Copenhagen Interpretation

In an attempt to formulate a coherent view of quantum reality, the theoretical physicist David Bohm has proposed a new concept of order to supplement the mechanistic Cartesian order of traditional physics. The "implicate" order is a subtler and deeper order that emphasizes "unbroken wholeness in flowing movement," in contrast to the coarser and more superficial, "explicate" Cartesian order of distinct phenomena.

This dissertation attempts to develop a meaning for the idea of implicate order in the human world. First is offered an account of some evolutionary episodes in terms of implicate and explicate order which draws on compatible work in cosmology, embryogenesis, visual perception, brain memory, decision making and phenomenology.

Two important characteristics of the implicate order are then identified: in an implicate order, the whole is enfolded (or represented) in each of its parts; and all parts renders different perspectives of the whole. Using arguments from decision making, the study of "flow" in human consciousness, and a model of skill acquisition, it is suggested that these characteristics manifest themselves in the human world as the "unity experience" and the "diversity experience," respectively. The former is the experience that a given part of one's life reveals a larger wholeness or unity; the subject-object distinction is transcended and one becomes absorbed in the flow of whatever activity is pursued. The latter is a deep appreciation of the diversity of ways in which people may seek the unity experience. These experiences are proposed as general values: social and psychological conditions ought to be such that these experiences are enhanced in all people.

A two-by-two matrix of these experiences demonstrates the danger of pursuing one to the exclusion of the other. The experience of unity without diversity turns into absolutism, the insistence that one's chosen activities or beliefs are the only right one. The experience of diversity without unity becomes relativism, the excessive tolerance of and indifference to other people's pursuits. The good life lies in the simultaneous realization of both, unity-in-diversity. Lastly, it is suggested that this so-called unity-diversity matrix may be used as a personal compass the meaning of which is negotiated and calibrated in a community of users.

Quantum physicists have made many attempts to solve the quantum measurement problem, but no solution seems to have received widespread acceptance. The time has come for a new approach. In Sense Perception and Reality: A Theory of Perceptual Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and the Observer Dependent Universe and in a new paper The End of Realism I suggest the quantum measurement problem is caused by a failure to understand that each species has its own sensory world and that when we say the wave function collapses and brings a particle into existence we mean the particle is bought into existence in the human sensory world by the combined operation of the human sensory apparatus, particle detectors and the experimental set up. This is similar to the Copenhagen Interpretation suggested by Niels Bohr and others, but the understanding that the collapse of the wave function brings a particle into existence in the human sensory world removes the need for a dividing line between the quantum world and the macro world. The same rules can apply to both worlds and the ideas stated in this paper considerably strengthen the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics.

This paper reviews some of the literature on the philosophy of quantum mechanics. The publications involved tend to follow similar patterns of first identifying the mysteries, puzzles or paradoxes of the quantum world, and then discussing the existing interpretations of these matters, before the authors produce their own interpretations, or side with one of the existing views. The paper will show that all interpretations of quantum mechanics involve elements of apparent weirdness. They suggest that the quantum world, and possibly our macro world, exists or behaves in a way quite contrary to the way we normally imagine they should. The paper will also show how many of the writers on quantum mechanics misunderstand idealism in the macro world as proposed by philosophers such as George Berkeley, David Hume, Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill and misunderstand the concept of the observer dependent universe. The paper concludes by examining the similarities between the idealist view of the macro world and the Copenhagen Interpretation of the quantum world and suggests that as the Copenhagen Interpretation provides a view of the quantum world that is consistent with the macro world then the Copenhagen Interpretation should be the preferred view of the quantum world.

This paper investigates the nature of reality by looking at the philosophical debate between realism and idealism and at scientific investigations in quantum physics and at recent studies of animal senses, neurology and cognitive psychology. The concept of perceptual relativity is examined and this involves looking at sense perception in other animals and various examples of perceptual relativity in science. It will be concluded that the universe is observer dependent and that there is no reality independent of the observer, which is knowable to the observer. The paper concludes by an investigation of what an observer dependent universe would be like and that recognition of an observer dependent world would lead to a more open minded and tolerant world.

