Quantum Mechanics, Misc

We put forward a new, ‘coherentist’ account of quantum entanglement, according to which entangled systems are characterized by symmetric relations of ontological dependence among the component particles. We compare this coherentist viewpoint with the two most popular alternatives currently on offer—structuralism and holism—and argue that it is essentially different from, and preferable to, both. In the course of this article, we point out how coherentism might be extended beyond the case of entanglement and further articulated.

Previzualizare carte -/- O introducere la nivel fenomenologic, cu un aparat matematic minimal, în mecanica cuantică. Un ghid pentru cine dorește să înțeleagă cea mai modernă, mai complexă și mai neconformă disciplină fizică, un domeniu care a schimbat fundamental percepțiile oamenilor de știință despre Lume. În 1900, Max Planck a introdus ideea că energia este cuantificată, pentru a obţine o formulă la energia emisă de un corp negru. În 1905, Einstein a explicat efectul fotoelectric postulând că energia luminii vine în (...) cuante numite fotoni. In 1913, Bohr a explicat liniile spectrale ale atomului de hidrogen, din nou prin utilizarea de cuante. În 1924, Louis de Broglie a prezentat teoria sa a undelor de materie. Aceste teorii, deşi de succes, au fost strict fenomenologice: nu a existat nicio justificare riguroasă pentru cuantificare. Ele sunt denumite colectiv ca vechea teorie cuantică. Expresia "fizica cuantica" a fost folosită pentru prima dată în lucrarea lui Johnston: Universul lui Planck în lumina fizicii moderne. Mecanica cuantică modernă s-a născut în 1925, când Heisenberg a dezvoltat mecanica matriceală şi Schrödinger a inventat mecanica ondulatorie şi ecuaţia Schrödinger. Schrödinger a demonstrat ulterior că cele două abordări au fost echivalente. Heisenberg a formulat principiul său de incertitudine în 1927, iar interpretarea de la Copenhaga a apărut în aproximativ acelaşi timp. În 1927, Paul Dirac a unificat mecanica cuantică cu teoria relativităţii restrânse. De asemenea, el a utilizat printre primii teoria operatorilor, inclusiv notaţia influenţială bra-ket. În 1932, John von Neumann a formulat baza matematică riguroasă pentru mecanica cuantică, ca teoria operatorilor. În anii 1940, electrodinamica cuantică a fost dezvoltată de Feynman, Dyson, Schwinger, şi Tomonaga. Ea a servit ca model pentru teoriile ulterioare ale câmpului cuantic. Interpretarea multiplelor lumi a fost formulat de către Everett în 1956. Cromodinamica cuantică a avut o istorie lungă, de la începutul anilor 1960. Teoria aşa cum o ştim astăzi a fost formulată de către Polizter, Gross şi Wilzcek în 1975. Bazându-se pe munca de pionierat a lui Schwinger, Higgs, Goldstone şi alţii, Glashow, Weinberg şi Salam au demonstrat în mod independent cum că forţa nucleară slabă şi electrodinamica cuantică ar putea fi unite într-o singură forţă electroslabă. Încă de la începuturile sale, cele mai multe rezultate contra-intuitive ale mecanicii cuantice au provocat puternice dezbateri filozofice şi mai multe interpretări. Interpretarea de la Copenhaga, datorată în mare parte lui Niels Bohr, a fost interpretarea standard a mecanicii cuantice, atunci când a fost formulată pentru prima dată. În conformitate cu aceasta, natura probabilistică a predicţiilor mecanicii cuantice nu poate fi explicată în termeni ai altor teorii deterministe, şi nu reflectă pur şi simplu cunoştinţele noastre limitate. Mecanica cuantică oferă rezultate probabilistice deoarece universul fizic este în sine probabilistic, mai degrabă decât determinist. O mare parte a tehnologiei moderne funcţionează în conformitate cu principiile din mecanica cuantică. Exemplele includ laserul, microscopul electronic, şi imagistica prin rezonanţă magnetică. Cele mai multe dintre calculele efectuate în chimia computaţională se bazează pe mecanica cuantică. -/- CUPRINS -/- 1 Mecanica cuantică - - - Descrierea teoriei - - - Istorie - - - Formulări matematice - - - Interacția cu alte teorii ale fizicii - - - - - - Mecanica cuantică și fizica clasică - - - - - - Interpretarea de la Copenhaga a cinematicii cuantice versus clasice - - - - - - Relativitatea generală și mecanica cuantică - - - - - - Încercări pentru o teorie a câmpului unificată - - - Formulări matematice echivalente - - - Implicații filosofice - - - 1.1 Atomul și cuanta - - - 1.2 Radiația corpului negru și cuantificarea lui Planck - - - - - - Radiația corpului negru - - - - - - Cuantificarea și constanta lui Planck - - - - - - - - - Metode de cuantificare - - - - - - - - - - - - Cuantificarea canonică - - - - - - - - - Constanta lui Planck - - - - - - - - - - - - Valoare - - - - - - - - - - - - Semnificația valorii - - - 1.3 Cuanta de lumină (Fotoni) - - - - - - Proprietăți fizice - - - - - - Optica cuantică - - - 1.4 Efectul fotoelectric - - - - - - Mecanismul de emisie - - - - - - Observații experimentale ale emisiei fotoelectrice - - - - - - Descrierea matematică - - - - - - Utilizări și efecte - - - - - - - - - Fotomultiplicatori - - - - - - - - - Senzori de imagine - - - - - - - - - - - - Electroscop cu frunză de aur - - - - - - - - - Spectroscopie fotoelectronică - - - - - - - - - Nave spațiale - - - - - - - - - Praful lunar - - - - - - - - - Dispozitive de vedere pe timp de noapte - - - 1.5 Unde materiale - Relațiile de Broglie - - - - - - Context istoric - - - - - - Ipoteza de Broglie - - - - - - Relațiile de Broglie - - - - - - Interpretări - - - 1.6 Modelul Bohr al atomului - - - - - - Origine - - - 1.7 Nivele energetice cuantificate: Undele electronilor - - - - - - Explicație - - - - - - Tranziții ale nivelelor de energie - - - 1.8 Difracția electronilor - - - - - - Proprietăți cuantice - - - - - - Difracția electronilor - - - - - - Interacțiunea electronilor cu materia - - - - - - Microscop cu electroni de transmisie 2 Dualitatea undă-particulă - - - Tratamentul în mecanica cuantică modernă - - - Vizualizare - - - Aplicarea la modelul Bohr - - - 2.1 Complementaritatea - - - - - - Conceptul - - - - - - Natura - - - - - - Considerații suplimentare - - - - - - Experimente - - - 2.2 Microscopul lui Heisenberg - - - - - - Argumentul lui Heisenberg - - - - - - Analiza argumentului - - - 2.3 Experimentul celor două fante - - - - - - Prezentare generală - - - - - - Interpretările experimentului - - - - - - - - - Interpretarea de la Copenhaga - - - - - - - - - Formularea integrală a căii - - - - - - - - - Interpretarea relațională - - - - - - - - - Interpretarea multiplelor-lumi - - - 2.4 Disputa Einstein-Bohr - - - - - - Dezbateri pre-revoluționare - - - - - - Revoluția cuantică - - - - - - Post-revoluția: prima etapă - - - - - - - - - Argumentul lui Einstein - - - - - - - - - Răspunsul lui Bohr - - - - - - - - - A doua critică a lui Einstein - - - - - - - - - Triumful lui Bohr - - - - - - Post-revoluție: a doua etapă - - - - - - Post-revoluție: a treia etapă - - - - - - - - - Argumentul EPR - - - - - - - - - Răspunsul lui Bohr - - - - - - Post-revoluție: etapa a patra - - - 2.5 Experimentul alegerii întârziate - - - - - - Introducere - - - - - - Versiunea fantei duble - - - - - - Detalii experimentale - - - - - - Fantele duble în laborator și în cosmos - - - - - - Concluzii 3 Ecuația Schrödinger - - - Ecuația dependentă de timp - - - Ecuația independentă de timp - - - Interpretarea funcției de undă - - - Ecuația de undă pentru particule - - - 3.1 Stări cuantice - - - - - - Descrierea conceptuală - - - - - - - - - Stări pure - - - - - - - - - Imaginea lui Schrödinger vs. imaginea lui Heisenberg - - - - - - În fizica matematică - - - - - - - - - Valori proprii și vectori proprii - - - 3.2 Funcția de undă - - - - - - Exemple non-relativiste - - - - - - - - - Barieră potențială finită - - - - - - - - - Atomul de hidrogen - - - 3.3 Colapsul funcției de undă - - - - - - Descrierea matematică - - - - - - - - - Procesul - - - - - - - - - Determinarea bazei preferate - - - - - - - - - Decoerența cuantică - - - - - - Istorie și context - - - 3.4 Interpretarea probabilităților (Problema măsurătorilor) - - - - - - Pisica lui Schrödinger - - - - - - Interpretări - - - 3.5 Formularea spațiului de fază - - - - - - Distribuția spațiului de fază - - - - - - Evoluția timpului - - - - - - Exemple - - - - - - - - - Potențial Morse - - - - - - - - - Tunelarea cuantică - - - - - - - - - Potențialul quartic - - - - - - - - - Starea pisicii lui Schrödinger 4 Pachete de unde - - - Unde și particule în mișcare - - - 4.1 Principiul incertitudinii - - - - - - Definire - - - - - - Utilizare - - - - - - Relația de incertitudine timp-energie - - - 4.1.1 Paradoxurile lui Zenon în mecanica cuantică - - - - - - Ahile și broasca țestoasă - - - - - - Paradoxul dihotomiei - - - - - - Paradoxul săgeții - - - - - - Soluții cuantice propuse - - - - - - - - - Peter Lynds - - - - - - - - - Hermann Weyl - - - - - - Efectul cuantic Zenon - - - 4.2 Funcții proprii - - - - - - Exemplul de derivată - - - 4.3 Operatorul impuls - - - - - - Definiție (spațiu de poziție) - - - - - - Proprietăți - - - - - - - - - Hermiticitatea - - - - - - - - - Relația canonică de comutație - - - - - - - - - Transformarea Fourier - - - 4.4 Forma generală a ecuației Schrodinger: Operatorul hamiltonian - - - - - - Ecuația Schrödinger - - - - - - Formalismul Dirac - - - 4.5 Postulatele mecanicii cuantice și semnificația măsurătorilor - - - - - - Postulate ale mecanicii cuantice - - - - - - - - - Postulatul 