Quantum Jumps Revisited

A theoretical description of quantum jumps at the level of elementary particles is proposed, based on a micro-cosmological interpretation of their de Broglie phase. The third quantization formalism proposed in current literature for the description of baby universes in quantum cosmology is used here to describe the breakdown of unitarity in the transition from the pre-jump to the post-jump wave function. The corpuscular aspect manifested by the particle in the micro-interaction that originates the jump is represented by a pair of evanescent "micro-universes", respectively pre- and post-jump, connected by a wormhole. The latter represents the actual implementation of the interaction that leads to the projection on the outgoing state; this interaction is always local, even when the selected outgoing state is entangled. Therefore, the decoherence which leads to the emergence of classicality is originated by the same fundamental interactions of the Standard Model involved in the unitary evolution of the wave function. The objective nature of the reduction process admits implications on the possibility of using the formalism in the cosmological context, which are briefly discussed.

On the Quantum Mechanics of Collision Processes [English Translation]

An examination of collision processes indicates that Schrödinger’s quantum mechanics describes not only stationary states, but also quantum jumps.

Free Will and Quantum Mechanics

In the last few decades, the relevance of quantum mechanics to the free-will debate has been discussed at length, especially in relation to the prospects of libertarianism (the view according to which humans enjoy an indeterministic kind of free will). Basing his interpretation on Anscombe’s seminal work, Putnam argued in 1979 that, given that quantum mechanical indeterminacy is holistic at the macrolevel—i.e., it is not traceable to atomistic events such as quantum jumps of single atoms—it can provide libertarians with the kind of freedom they seek. As shown in this article, however, Putnam ultimately reached the conclusion—together with the other author of this article—that his argument was wrong due to problems with the way it appealed to the Uncertainty Principle.**