Hugh Everett III proposed his relative-state formulation of pure wave mechanics as a solution to the quantum measurement problem. He sought to address the theory’s determinate record and probability problems by showing that, while counterintuitive, pure wave mechanics was nevertheless empirically faithful and hence empirical acceptable. We will consider what Everett meant by empirical faithfulness. The suggestion will be that empirical faithfulness is well understood as a weak variety of empirical adequacy. The thought is that the (...) very idea of empirical adequacy might be renegotiated in the context of a new physical theory given the theory’s other virtues. Everett’s argument for pure wave mechanics provides a concrete example of such a renegotiation. (shrink)

The strength and defects of wave mechanics as a theory of chemistry are critically examined. Without the secondary assumption of wave–particle duality, the seminal equation describes matter waves and leaves the concept of point particles undefined. To bring the formalism into line with the theory of special relativity, it is shown to require reformulation in hypercomplex algebra that imparts a new meaning to electron spin as a holistic spinor, eliminating serious current misconceptions in the process. Reformulation in (...) the curved space–time of general relativity requires the recognition of nonlinear effects that invalidate the practice of linear combination of atomic orbitals, ubiquitous in quantum chemistry, and redefines the electron as a nondispersive wave packet, or soliton. (shrink)

It is shown that the nonconservation of energy to the extent given by the uncertainty relation can be interpreted also as the storing of inner energyQ by a wave mechanical system. The latter formalism is, apart from its terminology, identical with the accepted one.

Everett (1957a, b, 1973) relative-state formulation of quantum mechanics has often been taken to involve a metaphysical commitment to the existence of many splitting worlds each containing physical copies of observers and the objects they observe. While there was earlier talk of splitting worlds in connection with Everett, this is largely due to DeWitt’s (Phys Today 23:30–35, 1970) popular presentation of the theory. While the thought of splitting worlds or parallel universes has captured the popular imagination, Everett himself favored (...) the language of elements, branches, or relative states in describing his theory. The result is that there is no mention of splitting worlds or parallel universes in any of Everett’s published work. Everett, however, did write of splitting observers and was willing to adopt the language of many worlds in conversation with people who were themselves using such language. While there is evidence that Everett was not entirely comfortable with talk of many worlds, it does not seem to have mattered much to him what language one used to describe pure wave mechanics. This was in part a result of Everett’s empirical understanding of the cognitive status of his theory. (shrink)

A previous model for treating electromagnetic nonlinear wave systems is examined in the context of wave mechanics. It is shown that nonlinear wave mechanics implies harmonic generation of new quasiparticle wave functions, which are absent in linear systems. The phenomenon is interpreted in terms of pair (and higher order ensembles) coherence of the interacting particles. The implications are far-reaching, and the present approach might contribute toward a common basis for diverse physical phenomena involving nonlinearity. (...) An intimate relationship connecting coherence, nonlocal interaction, and nonlinearity has been previously noticed in the physics of superconductivity. It is shown here that all these ingredients are consistently contained in the present formalism. The present theory may contribute to elucidate a controversial theory proposed by Panarella, who claims to have measured high-energy photons due to high-intensity laser radiation, which cannot be predicted on the basis of linear quantum theory. Panarella explains the new phenomena by stipulating a nonlinear intensity-dependent photon energy. It is argued here that nonlinearity, manifested in the presence of high intensity, may give rise to high- and low-energy photons, the so-called “effective” and “tired” photons, respectively. However, the present explanation does not involve ad hoc assumptions regarding the foundations of quantum theory. In analogy with the electrodynamic model, the present theory leads to particulate self-focusing in high-density streams of particles. Since such particulate beams are currently under consideration in connection with fusion reactions, this might be of future interest. (shrink)

It is shown that the wave equation of anN-body problem can be transformed into a system of “hydrodynamical equations” in a3N-dimensional space. The projections of the hydrodynamical variables in three-dimensional space do not obey strict equations of motion. This is shown to be connected with the fact that the mathematically possible solutions of the wave equations are much more numerous than the states of the system that are usually realized in nature. It is pointed out that the many-body (...) wave equation has to be supplemented with thermodynamic principles, so as to obtain a satisfactory description of real phenomena. (shrink)