The Bohr Einstein debate on the meaning of quantum physics involved Einstein inventing a series of thought experiments to challenge the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum physics. Einstein disliked many aspects of the Copenhagen Interpretation especially its idea of an observer dependent universe. Bohr was able to answer all Einstein’s objections to the Copenhagen Interpretation and so is usually considered as winning the debate. However the debate has continued into the present time as many scientists have been unable to accept the idea of an observer dependent universe and many alternatives to the Copenhagen Interpretation have been proposed. However none of the alternatives has won general acceptance because all have problems that make them implausible or impossible.

The objective is to find a unified description of physical properties which applies at the small (atomic) scale and at the large (cosmological) scale. The starting point is the General Theory of Relativity. Light is described as a wave disturbance of spacetime propagating through space.

The light interference experiment is discussed in detail considering light as a real physical wave passing through the apparatus and interacting with the detector so that probabilistic effects take place at the point of detection.

The nature of mass and the nature of charge are explained. The concepts of force and field are shown to be dependent attributes and all properties are shown to be derived from spacetime.

The nature of protons, neutrons and electrons as looped waves in spacetime is analysed with the implications for experimental observations.

The cause of the quantisation of electron states is explained and this leads to the cause for the quantisation of light as electrons change energy level.

The unification of the four fundamental forces is achieved by recognising that the property "force" is not fundamental. The forces (gravitational, electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear) arise as a result of differences in energy between possible positions of objects in spacetime. The forces arise in each case due to the context in which they occur.

The Theory of Everything (TOE) or master theory question is resolved by showing that the core theory equations are the Einstein equations of GR with a cosmological constant of zero.

Consciousness and reality are related through the "measurement problem" in quantum mechanics, i.e., why we do not consciously perceive particles as quantum superpositions of multiple possibilities, as they appear to be when unobserved, but rather perceive them consciously as being in definite states or locations. Quantum pioneers Niels Bohr, John von Neumann, Eugene Wigner, and Henry Stapp concluded that subjective conscious observation causes quantum state reduction ("subjective reduction" (SR)), that "conscious-ness collapses the wavefunction." However, Sir Roger Penrose suggested instead that quantum state reduction occurs spontaneously due to an objective threshold property ("objective reduction" (OR)) in fundamental spacetime geometry, collapsing the wave function and causing moments of conscious experience ("collapse causes consciousness," or "collapse is consciousness"). Penrose OR would be occurring ubiquitously and randomly in the environment ("decoherence") resulting in ubiquitous proto-conscious moments. The Penrose-Hameroff "Orch OR" model of orchestrated objective reduction suggests that microtubules inside brain neurons "orchestrate" quantum computations which "halt" by Orch OR to produce moments of a full, rich conscious experience.

The nature of gravitational waves is discussed as described by the General Theory of Relativity and only recently observed as a detectable phenomenon. Gravitational waves are a wave disturbance of spacetime propagating at the speed of light. It is proposed that light and other electromagnetic waves are wave disturbances of spacetime propagating at the speed of light.

Atomic electrons emit photons and this then leads to the hypothesis that particles such as electrons, protons and neutrons are looped wave disturbances of spacetime. The Spacetime Wave theory is a wave based theory of physics. This replaces the particle based description of reality implicit in the Standard Model of Particle Physics and Quantum Theory. A set of seven postulates is proposed for the Spacetime Wave Theory and a description of the structure of the atom is presented.

In the Spacetime Wave Theory, the quantisation of light is explained as caused by the quantisation of atomic electrons. The quantisation of atomic electrons is explained as caused by the nature of electric charge in which each wavelength of the electron comprises a positive charge followed by a slightly larger negative charge. This causes the electron wave to adopt a range of possible stable states as the looped wave aligns with adjacent loops.

