This is an attempt to write a non mathematical description of a proposed new
interpretational model to a lay audience based on a request. This is quite
long but not longer than necessary. I post it here because it might be of
some interest.
What follows is an attempt to explain the Time Symmetric Quantum model which
is an interpretive model of Quantum theory derived from many, more or less,
established ideas in Physics together with some new ideas independently
proposed by Dr Bob Klauber and myself. The basic concept (based on not so new
physics) was first proposed by me around 1997 on the University of Washington
Physics discussion list. (“Zero Sum Universe”) Subsequent to this, these basic
ideas were greatly expanded in a paper by Bob Klauber. (Mechanism for
Vanishing Zero Point Energy “)
Of course an obvious question is how serious should one take this model. The
most honest statement I can make is that every effort has been made to run
these ideas by physicists and that Dr Vic Stenger has in fact agreed with the
veracity of this proposal and many of the specific mathematical formalism
developed by Klauber and myself. In addition much of this is based on proposals
and theories of Richard Feynman, John Wheeler and the newer proposals of Dr
Huw Price, Dr Vic Stenger, Dr Sukanya Sinha , Dr Stephan Hawking , Dr James
Hartle and Dr Rafael Sorkin. Of course this doesn’t mean that the living
contributors endorse the views expressed here though Dr Vic Stenger has agreed with
some of the new formalism proposed here in many private communications.
Before I describe this model a little background information is needed. This
is the most difficult part of this presentation since a comprehensive
understanding of this model requires significant familiarity with the established
and not so established Quantum theory of the 20th and 21st century. This
seems like an impossible challenge to meet in brief essay of this type.
Nevertheless I will attempt to do this, fully realizing that a full book length
exposition would be more effective. For this reasons anyone whose interest is
sparked by this essay might want to ask questions on points not made clear enough.
Of course all questions are welcome.
At the close of the 19th century many physicists expressed the view that
physics had pretty much solved all the problems of physical reality. Of course
there was the problem of the ether seemingly required by Maxwell’s equation
and this strange effect called radioactivity but onece these “little “ issues
were dealt with Physics would be complete. Of course anyone who is not a
complete scientific illiterate knows just how wrong this opinion was. In a short
time Physics underwent a paradigm shift thanks to the brilliant work of
Einstein, Bohr, Schrodinger, Hiesenberg to just name a few of the contributors of
20th century physics.
This scientific revolution took two contradictory directions and these
contradictions remain with us today, unsolved. (It is my suspicion that some of
the ideas developed in the Time Symmetric Quantum Model (TSQM) , may possible
contribute to a solution to this problem. But this is outside the scope of
this essay.)
It should be clearly understood that was follows in an Interpretive Model of
QT. As far as possible, new physics was avoided in developing this model.
However, some old discarded physics has been rehabilitated, hopefully with a
well justified rational.
Everyone who has survived the modern day education process knows that
everything in the Universe is made of atoms. Slightly better informed individuals
know that atoms are made of neutrons, protons and electrons and even more
informed people know the protons and neutrons are made of very special particles
called quarks.
After many years of hard work Physicists have been able to develop a simple
and elegant classification system for the fundamental particles that make up
everything you and I are can see including each other. All subatomic
particles fall into one of two major classifications. Fermions (particles making up
all visible matter) and bosons (particles which are responsible for all the
forces of nature) Fermions are further divided up into quarks and leptons.
Quark make up protons and neutrons and the lepton are the classification that
the electron and neutrino fall into. Strangely fermion comes in three
generations. This is the so called family problem in physics. Everything we see around
us is made of just the first family and Physicists aren’t sure why nature
chose to make matter particles in triplicate.
(Several Years ago I collaborated with Dr Gerald Fitzpatrick on three papers
now published which propose an answer to the “family problem”. These papers
also make specific predictions concerning the phenomena of neutrino flavor
oscillations which to date have been upheld. But this is not related to TSQM.)
So the basic particles of nature are
Fermion ( Matter particles)
Quarks
First family
Up and down
Second Family
Charm and Strange
Third Family
Top and Bottom (or Truth and Beauty if you prefer.)
Leptons
First Family
Electron and Electron Neutrino
Second Family
Muon and Muon Neutrino
Third Family
Tau and Tau Neutrino
Bosons (force particles)
Strong force (Force that holds nucleus together)
Gluons
Weak Force (Force that is responsible radioactive beta decay)
W+ W- and Z bosons
Electromagnetic force (Force responsible electrical and magnetic forces)
Photon (light, x rays, gamma rays, radio waves etc.)
In Quantum field theory the forces on particles can be described by modeling
them as the exchange of bosons by fermions. (Strictly speaking this model is
symmetric and bosons can exchange fermions and bosons can exchange other
bosons but this detail is not important for this essay) So for example two
electrons repulsing each other can be described by the exchange of photons between
each other. More specifically by the exchange of “virtual” photons. This
model of quantum forces plays a vital role in this TSQM interpretation.
Real and Virtual particles.
In Quantum field theory we may further divide fundamental particles into two
basic states, virtual and real. Virtual particles are non observable
particles which can only exist due to the quantum uncertainty inherent in Quantum
theory. Real particles are the particles that make up our observable Universe.
This would seem to ascribe a very different ontology to real and virtual
particles and in fact most physics view virtual particles as mathematical
artifacts of the Quantum field theory Mathematical formalism. However, the TSQM
interpretation will make a startling claim about what constitutes a real or
virtual state and insist on equal ontological status for these two basic particle
states. This is without doubt the most controversial aspect of the TSQM
interpretation. This is one of the new insights I have brought to this model based
on the incorporation of Quantum measurement theory, specifically Decoherence
theory. For this contribution I am greatly indebted to Dr Roland Omnes, one
of the major architects of the Consistent History Decoherence theory, who
kindly answered many questions in private correspondence.
This finally brings us to the question: Why do we need an interpretive model
of Quantum Mechanics? The answer to this question is far simpler than is
usually considered. All manner of nonsense has been written about QT because the
simplicity of this question is not recognized. QT seems very strange to us
because it describes reality well outside our everyday experience. This
everyday experience is directly connected with our “common sense understanding” of
reality. But we now know this everyday experience is the result of a coarse
grained view of reality, which is fundamentally a Quantum reality. So we
should not be surprised that Quantum theory challenges our understanding of the
Universe in fundamental ways. Perhaps we should be surprised that by the
process of interpretation, we can effectively describe quantum reality with a
minimal disturbance of our common sense world view. In any case this is our goal.