The author begins by recalling how he was led in 1923–24 to the ideas of wave mechanics in generalizing the ideas of Einstein's theory of light quanta. He made himself at that time a concrete physical picture of the coexistence of waves and particles and, in 1927, attempted to give them precise form in his “theory of the double solution.” As other ideas prevailed at the time, he abandoned the development of his conception. But for the past twenty (...) years, once again convinced, like Einstein, that present-day quantum mechanics is only a statistical theory and does not give a true picture of physical reality, he has again taken up his old ideas and developed them considerably. He has in particular introduced an element of randomness into the theory and has thus attained to a “hidden thermodynamics of particles,” the results of which appear to be very interesting. (shrink)

In 1927 Louis de Broglie proposed an alternative approach to standard quantum mechanics known as the double solution program (DSP) where particles are represented as bunched fields or solitons guided by a base (weaker) wave. DSP evolved as the famous de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave interpretation (PWI) also known as Bohmian mechanics but the general idea to use solitons guided by a base wave to reproduce the dynamics of the PWI was abandoned. Here we propose a (...) nonlinear scalar field theory able to reproduce the PWI for the Schrödinger and Klein–Gordon guiding waves. Our model relies on a relativistic ‘phase harmony’ condition locking the phases of the solitonic particle and the guiding wave. We also discuss an extension of the theory for the N particles cases in presence of entanglement and external (classical) electromagnectic fields. (shrink)

The gauge-invariant relativistic wave mechanics corresponds to relativistic magneto-hydrodynamics according to Planck's version of the correspondence principle.

Proposed derivations of the Born rule for Everettian theory are controversial. I argue that they are unnecessary but may provide justification for a simplified version of the Principal Principle. It’s also unnecessary to replace Everett’s idea that a subject splits in measurement contexts with the idea that subjects have linear histories which partition Many worlds? Everett, quantum theory, and reality, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 181–205, 2010; Wallace in The emergent multiverse, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012, Chapter 7; Wilson in (...) Br J Philos Sci 64:709–737, 2013; The nature of contingency: quantum physics as modal realism, Oxford University Press, Oxford, forthcoming). Linear histories were introduced to provide a concept of pre-measurement uncertainty and I explain why pre-measurement uncertainty for splitting subjects is after all coherent, though not necessary because Everett’s original fission interpretation of branching can arguably be rendered coherent without it, via reference to Vaidman, Tappenden, Sebens and Carroll and McQueen and Vaidman. A deterministic and probabilistic quantum mechanics can be made intelligible by replacing the standard collapse postulate with a no-collapse postulate which identifies objective probability with relative branch weight, supplemented by the simplified Principal Principle and some revisionary metaphysics. (shrink)

Hugh Everett III's pure wave mechanics is a deterministic physical theory with no probabilities. He nevertheless sought to show how his theory might be understood as making the same statistical predictions as the standard collapse formulation of quantum mechanics. We will consider Everett's argument for pure wave mechanics, how it depends on the notion of branch typicality, and the relationship between the predictions of pure wave mechanics and the standard quantum probabilities.

The single-particle wave function ψ=ReiS/h has been interpreted classically: At a given point the particle momentum is ▽S, and the relative particle density in an ensemble is R 2 . It is first proposed to modify this interpretation by assuming that physical variables undergo rapid fluctuations, so that ▽S is the average of the momentum over a short time interval. However, it appears that this is not enough. It seems necessary to assume that the density also fluctuates. The fluctuations (...) are taken to be random and to satisfy conditions required for agreement with quantum mechanics. In some cases the fluctuating density may take on instantaneous negative values. One gets agreement with quantum mechanics for the spin correlations of two particles in a singlet state. This comes about because of the correlations between the fluctuations of the variables of the two particles, the effect of which is equivalent to an action at a distance. The relation to Bell's inequality is discussed. (shrink)

