--- abstract: 'The controversies about quantum mechanics, in the old days and present-day, reveal an inconsistency of understanding of this most successful theory of physics. Therefore it is needed to set forth unambiguously what and how quantum mechanics describes in order to cut down the number of the fantasies trying to eliminate the fundamental obscurity in quantum mechanics. In this chapter reader's attention is drawn first of all to a non-universality of quantum-mechanical descriptions of different quantum phenomena. The realistic interpretation of the wave function proposed by Schrodinger is used at the description of most quantum phenomena whereas the controversies touch on the positivistic interpretation proposed by Born. These controversies are result, in the main, of the misinterpretation, proposed by Bohr, of the orthodox quantum mechanics. Most physicists, following Bohr, did not want to admit that Born had assumed in fact a mutual causal relation between quantum system and the mind of the observer. The EPR correlation is non-local and quantum mechanics predicts violation of the Bell's inequalities because of non-locality of the mind of the observer. The quantum postulate and complementarity proposed by Bohr are valid according to rather hidden-variables theories than the orthodox quantum mechanics. Measurement is described as process of interaction of quantum system with the measuring device in hidden-variables theories alternative of quantum mechanics. It is shown, that the mutual causal relation between 'res extensa' and 'res cogitans', presupposed with the Born's interpretation, results to a logical absurdity which testifies against the self-consistency of the orthodox quantum mechanic. This self-contradiction is a consequence of logical mistakes inherent in a new Weltanschauung proposed by Heisenberg for a philosophical substantiation of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is successful in spite of this absurdity and these mistakes because rather the realistic Schrodinger's interpretation than the positivistic Born's interpretation is used at the description of the majority of quantum phenomena. The act of measurement and the fundamental obscurity connected with it are absent at this description. But there are other fundamental obscurities which are considered in the last section.' author: - Alexey Nikulov title: | The quantum mechanics is a non-universal theory.\ The realistic Schrodinger's and positivistic Born's interpretation of the wave function --- Contents\ <span>**1. Introduction**</span> <span>**2. What is implied with the Born's interpretation of the wave function?**</span> <span>**2.1. 'Measurement' might be complete only in the mind of the observer**</span> <span>**2.2. EPR correlation and the non-locality of the mind**</span> <span>**2.3. Violation of Bell's inequalities uncovers the influence of subject on object**</span> <span>**2.4. What EPR intended to prove and what they have proved**</span> <span>**2.5. Hidden variables**</span> <span>**2.6. Indeterminism of quantum mechanics. The entanglement of cat with atom states**</span> <span>**2.7. Whose knowledge and whose will?**</span> <span>**3. New Weltanschauung proposed by Heisenberg**</span> <span>**3.1. Quantum mechanics rejects the Cartesian polarity between 'res cogitans' and 'res extensa'**</span> <span>**3.2. The notion of the 'thing-in-itself' by Kant and hidden-variables**</span> <span>**3.3. The Kantian a priori character of the law of causality and quantum mechanics**</span> <span>**4. Fundamental mistakes by sleepwalkers**</span> <span>**4.1. The quantum postulate and complementarity proposed by Bohr 'objectivate' observation**</span> <span>**4.2. The mass delusion and the idea of quantum computation**</span> <span>**4.3. Two principal mistakes of Heisenberg**</span> <span>**5. Fundamental mistakes because of the prejudice of the QM universality**</span> <span>**5.1. The Aharonov - Bohm effects are described both with the $\psi $ - functions and the wave function**</span> <span>**5.2. We can believe for the time being in reality of the moon**</span> <span>**6. Fundamental obscurity connected with wave function usage**</span> <span>**6.1. Puzzles generated with the quantum formalism**</span> <span>**6.2. Experimental results which can not be describe with help of the quantum formalism**</span> <span>**7. Conclusion**</span> Introduction ============ Quantum mechanics (QM) is the most successful theory. It has given rise to revolutionary technologies of the XX century. The progress of physics of last century are fairly connected with the QM. But John Bell said in his Introductory remarks "Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics" at Naples-Amalfi meeting, May 7, 1984 that "<span>*This progress is made in spite of the fundamental obscurity in quantum mechanics*</span>", see p. 170 in @Bell2004. This fundamental obscurity as well as QM are result of the proposal by young Werner Heisenberg @Heisenberg1925 to describe observables instead of beables, see these terms in the Bell's paper @Bell1976. This proposal to abandon any attempt to find a unified picture of objective reality had provoked the battle between creators of quantum theory. Bohr, Pauli, Dirac and others admitted the Heisenberg's proposal whereas Einstein, Schrodinger, de Broglie and others rejected the repudiation of the science aim as the discovery of the real. Schrodinger interpreted his wave function as a real wave @Schrodinger1926 and defended this realistic interpretation @Schrodinger1952. He tried to replace particles by wavepackets. <span>*"But wavepackets diffuse"*</span> @Bell1987. This diffuseness contradicts numerous observation. Therefore the interpretation of the Schrodinger's wave function as probability amplitudes proposed by Born was fully accepted by most physicists. This positivistic interpretation corresponds to the Heisenberg's proposal and just therefore it results to the fundamental obscurity and mass delusion. Indeterminism, subjectivity, non-locality and vagueness implied with this interpretation are enough obvious. But only few physicists, Einstein, Schrodinger, de Broglie and some others worried about these "philosophical" problems during a long time. Most physicists, as Bell said <span>*"stride through that obscurity unimpeded... sleepwalking?"