The indeterminist objectivity of quantum mechanics versus the determinist subjectivity of classical physics

Indeterminism of quantum mechanics is considered as an immediate corollary from the theorems about absence of hidden variables in it, and first of all, the Kochen – Specker theorem. The base postulate of quantum mechanics formulated by Niels Bohr that it studies the system of an investigated microscopic quantum entity and the macroscopic apparatus described by the smooth equations of classical mechanics by the readings of the latter implies as a necessary condition of quantum mechanics the absence of hidden variables, and thus, quantum indeterminism. Consequently, the objectivity of quantum mechanics and even its possibility and ability to study its objects as they are by themselves imply quantum indeterminism. The so-called free-will theorems in quantum mechanics elucidate that the “valuable commodity” of free will is not a privilege of the experimenters and human beings, but it is shared by anything in the physical universe once the experimenter is granted to possess free will. The analogical idea, that e.g. an electron might possess free will to “decide” what to do, scandalized Einstein forced him to exclaim (in a letter to Max Born in 2016) that he would be а shoemaker or croupier rather than a physicist if this was true. Anyway, many experiments confirmed the absence of hidden variables and thus quantum indeterminism in virtue of the objectivity and completeness of quantum mechanics. Once quantum mechanics is complete and thus an objective science, one can ask what this would mean in relation to classical physics and its objectivity. In fact, it divides disjunctively what possesses free will from what does not. Properly, all physical objects belong to the latter area according to it, and their “behavior” is necessary and deterministic. All possible decisions, on the contrary, are concentrated in the experimenters (or human beings at all), i.e. in the former domain not intersecting the latter. One may say that the cost of the determinism and unambiguous laws of classical physics, is the indeterminism and free will of the experimenters and researchers (human beings) therefore necessarily being out of the scope and objectivity of classical physics. This is meant as the “deterministic subjectivity of classical physics” opposed to the “indeterminist objectivity of quantum mechanics”.

Qubit as the natural unit measure of random choice

Einstein wrote his famous sentence "God does not play dice with the universe" in a letter to Max Born in 1920. All experiments have confirmed that quantum mechanics is neither wrong nor “incomplete”. One can says that God does play dice with the universe. Let quantum mechanics be granted as the rules generalizing all results of playing some imaginary God’s dice. If that is the case, one can ask how God’s dice should look like. God’s dice turns out to be a qubit and thus having the shape of a unit ball. Any item in the universe as well the universe itself is both infinitely many rolls and a single roll of that dice for it has infinitely many “sides”. Thus both the smooth motion of classical physics and the discrete motion introduced in addition by quantum mechanics can be described uniformly correspondingly as an infinite series converges to some limit and as a quantum jump directly into that limit. The second, imaginary dimension of God’s dice corresponds to energy, i.e. to the velocity of information change between two probabilities in both series and jump.

Fundamentals of Quantum Mechanics

The laws of quantum mechanics were formulated in the year 1925 through the work of Werner Heisenberg, followed by Max Born, Pascual Jordan, Paul Dirac, and Wolfgang Pauli. A separate but equivalent approach was independently developed by Erwin Schrödinger in early 1926. The laws governing quantum mechanics were highly mathematical and their aim was to explain many unresolved problems within the framework of a formal theory. The conceptual foundation emerged in the subsequent 2–3 years that indicated how radically different the new laws were from classical physics. In this chapter some of these salient features of quantum mechanics are discussed. The topics include the quantization of energy, wave–particle duality, the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, Heisenberg uncertainty relations, Bohr’s principle of complementarity, and quantum superposition and entanglement. This discussion should indicate how different and counterintuitive its fundamentals are from those of classical physics.

The Frenet-Serret description of Born rigidity and its application to the Dirac equation

The role played by non-inertial frames in physics is one of the most interesting subjects that we can study when dealing with a physical theory. It does not matter whether we are studying classical theories such as special relativity or quantum theory, the idea of an accelerated frame is always one of the first ideas to come to our minds. In the case of special relativity, a problem with the concept of rigidity emerged as soon as Max Born gave a reasonable definition of rigid motion: the Herglotz-Noether theorem imposes a strong restriction on the possible rigid motions. In this paper, the equivalence of this theorem with another one that is formulated with the help of Frenet-Serret formalism is proved, showing the connection between the rigid motion and the curvatures of the observer's trajectory in spacetime. In addition, the Dirac equation in the Frenet-Serret frame for an arbitrary observer is obtained and applied to the rotating observers. The solution in the rotating frame is given in terms of that of an inertial one.

Born’s Interpretation of the Wavefunction

Schrödinger hoped that his wave mechanics would help to re-establish some sense of ‘visualizability’ of the physics going on inside the atom. In searching for a suitable interpretation of the wavefunction, he focused on the density of electrical charge, which he associated with the wavefunction ψ‎ multiplied by its complex conjugate. Hidden in his words is the interpretation that would eventually come to dominate our understanding of the wavefunction. Max Born had no hesitation in concluding that the only way to reconcile wave mechanics with the particle description is to interpret the modulus-square of the wavefunction as a probability density. It was Wolfgang Pauli who proposed to interpret this not only as a transition probability or as the probability for the system to be in a specific state, as Born had done, but as the probability of ‘finding’ the electron at a specific position in its orbit inside an atom.