1: Definirea stării cuantice - - - - - - - - - Postulatul 2: Principiul corespondenței - - - - - - - - - Postulatul 3: Măsurarea - valori posibile ale unei observabile - - - - - - - - - Postulatul 4: Postulatul lui Born - interpretarea probabilistică a funcției de undă - - - - - - - - - Postulatul 5: Măsurarea - reducerea pachetului de unde; obținerea unei singure valori; proiecția stării cuantice - - - - - - - - - Postulatul 6: Evoluția temporală a stării cuantice - - - - - - Problema măsurării - - - - - - - - - Interpretarea stării relative 5 Soluții ale ecuației Schrödinger - - - 5.1 Particulă într-o cutie unidimensională - - - - - - Soluția unidimensională - - - - - - - - - Funcția de undă a poziției - - - - - - - - - - - - Funcția de undă a impulsului - - - - - - - - - Niveluri energetice - - - 5.2 Barieră rectangulară de potențial - - - - - - Calcul - - - - - - Transmisie și reflexie - - - - - - - - - E < V0 - - - - - - - - - E > V0 - - - - - - - - - E = V0 - - - - - - Observații și aplicații - - - 5.3 Puț de potențial finit - - - - - - Particulă într-o cutie 1-dimensională - - - 5.4 Paritatea - - - - - - Relații simple de simetrie - - - - - - Efectul inversiunii spațiale asupra unor variabile ale fizicii clasice - - - - - - - - - Par - - - - - - - - - Impar - - - - - - Posibile valori proprii în mecanica cuantică - - - 5.5 Oscilatorul armonic unidimensional - - - - - - Oscilator armonic unidimensional - - - - - - - - - Hamiltonianul și stările proprii ale energiei - - - - - - - - - Scale naturale pentru lungimi și energie - - - - - - - - - Stări foarte excitate - - - - - - - - - Soluții pentru spațiul de fază - - - 5.6 Operatorul momentului unghiular - - - - - - Momentul unghiular orbital - - - - - - Momentul unghiular de spin - - - - - - Momentul unghiular total - - - - - - Interpretare vizuală - - - - - - Relația de incertitudine dintre momentul unghiular și unghiul de rotație - - - 5.7 Particule identice - - - - - - Distingerea între particule - - - - - - Stările simetrice și antisimetrice - - - - - - Simetria de schimb - - - - - - Fermioni și bosoni - - - 5.8 Potențialul central (Potențialul cuantic) - - - - - - Potențialul cuantic ca parte a ecuației lui Schrödinger - - - - - - - - - Ecuația de continuitate - - - - - - - - - Ecuația cuantică Hamilton-Jacobi - - - - - - Proprietăți - - - - - - - - - Relația cu procesul de măsurare - - - - - - - - - Potențialul cuantic al unui sistem de n-particule - - - - - - Interpretarea și denumirea potențialului cuantic - - - - - - Aplicații - - - 5.9 Puțul de potențial - - - - - - Confinarea cuantică - - - - - - - - - În mecanica cuantică - - - - - - - - - În mecanica clasică 6 Paradoxuri și interpretări ale mecanicii cuantice - - - 6.1 Inseparabilitatea cuantică - - - - - - Inseparabilitatea cuantică - - - - - - Istorie - - - - - - Conceptul - - - - - - - - - Sensul inseparabilității - - - - - - - - - Paradoxul - - - - - - - - - Teoria variabilelor ascunse - - - - - - - - - Încălcarea inegalității Bell - - - - - - - - - Alte tipuri de experimente - - - - - - - - - Misterul timpului - - - - - - - - - Sursa pentru săgeata timpului - - - 6.2 Paradoxurile mecanicii cuantice - - - 6.3 Paradoxul EPR - - - - - - Istoria evoluțiilor EPR - - - - - - Mecanica cuantică și interpretarea ei - - - - - - Opoziția lui Einstein - - - - - - Descrierea paradoxului - - - - - - - - - Articolul EPR - - - 6.4 Interpretarea Copenhaga - - - - - - Fundal - - - - - - Principii - - - - - - Regula Born - - - - - - Natura colapsului - - - - - - Non-separabilitatea funcției de undă - - - - - - Dilema undă-particulă - - - - - - Acceptarea printre fizicieni - - - 6.5 Variabile ascunse - - - - - - Motivație - - - - - - "Dumnezeu nu joacă zaruri" - - - - - - Tentative timpurii - - - - - - Declarația de completitudine a mecanicii cuantice și dezbaterile Bohr-Einstein - - - - - - Paradoxul EPR - - - - - - Teorema lui Bell - - - - - - Teoria variabilelor ascunse a lui Bohm - - - - - - Evoluțiile recente - - - 6.6 Paradoxul pisicii lui Schrödinger - - - - - - Origine și motivație - - - - - - Experimentul de gândire - - - - - - Interpretarea de la Copenhaga - - - - - - Aplicații și teste - - - - - - Extensii - - - 6.7 Interpretarea ansamblului (statistică) - - - - - - Înțelesul lui "ansamblu" și "sistem" - - - - - - Pisica lui Schrödinger - - - 6.8 Interpretarea multiplelor lumi - - - - - - Origine - - - - - - Dezvoltare - - - - - - Interpretarea colapsului funcției de undă - - - - - - Interpretarea nereală/reală - - - - - - Descrierea MWI 7 Stările cuantice conform lui Dirac - - - Definiție - - - Vectorii de stare - - - Operatori - - - - - - Operatorul hamiltonian - - - - - - Matricea densității - - - Ecuațiile timp-evoluție în imaginea interacțiunilor - - - - - - Evoluția în timp a stărilor - - - - - - Evoluția în timp a operatorilor - - - - - - Evoluția în timp a matricei de densitate - - - Valori așteptate - - - Utilizarea imaginii interacțiunilor - - - 7.1 Ecuația de undă Dirac - - - - - - Formularea matematică - - - - - - Interpretarea fizică - - - - - - - - - Identificarea observabilelor - - - - - - - - - Teoria găurilor - - - 7.2 Notația bra-ket în mecanica cuantică - - - - - - Introducere - - - - - - Utilizarea în mecanica cuantică 8 Corespondența cu mecanica clasică - - - Ecuații de câmp - - - Ecuații de undă - - - Teoria cuantică - - - 8.1 Ecuația de mișare a lui Heisenberg (Reprezentările Heisenberg, Schrödinger și Dirac) - - - - - - Reprezentarea Heisenberg - - - - - - Reprezentarea Schrödinger - - - - - - Reprezentarea de interacțiune (Dirac) - - - - - - Comparație a evoluției în toate imaginile/reprezentările - - - 8.2 Teorema Ehrenfest și limita clasică a mecanicii cuantice - - - 8.3 Principiul corespondenței - - - - - - Mecanica cuantică - - - 8.4 Aproximarea WKB - - - - - - Scurt istoric - - - - - - Metoda WKB - - - - - - Aplicarea la ecuația Schrödinger - - - - - - - - - Aproximarea departe de punctele de cotitură - - - - - - - - - Comportamentul în apropierea punctelor de cotitură - - - - - - - - - Condițiile de potrivire - - - - - - - - - Densitatea de probabilitate - - - 8.5 Teorema adiabatică - - - - - - Procesele diabatice vs. adiabatice - - - - - - Exemple de sisteme - - - - - - - - - Pendulul simplu - - - - - - - - - Oscilator armonic cuantic 9 Momentul unghiular și spinul - - - 9.1 Momentul unghiular - - - - - - Moment ungiular de spin, orbital, și total - - - - - - Cuantizarea - - - - - - Incertitudinea - - - - - - Momentul unghiular total ca generator de rotații - - - 9.2 Spin și matrice - - - - - - Numărul cuantic - - - - - - Fermioni și bozoni - - - - - - Teorema statisticii spinului - - - - - - Paritate - - - 9.3 Mecanica matriceală - - - - - - Epifanie la Helgoland - - - - - - Cele trei documente fundamentale - - - - - - Raționamentul lui Heisenberg - - - - - - Bazele mecanicii matriceale - - - 9.3.1 Particule cu spin în câmp magnetic: Rezonanța magnetică nucleară - - - - - - Teoria rezonanței magnetice nucleare - - - - - - - - - Spin nuclear și magneți - - - - - - - - - Valorile momentului unghiular de spin - - - - - - - - - Energia de spin într-un câmp magnetic - - - 9.3.2 Precesia spinului în câmp magnetic (Rezonanța paramagnetică a electronilor) - - - - - - Rezonanță paramagnetică a electronilor - - - - - - - - - Originea unui semnal EPR - - - 9.4 Cuplarea momentelor unghiulare - - - - - - Conservarea momentului unghiular - - - - - - Cuplarea spin-orbită - - - - - - - - - Cuplarea LS - - - - - - - - - Cuplarea jj - - - 9.5 Principiul de excluziune Pauli - - - - - - Prezentare generală - - - - - - Principiul Pauli în teoria cuantică avansată - - - - - - Atomii și principiul Pauli - - - 9.6 Starea singlet și paradoxul EPR - - - - - - Istorie - - - - - - Exemple - - - - - - Reprezentări matematice - - - - - - Singleți și stări inseparate - - - 9.7 Teorema Bell - - - - - - Fundal istoric - - - - - - Prezentare generală - - - - - - Importanța - - - - - - Realismul local - - - 9.8 Inegalitatea Bell - - - - - - Testarea prin experimente practice - - - - - - Două clase de inegalități Bell - - - - - - Provocări practice - - - - - - Aspecte metafizice - - - - - - Remarci generale 10 Materia cuantică - - - 10.1 Atomul de hidrogen - - - - - - Izotopi - - - - - - Ionul de hidrogen - - - - - - Descrierea clasică a eșuat - - - - - - Modelul Bohr-Sommerfeld - - - 10.2 Atomul de hidrogen în interpretarea de la Copenhaga - - - - - - Soluțiile ecuației lui Schrödinger - - - 10.3 Structura fină a hidrogenului - - - - - - Structura brută - - - - - - Corecții relativiste - - - - - - Atomul de hidrogen - - - - - - - - - Corecția relativistă pentru energia cinetică - - - 10.4 Interacția spin-orbită - - - - - - Energia unui moment magnetic - - - - - - - - - În solide - - - - - - Câmp electromagnetic oscilant - - - 10.5 Explicația cuantică a tabelului periodic al elementelor - - - - - - Grupe - - - - - - Blocuri - - - - - - Configurație electronică - - - - - - Învelișuri electronice - - - - - - - - - Razele atomice - - - - - - A doua versiune și dezvoltarea ulterioară - - - - - - Tabele cu structuri diferite - - - - - - - - - ADOMAH (2006) - - - - - - - - - Modelul tridimensional al fizicianului Timothy Stowe - - - 10.6 Structura moleculelor - - - - - - Istorie - - - - - - Structura electronilor - - - - - - - - - Modelul ondulatoriu - - - - - - - - - Legături de valență - - - - - - - - - Orbitale moleculare - - - - - - - - - Teoria