*</span>, see p. 170 in @Bell2004. Bell worried about this obscurity of positivistic QM but even he said: <span>*"The progress so made is immensely impressive. If it is made by sleepwalkers, is it wise to shout 'wake up'? I am not sure that it is. So I speak now in a very low voice"*</span>, see p. 170 jordanmaria@example.org. But now it is needed to shout "wake up" @WakeUp. There are some reasons why it is needed: 1) numerous false publications because of misunderstanding of QM @WakeUp [@Comment2010; @Comment2009]; 2) misunderstanding of the idea of quantum computation @Aristov2011; 3) some authors, because of their implicit belief in QM, claim already that it is possible to prove experimentally that <span>*"The moon - a small moon, admittedly - is not there"*</span> @Mooij2010; 4) on the other hand many physicists have already refused this implicit belief in QM. The most striking illustration of the fourth reason is the Action of the European Cooperation in Science and Technology "Fundamental Problems in Quantum Physics" @COST. The first aim of research - observer-free formulation of QM witnesses to perception by numerous participants of the Action MP1006 that no subjectivity can be permissible in any physical theory. But I should say that only this perception does not indicate that these scientists have 'waked up' completely. They have not realized for the present a primary logical mistake of the sleepwalkers creating QM. Scientists have in mind always that any physical theory should describe universally all its subject matters. For example, everyone believes that the Newton's laws describe universally the motion of all object with different mass, from major planets to smallest particles. This belief may be justified with a universality of the laws governing a unique objective reality. Orthodox QM, in contrast to all others theories of physics, describes rather different phenomena than a unique reality. No description of phenomena should be universal if they are not considered as a universal manifestation of a unique reality. Therefore it is logical mistake to think that QM should describe universally all quantum phenomena. Nevertheless QM was developed and interpreted up to now as a universal theory. General confidence predominates that only the positivistic Born's interpretation but not the realistic Schrodinger's interpretation can be valid for description of all quantum phenomena. This confidence is obviously false. Richard Feynman in the Section "The Schrodinger Equation in a Classical Context: A Seminar on Superconductivity" of his Lectures on Physics @FeynmanL stated that Schrodinger <span>*"imagined incorrectly that $|\Psi |^{2}$ was the electric charge density of the electron. … It was Born who correctly (as far as we know) interpreted the $\Psi $ of the Schrodinger equation in terms of a probability amplitude…"*</span>. But further Feynman wrote that <span>*"in a situation in which $\Psi $ is the wave function for each of an enormous number of particles which are all in the same state, $|\Psi |^{2}$ can be interpreted as the density of particles"*</span>. Thus, Feynman had pointed out that the positivistic Born's interpretation could be replaced with the realistic Schrodinger's interpretation at the description of macroscopic quantum phenomena, at least. This fact has fundamental importance because <span>*"There are two fundamentally different ways in which the state function can change"*</span> @Everett1957 according to the Born's interpretation: the discontinuous change at the observation (Process 1 according to @Everett1957) and the continuous deterministic change of state of an isolated system with time according to a Schrodinger's wave equation (Process 2 according to @Everett1957). Hugh Everett noted correctly that because of the Process 1 <span>*"No way is evidently be applied the conventional formulation of QM to a system that is not subject to external observation"*</span> and that <span>*"The question cannot be ruled out as lying in the domain of psychology"*</span> @Everett1957. But only select few realized this fundamental obscurity in QM in that time. Feynman did not realized. Therefore he did not attach great importance to the replacement of the Born's interpretation by the Schrodinger's interpretation. Feynman did not understand that the Process 1, and all fundamental problems connected with it, disappear at this replacement. Richard Feynman and Hugh Everett were doctoral students of the same doctoral advisor - John Archibald Wheeler. But their conception of QM was fundamentally different. Such dissent marks out QM from other theories of physics. The dissent was from the very outset of QM. It was observed both between defenders of QM, for example Heisenberg and Bohr, and its critics, for example Schrodinger and de Broglie. But now the diversity of opinion is unusually wide. Einstein wrote as far back as 1928 to Schrodinger @Einstein1928L: <span>*"The soothing philosophy-or religion?-of Heisenberg-Bohr is so cleverly concocted that it offers the believers a soft resting pillow from which they are not easily chased away"*</span>, see the cite on the page 99 of @QuCh2006. The diversity of opinion about QM witnesses that Einstein's words turned out prophetic: the dissent can be about a religion but our right comprehension must be unified. At least we must believe that it is possible. Otherwise no science could be possible. Therefore first of all it is important to show that subjectivity, non-locality, indeterminism and vagueness of QM are deduced unambiguously from the Born's interpretation. It will be made in the next Section. This positivistic interpretation can be valid and understood correctly only in a new Weltanschauung proposed by Heisenberg. This new Weltanschauung will be considered shortly in the Section 3. Unfortunately only few scientists have realized that the correct understanding of QM demands the new Weltanschauung. Both mass delusion connected with this lack of understanding and mistakes made by Heisenberg will be considered in the Section 4. Mistakes of other type connected with the misinterpretation of quantum mechanics an a universal theory will be considered in the Section 5. The fundamental obscurities in quantum mechanics worrying Einstein, Schrodinger, Bell and others disappear with the realistic interpretation of wave function proposed by Schrodinger. But other fundamental obscurities appear with this realistic interpretation. These fundamental obscurities of other type will be considered in the Section 6. What is implied with the Born's interpretation of the wave function? ===================================================================== Feynman wrote @FeynmanL when Schrodinger <span>*"imagined incorrectly that $|\Psi |^{2}$ was the electric charge density of the electron… He soon found on doing a number of problems that it didn't work out quite right"*</span>. Schrodinger had tried to replace 'particles' by wave-packets $$\Psi (r) = \int_{-\infty }^{\infty }dp[A_{0}(p)\exp{-\frac{i}{\hbar}Et}]\exp{\frac{i}{\hbar}pr} \eqno{(1)}$$ But this wave-packets spreads in empty space, for example, when the energy $E = p^{2}/2m$. Therefore the real wave-packets cannot explain the observations of particle localized in the space, for example particle tracks in track chambers. Because of this and other defections of the Schrodinger's interpretation most physicists had accepted the Born's interpretation. Most of they stride unimpeded through the nonsense that the wave-packets can be localized only under influence of the mind of the observer. 