A recent rethinking of the early history of Quantum Mechanics deemed the late 1920s agreement on the equivalence of Matrix Mechanics and Wave Mechanics, prompted by Schrödinger's 1926 proof, a myth. Schrödinger supposedly failed to prove isomorphism, or even a weaker equivalence (“Schrödinger-equivalence”) of the mathematical structures of the two theories; developments in the early 1930s, especially the work of mathematician von Neumann provided sound proof of mathematical equivalence. The alleged agreement about the Copenhagen Interpretation, predicated (...) to a large extent on this equivalence, was deemed a myth as well. In response, I argue that Schrödinger's proof concerned primarily a domain-specific ontological equivalence, rather than the isomorphism or a weaker mathematical equivalence. It stemmed initially from the agreement of the eigenvalues of Wave Mechanics and energy-states of Bohr's Model that was discovered and published by Schrödinger in his first and second communications of 1926. Schrödinger demonstrated in this proof that the laws of motion arrived at by the method of Matrix Mechanics are satisfied by assigning the auxiliary role to eigenfunctions in the derivation of matrices (while he only outlined the reversed derivation of eigenfunctions from Matrix Mechanics, which was necessary for the proof of both isomorphism and Schrödinger-equivalence of the two theories). This result was intended to demonstrate the domain-specific ontological equivalence of Matrix Mechanics and Wave Mechanics, with respect to the domain of Bohr's atom. And although the mathematical equivalence of the theories did not seem out of the reach of existing theories and methods, Schrödinger never intended to fully explore such a possibility in his proof paper. In a further development of Quantum Mechanics, Bohr's complementarity and Copenhagen Interpretation captured a more substantial convergence of the subsequently revised (in light of the experimental results) Wave and Matrix Mechanics. -/- I argue that both the equivalence and Copenhagen Interpretation can be deemed myths if one predicates the philosophical and historical analysis on a narrow model of physical theory which disregards its historical context, and focuses exclusively on its formal aspects and the exploration of the logical models supposedly implicit in it. -/- . (shrink)

Summarizing and extending the ideas of many authors and also of our own work, we try to show that the wave equation of the one-body problem can be transformed into a system of equations describing the motion of a deformable medium carrying charge and having permanent magnetic polarization. The wave equation and the system of transformed equations are connected by a strict one-to-one correspondence. The transformation which is not uniquely determined from a mathematical point of view can be (...) chosen so that the new variables have directphysical significance. The latter requirement permits consequently a unique choice of the mathematical possibilities. (shrink)

Continuing the considerations given in the first part of this series (I), we use the analysis of the Aharonov-Bohm effect to show that the hydrodynamical variables by which the quantum mechanical one-body problem can be represented are of direct physical significance. It is shown in a particular case that the final state of a system can be obtained from its initial state in a unique manner if both states are characterized by hydrodynamical variables.

Given Hugh Everett III's understanding of the proper cognitive status of physical theories, his relative-state formulation of pure wave mechanics arguably qualifies as an empirically acceptable physical theory. The argument turns on the precise nature of the relationship that Everett requires between the empirical substructure of an empirically faithful physical theory and experience. On this view, Everett provides a weak resolution to both the determinate record and the probability problems encountered by pure wave mechanics, and does (...) so in a way that avoids unnecessary metaphysical complications. Taking Everett's goal to be showing the empirical faithfulness of the relative-state formulation agrees well with his characterization of his project as one of seeking a model for observation in the correlation structure described by pure wave mechanics and seeking a measure of typicality over this empirical substructure that covaries with our empirically warranted expectations. 1 Pure Wave Mechanics and Relative States2 Everett and Frank3 Everett on the Nature of Physical Theories4 Conditions for Empirical Faithfulness5 The Empirical Faithfulness of Pure Wave Mechanics6 Conclusion. (shrink)

Now, this is precisely the experimental law of the photo-electric effect in the form which has been verified in succession for all the radiations from the ultra ...

A recent rethinking of the early history of Quantum Mechanics deemed the late 1920s agreement on the equivalence of Matrix Mechanics and Wave Mechanics, prompted by Schrödinger’s 1926 proof, a myth. Schrödinger supposedly failed to achieve the goal of proving isomorphism of the mathematical structures of the two theories, while only later developments in the early 1930s, especially the work of mathematician John von Neumman (1932) provided sound proof of equivalence. The alleged agreement about the Copenhagen (...) Interpretation, predicated to a large extent on this equivalence, was deemed a myth as well. If such analysis is correct, it provides considerable evidence that, in its critical moments, the foundations of scientific practice might not live up to the minimal standards of rigor, as such standards are established in the practice of logic, mathematics, and mathematical physics, thereby prompting one to question the rationality of the practice of physics. In response, I argue that Schrödinger’s proof concerned primarily a domain-specific ontological equivalence, rather than the isomorphism. It stemmed initially from the agreement of the eigenvalues of Wave Mechanics and energy-states of Bohr’s Model that was discovered and published by Schrödinger in his First and Second Communications of 1926. Schrödinger demonstrated in this proof that the laws of motion arrived at by the method of Matrix Mechanics could be derived successfully from eigenfunctions as well (while he only outlined the reversed derivation of eigenfunctions from Matrix Mechanics, which was necessary for the proof of isomorphism of the two theories). This result was intended to demonstrate the domain-specific ontological equivalence of Matrix Mechanics and Wave Mechanics, with respect to the domain of Bohr’s atom. And although the full-fledged mathematico-logical equivalence of the theories did not seem out of the reach of existing theories and methods, Schrödinger never intended to fully explore such a possibility in his proof paper. In a further development of Quantum Mechanics, Bohr’s complementarity and Copenhagen Interpretation captured a more substantial convergence of the subsequently revised (in light of the experimental results) Wave and Matrix Mechanics. I argue that both the equivalence and Copenhagen Interpretation can be deemed myths if one predicates the philosophical and historical analysis on a narrow model of physical theory which disregards its historical context, and focuses exclusively on its formal aspects and the exploration of the logical models supposedly implicit in it. (shrink)

This article is in three parts. Part I gives an account of Erwin Schrödinger's growing up and studies in Vienna, his scientific work—first in Vienna from 1911 to 1920, then in Zurich from 1920 to 1925—on the dielectric properties of matter, atmospheric electricity and radioactivity, general relativity, color theory and physiological optics, and on kinetic theory and statistical mechanics. Part II deals with the creation of the theory of wave mechanics by Schrödinger in Zurich during the early (...) months of 1926; he laid the foundations of this theory in his first two communications toAnnalen der Physik. Part III deals with the early applications of wave mechanics to atomic problems—including the demonstration of equivalence of wave mechanics with the quantum mechanics of Born, Heisenberg, and Jordan, and that of Dirac—by Schrödinger himself and others. The new theory was immediately accepted by the scientific community. (shrink)

This article (Part II) deals with the creation of the theory of wave mechanics by Erwin Schrödinger in Zurich during the early months of 1926; he laid the foundations of this theory in his first two communications toAnnalen der Physik. The background of Schrödinger's work on, and his actual creation of, wave mechanics are analyzed.

This article (Part III) deals with the early applications of wave mechanics to atomic problems—including the demonstration of the formal mathematical equivalence of wave mechanics with the quantum mechanics of Born, Heisenberg, and Jordan, and that of Dirac—by Schrödinger himself and others. The new theory was immediately accepted by the scientific community.

Extended Abstract This book introduces and develops a new, universal method of the scientific comprehension of reality providing the objective, ...

It has been long known that a year after Schrödinger published his equation, Madelung also published a hydrodynamics version of Schrödinger equation. Quantum diffusion is studied via dissipative Madelung hydrodynamics. Initially the wave packet spreads ballistically, than passes for an instant through normal diffusion and later tends asymptotically to a sub‐diffusive law. In this paper we will review two different approaches, including Madelung hydrodynamics and also Bohm potential. Madelung formulation leads to diffusion interpretation, which after a generalization yields to (...) Ermakov equation. Since Ermakov equation cannot be solved analytically, then we try to find out its solution with Mathematica package. It is our hope that these methods can be verified and compared with experimental data. But we admit that more researches are needed to fill all the missing details. (shrink)

This article discusses the historical similarities and differences between Schroedinger's and de Broglie's ideas on wave mechanics and gives a biographical account of their scientific relationship. Their arguments over questions such as quantum jumps, the viability of particles within wave mechanics theory, and the inclusion of space, time, and relativity in quantum mechanics are analyzed. The final section of the paper considers the overall role of Schroedinger's ideas in modern quantum mechanics.