In the quest and search for a physical theory of everything from the macroscopic large body matter to the microscopic elementary particles, with strange and weird concepts springing from quantum physics discovery, irreconcilable positions and inconvenient facts complicated physics-from Newtonian physics to quantum science, the question is-how do we close the gap? Indeed, there is a scientific and mathematical fireworks when the issue of quantum uncertainties and entanglements cannot be explained with classical physics. The Copenhagen interpretation is an expression of few wise men on quantum physics that was largely formulated from 1925 to 1927 namely by Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg. From this point on, there is a divergence of quantum science into the realms of indeterminacy, complementarity and entanglement which are principles expounded in Yijing, an ancient Chinese knowledge constructed on symbols, with a vintage of at least 3 millennia, with broken and unbroken lines to form stacked 6-line structure called the hexagram. It is premised on probability development of the hexagram in a space-time continuum. The discovery of the quantization of action meant that quantum physics could not convincingly explain the principles of classical physics. This paper will draw the great departure from classical physics into the realm of probabilistic realities. The probabilistic nature and reality interpretation had a significant influence on Bohr's line of thought. Apparently, Bohr realized that speaking of disturbance seemed to indicate that atomic objects were classical particles with definite inherent kinematic and dynamic properties (Hanson, 1959). Disturbances, energy excitation and entanglements are processual evolutionary phases in Yijing. This paper will explore the similarities in quantum physics and the methodological ways where Yijing is pivoted to interpret observable realities involving interactions which are uncontrollable and probabilistic and forms an inseparable unity due to the entanglement, superposition Transgressing disciplinary boundaries in the discussion of Yijing, originally from the Western Zhou period (1000-750 BC), over a period of warring states and the early imperial period (500-200 BC) which was compiled, transcribed and transformed into a cosmological texts with philosophical commentaries known as the "Ten Wings" and closely associated with Confucius (551-479 BC) with the Copenhagen Interpretation (1925-1927) by the few wise men including Niel Bohr and Werner Heisensberg would seem like a subversive undertaking. Subversive as the interpretations from Yijing is based on wisdom derived from thousands of years from ancient China to recently discovered quantum concepts. The subversive undertaking does seem to violate the sanctuaries of accepted ways in looking at Yijing principles, classical physics and quantum science because of the fortified boundaries that have been erected between Yijing and the sciences. Subversive as this paper may be, it is an attempt to re-cast an ancient framework where indeterminism, complementarity, non-linearity entanglement, superposition and probability interpretation is seen in today quantum's realities.

In 1956, Hugh Everett, then a PhD student at Princeton, proposed his ''relative state'' formulation of quantum mechanics. John Wheeler, who was Everett's advisor, recognized the originality and importance of such a proposal, but he denied that its non-conventional approach to measurement questioned the orthodox view. Indeed, Wheeler made serious efforts to obtain the blessing of Niels Bohr for Everett's ideas. These efforts gave rise to a lively debate with the Copenhagen group, the existence and content of which have been only recently disclosed by the discovery of unpublished documents. The analysis of such documents opens a window on the conceptual background of Everett's proposal, and illuminates at the same time some crucial aspects of the Copenhagen view of the measurement problem. Also, it provides an original insight into the interplay between philosophical and social factors which underlay the postwar controversies on the interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Sense Perception and Reality examines the remarkable similarities between philosophical idealism and the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum physics. The book looks at perceptual relativity involving animal senses, neurology and cognitive psychology. It concludes the universe is observer dependent and varies with the sensory apparatus used to observe it. The Copenhagen Interpretation is examined and perceptual relativity would appear to apply in the quantum world. The Copenhagen Interpretation suggests the universe is observer dependent, the same conclusion as is found in philosophical idealism in the macro world. The book concludes by examining the consequences of an observer dependent universe and by showing such a universe is quite consistent with a modern objective science.

As no non paradoxical ontological interpretation for Quantum Mechanics has been found up to now, I argue that (despite some criticisms by J.C. Cramer) the Copenhagen School successfully avoids the paradoxes by the positivist strategy of accepting only an empirical interpretation and rejecting any ontological interpretation of the theory. In this way, however, it cannot explain the various regularities exhibited by the empirical data, nor draw from the formalism any knowledge concerning the deep structure of physical reality. Alla scuola di Copenaghen non si devono solo alcune delle idee chiave nello sviluppo della meccanica quantistica, ma anche l'interpretazione di quella teoria a tutt'oggi più seguita e considerata "ortodossa". Svolgiamo allora alcune considerazioni di carattere epistemologico e metodologico anzitutto sulle interpretazioni delle teorie in generale, e poi sull'interpretazione di Copenaghen in particolare 1. L'interpretazione di una teoria fisico-matematica può declinarsi in due modi, svolgendo due diverse funzioni: anzitutto, essa può avere la funzione di connettere il formalismo matematico della teoria ai dati osservativi (ossia fornire il "significato * Nella stesura di questo contributo mi sono avvalso di utilissimi consigli e osservazioni da parte di Alessandro Afriat e Enzo Fano, che ringrazio sinceramente.