'Measurement' might be complete only in the mind of the observer ---------------------------------------------------------------- Feynman wrote @FeynmanL that Born had proposed <span>*"very difficult idea that the square of the amplitude is not the charge density but is only the probability per unit volume of finding an electron there, and that when you do find the electron some place the entire charge is there"*</span>. Feynman was sure that this idea is correct because he did not raise the question: "How can the entire charge be there when an observer has found the electron some place?" Let consider the electron in empty space, or better a fullerene, or even a long biomolecule, quantum interference of which was observed already @BiomolInt03 [@BiomolInt07]. Quantum state of such particle can be described with the wave-packets (1) in which the wave functions $exp i(pr - Et)/\hbar $ are deduced from the Schrodinger's wave equation @LL $$i\hbar \frac{\partial \Psi }{\partial t} = -\frac{\hbar ^{2}}{2m}\nabla ^{2}\Psi + U(r)\Psi \eqno{(2)}$$ whereas the amplitudes $A_{0}(p)$ can be estimate only with help of an observation at a time $t = 0$. According to (2) $E = p^{2}/2m$ in empty space where $U(r) = 0$. It is possible, for example with help of the scanning laser ionization detector used in @Zeilinger02, to observe at $t = 0$ that a fullerene, for example, is localised in a space region $\Delta r$ near $r = 0$. The result of this observation may be describe approximately with the probability density function $\Psi (r) = (2\pi )^{-1/4}\sigma ^{-1/2}exp(-r^{2}/4\sigma ^{2})$ @FeynmanL where $\sigma \approx \Delta r/3$. The wave-packet (1) diffuses, Fig.1, because its amplitudes, equal $A_{0}(p) = (8\pi )^{1/4}\sigma ^{1/2}exp(-p^{2}\sigma ^{2}/\hbar ^{2})$ at $t = 0$, change with time $A(p,t) = (8\pi )^{1/4}\sigma ^{1/2}exp(-p^{2}\sigma ^{2}/\hbar ^{2} - ip^{2}t/\hbar 2m)$. Because of this Process 2 @Everett1957 the probability to observe the particle in a space region near $r = 0$ decreases and far off $r = 0$ increases with time, Fig.1. The Process 2 is continuous and is determined with the Schrodinger's wave equation (2). But the discontinuous change of the probability $|\Psi(r,t) |^{2}$ and the wave-packet $\Psi(r,t) $ at an observation, i.e. the Process 1 @Everett1957, can not be described with this equation (2). The Process 1, at $t = t_{1}$ for example, Fig.1, cannot be described outside the domain of psychology. Everett @Everett1957 was right. No physical interaction of the particle with photons radiated with laser or any measuring device can compact the wave-packet. It is quite obvious that according to the Born's interpretation the wave-packet is squeezed in a smaller volume because of the observation by an observer the particle near, for example, $r \approx 8$, Fig.1. The observation changes first of all the mind of the observer. Before the observation at $t < t_{1}$ he conjectured to see the particle in any space region with a probability $|\Psi(r,t_{1}) |^{2}$. His knowledge changes discontinuously when he sees the particle near $r \approx 8$, Fig.1. Such change of the knowledge takes place at any observation. Schrodinger noted that <span>*"$\cdot \cdot \cdot$ the simple statement, that each observation depends both from the object and the subject which 'are entangled' by extremely complex manner is a statement which is hardly possible to consider new, it is old almost also, as the science"*</span> @SchrodingerHum. But according to QM <span>*"$\cdot \cdot \cdot$ the causal interconnection between the subject and object is considered reciprocal. It is stated, that the unremovable and uncontrollable influence of the subject on the object takes place"*</span> @SchrodingerHum. According to the Born's interpretation both the observer knowledge and the quantum state change at the observation. ![\[fig:epsart\] The initial conditions, i.e. the amplitudes $A _{0}(p)$ of the wave-packet (1) are determined with results of an external observation at a time moment $t = 0$, i.e. during the Process 1, when the quantum state changes discontinuously under influence of an external observer (the upper picture). Quantum mechanics can predict the probability $|\Psi(r,t_{1}) |^{2}$ per unit volume of finding the particle in any space place $r$ at any time moment $t_{1}$ (the middle picture) using the initial conditions and the Schrodinger's wave equation (2). But no physical interaction of the particle with an agency of observation described with the Schrodinger's wave equation (2) can compact the wave-packet (the bottom picture) and provide with new initial conditions. The initial conditions can be provided only the mind of the observer who has found the particle some place.](Fig1) It could be clear from the very outset that according to the Born's interpretation the observation should be interpreted unambiguously as interplay between the quantum system and the mind of the observer. But Heisenberg and Bohr had convinced most physicists that we can consider the act of the observation (measurement) as an interaction between quantum system and measuring instrument. The famous @QuCh2006 Heisenberg uncertainty microscope @Heisenberg1927, the quantum postulate and complementarity by Bohr @Bohr1928 have misled some generations of physicists. Even the famous EPR paper @EPR1935 and the Bell's works @Bell2004 could not undeceive most physicists about this error up to now. Bell wrote in 1989 @EPR1935 about the paper 'Ten theorems about quantum mechanical measurements', by NG van Kampen @Kampen1988 <span>*"This paper is distinguished especially by its robust common sense. The author has no patience with '$\cdot \cdot \cdot$ such mind-boggling fantasies as the many world interpretation $\cdot \cdot \cdot$'. He dismisses out of hand the notion of von Neumann, Pauli, Wigner - that 'measurement' might be complete only in the mind of the observer: '. . . I find it hard to understand that someone who arrives at such a conclusion does not seek the error in his argument'"*</span>. There is important to remind that Everett had proposed the many world interpretation in order to describe the Process 1, i.e. 