See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/332799264

Quantum Mechanics Model

Preprint · May 2019

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.24749.54245

CITATION READS
1 1,604

1 author:

David Sager
Independent Researcher
21 PUBLICATIONS 730 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by David Sager on 02 May 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Quantum Mechanics Model

David J. Sager
9540 NW Skyview Dr., Portland, OR 97231 USA
[email protected]
(Received 25 March 2019; published )

A model, built on orthodox Wave Mechanics with no changes, is validated against a

list of experiments. John Bell: “so long as the wave packet reduction is an essential
component, and so long as we do not know exactly when and how it takes over from the
Schrodinger equation, we do not have an exact and unambiguous formulation of our most
fundamental physical theory.” The model answers this. It solves the measurement
problem, the wave function collapse problem, and the micro verses macro problem. The
model shows that the EPR experiment and EPR like experiments do not require any
communication between detection points. It shows that in Quantum Teleportation, the
teleportation distance is not a factor. It shows that some dreams for functionality from
entanglement are too optimistic, … and more.
DOI:

1. INTRODUCTION
The Copenhagen Interpretation has been the widely accepted view of Quantum
Mechanics since about 1930 [1], but that doesn’t mean it is universally loved. Einstein
was very uncomfortable with it [2,3]. Many highly regarded physicists over the years have
expressed unhappiness with it.
See appendix A for a more extensive discussion of problems with the Copenhagen
Interpretation.
See appendix B for a discussion of a large, yet only partial, list of attempts to replace
the Copenhagen Interpretation.
One thing, at least, that can be deduced from this is that the degree of dissatisfaction
with the orthodox Copenhagen Interpretation is enough to cause many physicists,
including many great physicists, to devote large efforts to replace it.
Hence, Quantum Mechanics Model.
 2. QUANTUM MECHANICS

A State Space is a collection of discrete and/or continuous parameters. A State is a

set of values, one for each parameter in State Space.
A Wave Function maps the States in a State Space, and a real number representing
time, into the complex numbers.
A Hamiltonian is an operator on Wave Functions. If H is a Hamiltonian, and Ψ is a
Wave Function, and t is time, then Ψ develops in time according to Schrodinger’s
Equation,
H Ψ = (i h/(2π)) ∂ Ψ/ ∂t where h is Plank’s Constant.
If S is a state in State Space and Ψ is a Wave Function on that State Space, then,
according to Ψ, the probability density of observing state S at time t is
(magnitude (Ψ(S,t)))2
This is all completely conventional elementary Wave Mechanics.

Each State of a State Space propagates into the future

independently. This is easily proven in elementary Quantum Mechanics from the
restriction that the Hamiltonian must be Hermitian.

2.1 Now we begin Quantum Mechanics Model. This is NOT the

conventional Copenhagen Interpretation.

By itself, a Wave Function, Ψ, (obviously a mathematical object) has no physical

significance. The physical parameters have physical significance. Ψ merely indicates the
probabilities of the values of the physical parameters. There is no physical “thing” that
is a manifestation of the Wave Function. There is no physical “thing” that resembles the
Wave Function.
“Probability” is a strange word. The Probabilities of parameter values are certainly
affected by physical laws. That’s physics. But “Probability” is also very, very much a
reflection of what someone knows.
Consider a poker game.
Before cards are dealt, every possible hand is a possibility for every player. The
probabilities are fixed by the card deck. This is the result of physical laws. All players see
the same probabilities, for their hands and other hands.
 As soon as I see my first card, the probabilities for my hand suddenly change. If it
was a king, now there is 0 probability that my hand could be anything that does not include
a king. The probabilities that I figure for all of the other hands changes too. There are now
only 3 kings out there for other players. When the other players see their first cards, the
probabilities that they figure are all changed too. Already everybody disagrees on the
probabilities for each hand.
When I get my second card, the probabilities that I figure for my own hand and for the
other hands change again. If it was a 10, then all hand possibilities that do not contain
both a king and a 10 have gone to 0 probabilities.
Physical laws said that there is a make-up of the deck. Cards do not change their
identities. A card is dealt to only one player and is then unavailable to all other players,
etc. This certainly has a very powerful impact on probabilities. But the probabilities are
also very strongly controlled by what I know. Interestingly, all players are looking at the
same game but generally every player will disagree with every other player on the
probabilities of every hand around the table.
I am dealt a card. When I see this new card, it can cause a huge change in the
probabilities that I figure. My “Wave Function” gets a sudden huge change. But what has
changed physically? Not much. You could say one more card was taken off the deck and
given to me, but that would not be correct. That happened BEFORE I saw the card and
before the sudden huge change in my “Wave Function”. It was not the cause of my “Wave
Function” change, nor the result of it. The only thing that changed was that I saw the card.
But that did not cause my “Wave Function” blow up. I changed my Wave Function by
refiguring all the probabilities, in light of the new card I saw. Notice that there was no
change at all to the “Wave Function” for my hand, or any other hand, that each of the
other players had. Same game for everybody, but each player has a different “Wave
Function” for everything.
So, the strange thing about Quantum Mechanics is that Ψ very strongly reflects what
various people know. It is not just physics. Repeating: By itself Ψ has no physical
significance. The physical parameters have physical significance. Ψ merely indicates the
probabilities of the values of the physical parameters.
This brings us to the famous Schrodinger’s cat.

2.2 Schrodinger’s Cat

A cat is in a box out of sight. There is a radioactive atom in the box that may emit a
radiation at a random time. There is an apparatus in the box that will detect that radiation
and if it detects the radiation, it will kill the cat.
 The atom radioactively decaying is in the realm of Quantum Mechanics. So, there is
a Wave Function. At the start, it will show high probability the cat is alive. As time goes
on it becomes less likely that the cat is alive and more likely it is dead. As it would be told
in Copenhagen, now inside the box is a mixture of live and dead cat, really, physically!!!
But that is not the best part.
At some point, I look inside the box and I see either a live cat or a dead cat. As it
would be told in Copenhagen, the whole Wave Function Manifestation (a real, physical
thing) collapses to either the cat is alive, 100% sure, or the cat is dead, 100% sure
indication. This sudden massive collapse of the Wave Function Manifestation is
something nature does to us (nature is active, we are passive, except for the act of
looking). This has real consequences because the Wave Function Manifestation
commands nature, in Copenhagen. The Wave Function (through its physical
manifestation) causes real, physical, big things to happen, in Copenhagen. The problem
of exactly what was it that caused the collapse brought much consternation. Big Problem.
Still a big problem. Still being talked about much more than half a century later.
Enough Copenhagen. Now Quantum Mechanics Model:
In this paper, the Wave Function is a mathematical object that exists only in our
model. Consequently, nature cannot collapse the Wave Function; we can, if we
want to. And, of course, our Wave Function cannot “command nature.” So, nature
does not care what we do with our Wave Function. There is no physical thing that
is a manifestation of our Wave Function, and no physical thing that resembles our
Wave Function. Nature’s perspective is that our Wave Function is purely our toy.
The possible state space had states in it for dead cat and for live cat and for the
physics going forward in both cases. The Hamiltonian is carrying both of those
possibilities forward into the future. But nature has gone on the way it really happened.
All the possible state space for the way nature did NOT go is useless. Things did not, in
fact, go that way. I could choose to collapse (my) Wave Function to 0 the probabilities of
all the possible states for the way it did NOT go. Nature was already down the true path.
This would have no effect at all on what nature was doing. I could also choose to not
collapse (my) Wave Function. The only effect of this is the wasted effort of propagating
states into the future that could be known to be useless.
And we know exactly when and why the (my) Wave Function collapse happened. It
happened when I realized the state of the cat and cleaned up my useless future scenarios
for the way nature did NOT go.
Let’s add a little spice.
I said that I looked in the box and saw the cat. There are other people there too. They
did not see in the box, and I didn’t tell them what I saw. They don’t know.
When I saw the cat, I collapsed the Wave Function I am figuring with, to either
certainly alive or certainly dead. The other people are figuring with their own Wave
Functions. Their Wave Functions still say 50% alive, 50% dead, or something like that.
What is the consequence of all these disagreeing Wave Functions? Nothing.
More quantitatively …
At time 0, just before I might look in the box, I turn off the mechanism so that if the
cat is not already dead, it will no longer be killed. The Wave Function that I would use
now would be
Ψ(t) = A ΨA(t) + D ΨD(t)
Where
ΨA(0) = 0 for any state in which the cat is dead.
ΨD(0) = 0 for any state in which the cat is Alive.
And I assume a normalization constant so the total probability of being in some state
is 1. This says there is some probability that the cat is alive and some probability that the
cat is dead at time 0, the probabilities together adding to 1. A2 is my initial guess at the
probability that the cat is alive and D2 = 1 - A2 is my initial guess at the probability that the
cat is dead.
As previously mentioned, ΨA and ΨD develop into the future independently.
H may do many things, but it does not kill the cat (that mechanism was turned off).
Hence ΨA(t) = 0 for all t for any state in which the cat is dead. Not too surprising. If
the cat is initially alive and the Hamiltonian won’t kill it, then it is always alive.
H may do many things, but it does not resurrect the cat (resurrections are hard to do).
Hence ΨD(t) = 0 for all t for any state in which the cat is alive. Not too surprising. If
the cat is initially dead and the Hamiltonian won’t resurrect it, then it is always dead.
First, suppose that I do not look in the box right away at time 0. At some later time, I
finally look in the box. In this case Ψ would propagate into the future. When I finally look
in the box, I would set either A to zero or D to zero (and renormalize). The resulting Wave
function at that later time would be either ΨA propagated to this later time or ΨD
propagated to this later time because we know that they propagate independently as Ψ
propagates.
But, suppose that I do look in the box right away at time 0. Then I would right away
set either A to zero or D to zero (and renormalize). The result would be ΨA or ΨD. But
then whichever Wave Function remains would be propagated to the “later time” to be
comparable to the previous case.
The result is exactly the same, if I look in the box right away, and collapse the Wave
Function right away, or look only much later. It makes absolutely no difference. My looking
in the box (earlier) had no physical effect, but it did have a huge effect on the Wave
Function.
 If the cat was alive earlier, then it was wasted effort to propagate Ψ D into the future.
If the cat had been killed, then it was wasted effort to propagate ΨA into the future. But,
otherwise, it did no harm.
Ψ very strongly reflects what various people know. It is not just physics.
SUMMARY: If the Wave Function exists only in our models and has no physical
significance, there is absolutely no problem here. Not surprising since, historically, the
Schrodinger’s Cat thought experiment was contrived for the sole purpose of exposing the
Copenhagen Interpretation as totally outrageous.

2.3 The Static Universe Model

There is no widely accepted model or theory of the gears and levers that nature uses
beneath Quantum Mechanics, that produces behavior that is very well modeled by
Quantum Mechanics.
I will offer a very simple-minded model for how nature operates below the level of
Quantum Mechanics. I will call this simple-minded model The Static Universe Model.
The Static Universe Model is exactly what the name says, a MODEL. It is to be useful,
but it is NOT claimed to be the actual material, structure and mechanism of the universe.

2.3.1 FIRST, GENERAL RELATIVITY.

It has been hypothesized that there could be a worm hole (or other structure) in space
time that could (in theory) enable a person to go back in time by going through such a
structure in space-time. This leads to the well-known paradox: suppose I travel back in
time and kill myself before I went back in time. Or, as it is sometimes stated, suppose I
go back in time and kill my grandmother before my mother was conceived. Apparently, a
big problem.
The answer is that, in the Static Universe Model, this is NOT the way that nature sees
the universe.
Nature sees the universe as an absolutely static, stupendous collection of complete
trajectories through space – time. A particle, that we think of as a moving point, nature
sees as a complete trajectory through space – time from the appearance of the particle
to the disappearance of the particle (for example by its decay into other particles). The
trajectory could be from the beginning of the universe to the end of the universe. In
natures eyes the universe simply IS. It is absolutely static. It just IS.
 Time is part of the universe that nature controls. Nature is above all of that. Nature
does not, itself, operate in time. Similarly, space is part of the universe that nature
controls. Nature is above all of that. Nature does not, itself, operate in space.
The rules are that you can draw any trajectory you want as long as it obeys physical
laws. But once you draw it, that is it.

Back to the murderous man, fig. 1. Apparently, on the earlier trajectory sequence part
of his trajectory through space – time, the man existed and was alive. Fine. Then he goes
through a worm hole, or something, back in time. Fine. He can meet himself at that earlier
time and the two versions of the man could even interact, but all of that interaction was
already statically represented on his trajectory; it did not appear in the sequence of this
story telling. Fine. Kill the earlier on trajectory version of himself? Impossible. You already
said that at that point on the man’s trajectory through space-time, he was alive. He can
be alive or dead or non-existent at that point on his trajectory. Take your pick. But there
is no concept of changing it. There is no concept of some background mechanism for
sequencing so that the man could be alive at this point on his trajectory through space
time but THEN (for some non-existent concept of “then”) he is dead at this same point on
this trajectory. If you said he was alive at this point on his trajectory, then he is alive. If
you want to say he is dead, then he is dead, but that is what is going forward on his
trajectory.
You can say whatever you want at a point on the trajectory but there is no concept of
that “changing” at this point on the trajectory. This is not even a rule. There is no concept
of anything else. The universe is static. Nothing changes. Everything just IS. And
proceeding forward on the trajectory you must obey the laws of physics.
Nature provides that if there are certain attributes at a point on a trajectory through
space time, that is what they are. Any talk of those attributes “changing,” at this same
point on the trajectory, is total nonsense. It is so much nonsense that we can’t even figure
out what “changing” means.
So, if you want to draw trajectories through space-time that nature could accept, then,
if you have some attributes attached to some point on the trajectory, the rules are that no
trajectory (including this trajectory, itself) that implies a change to these attributes, at that
point, could possibly be a trajectory that nature would accept.
This paradox is extremely simple in the Static Universe Model. And so is any kind of
logical contradiction.

2.3.2 NOW BACK TO QUANTUM MECHANICS.

The classical view is that, given initial conditions and the positions and motions of
everything else in the universe (and physical laws, of course), there is only one possible
trajectory for a particle through space-time.
The change that Quantum Mechanics brings is that, given initial conditions and the
positions and motions of everything else in the universe (and physical laws, of course),
there are multiple, perhaps very many, possible trajectories for a particle through space-
time. Of the many possible trajectories, nature picks one.
Importantly, nature can certainly base its decision to pick trajectory A on the existence
and properties of the other possible trajectories, B, C, …, that it does not pick, and also
on the nonexistence of some other conceivable trajectory candidates.
This is important. On the bottom line, there is just one trajectory through space-time
that nature finally comes up with for each particle to give us as our “reality.” Nature is
definite.
The important point is that, to nature, the universe is static, it just IS. This includes
not just the stupendous number of actual trajectories through space-time but also includes
the potentially very many possibilities for each of those trajectories.
The Wave Function is our MODEL of nature considering all the possibilities for the
trajectory in space-time, and picking one.
NOTE WELL: In this context and for the rest of this paper, “Trajectory in Space-Time”
is to mean, not only a line in space-time, but all State Space Physical Parameters of the
sub system under discussion. For example, for a particle, this is not only X, Y, Z, and t
but also internal angular momentum (spin), and all sorts of other things. I must call it
something. I will pull a complete description of the subsystem together and call the whole
package: “the trajectory”. When I say: “Of the many possible trajectories, nature picks
one”, that means all of the parameters to describe the subsystem, not just the line through
space-time.
Quantum Mechanics Model, all of it, is taken as a MODEL. It is to be useful, but it is
NOT claimed to be the actual material, structure and mechanism of the universe. That
means that the Wave Function and associated computations are taken as a
PHENOMENOLOGICAL model of nature picking one trajectory out of many candidates,
NOT the material, structure and mechanism of the universe. An extremely good
phenomenological model for sure, but a phenomenological model.
In Copenhagen, the Wave Function and associated computations, and collapse,
definitely ARE taken as the material, structure and mechanism of the universe. In a
nutshell, THIS is what makes Copenhagen unacceptable.

2.3.2.1 NATURE PICKING: CHOICES.

“Of the many possible trajectories, nature picks one”: this may immediately trigger
a rejection reflex from many physicists. But the Copenhagen Interpretation depends on
nature picking one of many choices as well, but “they” usually just don’t tell you this
directly. In fact, the choices that nature must make in the Static Universe Model are
EXACTLY THE SAME as the choices that nature must make in the Copenhagen
Interpretation. The difference is that you are being told about these choices, up front, for
the Static Universe model, while for the Copenhagen Interpretation, these choices are
slipped in, in hope that you do not notice.
Here I am looking ahead at section 2.4.3, Alternating Measurements. Suppose a
particle with a well-defined momentum has its position measured at time t1. This renders
its momentum indefinite (position and momentum are “conjugate parameters”). Later, at
time t2, we measure its momentum.
The Wave Function for this example, is exactly the same for the Copenhagen
Interpretation or the Static Universe Model. There is, of course, the difference that in
Quantum Mechanics Model, that Wave Function is just a computational device that exists
only in our model, while in Copenhagen, there is a physical manifestation of that Wave
Function that essentially IS the particle, and commands nature.
After t1 when the position is measured, the Wave Function will spread out over a
large volume because of the uncertainty in momentum in all directions. Copenhagen says
that some of the particle is everywhere that the Wave Function is not 0. In Quantum
Mechanics Model, the particle is a particle, plain and simple, on some basically classical
trajectory; WE just don’t know what that trajectory is. In Quantum Mechanics Model, the
Wave Function, spread out over a large volume (in our model), expresses what WE do
not know. In Copenhagen, the Wave Function expresses what NATURE does not know.
Nature does not know this because the physical manifestation of the Wave Function IS
the particle, in Copenhagen, and the Wave Function commands nature.
According to Copenhagen, at time t2, nature must pick what value you are going to
get when you measure the momentum at time t2.
According to Quantum Mechanics Model, at time t1, nature must resolve the indefinite
momentum of the particle (a result of measuring its position, at time t1) by picking a
momentum. At time t2, you will measure that momentum.
It is exactly the same for Copenhagen and the Static Universe Model: nature must
pick the momentum. The only difference is that Copenhagen says nature must pick at
time t2, while in Quantum Mechanics Model, nature must pick at time t1.
The essence of a major part of the debate is: AT WHAT POINT THESE DECISIONS
ARE MADE.
In Copenhagen, nature picks the value of an indefinite parameter when that
parameter is measured. This means that there has potentially been a long time when that
parameter was indefinite. In Copenhagen that means the particle literally has physical
indefinite (not just unknown to us) momentum for a long time. (What, exactly, is physical
indefinite?)
In the Static Universe Model, nature picks the value of an indefinite parameter
immediately when the parameter has become indefinite. The net effect is that the
parameter was never indefinite. It jumped (or you can actually model this change (section
2.4.3)) from the value before the position measurement to the value that nature picked.
The parameter seemed indefinite to us, because we do not know what value nature
picked for it. But to nature, it was always definite.
So, the bottom line debate between Copenhagen and Static Universe, has nothing to
do with how many choices nature makes. It has to do with: do we have a lot of particles
around with parameters that are indefinite, even to nature, or has nature decided what all
these parameters are, and they are just unknown to us.
There is yet another kicker to this.
If you accept the Copenhagen Interpretation, then you don’t know anything about
what happened at time t1. You are just told that the measurement of the position at t1 has
rendered the momentum indefinite.
In Quantum Mechanics Model, you are invited to supply a detailed model that
includes the particle and the measuring apparatus, see section 2.4.3. This detailed model
tells you really, what is now the uncertainty in momentum. In any real case the uncertainty
is more than what the simplistic Copenhagen would tell you. Basically, Copenhagen just
has the simplistic best possible case built in, as noted in section 2.4.3, and discourages
any further questions. In the Static Universe Model, if you model the measuring
apparatus, either really or just as a thought experiment, you see there is no mysticism
involved. In the two examples given in section 2.4.3 the indefinite momentum comes from
measuring particles colliding with the particle of interest, or from diffraction (section 2.4.5)
in the other case.
In Copenhagen it is a mystical law that if you know the position of a particle then its
momentum is indefinite. In section 2.4.3 it is clear that there is no mysticism. You can
model the whole thing and you see how it happens. Or, use the default model. This
supposed “law” is simply a default model so you needn’t go to all the work of making
specific models (but, of course, the default model is not accurate for any real case). An
interesting thing is that the “default model” is optimal. It does not model any real case. All
real cases will be worse.
And finally, nature picking the momentum only at t2 is not convenient if you want to
have conservation of momentum for individual particles. Picking the momentum at t1
makes conservation of momentum for individual particles easy. Analogously for angular
momentum for individual particles.

2.3.3 CONJUGATE PARAMETERS.

In Wave Mechanics, parameters are represented by operators. Operators that do not

commute are said to be conjugates. We then call the parameters represented by
conjugate operators, conjugates. We saw an example in the previous section: a particles
position and its momentum are conjugates. Another example is angular momentum
around one axis and angular momentum around any perpendicular axis. In both
Copenhagen and Quantum Mechanics Model, the measurement of a parameter renders
all of its conjugate parameters indefinite.
In Quantum Mechanics Model, you are invited to supply a detailed model that
includes the particle and the measuring apparatus, see section 2.4.3. Such a model, even
if it is only a thought experiment, makes it clear that there is no mysticism. Nature will
immediately resolve all cases of indefinite by making choices, as can be seen in the
detailed model. Hence no parameter is ever indefinite.
The mystical rule that the measurement of one parameter renders all of its conjugate
parameters indefinite is just a default model, so you don’t have to always make specific
detailed models. The detailed model would also show nature making its choice for the
new value of a parameter that has been “rendered indefinite”.
A detailed model seems to not fit in Copenhagen because, in Copenhagen, the new
value for the parameter rendered indefinite is not to be determined until arbitrarily later,
perhaps never, when this parameter is measured. Hence Copenhagen prefers this all to
be mystical.
2.3.4 CONSERVATION LAWS.

Let’s call, just the Copenhagen Interpretation an “add-on”. Similarly, the Static
Universe Model is an alternative “add-on”. For emphasis, the State Space, Wave
Function, the operators, and the development in time given by Schrodinger’s Equation,
but with NO add-ons, will be called “Wave Mechanics”. Then “Quantum Mechanics” would
be assumed to include “Wave Mechanics” and one or possibly more add-ons.
Wave Mechanics alone does not do better than to conserve momentum and energy
in a closed system statistically. In a closed system the Expectation Value of momentum
is constant, and the Expectation Value of Energy is constant. In most cases, there will be
states that have non-zero probabilities that do not conserve either momentum or energy
or both. But the probability weighted average of all states does. Hence, as should be
expected, since Wave Mechanics is basically a statistical model, Wave Mechanics has
nothing definite to say about any individual case, (e.g. any individual particle). An example
of this is in section 2.4.5 on “Diffraction”.
The Copenhagen Interpretation add-on does nothing to help this. In fact, it makes
things worse, as can be seen in section 2.4.5 on “Diffraction”.
A key part of the Static Universe Model is that nature always picks trajectories
coordinated so that Energy, Momentum, and Angular Momentum are exactly conserved
down to the individual particle. This adds something significant and testable to Wave
Mechanics.
Nature has choices to make in picking the actual trajectories for all particles. Natures
choices are statistically predictable. Wave Mechanics, with the 3 conservation laws as
constraints, is our model of nature making choices. With the choices made, the actual
trajectories are definite and conserve Energy, Momentum, and Angular Momentum.
The possibilities for a trajectory that nature could pick are by Wave Mechanics rules,
not classical rules. Wave Mechanics is the model of nature picking a trajectory. There are
non-Classical trajectories in the menu from which nature picks. For example, by Wave
Mechanics rules, a particle can get through a barrier that, Classically, it does not have
enough energy to get through (tunneling). According to Wave Mechanics, a particle is
allowed to have negative kinetic energy, briefly.

2.3.4.1 MATHEMATICS OF CONSERVATION LAWS.

A two-particle collision model is a good illustrative example.

For a system of particle 1 and particle 2, the natural State Space would consist of X1,
Y1, Z1, X2, Y2, Z2. 6-dimensional. There will be a Wave Function on this State Space
and Schrodinger’s Equation will describe the time development of that Wave Function.
This Wave Function gives the probability densities of the particle positions as a function
of time.
But this Wave Function DOES NOT represent what we know! Probabilities depend
very, very much on what we know. Most of the points in this State Space that have non-
zero probabilities by this Wave Function, we know are impossible. Nature would never
pick a trajectory that does this!! Most of those points with non-zero probabilities, do not
conserve momentum. In Quantum Mechanics Model, including the Static Universe Model,
we know nature would NOT pick trajectories for the 2 particles that do not conserve
momentum.
Hence, in Quantum Mechanics Model, with the Static Universe model, we know that
every point in State Space, at every time, in which that does not conserve momentum,
the probability is zero, so the Wave Function should be zero.
If we zero the Wave Function at all the points in State Space-time, so that all of the
points and times, at which the Wave Function is non-zero, conserve momentum, then we
will find that the volume in State Space, at any time, in which the Wave Function is non-
zero is Zero. The Wave Function will be non-zero only on some Hyper-Surface, S, in State
Space. So, any integration of the Wave Function over State Space will result in zero.
That’s inconvenient.
But, all is not bad! We also know that the probability is 1 that what nature picks will
be on S. Hence, we are completely justified in normalizing this Wave Function to 1,
integrated only over S. And probabilities are computed by integrating only over some
subset of S.
Conservation of Energy (but particles can have negative kinetic energy, briefly) and
Angular Momentum can be handled analogously. This gives the general method.
For the two-particle collision example and conservation of momentum in particular,
there is a simpler method. The simpler method will not work well in general, hence the
general method.
I choose to represent the State Space in a Center of Mass coordinate system. This
consists of X, Y, Z of the Center of Mass and x, y, z of particle 1 relative to the Center of
Mass. Knowing the masses of the particles, the position of particle 2 can be computed
from X, Y, Z and x, y, z. This is merely a change of coordinate system; there is no
substantive change. For problems like this you would want to work in the Center of Mass
coordinate system anyway. This is, of course, still a 6-dimensional State Space.
But, now I say that Conservation of Momentum (given me from the Static Universe
Model), says that the Center of Mass will remain at constant velocity in a constant
direction. The time derivatives of X, Y, and Z are constant. That part of the problem is
solved, and conservation of momentum is now enforced! This makes it, effectively, a 3-
dimensional State Space. In effect, this 3-dimensional State Space is the Hyper Surface,
S, from the general method.
2.3.4.2 COPENHAGEN INTERPRETATION vs THE STATIC UNIVERSE MODEL

It has long been common practice to represent multiple particle problems in Center
of Mass Coordinate Systems and then to say “Because of Conservation of Momentum”
we can ignore the Center of Mass (as described in the the preceding section).
The problem is that Wave Mechanics alone does no better than to say that
Expectation Values conserve momentum. Frequently this “common practice” is used for
things far beyond expectation values. Wave Mechanics gives no authority for this. The
Copenhagen Interpretation doesn’t help.
Frequently, Conservation of Momentum is dragged into Quantum Mechanics from
Classical Mechanics. “Conservation of Momentum is perfect in Classical Mechanics, so I
will just use that.” I have repeatedly done this myself when clearly talking about individual
particles, not just expectation values. Section 2.4.6.4 is an example of exactly that.
Section 2.4.6.2 is another example. What is the authority for declaring that the decay will
give 2 outgoing particles with equal but opposite momenta?? Or angular momenta??
Quantum Mechanics, even with Copenhagen does not give this authority. If you are
careful to say only the expectation value does this, that might be OK. But then you must
pay attention to the statistics of it.
Quantum Mechanics is quite different from Classical Mechanics. If I drag
conservation of momentum at the individual particle level into Quantum Mechanics from
Classical Mechanics, I have, in effect, made a new model that is some ill-defined strange
combination of Classical Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics. If I want to define a new
model, then it is highly desirable to do so explicitly and publicly, so it can be accepted or
not and all of its ramifications can be studied. It is undesirable for each individual to pull
together anything he wants just because “he knows it is right”.
Now, Quantum Mechanics Model with the Static Universe Model says very clearly,
yes, Nature always (on an individual particle basis) picks trajectories to conserve Energy,
Momentum and Angular Momentum. This is testable. If any individual case is positively
shown to violate one of these conservation laws, then that part of the Static Universe
Model is wrong.

2.3.5 CONSISTENCY.

Nature picks all trajectories across space-time to be consistent.

As one example, suppose particles A and B interact at point W in space-time, that
nature picked, with particles C and D as the outgoing particles. Then the trajectories of A
and B that nature picked will end at point W, and the trajectories of C and D that nature
picked will begin at point W.
The complete set of all trajectories chosen by nature is consistent. If the chosen
trajectory for particle A is in response to a force acting on A from particle B on a certain
trajectory, then nature will indeed pick that trajectory for particle B.

2.3.6 PERSPECTIVE.

The Static Universe Model gives nature vast powers. Nature is all-seeing and all-
knowing and can do almost anything. It is limited only to make static trajectories, and
each trajectory must obey physical laws. (The physical laws are the Quantum Mechanical
physical laws. Quantum Mechanics allows some trajectories that Classical Physics does
not allow: the tunneling of a particle through a barrier that it does not have enough energy
to get through classically, is a well-known example.)
The Static Universe Model should be thought of as a “Platform,” not a complete
physical theory. It is the canvas upon which we paint the laws of physics.
Physics, i.e. Quantum Mechanics, and the other laws of physics are the limitations
on what nature will do.
The Static Universe Model provides what COULD influence nature and what nature
COULD do; physics says what DOES influence nature and what nature DOES do.

2.4 Famous Paradoxes and Other Examples

2.4.1 MEASUREMENT

2.4.1.1 MEASUREMENT AND MODELS

Suppose there is a spin ½ particle and we measure, by whatever means, its Z axis
spin. Suppose we get “spin up”. In Quantum Mechanics Model, we would say the result
of the measurement was “spin up” because that is the trajectory that nature chose. In
Quantum Mechanics Model, nature picked a Z axis spin at the last time that it became
indefinite.
But Quantum Mechanics Model is built on Wave Mechanics with no change to Wave
Mechanics. Quantum Mechanics Model encourages us to make a more detailed model.
See sections 2.3.2.1 and 2.4.3. Allahverdyan, Balian, and Nieuwenhuizen [4] have made
a detailed model of such a measurement including an incredibly detailed model of a
complete measuring apparatus right out to the “pointer” that will indicate up or down. The
model is in Wave Mechanics alone, not using the Static Universe Model or Copenhagen.
They show it indicating spin up (or spin down, as the case may be). They further show,
with just wave mechanics, that if the measurement indicated spin up, then, at the
conclusion of the measurement, the particle Wave Function will be a pure state spin up.
Note that Allahverdyan, et al. purposely chose to model a complex measurement, to
show that it can be modeled and to understand complex measurements. To just measure
spin up or spin down, the easy way is to send the particles through a magnetic field
gradient, as was done by Stern and Gerlach (section 2.4.3). Spin up particles will be
deflected up and spin down particles will be deflected down.
Even with such a complete and detailed model in Wave Mechanics, Quantum
Mechanics Model still says that there is no physical manifestation of even this glorious
Wave Function. The Wave Function exists only in this model. This Wave Function is a
very good statistical model of the decisions that nature would make.

2.4.1.2 CONJUGATES AND NATURE PICKING VALUES

The spin around one axis is conjugate to the spin around a different axis. In Wave
Mechanics, this means that the same Wave Function cannot be an eigenfunction of spin
around different axes.
In Copenhagen, the Wave Function practically IS the particle. In Copenhagen,
whatever we say about the Wave Function holds for the particle too. Hence if the particle
spin around the Z axis is definite, then its spin around any other axis must be physical
indefinite (whatever that is), in Copenhagen.
We are NOT in Copenhagen. In Quantum Mechanics Model, the Wave Function is a
mathematical object that exists only in our model. The particle is a physical thing which
is totally different.
In Quantum Mechanics Model, for the particle, nature could pick values for the spins
about every axis at the point when these spins become indefinite, so that there will never
be any physically indefinite parameters. That we can’t do that in Wave Mechanics is
irrelevant, because, the Wave Function is a mathematical thing in our model, but the
particle is a physical thing which is totally different. It is impossible for us to ever discover
if nature picked spin values for every axis or not. As soon as we measure the spin around
any axis, the spins around all other axes become indefinite. Nature will pick spin values
again, at its pleasure.
Alternatively, nature may pick values for spin only as required. If we are about to
measure spin around the Z axis, in Quantum Mechanics Model, nature is required to pick
only a Z axis spin. Nature sees the full trajectory, laid out statically, and hence knows that
the next thing to happen is a Z axis spin measurement. Nature sees that a Z axis spin
value will be required, and at the time of the upcoming measurement, spin around any
other axis will become indefinite and must be picked again anyway. So, picking spins
around any other axis would be useless. But there is certainly nothing to forbid it either.
Again, there is no possibility of discovering if nature made useless spin picks in
situations like this or nature cleverly picks values for spin (and possibly other parameters)
only as required. Useless values, by definition, could never be detected. Similarly, we
could never detect that nature did not pick values that were not required for anything, by
definition
But the real bottom line is that everything discussed here is models. In truth, we have
no direct visibility of, or influence on, what nature really does. We can talk only about
models and the relative usefulness of various models.

2.4.1.3 SUPERPOSITION

Same spin ½ particle, and we consider only the Z axis. State space has 2 states, spin
up and spin down. Hence the particle is either spin up or it is spin down. Nature must and
will pick one or the other.
But now let’s consider the Wave Function (which exists only in our model). Let UP be
the Wave Function for the pure spin up state and DN be the Wave Function for the pure
spin Down state.
The Wave Function (ignoring normalization for simplicity) could be
x UP + y DN x and y are complex numbers

This is a “superposition”. It expresses that there is a probability that the spin is up and
a probability that the spin is down. Since x and y are complex numbers, in general, this
Wave Function also expresses a phase relationship between the 2 components of this
Wave Function, which can be very important.
In Copenhagen, the Wave Function practically IS the particle and it would be said
that “the particle is a superposition”.
We are NOT in Copenhagen. In Quantum Mechanics Model, the Wave Function is a
mathematical object that exists only in our model. The particle is a physical thing which
is totally different. A physical thing is NOT a mathematical thing. So, adding particles
together is undefined. It is words with no meaning.
When the spin of the particle is measured, there are only 2 possible results: spin up,
or spin down. In state space, there is 1 parameter, spin, and it has 2 values, UP and
DOWN. Hence the particle has 1 parameter with possible values UP and DOWN. Nature
has already picked a full trajectory for this particle including its spin (UP or DOWN) now,
and everything that will happen to it in the future. That trajectory is definite. Nature does
not use probabilities at all. “God does not play dice with the universe”, Einstein. Nature
owns particles.
The Wave Function is everything WE know about this particle. It includes what it is
within our power to predict for the future. Both what WE know now and can predict are
probabilities only. WE own Wave Functions.
Nature has absolutely no interest in anything about our Wave Function.
Superposition (in our Wave Function) arises from the fact that WE have probabilities
only. Nature does not have probabilities. Nature is definite. Nature does not have
superpositions.
In Quantum Mechanics Model, there is absolutely no such thing as a “particle that is
a superposition”. Superposition is a Wave Function thing, it is NOT a particle thing. Wave
Functions can be “superpositions”; particles cannot be “superpositions”, and cats cannot
be “superpositions”.

2.4.1.4 TRAJECTORY MODULATION

Suppose we have an impenetrable, perfectly reflecting barrier at Z=0. Suppose we

have a particle at negative Z with a Z momentum of p. The particle will hit the barrier and
bounce back, with a momentum -p. We describe this with a Wave Function (ignoring
normalizations)
eipz - e-ipz = sin pz
for z less than or equal to 0. The Wave Function is 0 for z > 0.
eipz is the Wave Function for a momentum of p approaching the barrier.
e-ipz is the Wave Function for a momentum of -p reflected back from the barrier.
This is fine until you ask, what is the probability density for observing the particle at
various values of z, along its dual paths of approaching the barrier and bouncing back. At
negative z, there is the particle with momentum p going toward the barrier and there is
the same particle with momentum -p bouncing back from the barrier. But the square of
the magnitude of the Wave Function is
(sin pz)2
This has nodes along the trajectory where the probability density of observing the
particle is very low (even 0), and peaks with high probability density for observing a
particle. In Wave Mechanics, the backward wave is interfering with the forward wave. The
probability density is “modulated” along the particle trajectory. The particle is just moving
along at constant momentum of p or -p, but the probability density of the particle being at
a place on this trajectory is highly modulated! We say the trajectory that nature chooses
will be basically classical, but this is very unclassical. Quantum Mechanics Model says
that Wave Mechanics is a very (even exceedingly) good model for nature’s choices of
trajectories. How does this work?
It is always correct to make a more detailed model.
As in section 2.4.3, we model the observation of the particle position using “measuring
particles”. To get a position measurement of our “particle of interest”, it must interact with
one or more “measuring particles”.
The probability density of an interaction (section 2.4.12) is the probability density of
our particle of interest times the probability density of the measuring particles, times an
interaction strength. The probability density of measuring particles can be taken as
constant (uniform illumination of observation region). The interaction strength is constant.
Hence the probability density of observation is just proportional to the square of the
magnitude of our Wave Function, of course.
Nature will pick the trajectory of our particle. This is the basically classical trajectory
of the particle through space time, of course. But this is not all. As part of the trajectory of
this particle, nature must also decide if an interaction with a measuring particle will happen
(or not). If an interaction with a measuring particle will happen, nature must pick the exact
point in space-time of this interaction, and the trajectories of the outgoing particles
(section 2.4.12). Our particle of interest is measured to be at the interaction point if and
only if such an interaction occurs. The probability density of this happening is proportional
to the square of the magnitude of our Wave Function for the particle. It is therefore highly
modulated along the kinematical trajectory.
The bottom line is that the particles will have basically classical trajectories of
constant momentum, p, approaching the barrier and of constant momentum -p bouncing
back, yet any measurement of particle position will be statistically the highly modulated
(sin pz)2, exactly according to the highly modulated Wave Function.
Quantum Mechanics Model says that Wave Mechanics is right. Quantum Mechanics
Model will never go against Wave Mechanics.
This is very similar to the double slit experiment, section 2.4.4.1. The double slit
experiment can be thought of as Wave Function Modulation transverse to the particle
trajectory, while this section is Wave Function Modulation along the particle trajectory.

2.4.2 REPEATED MEASUREMENT

Suppose we have a system with a discrete parameter, P in its state space. Suppose
we don’t know p, the value that will result from measuring P. For each value of P, the
Wave Function gives a probability for that value resulting from a measurement. Suppose
we measure P, and we get value p, and we are careful that we don’t disturb the system
in any way that would change P. Then we measure P again.
 It is observed that we always get p as the result of the second measurement. It is no
longer random with probabilities. In the second measurement, it is definite. We get the
same result as for the first measurement.
If the Wave Function is taken to have a physical manifestation which commands
nature, as has been conventional (Copenhagen), this says that the measurement of P
yielding p must cause a sudden collapse of the Wave Function so that no other value for
P has a nonzero probability. This collapse commands nature to hence forth have only the
value, p, for property, P. Following this course is ugly.
Now, let us take a different view.
Assuming the Static Universe Model, nature has picked the actual trajectories of
everything. Nature does not need our help, collapsing the Wave Function (which exists
only in our model of this system), to tell it what to do. The only issue is that WE don’t know
what nature has picked. That is why the first measurement is probabilistic. Nature is not
probabilistic at all. Nature is definite. WE must view the situation as probabilistic because
of what WE don’t know.
Fundamentally, repeating the same measurement any number of times will always
give the same result (assuming we do not disturb the system) because all measurements
are of the real trajectory that nature chose. It would be shocking if we did not always get
the same answer!
After the first measurement, we know more about what trajectory nature chose. Now
we do not view it as probabilistic. We now know enough about what nature chose to know
what the result of the same measurement will be.
There are many trajectories that could possibly be. Our problem is that we don’t know
which one nature picked. With every measurement, we gain some knowledge. We can
use this knowledge to discard trajectories which we come to know could not be the chosen
one. We can close in on the chosen trajectory. We do this by collapsing the Wave
Function in our model so that trajectories that cannot be the chosen one get 0 probability.
But, it is all optional. We don’t have to make use of new information that we get if we don’t
want to. And for sure, nature does not care.

2.4.3 ALTERNATING MEASUREMENTS

Certain pairs of parameters for a system are called “conjugates”. An example of a

conjugate pair is position and momentum of a particle. Another conjugate pair is the
angular momentum of a particle around one axis and the angular momentum of the
particle around a different axis.
If we know precisely the value of one member of a conjugate set of parameters, then
the other members of the conjugate set are poorly known. If we know precisely the
angular momentum of a particle around the X axis, then the angular momentum of the
particle around the Y axis is completely unknown. The angular momentum around the Z
axis is similarly unknown.
A Stern-Gerlach Experiment [5] demonstrated this very well.
In this experiment, a beam of atoms is projected through a magnetic field gradient.
These atoms have a magnetic moment. This is the property being measured. The
magnetic moment can be either up or down.
The intention of this experiment is not about magnetic moment. These atoms have
an internal angular momentum (spin). This spin can be either +1/2 or -1/2 about any axis
you want. The spin produces a proportional magnetic moment, which is the handle that
they used to experiment with the angular momentum. Internal angular momentum is the
focus of interest. Their assumption is that magnetic moment tells internal angular
momentum.

They used a first stage magnetic field gradient to select only atoms with spin up. Of
these only atoms with spin left were selected with a stage 2 magnetic field gradient. Then
there was a stage 3 magnetic field gradient that again separated spin up and spin down
atoms. All spin down atoms were removed in the first stage, but they reappeared in stage
3! The output of stage 3 was 50% spin up and 50% spin down.
What they would like to say (and very likely could say) is:
After only spin up was selected so there were NO particles with spin down. Selecting
from the spin up beam only spin left regenerated the spin down in half of the spin left
beam!
Let’s look at this in the Static Universe Model.
For each individual particle, at the first magnetic field gradient there are 2 possible
trajectories: spin up and deflected up or spin down and deflected down. Nature has picked
one of them; for this particle, spin up. This measurement and separation renders spin left-
right indefinite. This is not mystical. The measurement of spin up or down is an actual
interaction between the particle and the magnets that has a physical effect on the particle.
Wave Mechanics shows spin up is equivalent to a 50% - 50% mixture of spin left and spin
right. Nature immediately resolves this indefinite by choosing spin left or right; for this
particle, spin left.
At the second magnetic field gradient there are 2 possible trajectories: spin left and
deflected left or spin right and deflected right. Nature has already chosen; for this particle,
spin left. This measurement and separation renders spin up-down indefinite. Again there
is an interaction between the particle and the magnet that has a physical effect on the
particle. Wave Mechanics shows that spin left is equivalent to a 50% - 50% mixture of
spin up and spin down. Nature immediately resolves this indefinite by choosing spin up
or spin down; for this particle, spin down.
 At the third stage, there are 2 possible trajectories: spin up and deflected up or spin
down and deflected down. Nature has already chosen; for this particle, spin down.
Magically, nature has regenerated spin down! This is detected as the down beam
emerging from the third stage.
You just saw 3 cases where there are multiple (2) choices for the trajectory and nature
makes its choices.
Nature is drawing out the trajectory of this particle, from the creation of the particle to
its destruction, potentially from the beginning of the universe to the end of the universe.
To draw out this trajectory nature does not need to know about the spin about every
possible axis. At the first magnetic gradient, nature needs to have a value for the particles
up-down spin only. At the second magnetic gradient, nature needs a value for the left-
right spin only. At the third magnetic gradient, nature needs a value for the up-down spin
only.
In the Static Universe Model, nature is looking at all the complete trajectories, from
the beginning of the universe to the end of the universe and making them all fit together
properly. Nature is very well aware of what parameter values it needs at every point on
every trajectory. Nature will choose values for the parameters for which it needs values.
It may or may not choose values that it does not need. However, we can never know if
nature picked a value that it does not need. If it does not need this value, that means no
trajectory in the universe is influenced by this value. That means we can never know this
value.
Now, as promised, we revisit “repeated measurements”.
Suppose we use the Stern-Gerlach apparatus as described above. In the first stage,
just as above, we select only atoms with spin up, rendering spin left-right indefinite. Wave
Mechanics shows this to be a 50% - 50% mixture of spin left and spin right as described
above. Nature will choose a value for spin left-right.
The second stage will separate the beam from the first stage to select only spin left
as described above. We did the first stage to make sure that the second stage was doing
nontrivial work. The second stage was really getting a 50-50 mixture of left and right.
Nature must pick, then all the atoms passed to the third stage were measured to have
spin left.
Now we have a third stage which, this time, is arranged to repeat the second stage
measurement. The third stage again will measure spin left-right. It will, of course, find all
atoms have spin left.
At the first stage nature must have picked spin up-down. For sure, in the second
stage, for each atom, nature must have picked spin left or right. Half the particles will go
each way. Only the spin left particles go to the third stage.
In the third stage all the particles go left because they are all spin left. Measuring the
spin left-right does not make the spin left-right indefinite.
 Consider a single atom going through the Stern-Gerlach apparatus. In the first stage
it goes up because its angular momentum was up. In the second stage it goes left so its
angular momentum is left. In the third stage it goes down because its angular momentum
is down. You just saw the angular momentum of this atom changed from up to down! Two
interesting things about this:
A particle has its state changed (in this example, spin from up to down) by just a
sequence of measurements! This is called “Steering”.
A particle has its angular momentum changed from +1/2 to -1/2, but we said angular
momentum is conserved down to the individual particle. How does this work?

Wave mechanics gives us 2 families of angular momentum. In one family the angular
momentum comes in whole units, +1, 0, -1, +2, -2, … In the other family angular
momentum comes in half units, -1/2, +1/2. There are also 2 kinds of angular momentum,
orbital angular momentum, and internal angular momentum (usually called spin). Orbital
angular momentum is due to the motion of the object relative to some specified point in
space. Orbital angular momentum is in the whole unit family. You cannot have an orbital
angular momentum of ½ unit. Internal angular momentum (spin) is intrinsic to the object.
In general, spin can be of either family. In the case of the atoms used in the Stern-Gerlach
experiment, they are in the half unit family. These atoms have internal angular momentum
of ½ in some direction, and you can see that the experimenters played with what direction
that was. What we just saw was the internal angular momentum of the atom in the up
direction change from +1/2 to -1/2. It cannot be 0.
Is Angular Momentum conserved? Yes. There is more to the story. Nature must pick
a trajectory for the apparatus, basically the magnets, as well. Nature will pick a trajectory
for the apparatus with a change in orbital angular momentum of 1 unit to balance the atom
angular momentum change of 1 unit. Since the apparatus is extremely massive (by
Quantum Mechanics standards), the change in orbital angular momentum of the
apparatus will be only an ULTRA microscopic movement.
Importantly, this explains the very mystical sounding “Steering”. There is a physical
interaction that transfers angular momentum from the magnet to the particle. There is a
real force that turns the spin axis over (in 2 steps of a quarter turn). It is not mystical at
all. Classically, a magnetic field will cause a torque on a magnetic dipole unless the dipole
moment is parallel or antiparallel to the field. The magnets are, among other things, huge
dipoles and the particles have a magnetic field, so it works both ways. This is classical,
so it proves nothing in Quantum Mechanics, but intuitively, it makes it not too surprising
that there is angular momentum exchange in the Stern-Gerlach experiment.
In general, “steering”, changing the state of a system with only a sequence of
measurements, is not mystical. Measuring something about a particle or a system always
involves some interaction with it. This can be seen by making a more detailed model of
the measurement. This interaction changes the state of the measured particle or system.
 Nature coordinates trajectories to always conserve angular momentum. Notice that
this happens across different families. The apparatus is in the whole unit family, and it is
balancing angular momentum of the atom in the half unit family. Conveniently, angular
momentum can change only by whole units, even if you are in the half unit family. It could
be viewed that this is so, specifically to allow balancing of angular momentum across
different families. The important thing is: ANY change in angular momentum, regardless
of half unit family or full unit family, or any combination of families, can always be balanced
by a change in orbital angular momentum alone.

Another example.
Momentum and position are a conjugate pair.
Suppose there is a particle with known momentum. At time, t1, we measure the
position of the particle. This renders the momentum of the particle indefinite. Nature
resolves an indefinite by making a choice, so the entire trajectory is determined. Nature
picks a momentum for the particle after the measurement of the position. The Wave
Function is our model of that choice. Nature is definite about the entire trajectory of the
particle. As usual, we don’t know what nature chose. Our Wave Function will express our
uncertainty.
To accurately model the probabilities for the decisions that nature will subsequently
make, we must adjust our Wave Function, from a plane wave before the position
measurement, to a Wave Function that represents the localization of the particle that we
know from this position measurement. If we are not interested in accurately modeling the
future probabilities, there is, of course, no need to do this. For sure nature does not care.
But things are not quite that simple. The result of nature’s choice could very well be
that the particle momentum after the position measurement is not the same as it was
before the position measurement. That is a momentum change. But nature ALWAYS
conserves momentum, down to the individual particle. How does this work?
For nature to change the momentum of the particle, it MUST have something handy
to use to balance momentum. In this case, that “something” is the stuff used to measure
the position. The position measuring thing gets momentum to balance the momentum
change of the particle.
Wave Mechanics gives us 2 ways to handle this:

ONE.
It is always correct to model the entire system of the particle and the measuring
system as one Quantum Mechanics system with 1 state space covering everything and
1 Wave Function on that state space. If you do this, it is not necessary to speak of this as
“measuring the position of a particle”. It is nothing special. This Quantum Mechanics
model will just do what it does.
 If you build such a model, there must be some interaction between the particle and
the measuring system.
Typically, the measuring system showers the particle of interest with “measuring
particles”, often photons (i.e., it shines a light on the particle of interest). To detect the
position of the particle of interest, at least one of these measuring particles must interact
strongly with the particle of interest. See section 2.4.12. This interaction will conserve
momentum. So basically, momentum is transferred from measuring particle to particle of
interest by the collision of the particles. Nature will choose, for each measuring particle,
if an interaction will happen with the particle of interest, the exact point in space time for
the interaction, and the trajectory of each outgoing particle, one of which is our particle of
interest. So, the bottom line is, nature will decide the trajectory (and hence the
momentum) of our particle after the position measurement. Nature doing so, is modeled
by the (in this case, very complex) Wave Function.
A slight variation on this is that there could be a matrix or cloud of measuring particles
that are all initially static. Our particle of interest collides with at least one of them.
Basically, the same thing.
That is not the only way to determine position. Another way to determine the position
is to have a barrier with a hole in it. If the particle gets through the barrier, you know it
went through the hole. This is diffraction. See section 2.4.5 on diffraction. Momentum is
conserved in diffraction (in Quantum Mechanics Model). Nature will add momentum to
the barrier to exactly balance the momentum change of the particle. Normally, the barrier
is extremely massive compared with the particle so that the resulting movement of the
barrier is ultra-microscopic.
Both in position measurement by collision and position measurement with a
hole in a barrier, it is absolutely clear that the new momentum of the particle is
established at the measurement of the position, specifically at the collision(s) or at
the diffraction at the hole in the barrier. It is clear that the new momentum is NOT
established at some (possibly much) later measurement of the particle’s
momentum as Copenhagen tells us. It is equally clear from a detailed model like
this that there was never any time when the particles momentum was “physically
indefinite”. It may have been unknown to us for a period of time. In that case, in our
model, we may represent the particle with a Wave Function with a very broad range of
momentum. This represents what WE don’t know, but it does not represent what nature
doesn’t know. There was never any “physical indefinite”. This is also counter to
Copenhagen.

TWO.
Wave Mechanics, in effect, provides a default model of the position measurement.
This default model is optimal. The default model provides probabilities for various
momenta of the particle of interest after the position measurement. The default
momentum probabilities represent the least possible disturbance of the momentum of the
particle of interest. There is no position measuring method conceivable, with what we
know about physics, that could measure the position to the specified precision with less
disturbance to the particle momentum than what the default model specifies. Any real
measurement must do worse. This default model is built-in to the operators for position
and momentum in Wave Mechanics. The default is the would-be result of a best possible
collision model, ONE above.
But, from the point of view of Conservation of Momentum, the “Default Model”, TWO,
is still based on a “collision model”, ONE. It just assumes the optimal position measuring
method. Momentum is transferred by “something” in the measuring system interacting
with the particle of interest.

Next, we measure the particles momentum (at time t2). This renders the position, that
we just finished measuring (at time t1), indefinite. We don’t have to accept this as a
mystical law, either. We are invited to supply a detailed model of the momentum
measurement. Nature resolves an indefinite by making a choice, so the entire trajectory
is determined. Nature picks a location (at time t2) for the particle, after the measurement
of the momentum, with probabilities modeled by the Wave Function. Nature is definite
about the entire trajectory of the particle. As usual, we don’t know what nature chose.
To accurately model the probabilities for the choices that nature subsequently makes
for the position (after time t2), we must adjust our Wave Function, to be much more like
a plane wave to express what we know about the momentum, by way of this
measurement of the momentum. If we are not interested in accurately modeling future
probabilities, there is, of course, no need to do this. For sure nature does not care.

We could measure the position again …

SUMMARY: There are “conjugate sets” of parameters. If one of the parameters of a

conjugate set of parameters is measured, the other parameters of this conjugate set
become indefinite (or you can make a detailed model of the measurement). Nature will
immediately resolve an indefinite by making a choice for the indefinite parameter, as
needed, to draw out the complete trajectory. The complete trajectory is definite, but, of
course, nature does not tell us what it is. Indeed, indefinite parameters exist, to provide
opportunities for nature to make choices. Without indefinite parameters, you have
classical mechanics and the universe is very boring.
Here, the word “measured” must be taken in a very general sense. For example, it
includes the selection of cases from an ensemble of cases based on the value of a
parameter. There is also a matter of degree. A rough approximate determination of the
value of a parameter, may produce only a degree of indefiniteness in a conjugate
parameter, which nature will immediately resolve with a choice that would then, with high
probability, not greatly differ from its immediately previous value.

2.4.4 DOUBLE SLIT EXPERIMENTS

2.4.4.1 BASIC

Individual electrons are fired with the same momentum at a screen that will block
them except for 2 closely spaced parallel slits they can get through. Most electrons are
blocked but some get through the screen via the slits. Beyond the slits is another screen
which the electrons that got through the first screen will hit. This screen is outfitted to
record the location of each electron hit. As, over time, a large number of electrons hit the
second screen, the accumulation of hits makes a characteristic interference pattern.
The conventional (Copenhagen) interpretation is that the physical manifestation of
the Wave Function IS the electron. This physical manifestation of the Wave Function for
each electron propagates through both slits and then the 2 branches interfere with each
other to make the interference pattern. Hence it is frequently said that each electron went
through both slits.
This Wave Function physical manifestation is spread out over a large volume to get
through both slits and over an even much bigger volume after the 2 slits to hit a large area
on the second screen. But, an electron must be detected only once, at just one point on
the second screen. Then the physical manifestation of the Wave Function must collapse
so quickly over this large space that it never is detected at 2 places. When a detectable
hit happens at one place, this information must be gotten to every place where the
manifestation of the Wave Function is nonzero to prevent a second detection. Miraculous.
Some experimenters with the double slit experiment then put detectors in front of
each slit. They showed conclusively that no single electron hit both detectors. That is, of
course, not proof that the electron did not go through both slits when the detectors where
not there, but it is another demonstration that although the manifestation of the Wave
Function hits both detectors, the electron is miraculously never detected twice.
Now, let’s look at this according Quantum Mechanics Model (including the Static
Universe Model, of course).
The Wave Function has no physical significance. It exists only in our model and only
as a phenomenological model of nature picking trajectories.
Does the electron go through both slits? We don’t even need a Wave Function to
answer this question. You need only look at State Space. There is no point in State Space
that has the electron in 2 different places. It is part of the definition of “particle” that there
is no point in State Space in which it is at 2 different places. So, it is absolutely clear that
the electron does NOT go through both slits. No electron will hit both detectors, one over
each slit. This is exactly what is observed.
The Wave Function (which is a mathematical object) is exactly the same for both
Copenhagen and Quantum Mechanics Model. The Wave Function (in our Quantum
Mechanics model) goes through our model of both slits and makes an interference pattern
on the second screen (in our model). This is our model of the probabilities of nature
picking various candidates for the actual trajectory for each electron to the second screen
in physical reality.
Nature has picked a complete trajectory from many physically possible trajectories all
the way from the electron beam source to hitting the second screen. Once nature has
picked the trajectory, the electron follows it essentially classically. In picking the actual
trajectory, nature examines all physically possible trajectories. This is not only as the pool
from which it picks one; It is influenced by the presence or absence of possible trajectories
that it did NOT pick. Hence if both slits are open, the probabilities of various trajectories
that go through the left slit is different than they would be if the right slit is blocked, even
though we are considering only trajectories that go through the left slit. The interference
pattern disappears if the right slit is blocked. We model this with the Wave Function that
will be different with the right slit blocked. This picking is modeled by the Wave Function
(in our model).
Natures choice of the actual trajectory, even between 2 trajectories that do not go
through the right slit, is influenced by the presence, or not, of possible trajectories that go
through the right slit.
Now suppose we put detectors at each of the 2 slits so we can determine which slit
the electron went through.
In Copenhagen, when we know that the electron went through slit 1 and not slit 2,
this causes nature to instantly collapse the Wave Function (believed to have a real,
physical manifestation that commands subsequent actions of nature) to not go through
slit 2. The interference pattern disappears.
The following section, 2.4.4.2, describes an experiment that shows that, even if the
detection that the particle did not go through slit 2 is accomplished only much later, long
after the particle hit the second screen and contributed to the interference pattern (or not),
it still prevents the formation of the interference pattern. In Copenhagen, this is pretty
amazing time reversed causality.
Some people believe that it is the actual intelligent comprehension that the particle
did not go through one of the slits by a human, that causes the Wave Function Collapse
that defeats the interference pattern. That suggests a thought experiment. The detectors
at the slits detect for each particle, the slit or slits it went through, but they merely store
that information. No human knows. The information is stored for a thousand years, and
then somebody reads it. Presumably, that would control whether we see an interference
pattern 1000 years earlier or not.
 Now view this in Quantum Mechanics Model.
In Quantum Mechanics Model, the right way to look at this is to model the detectors.
Detecting whether or not a particle passed a slit is essentially the same as measuring its
location. See section 2.4.3. To detect the presence of the particle, there must be a strong
interaction with at least one measuring particle. This will change the momentum of the
particle of interest in a random way. That is represented in our model as a random change
in the particle’s Wave Function’s wave length and direction distribution going through
each detector (slit). That randomly changes the interference pattern from particle to
particle. That blurs the interference pattern. This interference pattern, or lack thereof, is
our model of the probabilities of the trajectories that nature has chosen.
A detector with a low detection probability will have a low probability of significantly
altering the particle of interest’s momentum. But a detector with a high detection
probability will have a high probability of significantly altering the particle of interest’s
momentum.
With low detection probability detectors in place, it will blur the interference pattern
some, but you will only be able to say that, based on the measurement, for some small
percentage of the particles, the particle did not go through both slits. As the detection
efficiency of the detectors rises, you can say that, based on measurement, for a larger
percentage of the particles, the particle did not go through both slits, but there is more
severe blurring of the interference pattern. Finally, with high detection efficiency, you can
say that, based on measurement, for practically all of the particles, the particle did not go
through both slits, but the interference pattern is gone.
Of course, no particle can be shown to hit both detectors.
In Quantum Mechanics Model this is conceptually simple Wave Mechanics. Nothing
unusual and certainly nothing mystical or amazing.

2.4.4.2 COPENHAGEN TIME REVERSED CAUSALITY

In 2016, Narasimhan and Kafatos [6] did an elaborate double slit experiment, using
equipment that was designed by Kim, Kulik, et al. [7] in 1984.
They put individual photons, one at a time, through a double slit. Immediately after
the slits the photon was converted into an entangled pair of photons (Photon1, Photon 2)
(see the section 2.4.6 on entanglement). Photon 1 went to the detector where, with many
similarly treated photons, it might form an interference pattern. Photon 2 went for a long
distance to age it for 8 ns. Then Photon 2 went into a different apparatus. This apparatus
starts with a half-silvered mirror. There is a random 50% chance photon 2 will be blocked
and lost (“no ‘which-path’ information is available”), and a random 50% chance that
photon 2 will continue on. Then there are 2 detectors. One will detect photon 2 if it came
from slit A and 1 that will detect photon 2 if it came from slit B. 50% of the time, randomly,
it will be known which slit photon1 went through, and 50% of the time nothing will be
known about which slit photon 1 went through, all without doing anything at all to photon
1.
Note that the photon 1 detector indeed records the location of the photon 1 hit, as
stated, 8 ns before photon 2 could be detected. But the information from the detection of
photon 1 must then be delayed for at least 8 ns so that it can be filtered with the photon
2 data.
Observation:
If you accept, at the detector, only Photon 1’s for which it will be determined (8 ns
later) that “no ‘which-path’ information is available”, then there is an interference pattern
at the Photon 1 detector.
If you accept, at the detector, only Photon 1’s for which it will be determined (8 ns
later) that they went through only one slit (either of the 2 slits), there is no interference
pattern.
Even though a Photon 2 is not observed until long after its entangled Photon 1 arrives
at its detector due to the shorter optical path for Photon 1, interference is determined by
whether Photon 2 loses or preserves its ‘which-path’ information.
In Copenhagen, this is time reversed causality. The late determination that the photon
went through only 1 slit causes the earlier collapse of the Photon 1 Wave Function to a
single slit Wave Function. But if it will NOT be determined (late) that the particle went
through only 1 slit, then (earlier) an interference pattern is observed. Apparently, the story
in Copenhagen, is that observation not only causes Wave Function Collapse which
commands nature, but it can reach back in time, to cause collapse and command nature
before this observation that caused the Collapse! Perhaps we should not be too surprised.
If an observation can cause a Collapse a billion light years away in 0 time, it is not so big
a stretch to say it can even do so in negative time!
Now let’s look at this experiment in Quantum Mechanics Model.
Suppose nature is choosing the 3 photon trajectories for which “no ‘which-path’
information is available”. Photon 2 is blocked by the half-silvered mirror. Nature can pick
a consistent set of the 3 photon trajectories (section 2.3.5) in which the original photon
went through slit A. But then there is an equally good alternative path available in which
the original photon goes through slit B. This set of cases will make an interference pattern.
The requirement for making an interference pattern is that for choosing a trajectory,
nature must see 2 equally good trajectory candidates, one through slit A and the other
through slit B. Nature will choose one of them for this case, but the other trajectory
candidate being available is what makes the interference.
Suppose nature is choosing the 3 photon trajectories in which photon 2 hits the slit A
detector. Nature must pick a consistent set of the 3 photons in which the original photon
went through slit A and photon 2 hits the slit A detector, of course. There is NO alternative
set of the 3 trajectories in which the original photon went through slit B, but photon 2 still
hits the slit A detector. Since there is no alternant path as a competing choice, there is no
interference in this set of cases.
Same for nature choosing the 3 trajectories in which photon 2 hits the slit B detector.
No interference.
Conspicuously, nothing is said about photon 2 being detected after the photon 1
detection. That is because it makes no difference what the timing is. This is the Static
Universe Model. Everything is just static trajectories through Space Time, from the
beginning of the universe to the end of the universe. Nothing is moving. Everything just
IS. Nature is picking the trajectories with the full visibility of all trajectories from the
beginning of the universe to the end of the universe. If photon 2 hits the slit detector a
billion years AFTER (or before) photon 1 hits its detector, it makes no difference. It’s all
there to be seen in any case.
In Quantum Mechanics Model, this is essentially the same as the ordinary double slit
experiment if 1 slit can be blocked when desired.
How do we model it in Quantum Mechanics Model? You make Wave Functions of
the three photons, properly fit together. The Wave Functions exist only in our model.
There is no physical manifestation of the Wave Functions. For the “No slit detector” case,
you already see the interference pattern at the photon 1 detector.
For the slit A detector hit case, we know that photon 2 hit the slit A detector. We
should mold the Wave Functions to describe what we know. Nature has no interest in our
Wave Function. It is only to represent what WE know. Force the constraint that the photon
2 Wave Function must hit the slit A detector, 100%. You must then back trim the photon
2 Wave Function (keeping the Wave Function propagating properly) to realize this
constraint. The result should be that the original photon Wave Function went through slit
A only. If you already believe that photon 2 hit the slit A detector means that the original
photon went only through slit A, then you don’t have to do all this work. Just set the original
photon Wave Function to go only through slit A. Now propagate that to the photon 1 Wave
Function. Propagate that forward to its detector. You should see diffraction but no
interference pattern. Obviously, this must be a single slit diffraction pattern.
Notice that there is no physical Wave Function Collapse because there is no physical
manifestation of any Wave Function. Again, Conspicuously, nothing is said about photon
2 being detected after the photon 1 detection. That is because it makes no difference
what the timing is. If the photon 2 detection was a billion years before or after the photon
1 detection, nothing would be different.
This gives an opportunity to reinforce something about double slit experiments. The
Wave Function (which exists only in our model) goes through both slits (when
appropriate), IN OUR MODEL. A particle NEVER goes through both slits. Wave Functions
express what WE know and are for computing probabilities; particles are physical things
that are totally different.
 To short cut all that work we just summarize: Multiple paths make interference; single
path makes no interference.
In Quantum Mechanics Model, there is nothing unusual here. Nothing mystical.
It seems that this experiment is a significant embarrassment for the Copenhagen
Interpretation, but it is beautiful and simple for Quantum Mechanics Model.

2.4.5 DIFFRACTION
 Suppose there is a thin (there is very little edge that could be hit), impenetrable barrier
at Z = 0, at all values of Y, but only at negative X. A single particle is fired approximately
toward the origin, approximately along the Z axis from a source a long distance out at
negative Z. Classically, the particle has about a 50% - 50% chance of hitting the barrier
and being blocked from getting to positive Z, or missing the barrier and going on out to
large positive Z. And, of course, classically, the particle trajectory will be linear unless it
hits the barrier, until it hits the barrier, because there is no force on the particle except the
huge repulsive force if it invades the barrier.
In actual observation, with small particles, like electrons, neutrons, and photons, out
at positive Z, particles are frequently detected at a wide range of negative X values. There
is no straight-line path from the source to these detection points at negative X without
going through the barrier (Fig. 4). This is “diffraction”. Indeed, the famous 2 slit
interference experiments could not work without this diffraction at the 2 slits.
If we detect a particle at positive Z and negative X, this particle has gotten some
negative X momentum which it did not have at negative Z. Indeed, we can arrange for the
particle to go through multiple detectors and demonstrate that after passing the barrier it
is going in a very different direction than any line from the source that clears the barrier.
Is momentum conserved?
In the model, there is a Wave Function from the source at negative Z going toward
positive Z, fig. 2. This Wave function will have a large width in both X and Y (by
assumption, infinite in Y). About half of this wave function would hit the barrier (in our
model) and reflect back (in our model). The other half would be at X > 0 and would miss
the barrier and flow on out to large positive Z (in our model).
This is represented in 2 figures, for clarity. Figure 2 shows the incident Wave Function
from the source and only the Wave Function missing the barrier and continuing to positive
Z. Figure 3 shows only the Wave Function that was reflected back toward negative Z after
hitting the barrier. These 2 figures should be superimposed, but it is much clearer to have
them separate.
 Consider first the Wave Function that misses the barrier (at positive X) (fig. 2). At the
barrier, Z = 0, this Wave function is the incident Wave Function, but it has been abruptly
cut to 0 at X = 0, and for all negative X.
At positive Z, the Wave Function (in our model) would spread toward negative X,
naturally, as a result of propagation via Schrodinger’s Equation. (It is diffusing into the
sharp, deep hole created in the Wave Function by the barrier.). Hence, according to
Quantum Mechanics, there is a very significant probability that the particle would be
detected at a substantial negative X, far out at positive Z (fig. 2). Note that this is not
possible Classically. This is diffraction.
In Quantum Mechanics Model, this Wave Function gives us the menu of trajectories
from which nature will pick a trajectory for this particle, and the probability of nature
choosing each possible trajectory. There is a significant probability that nature would pick
a trajectory that passes close to X = 0 at Z = 0, where it bends toward negative X, and
proceeds on at an angle, to positive Z and negative X. Figure 4 shows some of the
trajectories in the menu from which nature will pick, with this being one of the choices.
This trajectory bends near the barrier; it is not linear! It is surprising that the particle
trajectory bends, when there is no known force to make it bend. The barrier provides only
repulsion. This bend would require attraction toward the barrier!
But this is what Wave Mechanics says and it is very well confirmed by countless
observations. Indeed, the 2-slit interference experiment could not work without diffraction
at the 2 parallel slits.
A frequently asked question is: what about conservation of momentum?? If the
particle is detected at negative X and positive Z (as often happens), the particle has gotten
negative X momentum. How could momentum be conserved?
In Quantum Mechanics Model with the Static Universe Model, this is not the end of
the story. Nature must also pick a trajectory for the barrier. Nature will always coordinate
the picking of trajectories to conserve Energy, Momentum, and Angular Momentum. If the
barrier is extremely massive compared with the particle, then it will require only an ultra-
microscopic movement in the barrier to balance the X momentum change in the particle.
This is an example of a purely Quantum Mechanical “force”. There is no real force
here, but the motions of the particle and the barrier makes it appear that there is an
attractive force between them. There is no classical analog to this “Quantum Mechanical
force”.
The incident Wave Function (in our model), W, is a plane wave, infinite in X and Y
and Z. It is traveling in the Z direction from negative Z to positive Z. This Wave Function
is an eigenfunction of momentum. The X component of momentum is 0. The Y component
of momentum is 0. The Z component of momentum is p.
Notice that the reflected back wave (Fig. 3) is exactly the same as the forward wave
at positive Z (Fig. 2). One case can be rotated 180 degrees to be the other case. Hence
the negative X momentum in the wave at positive Z (Fig. 2) is equal to the positive X
momentum in the reflected wave at negative Z (Fig. 3).
Consider also a decomposition of the incident wave, W = U + V. U is the same as W
for negative X but is 0 for positive X. V is the same as W for positive X but is 0 for negative
X. Both U and V contain X momentum because of being cut off on one side, but they are
obviously symmetrical. The X Momentum of U must exactly balance the X momentum of
V, since W has 0 X momentum.
There are 2 extreme cases:
Case 1: The barrier is absorbing and captures any particle hitting it. In this case, there
would be no Figure 3 and, in Figure 4, in the 2 examples showing a particle hitting the
barrier there would be no rebound.
Case 2: The barrier is perfectly reflecting. In that case, there is a Wave reflecting back
(Figure 3). This reflected wave will diffract toward positive X, according to the Schrodinger
equation. Figure 4 will be as drawn.
In case 1, the barrier absorbs the U wave and its momentum. This leaves the negative
X momentum in the V wave which passes the barrier and expresses that negative X
momentum in the diffracted wave at positive Z.
In case 2. W arrives at Z=0 with no X momentum. Part of it reflects back from the
barrier and part of it proceeds on to positive Z. It was noted that these two waves leaving
the barrier are 180-degree rotations of each other. The X momentum of one balances the
X momentum of the other.
And, of course, there is an infinity of possibilities between perfectly absorbing and
perfectly reflecting, but it seems like all this would work out too.
This all sounds really good. At the level of Wave Functions, momentum is exactly
conserved. Statistically, momentum is conserved.
BUT, what about an individual particle?
W can represent THE PROBABILITIES of a single particle. So, we can say that
momentum is conserved for THE EXPECTATION VALUE of the X momentum of this
single particle. But that does not tell you what will actually happen to this single particle.

First, just Wave Mechanics (no add-ons):

This single particle could certainly get negative X momentum and go on out to positive
Z. This is non-Conservation of Momentum. It could be absorbed by the barrier (case 1).
Momentum Conserved. It could reflect off of the barrier and go back to negative Z, no
diffraction (case 2). Momentum Conserved. It could reflect off of the barrier and go back
to negative Z, with diffraction (case 2). This is non-Conservation of Momentum.
 But it cannot do more than one of these possibilities. To be much more specific, this
particle could finally be detected at positive Z and perhaps negative X; Or it could be
detected at negative Z and perhaps positive X; or it could be not detected at all. But, at
most, it could be detected in one of these places. It is a certainty that there are cases with
nonzero probability in which this single particle will not Conserve Momentum in a model
that is just Wave Mechanics.

Next, Wave Mechanics with Copenhagen:

This single particle will be detected at positive Z, or it will hit the barrier. If it is detected
at positive Z it can have negative X momentum. Copenhagen says that it then definitely
did not hit the barrier. Hence no impulse to the barrier (case 1), and no positive X
momentum by diffracting after reflecting (case2). This is non-Conservation of Momentum.
Similarly, yet in Wave Mechanics with Copenhagen, this single particle could hit the
barrier. Copenhagen says then there is no particle at positive Z with negative X
momentum. The particle could be U Wave and deliver an impulse to the barrier (case 1),
or it could reflect and then diffract (case 2) and have positive X momentum. Both of these
scenarios are non-Conservation of Momentum.
It is a certainty that there are cases with nonzero probability in which this single
particle will not Conserve Momentum in a model that is Wave Mechanics with
Copenhagen.
Copenhagen solidifies the failure to show Conservation of Momentum for an
individual particle in Wave Mechanics alone. It makes the bad worse.

Unfortunately, life is not this simple. There is still the barrier. The barrier, even though
it is massive, could very easily have as much or even much more momentum than the
particle has. It would move only ultra-microscopically because it is massive.
In fact, we should do the same analysis all over again swapping roles between the
particle and the barrier. All of the same things happen to the barrier. The barrier can reflect
off of the particle or absorb the particle. We already accounted for the momentum transfer
because of this and noted that for just these things, momentum is conserved. The
interesting case is that the barrier can diffract. The place where the particle does not
conserve momentum (according to Wave Mechanics with or without Copenhagen) is
when a diffraction occurs. Similarly, we will find that the barrier does not conserve
momentum (according to Wave Mechanics with or without Copenhagen) when diffraction
of the barrier is involved. Could it be that diffraction of the barrier always happens when
there is diffraction of the particle, and the non-conservation of momentum on the two sides
exactly cancels out??
No. In Wave Mechanics with or without Copenhagen, for each trajectory of the barrier,
there are very many trajectories of the particle with very many different X momenta, each
with a probability given by the Wave Function. In Wave Mechanics with or without
Copenhagen there is no correlation between the particle Wave Function and the Barrier
Wave Function. Since all movement of the barrier is ultra-microscopic due to its mass,
the probabilities of particle positions or trajectories have only extremely small difference
with barrier position.
It is quite possible that there are some particle trajectories with nonzero probability
and barrier X momentum change with simultaneously nonzero probability that exactly
cancels the particle X momentum change, but that is not interesting. What IS interesting
is that, it is inevitable that there are examples with nonzero probability, in which the
particle X momentum change is NOT exactly balanced by a barrier X momentum change.
We need only one good case.
The basic problem is that in Wave Mechanics with or without Copenhagen there is
no correlation between the barrier and the particle. Quantum Mechanics Model provides
this correlation.
The bottom line is that in Wave Mechanics with or without Copenhagen, momentum
is not conserved on an individual case basis; it is conserved statistically only.
Wave Mechanics, with or without Copenhagen, is not especially good with individual
particles!
The Static Universe Model IS Especially Good with individual particles!
On an individual basis, nature always chooses trajectories that conserve Energy,
Momentum, and Angular Momentum. Nature will choose a trajectory for the barrier
(EXTREMLY slight movement, since it is assumed to be massive, compared with the
particle) so that Energy, Momentum and Angular momentum are conserved, for the
particle trajectory it chose.
The Quantum Mechanics, the diffraction, are in natures choice of trajectories. Once
chosen, the trajectories are basically classical. Figure 4 gives examples of the reality that
nature finally delivers to us.
But there is another twist with the Static Universe Model.
In the Static Universe Model, Quantum Mechanics says there are multiple, perhaps
very many possible trajectories for all involved entities. Nature picks one of the many
possibilities for the trajectory of each entity. This is coordinated. Nature always chooses
to conserve Energy, Momentum and Angular momentum. With natures choices made,
then the trajectories of all entities are quite classical.
This immediately explains why the conservation laws hold for each individual particle,
not just statistically. But there is something more interesting.
The chosen (pretty much classical) trajectory for a diffracted particle around a barrier
is curved (Figure 4). It is curved TOWARD the edge of the barrier. Yet there is NO
attractive force on the particle toward the barrier. The only assumed force is an infinite
repulsion, if the particle invades the space of the barrier. There is NO attractive force. Yet
the trajectory of the particle bends TOWARD the nearby edge of the barrier!

Hence, for Quantum Mechanics Model with the Static Universe Model:
Conservation of Energy YES!
Conservation of Momentum YES!
Conservation of Angular Momentum YES!
F=MA NO!

There is an acceleration of the particle with no force to blame it on!

This means nature can add momentum to object 1 or subtract momentum from object
2, to balance momentum, with no identified force on object 1 or object 2, BUT the Wave
Function models this juggling. Nature does not create or destroy momentum just
anywhere! There are some rules, and Quantum Mechanics models those rules.
This is most unclassical! Fully classical mechanics would say momentum can be
transferred only by a force. Quantum Mechanics Model says momentum can be
transferred according to the Wave Function. This is often by means of a potential energy
function (a force), but it does not require a force. That is what the Wave Function is all
about. Waves go places (in our model) without requiring a force, and the Wave Function
is a good model of nature’s decisions.
If nature strictly observed F = M A, that would pretty much kill Quantum Mechanics!
Diffraction in Quantum Mechanics says particles can have nonlinear trajectories
without a force. This is true in Copenhagen and in the Static Universe Model.

2.4.6 ENTANGLEMENT [8]

2.4.6.1 GENERAL “ENTANGLEMENT”

Consider a system composed of 2 or more separate subsystems, A and B, for

example, 2 particles. Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen in 1935 noticed that it is possible to
write a Wave Function for this system which cannot be expressed as the product of
factors, each factor depending on the state variables of only 1 subsystem (particle). Of
course, the easiest way to make that happen is to have A and B interacting. The real
discovery is that there can be a “non-separable” Wave Function even when A and B have
no interaction at all. This means that, in this Wave Function, 1 subsystem does not have
a state independent from the other subsystem. Only the system, as a whole, has states,
in this Wave Function. This was called “Entanglement”. The 2 (or more) subsystems were
said to be “Entangled”.
Note that in Quantum Mechanics Model, entanglement is clearly a Wave Function
thing. But the Wave Function is a good model for how nature will pick trajectories, so this
is the channel for “entanglement” to influence the chosen trajectories.
For example, let A be a spin ½ particle. See section 2.4.1.3. Let UP be the Wave
Function for the pure spin up state and DN be the Wave Function for the pure spin Down
state.
The Wave Function (ignoring normalization for simplicity) could be
x UP + y DN x and y are complex numbers

This is a “superposition”. It expresses that there is a probability that the spin is up and
a probability that the spin is down. Note that, as usual, those probabilities could be more
just our ignorance than anything physical.
Unlike in Copenhagen where the Wave Function (essentially) IS the particle, in
Quantum Mechanics Model, the particle, A, and any Wave Function we might use to
compute probabilities for parameters of A are totally different things.
Particle A is a physical thing. A physical thing is NOT a mathematical thing. Adding
particles is words with no meaning. The state space has 1 parameter for particle A, spin.
There are 2 possible states for this spin, UP or DOWN. Nature must pick UP or DOWN.
Nothing else.
Superposition (in our Wave Function) arises from the fact that WE have probabilities
only. Nature does not have probabilities. “God does not play dice with the universe”,
Einstein. Nature is definite.
A is a physical particle. Wave Functions exist only in our models. Wave Functions
can be superpositions, particles (and cats) cannot be. Nature deals with physical things.
We deal with Mathematical things.
It is exactly the same for entanglement. A Wave Function (only in our model) can
have entanglement. Particles (and cats) cannot.
A Wave Function (only in our model) can show the spin of particle A and the spin of
particle B entangled. For example, the Wave Function may be non-zero only if the spin
of A is opposite to the spin of B. But physically, each of the 2 particles has 1 parameter
in state space. That parameter has 2 possible values, UP and DOWN. When nature picks
a trajectory for each particle, the menu for the selection has only UP or DOWN. Nothing
else. The particle is a physical thing. Nature deals with physical things, The Wave
Function is a mathematical thing. We deal with mathematical things.
 In such an “Entangled” 2 subsystem system, to get a state with significant probability,
if subsystem A, is in this state, then subsystem B must be in that state (or some small
subset of states). Put this way, it sounds like constraints between A and B.
An Alternative way to look at it is that there is subsystem (particle) A with its states
and subsystem (particle) B with its states, and constraints as a third item. This is
factoring the Wave Function into a factor depending only on A, a factor depending only
on B, and a factor that depends on both A and B.
Similarly, if I have subsystems A and B, and constraints between A and B, the Wave
Function for the entire system, expressing these constraints, would not factor into a factor
that depends only on A and a factor that depends only on B. There must be a factor that
depends on both A and B, for constraints, as well.
So, to a large extent, looking at it:
as a system with a non-separable Wave Function,
or,
as multiple, otherwise separate subsystems, with constraints between
subsystems,
are equivalent.
Use our spin ½ particles A and B for an example. A has pure state Wave Functions
AUP and ADN. B has pure state Wave Functions BUP and BDN. Consider the Wave
Function (ignoring normalization):
ADN BDN + ADN BUP + AUP BDN + AUP BUP = (ADN + AUP) (BDN + BUP)
The left-hand side contains all possibilities for the system equally weighted and with
the same phase. This means no constraints. As shown on the right-hand side, the Wave
Function is separable. No entanglement.
Now remove the first term on the left-hand side:
ADN BUP + AUP BDN + AUP BUP = ADN BUP + AUP (BDN + BUP)
This represents a constraint. If A is DN, B cannot be DN to get a nonzero Wave
Function. This Wave Function is (partially) entangled. It is not separable.
If we remove the last term on the left-hand side:
ADN BUP + AUP BDN
This represents the constraint that the spin of A must be opposite the spin of B to get
a nonzero Wave Function. The Wave Function is completely entangled. It is not
separable.
This Wave Function directly represents that for some particular axis, J, about which
spins will be measured, with spin ½ particles, there is a nonzero probability if and only if
the A particle spin is opposite to the B particle spin. While there is no mysticism, there is
something worth remarking.
For a spin ½ particle and a choice of axis, the 2 states, UP and DN are a complete
basis. Hence any Wave Function, representing the spin around any axis can be
represented as some linear combination of UP and DN (about axis J). Suppose we pick
a different axis, K. The Wave Functions for the spins around this different axis we call
LEFT and RIGHT. Then LEFT is a linear combination of UP and DN. Similarly, RIGHT is
a linear combination of UP and DN. It is elementary Quantum Mechanics to show that the
Wave Functions ADN BUP + AUP BDN and ALEFT BRIGHT + ARIGHT BLEFT are
equivalent. One can be turned into the other with some algebra. This says that, in Wave
Mechanics, the Wave Function ADN BUP + AUP BDN does not only say the spins around
some axis must be opposite for a non-zero Wave Function, but the spins around ANY
axis must be opposite for a non-zero Wave Function.
That was about Wave Functions. Now consider physical reality. We believe the Wave
Function is a very good model for the decisions that nature made. If this is the proper
Wave Function to describe this physical reality, then, no matter what axis is chosen, for
measurements of the spin around that axis, nature will choose trajectories so that the 2
particles will have opposite spins.
But the angular momentum about one axis is conjugate to the angular momentum
around a different axis. Yes. From section 2.4.3, it is clear that the only thing that is going
on with conjugate parameters, is that the actual measurement of one parameter
necessarily disturbs its conjugate parameters values in the trajectory. You can make, as
in section 2.4.3, a detailed model of that, either really, or just as a thought experiment.
There is no mysticism beyond that. So, if there is no measurement of the spin around the
first axis, there is no disturbance of the spin around the second axis. In the present
context, “conjugate parameters” is not relevant.
Assume we are correct that, for some particular axis, J, ADN BUP + AUP BDN is a
good model for this system. Now pick any axis, K (assume K is not J), and measure the
spins. Nature has already, “at the beginning of the universe”, picked the trajectories for
the two particles, including the values for the spins (perhaps for the spins around every
axis, or perhaps only the spin values that are required; we can never determine which).
If WE are correct that ADN BUP + AUP BDN (axis J) is a good model for this system, you
will get one spin up and one spin down (axis K), because Wave Mechanics is a good
model for the decisions that nature made.
Of course, we could have the system of particle A and B, as we have been discussing.
We could write the Wave Function for it as ADN BUP + AUP BDN; fully entangled. The
spins must be opposite to get nonzero probability (as WE calculate it). But the Wave
Function we wrote, as always, expresses what WE know or think, which may not model
reality well. Measurement may show both spins up or both spins down. Just writing some
Wave Function does not command nature. The Wave Function is a good model of the
decisions that nature made only if it is a good model.
 Wave Mechanics alone or with Copenhagen does not have conservation of
Momentum or Angular Momentum at the individual particle level.
Quantum Mechanics Model has exactly the same Wave Mechanics, but it also has
conservation of Energy, Momentum, and Angular Momentum at the individual particle
level. It is particularly convenient, in Quantum Mechanics Model, to have independent
particles but express the conservation laws at the particle level as constraints between
these particles. In the classic Entanglement EPR Experiment, treat the 2 particles as
separate entities, but there is conservation of angular momentum.
The idea of constraints is not as convenient in Copenhagen. Without Quantum
Mechanics Model, the conservation laws that are so naturally represented as constraints
don’t exist. Conservation laws are the big users of constraints in Quantum Mechanics
Model.
Suppose a system, S, composed of two subsystems, A and B. Suppose the Wave
Function for S can be factored into 3 factors: a factor, Fa, depending only on parameters
of subsystem A, a factor, Fb, depending only on parameters of subsystem B, and a factor,
Fab, depending on parameters, P, of both subsystem A and B and not separable. Then
we can say that subsystem A and B are not entangled; their parameters, P, are entangled.
Basically, full particle Wave Functions are not entangled, parameters of particle Wave
Functions are entangled, but it could happen that all parameters of the particles are
entangled.
A very typical example is two particles that have their spins entangled (in a Wave
Function) but their positions and momenta are not entangled. They can come and go as
they wish, but their spins are entangled.
There have been many experiments focused on “entanglement”. Many of these
experiments come down to one or more conservation laws, typically, conservation of
angular momentum.
Quantum Mechanics Model has conservation of energy, momentum, and angular
momentum at the individual particle level. Nature already picks trajectories coordinated
to conserve energy, momentum and angular momentum. Nature is going to conserve
angular momentum anyway and does not require our help to do so. In Quantum
Mechanics Model, the Wave Function exists only in our model. Nature certainly does not
require anything from our Wave Function to help it conserve angular momentum.
However, if we want to accurately model probabilities for nature picking various
trajectories, we must model conservation of angular momentum over 2 or more particles.
Wave Mechanics alone does not have conservation of angular momentum at the
individual particle level. How do we express conservation of angular momentum in Wave
Mechanics?
As was discussed, conservation of angular momentum is a constraint between
particles. Constraints between particles are modeled as non-separable factors in our
Wave Function; that is, “entanglement”. Pretty mundane. No mysticism. There will be an
entanglement of angular momentum in our Wave Function. Our Wave Function (which
exists only in our model) now carries more information. Our Wave Function now says that
Angular Momentum will be conserved. It makes absolutely no difference to nature, but
this allows us to do accurate computations of probabilities. It should be very clear that this
entanglement does NOT confer any magical powers.
In Quantum Mechanics Model, we are not forced to do this. As was pointed out in
section 2.3.4.1, as an alternative in Quantum Mechanics Model, we can leave the Wave
Function intact, and have, on the side, a note that says the spins of the two particles must
be opposite (or whatever). This defines a hyper surface, S, in state space. Any state in
state space that is not on S has Wave Function = 0. The Wave Function can be nonzero
only on S. The Wave Function should be normalized to yield 1 if it is integrated only over
S, because we know that the probability is 1 that the actual trajectories will be on S.
Probabilities are computed by integrating only over some subset of S. This emphasizes
how mundane this is. It certainly has no magical powers about it.
Unfortunately, Wave Mechanics alone conserves momentum, angular momentum
and energy only statistically. The expectation values over many particles conserves
momentum and energy, but certainly individual particles do not, in Wave Mechanics
alone. Adding on Copenhagen does not help, if it does not indeed make conservation
even worse.
In Copenhagen, the Wave Function has a real physical manifestation that commands
nature. This manifestation practically is the particles.
How can we impress conservation of angular momentum, on the Wave Function at
the individual particle level, in Copenhagen, if we might want to? In Copenhagen, this is
serious business because it commands nature. Whatever we do here has big physical
consequences. We have no license to do this in Copenhagen.
The answer is entanglement. In Copenhagen nature is not there enforcing
conservation of angular momentum for us, if we want to force conservation of angular
momentum at the particle level in Copenhagen, the Wave Function must do it. So, the
same Wave Function as we had in Quantum Mechanics Model (if we wanted to compute
probabilities). But (as usual) a big difference: In Copenhagen, there is a physical
manifestation of this Wave Function that commands nature. That being the case, we must
independently know (somehow) that angular momentum is actually conserved in this
case. Otherwise, we now have a Wave Function (mathematical object) that does not
represent its supposed physical manifestation.

2.4.6.2 THE HISTORICAL SPIN 0 PARTICLE DECAYING TO 2 SPIN ½ PARTICLES

EXPERIMENT; THE EPR EXPERIMENT
 This was an experiment proposed by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen in 1935 and
performed in a few versions years later. It is traditionally called the EPR experiment.
A spin 0 particle decays into 2 spin ½ particles. After decay, the 2 spin ½ particles
can travel large distances. They may be literally miles apart. Then we measure the spin
of one of them about any axis. It can be only +½ or -½, of course. And we measure the
spin of the other particle about the same axis. It also can be only +½ or -½, of course.
The observed result is that the spins are always opposite.
This experiment has been actually performed, several times by several different
experimenters, with thousands of cases each. The 2 particles always have opposite
spins. This is always, as in every single case, NOT just statistically.
In Copenhagen there are big problems with this.
The experimenters measured the spins around many different axes. At the decay,
what axis will be used for measuring the spin is not known. Spin has the property that an
eigenstate of spin for one axis is not an eigenstate for other axes. Some particles could
happen to be in spin eigenstates for the axis being measured, but, in other cases, we
measure spins around other axes. It is impossible that all axes happened to line up with
the eigenstate of all the particles. So, at least for some measurements, the particles are
in mixed states (in Copenhagen). The measurement of the spin of one particle is
probabilistic. You can get up or down with some probabilities. Fine. But the measurement,
miles away, of the other particle is also probabilistic. You get up or down with some
probabilities.
But the experiment ALWAYS finds the 2 spins to be opposite! ALWAYS, not just
statistically.
In Copenhagen, how does nature manage to see the actual result of the probabilistic
measurement of one spin, and then deliver the opposite value at the same time (or at a
different time) for the other particle miles away as Copenhagen requires?
At the decay, the particles “don’t know the axis that will be used to measure the spins”.
A particle “will find out what axis is being used when its spin is measured”. It must
somehow transmit this information to the other particle miles away so the other particle
“will know what result to produce when its spin is measured”. Since, in many cases the
result is probabilistic, the result (spin up or spin down) must also be transmitted. In the
arrangements, all of that information must be transmitted much faster than the speed of
light. It must be transferred arbitrarily fast over an arbitrarily long distance since the signal
from detection point A must reach detection point B in time to prevent a conflicting
measurement at site B. Is there a way to settle a deadlock if conflicting measurements
are made at exactly the same time? Einstein was uncomfortable with this communication.
“Spooky action at a distance”. No one has ever detected any kind of communication that
is going on between the detection points. No one knows any communication method that
could be doing this.
 In the many decades since the first of these experiments, this same communication
problem has come up many times for a variety of “EPR like” experiments. Up to now,
there is no solution to this problem. There is still some effort going on to detect or explain
this mystical communication.
Now look at it in Quantum Mechanics model. In short, in Quantum Mechanics Model
this is just simple conservation of angular momentum at the single particle level which is
not in Copenhagen, but Quantum Mechanics Model has it (section 2.3.4).
A spin 0 particle decays into 2 spin ½ particles. We measure angular momentum
around the point of decay. The orbital angular momentum before decay is 0. The orbital
angular momentum after decay is also zero. In Quantum Mechanics Model, angular
momentum is conserved, of course. Hence, we expect the total spin angular momentum
of the 2 spin ½ particles will be 0, in Quantum Mechanics Model. This means the spins
must be opposite, no matter what axis is used for the measurement. This is represented
in our Wave Function (which exists only in our model) as the constraint that the 2 spins
must be opposite. No constraint on any one spin around any axis, but the other spin must
be opposite. Naturally, the constraint is represented as an entanglement of the 2 spins.
We believe this Wave Function is a good model for how nature has chosen trajectories.
And indeed it is.
In the Static Universe Model, nature will pick the trajectories of the 2 resulting particles
to conserve angular momentum. Nature will do that no matter what axis we measure the
spins around. The spins WILL always be opposite. Nature takes conservation of angular
momentum very seriously. Nature sees the whole thing statically. In nature’s eyes, the
whole thing from the beginning of the universe to the end of the universe, just IS. Not a
problem.
There is no mysterious communication between the 2 spin measurements. Nature is
just doing what it always does: picking the actual trajectories from the many otherwise
possible trajectories. But if you insist on discussing communications…
The Static Universe Model tells you that Copenhagen is looking at the wrong
communication! The communication is NOT from detection point to detection point. The
communication is from nature to detection point 1 and from nature to detection point 2.
There is NO communication from detection point 1 to detection point 2. Further, the
communication from nature to detection point is not special at all. It is the same
communication that drives everything.
But this does point out a rule that nature follows: it always chooses to conserve
angular momentum.
In this picture, nature has no trouble at all in choosing trajectories for the 2 spin ½
particles that come from the decay of a spin 0 particle, so the angular momentum always
adds to 0. Yes, nature knows what axis you will use to measure the spin. It is all part of
the stupendous collection of complete trajectories for the total life of the universe, laid out
before natures eyes. To nature, nothing is happening; everything is just there. Distance
between the particles is no problem for nature, nor is time. But, on the other hand, nature
doesn’t need to know the axis; it can simply choose the spin of the particles around every
axis (section 2.4.1.2).
{If this “Quantum Mechanics Model” is “right,” it may be problematic for those trying
to achieve the transmission of information over large distances faster than the speed of
light, using this mechanism. Einstein would feel much better about that, were he alive
now. The “no-communication theorem” is probably spoiling this hope, as well.}

2.4.6.3 RECENT EXPERIMENTS WITH PHOTONS (SPIN 1).

More recently there have been several beautifully done experiments with photons.
Typically, photons are fired into a special crystal which converts 1 incoming photon
into 2 outgoing photons of half the energy of the incoming photon each, but the same
angular momentum as the incoming photon. The angular momentum of the incoming
photon is undetermined. The key is that, in Copenhagen, the incoming photon has NO
angular momentum state, it is a “physical indefinite” (whatever that is). In Copenhagen,
until a state is measured or observed, it is just a “physical indefinite”; it is not any state.
Sometimes, in Copenhagen, they say it is in “every state”. This photon has an equal
probability of becoming any angular momentum state, IF its angular momentum would
ever be measured. But, its angular momentum will never be measured, so it will never be
in any angular momentum state. The two outgoing photons will have the same angular
momentum state as the incoming photon; in this case, no state; they will be “physical
indefinite”. Then, after they travel long distances in different directions, the outgoing
photons are observed, and their angular momenta are measured. They are observed to
always have the same angular momentum.
In Copenhagen, the two outgoing photons have no angular momentum state at all;
they are “physical superpositions” until one of them has its angular momentum measured.
Then, instantly, they both have definite angular momentum states and they match.
Mystical! Unbelievable!
This is very similar to the much older experiment with 2 particles from a decay of 1
particle (EPR), described just previously. The emphasis is different. Here, if we know the
angular momentum of the incoming photon, there would be nothing to talk about. The
photon comes in with a certain angular momentum and both product photons go out with
that angular momentum; no surprise.
In fact, if the incoming photon merely has SOME angular momentum state, even if
we do not know what that state is, there would be nothing to talk about. The photon comes
in with a certain angular momentum and both product photons go out with that angular
momentum; no surprise.
 For this experiment, you must believe the Copenhagen thesis that a parameter really
has no value at all, not just an unknown value, but absolutely no value at all, it really is a
“physical indefinite” until that parameter is measured.
What this is about is that, in Copenhagen, the 2 photons are mystically entangled.
They both start out with no angular momentum state (or every state, if you prefer), but as
soon as 1 particle has its angular momentum measured, both particles, even widely
separated, instantly change (Quantum Collapse) to have a definite angular momentum.
In Quantum Mechanics model, in contrast, nature would have picked a “trajectory”
including the angular momentum, for the incoming photon. The only thing is that WE do
not know what nature picked. But the angular momentum is definite (we know that
because if it was indefinite, then in Quantum Mechanics Model, nature would immediately
resolve this indefinite by selecting an angular momentum), and it is one of the possible
angular momentum states. This is the angular momenta of the two outgoing photons
since the conversion process passes the incoming angular momentum to the outgoing
photons. We can measure this angular momentum of the outgoing photons whenever we
wish. Absolutely nothing mystical. Totally unremarkable. If we were using Quantum
Mechanics model, we would not even bring this up, because there is nothing to talk about.
The basic conclusion from these experiments should be that a model that says a
parameter has no value at all or every value (physical superposition, whatever that is),
until it is actually measured, does NOT work well, just from the point of view of a model
builder. It requires mystical things to get it to work.
In Copenhagen, the particle is a direct physical manifestation of the Wave Function,
hence people may talk about the “particle being a superposition of states.” If this is said,
it is asserting that even nature does not know what it is.
In Quantum Mechanics Model, the Wave Function could well be a superposition of
states, and people may say that, but the Wave Function exists only in our model. It is a
mathematical model that does a decent job of modeling the probabilities for the alternative
choices that nature has made. Hence, in Quantum Mechanics Model, one would never
say that “a particle is in a superposition of states”. Wave Functions can be
superpositions; particles (and cats) cannot be. In Quantum Mechanics Model, if we
say “the Wave Function is a superposition of states”, this is expressing what WE do not
know. Nature is always definite and always knows.

2.4.6.4 GHOST SLITS AND POPPER’S EXPERIMENT [9].

As for the EPR experiment of a previous section, suppose there are 2 identical
particles, A and B, that arise, for example, as the result of decay of a single particle, M.
In the frame of M, A and B are constrained to have equal but opposite momenta (however,
see section 2.3.4.2). Hence, they are entangled. And, of course, this happens for many
particles, M, A, B.
 Particles A go to a barrier with a double slit (the original thought experiment by Popper
and many realizations used a single slit, but a double slit is even better). Most particles A
are blocked, but a few get through the slits. There are detectors, DA on the downstream
side of the barrier. These detect an interference pattern of A, of course (assuming the
double slit).
A similar detector, DB, is placed on the other side of M, but no barrier. If A goes
through the slits, then B will hit DB. There is, of course, no interference (or diffraction)
pattern at DB because there is no slit in front of DB.
But now, suppose we count only particles B for which its partner particle A was
detected at DA. Suppose that the distance from M to DB is the same as the distance from
M to the barrier on the A side. Now DB will show an image of the slits (on the A side).
This would be true even in classical mechanics.
If DB is moved to the same distance from M as DA is, then we see a double slit
interference pattern at DB.
Hence it is said that there is a “Ghost Double Slit” on the B side at the same distance
from M as the double slit is on the A side.
Many experiments were performed to realize this, most popularly using entangled
photons produced by shooting single photons into a special crystal.
This was originally proposed by Popper as a challenge to Copenhagen. It has never
been a problem for Quantum Mechanics Model. One experiment after another claimed
fault with previous experiments and reversed its predecessor’s conclusion of discrediting
Copenhagen or not.
Probably the best realization of this currently, is Paul-Antoine Moreau et al. (2018)
[10]. They use a double slit and show a convincing ghost double slit interference pattern
at DB. They report: “Our results are perfectly compatible with the Copenhagen
interpretation of quantum mechanics, but it should also be acknowledged that they shed
no light on its validity compared to the many other interpretations.” Perhaps this will settle
the matter, or maybe we are just waiting for the next reversal of claims.
The main possible threat to Quantum Mechanics Model would be a violation of
conservation of momentum. This would happen if it could be established that a photon
trajectory was not straight where there is no way to balance the momentum change. As
shown in the section on diffraction, with a real barrier and slit, a particle trajectory changes
direction but the momentum change is balanced by momentum change of the barrier. But
if there were such a photon momentum change at a ghost barrier, this would be a
problem. However, they report that “the spatial extent of the recorded pattern can be no
larger than the source (since the detector is in the image plane of the source) and the
size of the source is itself limited by the size of the pump beam.” Their data also shows
the width of the double slit diffraction pattern dramatically narrowing at DB in response to
narrowing the source beam, while the pattern at DA does not change. So, no problem.
 The Popper experiment is basically all Wave Mechanics. Copenhagen and Quantum
Mechanics Model share exactly the same Wave Mechanics, so this will not separate
them.

2.4.6.5 QUANTUM REMOTE MANIPULATION.

Suppose A and B are completely entangled. Suppose A is local, and B is now a billion
miles away. It has been said [11, 12, 13] that, “if I do anything to particle A, then the same
thing will instantly happen to particle B.” I can instantly control particle B, a billion miles
away, by doing things to particle A, here. This sounds like sticking pins in a voodoo doll.
For a large collection of such particles, A, I could impress upon them a moving image
from a camera and have that movie instantly transmitted a billion miles to B. Not likely.
In Copenhagen, Wave Functions have physical manifestations and command nature.
Not so in Quantum Mechanics Model. In Quantum Mechanics Model, Wave Functions
exist only in our model and for sure nature does not take orders from them.
Wave Functions are about information, specifically about what WE know. Nature
knows far more. If parameter P of particles A and B is entangled, this means we know
something that we would not know if they were not entangled.
For example, the spins of particles A and B may be entangled in our Wave Function
so that the spins are opposite. Then, we do not know what the spin of particle A is around
any axis, or what the spin of particle B is around any axis, but we do know that whatever
the spins are, around any axis you choose, they are opposite. Nature will choose
trajectories, as modeled by the Wave Function, so that the spins will be opposite, for
whatever axis you choose, even with a billion light years separation, just like the EPR
experiment. Naturally, this is only if that Wave Function is a good model of the system
under test. This is not forcing nature. It is simply because, properly applied to a system
under test, Wave Mechanics is a very good model of the decisions nature has made. You
don’t just write any Wave Function and expect that nature will do what you wrote. This is
useful. If I measure the spin of particle A, then I immediately know, without measuring,
the spin of particle B is the opposite. There is absolutely no mystical “Quantum Remote
Manipulation” or anything else magical. It is just the simplest reasoning with what I know.
Unspoken, but the big deal in all of this is: how did I know that this entangled Wave
Function is a good model for the physical system I am contemplating? It is not trivial. In
most cases, the way I know this, goes back to a conservation law. Frequently that is
conservation of angular momentum (we have that in Quantum Mechanics Model; what
do you do in Copenhagen?). That is what it is in the EPR experiment. There must be
something that gives me confidence that this entangled Wave Function is a good model
of my “system under test”.
Now the 64 cent question:
 For the same particles A and B, well modeled by a Wave Function with spins
entangled so they are opposite, and suppose A and B are a million miles apart now …
suppose particle (or particles) X collides with particle A with the result that the spin of A
is reversed. What happens to the spin of particle B?
Absolutely nothing. Particles A and B no longer have spins that are opposite.
This should be clear in Quantum Mechanics Model: there is no mystical “Quantum
Remote Manipulation”. There is no magic force between A and B that locks them together.
The only thing that existed is that we knew something. We did know something special,
a constraint: the spins are opposite. But the collision changed that. Now we don’t know
that anymore. None of this has any physical effect on particle B.
In Quantum Mechanics Model, entanglement is not a mechanism to force nature to
do mystical things. Entanglement is information. It exists in our Wave Function, so it is
specifically information that WE know. Nature has already decided the trajectories of
everything. Nature already knows everything. Nature has no need for our Wave Function
and therefore no need for “our entanglement”.
Unfortunately, in Copenhagen there is this Wave Function that has a real physical
manifestation that commands nature. And there is this “Wave Function Collapse” that
instantly spans the million-mile separation if we measure something. There already is this
magical force between the particles. So, some people who subscribe to Copenhagen say
the spin of particle B will instantly reverse.
If the spin of particle B reverses, that is a change of angular momentum of particle B.
You must either say angular momentum is not conserved for particle B, or that angular
momentum is instantly transported a million miles from the collision of X and A to particle
B, and X suffers no angular momentum change at all in the collision, miraculously.
For those who subscribe to Copenhagen and say the spin of particle B will not
reverse, they must have another concept: “Breaking the Entanglement.” Breaking the
Entanglement is a change to the Wave Function, and this is a dramatic thing in
Copenhagen. In Copenhagen that Wave Function has a real, physical manifestation that
does physical things. Then there is the question of exactly what physical things “Break
the Entanglement”. A good answer would be any change to P in either A or B. That would,
effectively, be agreeing with Quantum Mechanics Model. No “Quantum Remote
Manipulation”.

2.4.6.6 QUANTUM TELEPORTATION [8, 14]

At site A there is a particle, P with 2 internal states, p0 and p1, with pure state Wave
Functions P0 and P1. We describe P with the Wave Function, a P0 + b P1. We don’t
know what values to use for a and b to best describe P. An interesting example is that P
could be entangled with another particle T. This would be expressed as a and b being
functions of parameters of T.
The WAVE FUNCTION, a P0 + b P1, is to be teleported to a distant site where it will
become the Wave Function, a Ey0 + b Ey1, properly describing a particle Ey (just the
internal part of E’s Wave Function, of course).
In Copenhagen, essentially the Wave Function IS the particle, so it is said that this is
teleporting the state of P to a distant site where particle E will be put in exactly this state.
In Quantum Mechanics Model, the Wave Function exists only in our model. The
particle is a physical thing. P, the particle, is in state p0 or state p1; we don’t know which.
Ey, the particle, will be in state ey0 or state ey1, we don’t know which. In both cases
nature decides.
The Wave Function, a P0 + b P1, is a superposition, as is the Wave Function, a Ey0
+ b Ey1.
In Copenhagen, the Wave Function essentially IS the particle; It would be said that
these particles ARE superpositions.
In Quantum Mechanics Model, we would say that P (the particle)’s state is either p0
or p1, we don’t know which. The Wave Function is a superposition. Wave Functions can
be superpositions, particles cannot be. The same for Ey, of course.
It is significant that we are teleporting the Wave Function. We of course get that the
probabilities of ey1 vs ey0 are the same as the probabilities of p1 vs p0. But consider the
possibility that particle P was entangled with a particle T. This is a constraint between
particle P and T. This constraint is represented in the Wave Function, specifically in a and
b. Since we teleported the Wave Function, particle Ey has now inherited that constraint,
as it must, to be a complete copy of P. This could all be just part of a bigger model. Wave
Function P could have phase relationships with other particles’ Wave Functions. This
means it could coherently interfere with other Wave Functions. Again, since we copied
the Wave Function, Ey inherits those phase relationships and can coherently interfere
with those Wave Functions as P would.

A pair of particles, Ex and Ey is prepared. Ex and Ey each have 2 internal states

compatible with p0 and p1. They are called ex0 and ex1, and ey0 and ey1. They have
pure state Wave Functions Ex0, Ex1 and Ey0 and Ey1.The pair will be prepared as
described by the fully entangled Wave Function (normalization is ignored for simplicity)
(Ex0 Ey0) + (Ex1 Ey1)
Ex is sent to site A and Ey is sent to site B.
The full System (both sites) Wave Function is:
(aP0 + bP1) ((Ex0 Ey0) + (Ex1 Ey1))
 As can be verified by fully expanding both expressions, this can be rearranged to:
(P0 Ex0 + P1 Ex1) ∙ (a Ey0 + b Ey1) +
(P0 Ex0 - P1 Ex1) ∙ (a Ey0 - b Ey1) +
(P0 Ex1 + P1 Ex0) ∙ (a Ey1 + bEy0) +
(P0 Ex1 - P1 Ex0) ∙ (a Ey1 - bEy0)

At site A, enough measurements must be made on the system P Ex to distinguish

between the 4 local (mixture) Wave Functions to properly model the situation at site A:
(P0 Ex0 + P1 Ex1)
(P0 Ex0 - P1 Ex1)
(P0 Ex1 + P1 Ex0)
(P0 Ex1 - P1 Ex0)

This is a complex measurement. A 2-bit number is generated to represent which of

the 4 Wave Functions describes P Ex, according to measurement.
In Copenhagen, the story is that the measurement of the P Ex subsystem, will cause
the entire system (both sites) Wave Function (thought to have a real, physical
manifestation) to instantly collapse (even over a very large distance between sites) to
one of the 4 states with Wave Functions (as it would be said in Copenhagen):
(P0 Ex0 + P1 Ex1) ∙ (a Ey0 + b Ey1)
(P0 Ex0 - P1 Ex1) ∙ (a Ey0 - b Ey1)
(P0 Ex1 + P1 Ex0) ∙ (a Ey1 + bEy0)
(P0 Ex1 - P1 Ex0) ∙ (a Ey1 - bEy0)

In Quantum Mechanics Model (the static Universe Model), nature chose trajectories
for P, Ex and Ey, “at the beginning of the universe”. This means that P is either in state
p0 or it is in state p1. Nature chose p0 or p1, and not some mixture, “at the beginning of
the universe”. Similarly for Ex and Ey, but of course, Ex and Ey have been generated to
be the same. The complex measurements are just measuring the trajectories that nature
chose. These measurements make nothing happen physically; most particularly, no
spectacular quantum collapse! Nothing unusual. Especially, since all measurements are
made at site A, they, absolutely, for sure, cause nothing to happen at site B.
As usual, when we know the results of the measurements, optionally, we can collapse
our wave function to make use of this new information, or not, as we choose. Our Wave
Function exists only in our model so, for sure, nature does not care what we do with our
Wave Function.
The complex measurements will show which of the 4 possible wave functions will
correctly model probabilities for nature’s choices of parameter values (in both
Copenhagen and Quantum Mechanics Model):

(P0 Ex0 + P1 Ex1) ∙ (a Ey0 + b Ey1)

(P0 Ex0 - P1 Ex1) ∙ (a Ey0 - b Ey1)
(P0 Ex1 + P1 Ex0) ∙ (a Ey1 + bEy0)
(P0 Ex1 - P1 Ex0) ∙ (a Ey1 - bEy0)

This information, as a 2-bit number, is sent to site B via a non-quantum channel.

Copenhagen says that measurement caused the Wave Function to instantly collapse
to one of the 4 candidate System States, even if site A and site B are a billion miles apart.
In Quantum Mechanics Model (the static Universe Model), nature chose trajectories
for P, Ex and Ey, “at the beginning of the universe”. The chosen trajectories are described
by one of the 4 candidate Wave Functions.
And in both cases, the numbers from the measurements tell us which of the 4
candidate System States is the winner.
Particle Ey at Site B now has a state that either is the state that P started with or is a
close derivative of that state. As mentioned, the choice that nature made was sent to site
B as a 2-bit number. Hence at site B we have either:
a Ey0 + b Ey1
a Ey0 - b Ey1
a Ey1 + bEy0
a Ey1 - bEy0
And the 2-bit number tells us exactly which one.
Since, at site B, we know the description of our result, a relatively simple, well defined
transformation on the state we have will give us
a Ey0 + b Ey1
which is the teleported Wave Function: a P0 + b P1 from site A.
“Teleportation” like this has been done experimentally many times now.
Experimenters compete for the largest number of kilometers of the teleportation (distance
from site A to site B). In Copenhagen, this is the distance over which the instant Wave
Function Collapse (thought to have a real, physical manifestation) takes place. In
Quantum Mechanics Model, the distance from site A to site B is not interesting.

2.4.7 BELL INEQUALITY [15] EXPERIMENTS [16, 17, 18]

A source produces a pair of photons that are polarized the same. Frequently this is
done by a single photon hitting a special crystal that will convert it into 2 photons of half
the energy of the incoming photon, but with the same polarizations.
Each of the 2 photons goes to a separate resolver that will send the photon to 2
different outputs, depending on its polarization. Hence there are now 2 destinations for
each of the two photons created with matching polarizations. There are detectors at each
of the 4 outputs.
Each of the 2 resolvers has an axis which is always perpendicular to the incoming
photon but can be set to any angle in the plane perpendicular to the incoming photon.
Polarizations parallel to this axis go to one output and polarizations perpendicular to this
axis go to the other output. Each incoming photon goes one way or the other.
The result is that there are 4 cases for a pair of photons: parallel parallel, parallel
perpendicular, perpendicular parallel, perpendicular perpendicular.
The experimenter will set the 2 resolvers to various angles and then determine, for a
large number of incoming photon pairs, the number of cases with the final photon
destinations in each of the 4 possible cases.
The 2 photons have the same probability of a polarization at any angle perpendicular
to their trajectory, except that they will both be the same. At each resolver the wave
function must be expressed as a mixture of parallel to, and perpendicular to, the resolver
axis. This determines, for each photon, the probability that it will exit via the parallel
channel or the perpendicular channel.
There is nothing here that is different whether the Copenhagen interpretation is
assumed or the Quantum Mechanics Model (with the static universe model) is assumed.
As usual, slightly different words would be used to explain it in Quantum Mechanics
Model, compared with explaining it in Copenhagen, but there is no substantive difference.
In Copenhagen, the polarizations of the two photons would both be indeterminant
until they are detected, but they would be “entangled”. The detection of one of the photons
sets the probability distribution for the polarization you will find with the other photon.
Hence there must be some communication from one detection point to the other; the
magic faster than speed of light communication that nobody has ever detected.
In Quantum Mechanics Model, nature has picked the trajectories for the 2 photons
and nature always coordinates the trajectories to conserve energy, momentum and
angular momentum. In the Static Universe, nature sees the complete picture to make its
choices. Wave Mechanics is a very good statistical model for how nature has picked.
In both cases, the Wave Functions are the same, so the probabilities are the same.
Copenhagen maintains that the Wave Function represents what “nature does not know.”
Quantum Mechanics Model says nature knows everything; the Wave Function represents
what WE do not know.
Greenberger, Horne and Zeilinger [19] proposed an elaboration of the Bell
experiment to test even the special cases in the Bell Inequality. Pan et al. [20]
experimentally realized a form of this. The story is the same. Wave Mechanics explains
this. Quantum Mechanics Model assumes Wave Mechanics without any change, hence
it is completely consistent with Quantum Mechanics Model.

2.4.8 QUANTUM STEERING [21]

A typical experiment [22], is very similar to the typical Bell Inequality Experiment.
2 photons are created fully entangled so they both have the same polarization.
Typically, this is done by firing 1 photon into a special crystal that converts it into a pair of
photons, each with half the energy, but both have the same polarization (a constraint) as
the incoming photon, so a proper Wave Function for this is entangled. Each of the 2
photons is sent to its own resolver. Each resolver has an axis, perpendicular to the photon
trajectory, and it will determine if the photon is polarized along this axis or perpendicular
to this axis. This axis is adjustable in the plane perpendicular to the photon trajectory. In
this experiment several different axis positions are used but the 2 resolvers always use
the same axis.
Each pair of photons produces 2 numbers that are 0 or 1. These numbers are
collected for many photon pairs for multiple resolver axis settings. This data is put into the
“Steering Inequality” [23]. A violation of the Steering Inequality discredits Local Realistic
Theories of Quantum Mechanics. A significant violation is found.
The entanglement of the two photons can be viewed (as described above) as a
constraint on the 2 photons as a pair. This constraint is represented in the Wave Function
as a factor that depends on both photons and is not factorable into factors that each
depend on only 1 photon.
In Quantum Mechanics Model, nature will choose trajectories for the two photons.
Wave Mechanics is a good model of how nature will choose. Hence nature properly
respects the constraint. No problem. In Quantum Mechanics Model the result is always
as the Wave Function says. The Static Universe Model is highly compatible with Wave
Mechanics. Part of the Static Universe Model says that Wave Mechanics is the model of
nature’s decisions.
 There IS a problem for Copenhagen. In Copenhagen we want to do what the Wave
Function says as well. The result at resolver 1 should be correlated with the result at
resolver 2. But, in Copenhagen, the result at resolver 2 will not be decided until its photon
is at resolver 2, and that could be a hundred miles from resolver 1.
In Copenhagen, as usual, we must have the miraculous communication (that has
never been detected) between resolver 1 and resolver 2, at much faster than the speed
of light, to sort this out. And it must somehow do it without deadlocks or livelocks.
Why don’t we have this problem in Quantum Mechanics Model? The Static Universe
Model runs Quantum Mechanics Model. In the Static Universe Model nature draws the
trajectories for both photons with full visibility of all trajectories in the universe (certainly
including the trajectories of these 2 photons), from the beginning of the universe to its
end. Nature can shuffle trajectories around as much as it wants to get everything to work.
The Quantum Steering experiments differ from the Bell Inequality Experiments in the
inequality that is tested: Steering Inequality or the Bell Inequality.
The biggest feature of these many experiments is the elaborate precautions taken to
avoid any effect that could possibly lead to questioning their ability to discredit Local
Realistic Theories or Local Hidden Variable Theories. These precautions dwarf the basic
operation of the experiment.

2.4.9 LEGGETT-GARG INEQUALITY [24] EXPERIMENTS [25, 26]

The experiment does a 4-step random walk of particles in an optical lattice. At each
step a particle moves 1 lattice position with a 50-50 chance that the particle goes left or
right. The experiment records the number of particles arriving at each of the 4 possible
end positions only for particles that are known to have gone left in the first step. The
particles are known to have gone left in the first step because the particle was not
detected at one step right, after the first step.
The point of this is that the numbers expected for a classical particle are substantially
different from the numbers expected for a quantum particle. This is due to the fact that
there are multiple paths that lead to the same end point, for most end points. The Wave
Function has multiple paths to most end points, so there is interference. Of course, there
would be no interference for a classical particle.
So, this can be understood as a cascaded multiple slit interference demonstration
with more than 2 slits. But, fundamentally, it is a Wave Function interference
demonstration.
The other interesting thing is that in this experiment, the particle was a Cesium atom,
a very massive particle for observing interference, and the random walk takes about 100
microseconds, a very long time for observing interference.
 There is nothing here that is different whether the Copenhagen interpretation is
assumed or the Quantum Mechanics Model (with the static universe model) is assumed.
The particle Wave Function has multiple discrete paths to the same observation point, for
multiple observation points. The Wave Function will be the same for both the Copenhagen
Interpretation and Quantum Mechanics Model. The Wave Function will consequently
have an interference pattern across the observation points, the same for both
Copenhagen and Quantum Mechanics Model.
As usual, slightly different words would be used to explain it in Quantum Mechanics
Model, compared with explaining it in Copenhagen, but there is no substantive difference.
In Copenhagen, the Wave Function essentially is the particle. It is in the form of an
interference pattern at the observation plane. The particle will be detected with
probabilities given by the Wave Function. The Wave Function will instantly collapse to
magically avoid multiple detection.
In Quantum Mechanics Model, nature will choose a trajectory for the particle through
the whole process. The Wave Function is our statistical model of that choice. The
probability of arrival at each observation point is given by the Wave Function. The Wave
Function exists only in our model, of course. Nature is quite capable of doing its thing
without any need to look at our Wave Function.

2.4.10 QUANTUM ZENO EFFECT [27]

A system has a state space that consists of one discrete parameter with 2 possible
states, A and B. There is a measurement operator for this parameter, W. States A and B
are eigenstates of W. However, this system is evolving according to a Hamiltonian, H. H
is very weak, but it will slowly turn a pure A Wave Function into a B Wave Function.
Experiments have shown that making measurements (W) to determine if the state is
A, in rapid succession can slow down the conversion of the system from state A to state
B by a very large factor. “The watched pot never boils.”
The measured time always starts immediately after a measurement (W) that indicates
the state is A. Then more measurements (W) are made with some time T between
measurements until a measurement shows the state is no longer A (but is B). The time is
the total time between all measurements. This is done on a large sample and the results
are statistical, of course. Statistically, the time for state A to decay into state B varies over
a very large factor with differences in T. The decay is comparatively very fast if T is long.
The decay is slower if T is short. Differences in the average decay time of 1 and even 2
or more orders of magnitude have been demonstrated.
Does this favor (or disfavor) one or the other of Copenhagen or Quantum Mechanics
Model?
The wording is different.
 Both Copenhagen and Quantum Mechanics Model would have the Wave Function
evolving exactly the same between measurements represented by W. They share the
very same Wave Mechanics. That Wave Function would be
xA + yB where x*x + y*y = 1
x*x is initially 1 and decreasing while y*y is initially 0 and increasing.
Copenhagen would say this Wave Function is physically real (it practically IS the
system) and nature is changing it. Notice that in Copenhagen x and y are essentially
“hidden variables” in the physical system that tell how far the transformation of A into B
has gotten. We have a system that actually has only 2 states, A and B, but Copenhagen
has given it an infinity of states, x,y. This is very real in Copenhagen. xA + yB is the
mystical “superposition”, a real physical “thing” in Copenhagen.
Quantum Mechanics Model would say there is nothing physical about the Wave
Function; we are changing it with the (mathematical) Hamiltonian in our model. We
believe that it is a good model of the changing probabilities for events in physical reality.
Quantum Mechanics model says there are exactly 2 states, A and B. There are no
intermediate states. (If you want more states, you must put them in State Space.) When
nature picks a state, A and B are the only things on the menu. Nature must pick A or pick
B.
Copenhagen would say each time that the measurement represented by W is
performed, and the result indicates the system is in state A, nature collapses the Wave
Function to be 100% A.
In Quantum Mechanics Model, at each measurement, nature has only 2 possible
choices: nature can pick state A for the trajectory to this point or it can pick state B. There
is no hidden additional information. When a measurement represented by W indicates
the system is in state A, that tells us nature has picked state A for the trajectory to this
point. If the system is in state A at this point, there is no such thing as a young state A or
an old state A, or 35% of the way to state B. State A is state A. We would use this
information to change our Wave Function (in our model) to be 100% A. This is
necessary if we want to accurately compute probabilities going forward. Of course, it
makes no difference to nature. Nature does not take orders from our Wave Function. This
is what we would always do for any measurement.
In Quantum Mechanics Model, the Wave Function can be a “superposition”; the
physical system cannot be. See section 2.4.1.3. If the Wave Function is a “superposition”
that represents that WE don’t know which state it is in.
Words substantially different, but the Wave Function is still exactly the same.
In both interpretations, in each interval between measurements (W), we begin with a
Wave Function that is 100% A and is slowly changing to B by Schrodinger’s equation:
i (h/2π)(∂Ψ/∂t) = H Ψ
Ψ is the same (neglecting a phase difference) at the beginning of each interval.
 Hence H Ψ is the same at the beginning of each interval (neglecting a phase
difference; H will pass through any overall phase factor).
So basically,
∂Ψ/∂t is essentially the same at the beginning of each interval. Ψ(t) is linear in t for
very small t. The solution to Schrodinger’s equation is
Ψ= exponential(-i(2π/h)Ht) G.
Where t is initially 0, and G is the initial Wave Function (pure A).
What we really want is the inner product <G|Ψ>. This squared will tell us the
probability that the system is still in state A.
<G|Ψ> = <G| exponential(-i(2π/h)Ht) G >
Unfortunately, <G| cannot be moved to be acted upon by the operator, exponential(-
i(2π/h)Ht), nor can G, acted upon by that operator be moved to not be acted upon by that
operator.
Saverio Pascazio [27] says the thing to do is a series expansion of Ψ. This is justified
because we are interested only in very small t. As can be seen, this is basically just the
series expansion of the exponential function which is known to converge very well.
exponential(-Kt) = 1 - Kt + (K2/2)t2 - … where K = i(2π/h)H
Ψ = G - i(2π/h)HtG - (((2π/h)H) 2/2)t2G - …
Ψ = G - i(2π/h)HGt - (((2π/h)H) 2/2)Gt2 - …
<G|Ψ> = 1 - i(2π/h)<G|HG>t - ((2π/h) 2/2) <G|H2G>)t2…
The probability is <G|Ψ> squared, so, for very small t, this probability is decaying as
t2.This is the key result of the Quantum Zeno Effect. This means that the rate of change
of probability is 2t. If t is very small, then the rate of change of probability away from 100%
A is very small. Rapidly repeated measurement slows down the change in state from the
original state.
This is the same in Copenhagen as it is in Quantum Mechanics Model.
Words are substantially different in Quantum Mechanics Model compared with
Copenhagen. The Quantum Mechanics Model words seem to be more sensible. But …
The bottom line is: no substantive difference.
There are multiple experiments that agree with both Copenhagen and Quantum
Mechanics Model on this. There is controversy about what “really” happens in these
experiments. But, for better or for worse, Quantum Mechanics Model and Copenhagen
agree on this. Right or Wrong, both go together.
In the orthodox analysis (Copenhagen) of the Quantum Zeno effect [78], as
summarized here, there are 2 essential things required to make it work. The first is when
a Hamiltonian is moving a Wave Function from a pure state, there is this very curious
hesitation. The second is the Wave Function Collapse on Measurement of Copenhagen.
The Quantum Zeno effect could not work without this. The Quantum Zeno Effect was
considered convincing evidence for the physical “Quantum Collapse” due to a
measurement in Copenhagen. It would seem that this is one of the best opportunities to
discredit Quantum Mechanics Model.
But, it turns out that Quantum Mechanics Model gives the same result as
Copenhagen. The Quantum Zeno Effect does not decide between these models. The
curious feature in Wave Mechanics is the same in both Copenhagen and Quantum
Mechanics model because they share the very same wave Mechanics. There is a
matching Wave Function collapse (for different reasons, for different concepts of the
Wave Function), so the two interpretations agree on that as well.

2.4.11 ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD FROM A FREE PARTICLE:

BETA DECAY

An atom Beta Decays. At a random time, it emits an electron with some velocity in a
random direction (and an antineutrino). This electron may go for miles.
Conventionally (Copenhagen Interpretation), the electron would be given a Wave
Function that would cover a long time, during which, the Beta decay might happen
randomly. This Wave Function would spread in all directions for miles and days. A charge
density would be computed as the magnitude of this normalized Wave Function squared,
times the charge of the electron. In the spirit of Copenhagen, this is considered to
essentially BE the electron, the so called “smeared out” electron (really, really smeared
out). From this charge density, we get an electric field over all this huge space time. And,
since the electron would be moving, a magnetic field too.
Note that this implies weak electric and magnetic fields from this electron before the
decay happened, even hours or days before! It implies weak electric and magnetic fields
from this electron, perhaps miles out, in directions that the electron will not go.
At some point in space time, the electron may be detected. Then, according to
Copenhagen, in zero time, the Wave Function across all of this space time collapses to
zero. This must be so fast that the electron could not be detected anywhere else. With it,
all the fields must collapse to be consistent with the electron detection, in zero time, before
any inconsistency could be detected! Doesn’t the instantaneous collapse of the
electromagnetic field, itself, do something?
Indeed, it may not have been a direct detection of the electron. If the electric or
magnetic field anywhere in this vast space time was detected, that would cause the
collapse too. And it would suddenly and instantly fix the position and velocity of the
electron to be consistent with the field that was detected. The detection of the field
somewhere would force the Beta decay of the atom to happen, presumably, before the
field was detected because the field still must propagate to this detection point! This is
time reversed causality!!
One big fallacy is saying that the tiny probability of a strong field makes a weak field.
This makes sense statistically but is total nonsense physically. A tiny probability of a
strong field makes a tiny probability of a strong field, i.e., a very high probability of nothing.
Now let’s look at this WITHOUT Copenhagen, but with the Static Universe Model
instead.
Nature has decided IF the decay will happen and has picked the point in space time
at which the decay will happen. The occurrence of the decay is a binary event. It
happened, or it didn’t. There is no decay “a little bit”. Until the time of the decay, there is,
for sure, no electromagnetic field from the resultant electron out there. And, as time
passes after the decay, the electromagnetic field close in disappears; the electron is
further away. We absolutely do NOT have some very weak electromagnetic field from the
electron out there hours or years before the electron even exists. In fact, there is no field
out there, femtoseconds before the electron exists.
Nature has not only picked the point in space time for the decay, it has also picked
the trajectory for the electron in space time. If the electron is going north, then we
absolutely do not have even weak electromagnetic fields from this electron extending out
for miles to the south. There are no fields from this electron even a little to the south, and
not up or down either. What you will see for a short distance to the south is the field from
the new proton left behind. The electric and magnetic fields are those for the ACTUAL
trajectory in space time that nature picked. There is no collapse of the fields, just the usual
decay of the fields at each point, as the electron moves away, after it passes.
To get down to finer detail…
Nature indeed picked the trajectory of the electron, all of it. However, as always,
nature recognizes that there are multiple physically possible trajectories from which it has
picked one. In the usual fashion, the presence of the other (not taken) physically possible
trajectories and the non-presence of any nearby physically possible trajectories
(diffraction) influences the choice of the trajectory. In particular, if the electron is presented
with a pair of slits, and there are possible trajectories through both slits, this becomes the
Dual Slit experiment. If there are more electrons from more Beta decays, then they will
make a dual slit interference pattern. Indeed, if there is only one slit or a small hole, many
such electrons would build a single slit (or hole) diffraction pattern.
One big fallacy in the conventional model is multiplying the probability of the
electromagnetic field even being there, by the field strength if it were there and saying
that is the quantum mechanical field strength. You have just created a little bit of
something out of nothing.
The correct way to model the field, is that the presence of the electron gets decided
in a binary way. It will come to be either there or not there. It is not there “a little bit”. Hence
you do not have the field “a little bit” in places where the electron did not go and will not
go.
We can compute the probability density of the electromagnetic field from this electron
in the conventional manner, as mentioned above. It has some probability density more or
less everywhere in space time. That is even correct. What we must realize is that this
probability density is 99+% the result of what WE don’t know. Very, very little of it is
physics of what will happen. This being so, it cannot be interpreted as saying there is a
very weak electromagnetic field more or less everywhere in space time. The correct
statement is that there will be the normal electromagnetic field around the actual trajectory
of the electron in space time, and there is a tiny probability density that this trajectory may
be more or less anywhere in space time.
With Quantum Mechanics Model, when we become aware of the electron from the
Beta decay, OPTIONALLY, we can collapse our Wave Function by zeroing the probability
of anything inconsistent with our observation. We can do that or not, as we wish. If we do
not, then we are carrying forward a pile of possibilities that nature did NOT choose. What
nature DID choose is buried somewhere in our pile of possibilities that nature did not
choose. For sure, nature does not care what we do with our Wave Function (which exists
only in our model). Nature does not require our help to know what to do.

2.4.12 PARTICLE – PARTICLE INTERACTION

Particle A interacts with Particle B, typically producing resulting particles.

Using the Static Universe Model and NOT the Copenhagen interpretation:
Nature has decided IF an interaction happens, the point in space time where it
happens, and the actual outgoing trajectories in space time of the resulting particles.
Natures pick for the time of the interaction (including if it happens at all or not) is a binary
decision. The interaction has happened, or it has not. There is absolutely no “interaction
happening a little bit”.
It is very clear to nature. The only issue is that WE don’t know what nature decided.
This is very similar to the Beta decay story. Before the interaction happens, there will
be no trace of the results of the interaction. After the interaction happens, the outgoing
trajectories will be completely normal. There are no artifacts (fields or anything else)
anywhere other than around the ACTUAL outgoing trajectories in space time.
How do we model the interaction?
The probability density, p, in space time, of Particle A Interacting with Particle B is the
probability density of the presence of A times the probability density of the presence of B
times an interaction strength. The probability density, in time, of the interaction is the
integral of p over space. The probability of the interaction happening in a time interval, is
the integral of p over space and this time interval.
It is essential to keep in mind that the occurrence of the interaction is binary. It
happens, or it doesn’t. There is nothing in between.
It is also essential to keep in mind that an individual interaction will have actual
outgoing trajectories. The trajectories are not a cloud, a little bit everywhere, unless you
are considering a large number of interactions collectively.
The first thing said about the probabilities of states was: ““Probability” is a strange
word. The Probabilities of parameter values are certainly affected by physical laws. That’s
physics. But “Probability” is also very, very much a reflection of what someone knows.”
This calculation of the probability of the interaction is based on the probability density
of the presence of particle A and the probability density of the presence particle B. But,
both of these probability densities may well be very highly influenced by what we know
as opposed to pure physics. That does not make this calculation of the interaction
probability wrong; it just makes it too, very highly influenced by what we know (or don’t
know) as opposed to pure physics. So, the interaction probability is just like all other
probabilities, dependent on physics, but highly dependent on what we know and don’t
know.
The lesson from this is to be cautious of using these probabilities as a measure of
derived physical parameters, for example, electric and magnetic field strengths in space
time produced by the outgoing particles from the interaction.

2.4.13 A PARTICLE IN AN INFINITE POTENTIAL WELL

Suppose a particle in a one-dimensional space with a potential energy function that

is 0 from -a to +a, and infinity everywhere else in this space. Eigenfunctions of energy are
either cos nx, or sin nx, where n must be chosen so that the function is zero at +a and -
a, and the eigenfunctions are 0 outside of the interval from -a to +a.
cos nx can be rewritten as einx + e-inx.
sin nx can be rewritten as einx - e-inx.

einx is an eigenfunction of momentum with momentum n

e-inx is an eigenfunction of momentum with momentum -n
For both of these, the energy is n2/(2 m), where m is the particle mass.
 The probability of a momentum of -p is exactly the same as a momentum of +p. In
both cases the kinetic energy of the particle is p2/(2m), exactly the classical relationship.
This situation is very well fit, for an energy state, if nature chooses a trajectory for the
particle that is a simple back and forth movement at constant magnitude of momentum.
The particle goes left and bounces off the infinite potential wall on the left, and then it
goes right and bounces off the infinite potential wall on the right. An amazingly classical
picture.
There are some distinctly quantum features, however. It can be seen from the Wave
Function (cos nx or sin nx, 0 at +a and -a) that the probability of the particle being at a
position is NOT classical. The particle has low probability of being near the potential wall.
there are also nodes in the middle. The particle will rarely be found near a node. The
positive momentum wave is interfering with the negative momentum wave. This is
essentially the same as section 2.4.1.4, Trajectory Modulation. As explained there, if we
model the measurement of particle position as the interaction of the particle of interest
with a measuring particle, the probability density of that interaction will be proportional to
the magnitude of our Wave Function squared (section 2.4.12). This is what we would
normally take as the probability density for the presence of the particle.
Nature must pick a trajectory for our particle. This will be the basically classical
trajectory back and forth described above, but this is not all. As part of the “trajectory of
this particle,” nature must also decide if there will be an interaction with a measuring
particle (or not), the exact point of the interaction in space time, and the trajectories of the
outgoing particles. The position of our particle of interest is measured if and only if there
is such an interaction. Statistically, for many such particles of interest, measured position
will have a density proportional to the magnitude of our Wave Function squared. Even
though the particle trajectory is a very classical back and forth, the probability of observing
the particle is highly modulated. Quantum Mechanics Model never goes against Wave
Mechanics.
The point of this is that “nature picking a basically classical trajectory” is not just for
unbound particles. It is the same for particles in bound states. In a bound state, a particle
is not a cloud in the shape of the Wave Function, as Copenhagen would have it; it is a
generally quite active particle on a trajectory that nature has chosen but hasn’t told us
about.

2.4.14 THE ISOLATED HYDROGEN ATOM

Feynman put it this way [28]: “The wave function for an electron in an atom does not,
then, describe a smeared-out electron with a smooth charge density. The electron is
either here, or there, or somewhere else, but wherever it is, it is a point charge”.
Even for just the ground state of an isolated hydrogen atom, things are orders of
magnitude more complex than for the particle in an infinite potential well, but the basic
message is the same.
 Nature can pick a radial trajectory for the electron. For the ground state of an isolated
hydrogen atom the radial dependency of the Wave Function is
Ψ(r) = e-r
This gives a pure radial momentum, p, probability distribution proportional to
1/(p2 + 1)
The probability of momentum -p is the same as the probability of momentum p.
Interestingly, the radial momentum is not bounded.
Nature could choose a basically classical trajectory of the electron going radially
outbound until it loses momentum and falls back. It does Coulomb scattering very close
to the proton (perhaps this is where we have the unbounded momentum) and goes out
radially again at a different angle, and repeat. Momentum is conserved by balance with
the proton.
The Wave Function is spherically symmetric. That has an orbital momentum
distribution. There can be many, more or less orbital, trajectories that nature could
choose.
Podolsky and Pauling [29]: “the root mean square of the total momentum is equal to the
momentum of the electron in a circular Bohr orbit with the same total quantum number.”
R. A. Buckingham [30] computed the momentum Wave Function of the electron in
the ground state of a Hydrogen atom:

B(p) = (2/π) (2(αh/(2π))5)1/2) / ((αh/(2π))2 + p2)2

The electron momentum is not bounded (as we have already seen in the purely radial
momentum). An elementary computation of a typical Hydrogen ground state electron
velocity is 2.18 X 106 M/sec. This is roughly 1016 hydrogen atom diameters per second,
or 104 hydrogen atom diameters per picosecond.
This certainly does not suggest that the electron is a cloud in the shape of the Wave
Function, just sitting there. This suggests the electron is bouncing around in its cage, even
unboundedly violently.
Bound particles are quite active. Just like unbound particles, they are on trajectories
that nature has chosen. We just don’t know what nature chose. The Wave Function
statistically models natures choices.

2.4.15 MACRO VS MICRO

 The question of when and how does the quantum behavior of microscopic objects
(electron, proton) surrender to the very different classical behavior of macroscopic objects
has been a major problem for more than half a century. There are two very different sets
of rules. Classical Physics for relatively big things and Quantum Mechanics, which
appears, in Copenhagen, to be very strange and even mystical, for the microscopic
things.
“How is quantumness lost as we abandon the microscopic domain? These questions,
which remain to date largely unanswered, address interesting and challenging goals of
modern research in physics, and serve the overarching goal of this project. TEQ will
establish the large-scale limit of quantum mechanics…” [31]. TEQ is a European
Consortium of 8 institutions to work on this problem.
Not so in Quantum Mechanics Model.
Quantum Mechanics Model says that for every object, from the ultra-microscopic to
the most enormous, nature has picked a basically classical trajectory. In all cases Wave
Mechanics is a good statistical model for how nature has chosen trajectories. Nature picks
trajectories coordinated so that momentum, angular momentum and energy are
conserved. Everything from photons and electrons to galaxies (and bigger still) operates
by the same rules.
For the very microscopic objects it will not be possible to see the details of their
classical trajectories because as soon as you make one measurement on them their
trajectories will be greatly altered to new classical trajectories (section 2.4.3).
For the large objects, it will not be possible to see things like interference, because
these effects will be too small by comparison with the main features of the trajectory and
the size of the object.
In Quantum Mechanics Model this is all very natural. Nothing to talk about.

3. SUMMARY

The Static Universe Model was introduced and explored as an alternative to the
Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Quantum Mechanics Model correctly
describes a list of experiments, at least a few of which were contrived to favor
Copenhagen.
Quantum Mechanics Model (with the Static Universe Model) solves the Measurement
Problem and eliminates the incredible physical wave function collapse. It also solves the
micro to macro transition problem. It shows that the magical instantaneous detection point
to detection point communication previously thought to be required in all EPR like
experiments is not required (in Quantum Mechanics Model). It shows that, in quantum
teleportation, the distance of the teleportation is not a factor and not interesting. There
are numerous cases where mysticism is required in Copenhagen, that are quite mundane
in Quantum Mechanics Model with the Static Universe Model. For example, there is time
reversed causality required in some experiments in Copenhagen, yet these experiments
require no such thing, and are rather boring in their normalcy in Quantum Mechanics
Model. There is essentially nothing that is exciting or offensive to the conception of how
things work in Quantum Mechanics Model. Everything is pretty mundane. That is the
whole point.
Yet the Static Universe Model is just a model. There was never any claim that this is
the true material, structure and mechanism that runs the universe. It IS claimed that the
Static Universe Model and Quantum Mechanics Model are much more useful than
Copenhagen or any of the other interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. The author
submits that it is a certainty that none of these is the true material, structure and
mechanism that runs the universe.
It is the authors conjecture that, for those seeking the true material, structure and
mechanism that runs the universe, Quantum Mechanics Model with the Static Universe
Model is a much better starting point than Copenhagen or any of the other interpretations.

4. Appendices

APPENDIX A: SOME PROBLEMS WITH COPENHAGEN

The Copenhagen Interpretation has been the widely accepted view of Quantum
Mechanics since about 1930 [1], but that doesn’t mean it is universally loved. Einstein
was very uncomfortable with it [2,3]. Many highly regarded physicists over the years have
expressed unhappiness with it, and even more today [32,33,34]. One survey [35] in 2013
reported 11% chose Copenhagen as their favorite interpretation, while 44% had no
preferred interpretation and 17% said “shut up and calculate”. Another survey [36] in
2013 reported 42% accepted Copenhagen, but the “Shut up and Calculate” response was
not available. This suggests that many said they accepted Copenhagen only because
they could not respond “shut up and calculate”. The poller: “we regret not to have included
the “shut up and calculate” interpretation” [36].
Physicist and Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg states that the Copenhagen
Interpretation "is now widely felt to be unacceptable"[37].
I quote from Lande [38]: “…I must confess that, during many years of trying to imbue
my students with the Copenhagen Spirit, I felt more and more like the Devil' s Advocate,
suffering from an ever-growing intellectual distress".
 I quote from Steven van Enk [39]:
“What would happen if we would measure position? … , right after the measurement
the wave function describing the particle changes: it will become a wave function localized
between x and x+dx!! This is called the collapse of the wave function. Some people find
this mysterious, but it can be most easily understood by interpreting the wave function as
nothing more than giving us probabilities: so it is our knowledge that changes after a
measurement, hence we ascribe a different wave function after the measurement,
consistent with what we have just learned. This new wave function, in turn, gives our best
predictions for measurements to follow.
With this interpretation, contrary to what the textbook says, there is no physical
mechanism necessary to explain the collapse of the wave function! In some
interpretations of quantum mechanics the wave function is taken much more seriously,
as a real property of the particle, much like a classical wave is more than just a
description. But this will lead to even more trouble when we consider entanglement (this
refers to a strong type of correlation between two different particles)!”
According to John G. Cramer [40], "Despite an extensive literature which refers to,
discusses, and criticizes the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, nowhere
does there seem to be any concise statement which defines the full Copenhagen
interpretation."
"There seems to be at least as many different Copenhagen interpretations as people
who use that term, probably there are more. For example, in two classic articles on the
foundations of quantum mechanics, Ballentine (1970) and Stapp (1972) give diametrically
opposite definitions of 'Copenhagen.'", Asher Peres [9].
John Bell [41]: “so long as the wave packet reduction is an essential component, and
so long as we do not know exactly when and how it takes over from the Schrodinger
equation, we do not have an exact and unambiguous formulation of our most fundamental
physical theory.”
Godart [42] Comment on Landé, A. [38]: “It is an incisive critique of the Copenhagen
interpretation of quantum mechanics, but certainly not of its results. Landé significantly
claims that "...if Bohr and Heisenberg are severely criticized in this [book] for their
subjectivist approach, their language refinement, and their occasional deviation from logic
and consistency, it will hardly be necessary to add that my admiration for their
achievements in theoretical physics is as great as ever. But I must confess that, during
many years of trying to imbue my students with the Copenhagen Spirit, I felt more and
more like the Devil' s Advocate, suffering from an ever-growing intellectual distress".
For the Copenhagen Interpretation, let me quote from Mermin [43] “It is a fundamental
quantum doctrine that a measurement does not, in general, reveal a pre-existing value of
the measured property. On the contrary, the outcome of a measurement is brought into
being by the act of measurement itself, a joint manifestation of the state of the probed
system and the probing apparatus. Precisely how the particular result of an individual
measurement is brought into being—Heisenberg’s “transition from the possible to the
actual”—is inherently unknowable. Only the statistical distribution of many such
encounters is a proper matter for scientific inquiry. We have been told this so often that
the eyes glaze over at the words, and half of you have probably stopped reading already.
But is it really true? Or, more conservatively, is it really necessary? Does quantum
mechanics, that powerful, practical, phenomenally accurate computational tool of
physicist, chemist, biologist, and engineer, really demand this weak link between our
knowledge and the objects of that knowledge? Setting aside the metaphysics that
emerged from urgent debates and long walks in Copenhagen parks, can one point to
anything in the modern quantum theory that forces on us such an act of intellectual
renunciation? Or is it merely reverence for the Patriarchs that leads us to deny that a
measurement reveals a value that was already there, prior to the measurement?”

Numerous alternatives to the Copenhagen Interpretation have been proposed and

there is active work going on several. Einstein proposed a Hidden Variable interpretation
as early as 1927.

APPENDIX B: ALTERNATIVES TO THE COPENHAGEN

INTERPRETATION

A partial list of alternatives to The Copenhagen Interpretation:

Local Hidden Variable
Nonlocal Hidden Variable
Pilot-Wave = de Broglie–Bohm theory = Bohmian mechanics
Many Worlds, Many Universes, Many-minds Interpretations
Quantum Decoherence
Consistent Histories
Relational Quantum Mechanics
Transactional Interpretation
Objective Collapse Theory
Consciousness causes Collapse (von Neumann - Wigner Interpretation)
Subjective Reduction
Participatory Anthropic Principle
 Modal Interpretations of Quantum Theory
Branching Space-Time Theories (BST)
Stochastic Interpretation
Model the Universe and it all just works

Several of the most popular alternatives to Copenhagen have been discredited by

experiments.
Bell Inequality Violation experiments discredit Local Hidden Variable theories [16, 17,
18, 44, 45]. Quantum Steering experiments also discredit Local Hidden Variables theories
[22].
Nonlocal Hidden Variable theories have not been popular. The work of Leggett does
not smile on them [46].
In Bell’s words [15], “In a theory in which parameters are added to quantum
mechanics to determine the results of individual measurements, without changing the
statistical predictions, there must be a mechanism whereby the setting of one
measurement device can influence the reading of another instrument, however remote.
Moreover, the signal involved must propagate instantaneously, so that such a theory
could not be Lorentz invariant.”
Most physicists balk at accepting a theory that is superluminal (on top of nonlocal)
and hence dismiss Nonlocal Hidden Variables (Hidden Variables itself, being hard to
swallow), and stick with Copenhagen, even though Copenhagen must then be nonlocal
and superluminal.
Pilot-Wave theory has had its very enthusiastic minority supporters for a long time. It
also has those who argue against it. Neumaier [47] claims to discredit Pilot-Wave Theory.
Streater [48] is very critical of Pilot Wave Theory.
The Many Worlds, Many Universes, Many-minds Interpretations have those who
argue for them and those who argue against. Boge points out problems with probabilities
and other problems [49]. Marchildon [50] provides a particularly careful and thorough
critical analysis of these theories. A quote from Marchildon, quoting Kent: “After 50 years,
there is no well-defined, generally agreed set of assumptions and postulates that together
constitute ‘the Everett interpretation of quantum theory.’ (Kent, 2010, p. 310)”. A further
quote from Marchildon [50]: “It seems to me that much skepticism about Everett’s
approach and its many implementations stems from the fact that in spite of valiant
attempts (Deutsch, 1997), the strength of arguments in its favor does not match the scope
of its claim.” Again quoting Kent [51]: “It is concluded that no plausible set of axioms exists
for an MWI that describes known physics.” Again Marchildon [52] notes problems with
space-time and “I will argue that much remains to be done for this approach to be
sufficiently well-defined.”
 I would say, relative to the Many Worlds, Many Universes, Many-minds
Interpretations, it would certainly be very desirable to have a model that is just physics
and does not depend on how the brain of the observer works. “The multi-universe
interpretation of quantum theory (which should rather be called a multi-consciousness
interpretation) …” H. D. Zeh [53].
The Quantum Decoherence Interpretation [54] seeks to replace the Wave Function
Collapse and other things in the Copenhagen Interpretation, or at least make them much
more acceptable. It says that much of the Wave Function Collapse is really interaction
with the environment. It focuses very much on the measurement problem. There is no
agreement that it has solved the measurement problem, or the collapse problem, for that
matter.
Consistent Histories.
Griffiths [55] presents Consistent Histories in Quantum Mechanics [32].
I quote from Dowker and Kent [57, 58]:
“On the other hand, it will be seen that consistency itself is a very weak condition:
there is generally a large variety of consistent sets. We stress that this does not mean
that the consistency criterion is incompatible with experiment. Many careful studies have
illustrated the efficiency of the decoherence process and its crucial importance in
understanding the dynamics of quasiclassical systems. Assuming that quantum theory
holds good as a description of macroscopic systems, the moral to be drawn from these
studies is that, in any realistic description of an experiment, one of the consistent sets will
correctly describe familiar quasiclassical physics and will allow the standard predictions
and inferences. The problem here is that all consistent sets have the same status in the
formalism, most have very little to do with the quasiclassical world of our observations,
and we can only make the predictions we would like to make after we have made the
choice of one particular set: the familiar quasiclassical one. If the consistent histories
formalism is to represent an enhancement in predictive power over the Copenhagen
interpretation it requires interpretational arguments that show this choice to be determined
by the formalism. Omn`es’ interesting attempt [4, 5] to find a mathematical criterion that
correctly identifies the relevant set, unfortunately, fails. The remaining arguments in the
literature [6, 7] which suggest that the formalism nonetheless does explain the observed
persistence of quasiclassicality therefore deserve careful scrutiny. Our own conclusion
[11] is that they rely on important hidden assumptions.”
Kent and McElwaine [59]: “probabilistic predictions can only be made conditional on
a choice of consistent set, yet the consistent histories formalism gives no way of singling
out any particular set or sets as physically interesting. …”

Relational Quantum Mechanics [60]. I quote from Federico Laudisa [61]:

 “In the wide area of the interpretations of QM, the relational approach first developed
by Carlo Rovelli attempts to jointly address some of the most pressing problems of the
ordinary formulation of the theory: the shifty split between classical and quantum regimes,
the ensuing measurement problem, the prospects of a puzzling, ‘non-local’ picture of the
quantum world. Moreover, this approach aims at obtaining a satisfactory interpretation of
the theory – that is, a local and measurement-determinate account of quantum
phenomena – with minimal modifications with respect to the Copenhagen-style view of
QM, summarized in the decision to drop the notion of observer-independent state of a
physical system. In the above pages I have attempted to show that we have reasons to
be much less optimistic toward the prospects of RQM: a lot of work needs to be done
before RQM may aspire to become a satisfactory interpretational framework for the main
foundational issues in QM.”

Transactional Interpretation.
John G. Cramer, the originator of the Transactional Interpretation presents it [40].
Peter W. Evans [62] and T. Maudlin [63] say there are serious problems with it related to
causality. See also [64]. Besides this, the simple cost - value proposition is against a wide
acceptance. For most people, the value it delivers is not worth the cost of its added
complexity and the personal cost of changing to the Transactional Interpretation from
Copenhagen, which is significant. There may be a lesson in this: for a new interpretation
of Quantum Mechanics to be widely accepted, it must deliver real value explaining things
in a reasonable way that are border line (or fully) mystical in Copenhagen and have a
very low personal cost for switching from Copenhagen.

Objective Collapse Theory [65] appears to be attempts to make the Copenhagen

Interpretation less mystical and more physical. Generally, it proposes real physical
processes by which the Wave Function physical manifestation performs the collapse.
They have been noted as having conservation of energy problems and problems leaving
tiny bits of something around.

Consciousness causes Collapse (von Neumann - Wigner Interpretation) [66].