Although the description just given is meant to apply to a whole series of thinkers in the West, it fits the position of our opening thinker, Plato, with alarming accuracy. Plato inherited a rich tradition of natural philosophy developed during the pre-Socratic period. Numerous philosophers had developed divergent accounts of what could be the arché or ultimate principle,

A brief explanation of the development of the continuous concept of matter, as represented by the general theory of relativity and the unified field theory, is offered, as opposed to the discrete theory of matter represented by quantum mechanics which has been normally interpreted by the Copenhagen School. Throughout the modern development of these two concepts - the discrete and continuous aspects of nature - the thread of wave/particle duality is intimately woven. Yet they do not seem to be compatible. Wave/particle duality is a unifying concept while the debate over the discrete and continuous natures of matter is anything but unifying. In spite of the overwhelming presence of the discrete-continuity debate in physics, wave/particle duality remains important because the concept is an honest attempt to bring these two opposing views together as one universal concept. It seems strange that the physics community can allow this vast discrepancy in basic notions of nature to exist and persist, but it does so in spite of all attempts to describe nature within the context of either one or the other of these seemingly incompatible concepts. This paper was written well before the Standard Particle Model became the dominant theory of the quantum. Yet, paradoxically, parts of this argument have become ever more relevant because of the dominance of the Standard Model, which is supposedly a unifying theory, but seems to stress the differences between discrete and continuous rather than attempt to either unify them or demonstrate their physical compatibility in any manner.

“Bohr’s Complementarity Principle is wrong because electrons have the properties of particles and sometimes the properties of waves together.”
Adrian Ferent

“The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is wrong because Bohr’s Complementarity Principle is wrong.”
Adrian Ferent

“The wave-particle duality explained: the electron contains a photon, this means in some experiments the electron behaves as a wave.”
Adrian Ferent

“For Einstein wave-particle duality was a new kind of difficulty, but was not a difficulty and was explained with Ferent Quantum Gravity.”
Adrian Ferent

“I am the first who explained the wave-particle duality for the electron: the electron is a photon around Dark Matter.”
Adrian Ferent

“I discovered what the electron is and I explained the wave-particle duality with Ferent Quantum Gravity.”
Adrian Ferent

“All the physicists, the greatest scientists, the Nobel Laureates…did Not explain the wave-particle duality.”
Adrian Ferent

Most recent writing linking science and literature has concerned itself with challenges to the epistemological status of scientific knowledge in an attempt to demonstrate its contingency, arguing in the more radical efforts that the structures of science are no more than useful fictions. This essay also includes an epistemological comparison between science and literature, but instead of making grand or meta-statements about the nature of knowing generally in the two fields, mine is a much narrower aim. My exploration entails two tasks. First, I provide a close-up look at a particular type of experiment, called the delayed-choice experiment, which clearly reveals the strangeness of the quantum world. In connection with this experiment, I discuss wave functions-mathematical expressions used by physicists to describe quantum behavior and predict the outcome of experiments involving quanta. Second, I look at Walt Whitman's "Song of Myself " focusing on the meaning of the "self " in the poem. My aim is to treat the object of study in each field as a "text" and to assert and demonstrate a parallel in the strategies of thought and response between physicists ("readers") pondering the meaning and status of a wave function and poem readers pondering the meaning and status of the poem's self. In Whitman's "Song" we find an attempt to understand complex aspects of human experience that are said to transcend ordinary reality, an effort for which I believe there are parallels in the attempts of modern physicists to understand complex, nonintuitive aspects of the subatomic world. While not making the kind of broad claims eschewed above, I do suggest that this focused study has interesting implications since both the wave function and the poem's self force their respective sets of "readers" to confront 25 26 Zygon questions of ultimacy-to consider, that is, epistemological and ontological issues of more than passing interest to students of science as well as those of metaphysics and theology.

This is the version of The Unification of Physics as published in the International Journal of Recent Advances in Physics.

The Unification of Physics
The objective is to find a unified description of physical properties which applies at the small (atomic) scale and at the large (cosmological) scale. The starting point is the General Theory of Relativity. Light is described as a wave disturbance of spacetime propagating through space.

The light interference experiment is discussed in detail considering light as a real physical wave passing through the apparatus and interacting with the detector so that probabilistic effects take place at the point of detection.

The nature of mass and the nature of charge are explained. The concepts of force and field are shown to be dependent attributes and all properties are shown to be derived from spacetime.

The nature of protons, neutrons and electrons as looped waves in spacetime is analysed with the implications for experimental observations.

The unification of the four fundamental forces is achieved by recognising that the property "force" is not fundamental. The forces (gravitational, electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear) arise as a result of differences in energy between possible positions of objects in spacetime. The forces arise in each case due to the context in which they occur.

The Theory of Everything (TOE) or master theory question is resolved by showing that the core theory equations are the Einstein equations of GR with a cosmological constant of zero.

Note: This paper as published will not be changed but the original paper on Academia will be updated with corrections. For example: Appendix 5, last paragraph the sentence should be:  "This creates the bond to form the hydrogen molecule."

Neste artigo, abordamos o problema do “silêncio epistemológico” de Gaston Bachelard (1884-1962) após 1953. Bachelard era um escritor prolífico: entre 1927 e 1953, concluiu 13 livros sobre epistemologia – cerca de um livro a cada 14 meses. Todavia, em certo momento deixou de publicar obras sobre o tema, embora tivesse continuado a escrever sobre a imaginação poética. Michel Vadée e Olival Freire notam o problema e indicam caminhos possíveis, mas deixam sua solução em aberto. Mais especificamente, Freire sugere que a questão pode estar relacionada a uma importante tomada de posição de Louis de Broglie, que, em 1952, rompe com a interpretação de Copenhagen (adotada por Bachelard), propondo uma teoria que admite uma solução não probabilista para a teoria quântica. Essa reviravolta por parte do mais importante físico francês pode ter abalado o espírito de Bachelard. Acreditamos ter encontrado, em um artigo de Bachelard publicado em 1957, elementos que permitem resolver a questão.



In this paper, we address the problem of Gaston Bachelard’s (1884-1962) “epistemological silence” after 1953. Bachelard was a prolific writer: between 1927 and 1953, he completed 13 books on epistemology ‒ about one book every 14 months. However, at one point he stopped publishing works on the subject, although he continued to write about the poetic imagination. Michel Vadée and Olival Freire note the problem and point out possible paths, but leave their solution open. More specifically, Freire suggests that the issue may be related to an important position taken by Louis de Broglie, who, in 1952, breaks with the Copenhagen interpretation (adopted by Bachelard), proposing a theory that admits a non-probabilistic solution for Quantum theory. This turnaround by the most important French physicist may have shaken Bachelard's spirit. We believe we have found, in an article by Bachelard published in 1957, elements that allow us to resolve the issue.

In 2018, the science writer Philip Ball had a book published called *Beyond Weird: Why Everything You Thought You Knew About Quantum Physics is Different*. In that book he downplays the “weirdness” of quantum mechanics and stresses new approaches to its interpretation. This piece focuses on some of the same issues.

More specifically, this piece concentrates on what Christopher Fuchs calls “the grimacing and posturing” that quantum mechanics often brings about. In that sense, it inevitably focuses on the Copenhagen interpretation; which Ball somewhat favours. It also deals with the Schrödinger's cat thought-experiment; the specifics of wavefunctions; and “informational theory” as it's applied to quantum mechanics. All this is embedded within a discussion of philosophical anti-realism, which (to me) is a useful and even ideal position to adopt within the context of quantum mechanics. (Seeing the Copenhagen interpretation in anti-realist terms is, of course, hardly original.)

Einstein's moon is also a good way of putting the ostensible problem with philosophical anti-realism. However, no anti-realist has ever argued (as far as I know) that the moon ceases to exist when we stop looking at it. My position is that the anti-realist stance on “the world” (or “nature”) is similar to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. However, whereas Niels Bohr and others might have mentioned measurements, experiments and whatnot; anti-realists have talked of verification, observation, the “public nature of meaning”, etc. Indeed these differences in jargon may not count for much; at least within this limited context.