'measurement', as lying outside the domain of psychology @Everett1957. But the believers in the soothing philosophy or religion of Heisenberg-Bohr reject flatly, as well as van Kampen @Kampen1988, both the mind of the observer and the many world interpretation. Although it must be obvious that the attempt by Heisenberg and Bohr to propose the realistic substantiation of the uncertainty principle was false it is needed to explain again and again that EPR correlation and Bell's inequalities have proved this obvious fact. EPR correlation and the non-locality of the mind ------------------------------------------------ Bell wrote in 1981 @Bell1981: <span>*"The philosopher in the street, who has not suffered a course in quantum mechanics, is quite unimpressed by Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen correlations. He can point to many examples of similar correlations in everyday life. The case of Bertlmann's socks is often cited. Dr. Bertlmann likes to wear two socks of different colours. Which colour he will have on a given foot on a given day is quite unpredictable. But when you see that the first sock is pink you can be already sure that the second sock will not be pink"*</span>. The last sentence describes the influence of the object (the first sock) on the subject (the mind of the observer). Such influence can astonish nobody because <span>*"it is old almost also, as the science"*</span> @SchrodingerHum. Bell asked: <span>*"And is not the EPR business just the same?"*</span> @Bell1981. He considered a particular version of the EPR paradox @EPR1935, developed by David Bohm @Bohm1951, i.e. the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm gedanken experiment with two spin 1/2 particles. Quantum mechanics describes the spin states of two separate particles with two separate equations $$\psi _{A} = \alpha _{A}|\uparrow _{A}(r_{A})> + \beta _{A}|\downarrow _{A}(r_{A})>$$ $$\psi _{B} = \alpha _{B}|\uparrow _{B}(r_{B})> + \beta _{B}|\downarrow _{B}(r_{B})> \eqno{(3)}$$ where the probability amplitudes $\alpha _{A}$, $\beta _{A}$, $\alpha _{B}$, $\beta _{B}$ depend on a free choice of a certain axis along which the component of particle spin will be measured and $|\alpha _{A}|^{2} + |\beta _{A}|^{2} = 1$, $|\alpha _{B}|^{2} + |\beta _{B}|^{2} = 1$ always. The spin state of pair of two separate particle may be described also with the product of the equations (3) in which the amplitudes $\gamma _{1} = \alpha _{A} \alpha _{B}$, $\gamma _{2} = \alpha _{A}\beta_{B}$, $\gamma _{3} = \beta_{A} \alpha _{B}$, $\gamma _{4} = \beta_{A}\beta_{B}$ and as a consequence $\gamma _{1}\gamma _{4} = \alpha _{A} \alpha _{B}\beta_{A}\beta_{B} = \gamma _{2}\gamma _{3} = \alpha _{A}\beta_{B} \beta_{A} \alpha _{B}$. The EPR correlation takes place when $\gamma _{1}\gamma _{4} \neq \gamma _{2}\gamma _{3} $ and the spin states of the particles cannot be separated. Two particles in the singlet spin state $$\psi _{EPR} = \gamma _{2}|\uparrow _{A}(r_{A})\downarrow _{B}(r_{B})> + \gamma _{3}|\downarrow _{A}(r_{A}) \uparrow_{B}(r_{B})> \eqno{(4)}$$ when $\gamma _{1} = 0$, $\gamma _{4} = 0$, and $\gamma _{2} \neq 0$, $\gamma _{3} \neq 0$ is called EPR pair. The axis along which the component of particle spin will be measured is the direction of a non-uniform magnetic field produced by magnets of a Stern-Gerlach analyzer @QuCh2006. The particles will deflect up in the state $|\uparrow >$ and down in the state $|\downarrow>$. The observers $A$ (Alice) and $B$ (Bob) can choose any direction of their analyzer's axis. Whether either particle separately goes up or down on a given occasion is quite unpredictable. But according to the basic principle of quantum mechanics formulated by Dirac as far back as 1930 @Dirac1930 <span>*"$\cdot \cdot \cdot $ a measurement always causes the system to jump into an eigenstate of the dynamical variable that is being measured"*</span>. This Dirac jump, wave function collapse @Neumann1932, or <span>*"'quantum jump'… from the 'possible' to the 'actual'"*</span> @Heisenberg1959 must take place logically during the act of observation because Alice cannot see that one particle deflects up and down simultaneously. When Alice sees that the particle deflects up in her Stern-Gerlach analyzer directed along an axis $n$ the spin state of the EPR pair (4) changes discontinuously to the eigenstate $$\psi _{n} = |\uparrow _{A}(r_{A})\downarrow _{B}(r_{B})>_{n} \eqno{(5a)}$$ or to the eigenstate $$\psi _{n} = |\downarrow _{A}(r_{A}) \uparrow_{B}(r_{B})>_{n} \eqno{(5b)}$$ when the particle deflects down. Thus, according to the basic principles of quantum mechanics deduced logically from the Born's interpretation one particle $A$ of the EPR pair (4) goes up the other $B$ always goes down and vice-versa when axis of two analyzers located at widely separated points in space $r_{A}$ and $r_{B}$ is directed in the same direction $n$. This EPR correlation should be non-local because of the opportunity to observe the deflection of the particle $A$ and the particle $B$ at the same time independently on the distance $|r_{A} - r_{B}|$ between the Stern-Gerlach analyzers. This non-locality is deduced unambiguously from the Born's interpretation as a consequence of non-locality of the mind. Heisenberg noted: <span>*"Since through the observation our knowledge of the system has changed discontinuously, its mathematical representation also has undergone the discontinuous change and we speak of a 'quantum jump'"*</span> @Heisenberg1959. He justified the 'quantum jump' with help of the fact that <span>*"our knowledge can change suddenly"*</span> @Heisenberg1959, i.e. the obvious fact that the knowledge of Alice, for example, changes at the influence of the object, the deflection of the particle, on the subject, her mind. Already before the observation the Alice knowledge about the probability of the deflection up or down of particles $A$ and $B$ is entangled. She knows that if the deflection of one particle, for example $A$, will be up than the deflection of other particle $B$ should be down. Thus, the EPR correlation (4) describes the entanglement of the Alice knowledge about the spin state of two particles. Therefore, motivated @entanglement2001 by EPR @EPR1935, Schrodinger coined @Schrod35D [@Schrod35D] the term <span>*"entanglement of our knowledge"*</span>: <span>*"Maximal knowledge of a total system does not necessarily include total knowledge of all its parts, not even when these are fully separated from each other and at the moment are not influencing each other at all"*</span>. Maximal knowledge of a total system include total knowledge of all its parts in the case (3) when $\gamma _{1}\gamma _{4} = \gamma _{2}\gamma _{3} $ but not in the case (4) when $\gamma _{1}\gamma _{4} \neq \gamma _{2}\gamma _{3} $. In his last talk @Bell1990 Bell considered the question: <span>*"What can not go faster than light?"*</span> He said: <span>*"The situation is further complicated by the fact that there are things which do go faster than light. British sovereignty is the classical example. When the Queen dies in London (may it long be delayed) the Prince of Wales, lecturing on modern architecture in Australia, becomes instantaneously King, (Greenwich Mean Time rules here)"*</span> @Bell1990. There is important to define more exactly that the Prince of Wales becomes instantaneously King in the mind of witnesses of the Queen death. Like manner the spin state of the distant particle $B$ changes instantaneously from (4) to (5a) in the mind of Alice when she sees that her particle $A$ has deflected up. The analogue of the British sovereignty in the EPR correlation is the Dirac jump, or wave function collapse, which should be at the Process 1. But there is a fundamental difference of the Dirac jump from the British sovereignty. The witnesses of the Queen death cannot have an influence on the Prince of Wales whereas Alice can govern the spin state of the distant particle $B$. Each of the eigenstates (5a) and (5b) of the operator of the spin component along $n$ (this dynamical variable) is superposition of eigenstates of the spin component along other direction (other dynamical variable) @LL. Suppose that initially Alice had chosen to orient the non-uniform magnetic field of her Stern-Gerlach analyzer perpendicular to the line of flight of the approaching particle, the y-axis, and pointing vertically upward along the z-axis. And Bob had oriented his non-uniform magnetic field also perpendicular to the y-axis but at an angle $\varphi $ to the z-axis. Than the EPR pair jumps discontinuously to the state $$\psi _{z} = |\uparrow _{A,z}\downarrow _{B,z}> = cos(\varphi /2)|\uparrow _{A,\varphi }\downarrow _{B,\varphi }> +$$ $$+sin(\varphi /2) |\downarrow _{A,\varphi } \uparrow_{B,\varphi }> \eqno{(6a)}$$ when Alice will see that her particle has deflected up and to the state $$\psi _{z} = | \downarrow_{A,z} \uparrow _{B,z}> = -sin(\varphi /2)|\uparrow _{A,\varphi }\downarrow _{B,\varphi }> +$$ $$+ cos(\varphi /2)|\downarrow _{A,\varphi } \uparrow_{B,\varphi }> \eqno{(6b)}$$ when her particle has deflected down. The operator of the turning round the y-axis @LL is used hear and below. Each of these states is the eigenstate of the operator corresponding to the orientation on the Alice analyzer but it is superposition the eigenstates of the operator corresponding to the orientation on the Bob analyzer. Alice can turn her Stern-Gerlach analyzer on an angle $\theta $ during the flight of the particles of the EPR pair (4). This turn changes the spin states of both her and Bob's particle after her observation to $$\psi _{\theta } = |\uparrow _{A,\theta }\downarrow _{B,\theta }> = cos((\varphi -\theta )/2)|\uparrow _{A,\varphi }\downarrow _{B,\varphi }>+$$ $$+sin((\varphi - \theta )/2) |\downarrow _{A,\varphi } \uparrow_{B,\varphi }> \eqno{(7a)}$$ if her particle has deflected up and to $$\psi _{\theta } = | \downarrow_{A,\theta } \uparrow _{B,\theta }> = -sin((\varphi - \theta )/2)|\uparrow _{A,\varphi }\downarrow _{B,\varphi }>+$$ $$+ cos((\varphi - \theta )/2)|\downarrow _{A,\varphi } \uparrow_{B,\varphi }> \eqno{(7b)}$$ if it has deflected down. Thus, the EPR correlation reveals that quantum mechanics concedes that Alice can change instantaneously the quantum state of the distant particle with her will and her observation. According to the Born's interpretation she can act faster than light thanks to non-locality of her mind. ![\[fig:epsart\] Sketch of the EPR experiment (a) and experimental apparatus for measurement of the probability $P_{\theta +}P_{\varphi -}$ with help of a source of single electrons â $S _{e}$ (b). In a case (a) one of the electrons of each EPR pair flies from the EPR pairs source $S_{EPR}$ to the Stern-Gerlach analyzer $A$, and another to the analyzer $B$. The probabilities $P_{A\theta +} = N_{A+}/(N_{A+} + N_{A-})$ and $P_{B\varphi +} = N_{B+}/(N_{B+} + N_{B-})$ are defined as the relation of number $N_{A+}$ (or $N_{B+}$) of detection by detector $D_{A+}$ (or $D_{B+}$) to the sum $N_{A+} + N_{A-}$ (or $N_{B+} + N_{B-}$) of detection by detectors $D_{A+}$ and $D_{A-}$ (or $D_{B+}$ and $D_{B-}$). In a case (b) electron flies from the source $S _{e}$ to the first Stern-Gerlach analyzer and gets in the second analyzer if it deflects up, and gets in the first detector $D_{1-}$ if it deflects down. After the second analyzer electron gets in the detector $D_{2+}$ or $D_{2-}$. The probability $P_{\theta +}P_{\varphi -} = N_{2-}/(N_{1-} + N_{2+} + N_{2-})$ is defined as the relation of the number $ N_{2-}$ of detection by detector $D_{2+}$ to the sum $N_{1-} + N_{2+} + N_{2-}$ of detection by all detectors](Fig2) Violation of Bell's inequalities uncovers the influence of subject on object ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Heisenberg justified @Heisenberg1959 the discontinuous change conceded quantum mechanics with the argument that our knowledge of the system changes discontinuously at any observation. But quantum mechanics represents not only our knowledge. It predicts first of all the probability of different outcomes of observations. For example, the relation (7) predicts that the probability to observe the deflection up of the Bob's particle equals $|cos((\varphi - \theta )/2)|^{2}$ and down $|sin((\varphi - \theta )/2)|^{2}$ when the Alice particle has deflected up. Thus, the Alice's will and her observation influence instantaneously on the outcome of observations of the distant particle. This influence is revealed most definitely with help of the Bell's inequalities @Bell1964. Only condition used at the deduction of the Bell's inequality is <span>*"the requirement of locality, or more precisely that the result of a measurement on one system be unaffected by operations on a distant system"*</span> @Bell1964. Bell had proposed in @Bell1981 a most simple example of this logical deduction. Bell started with an trivial inequality $$P_{0+}P_{45-} + P_{45+}P_{90-} \geq P_{0+}P_{90-} \eqno{(8a)}$$ asserting that the probability $P_{0+}$ of the deflection up at the orientation of the Stern-Gerlach analyzer vertically upward along the z-axis, i.e. at $\theta = 0^{o}$ and the $P_{45-}$ of the deflection down at $\theta = 45^{o}$ plus the probability $P_{45+}$ of the deflection up at $\theta = 45^{o}$ and $P_{90-}$ - down at $\theta = 90^{o}$ is not less than the probability $P_{0+}$ of the deflection up at $\theta = 0^{o}$ and $P_{90-}$ - down at $\theta = 90^{o}$. The inequality is obvious when all probabilities $P_{0+}$, $P_{45-}$, $P_{45+}$ and $P_{90-}$ are measured in the same spin state. Any particle in the same spin state which deflects up at $\theta = 0^{o}$ and down at $\theta = 90^{o}$ (and so contributing to the third probability $P_{0+}P_{90-}$ in (8a)) can deflect either up at $\theta = 45^{o}$ (and so contributes to the second probability $P_{45+}P_{90-}$ in (8a)) or down at $\theta = 45^{o}$ (and so contributes to the first probability $P_{0+}P_{45-}$ in (8a)). The inequality is trivial but it can not be verified experimentally with measurements of single particles, as shown on Fig2b, because <span>*"$\cdot \cdot \cdot $ a measurement always causes the system to jump into an eigenstate of the dynamical variable that is being measured"*</span> @Dirac1930. All particles flying from the first to the second Stern-Gerlach analyzer on Fig.2b should be in the state 'spin up' because of this Dirac jump. The eigenstate 'spin up' for this orientation of the first Stern-Gerlach analyzer differs in common case from the initial spin state of the particles. Therefore it is impossible to measure the probabilities both $P_{0+}$ and $P_{45-}$, for example, in the same spin state with the method shown on Fig.2b. The probabilities at different orientation of the Stern-Gerlach analyzers $\theta $ and $\varphi $ can be measured in the same state with help of the EPR pair if the requirement of locality is valid. The equality of the probabilities $P_{A\theta +} = P_{B\theta -}$ and $P_{A\theta -} = P_{B\theta +}$ must be observed because of the EPR correlation when if one particle $A$ of the EPR pairs (4) deflects up then the other $B$ always deflects down and vice-versa. This equality is valid for all orientation including $\theta = 45^{o}$ and $\theta = 90^{o}$. The Bell's inequality $$P_{A0+}P_{B45+} + P_{A45+}P_{B90+} \geq P_{A0+}P_{B90+} \eqno{(8b)}$$ is deduced from the obvious inequality (8a) at the single requirement: a turning of the Stern-Gerlach analyzer $A$ located in a space region $r_{A}$ can not change instantaneously on the spin of the distant particle $B$ located in a space region $r_{B}$ and vice-versa. The probability to observe the deflection up in the Stern-Gerlach analyzers $A$ equals always the same value $P_{A\theta +} = (|\gamma _{2}|^{2} + |\gamma _{3}|^{2})/2 = 0.5$ if Alice is first observer because of the same probability for each particle of the EPR pair (4) to flow toward Alice. Bob, as second observer, should observe the deflection up with the probability $P_{B\varphi +} =|sin((\varphi - \theta )/2)|^{2}$ according to (7a). The result $P_{A\theta +}P_{B\varphi +} =0.5|sin((\varphi - \theta )/2)|^{2}$ gives the values $P_{A0+}P_{B45+} = P_{A45+}P_{B90+} = 0.5sin^{2}(45^{o}/2) \approx 0.0732$, $P_{A0+}P_{B90+} = 0.5sin^{2}(90^{o}/2) \approx 0.25$. The inequality (8b) would then require $$0.1464 \geq 0.25 \eqno{(8c)}$$ which is not true. This violation (8c) of the Bell's inequality (8b) reveals that quantum mechanics presupposes that a turning of the Stern-Gerlach analyzer can influence instantaneously on the distant particle because the Bell's inequality (8b) was deduced only from the requirement of impossibility of such non-local influence. According to the Born's interpretation this non-local influence is actualized by means of the Alice's mind. The probability that the Bob's particle will deflect up should equal $P_{B\varphi +} = 0.5$ until Alice has seen that her particle has deflected up. Thus the probability of the observation 'spin up' by Bob changes from $P_{B\varphi +} = 0.5$ to $P_{B\varphi +} =|sin((\varphi - \theta )/2)|^{2}$ because of the discontinuous change of the Alice's knowledge. The knowledge changes because of the influence of object on subject and the probability of the observation changes because of the influence of subject on object. Thus, the EPR correlation and the Bell's inequalities have confirmed the statement by Schrodinger that in the orthodox quantum mechanics <span>*"$\cdot \cdot \cdot $ the causal interconnection between the subject and object is considered reciprocal. It is stated, that the unremovable and uncontrollable influence of the subject on the object takes place"*</span> @SchrodingerHum. What EPR intended to prove and what they have proved ---------------------------------------------------- EPR @EPR1935 denied any possibility of the EPR correlation. It was in conflict with the Einstein's belief: <span>*"But on one supposition we should, in my opinion, absolutely hold fast: the real factual situation of the system $S_{2}$ is independent of what is done with the system $S_{1}$, which is spatially separated from the former"*</span> @EinsteiAutob. EPR intended to prove <span>*"that the description of reality as given by a wave function is not complete"*</span> @EPR1935. Of course they had in mind the wave function in the Born's interpretation. It is stated in the abstract of the EPR paper @EPR1935: <span>*"In quantum mechanics in the case of two physical quantities described by non-commuting operators, the knowledge of one precludes the knowledge of the other. Then either (1) the description of reality given by the wave function in QM is not complete or (2) these two quantities cannot have simultaneous reality. Consideration of the problem of making predictions concerning a system on the basis of measurements made on another system that had previously interacted with it leads to the result that if (1) is false then (2) is also false"*</span>. Indeed, if Alice reveals a real situation existing irrespective of any act of observation when she sees that the particle has deflected up in her Stern-Gerlach analyzer pointing vertically upward along the z-axis (6a) than all other spin components (7a) or (7b) of her and Bob's particles should exist before her observation. Alice can know any spin component (7a) or (7b) in the same spine state turning her analyzer in the respective axis. Therefore she can obtain the knowledge about different spin component of the Bob's particle, $|\downarrow _{B,z}>$ and $|\downarrow _{B,\theta }>$ for example, contrary to the foundation of QM, if this knowledge about a real situation existing irrespective of her mind. Thus, QM is observably inadequate if it is interpreted as the description of reality. The description given by the wave function in QM can be adequate and complete only if two physical quantities described by non-commuting operators does not have reality simultaneous before their observation. QM can be valid only if physical quantities are rather created by the mind of the observer than measured at the observation. Just this absurdity of QM had been proved by EPR @EPR1935. Bell proposed <span>*"to replace the word 'measurement'"*</span> which misleads: <span>*"When it is said that something is 'measured' it is difficult not to think of the result as referring to some pre-existing property of the object in question"*</span> @EPR1935. The pre-existing properties revealed at measurement are in hidden-variables theory, alternative the