The Copenhagen model elaborated by Nils Bohr postulates the principle of complementarity between the particle and wave aspects of electrons, photons etc. It recommends pursuing the mathematical features of the quantum theory, which works very well in experiments, and not debating questions of the underlying reality, which seemed so paradoxical and counter-intuitive. Heisenberg joined in with his principle of indeterminacy, according to which it was impossible in principle to measure accurately both the position and the momentum (or velocity) of a wave-particle object. The wave packet, according to this view, represents only probabilities, not certainties. Thus the theory is fundamentally nondetermi~istic. This was unsatisfactory to Einstein, among others, who engaged in a long debate with Bohr, declaring that “God does not play dice with the Universe”.

At first, I considered the following alternatives: -Betchov’s soliton, a non-linear component of the wave function, essentially a standing wave.

• De Broglie’s “guiding wave”, which tells the electron or photon where the slits are in the two-slit experiment, or if there is one or two slits.
• Bohm’s elaboration of the quantum potential.

Then I realized that these alternatives were essentially the same. The quantum potential, which is the phase of the wave, indicates where the particle “really” is. The quantum potential is the same as the soliton, a high peak moving very rapidly across the wave packet, back and forth (like the resonance of chemical bonds in a benzene ring, only still faster). Since the probability of finding the particle is equal to the wave amplitude squared, the particle is very probably where the soliton is. In a measurement, the wave packet collapses because there is no more probability, we have found the particle. We could not predict where it would be, but it had to be SOMEWHERE along the wave packet, as the soliton vibrated rapidly across it. That probability was greatest at the middle of the wave packet, where the amplitude is greatest.

This restores determinism to the theory, although it does not affect the ‘experimental findings or the mathematics. It is simply an alternative interpretation. However, it does not eliminate the “weirdness” of quantum theory, it only displaces it to other aspects.

The Bohr and Bohm alternatives, as I briefly call them, are interpretations of the results of the two-slit experiment, which led to the wave-particle duality, the principle of indeterminacy, and the collapse of the wave packet when a measurement is made. We now have to pay attention to another quantum paradox, the EPR (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen) experiment and the Bell theorem, according to which two particles flying apart from their point of creation remain non-locally entangled: they maintain the same spin (or other properties) even when only one of them is switched and they are too far apart to communicate at speeds less than the speed of light.

Here again I see some alternative explanations:

• Non-locality
• Time travel: the particles return backward in time to their point of joint origin.
• Connection by origin, like identical twins sometimes unknowingly doing the same thing at the same time, though far apart and not in contact.
• Superliminal speeds are possible, perhaps through tunnelling or a wormhole.

Again, I consider the first three alternatives as different versions of the same mechanism, violating in various ways our intuitive notions of space or time. The fourth alternative would be inconsistent with the special theory of relativity. Yet tunnelling is a real phenomenon on which some technical devices are based, and wormholes may be possible at subatomic size levels, with which we are dealing here.

The book “The Non-Local Universe” by Robert Nadeau and Menas Kafatos (Oxford university Press, 1999) also considers philosophical implications of the new physics, both for epistemology and for metaphysics. The book is co-authored by a physicist and a philosopher, but I must admit that I understand the philosopher even less than the physicist, in spite of the inherent difficulty of quantum theory concepts.

What I glean from the philosopher is again only my own interpretation. It is as follows: Phenomenology reflects the real world, although it is not identical with it; it translates sense data into perceived objects, but there is still a one-to-one correspondence, like the shadows on Plato’s cave. However, once we get to a more abstract sYmbolic level, e.g. expressing what we sense into linguistic form, we get more distant from reality. We can move entirely within the symbolic sphere (as described e.g. by Terence Deacon in “The Symbolic Species”) and IMAGINE (falsely) that we are getting a one-to-one correspo~dence between our theories and physical reality.

But then (and this is my addition), if we then test our theories experimentally, as in science, we can get back to one-to-one correspondence to reality, if the experiments confirm the theories. Science is actually a reality check, to keep us from wandering too far in our imagination. Anything not tested is mere imagination, though it may by chance be true, especially if the theory is “elegant” or “beautiful”; but that may prove to be a false clue.

Some post-modernist philosophers claim that we live in “a prison house of language”, in which language can only validate itself – it is self-referential. To me this sounds too extreme.

The authors conclude that metaphysically the universe is a seamless whole, more than the sum of its parts, because it is non-local. Everything is connected by quantum entanglement because of past multiple interactions. However, I have concluded from other readings that quantum entanglements can be broken and often are, just as chemical bonds are broken. Therefore I don’t see that the leap from the EPR experiment to the assumption that “the universe is more like an organism than like a machine” is warranted. However, it MAY be true, because it is elegant and beautiful to think so.