This paper is devoted to an analysis of the intellectual itinerary of Louis de Broglie, from the discovery of wave mechanics, until today. Essential attention is paid to the fact that this itinerary is far from being linear, since after a first attempt to develop his own views on wave mechanics through the theory of singular waves, Louis de Broglie abandoned it for twenty five years, under the influence of the Copenhagen School (even embracing the conceptions (...) of the latter), until the beginning of the fifties, when he definitively came back to his primary theory. This evolution of the Louis de Broglie's views on wave mechanics is told here and explained through an analysis of the evolution of all of quantum mechanics and, more generally, the dominating conceptions of theoretical physics in our century.This paper is written in a quite personal form, which is not exactly one to which the readers of scientific journals are accustomed, because it reproduces, in fact, the preface of a book (to be published) of Louis de Broglie, which is precisely devoted to the fundamental problems of quantum mechanics and closely linked to the second turnabout of the author. (shrink)

This is a new volume of original essays on the metaphysics of quantum mechanics. The essays address questions such as: What fundamental metaphysics is best motivated by quantum mechanics? What is the ontological status of the wave function? Does quantum mechanics support the existence of any other fundamental entities, e.g. particles? What is the nature of the fundamental space of quantum mechanics? What is the relationship between the fundamental ontology of quantum mechanics and ordinary, (...) macroscopic objects like tables, chairs, and persons? This collection includes a comprehensive introduction with a history of quantum mechanics and the debate over its metaphysical interpretation focusing especially on the main realist alternatives. (shrink)

This is a new volume of original essays on the metaphysics of quantum mechanics. The essays address questions such as: What fundamental metaphysics is best motivated by quantum mechanics? What is the ontological status of the wave function? What is the nature of the fundamental space (or space-time manifold) of quantum mechanics?

Reminiscing on the fact that E. Schrödinger was rooted in the same physical tradition as M. Planck and A. Einstein, some aspects of his attitude to quantum mechanics are discussed. In particular, it is demonstrated that the quantum-mechanical paradoxes assumed by Einstein and Schrödinger should not exist, but that otherwise the epistemological problem of physical reality raised in this context by Einstein and Schrödinger is fundamental for our understanding of quantum theory. The nonexistence of such paradoxes just shows that (...) quantum-mechanical effects are due to interference and not to interaction. This line of argument leads consequently to quantum field theories with second quantization, and accordingly quantum theory based both on Planck's constant h and on Democritus's atomism. (shrink)

In this paper, I critically assess different interpretations of Bohmian mechanics that are not committed to an ontology based on the wave function being an actual physical object that inhabits configuration space. More specifically, my aim is to explore the connection between the denial of configuration space realism and another interpretive debate that is specific to Bohmian mechanics: the quantum potential versus guidance approaches. Whereas defenders of the quantum potential approach to the theory claim that Bohmian (...) class='Hi'>mechanics is better formulated as quasi-Newtonian, via the postulation of forces proportional to acceleration; advocates of the guidance approach defend the notion that the theory is essentially first-order and incorporates some concepts akin to those of Aristotelian physics. Here I analyze whether the desideratum of an interpretation of Bohmian mechanics that is both explanatorily adequate and not committed to configuration space realism favors one of these two approaches to the theory over the other. Contrary to some recent claims in the literature, I argue that the quasi-Newtonian approach based on the idea of a quantum potential does not come out the winner. (shrink)

Ideas about human consciousness and mental functions will be analyzed and developed using cognitive science information available in the Upanishads, Brahmajnaana, Advaita and Dvaita schools of thought. -/- The analysis and development so done will be used to theorize and give scheme of human language acquisition and communication process clubbing with Sabdabrahma Siddhanta/Sphota Vaada which put forward infrasonic wave oscillator issuing pulses in infrasonic range and are reflected as brain waves. -/- Thus a brain-wave modulation/demodulation model of human (...) language acquisition and communication will be advanced and put forward. Application of this study in mind-machine modeling, natural language comprehension field of artificial intelligence will also be hinted. -/- . (shrink)