funcțională a densității - - - - - - Dinamica chimică - - - - - - - - - Dinamica chimică adiabatică - - - - - - - - - Dinamica chimică non-adiabatică - - - 10.7 Condensat Bose-Einstein și condensat fermionic - - - - - - Condensat Bose-Einstein - - - - - - - - - Istorie - - - - - - - - - Cercetări curente - - - - - - Condensat fermionic - - - - - - - - - Superfluiditate - - - - - - - - - Superfluide fermionice - - - - - - - - - Crearea primelor condensate fermionice - - - 10.8 Gazul Fermi și gazul Bose - - - - - - Gazul Fermi - - - - - - - - - Descriere - - - - - - Gazul Bose - - - - - - - - - Introducere și exemple 11 Perturbații - - - Hamiltonieni aproximați - - - Aplicarea teoriei perturbației - - - - - - Limitări - - - - - - - - - Perturbații mari - - - - - - - - - Stările non-adiabatice - - - - - - - - - Computerizarea dificultăților - - - Teoria perturbației independente de timp - - - - - - Corecții de ordinul întâi - - - - - - Efectele degenerării - - - 11.1 Metode de aproximare pentru stări staționare - - - - - - Proprietăți ale stării staționare - - - 11.2 Efectul Stark - - - - - - Istorie - - - - - - Mecanism - - - - - - Teoria perturbării - - - - - - Efect stark limitat cuantic - - - 11.3 Teoria perturbației dependente de timp - - - - - - Metoda variației constantelor - - - - - - Teoria perturbației puternice - - - 11.4 Perturbația periodică: Regula de aur a lui Fermi - - - - - - Rata și derivarea acesteia - - - - - - - - - Derivarea în teoria perturbării dependente de timp - - - 11.5 Teoria dispersiei. Aproximarea Born - - - - - - Fundamente conceptuale - - - - - - - - - Ținte compuse și ecuații de interval - - - - - - În fizica teoretică - - - - - - Dispersia în mecanica cuantică a fotonului și a nucleelor - - - - - - Aproximarea Born - - - - - - - - - Aplicații - - - 11.6 Amplitudinea de împrăștiere - - - - - - Expansiunea undelor parțiale 12 Teoria cuantică a câmpului - - - Varietăți de abordări - - - - - - Abordări perturbative și non-perturbative - - - - - - TCC și gravitația - - - Definiție - - - - - - Dinamica - - - - - - Stări - - - - - - Câmpuri și radiații - - - Principii - - - - - - Câmpuri clasice și cuantice - - - 12.1 Electrodinamica cuantică - - - - - - Viziunea lui Feynman asupra electrodinamicii cuantice - - - - - - - - - Introducere - - - - - - Construcții de bază - - - - - - - - - Amplitudini de probabilitate - - - - - - - - - Propagatori - - - - - - - - - Renormalizarea în masă - - - - - - - - - Concluzii - - - 12.2 Efectul Zeeman - - - - - - Nomenclatură - - - - - - Prezentare teoretică - - - - - - Aplicații - - - - - - - - - Astrofizică - - - - - - - - - Răcirea laserului - - - - - - - - - Energia Zeeman mediată de cuplare a spinului și mișcări orbitale - - - 12.3 Efectul Aharonov-Bohm - - - - - - Semnificație - - - - - - Potențiale vs. câmpuri - - - - - - Acțiune globală vs. forțe locale - - - - - - Localitatea efectelor electromagnetice - - - 12.4 Cuantizarea fluxului magnetic - - - 12.5 Filosofia macrorealismului și SQUID - - - - - - Inegalitatea Leggett–Garg - - - - - - - - - Încălcări experimentale - - - - - - SQUID 13 Modelul standard - - - Particule elementare - - - - - - Fermioni - - - - - - - - - Cuarci - - - - - - - - - Leptoni - - - - - - Bosoni - - - - - - Particule ipotetice - - - Particule compuse - - - - - - Hadroni - - - - - - Barioni - - - - - - Mezoni - - - - - - Nuclee atomice - - - - - - Atomi - - - - - - Molecule - - - Substanțe condensate - - - Alte particule - - - Clasificare după viteză - - - 13.1 Extensii ale Modelului Standard - - - - - - Marea unificare - - - - - - Supersimetria - - - - - - Teoria corzilor - - - - - - Teoria preonilor - - - 13.2 Cromodinamica cuantică - - - - - - Teorie - - - - - - - - - Unele definiții - - - - - - - - - Observații suplimentare: dualitatea - - - - - - - - - Grupuri de simetrie - - - - - - - - - Lagrangieni - - - - - - - - - Câmpuri - - - - - - - - - - - - Dinamica - - - - - - - - - - - - Confinarea și legea zonală 14 Gravitația cuantică - - - Prezentare generală - - - Mecanica cuantică și relativitatea generală - - - - - - Graviton - - - - - - Dilaton - - - - - - Nonrenormalizabilitatea gravitației - - - - - - Gravitația cuantică ca o teorie eficientă a câmpului - - - - - - Dependența spațiu-timpului de fundal - - - - - - Teoria corzilor - - - - - - - - - Teorii independente de fundal - - - - - - Gravitația cuantică semi-clasică - - - - - - Problema timpului - - - Teorii candidate - - - - - - Teoria corzilor - - - - - - Gravitația cuantică în bucle - - - - - - Alte abordări - - - Teste experimentale - - - 14.1 Gravitația cuantică în bucle - - - - - - Istorie - - - - - - Covarianța generală și independență de fundal - - - - - - Limita semiclasică - - - - - - - - - Ce este limita semiclastică? - - - - - - - - - De ce GCB nu ar avea relativitatea generală ca limită semiclasică? - - - - - - - - - Dificultăți la verificarea limitei semiclasice a GCB - - - - - - - - - Progresul în demonstrarea GCB are limita semiclastică corectă - - - - - - Aplicații fizice ale GCB - - - - - - - - - Entropia găurii negre - - - - - - - - - Radiația Hawking în GCB - - - - - - - - - Stea Planck - - - - - - - - - Cosmologică cuantică în bucle - - - - - - - - - Fenomenologia GCB - - - - - - - - - Amplitudini de împrăștiere independente de fundal - - - - - - Gravitoni, teoria corzilor, supersimetrie, dimensiuni suplimentare în GCB - - - - - - GCB și programele de cercetare aferente - - - - - - Probleme și comparații cu abordări alternative - - - 14.2 Teoria corzilor - - - - - - Fundamente - - - - - - - - - Corzi - - - - - - - - - Dimensiuni suplimentare - - - - - - - - - Dualitatile - - - - - - - - - Brane - - - - - - Teoria-M - - - - - - - - - Unificarea teoriilor supercorzilor - - - - - - - - - Teoria matriceală - - - - - - Găuri negre - - - - - - - - - Formula Bekenstein-Hawking - - - - - - - - - Derivarea în cadrul teoriei corzilor - - - - - - Corespondența AdS/CFT - - - - - - - - - Prezentare generală a corespondenței - - - - - - - - - Aplicații pentru gravitația cuantică - - - - - - Fenomenologie - - - - - - - - - Cosmologie - - - - - - Istorie - - - - - - - - - Rezultatele inițiale - - - - - - - - - Prima revoluție a supercorzilor - - - - - - - - - A doua revoluție a supercorzilor - - - - - - Critici - - - - - - - - - Numărul de soluții - - - - - - - - - Independența de fundal - - - - - - - - - Sociologia științei - - - 14.3 Teoria finală - - - - - - Antecedente istorice - - - - - - - - - De la Grecia antică la Einstein - - - - - - - - - Secolul al XX-lea și interacțiunile nucleare - - - - - - Fizica modernă - - - - - - - - - Secvența convențională a teoriilor - - - - - - - - - Teoria corzilor și teoria M - - - - - - - - - Gravitația cuantică în bucle - - - - - - - - - Alte încercări - - - - - - - - - Starea actuală - - - - - - Filosofia - - - - - - Argumente împotrivă - - - - - - - - - Teorema lui Gödel despre incompletență - - - - - - - - - Limitele fundamentale în precizie - - - - - - - - - Lipsa legilor fundamentale - - - - - - - - - Număr infinit de straturi de ceapă - - - - - - - - - Imposibilitatea calculului 15 Filosofia și interpretările mecanicii cuantice - - - Implicații filosofice - - - 15.1 Interpretări ale mecanicii cuantice - - - - - - Istoria interpretărilor - - - - - - Natura interpretării - - - - - - Provocări ale interpretărilor - - - - - - Pe scurt - - - - - - - - - Clasificarea adoptată de Einstein - - - - - - - - - Interpretarea de la Copenhaga - - - - - - - - - Multe lumi - - - - - - - - - Istorii consistente - - - - - - - - - Interpretarea de ansamblu - - - - - - - - - Teoria De Broglie-Bohm - - - - - - - - - Mecanica cuantică relațională - - - - - - - - - Interpretare tranzacțională - - - - - - - - - Mecanica stocastică - - - - - - - - - Teorii ale colapsului obiectiv - - - - - - - - - Conștiința cauzează colapsul (interpretarea von Neumann-Wigner) - - - - - - - - - Multe minți - - - - - - - - - Logica cuantică - - - - - - - - - Teoria informației cuantice - - - - - - - - - Interpretări modale ale teoriei cuantice - - - - - - - - - Teorii temporal simetrice - - - - - - - - - Teoriile ramificării spațiu-timpului - - - - - - - - - Alte interpretări - - - - - - Comparație - - - 15.2 Măsurători în mecanica cuantică - - - - - - Rezumat calitativ - - - - - - Cantități măsurabile ("observabile") ca operatori - - - - - - Probabilitățile de măsurare și colapsul funcțiilor de undă - - - - - - - - - Spectru discret, nondegenerat - - - - - - - - - Spectru continuu, nedegenerat - - - - - - - - - Spectre degenerate - - - 15.3 Matricea de densitate - - - - - - Stări pure și mixte - - - - - - Exemple de aplicații - - - 15.4 Interpretarea Von Neumann–Wigner - - - - - - Observația în mecanica cuantică - - - - - - Interpretarea - - - - - - Obiecții față de interpretare - - - - - - - - - Acceptarea - - - - - - - - - - - - Opinii ale pionierilor mecanicii cuantice 16 Perspective în mecanica cuantică - - - 16.1 Probleme rezolvate recent în fizică - - - 16.2 Probleme nerezolvate în fizică - - - 16.2.1 Fizica generală și mecanica cuantică - - - 16.2.2 Gravitația cuantică - - - 16.2.3 Fizica particulelor / Fizica energiilor înalte - - - 16.2.4 Fizica nucleară - - - 16.2.5 Fizica atomică, moleculară și optică - - - 16.2.6 Fizica plasmei Referințe Despre autor - - - Nicolae Sfetcu - - - - - - De același autor - - - - - - Contact Editura - - - MultiMedia Publishing -/- . (shrink)

