Dear Lars-Göran and colleagues,
I think that probability amplitudes should have a single meaning as well 
as any concept that our mind can invent. Heisenberg said in his Lectures 
1955-1956 ”Physics and Philosophy”: “Descartes realizes that what we 
know about our mind is more certain than what we know about the outer 
world”. According to this correct notion no theory about the outer world 
can have interpretations and any concept should have a single meaning. 
Theories of physics as theories about the outer world should not have 
interpretations. But it is well known that interpretations of quantum 
mechanics are charaterized by huge diversity. Therefore quantum 
mechanics (QM) can not be considered as a  physical theory. Schrodinger 
was right that QM is failed theory (see the Section “THE MAKESHIFT OF 
WAVE MECHANICS’ in the book Schrodinger E. Science and Humanism. Physics 
in Our Time. Cambridge: University Press, 1952).

Schrodinger craved to interpret his wave function as a real wave. He 
tried to replace particles with wavepackets. But wavepackets diffuse. 
This diffuseness contradicts numerous observations. Most physicists have 
accepted the interpretation of Schrodinger’s wave function as 
probability amplitudes proposed by Born because the probability of 
observation should change at observation. Most physicists believe for 
the present that it was good solution of the problem to say that 
wavepacket can be localized at observation. But they ignore that it is 
localized first of all in the mind of the observer. The probability of 
observation describes the state of the mind of the observer. It is quite 
obvious that our knowledge changes when we observe anything. This change 
of our knowledge is discontinuous. In the Section ”The Copenhagen 
Interpretation of Quantum Theory” of his Lectures 1955-1956 Heisenberg 
stated ”that certainly our knowledge can change suddenly and that this 
fact justifies the use of the term ’quantum jump’”. Just therefore QM 
presupposes the instantaneous and non-local change at observation called 
Dirac jump, wave function collapse, or ’quantum jump’ from the 
’possible’ to the ’actual’. This discontinuous change of the mind of the 
observer takes place at any observation at which an object (for example 
a physical system) has an influence on subject (the mind of the observer).

Schrodinger noted in the Section “THE ALLEGED BREAK-DOWN OF THE BARRIER 
BETWEEN SUBJECT AND OBJECT” of his book “Science and Humanism” that 
”…the mere contention that every observation depends on both the subject 
and the object, which are inextricably interwoven this contention is 
hardly new, it is almost as old as science itself” . But ”… in the 
present order of ideas the direct physical, causal influence between the 
two is regarded as mutual. It is said that there is also an unavoidable 
and uncontrollable impression from the side of the subject onto the 
object. This aspect is new…”. Heisenberg had in mind just this new 
aspect when he said in his Lectures 1955-1956 that “we have to criticise 
from the development of physics in our time” the Cartesian division. 
Quantum mechanics is vague and has numerous interpretation just because 
of the denial of the Cartesian division. Heisenberg said fairly: "The 
mechanics of Newton and all the other parts of classical physics 
constructed after its model started from the assumption that one can 
describe the world without speaking about God or ourselves… If one 
follows the great difficulty which even eminent scientists like Einstein 
had in understanding and accepting the Copenhagen interpretation of 
quantum theory, one can trace the roots of this difficulty to the 
Cartesian partition. This partition has penetrated deeply into the human 
mind during the three centuries following Descartes and it will take a 
long time for it to be replaced by a really different attitude toward 
the problem of reality". But he was not right when he stated that a 
scientific theory could be possible without the acceptance of the 
Cartesian polarity between the 'res cogitans' and the 'res extensa'. No 
science can describe a mutual causal influence between the 'res 
cogitans' and the 'res extensa' (or between the subject and the object). 
Quantum mechanics presumes such mutual influence. Therefore it can not 
be considered as a scientific theory.

Einstein wrote to Schrodinger as far back as 1928: "The soothing 
philosophy-or religion?-of Heisenberg-Bohr is so cleverly concocted that 
it offers the believers a soft resting pillow from which they are not 
easily chased away".  The diversity of opinions about quantum mechanics 
witnesses that Einstein's words turned out prophetic: the dissent can be 
about a religion but our true comprehension must be unified. At least we 
must believe that it is possible. Otherwise no science could be 
possible. The belief in quantum mechanics is a consequence of the 
illusion inherent to most contemporary scientists that what we know 
about the outer world is more certain than what we know about our mind. 
But it is an illusion. Descartes was right. Our knowledge about our mind 
is more certain. Therefore probability amplitudes should have a single 
meaning. The probability of observation describes always the knowledge 
of the observer. But, according to the Born’s interpretation it 
describes also quantum state which changes at observation under an 
mystical influence of the mind of the observer. No science can describe 
such mystical influence. Thus, the positivistic interpretation proposed 
by Born can not be considered as a scientific. Therefore it is very 
important to realized that most quantum phenomena are described with the 
help of the realistic interpretation of the wave function proposed by 
Schrodinger. This obvious fact is accentuated in the article “Quantum 
mechanics is a non-universal theory. Realistic Schrodinger's and 
positivistic Born's interpretations of the wave function” which is 
available at arXiv: .

We should not say that probability amplitudes represent real physical 
features because our knowledge about our mind is certain. But we can 
assume that the Schrodinger wave function describe a real density as 
Schrodinger himself proposed. Unfortunately such realistic 
interpretation can not describe all quantum phenomena. Therefore we have 
to admit that a consistent and universal theory of quantum phenomena has 
not been developed for the present. And it is not comprehensible could 
such a theory be created in principle. Kant proposed a "Copernican 
Revolution-in-reverse", saying that: “Up to now it has been assumed that 
all our cognition must conform to the objects; but ... let us once try 
whether we do not get farther with the problems of metaphysics by 
assuming that the objects must conform to our cognition”. It is relevant 
to understand the importance of this "Copernican Revolution-in-reverse" 
in order to avoid illusions and mistakes. The outer world can not 
conform to our cognition.

With best wishes,

22.01.2014 20:05, Lars-Göran Johansson написал:
> Let me clarify one point: by saying that probability amplitudes
> represent real physical features I reject the instrumentalist idea that
> they are mere calculational devices. But of course, the probability
> amplitude is no observable. But there is no need to claim that only
> observables have any physical significance.
> Robert Chen has, in a couple of papers argued that the square of real
> part of the wave function could be interpreted as the system's kinetic
> energy, whereas the square of the imaginary part represents the
> potential energy of the system. It is as far as I can see a possible and
> reasonable interpretation.
> Lars-Göran
> fis mailing list

fis mailing list

Reply via email to