284
M. Svrˇ cek
the Copenhagen interpretation seems to be able to incorporate telicity via megascopic mirroring of each of its basic axioms, and in that way does confront the above
mentioned paradoxes.
Keywords Goldstone bosons · Bohr complementarity · Centre-of-mass ·
Spontaneous symmetry breaking · Superconductivity · Jahn-Teller effect · Higgs
mechanism · Matter-mind dualism
1 Introduction
Quantum theory was at first formulated and construed within the framework of
the Copenhagen School. This interpretation was a result of long years of intensive
exploration of the microworld answering one of the greatest scientific paradoxes of
all times: on the one hand maintaining classical concepts in the description of experimental results, and on the other hand to build a novel perception of the microworld, the
latter not the world of reality as we know from Newton’s equations of the macroworld,
but rather the abstract world of Aristotelian potentiality. The primary consequences
of this conception were indeterminism and complementarity, which were introduced
for the first time in science. Since classical physics has influenced philosophy for
centuries, leading to such extreme views as mechanical materialism, it was indeed
difficult for many scientists at first to accept the Copenhagen interpretation in its
entirety. There were numerous unsuccessful attempts to explain microprocesses in
a deterministic way by means of hidden parameters. The sharpest discussions proceeded between Bohr and Einstein, which culminated in the most ingenious objection
of Einstein, known as the EPR paradox [1]. Later Bell discussed this paradox and
proved what is known today as Bell’s theorem [2]. Based on this insight, subsequent
experimental tests fully confirmed the validity of all quantum mechanical predictions
also in concert with the celebrated Copenhagen interpretation.
The initial work of Bohr and later realized as the Copenhagen interpretation
basically concerned the hydrogen atom, but how to continue? What about molecules,
crystals, liquids, and other forms of macroscopic matter? Do we understand them
as well, too? Detailed many body treatments were developed during the last half
century, recommending how to deal with complex systems composed of elementary
particles. These many body treatments have one common feature: they respect one
classical rule, i.e. knowing the physical law of motion of the smallest parts, we can
unambiguously predict the motion of the whole. Although the majority of scientists
believe this, one may still ask: is this really true? We have of course no reason to doubt
this belief, yet what is in full accordance with our deep-rooted experience, we might
still find such examples or paradoxes that convince us otherwise. Surprisingly such
examples and paradoxes do exist, although they usually are considered only to be of
peripheral interest. Nevertheless this will be the topic of the presented article.
One may ask whether the Copenhagen interpretation is bad, as Einstein and all supporters of hidden parameter schemes tried to prove, or whether the elementary particle
M. Svrˇ cek
the Copenhagen interpretation seems to be able to incorporate telicity via megascopic mirroring of each of its basic axioms, and in that way does confront the above
mentioned paradoxes.
Keywords Goldstone bosons · Bohr complementarity · Centre-of-mass ·
Spontaneous symmetry breaking · Superconductivity · Jahn-Teller effect · Higgs
mechanism · Matter-mind dualism
1 Introduction
Quantum theory was at first formulated and construed within the framework of
the Copenhagen School. This interpretation was a result of long years of intensive
exploration of the microworld answering one of the greatest scientific paradoxes of
all times: on the one hand maintaining classical concepts in the description of experimental results, and on the other hand to build a novel perception of the microworld, the
latter not the world of reality as we know from Newton’s equations of the macroworld,
but rather the abstract world of Aristotelian potentiality. The primary consequences
of this conception were indeterminism and complementarity, which were introduced
for the first time in science. Since classical physics has influenced philosophy for
centuries, leading to such extreme views as mechanical materialism, it was indeed
difficult for many scientists at first to accept the Copenhagen interpretation in its
entirety. There were numerous unsuccessful attempts to explain microprocesses in
a deterministic way by means of hidden parameters. The sharpest discussions proceeded between Bohr and Einstein, which culminated in the most ingenious objection
of Einstein, known as the EPR paradox [1]. Later Bell discussed this paradox and
proved what is known today as Bell’s theorem [2]. Based on this insight, subsequent
experimental tests fully confirmed the validity of all quantum mechanical predictions
also in concert with the celebrated Copenhagen interpretation.
The initial work of Bohr and later realized as the Copenhagen interpretation
basically concerned the hydrogen atom, but how to continue? What about molecules,
crystals, liquids, and other forms of macroscopic matter? Do we understand them
as well, too? Detailed many body treatments were developed during the last half
century, recommending how to deal with complex systems composed of elementary
particles. These many body treatments have one common feature: they respect one
classical rule, i.e. knowing the physical law of motion of the smallest parts, we can
unambiguously predict the motion of the whole. Although the majority of scientists
believe this, one may still ask: is this really true? We have of course no reason to doubt
this belief, yet what is in full accordance with our deep-rooted experience, we might
still find such examples or paradoxes that convince us otherwise. Surprisingly such
examples and paradoxes do exist, although they usually are considered only to be of
peripheral interest. Nevertheless this will be the topic of the presented article.
One may ask whether the Copenhagen interpretation is bad, as Einstein and all supporters of hidden parameter schemes tried to prove, or whether the elementary particle