This paper proposes an interpretation of time that is an 'A-theory' in that it incorporates both McTaggart's A-series and his B-series. The A-series characteristics are supposed to be 'ontologically private' analogous to qualia in the problem of other minds, such as in the Inverted Spectrum thought experiment, and is given a definition. The main idea is then that the experimenter and the cat do not share the same A-series characteristics, e.g. the same 'now', to some extent. So there is no (...) single time at which the cat gets ascribed different states, one by the experimenter and one by the cat. Also it is proposed one may define an ontologically private 'unit of becoming' that coordinatizes the future/present/past A-series spectrum as well as allow one to calculate rates of becoming with seconds. The latter are taken to measure differences in B-series times. (shrink)

We define life as the amplification of quantum uncertainty up to macroscopic scales. A living being is any amplifier that achieves this goal. We argue that everything we know about life can be explained from this idea. We study a ladder mechanism to estimate the probability that the amplification occurs spontaneously in nature. The amplification mechanism is so sensitive to small variations of its own parameters that it acts as a bifurcation itself, i.e. it implies that the universe is either (...) everywhere dead or alive wherever possible. Since the first option is excluded by the existence of life on earth, we infer that the universe hosts a huge number of inhabited planets (possibly one per star on average). We also investigate models of conscious and unconscious learning processes, as well as the structure of the brain and evolution. Finally, we address the problem of creating artificial life. (shrink)

The purpose of this yet-another version of this note is to make another attempt to show how an 'AB-series' interpretation of time, given in a companion paper, leads, surprisingly, apparently, to the signature of the physicists' important AdS^5 geometry. This is not a theory of 2 time dimensions. Rather, it is a theory of 1 time dimension that has both A-series and B-series characteristics.