orthodox QM using the Born's interpretation. According to this theory, hidden variables determine results of individual measurements and thus eliminate subjectivity and indeterminism inherent QM. Hidden variable --------------- Bell asserted <span>*"that vagueness, subjectivity, and indeterminism, are not forced on us by experimental facts, but by deliberate theoretical choice"*</span> @Bell1982. It is not absolutely so. The main reason of refusal of realism were problems with the realistic description of some quantum phenomena, such as Stern-Gerlach effect @StGe1922. Bohr wrote in 1949 @Bohr1949, that <span>*"as exposed so clearly by Einstein and Ehrenfest @Einstein1922, it presented with unsurmountable difficulties any attempt at forming a picture of the behaviour of atoms in a magnetic field"*</span>. And Bell wrote 32 years later: <span>*"Phenomena of this kind made physicists despair of finding any consistent space-time picture of what goes on the atomic and subatomic scale $\cdot \cdot \cdot $ Going further still, some asserted that atomic and subatomic particles do not have any definite properties in advance of observation. There is nothing, that is to say, in the particles approaching the magnet, to distinguish those subsequently deflected up from those subsequently deflected down. Indeed even the particles are not really there"*</span> @Bell1981. As Bell wrote @Bell1966 <span>*"To know the quantum mechanical state of a system implies, in general, only statistical restrictions on the results of measurements"*</span>. The classical statistical mechanics also describes only statistical distribution of parameters. But these parameters are assumed to exist irrespective of any act of observation and the mind of the observer. Just the negation of real existence of parameters results to subjectivity and indeterminism of QM. Therefore Bell was sure: <span>*"It seems interesting to ask if this statistical element be thought of as arising, as in classical statistical mechanics, because the states in question are averages over better defined states for which individually the results would be quite determined. These hypothetical 'dispersion free' states would be specified not only by the quantum mechanical state vector but also by additional 'hidden variables'-'hidden' because if states with prescribed values of these variables could actually be prepared, quantum mechanics would be observably inadequate"*</span> @Bell1966. But most physicists did not take an interest in this problem fifty years ago and up to now many physicists underestimate the fundamental importance of hidden variables. Few experts, who did find the question interesting, believed that <span>*"the question concerning the existence of such hidden variables received an early and rather decisive answer in the form of von Neumann's proof on the mathematical impossibility of such variables in quantum theory"*</span> @Bell1966. But this belief was false. David Mermin writes in the paper "Hidden variables and the two theorems of John Bell" @Mermin1993: <span>*"A third of a century passed before John Bell, 1966, rediscovered the fact that von Neumann's no-variables-hidden proof was based on an assumption that can only be described as silly - so silly, in fact, that one is led to wonder whether the proof was ever studied by either the students or those who appealed to it"*</span>. Von Neumann did not take into account that non-commuting operators do not have simultaneous eigenvalues @Mermin1993. There is more important to realize a physical mistake corresponding to this 'mathematical' mistake. Eigenvalues non-commuting operators cannot be simultaneous measured according to the quantum postulate and complementarity proposed by Bohr @Bohr1928. Bell noted @Bell1966 that additional demands of the von Neumann's proof are <span>*"quite unreasonable when one remembers with Bohr @Bohr1949 'the impossibility of any sharp distinction between the behaviour of atomic objects and the interaction with the measuring instruments which serve to define the conditions under which the phenomena appear'"*</span>. In order to exhibit of the error of the von Neumann's proof Bell had constructed a hidden-variables model which reproduces all predictions of results of a single spin 1/2 measurement given by QM. There is important to accentuate that Bell used in this model the Bohr's quantum postulate which <span>*"implies that any observation of atomic phenomena will involve an interaction with the agency of observation not to be neglected"*</span> @Bohr1928. According to the quantum postulate <span>*"With or without hidden variables the analysis of the measurement process presents peculiar difficulties"*</span> @Bell1966, because no theory can describe an interaction with the agency of observation. Any result of this interaction may be assumed because of this vagueness. In the Bell's model @Bell1966 the interaction of single spin 1/2 with the agency of observation results to measurement of the same value of spin component, as it is observed in the paradoxical Stern-Gerlach effect @StGe1922. Thanks to the vague interaction the results of observation can be described with the relation $s_{n} = 1/2 cos(\theta )/|cos(\theta )|$ proposed by Bell in @Bell1981. This relation describes an individual measurement of spin component $s_{n}$ along $n$, as well as the superposition (3), but has a fundamental advantage: $\theta $ is the angle between an axis ${\bf n}$ of Stern-Gerlach analyzer and an axis ${\bf z} + {\bf m}$ of spin. Therefore results of an individual measurement is determined with the spin axis ${\bf z} + {\bf m}$ and the mind of the observer can not influence on these results. In the Bell's model @Bell1966 ${\bf z}$ is a unit vector directed along the z-axis in the spin state $\psi _{z} = |\uparrow _{z}>$ and ${\bf m}$ is a random unit vector which plays the role of hidden variable. This model predicts the same probabilities of observation of positive values $P_{\theta +} = 1/2 + \int _{\theta }^{\pi /2}dx2\pi \sin x/4\pi = (1 + \cos \theta )/2 = cos ^{2}(\theta /2)$ and negative values $P_{\theta -} = \int _{0}^{\theta }dx2\pi \sin x/4\pi = (1 - \cos \theta )/2 = sin ^{2}(\theta /2)$ as orthodox QM. It predicts also that if one particle $A$ of the EPR pair goes up the other $B$ always goes down and vice-versa when axis of two analyzers is directed in the same direction $n$ because if $cos(\theta _{A}) > 0$ for the angle $\theta _{A}$ between ${\bf n}$ and $+({\bf z} + {\bf m})$ then $cos(\theta _{B}) < 0$ for the angle $\theta _{B}$ between ${\bf n}$ and $-({\bf z} + {\bf m})$ and vice-versa. The hidden-variables model implies also the Dirac jump at observation in order to correspond to the prediction of QM. Therefore it also predicts violation of the trivial inequality (8a). Because of the vague interaction with the agency of observation, i.e. with the first Stern-Gerlach analyzer, shown on Fig.2b, the particle deflecting with the probability $P_{\theta +} = 0.5$ to the second Stern-Gerlach analyzer jumps to the spin state $\psi _{\theta } = |\uparrow _{\theta }>$. Therefore the particle will deflect down after the second analyzer with the probability $P_{\varphi -} =|sin((\varphi - \theta )/2)|^{2}$. The total probability $P_{\theta +}P_{\varphi -} =0.5|sin((\varphi - \theta )/2)|^{2}$ to hit the detector $D_{2-}$ predicts violation (8c) of the trivial inequality (8a): $P_{0+}P_{45-} = P_{45+}P_{90-} = 0.5sin^{2}(45^{o}/2) \approx 0.0732$, $P_{0+}P_{90-} = 0.5sin^{2}(90^{o}/2) \approx 0.25$. Thus, the hidden-variables model can reproduce almost all prediction of QM. Among few predictions which it can not reproduce is violation of the Bell's inequality (8b). The probability of observation both $s_{n} = +1/2$ and $s_{n} = -1/2$ of each particle of the EPR pairs is the same $P_{A\theta +} = P_{A\theta -} = P_{B\varphi +} = P_{B\varphi -} = 0.5$ because the results of individual measurements are determined by the spin axis $+({\bf z} + {\bf m})$ or $-({\bf z} + {\bf m})$ and therefore the act of measurement of one particle can not influence on the result of observation of other particle. The corroboration of the Bell's inequality (8b) $P_{A0+}P_{B45+} + P_{A45+}P_{B90+} = 0.5 \times 0.5 + 0.5 \times 0.5 = 0.5 > P_{A0+}P_{B90+} = 0.5 \times 0.5 = 0.25$ reveals that if definite properties exist in advance of observation then 'measurement' might be complete without the mind of the observer. There is important to note that hidden variables replace the mind of the observer with soulless agencies of observation. This fact reveals that the quantum postulate and complementarity proposed by Bohr @Bohr1928 is valid according to rather hidden-variables theories than the QM based on the Born's interpretation. Variables are hidden just because <span>*"any observation of atomic phenomena will involve an interaction with the agency of observation not to be neglected"*</span> @Bohr1928. Bohr concluded from this statement implied with his quantum postulate that <span>*"an independent reality in the ordinary physical sense can neither be ascribed to the phenomena nor to the agencies of observation"*</span> @Bohr1928. This conclusion misleads. A celebrated polymath who is quoted in @Mermin1993 declared that <span>*"Most theoretical physicists are guilty of $\cdot \cdot \cdot $ fail\[ing\] to distinguish between a measurable indeterminacy and the epistemic indeterminability of what is in reality determinate. The indeterminacy discovered by physical measurements of subatomic phenomena simply tells us that we cannot know the definite position and velocity of an electron at any instant of time. It does not tell as that the electron, at any instant of time, does not have a definite position and velocity. \[Physicists\] $\cdot \cdot \cdot $ convert what is not measurable by them into the unreal and the non-existent"*</span> @Adler1992. Bohr was among these most theoretical physicists and had misled some generation of physicists with his quantum postulate and complementarity. He did not take into account that an interaction with the agency of observation can change variables at observation but it can not create observed variables. Only the mind of the observer can create definite properties observed by the observer if they were not definite with variables even hidden in advance of observation. The EPR correlation and violation (8c) of the Bell's inequality (8b) reveal that an interaction rather with the mind of the observer than with the agency of observation is implied in the orthodox QM thanks to the non-locality of the first interaction and the locality of the second one. Indeterminism of quantum mechanics. The entanglement of cat with atom states ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Von Neumann, Pauli, Wigner and also Heisenberg and others were forced to note <span>*"that 'measurement' might be complete only in the mind of the observer"*</span> @EPR1935 because of indeterminism of QM: if a cause of a definite result of the observation is absent in nature then only the mind of the observer can be the cause. Bohr reminder in 1949 @Bohr1949 that during the Solvay meeting 1927 <span>*"interesting discussion arose also about how to speak of the appearance of phenomena for which only predictions of statistical character can be made. The question was whether, as to the occurrence of individual effects, we should adopt a terminology proposed by Dirac, that we were concerned with a choice on the part of "nature" or, as suggested by Heisenberg, we should say that we have to do with a choice on the part of the 'observer' constructing the measuring instruments and reading their recording"*</span>. Bohr wrote: <span>*"Any such terminology would, however, appear dubious since, on the one hand, it is hardly reasonable to endow nature with volition in the ordinary sense, while, on the other hand, it is certainly not possible for the observer to influence the events which may appear under the conditions he has arranged"*</span> and advertised his complementarity: <span>*"To my mind, there is no other alternative than to admit that, in this field of experience, we are dealing with individual phenomena and that our possibilities of handling the measuring instruments allow us only to make a choice between the different complementary types of phenomena we want to study"*</span> @Bohr1949. But this pet idea by Bohr can not answer on the question: "What or who can a definite result of the observation determine?" It can result and even had resulted @LL to the illusion that individual effects are chosen by the agency of observation, named <span>*"the 'classical object' usually called apparatus"*</span> @LL. This illusion is logically absurd. Nevertheless it predominated and predominates up to now among most physicists thanks to the followers @LL of Bohr. Bell had called the spontaneous jump of a 'classical' apparatus into an eigenstate of its 'reading' as the LL jump, considering in @EPR1935 Quantum Mechanics by L D Landau and E M Lifshitz @LL as the first of the 'good books' which mislead. The assumption @LL about the LL jump is absurd first of all because a apparatus even 'classical' is a part of nature as well as the cat in the famous paradox proposed by Schrodinger @Schrod35D. The Schrodinger's cat paradox is well-known but pure understood. Therefore it is useful to reminder its text here: <span>*"One can even set up quite ridiculous cases. A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following
{'source': 'arXiv_out/1311'}