which investigates the “ultimate truths” of man and the universe. This trend is proportional and functional to the processes of commodification and spectacularization of science activity. On the contrary, the effective science is not “elsewhere”, therefore it contains and reflects, in varying measure, the spirit of time.
Keywords
Science, myth, media, emergence of science, western and orient culture, quantum physics, repository, peer review, economy, ecology, epistemology

Quantum  mechanics  has  always  been  regarded  as,  at best,  puzzling,  if  not  contradictory. The aim of  the  paper  is  to explore a  particular  approach  to  fundamental  physical  theories,  the  one based on the notion of primitive ontology. This approach, when applied to quantum mechanics, makes it a paradox-free theory.

Using Peirce as a guide, this paper explores the way in which light mediates finitude through the relational process of semiosis. Embodying the triadic logic of identity, difference and return, light creates space, time and matter. Attention is on simple bodily forms and the meta-physics of their relationality. The first section introduces the mathematical and metaphysical contours of Peirce’s approach. The second section motivates Peirce’s three categories as interwoven process. In the third section, Peirce’s formalism of the sign is presented and applied to simple physical and biological bodies.

In this thought-provoking book, Richard Healey proposes a new interpretation of quantum theory inspired by pragmatist philosophy. Healey puts forward the interpretation as an alternative to realist quantum theories on the one hand such as Bohmian mechanics, spontaneous collapse theories, and many-worlds interpretations, which are different proposals for describing what the quantum world is like and what the basic laws of physics are, and non-realist interpretations on the other hand such as quantum Bayesianism, which proposes to understand quantum theory as describing agents' subjective epistemic states. The central idea of Healey's proposal is to understand quantum theory as providing not a description of the physical world but a set of authoritative and objectively correct prescriptions about how agents should act. The book provides a detailed development and defense of that idea, and it contains interesting discussions about a wide range of philosophical issues such as representation, probability, explanation, causation, objectivity, meaning, and fundamentality. Healey's project is at the intersection of physics and philosophy. The book is divided into two parts. Part I of the book discusses the foundational questions in quantum theory from the perspective of the prescriptive interpretation. In Part II, Healey discusses the philosophical implications of the view. Both parts are written in a way that is largely accessible to non-specialists. In this brief book review, I will focus on two questions: (1) How does Healey's idea work? (2) What reasons are there to believe in it?

In a previous paper we outlined a series of historical touchpoints between classical aether theories and modern theoretical physics which showed a shared conceptual lineage for the modern tools and methods of the most common interpretations and fluid based "Hydrodynamic" treatments of an electromagnetic medium. It was proposed that, though the weight of modern experimentation leaves an extremely narrow and convoluted window for even a reconceptualization of a medium, all of modern physics recognizes a plethora of behaviors and attributes for free space and these physics are interchangeable with modern methods for treating superfluid-like continuums. Thus the mathematical equivalence of the methods do not comprise alternative physics but an alternative​ interpretation​ of the same physics. Though many individual components describing a "neo-aether" are available, an overarching structural outline of how these tools can work together to provide an alternative working overview of modern physics has remained undefined. This paper will propose a set of introductory concepts in the first outline of a toy model which will later connect the alternative tools and conceptualizations with their modern counterparts. This introductory paper provides the simpler "100-miles out" overview of the whole of physics from this perspective, in an easily comprehensible, familiar and intuitive, and informal dialog fashion. While this paper grants the largest and loosest introductory overview, subsequent papers in this series will address the finite connections between modern physics and this hydrodynamic view.

In the de Broglie-Bohm formulation of quantum theory, the quantum force exactly cancels the Coulomb attractive force in atomic \emph{s}-states. In this paper it is contended, based on energy conservation, that the force on a charge in a time-advanced electromagnetic field is of opposite sign to the Lorentz force due to the retarded field, and that such an advanced classical electromagnetic force accounts for part of Bohm's quantum force. If Coulomb attraction is negated, then some other mechanism must bind electrons to the nuclei of atoms. It is proposed magnetic interactions between relativistically-moving charges may account for atomic binding without assumption of a Coulomb potential. If charged spin-half particles always move luminally, as the Dirac theory implies, and so moving give rise to the intrinsic magnetic moment, then magnetic spin-spin interactions stronger than currently recognized are to be expected. Part of the magnetic interaction between equal-mass Dirac particles has been previously shown to be radial and inverse-square, of equal strength to Coulomb interaction, and sinusoidally modulated by interparticle separation with a spatial period equal the de Broglie wavelength.  The Coulomb-like spin-spin interaction is further elaborated to show explicit correspondence with the de Broglie matter wave and Schr\"odinger wavefunction. It is proposed spin-spin interactions as expected according to this line of reasoning can properly account for the formation of atoms, if the electromagnetic interaction in atoms is classical and time symmetric, and if quarks and leptons are composed of more-fundamental spin-half particles.

Based on the Sheaf Logic approach to set theoretic forcing, a hierarchy of Quantum Variable Sets is constructed, which generalizes and simplifies the analogous construction developed by Takeuti on boolean valued models of set theory. Over this model, two alternative proofs of Takeuti’s correspondence, between self adjoint operators and the real numbers of the model, are given. This approach results to be more constructive, showing a direct relation with the Gelfand representation theorem, and revealing also the importance of these results with respect to the interpretation of Quantum Mechanics in close connection with the Deutsch-Everett multiversal interpretation of quantum theory. Finally, it is shown how in this context the notion of genericity and the corresponding generic model theorem can help to explain the emergence of classicality in Quantum Mechanics also in close connection with the Deutsch-Everett perspective.

This short paper summarises the proof that a causality violation formed from a bounded region requires matter that violates the null energy condition. Therefore the answer to the question in the title is yes. This is one of the results on which Stephen Hawking based his Chronology protection conjecture. It is conjectured that the required negative mass density fields cannot cover sufficiently large regions of space-time to make causality violations a reality. This lends support to the idea that the evolution of the universe is an entirely unitary process. This work is intended to be more accessible than Hawking's original, which was cast in terms of the Newman-Penrose formalism.

I show explicitly how concerns about wave function collapse and ontology can be decoupled from the bulk of technical analysis necessary to recover localized, approximately Newtonian trajectories from quantum theory. In doing so, I demonstrate that the account of classical behavior provided by decoherence theory can be straightforwardly tailored to give accounts of classical behavior on multiple interpretations of quantum theory, including the Everett, de Broglie-Bohm and GRW interpretations. I further show that this interpretation-neutral, decoherence-based account conforms to a general view of inter-theoretic reduction in physics that I have elaborated elsewhere, which differs from the oversimplified picture that treats reduction as a matter of simply taking limits. This interpretation-neutral account rests on a general three-pronged strategy for reduction between quantum and classical theories that combines decoherence, an appropriate form of Ehrenfest’s Theorem, and a decoherence-compatible mechanism for collapse. It also incorporates a novel argument as to why branch-relative trajectories should be approximately Newtonian, which is based on a little-discussed extension of Ehrenfest’s Theorem to open systems, rather than on the more commonly cited but less germane closed-systems version. In the Conclusion, I briefly suggest how the strategy for quantum-classical reduction described here might be extended to reduction between other classical and quantum theories, including classical and quantum field theory and classical and quantum gravity.

The understanding of entanglement in quantum mechanics is still a widely debated subject after all these decades. The photon experiments performed by Alain Aspect and his collaborators are considered to have provided the most conclusive evidence that entangled particles can exhibit measurement correlations over spacelike relativistic intervals. But our analysis below shows that the same experimentally confirmed correlation behavior can be predicted without the usual assumption of instantaneous influences between the remote entangled photons. Most treatments consider this behavior to be produced by a coupled physical wavefunction collapse associated with the quantum measurements on each photon pair. In contrast, the straightforward derivation here assumes that the photon pair entanglement that occurs when each particle pair is released from the source fully accounts for the correlations at the remote detector outputs. But this analysis appears to involve what could be considered to be "hidden variables", possibly contradicting Bell's theorem. We discuss this question at some length, and show that the Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM) interpretation introduced by Carlo Rovelli makes these results quite plausible.

... With John Gribbin

i) Introduction
ii) What is Interpretation?
Iii) Shut up and calculate!
iv) Limits to John Gribbin's Pluralism
v) Only Maths?
vi) Waves and Particles
vii) Conclusion
viii) Afterthought

This piece doesn’t claim to offer a conclusive case for the elimination of all the interpretations of quantum mechanics (QM). It simply raises the possibility of elimination and then offers a few arguments in that direction.

The prime motive here is that, at least at present, there’s no way of establishing which interpretation is the true/correct/etc. one. Secondly, the multiplicity of interpretations both confuses the issue and leads to scepticism towards many of them. Thirdly, some interpretations are so convoluted and wacky that laypersons and even physicists themselves must have only aesthetic reasons to believe in them.

This is particularly true of the Many Worlds Interpretation. I can see no reason whatsoever for the layperson to accept it other than it can be taken to “explain the phenomena” (a phrase which is being used in contrast to Bas van Fraassen’s “save the phenomena”). That is, in the way that panpsychism, idealism, Marxism, theism, etc. can all be taken to explain the phenomena. However, explaining phenomena is often very cheap and easy, even if it is neat and tidy. (Note Albert Einstein’s rejection of David Bohm’s theory.)

The first section introduces John Gribbin's position as well as a potted history of positions (which features Paul Dirac, Richard Feynman, etc.) which can be taken to lead towards a possible eliminitivism This section also deals with both the shut-up-and-calculate mantra and instrumentalism and how they can be taken to lead to eliminitivism. Then the simple question “What is Interpretation?” is asked. After that, Gribbin's pluralism is tackled and seen to be not very convincing (at least not from a philosophical point of view). The section “Only Maths?” is self-explanatory. Finally, the issue of wave-or-particles is discussed in the context of the elimination of interpretations of quantum mechanics.

As indicated by the name "quantum erasure," the most common interpretation of certain classes of delayed choice quantum experiments is that they, in some fashion, erase or undo past decisions. Unfortunately, this interpretation cannot be correct since the past decisions were already classically and irreversibly captured as recorded information or datums. A datum is information that, through temporal entanglement, constrains future events. The correct interpretation of such experiments is stranger than erasure: Recordings made early in such quantum experiments predestine choices made later through arbitrarily complex and often human-scale classical choices. Since this process of quantum predestination occurs only within the future light cone of datum creation, another (possibly) less radical way to interpret such experiments is that time is multiscale, granular, and impossible to define outside of the quantum state of the entities involved. The continuum time abstraction is not compatible with this view.