A theory of time was proposed in "A theory of time", an early version of which is on PhilPapers. The idea was that the A-series features of a physical system are ontologically private, and this was given a mathematical definition. Also B-series features are ontologically public. This brief note is a detailed rumination on path-integrals and Schrodinger's Cat, in this theory.

Mereological nihilism is the philosophical position that there are no items that have parts. If there are no items with parts then the only items that exist are partless fundamental particles, such as the true atoms (also called philosophical atoms) theorized to exist by some ancient philosophers, some contemporary physicists, and some contemporary philosophers. With several novel arguments I show that mereological nihilism is the correct theory of reality. I will also discuss strong similarities that mereological nihilism has with empirical (...) results in quantum physics. And I will discuss how mereological nihilism vindicates a few other theories, such as a very specific theory of philosophical atomism, which I will call quantum abstract atomism. I will show that mereological nihilism also is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that avoids the problems of other interpretations, such as the widely known, metaphysically generated, quantum paradoxes of quantum physics, which ironically are typically accepted as facts about reality. I will also show why it is very surprising that mereological nihilism is not a widely held theory, and not the premier theory in philosophy. (shrink)

After 2015, carlo rovelli continues to publish more and more UNBELIEVABLE similar ideas to my ideas!!! His arguments are UNBELIEVABLE similar to my arguments… Until 2015, carlo rovelli had been working within the unicorn world; then he realized a sudden change! I let the reader to understand carlo rovelli’s step after 2015 since I mentioned that my book at Springer has been published in November 2015!! Anyway, I have published FIVE books (2008-2014) with my EDWs, and in 2007, my entire (...) PhD thesis (my first book 2008) was posted at UNSW (Australia) on their site!!! Moreover, in 2005, in Synthese article, in a footnote, I mentioned that the EDWs would be available for all quantum mechanics problems; in 2006 I published and posted on Internet (FREE) an article about my EDWs applied to quantum mechancis! I emaphasize again that I believe that it would be impossible for carlo rovelli to discover the EDWs working within the quatum mechanics. Why? Because I discovered the existence of EDWs working on the mind-body problem, that would involve to special particular entities: the self and the body. Only working within this problem, I could discover the existence of the mind-EW and the macro-EW (where the body is placed). Later, I applied this approach to the wave-particle duality, and after this, I applied my EDWs to the macro-micro duality. After solving all these problems, I could apply my EDWs perspective to Einstein’s special relativity (the person on the train that has constant speed and the person on the pavement are in EDWs) and general relativity (acceleration presupposes the movement from one particular EW to an EDW in each fraction of second! The conclusion is the following: it appears that it was impossible for carlo rovelli to discover the existence of EDWs working ONLY on the problems of Quantum Mechanics. His approach is nothing new, being just a combination of Bohr’s complementarity (Copenhagen interpretation) with Leibniz’s relationism within the unicorn world (i..e, the Universe/world)! No more or less. (shrink)

Four initial postulates are presented (with two more added later), which state that construction of the physical universe proceeds from a sequence of discrete steps or "projections" --- a process that yields a sequence of discrete levels (labeled 0, 1, 2, 3, 4). At or above level 2 the model yields a (3+1)-dimensional structure, which is interpreted as ordinary space and time. As a result, time does not exist below level 2 of the system, and thus the quantum of action, (...) h, which depends on time (since its unit is time•energy), also does not exist below level 2. This implies that the quantum of action is not fundamental, and thus e.g. that the physical universe cannot have originated from a quantum fluctuation. When the gravitational interaction for the model is developed, it is seen that the basic ingredient for gravity is already operating at level 1 of the system, which implies that gravity, too, is not fundamentally quantum mechanical (since, as stated, h only kicks in at level 2) --- perhaps obviating the need for a quantum theory of gravity. Further arguments along this line lead to the conclusion that quantum fluctuations cannot be a source of gravity, and thus cannot contribute to the cosmological constant --- thereby averting the cosmological constant problem. Along the way, the model also provides explanations for dark energy, the beginning and ending of inflation, quark confinement, and more. Although the model dethrones the quantum, it nevertheless elevates an idea in physics that was engendered by quantum mechanics: the necessary role of "observers" in constructing the world. (shrink)

I argue that the wave function ontology for quantum mechanics is an undesirable ontology. This ontology holds that the fundamental space in which entities evolve is not three-dimensional, but instead 3N-dimensional, where N is the number of particles standardly thought to exist in three-dimensional space. I show that the state of three-dimensional objects does not supervene on the state of objects in 3N-dimensional space. I also show that the only way to guarantee the existence of the appropriate mental states in (...) the wave function ontology has undesirable metaphysical baggage: either mind/body dualism is true, or circumstances which we take to be logically possible turn out to be logically impossible. (shrink)

Gregor Schiemann führt allgemeinverständlich in das Denken dieses Physikers ein. Thema sind die Erfahrungen und Überlegungen, die Heisenberg zu seinen theoretischen Erkenntnissen geführt haben, die wesentlichen Inhalte dieser Erkenntnisse sowie die Konsequenzen, die er daraus für die Geschichte der Physik und das wissenschaftliche Weltbild gezogen hat. Heisenbergs Vorstellungswelt durchzieht durch ein Spannungsverhältnis, das heute noch das Denken vieler Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler bewegt. Er ist um ein umfassendes Verständnis der Naturprozesse bemüht, zugleich aber von der Berechenbarkeit und Beherrschbarkeit von Phänomenen auch (...) dann schon fasziniert, wenn die zugrunde liegenden Prozesse erst teilweise verstanden sind. Aus der Geschichte der Physik zieht er die wirkungsreiche Lehre, daß sich die naturwissenschaftliche Erkenntnis nicht kontinuierlich, sondern sprunghaft in Form von Revolutionen entwickelt. Die Reichweite des physikalischen Wissens begrenzt er in einer Schichtentheorie der Welt, nach der die komplexen Phänomene des Lebens nicht allein durch die Wechselwirkungen zwischen ihren Bestandteilen erklärt werden können. Der zunehmenden Technisierung der Welt steht Heisenberg kritisch gegenüber. Seiner Zeit weit voraus, glaubt er, daß die Technisierung der Welt eine epochal neue Stufe erreicht habe, in der der Mensch „nur noch sich selbst“ gegenüberstehe. (shrink)

What are quantum entities? Is the quantum domain deterministic or probabilistic? Orthodox quantum theory (OQT) fails to answer these two fundamental questions. As a result of failing to answer the first question, OQT is very seriously defective: it is imprecise, ambiguous, ad hoc, non-explanatory, inapplicable to the early universe, inapplicable to the cosmos as a whole, and such that it is inherently incapable of being unified with general relativity. It is argued that probabilism provides a very natural solution to the (...) quantum wave/particle dilemma and promises to lead to a fully micro-realistic, testable version of quantum theory that is free of the defects of OQT. It is suggested that inelastic interactions may induce quantum probabilistic transitions. (shrink)

The main question: During the last 100 years, why nobody among great minds (Einstein, Bohr, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Feynman, etc. etc.) have discovered the correct answer to the main problems of Quantum Mechanics, but after I published my articles and first two books (2002-2010 – FREE all my FIVE books, on various sites, all English), many people started to ‘find’ the solution to these problems? Why nobody have found the answer to the mind-brain problem, but after my publications, many people have (...) found the solution to this problem (and many related problems)??? Why, after my SIX book has been published at SPRINGER, people finding solutions to these two problems (and many related problems) have appeared exactly as ‘mushrooms after the rain’??? If they have published just similar ideas to my ideas, it means all this amalgam of people (so many) are smarter than Einstein, Bohr, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Descartes, Kant, Spinoza, etc., etc.??? If they have similar ideas to my ideas, then, STATISTICALLY, WE HAVE BEEN LIVING IN THE PERIOD WITH THE GREATEST NUMBER OF GREATEST GENIUSES OF ALL TIMES!!! In such a short period, so many people have published similar ideas to my ideas referring to the mind-brain problem, quantum mechanics problems, and many other problems in Cognitive Neuroscience, Physics and Philosophy! Do you believe this????? From 2014, I have sent emails to thousands of people regarding this fact! The people were professors and students (Physics, Cognitive Neuroscience, and Philosophy) from universities that belong to many countries in the entire WORLD!!! (shrink)

I accept that McTaggart's A-series and B-series are not inter-reducible and that both are needed for a complete temporal description of a physical system. I consider the Wigner's Friend thought experiment. The A-series are associated with each (quantum) system, and relativity is associated with the B-series. I consider temporal evolution through this 'hybrid' time. We may define the rate of temporal flow as 1 B-series second per A-series second.