The perception of the measurement by a “conscious mind” is what causes the
quantum collapse. This has problems, not the least is to define exactly what is a
“conscious mind.” Can animals cause quantum collapse? Are there people who cannot?
Who ran the universe before man or animals existed? Perhaps the most damaging factor
is that Wigner shifted away from this interpretation in his later years.

Subjective Interpretation “should aim to be a new interpretation of our scientific

knowledge which would disentangle its relations with existence” [67]. See also Pradhan
[68]. Here the interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is at least as much how we see the
world and how we see ourselves as it is any sort of objective reality. There is a following
of this in the Psychology-Philosophy world, but not so much in the pure Physics world,
but it must be said that von Neumann, Wigner, and Wheeler dipped a toe into these
waters.

John Wheeler’s Participatory Anthropic Principle [69, 70, 71] is built on the
Copenhagen Interpretation, specifically on indefiniteness and Wave Function Collapse.
The universe starts out as an indefinite superposition. As humans, specifically, observe
and measure, more and more of it becomes definite through Wave Function Collapse.
Observation and measurement now, of light that traveled for a billion years, has a real
effect on how that indefinite superposition of a billion years ago got resolved. For the
purpose of the paper you are reading, this can be considered covered under the title of
“The Copenhagen Interpretation.”

Modal Interpretations of Quantum Theory [72].

This is a group of related interpretations. A primary goal of all of them is to eliminate
the Wave Function Collapse of Copenhagen - a worthy goal. The reference [72] states
that the projection postulate (Wave Function Collapse), “leads to Many difficulties.” The
approach is that 2 sets of books are kept: one called the “dynamical state” and one called
the “value state”. The “dynamical state” follows Wave Mechanics, but the “value state”
does not. The “value state” has definite values of physical quantities. That would be great,
but now there are highly restrictive rules about what can be in the “value state”. Different
versions of the Modal Interpretation have different rules for the “value state”. The Bell-
Kochen-Specker theorem (1967) [73, 74, 43] implies that all realist, non-collapse
interpretations are committed to selecting a privileged set of definite values. Nice try, but
this is not a general way out of the Copenhagen conundrum.
A quote from reference [72]: “Whatever the merit of the modal ideas in the end, one
can at least say that they have given rise to a serious and fruitful series of
investigations into the nature of quantum theory.”

Branching Space-Time Theories [75, 76, 77] is basically a Many Histories model that
is very careful to properly observe indeterminacy and causality ordering in the
environment of Special Relativity. According to Belnap [76], Branching Space-Time does
not answer the “EPR” result of correlations of widely separated spin measurements (see
section 2.4.6.2).

Stochastic Interpretation
 In the stochastic Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, things are probabilistic
because particles really are jumping around like Brownian Motion {sections 2.4.13 and
2.4.14 might lend some credence to that}. Schrodinger’s equation and the Wave Function
can be interpreted as describing stochastic motion. It has also been suggested [75] that
a Stochastic Interpretation embedded in Branching Space Time Theory would find the
driver of the random motion in the seams in space time from BST. “Once one admits that
spacetime might be a BST, there is no further need to search for a background field to
supply the random kicks that stochastic quantum mechanics requires.” [75].
Davidson [78] has given a perspective on the Stochastic approach with tantalizing, if
distant, possibilities for deriving Quantum Mechanics from Stochastics and other things,
possibly even from electrodynamics, but sobering difficulties to overcome.
Grabert et al. [79]: “In this work we shall show that quantum mechanics has in fact
little to do with a stochastic process and that the contrary conclusions of others1-4 originate
in an erroneous use of the theory of Markovian processes. … we investigate in Sec. V
the question whether we can describe quantum mechanics within the framework of non-
Markovian processes, and we are led to the conclusion that the title question {Is quantum
mechanics equivalent to a classical stochastic process?} must be answered in the
negative.” Grabert et al.’s reference 4 is reference [80] in this paper. Ghirardi et al [80] by
no means subscribe to the stochastic interpretation either, but they are not so severely
critical as Grabert et al.: “It is, however, shown that a limitation to this interpretation comes
from the fact that purely stochastic concepts like the density and current density are not
sufficient for the description of the evolution, …”

Model the Universe and it all just works

If Wave Mechanics really works, then if you model the whole thing of interest and the
instruments for observing it and measuring instruments and indicating facilities and
everything …, if you include a big enough piece of the universe all in one model, then it
should just all work with only Wave Mechanics. All of these other approaches and
interpretations and gimmicks (including Copenhagen) are only an attempt to skimp on the
REAL model of that thing you are studying.
This is the “(non) interpretation” that we would all really like to have, absolutely
verified, and proven. Then all these other things can be completely understood as labor
reducing approximations to what we know is the true model, and evaluated according to
their usefulness and fidelity to the TRUE model.
Reference [4, 81] is the best example of this approach I have ever seen. It is truly
impressive! They model the measurement of the Z-component of the spin of a particle
through interaction with a magnetic memory simulated by a Curie–Weiss magnet,
including N >> 1 spins, weakly coupled to a phonon bath. This magnetic memory serves
as the “pointer” to indicate the value resulting from the measurement. The whole thing is
treated as one big Quantum Mechanics Problem. Well, that is not quite right. For their
model to work, the measuring apparatus must have a very large number of particles. The
measured particle and apparatus particles must have “… a sufficiently intricate interaction
within the macroscopic apparatus.” It is essential that the combined measured particle
and measuring apparatus can be treated as a Quantum Statistical Mechanics system.
They use only Quantum Statistical Mechanics; nothing from Copenhagen and certainly
nothing from Quantum Mechanics Model. Part of this is showing that “… it turns out that
all other states Dʹ undergo a rapid relaxation towards some linear combination of the
particular states Di”. From this Quantum Statistical Mechanics system, with a number of
approximations, they show the emergence of a unique result on the “pointer” and the
quantum collapse of the measured particle to the spin up or spin down state, as indicated
by the “pointer”. “The specific features of ideal measurements emerge owing to the many
degrees of freedom of the apparatus, to suitable interactions between S and A and
between the constituents of A …”.
They have issues with the Copenhagen Interpretation, interpretations based on
decoherence, conscious observers, the interpretation of Bohm and de Broglie, many
worlds interpretations (reference [4], page 169).
Of course, this says nothing about the 0 time transmission of information an arbitrarily
long distance (many miles or more) required by the EPR experiment (section 2.4.6.2).

And this is only a partial list of attempts to replace the Copenhagen Interpretation.
One thing, at least, that can be deduced from all of this is that the degree of dissatisfaction
with the orthodox Copenhagen Interpretation is enough to cause many physicists,
including many great physicists, to devote large efforts to replace it.

Tammaro argues that Copenhagen and all alternatives proposed so far are deficient
[33]. Cabello thinks we are crazy, all of us! [82].

5. REFERENCES

[1] Cassidy, D. (2008). "Quantum Mechanics 1925–1927: Triumph of the Copenhagen

Interpretation". Werner Heisenberg. American Institute of Physics. Retrieved 2008-
06-21, https://history.aip.org/web-exhibits/heisenberg/triumph.html

[2] https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Einstein-not-like-quantum-mechanics-even-if-he-
was-a-major-contributor-to-quantum-theory

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox#Einstein%27s_opposition
[4] Armen E. Allahverdyan, Roger Balian, Theo M. Nieuwenhuizen (2013).
Understanding Quantum Measurement from the Solution of Dynamical Models.
Physics Reports 525, Issue 1, April 2013, pp 1-166.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1107.2138.pdf

[5] David H. McIntyre, Oregon State University: Spin and Quantum Measurements,
Copyright 2002;
http://www.if.ufrj.br/~carlos/fismod/seminarios/SternGerlach/SternGerlach_program
as/SpinBook02.pdf

[6] Narasimhan, Ashok; Kafatos, Menas C (2017). "Wave particle duality, the observer
and retrocausality". AIP Conference Series. 1841 (1): 040004.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1608/1608.06722.pdf.

[7] Kim, Yoon-Ho; R. Yu; S. P. Kulik; Y. H. Shih; Marlan Scully (2000). "A Delayed
"Choice" Quantum Eraser". Phys Rev Lett. 84: 1–5. arXiv:quant-ph/9903047 Freely
accessible. Bibcode:2000PhRvL..84....1K. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.1.

[8] Ryszard Horodecki, Paweł Horodecki, Michał Horodecki, Karol Horodecki (2009).
Quantum Entanglement. Rev Mod Phy, Vol. 81, April–June 2009, page 865.
http://www.phy.pku.edu.cn/~qiongyihe/content/download/2-5.pdf

[9] Asher Peres (2002). "Popper's experiment and the Copenhagen interpretation".
Stud. History Philos. Modern Physics. 33: 23. https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-
ph/9910078.pdf, page 6.

[10] Paul-Antoine Moreau, Peter A. Morris, Ermes Toninelli, Thomas Gregory, Reuben
S. Aspden, Gabriel Spalding, Robert W. Boyd & Miles J. Padgett (2018). Scientific
Reports Volume 8, Article number: 13183 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-
018-31429-y; https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-31429-y

[11] “If the state of one entangled particle is changed, its faraway twin will be
instantaneously affected.”
https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/gadgets/a7355/spooky-quantum-
entanglement-created-in-everyday-objects-6606439/

[12] “The basic idea of quantum entanglement is that two particles can be intimatey linked
to each other even if separated by billions of light-years of space; a change induced
in one will affect the other.” Jesse Emspak (2/14/2016). Space.com.
https://www.space.com/31933-quantum-entanglement-action-at-a-distance.html

[13] “entangled particles remain connected so that actions performed on one affect the
other, even when separated by great distances.”
https://www.livescience.com/28550-how-quantum-entanglement-works-
infographic.html
[14] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation.

[15] J. Bell, “On The Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox”, Physics 1, 195-200 (1964).
https://cds.cern.ch/record/111654/files/vol1p195-200_001.pdf

[16] B. Hensen and many others (2015). Experimental loophole-free violation of a Bell
inequality using entangled electron spins separated by 1.3 km.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1508.05949.pdf

[17] Wenjamin Rosenfeld et al. "Event-Ready Bell Test Using Entangled Atoms
Simultaneously Closing Detection and Locality Loopholes." Physical Review Letters.
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.010402.
https://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.010402

[18] Jacob Aron (2015). Quantum weirdness proved real in first loophole-free experiment.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28112-quantum-weirdness-proved-real-in-
first-loophole-free-experiment/

[19] D. M. Greenberger, M. A. Horne and A. Zeilinger, https://arxiv.org/abs/0712.0921

[20] Jian-Wei Pan, Dik Bouwmeester, Matthew Daniell, Harald Weinfurter & Anton
Zeilinger (2000). Experimental test of quantum nonlocality in three-photon
Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger entanglement. Nature volume 403, pages 515–519
(03 February 2000) https://phys.org/news/2017-07-probability-quantum-world-local-
realism.html. https://www.nature.com/articles/35000514

[21] Frederick Denis Vas (2014). Quantum steering, entanglement and Bell nonlocality.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/research-centres-and-
groups/theoretical-physics/msc/dissertations/2014/Frederick-Denis-Vas---
Dissertation.pdf

[22] Bernhard Wittmann, Sven Ramelow, Fabian Steinlechner, Nathan K Langford,

Nicolas Brunner, Howard M Wiseman, Rupert Ursin and Anton Zeilinger1,2,5 (2012).
Loophole-free Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen experiment via quantum steering. New
Journal of Physics, Volume 14, May 2012.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/14/5/053030/meta

[23] Wiseman H M, Jones S J and Doherty A C 2007 Steering, entanglement, nonlocality,

and the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 140402.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0612147.pdf.

[24] A. J. Leggett and Anupam Garg (1985). Quantum Mechanics versus macroscopic
realism: is the flux there when nobody looks? Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 857 (1985).

[25] George C. Knee, Stephanie Simmons, Erik M. Gauger, John J.L. Morton, Helge
Riemann, Nikolai V. Abrosimov, Peter Becker, Hans-Joachim Pohl, Kohei M. Itoh,
Mike L.W. Thewalt, G. Andrew D. Briggs & Simon C. Benjamin (2012). Violation of a
 Leggett–Garg inequality with ideal non-invasive measurements. Nature
Communications 3, Article: 606 (2012).
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms1614.

[26] Carsten Robens,1 Wolfgang Alt,1 Dieter Meschede,1 Clive Emary,2 and Andrea
Alberti (2015). Ideal Negative Measurements in Quantum Walks Disprove Theories
Based on Classical Trajectories. Phys Rev X 5, 011003.
https://journals.aps.org/prx/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevX.5.011003

[27] Saverio Pascazio (2013). All you ever wanted to know about the quantum Zeno effect
in 70 minutes. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1311.6645.pdf.

[28] R.P. Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics. (Addison Wesley Longman,
1970).

[29] Podolsky, Boris; Pauling, Linus (1929). The Momentum Distribution in Hydrogen-
Like Atoms. Physical Review, vol. 34, Issue 1, pp. 109-116(07/1929).
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1929PhRv...34..109P

[30] R. A. Buckingham, in D. R. Bates, editor: Quantum Theory I. Elements, Academic

Press, NY. pp 133-134.

[31] https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/211916_en.html.

[32] Niels Bohr’s Interpretation and the Copenhagen Interpretation—Are the Two
Incompatible? https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/525618

[33] Elliott Tammaro. Why Current Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics are Deficient.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1408.2093.pdf.

[34] John G. Cramer (2004). A farewell to Copenhagen?

https://web.archive.org/web/20041208214837/http://www.analogsf.com/0410/altvie
w2.shtml.

[35] Christoph Sommer (2013) Another Survey of Foundational Attitudes Towards

Quantum Mechanics. https://archive.org/stream/arxiv-
1303.2719/1303.2719#page/n0/mode/1up

[36] Maximilian Schlosshauer, Johannes Kofler, Anton Zeilinger (2013) A Snapshot of

Foundational Attitudes Toward Quantum Mechanics.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.1069.pdf

[37] Steven Weinberg: The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics, THE NEW YORK
REVIEW OF BOOKS, January 19, 2017 issue.

[38] Lande, A. (1965). New Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge University

Press, 1965.
[39] Steven van Enk: Intro to Quantum Mechanics Lecture Notes,
http://pages.uoregon.edu/svanenk/solutions/IQMall.pdf.

[40] Cramer, John G. (1986). "The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics".

Rev Mod Phy 58 (3): 649. Bibcode:1986RvMP...58..647C.
doi:10.1103/revmodphys.58.647. Archived from the original on 2012-11-08.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280926546_The_transactional_interpretat
ion_of_quantum_mechanics.

[41] J. S. Bell, Helv. Phys. Acta 48, 93 (1975).

http://inspirehep.net/record/90441/files/CM-P00060511.pdf?version=1

[42] Maurice Godart, [email protected], Stochastic Theory of Quantum Mechanics.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1206/1206.2917.pdf. Specifically commenting on
Lande [38].

[43] N.D. Mermin, "Simple unified form for the major no-hidden-variables theorems",
Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 3373 (1990). Actually, later paper:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.10119.pdf

[44] Alain Aspect, Philippe Grangier, Gerard Roger (1982). Experimental Realization of
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm Gedankenexperiment: A New Violation of Bell's
Inequalities. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.49.91.

[45] Alain Aspect, Jean Dalibard, and Gerard Roger (1982). Experimental Test of Bell’s
Inequalities Using Time-Varying Analyzers. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.49.1804.

[46] Leggett, A. J. (2003). Nonlocal Hidden-Variable Theories and Quantum Mechanics:

An Incompatibility Theorem. Foundations of Physics, Vol. 33, No. 10, October 2003.
people.isy.liu.se/en/icg/jalar/kurser/QF/assignments/Leggett2003.pdf

[47] Arnold Neumaier (1998). Bohmian Mechanics Contradicts Quantum Mechanics.

https://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/ms/bohm.pdf

[48] R. F. Streater. Lost Causes in Theoretical Physics.

https://web.archive.org/web/20060613191814/http://www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/~streater/lo
stcauses.html#XI

[49] Boge, Florian (2016). On Probabilities in the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum
Mechanics. Bachelor thesis, Universität zu Köln. https://kups.ub.uni-
koeln.de/6889/1/ProbMWPublish.pdf

[50] Louis Marchildon (2015). Multiplicity in Everett’s interpretation of Quantum

mechanics. adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015SHPMP..52..274M.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1504.04835.pdf
[51] Adrian Kent (1997). Against Many-Worlds Interpretations. International Journal of
Modern Physics 5, 09, 1745-1762. https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9703089.pdf

[52] Louis Marchildon (2016). Spacetime in Evertt’s interpretation of quantum mechanics.

www.minkowskiinstitute.org/conferences/2016/abstracts/Marchildon.pdf

[53] H. D. Zeh (2000). The Problem of Conscious Observation in Quantum Mechanical

Description. https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9908084.pdf.

[54] Maximilian Schlosshauer (2005). Decoherence, the measurement problem, and

interpretations of quantum mechanics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 76, 1267 – Published 23
February 2005. https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0312059.pdf

[55] Robert B. Griffiths (1984). Consistent Histories and the Interpretation of Quantum
Mechanics. Journal of Statistical Physics, Vol. 36, No. 1.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225252507_Consistent_histories_and_th
e_interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics.

[56] Juan Pablo Paz and Wojciech Hubert Zurek (1993). Environment-Induced
Decoherence, Classicality and Consistency of Quantum Histories. Phys. Rev. D 48,
2728 (1993). https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9304031.pdf

[57] F. Dowker and A. Kent (1995). On the Consistent Histories Approach to Quantum
Mechanics. Journal of Statistical Physics 82 (1996) 5,6. https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-
qc/9412067.pdf

[58] F. Dowker and A. Kent (1995). Properties of Consistent Histories, Phys. Rev. Lett.
75 (1995) 3038. https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9409037.pdf

[59] Adrian Kent, Jim McElwaine (1996). Quantum Prediction Algorithms.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9610028.pdf

[60] Rovelli, C.: "Relational Quantum Mechanics"; International Journal of Theoretical

Physics 35; 1996: 1637-1678; https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9609002

[61] Federico Laudisa (2017). Open Problems in Relational Quantum Mechanics.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1710/1710.07556.pdf

[62] Peter W. Evans (2012). Causal Symmetry and the Transactional Interpretation.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1011.2287.pdf

[63] Maudlin, T. (2002). Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity. Blackwell Publishing,

Oxford.

[64] R. E. Kastner. AIP Conference Proceedings 1841, 020002 (2017).

https://transactionalinterpretation.org/2018/02/17/is-there-really-retrocausation-in-
time-symmetric-approaches-to-quantum-mechanics/
[65] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective_collapse_theory

[66] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann–Wigner_interpretation

[67] Quentin Ruyant (2011). The Subjective Interpretation of Quantum Physics.

NeuroQuantology December 2011, Vol 9, Issue 4, pp 621-635.
https://www.neuroquantology.com/index.php/journal/article/viewFile/435/445

[68] Rajat K. Pradhan (2012). Psychophysical Interpretation of Quantum Theory.

NeuroQuantology December 2012, Vol 10, Issue 4, pp 629-645.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1206/1206.6095.pdf.

[69] Tim Folger (2002). Does the Universe Exist if We’re Not Looking? (An interview with
John Wheeler) Discover Magazine, June 2002 Issue
http://discovermagazine.com/2002/jun/featuniverse

[70] John Archibald Wheeler (1989) Proc. 3rd Int, Symp. Foundations of Quantum
Mechanics, Tokyo, 1989, pp 354-398.
https://jawarchive.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/informationquantumphysics.pdf

[71] Wheeler, John Archibald. ―John Wheeler: Role of the Observer in Quantum
Mechanics. In The Ghost in the Atom: A Discussion of the Mysteries of Quantum
Physics, edited by P.C.W. Davies and J.R. Brown. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press, 1986, pp. 58—69.

[72] Lombardi, Olimpia and Dieks, Dennis, "Modal Interpretations of Quantum

Mechanics", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2017 Edition),
Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/qm-
modal/; https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-modal/

[73] S. Kochen and E.P. Specker, "The problem of hidden variables in quantum
mechanics", Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics 17, 59–87 (1967).
http://www.iumj.indiana.edu/IUMJ/fulltext.php?artid=17004&year=1968&volume=17

See also Mermin (1990) [43].

[74] J.S. Bell, "On the problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics", Rev Mod Phy
38, 447-452 (1966). See also Mermin (1990) [43].

[75] Mark F. Sharlow (2007). What Branching Spacetime Might Do for Physics.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/42c6/df1629f2480a344d792246c584ab5d23702e.
pdf.

[76] Belnap, N. (2003). "Branching space-time, postprint January, 2003", unpublished

(available via the website http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu). This paper is a revised
version of: Belnap, N. 1992, "Branching space-time", Synthese 92, 385-434.
 [77] Kowalski, T., and T. Placek (2000). GHZ theorems in the framework of outcomes in
branching space-time. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, vol. 39, no. 3, pp.
765-775.

[78] Mark P. Davidson. Stochastic Models of Quantum Mechanics - A Perspective.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0610/0610046.pdf

[79] Hermann Grabert, Peter Hanggi, Peter Talker (1979). Is quantum mechanics
equivalent to a classical stochastic process? Phys. Rev. A, Vol 19, No. 6 pp 2440-
2445, June 1979.
http://www.academia.edu/23618879/Is_quantum_mechanics_equivalent_to_a_clas
sical_stochastic_process

[80] G. C. Ghirardi, C Omero, A. Rimini, T. Weber (1977). The Stochastic Interpretation

of Quantum Mechanics: A Critical Review. Rivista Del Nuovo Cimento, V 1, N 3 1978
pp. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02724445.

[81] Roger Balian (2013). Emergences in Quantum Measurement Process.

https://www.ipht.fr/Docspht/articles/t11/234/public/KRON_013_01_07-Balian.pdf

[82] Adan Cabello (2016). Interpretations of quantum theory: A map of madness.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.04711.pdf.

View publication stats