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: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1311.4760 . 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, Alexey 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@listas.unizar.es > https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis _______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis