Quantum Theory and the Phenomenon of Ambiguity and Confusion
Yahya Mohamed
Quantum mechanics is characterized by its terminology witnessing a state of chaos and ambiguity without clear expressions, and as Addington said during the twenties of the last century: "The terminology of quantum theory is currently in a state of chaos so that it is almost impossible to make clear expressions from it." Gil-Mann said: 'When we get to quantum theory, even the most intelligent people start talking nonsense.' Sometimes it is expressed that no one understands quantum; Is the reality of the world material or wave or both? as was said by Richard Feynman, one of the most significant workers in quantum mechanics, who wrote (1965) saying: 'There was a time when newspapers wrote that there were only twelve men who understood the theory of relativity. I do not think that this is true, for perhaps there was a time when only one man understood it because he was the one who caught it before he wrote his research. But after people saw the research, many of them understood it in one way or another, and certainly, their number was more than a dozen. On the other hand, I think I can say with confidence that no one understands quantum mechanics.'
The ambiguity, confusion, and the multiplication of many mental intuitions or postulates of common sense all made several eminent physicists resent the results shown by the owners of quantum theory. Among the objectors was what Einstein wrote in response to this confusing theory as formulated by the trio of Niels Bohr, Kramer, and Slater (BKS) during the 1920s. He wrote to his friend Max Born, one of the quantum leaders, saying: 'I prefer to be a cobbler, but a worker in Gambling club to be a physicist.' Even Max Born himself answered in an interview several years later about explaining the BCS theory, saying: 'It is something I have never properly understood in my whole life.' Just as Einstein threatened to leave his work as a physicist, we find Wolfgang Pauli, although he is one of the prominent leaders of quantum, has also threatened to leave his work due to the result that led to the quantum theory of ambiguity and confusion, so he wrote (1925) about what he saw of the danger in physics and the feelings of sorrow that he felt, so he said:" 'Physics is now very muddled again, and anyway it's hard for me, and I would have liked to be a comedian or something like that without ever hearing anything about physics.'" Less than five months later, however, Pauli was optimistic, stating: "The kind of mechanics that Heisenberg provides has given me again hope and joy in life.' It certainly doesn't give us a full answer to the puzzle, but I think it can keep moving forward again.'
Even Heisenberg was asking himself once after he finished one of his usual discussions with his teacher Bohr, and he was repeating thinking and asking himself: Is it possible for nature to be as ridiculous as it seemed to us in those atomic experiments?
However, the fundamental quantum rules were settled at the end of the twenties of the last century, and with it, the approved mathematical equations appeared, but without a final understanding. Therefore, there is no inevitable interpretation and hermeneutics. They are the communication bridge from mathematics to the imagination.
The difference between the emergence and developments of the quantum theory of relativity is that the first was the responsibility of only one man, Einstein, and therefore was subject to its interpretation without the participation of anyone, while many men participated in the other, and among them was Einstein as in the beginning The matter was before he withdrew from it, so it was the subject of many interpretations as far as the contributions of men. Some have portrayed these interpretations as thousands of theories, making the situation ambiguous as what quantum scientists refer to. What quantum men talk about in the microscopic world takes on many interpretations similar to the interpretations presented to texts. As Edward Witten mentioned, the approved quantum meter contains an infinite number of possible theories, and theoretical physicists have seriously examined thousands of them.
Stephen Weinberg stated that the relationship between the use of quantum mechanics and its philosophical interpretation is weak. The easier it is to use, the more complex and incomprehensible the interpretation. Thus, the difficulty of interpretation in quantum is due to mathematical dependence and even experimental indicators. Therefore, it is characterized by imagery and ambiguity as a tyrannical trait.
In other words, every reader of this theory finds forms of confused expressions in determining what you want to say of interpretation, although the applications of this theory are very successful, which is why it is powerful. Meaning it is correct because it is successful and not the other way around. Heisenberg used to say: Our words do not help us. Indeed, the words of its owners, headed by the Copenhagen School, show that there is a leap and a development in understanding and interpretation from one case to another. Anyone who submits under the influence of this theory will find himself in front of many interpretations related to the particle world. The leader of this school, Niels Bohr, fell into such a confusing quagmire, which made Einstein portray the theory as an incomplete story that needs complete interpretation. At first sight, it appears to the reader that there are many interpretations about the nature of a thing or a particle, even in a single character sometimes. The hermeneutic theses maybe four, and if it is possible to respond to some of them to others, as will become apparent as follows:
1- The thing is not originally specified in a place according to its probabilistic nature, which means the existence of an objective world other than the world of reality and existence, which can be called the world of possibility. And as Heisenberg decided that without observing something, it does not exist, meaning that it cannot be said, for example, that the light has passed either through this or that hole according to the traditional possibility, considering this description incorrect.
2- The thing exists here and there, which is different from the mental intuition that says that a thing is either here or there, and a thing can't be characterized by two different places simultaneously. Although the thing is one, it is multi-position.
3- Something has an anti-plurality. In the sense that the matter is not just a multiplicity in the place, but there is an opposition in the same thing, here the thing appears in a form, and there is another in the opposite way, which is known as the existence of copies and opposite counterparts of the thing.
4- Something has multiple copies without limits, which was applied to the universe, so taking the physical talk about the particle turns to talk about copies of the universe that are infinitely counting and arithmetic.
These four theses, as stated by Niels Bohr on several occasions, show that there is a kind of development and jump, from one interpretation to another, so that the reader thinks that these interpretations are four stages of something different, although some of them complement the others. If we start with the first stage, it appears to us that there is a world of possibility or possibility in which a thing is capable of taking a position here or there without defining certainty or probability in the familiar sense of this word, as it can never be determined except upon unveiling. Still, when not revealing, it is entirely undetermined. As belonging to the realm of possibility or the elevated third, it is neither present nor non-existent at the same time.
But this stage of interpretation may show development to the second stage, which is the transformation of possibility into existence, so instead of talking about that a thing is neither existing nor non-existent according to the third raised, it is therefore not subject to the familiar possibilities expressed that the thing is either here or there. Instead, we started talking about the thing being here and there, which is the proper form of the Schrödinger wave. It is a stage of development in interpretation from absolute or objective possibility to existence.
Then this stage of interpretation began to develop more, instead of saying that something exists here and there, the situation is developing into saying that something has a counter-copy according to the number of possibilities, so there is a copy here, and a counter-copy there, which is what prompted the saying of the last thesis, which is the possibility of the existence of copies without end and no limits.
So these four interpretative stages of the particle are determined according to the following relationship:
Possibility, presence, antonym poly, and then infinite multiplicity or as follows:
Possibility → Existence → Duality Antonym → Infinite Multiplicity.
Quantum leaders and their followers profess these theses despite the confusion, ambiguity, and interference. They have found opponents who assert this case that the theory is incomprehensible, confusing, and full of interpretations. Among them, Einstein saw a lack of clarity in this theory. He thought that something was missing in it that needed clarification or more words to complete the story, so he asked with his assistants Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) a question published by one of the famous scientific journals (1935). ) as follows:
"Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?"
The research included four pages in which the issue was discussed in detail. The version of the research published in English was written by his assistant Podolsky, but "Einstein was angry because Podolsky had buried the clear conceptual issue under a lot of mathematical formalism."
Translated by Zaid Kanady
The reference
https://www.philosophyofsci.com/index.php?id=41