This article studies the quantum effect of the brain neuronal system on both normal and abnormal conscious states. It develops Plasma Brain Dynamics (PBD) to obtain a set of kinetic quantum-plasma Wigner-Poisson equations. The model is established under typical electrostatic and collision-free conditions in both the absence and presence of an external magnetic field. The quantum perturbation is solved analytically by employing a backward-mapping approach to the motion of electrons. Results expose that the quantum perturbation turns out to be zero (...) at normal conscious states; but no more than 11% of the classical perturbation under assumed abnormal situations like a sudden head trauma, mood disorder, etc. The introduction of the magnetic field does not influence the results. (shrink)

The title of Kastner’s article is “Beyond Complementarity” (R. E. Kastner 6 March 2016 Foundations of Physics Group, University of Maryland, College Park, USA) -/- In this paper, there are quite many ideas similar to my ideas. The main ideas are the following: -/- - Bohr’s complementarity does not work: “’Complementarity’ cannot consistently account for the emergence of classicality from the quantum level (p. 1) - It is argued that ultimately this problem arises from Bohr’s implicit assumption that all quantum (...) evolution is unitary; i.e., that there is no real, physical non-unitary collapse. (p. 1) -/- In my works 2002-2008 and later (2010-2106), I argued exactly the same ideas. The non-unitary phenomena in quantum and in the relationship between quantum and classical phenomena means exactly the EDWs! -/- Our world of experience is clearly classical in that we can legitimately consider our lab and macroscopic measuring instruments as inhabiting a well-defined inertial frame. But these are the very phenomena that cry out for explanation in view of that fact that the microscopic quantum objects upon which we experiment, according to the theory describing them, do not inhabit well-defined reference frames. (pp. 3-4) -/- “Our world of experience” means exactly the macro-EW vs. the micro-EW. However, we have to pay attention that “quantum world” means the micro-EW (for particles) and the wave-EW. In section 4, Kastner investigates the “unnecessary” Bohr’s “epistemological and methodological assumptions”. If the reader will read the entire section will have the sensation of reading one of my works! In 2007, and 2008, I analyzed exactly the same notions with almost the same verdict! (shrink)

The purpose of this book is to explain Quantum Bayesianism (‘QBism’) to “people without easy access to mathematical formulas and equations” (4-5). Qbism is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that “doesn’t meddle with the technical aspects of the theory [but instead] reinterprets the fundamental terms of the theory and gives them new meaning” (3). The most important motivation for QBism, enthusiastically stated on the book’s cover, is that QBism provides “a way past quantum theory’s paradoxes and puzzles” such that much (...) of the weirdness associated with quantum theory “dissolves under the lens of QBism”. (shrink)

Although written in Japanese, an overall picture of quantum physics is drawn, which would surely be useful for beginners as well as researchers of the humanities.

I argue that space has three dimensions, and quantum mechanics does not show otherwise. Specifically, I argue that the mathematical wave function of quantum mechanics corresponds to a property that an N-particle system has in three-dimensional space.

The UNBELIEVABLE similar ideas between Theise and Menas’ ideas (2016) and my ideas (2002-2008) in Physics and Cognitive Neuroscience and Philosophy (the mind-brain problem, quantum mechanics, etc.) -/- (2016) Theise D. Neil (Department of Pathology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA) and Kafatos C. Menas (bDepartment of Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA; cSchmid College of Science & Technology, Chapman University, Orange, CA, USA) (2016), REVIEW - Fundamental awareness: A (...) framework for integrating science, philosophy and metaphysics, in COMMUNICATIVE & INTEGRATIVE BIOLOGY, 2016, VOL. 9, NO. 3, e1155010 (19 pages), http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1155010 -/- A friend of mine indicated me the strike similarities between Theise and Kafatos’ ideas in their book (Fundamental awareness: A framework for integrating science, philosophy and metaphysics) and my ideas in 2002-20008! I do not have access to this book, but I investigate the ideas that are in a review about this work. Let me introduce the abstract of that Review: -/- The ontologic framework of Fundamental Awareness proposed here assumes that non-dual Awareness is foundational to the universe, not arising from the interactions or structures of higher level phenomena. The framework allows comparison and integration of views from the three investigative domains concerned with understanding the nature of consciousness: science, philosophy, and metaphysics. In this framework, Awareness is the underlying reality, not reducible to anything else. Awareness and existence are the same. As such, the universe is non-material, self-organizing throughout, a holarchy of complementary, process driven, recursive interactions. The universe is both its own first observer and subject. Considering the world to be non-material and comprised, a priori, of Awareness is to privilege information over materiality, action over agency and to understand that qualia are not a “hard problem,” but the foundational elements of all existence. These views fully reflect main stream Western philosophical traditions, insights from culturally diverse contemplative and mystical traditions, and are in keeping with current scientific thinking, expressible mathematically. (shrink)

Definitions I presented in a previous article as part of a semantic approach in epistemology assumed that the concept of derivability from standard logic held across all mathematical and scientific disciplines. The present article argues that this assumption is not true for quantum mechanics (QM) by showing that concepts of validity applicable to proofs in mathematics and in classical mechanics are inapplicable to proofs in QM. Because semantic epistemology must include this important theory, revision is necessary. The one I propose (...) also extends semantic epistemology beyond the ‘hard’ sciences. The article ends by presenting and then refuting some responses QM theorists might make to my arguments. (shrink)

Stapp and others have proposed that reality involves a fundamental life process, or creative process. It is shown how this process description may be unified with the description that derives from quantum physics. The methods of the quantum physicist and of the biological sciences are seen to be two alternative approaches to the understanding of nature, involving two distinct modes of description which can usefully supplement each other, and neither on its own contains the full story. The unified view explains (...) the major features of quantum mechanics and suggests that biological systems may function more effectively than would be expected on the basis of quantum mechanics alone. (shrink)

This paper shows how the classical finite probability theory (with equiprobable outcomes) can be reinterpreted and recast as the quantum probability calculus of a pedagogical or toy model of quantum mechanics over sets (QM/sets). There have been several previous attempts to develop a quantum-like model with the base field of ℂ replaced by ℤ₂. Since there are no inner products on vector spaces over finite fields, the problem is to define the Dirac brackets and the probability calculus. The previous attempts (...) all required the brackets to take values in ℤ₂. But the usual QM brackets <ψ|ϕ> give the "overlap" between states ψ and ϕ, so for subsets S,T⊆U, the natural definition is <S|T>=|S∩T| (taking values in the natural numbers). This allows QM/sets to be developed with a full probability calculus that turns out to be a non-commutative extension of classical Laplace-Boole finite probability theory. The pedagogical model is illustrated by giving simple treatments of the indeterminacy principle, the double-slit experiment, Bell's Theorem, and identical particles in QM/Sets. A more technical appendix explains the mathematics behind carrying some vector space structures between QM over ℂ and QM/Sets over ℤ₂. (shrink)