One thing that's worth saying is that perhaps Ball should brush up on his contemporary philosophy. Most/all anti-realists don't “deny any reality beyond what we can measure”. They say (to put it simply) that this “mind-independent” reality *serves hardly any purpose*. And anti-realists also believe this for similar reasons to that given by Niels Bohr. So perhaps, like so many others, Ball is guilty of fusing anti-realism with idealism - or even with postmodern quackery!

On a different point. If we can you go with the maths rather than the logic (as it were), then we'll inevitably have some strange scenarios to deal with. Ball cites the physicist Brian Greene's position on Schrodinger's cat again. Greene is quoted as saying: “Your cat is dead, but your cat remains alive.” What's more, Greene adds: “That is you too!”. Yes, “[t]hey are both you”! Ball delves even more into logic when he says that “individual identity is a logical construct”. He then says that “[y]ou can’t wish it away with fantasies about 'other yous'”.

So Philip Ball has a problem with what he calls “the tired old cliches and metaphors” found in talk of quantum mechanics. So let's offer an extreme scenario which also ends with a question:

i) If the mathematics of quantum mechanics fully accounts for what it is physicists are describing,
ii) and we take away the maths,
iii) then what do we have left?

This, then, may be the only route possible for Ball. However, it leaves the layperson - and even many physicists - will very little to say about quantum mechanics... beyond the mathematics.

This paper investigates the nature of reality. It will do so by looking at the philosophical debate between realism and idealism and at scientific investigations in quantum physics. The concept of perceptual relativity will be examined and this will involve looking at sense perception in other animals, and at neurology and cognitive psychology, and at various examples of perceptual relativity in science. It will be concluded that the universe is observer dependent and that there is no reality independent of the observer, which is knowable to the observer. The paper concludes by an investigation of what an observer dependent universe would be like and that recognition of an observer dependent world would lead to a much more open minded and tolerant world.

Werner Heisenberg introduced the notion of quantum potentia in order to accommodate the indeterminism associated with quantum measurement. Potentia captures the capacity of the system to be found to possess a property upon a corresponding sharp measurement in which it is actualized. The specific potentiae of the individual system are represented formally by the complex amplitudes in the measurement bases of the eigenstate in which it is prepared. All predictions for future values of system properties can be made by an experimenter using the probabilities which are the squared moduli of these amplitudes that are the diagonal elements of the density matrix description of the pure ensemble to which the system, so prepared, belongs. Heisenberg considered the change of the ensemble attribution following quantum measurement to be analogous to the classical change in Gibbs' thermodynamics when measurement of the canonical ensemble enables a microcanonical ensemble description. This analogy, presented by Heisenberg as operating at the epistemic level, is analyzed here. It has led some to claim not only that the change of the state in measurement is classical mechanical, bringing its quantum character into question, but also that Heisenberg held this to be the case. Here, these claims are shown to be incorrect, because the analogy concerns the change of ensemble attribution by the experimenter upon learning the result of the measurement, not the actualization of the potentia responsible for the change of the individual system state which-in Heisenberg's interpretation of quantum mechanics-is objective in nature and independent of the experimenter's knowledge.

A new 'wave-particle non-dualistic interpretation at a single-quantum level' is presented by showing the physical nature of Schrödinger's wavefunction as an 'instantaneous resonant spatial mode' to which a particle's motion is confined. The initial phase associated with a state vector is identified as related to a particular eigenstate of an observable and hence, the Born rule is derived as a limiting case of the relative frequency of detection along with an augmentation of a geometrical interpretation. This derivation automatically resolves the measurement problem. The Copenhagen interpretation is shown to be the statistical average of the non-dualistic interpretation. The position eigenvalues of a moving particle's eigenstate lie on a classical path of least action-resulting in the equality of quantum mechanical and classical times. This equality reveals the emergence of classical world from the underlying quantum world. "What's really happening?" in Young's double-slit experiment is explained at a single-quantum level. An interference experiment is proposed to verify the instantaneous nature of the wavefunction.

To tackle first things first. The title of this piece may be a little misleading. It's not about the obscurantism and ideology of Slavoj Žižek's philosophy of science. It's about Žižek's position *on* the obscurantism and ideology he himself has found in modern science. Having said that, the words “philosophy of science” are used slightly ironically simply because I doubt that Žižek would be that keen on having his ideas classed under that title.

