Does accepting Fuzzy Time-Particle interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, refute the other interpretations? (Is fuzziness of time checkable experimentally?)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Farzad Didehvar
Keyword(s):  
Quantum Mechanics ◽  
The Other ◽  
Interpretation Of Quantum Mechanics ◽  
Particle Interpretation

scholarly journals The Modal-Hamiltonian Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics as a Kind of “Atomic” Interpretation

2011 ◽  
Vol 2011 ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juan Sebastián Ardenghi ◽  
Olimpia Lombardi
Keyword(s):  
Hilbert Space ◽  
Quantum Mechanics ◽  
Quantum State ◽  
The Other ◽  
Interpretation Of Quantum Mechanics ◽  
Modal Interpretation ◽  
Atomic Systems ◽  
Modal Interpretations ◽  
The One ◽  
The Relationship

Modal interpretations are non-collapse interpretations, where the quantum state of a system describes its possible properties rather than the properties that it actually possesses. Among them, the atomic modal interpretation (AMI) assumes the existence of a special set of disjoint systems that fixes the preferred factorization of the Hilbert space. The aim of this paper is to analyze the relationship between the AMI and our recently presented modal-hamiltonian interpretation (MHI), by showing that the MHI can be viewed as a kind of “atomic” interpretation in two different senses. On the one hand, the MHI provides a precise criterion for the preferred factorization of the Hilbert space into factors representing elemental systems. On the other hand, the MHI identifies the atomic systems that represent elemental particles on the basis of the Galilei group. Finally, we will show that the MHI also introduces a decomposition of the Hilbert space of any elemental system, which determines with precision what observables acquire definite actual values.

scholarly journals Observability, Unobservability and the Copenhagen Interpretation in Dirac's Methodology of Physics

Quanta ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 68-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Oldofredi ◽  
Michael Esfeld
Keyword(s):  
Quantum Mechanics ◽  
Quantum Theory ◽  
Close Contact ◽  
Copenhagen Interpretation ◽  
The Other ◽  
Interpretation Of Quantum Mechanics ◽  
Present Essay ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Methodological Principles ◽  
The One

Paul Dirac has been undoubtedly one of the central figures of the last century physics, contributing in several and remarkable ways to the development of quantum mechanics; he was also at the centre of an active community of physicists, with whom he had extensive interactions and correspondence. In particular, Dirac was in close contact with Bohr, Heisenberg and Pauli. For this reason, among others, Dirac is generally considered a supporter of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Similarly, he was considered a physicist sympathetic with the positivistic attitude which shaped the development of quantum theory in the 1920s. Against this background, the aim of the present essay is twofold: on the one hand, we will argue that, analyzing specific examples taken from Dirac's published works, he can neither be considered a positivist nor a physicist methodologically guided by the observability doctrine. On the other hand, we will try to disentangle Dirac's figure from the mentioned Copenhagen interpretation, since in his long career he employed remarkably different—and often contradicting—methodological principles and philosophical perspectives with respect to those followed by the supporters of that interpretation.Quanta 2019; 8: 68–87.

ENTANGLEMENT, LOCALITY, AND SEPARABILITY: A TREATISE ON DIFFERENT VIEWPOINTS

2007 ◽  
Vol 05 (01n02) ◽  
pp. 157-167 ◽  
Author(s):  
THOMAS KESSEMEIER ◽  
THOMAS KRÜGER
Keyword(s):  
Quantum Mechanics ◽  
The Other ◽  
Statistical Interpretation ◽  
Interpretation Of Quantum Mechanics ◽  
Bell’S Inequality ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
The Common ◽  
Statistical Operator ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Non Locality

Within the framework of a statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics, entanglement (in a mathematical sense) manifests itself in the non-separability of the statistical operator ρ representing the ensemble in question. In experiments, on the other hand, entanglement can be detected, in the form of non-locality, by the violation of Bell's inequality Δ ≤ 2. How can these different viewpoints be reconciled? We first show that (non-)separability follows different laws to (non-)locality, and, moreover, it is much more difficult to characterize as long as the mostly employed operational rather than an ontic definition of separability is used. In consequence, (i) "entanglement" has two different meanings which may or may not be realized simultaneously on one and the same ensemble, and (ii) we have to disadvise the use of the common separability definition which is still employed by the majority of the physical community.

scholarly journals Free will in the clustered-minds multiverse, and some comments on S. Sarasvathy’s ‘choice matters’

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 323-330
Author(s):  
Christian D. Schade
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Quantum Mechanics ◽  
Free Will ◽  
The Other ◽  
Interpretation Of Quantum Mechanics

AbstractThis paper sketches a new version of the multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics, the clustered-minds multiverse, that has been presented in detail elsewhere (Schade 2018, Springer, New York). It briefly shows why it grants us with free will and reflects upon the (im-)possibilty of singular-universe explanations of free will (e.g., Laskey 2018, J Cogn Sci 19–2:125–163). It also critically comments upon S. Sarasvathy's 'choice matters,' one of the other contributions to this mini symposium.

On the Probabilistic Nature of Observable Phenomena

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammad Ali
Keyword(s):  
Quantum Mechanics ◽  
Complete Theory ◽  
Interpretation Of Quantum Mechanics ◽  
Multiple Realities ◽  
Lack Of Information ◽  
Complete Theories ◽  
Probabilistic Nature

This paper proposes a Gadenkan experiment named “Observer’s Dilemma”, to investigate the probabilistic nature of observable phenomena. It has been reasoned that probabilistic nature in, otherwise uniquely deterministic phenomena can be introduced due to lack of information of underlying governing laws. Through theoretical consequences of the experiment, concepts of ‘Absolute Complete’ and ‘Observably Complete” theories have been introduced. Furthermore, nature of reality being ‘absolute’ and ‘observable’ have been discussed along with the possibility of multiple realities being true for observer. In addition, certain aspects of quantum mechanics have been interpreted. It has been argued that quantum mechanics is an ‘observably complete’ theory and its nature is to give probabilistic predictions. Lastly, it has been argued that “Everettian - Many world” interpretation of quantum mechanics is very real and true in the framework of ‘observable nature of reality’, for humans.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document