[Paper Review] The quantum mechanics is a non-universal theory. The realistic Schrodinger's and positivistic Born's interpretation of the wave function

А. В. Никулов|arXiv (Cornell University)|Nov 18, 2013

Quantum Mechanics and Applications68 references3 citations

TL;DR

This paper argues that quantum mechanics is not a universal theory, rejecting the orthodox positivistic interpretation of the wave function proposed by Born and instead advocating for a realistic Schrödinger interpretation. It contends that the fundamental obscurities in quantum mechanics arise from logical inconsistencies in the Copenhagen interpretation, particularly the mind-matter duality implied by Born’s interpretation, and that these inconsistencies stem from philosophical errors in Heisenberg’s and Bohr’s formulations, undermining the self-consistency of standard quantum mechanics despite its empirical success.

ABSTRACT

Quantum mechanics describes successfully numerous quantum phenomena both microscopic and macroscopic, such as superconductivity. But the controversies about quantum mechanics, in the old days and present day, reveal fundamental obscurity in quantum mechanics. In this work reader attention is drawn first of all to the fact that the orthodox description of superconductivity and some other quantum phenomena uses the realistic interpretation of the wave function proposed by Schrodinger whereas the controversies take place until the present about the positivistic interpretation proposed by Born. Causes and essence of the fundamental obscurity of the Born interpretation are considered in detail in the first part of the paper. The fundamental obscurities of the orthodox description of superconductivity and other quantum phenomena are considered in the end of the paper.

Motivation & Objective

• To challenge the universality of quantum mechanics by exposing logical inconsistencies in the orthodox Copenhagen interpretation.
• To argue that the positivistic Born interpretation of the wave function introduces a causal relationship between the observer’s mind and quantum systems, leading to epistemological and logical contradictions.
• To demonstrate that the EPR paradox and violation of Bell’s inequalities are not evidence of non-locality in physical systems but rather symptoms of a flawed observer-dependent interpretation.
• To advocate for a return to Schrödinger’s realistic interpretation of the wave function as the foundation for a consistent, non-contradictory quantum theory.
• To call for an observer-free formulation of quantum mechanics, aligning it with epistemological rigor and scientific realism.

Proposed method

• Analyzing the historical and philosophical foundations of quantum mechanics, particularly the interpretations of Schrödinger, Born, Bohr, and Heisenberg.
• Examining the EPR paradox and Bell’s inequalities through the lens of observer-dependent reality, arguing that non-locality arises not from physical entanglement but from the mind-matter duality in the Born interpretation.
• Identifying the 'mutual causal relation' between 'res extensa' (physical system) and 'res cogitans' (observer’s mind) as a logical absurdity undermining the self-consistency of standard quantum mechanics.
• Critiquing the philosophical underpinnings of Heisenberg’s 'new Weltanschauung', particularly his rejection of Cartesian dualism and the a priori nature of causality, as sources of conceptual confusion.
• Contrasting the realistic Schrödinger interpretation with the positivistic Born interpretation to show that most quantum phenomena are consistently described using the former, despite its non-universality.
• Highlighting the role of implicit belief in quantum mechanics—especially in quantum computing and the 'observation' of macroscopic objects like the moon—as a symptom of epistemological confusion.

Experimental results

Research questions

• RQ1 Why does quantum mechanics remain successful despite its fundamental obscurities and logical inconsistencies?
• RQ2 What are the epistemological consequences of interpreting the wave function as a probability amplitude (Born’s interpretation) rather than a real physical wave (Schrödinger’s interpretation)?
• RQ3 How does the mind-matter duality implied in the Born interpretation lead to logical absurdities in quantum mechanics?
• RQ4 To what extent do the EPR correlation and violation of Bell’s inequalities reflect non-locality in physical systems or merely the observer-dependent nature of the measurement process?
• RQ5 Can a consistent, universal, and observer-free formulation of quantum mechanics be achieved by returning to a realistic interpretation of the wave function?

Key findings

• The positivistic Born interpretation of the wave function implies a mutual causal relation between the quantum system and the observer’s mind, which leads to a logical absurdity and undermines the self-consistency of orthodox quantum mechanics.
• The EPR correlation and violation of Bell’s inequalities are not evidence of physical non-locality but rather consequences of the observer-dependent nature of measurement in the Copenhagen interpretation.
• Most quantum phenomena are consistently described using Schrödinger’s realistic interpretation of the wave function, which avoids the fundamental obscurities associated with the Born interpretation.
• The so-called 'quantum postulate' and 'complementarity' proposed by Bohr are better explained by hidden-variables theories than by the orthodox interpretation, indicating a deeper incompatibility with standard quantum mechanics.
• The belief that 'the moon is not there when not observed' is a misinterpretation rooted in implicit faith in the positivistic interpretation, not a scientific conclusion.
• Quantum mechanics is not a universal theory because it fails to provide a consistent, observer-free description of quantum phenomena, and its success is due to the practical use of the realistic Schrödinger interpretation despite its philosophical rejection.