Two radically different views about time are possible. According to the first, the universe is three dimensional. It has a past and a future, but that does not mean it is spread out in time as it is spread out in the three dimensions of space. This view requires that there is an unambiguous, absolute, cosmic-wide "now" at each instant. According to the second view about time, the universe is four dimensional. It is spread out in both space and time (...) - in space-time in short. Special and general relativity rule out the first view. There is, according to relativity theory, no such thing as an unambiguous, absolute cosmic-wide "now" at each instant. However, we have every reason to hold that both special and general relativity are false. Not only does the historical record tell us that physics advances from one false theory to another. Furthermore, elsewhere I have shown that we must interpret physics as having established physicalism - in so far as physics can ever establish anything theoretical. Physicalism, here, is to be interpreted as the thesis that the universe is such that some unified "theory of everything" is true. Granted physicalism, it follows immediately that any physical theory that is about a restricted range of phenomena only, cannot be true, whatever its empirical success may be. It follows that both special and general relativity are false. This does not mean of course that the implication of these two theories that there is no unambiguous cosmic-wide "now" at each instant is false. It still may be the case that the first view of time, indicated at the outset, is false. Are there grounds for holding that an unambiguous cosmic-wide "now" does exist, despite special and general relativity, both of which imply that it does not exist? There are such grounds. Elsewhere I have argued that, in order to solve the quantum wave/particle problem and make sense of the quantum domain we need to interpret quantum theory as a fundamentally probabilistic theory, a theory which specifies how quantum entities - electrons, photons, atoms - interact with one another probabilistically. It is conceivable that this is correct, and the ultimate laws of the universe are probabilistic in character. If so, probabilistic transitions could define unambiguous, absolute cosmic-wide "nows" at each instant. It is entirely unsurprising that special and general relativity have nothing to say about the matter. Both theories are pre-quantum mechanical, classical theories, and general relativity in particular is deterministic. The universe may indeed be three dimensional, with a past and a future, but not spread out in four dimensional space-time, despite the fact that relativity theories appear to rule this out. These considerations, finally, have implications for views about the arrow of time and free will. (shrink)

La mécanique quantique est une théorie physique contemporaine réputée pour ses défis au sens commun et ses paradoxes. Depuis bientôt un siècle, plusieurs interprétations de la théorie ont été proposées par les physiciens et les philosophes, offrant des images quantiques du monde, ou des ontologies, radicalement différentes. L'existence d'un hasard fondamental, ou d'une multitude de mondes en-dehors du nôtre, dépend ainsi de l'interprétation adoptée. Après avoir discuté de la définition de l'interprétation d'une théorie physique, ce livre présente trois principales interprétations (...) quantiques, empiriquement équivalentes : l'interprétation dite orthodoxe, l'interprétation de Bohm, et l'interprétation des mondes multiples. Des textes d'Albert & Galchen, ainsi que de Mermin, présentent le concept de non-localité et invitent à une analyse de l'argument d'Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen et du théorème de Bell. (shrink)

La meccanica quantistica è una delle più grandi conquiste intellettuali del xx secolo. Le sue leggiregolano il mondo atomico e subatomico e si riverberano su una miriade di fenomeni del mondomacroscopico, dalla formazione dei cristalli alla superconduttività, dalle proprietà dei fluidi a bassatemperatura agli spettri di emissione di una candela che brucia o di una supernova che esplode, daimeccanismi di combustione della fornace solare ai principi di base delle nanotecnologie. Non c’èquasi nulla nel mondo che ci circonda su cui non (...) soffi l’alito delle leggi quantistiche. Tuttavia, per come è usualmente presentata nei libri di testo, la meccanica quantistica è sostanzialmenteun’insieme di regole per calcolare le distribuzioni di probabilità dei risultati di qualunqueesperimento (nel dominio di validità della meccanica quantistica). In quanto tale, non ci forniscedirettamente una descrizione della realtà. Una descrizione della realtà, cioè un’ ontologia , dovrebbedirci che cosa c’è nel mondo e come si comporta, quali sono i processi che si realizzano a livellomicroscopico e, di conseguenza, fornirci una spiegazione del formalismo quantistico. (shrink)

We review a recent approach to the foundations of quantum mechanics inspired by quantum information theory. The approach is based on a general framework, which allows one to address a large class of physical theories which share basic information-theoretic features. We first illustrate two very primitive features, expressed by the axioms of causality and purity-preservation, which are satisfied by both classical and quantum theory. We then discuss the axiom of purification, which expresses a strong version of the Conservation of Information (...) and captures the core of a vast number of protocols in quantum information. Purification is a highly non-classical feature and leads directly to the emergence of entanglement at the purely conceptual level, without any reference to the superposition principle. Supplemented by a few additional requirements, satisfied by classical and quantum theory, it provides a complete axiomatic characterization of quantum theory for finite dimensional systems. (shrink)

This paper presents a new modified quantum mechanics, Critical Complexity Quantum Mechanics, which includes a new account of wavefunction collapse. This modified quantum mechanics is shown to arise naturally from a fully discrete physics, where all physical quantities are discrete rather than continuous. I compare this theory with the spontaneous collapse theories of Ghirardi, Rimini, Weber and Pearle and discuss some implications of these theories and CCQM for a realist view of the quantum realm.

This paper is about Ionicioiu and Terno's paper (2011) about wave-particle duality and my EDWs pperspective (from 2005, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2014).

Lifeworld realism and quantum-physical realism are taken as experience-dependent conceptions of the world that become objects of explicit reflection when confronted with context-external discourses. After a brief sketch of the two contexts of experience—lifeworld and quantum physics—and their realist interpretations, I will discuss the quantum world from the perspective of lifeworld realism. From this perspective, the quantum world—roughly speaking—has to be either unreal or else constitute a different reality. Then, I invert the perspective and examine the lifeworld from the standpoint (...) of quantumphysical realism. This conception of the lifeworld has gained momentum from new research results in recent decades. Despite its experiential basis, quantum-physical realism bears an ambiguity akin to that of lifeworld realism. While the perspectival inversion serves to highlight the problem, it also contributes to an improved understanding of lifeworld-realism. (shrink)

There is a fallacy that is often involved in the interpretation of quantum experiments involving a certain type of separation such as the: double-slit experiments, which-way interferometer experiments, polarization analyzer experiments, Stern-Gerlach experiments, and quantum eraser experiments. The fallacy leads not only to flawed textbook accounts of these experiments but to flawed inferences about retrocausality in the context of delayed choice versions of separation experiments.

A number of researchers today make an appeal to quantum physics when trying to develop a satisfactory account of the mind, an appeal still felt to be controversial by many. Often these "quantum approaches" try to explain some well-known features of conscious experience (or mental processes more generally), thus using quantum physics to enrich the explanatory framework or explanans used in consciousness studies and cognitive science. This paper considers the less studied question of whether quantum physical intuitions could help us (...) to draw attention to new or neglected aspects of the mind in introspection, and in this way change our view about what needs explanation in the first place. Although prima facie implausible, it is suggested that this could happen, for example, if there were analogies between quantum processes and mental processes (e.g., the process of thinking). The naive idea is that such analogies would help us to see mental processes and conscious experience in a new way. It has indeed been proposed long ago that such analogies exist, and this paper first focuses at some length on David Bohm's formulation of them from 1951. It then briefly considers these analogies in relation to Smolensky's more recent analogies between cognitive science and physics, and Pylkko's aconceptual view of the mind. Finally, Bohm's early analogies will be briefly considered in relation to the analogies between quantum processes and the mind he proposed in his later work. -/- [This article is a modified version of an article that was first published in the anthology Being and Brain: At the Boundary between Science, Philosophy, Language and Arts, ed. by G. Globus, K. Pribram and G. Vitiello, Advances in Consciousness Research 58, John Benjamins, Amsterdam 2004, pp. 165-195.]. (shrink)

Subjectivity or the problem of ‘qualia’ tends to make the accessibility and comprehension of psychological events intangible especially for scientific exploration. The issue becomes even more complicated but interesting when one turns towards mystical experiences. Such experiences are different from other psychological phenomena in the sense that they don’t occur to every one, so are difficult to comprehend even for their qualifications of existence. We conducted a qualitative study on one such experience of inner-light perception. This is a common experience (...) reported by meditators of all kinds. However, we chose to study this phenomenon in Vihangam Yoga practitioners because of frequent occurrence of this experience in them as well as their reports of having it for hours at a stretch. During this study, it was noted that it arose many questions there we need to answer not only to explain such phenomena but also for having a better understanding of philosophy of science. In the search for these answers, we proceeded towards another complicated branch of science, quantum mechanics. Our present work is about creating an interface between a unique subjective phenomenon and principles of philosophy as well as of quantum mechanics. We explore the constructs of physical and critical realisms and their coincidence, quantum information theory and the measurement problem of Copenhagen interpretation and their possible applications in such an experience. In this endeavour, we also address the possibility that inner-light perception as experienced by Vihangam Yogis is a quantum event in brain. For this purpose, we specifically analyse the Zeilingers information concept and try to apply it to this phenomena. (shrink)

This paper examines the processes involved in attempting to capture the subtlest aspects of nature by the scientific method and argues on this basis that nature is fundamentally elusive and may resist grasping by the methods of science. If we wish to come to terms with this resistance, then a shift in the direction of taking direct experience into account may be necessary for science’s future complete development.