Žižek places his cards firmly on the table when it comes to the people he calls “obscurantists”. (Obscurantism is something Žižek has himself often been accused of.) He writes:

“To avoid any misunderstanding: as an old-fashioned dialectical materialist, I am opposed as ferociously as possible to these obscurantist appropriations of quantum physics and astronomy.”

Žižek is then even more explicit when he warns us about the

“New Age obscurantists appropriations of today's 'hard' sciences which, in order to legitimize their position, invoke the authority of science itself”.

So although Žižek is both a Continental philosopher (well, he's Slovenian) and a Marxist, some might have assumed that he would have some sympathy for obscurantism or the “anti-science movement”. However, Žižek would say that it's *precisely because* he's a Marxist that he hasn't got any sympathy at all for these things. In any case, Žižek certainly has a problem with postmodernism and deconstruction (or post-structuralism) and their quietism and conformity vis-à-vis the “capitalist status quo”.

As for Žižek's actual positions on quantum mechanics: they are almost entirely orthodox. It's certainly the case that Žižek's “obscurantists” fixate on the paradoxes of quantum mechanics. It can even be argued that these ostensible paradoxes are, for them, *the whole point*.

Slavoj Žižek also makes the interesting point that it wasn't just Cultural Studies (to use his own example), postmodernism or deconstruction which “brought into question” the nature of “reality” (in scare quotes). That is, modern physics was guilty of “shattering of the traditional naive-realist epistemological edifice”. More relevantly, it was the “sciences themselves”, according to Žižek, which opened up a gap in which obscurantist shoots were able to grow.

Having made these historical and philosophical points, Žižek then makes his political point – which he no doubt sees as being more important. That point being that instead of “pouring our scorn on to poor old Cultural Studies”, we should acknowledge the source of those ideas. But that would be extremely problematic because it is these obscurantists themselves who are very happy to trace their ideas back to the Copenhagenists of the 1920s and after.

One may think that it's surprising (again) that Žižek, as a Marxist, does appear to acknowledge a difference between science and ideology. As before, Žižek will probably argue that (good/proper) Marxists have always made such a distinction. For example, in one place Žižek tells us that “one should note” the “salient distinction between science and ideology”. In any case, Žižek delves deeper into these ideologisations of science when he mentions New Age science and philosophy. It doesn't help, either, when elsewhere Žižek seems to argue that science *must be* political. (Surely Marxists have always believed that.) Whatever then case is, Marxists like Žižek believe that scientists should be aware of the political import and consequences of their science.

The historical development of Quantum Mechanics is analysed and an alternative theory is proposed for the photo-electric effect. Einstein's photons are found to be unnecessary which brings into question the concept of Wave-Particle duality. An explanation of why particles behave as waves is given which uncovers the true 'wave function' and the reality of what happens during 'wave function collapse. These ideas lead in turn to an explanation of the phenomenon of Entanglement.

In the Bayesian approach to quantum mechanics, probabilities--and thus quantum states--represent an agent's degrees of belief, rather than corresponding to objective properties of physical systems. In this paper we investigate the concept of certainty in quantum mechanics. Particularly, we show how the probability-1 predictions derived from pure quantum states highlight a fundamental difference between our Bayesian approach, on the one

Quantum physicists have made many attempts to solve the quantum measurement problem, but no solution seems to have received widespread acceptance. The time has come for a new approach. In Sense Perception and Reality: A Theory of Perceptual Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and the Observer Dependent Universe I suggest the quantum measurement problem is caused by a failure to understand that each species has its own sensory world and that when we say the wave function collapses and brings a particle into existence we mean the particle is brought into existence in the human sensory world by the combined operation of the human sensory apparatus, particle detectors and the experimental set up. This is similar to the Copenhagen Interpretation suggested by Niels Bohr and others, but the understanding that the collapse of the wave function brings a particle into existence in the human sensory world removes the need for a dividing line between the quantum world and the macro world. The same rules can apply to both worlds and the ideas stated in this paper considerably strengthen the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics.

