The δ-Quantum Machine, the k-Model, and the Non-ordinary Spatiality of Quantum Entities
- First Online:
- 107 Downloads
The purpose of this article is threefold. Firstly, it aims to present, in an educational and non-technical fashion, the main ideas at the basis of Aerts’ creation-discovery view and hidden measurement approach: a fundamental explanatory framework whose importance, in this author’s view, has been seriously underappreciated by the physics community, despite its success in clarifying many conceptual challenges of quantum physics. Secondly, it aims to introduce a new quantum machine—that we call the δ quantum machine—which is able to reproduce the transmission and reflection probabilities of a one-dimensional quantum scattering process by a Dirac delta-function potential. The machine is used not only to demonstrate the pertinence of the above mentioned explanatory framework, in the general description of physical systems, but also to illustrate (in the spirit of Aerts’ ∊-model) the origin of classical and quantum structures, by revealing the existence of processes which are neither classical nor quantum, but irreducibly intermediate. We do this by explicitly introducing what we call the k-model and by proving that its processes cannot be modelized by a classical or quantum scattering system. The third purpose of this work is to exploit the powerful metaphor provided by our quantum machine, to investigate the intimate relation between the concept of potentiality and the notion of non-spatiality, that we characterize in precise terms, introducing for this the new concept of process-actuality.
KeywordsQuantum structures Creation-discovery view Hidden measurement approach One-dimensional scattering Delta-function potential Potentiality Non-spatiality
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Accardi L. (1982) On the statistical meaning of the complex numbers in quantum mechanics. Nuovo Cimento 34: 161Google Scholar
- Aerts D. (1984) The missing element of reality in the description of quantum mechanics of the EPR paradox situation. Helvetica physica Acta 57: 421–428Google Scholar
- Aerts D. (1998) The entity and modern physics: The creation-discovery view of reality. In: Castellani E. (Ed.). Interpreting bodies: Classical and quantum objects in modern physics. Princeton Unversity Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
- Aerts D. (1999a) The stuff the world is made of: Physics and reality, p. 129. In: Aerts D., Broekaert J., Mathijs E. (eds) The white book of ‘Einstein meets magritte’. Kluwer, Dordrecht, p 274Google Scholar
- Aerts D. (1999b) Quantum mechanics: Structures, axioms and paradoxes, p. 141. In: Aerts D., Broekaert J., Mathijs E. (eds) The indigo book of ‘Einstein meets magritte’. Kluwer, Dordrecht, p 239Google Scholar
- Aerts D. (2000) The description of joint quantum entities and the formulation of a paradox. International Journal of Theoretical Physics 39: 485–496Google Scholar
- Aerts, D., & Sozzo, S. (2011a). Contextual risk and its relevance in economics. Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Review. arXiv:1105.1812 [physics.soc-ph].Google Scholar
- Aerts, D., & Sozzo, S. (2011b). A contextual risk model for the Ellsberg paradox. Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Review. arXiv:1105.1814v1 [physics.soc-ph].Google Scholar
- Aerts D., Durt T. (1994) Quantum, classical and intermediate, an illustrative example. Foundations of Science 24: 1353Google Scholar
- Aerts D. et al (1987) The origin of the non-classical character of the quantum probability model. In: Blanquiere A. (Ed.), Information, complexity, and control in quantum physics. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Aerts, D., et al. (1990). An attempt to imagine parts of the reality of the micro-world. In J. Mizerski (Ed.), Problems in quantum physics II; Gdansk ’89 (pp. 3–25). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Company.Google Scholar
- Amrein W. O. (1981) Non-relativistic quantum dynamics. Riedel, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
- Emch G. G. (1984) Mathematical and conceptual foundations of twentieth century physics. North-Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
- Feynman R. P. (1992) The character of physical law. Penguin Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Gudder S. P. (1988) Quantum probability. Academic Press, Inc. Harcourt Brave Jovanovich, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Jauch J. M. (1968) Foundations of quantum mechanics. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MassGoogle Scholar
- Piron C. (1976) Foundations of quantum physics. W. A. Benjamin, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
- Piron C. (1978) La Description d’un Système Physique et le Présupposé de la Théorie Classique. Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie 3: 131–152Google Scholar
- Piron, C. (1990). Mécanique quantique: Bases et applications. Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes, Lausanne, Switzerland.Google Scholar
- Pitovski I. (1989) Quantum probability—quantum logic. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
- Randall, C., & Foulis, D. (1983). A mathematical language for quantum physics, in Les Fondements de la Mecanique Quantique, ed. C. Gruber et al, A.V.C.P., case postale 101, 1015 Lausanne, Suisse.Google Scholar
- Rauch H. (1988) Neutron interferometric tests of quantum mechanics. Helvetica Physica Acta 61: 589Google Scholar
- Sassoli de Bianchi, M. (2011a). From permanence to total availability: A quantum conceptual upgrade. Foundations of Science. doi:10.1007/s10699-011-9233-z.
- Sassoli de Bianchi, M. (2011b). Time-delay of classical and quantum scattering processes: A conceptual overview and a general definition. Central European Journal of Physics. doi:10.2478/s11534-011-0105-5.
- Sassoli de Bianchi, M. (2011c). Ephemeral properties and the illusion of microscopic particles. Foundations of Science, 16(4), 393–409. doi:10.1007/s10699-011-9227-x. An Italian translation of the article is also available: Proprietá effimere e l’illusione delle particelle microscopiche. AutoRicerca, Volume 2, pp. 39–76 (2011).
- Smets S. (2005) The modes of physical properties in the logical foundations of physics Logic and Logical Philosophy 14:37–53Google Scholar