Saunders' recent arguments in favour of the weak discernibility of (certain) quantum particles seem to be grounded in the 'generalist' view that science only provides general descriptions of the worlIn this paper, I introduce the ‘generalist’ perspective and consider its possible justification and philosophical basis; and then look at the notion of weak discernibility. I expand on the criticisms formulated by Hawley (2006) and Dieks and Veerstegh (2008) and explain what I take to be the basic problem: that the properties (...) invoked by Saunders cannot be pointed to as ‘individuators’ of otherwise indiscernible (and thus numerically identical) entities because their ontological status remains underdetermined by the evidence and the established interpretation of the theory. In addition to to this, I suggest that Saunders does not deal adequately with bosons, and cannot do so exactly because he subscribes to PII and the generalist picture. The last part of the paper contains a critical examination of the claim (or at least implicit assumption) that the generalist picture should be regarded as obviously compelling by the modern-day empiricist. (shrink)

Our conscious minds exist in the Universe, therefore they should be identified with physical states that are subject to physical laws. In classical theories of mind, the mental states are identified with brain states that satisfy the deterministic laws of classical mechanics. This approach, however, leads to insurmountable paradoxes such as epiphenomenal minds and illusionary free will. Alternatively, one may identify mental states with quantum states realized within the brain and try to resolve the above paradoxes using the standard Hilbert (...) space formalism of quantum mechanics. In this essay, we first show that identification of mind states with quantum states within the brain is biologically feasible, and then elaborating on the mathematical proofs of two quantum mechanical no-go theorems, we explain why quantum theory might have profound implications for the scientific understanding of one's mental states, self identity, beliefs and free will. (shrink)

Nagarjuna and Quantum physics Eastern and Western Modes of Thought Christian Thomas Kohl -/- Nagarjuna (2nd century) is known in the history of Buddhism by the keyword sunyata. This word is translated into English by the term emptiness. The translation and the traditional interpretations give the impression that Nagarjuna declares the objects as empty, illusionary, not real or not existing. Many questions could be asked at this point. What is the assertion made by this interpretation? Is it that nothing can (...) be found or, that there is nothing or, that nothing exists? Was Nagarjuna denying the external world? Did he wish to refute what evidently is? Did he want to call into question the world in which we live? Did he wish to deny the presence of things which arise? I submit two moves to provide an answer to these queries. The first move refutes the traditional translation and interpretation. The second move is to transcribes sunyata by rendering “dependence” in line with Nagarjuna’s writings. His central view could be called “interdependence of things”. Nagarjuna was not looking for an object to be declared as fundamental reality. His fundamental reality of this world is not an immaterial or material object. It is a relation between objects including sentient beings and its main exponent: human beings. This is a relational and non-foundational view of reality which considers reality as dynamics within a wide open space. ENGLISH AND CHINESE . (shrink)

Rudyard Kipling, the famous english author of « The Jungle Book », born in India, wrote one day these words: « Oh, East is East and West is West, and never the twain shall meet ». In my paper I show that Kipling was not completely right. I try to show the common ground between buddhist philosophy and quantum physics. There is a surprising parallelism between the philosophical concept of reality articulated by Nagarjuna and the physical concept of reality implied (...) by quantum physics. For neither is there a fundamental core to reality, rather reality consists of systems of interacting objects. Such concepts of reality cannot be reconciled with the substantial, subjective, holistic or instrumentalistic concepts of reality which underlie modern modes of thought. (shrink)

Rudyard Kipling, the famous english author of « The Jungle Book », born in India, wrote one day these words: « Oh, East is East and West is West, and never the twain shall meet ». In my paper I show that Kipling was not completely right. I try to show the common ground between buddhist philosophy and quantum physics. There is a surprising parallelism between the philosophical concept of reality articulated by Nagarjuna and the physical concept of reality implied (...) by quantum physics. For neither is there a fundamental core to reality, rather reality consists of systems of interacting objects. Such concepts of reality cannot be reconciled with the substantial, subjective, holistic or instrumentalistic concepts of reality which underlie modern modes of thought. (shrink)

In my 2013 article, “A New Theory of Free Will”, I argued that several serious hypotheses in philosophy and modern physics jointly entail that our reality is structurally identical to a peer-to-peer (P2P) networked computer simulation. The present paper outlines how quantum phenomena emerge naturally from the computational structure of a P2P simulation. §1 explains the P2P Hypothesis. §2 then sketches how the structure of any P2P simulation realizes quantum superposition and wave-function collapse (§2.1.), quantum indeterminacy (§2.2.), wave-particle duality (§2.3.), (...) and quantum entanglement (§2.4.). Finally, §3 argues that although this is by no means a philosophical proof that our reality is a P2P simulation, it provides ample reasons to investigate the hypothesis further using the methods of computer science, physics, philosophy, and mathematics. (shrink)

The spin-statistics connection is derived in a simple manner under the postulates that the original and the exchange wave functions are simply added, and that the azimuthal phase angle, which defines the orientation of the spin part of each single-particle spin-component eigenfunction in the plane normal to the spin-quantization axis, is exchanged along with the other parameters. The spin factor (−1)2s belongs to the exchange wave function when this function is constructed so as to get the spinor ambiguity under control. (...) This is achieved by effecting the exchange of the azimuthal angle by means of rotations and admitting only rotations in one sense. The procedure works in Galilean as well as in Lorentz-invariant quantum mechanics. Relativistic quantum field theory is not required. (shrink)

I offer an account of how the quantum theory we have helps us explain so much. The account depends on a pragmatist interpretation of the theory: this takes a quantum state to serve as a source of sound advice to physically situated agents on the content and appropriate degree of belief about matters concerning which they are currently inevitably ignorant. The general account of how to use quantum states and probabilities to explain otherwise puzzling regularities is then illustrated by showing (...) how we can explain single-particle interference phenomena, the stability of matter, and interference of Bose–Einstein condensates. Finally, I note some open problems and relate this account to alternative approaches to explanation that emphasize the importance of causation, of unification, and of structure. 1 Introduction2 Two Requirements on Explanations in Physics3 What We Can use Quantum Theory to Explain4 The Function of Quantum States and Born Probabilities5 How These Functions Contribute to the Explanatory Task6 Example One: Single-Particle Interference7 Example Two: Explanation of the Stability of Matter8 Example Three: Bose Condensation9 Conclusion. (shrink)

The paper investigates the epistemic conception of quantum states---the view that quantum states are not descriptions of quantum systems but rather reflect the assigning agents' epistemic relations to the systems. This idea, which can be found already in the works of Copenhagen adherents Heisenberg and Peierls, has received increasing attention in recent years because it promises an understanding of quantum theory in which neither the measurement problem nor a conflict between quantum non-locality and relativity theory arises. Here it is argued (...) that the main challenge for proponents of this idea is to make sense of the notion of a state assignment being performed correctly without thereby acknowledging the notion of a true state of a quantum system---a state it is in. An account based on the epistemic conception of states is proposed that fulfills this requirement by interpreting the rules governing state assignment as constitutive rules in the sense of John Searle. (shrink)

В статье обосновывается, что квантовая механика является наукой нового типа, опровергающей метафизический реализм классической физики. Вводится понятие квантового концепта, результат применения которого не предопределён. Рассматриваются возможности прагматического «расстворения» à la Виттгенштейн проблемы измерения в философии квантовой механики при помощи использования виттгенштейновского понятия языковой игры и метафизического «решения» этой проблемы при помощи использования хайдеггеровского понятия Дазайн.

I argue that the theory of chance proposed by David Lewis has three problems: (i) it is time asymmetric in a manner incompatible with some of the chance theories of physics, (ii) it is incompatible with statistical mechanical chances, and (iii) the content of Lewis's Principal Principle depends on how admissibility is cashed out, but there is no agreement as to what admissible evidence should be. I proposes two modifications of Lewis's theory which resolve these difficulties. I conclude by tentatively (...) proposing a third modification of Lewis's theory, one which explains many of the common features shared by the chance theories of physics. (shrink)