The meaning of the wave function has been a hot topic of debate since the early days of quantum mechanics. Recent years have witnessed a growing interest in this long-standing question. Is the wave function ontic, directly representing a state of reality, or epistemic, merely representing a state of knowledge, or something else? If the wave function is not ontic, then what, if any, is the underlying state of reality? If the wave function is indeed (...) ontic, then exactly what physical state does it represent? In this book, I aim to make sense of the wave function in quantum mechanics and find the ontological content of the theory. The book can be divided into three parts. The first part addresses the question of the nature of the wave function. After giving a comprehensive and critical review of the competing views of the wave function, I present a new argument for the ontic view in terms of protective measurements. In addition, I also analyze the origin of the wave function by deriving the free Schroedinger equation. The second part analyzes the ontological meaning of the wave function. I propose a new ontological interpretation of the wave function in terms of random discontinuous motion of particles, and give two main arguments supporting this interpretation. The third part investigates whether the suggested quantum ontology is complete in accounting for our definite experience and whether it needs to be revised in the relativistic domain. (shrink)

The mechanical aspect of momentum, basically its role as a tangent vector of the trajectory of the particle, is related to properties of the momentum found in the contexts of Hamilton's optico-mechanical analogy, de Broglie's matter waves, and quantum mechanics. These properties are treated in a systematic way by considering an approximation of the particle mechanical action of the particle by a step function. A special method of discretizing partial differential equations is shown to be required. Using this method, (...) a discrete dynamics is developed. It is shown that particle dynamics can be regarded as the limit case of the discrete dynamics as the step functions tend to the continuous ones. The equation of motion of a free particle in an arbitrary reference system is deduced in two ways: (i) in continuous dynamics by making use of the invariance of action within changes of reference systems, and (ii) by taking the mentioned limit in discrete dynamics of an equation which expresses that the mechanical and wave-theoretical aspects of the momentum are interrelated in specific way. (shrink)

The realist interpretations of quantum theory, proposed by de Broglie and by Bohm, are re-examined and their differences, especially concerning many-particle systems and the relativistic regime, are explored. The impact of the recently proposed experiments of Vigier et al. and of Ghose et al. on the debate about the interpretation of quantum mechanics is discussed. An indication of how de Broglie and Bohm would account for these experimental results is given.

There is a recurring line of argument in the literature to the effect that Bohm's theory fails to solve the measurement problem. I show that this argument fails in all its variants. Hence Bohm's theory, whatever its drawbacks, at least succeeds in solving the measurement problem. I briefly discuss a similar argument that has been raised against the GRW theory.

The incredible success of quantum theory as a mathematical model makes it especially frustrating that we cannot agree on a plausible philosophical or metaphysical description of it. Some philosophers of science have noticed certain parallels between quantum theory and the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, and these parallels are deepened and strengthened if the “observer” of modern physics is associated with the “intellect” of scholastic ontology. In this case we are talking about a human observer. But this type of observer has (...) a unique quality that is not considered at all by either physics or scholastic philosophy—the human observer is mimetic and therefore “interdividual.” By taking this fundamental anthropological fact into account, it turns out that the critical gaps still separating Aquinas from modern physicists can be effectively closed, reconciling the realism of Aquinas with the empirical evidence of quantum mechanics. This book explores this new bridge between the physical and the human—a bridge essentially designed by scholastic theory, clarified by mimetic theory, and built by quantum theory—and the path it opens to that metaphysical understanding for which philosophers of modern science have been striving. It is an understanding, not merely of the physical but of physics in the fuller sense of what is real and what is true. Here the reader will find a physics that describes the natural world and our place as mimetic observers within it. (shrink)

The phase space formulation of quantum mechanics is based on the use of quasidistribution functions. This technique was pioneered by Wigner, whose distribution function is perhaps the most commonly used of the large variety that we find discussed in the literature. Here we address the question of how one can obtain distribution functions and hence do quantum mechanics without the use of wave functions.

In this paper a nonspreading, unnormalizable wave packet satisfying the Schrödinger equation is constructed. A modification of the Schrödinger equation is considered which allows the normalization of the wave packet. The case is generalized for relativistic mechanics.

Quantum mechanics and experience -- The wave function: ontic vs epistemic -- The nomological view -- Reality of the wave function -- Origin of the Schrödinger equation -- The ontology of quantum mechanics (I) -- The ontology of quantum mechanics (II) -- Implications for solving the measurement problem -- Quantum ontology and relativity.