) es uno de los padres fundadores de la mecánica cuántica y, junto a Niels Bohr, principal responsable de la «Interpretación de Copenhague». Su contribución inicial a la teoría se encuentra en la formulación matricial que desarrolla en un artículo pionero en 1925 (Heisenberg, 1925: 879-893), equivalente a la posterior formulación de Schrödinger mediante la ecuación de ondas. Pero, sobre todo, Heisenberg resulta universalmente conocido por su principio de indeterminación de 1927: «es imposible conocer exacta y simultáneamente la posición y la velocidad de una partícula», una de las consecuencias más novedosas de la nueva teoría. De forma más general, el principio afirma la imposibilidad de conocer exacta y simultáneamente el valor de cualesquiera dos magnitudes físicas conjugadas; en particular, la posición y velocidad de una partícula. El principio surge de manera natural del formalismo cuántico, en el que las magnitudes medibles no son números en el sentido habitual sino, de manera más general, operadores (representables como matrices), que no cumplen necesariamente la propiedad conmutativa y, por consiguiente, pueden ofrecen resultados [149] Citar como: Sánchez-Cañizares, J. (2020). Werner Heisenberg: entre incertidumbre e indeterminacion. En J. Arana (dir.), La cosmovisión de los grandes científicos del siglo XX. Convicciones éticas, políticas, filosóficas o religiosas de los protagonistas de las revoluciones científicas contemporáneas (pp. 149-159). Madrid: Tecnos.

The experimental results of quantum physics were manipulated by empiricists to forward some philosophical notions, which are in conflict with common sense and religious convictions. Most seriously, the notion of observer-created reality questions the independent reality of subatomic particles and endows divine qualities on observers who presumably determine their status. Moreover, the seemingly spontaneous electronic transitions were used to shed light as to whether the universe has a stationary configuration. In this article, both notions are analysed in terms of the logical consistency of their arguments and the scientific approach they adopt. The same arguments are also examined in light of the Islamic conceptual framework pertinent to how the universe is like. The article starts by delineating the logical framework of classical physics through discussing three energy-related concepts. A more objective approach that emerges from the positions of rationalists, such as Faraday and Einstein, is proposed. It is argued that despite the peculiarities of quantum physics, drawing parallels between classical and quantum physics is possible, and following the same analytical approach in both is imperative.

For full article please visit
http://tafhim.ikim.gov.my/index.php/tafhim/article/view/116

I am a philosopher and not a scientist.  However, I am curious and have read a number of accessible math-free books on quantum physics.  I’ve been pondering this material for a long time.  What I wish to do is create a forum for me to get a chance to hear from you, who are more learned on this topic but were intrigued enough to take a look.  The paper explores Einstein’s challenge to the claims about the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics.  I feel that he was right.  So I am offering my own thoughts on this topic, as well as Bohr’s Complementarity Principle, Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, the differences between the Newtonian and the quantum scaled events, and questions about determinism.  I don’t think I have any answers but I think I can offer an interesting perspective on these topics.  What I am hoping is to hear what you have to stay about all these fascinating topics.

Werner Heisenberg introduced the notion of quantum potentia in order to accommodate the indeterminism associated with quantum measurement. Potentia captures the capacity of the system to be found to possess a property upon a corresponding sharp measurement in which it is actualized. The specific potentiae of the individual system are represented formally by the complex amplitudes in the measurement bases of the eigenstate in which it is prepared. All predictions for future values of system properties can be made by an experimenter using the probabilities which are the squared moduli of these amplitudes that are the diagonal elements of the density matrix description of the pure ensemble to which the system, so prepared, belongs. Heisenberg considered the change of the ensemble attribution following quantum measurement to be analogous to the classical change in Gibbs' thermodynamics when measurement of the canonical ensemble enables a microcanonical ensemble description. This analogy, presented by Heisenberg as operating at the epistemic level, is analyzed here. It has led some to claim not only that the change of the state in measurement is classical mechanical, bringing its quantum character into question, but also that Heisenberg held this to be the case. Here, these claims are shown to be incorrect, because the analogy concerns the change of ensemble attribution by the experimenter upon learning the result of the measurement, not the actualization of the potentia responsible for the change of the individual system state which—in Heisenberg's interpretation of quantum mechanics—is objective in nature and independent of the experimenter's knowledge.