Since its emergence, quantum mechanics has been a challenge for an understanding of reality which is based on our intuition in a classical world. Nevertheless, it has often been tried to impose this understanding of reality on quantum theory - with limited success. Instead, it might be a better alternative to redefine the meaning of physical reality. This is the objective of the paper. A consideration of the quantum measurement process, conditional probabilities and some well-known typical quantum physical experiments provides the reasoning for the following three hypotheses: (1) Prior to a first measurement, a physical system is not in a quantum state. (2) Physical reality is all that and only that about which (classical) information is available in the universe. (3) Information creation is an independent process and is not covered by the Schroedinger equation. It is the first step of the quantum measurement process and does not have a classical counterpart. The first hypothesis makes sense only if the quantum measurement process can be described without presupposing an initial state for the system under consideration. This becomes possible by the objective conditional probabilities which represent the transition probabilities between the outcomes of successive quantum measurements and have been introduced by the author in some recent papers. The second hypothesis holds as well in the classical case, but a certain incompleteness of reality is typical of quantum mechanics and the origin of many quantum phenomena. Classically, the existence of a complete reality is presumed, and hypothesis 3 has no meaning then.
Marian Kupczynski(MK)is the author of a controversial paper published (2020) in the journal Frontiers in Physics. The work is built around a mathematical claim by MK which is actually false, and MK's logical reasoning around his claim is also incorrect. The same claim was made by him in several other recent papers published in other journals. A proof that the claimed result is false is the main content of our present "Comment". It is purely a mathematical counter-example to a mathematical claim in a number of MK's papers.
Is a system's wave function in one-to-one correspondence with its elements of reality?
虽然量子力学是我们最成功的物理理论之一，但关于波函数--理论的中心对象--的解释一直存在着长期的争论。两个突出的观点是（i）它对应于现实的一个元素，即在测量之前存在的客观属性，（ii）它是关于某种潜在现实的主观知识状态。最近的一个结果[Pusey et al. arXiv：1111.3328]对主观解释提出了质疑，表明它与某些物理上合理的假设相矛盾，特别是可以准备多个系统，使得它们的现实元素不相关。在这里，我们表明，仅基于测量设置可以自由选择的假设，系统的波函数与其现实元素一一对应。这也消除了主观解释的可能性。
We show that one may interpret physical reality as random fields in space-time. These have a probability given by the expectation of a coherent state projection operator, called the Q-function. The resulting dynamical evolution includes retrocausal effects. This suggests that a physical universe exists without requiring observers, but with a well-defined probability for its field configuration. By including the meter dynamics, we show that field trajectories have quantum measurement properties without wave-function collapse, including sharp measured eigenvalues. We treat continuous and discret…
The notion of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) "element of reality" is much discussed in the literature on the foundations of quantum mechanics. Recently, it has become particularly relevant due to a proposed criterion of the physical reality of a given quantum mechanical observable [A. L. O. Bilobran and R. M. Angelo, Europhys. Lett. 112, 40005 (2015)]. We examine this proposal and its consequently related measure of non-locality [V. S. Gomez and R. M. Angelo, Phys. Rev. A 97, 012123, (2018)] and argue that the criterion is ill-described as quantifying physical reality without introducing se…
Tim Maudlin has claimed that EPR's Reality Criterion is analytically true. We argue that it is not. Moreover, one may be a subjectivist about quantum probabilities without giving up on objective physical reality. Thus, would-be detractors must reject QBism and other epistemic approaches to quantum theory on other grounds.
Circumveiloped by Obscuritads. The nature of interpretation in quantum mechanics, hermeneutic circles and physical reality, with cameos of James Joyce and Jacques Derrida
Quantum mechanics led to spectacular technological developments, discovery of new constituents of matter and new materials. However there is still no consensus on its interpretation and limitations. Some scientists and scientific writers promote some exotic interpretations and evoke quantum magic. In this paper we point out that magical explanations mean the end of the science. Magical explanations are misleading and counterproductive. We explain how a simple probabilistic locally causal model is able to reproduce quantum correlations in Bell tests. We also discuss difficulties of mathematical…
We reject unjustified criticism of our published article [2209.07992] by Gill and Lambare [arXiv:2211.02481, arXiv:2208.09930]. They completely misinterpret the content and conclusions of this article. They construct a counterfactual probabilistic model in which random variables representing outcomes of four experiments performed using incompatible experimental settings are jointly distributed. Thus, CHSH inequalities trivially hold for all finite samples generated by their model. Their model defines a probabilistic coupling for our model describing only the raw data from Bell tests. The exist…
A hidden variables model complying with the simplest form of Local Realism was recently introduced, which reproduces Quantum Mechanics' predictions for an even ideally perfect Bell's experiment. This is possible thanks to the use of a non-Boolean vector hidden variable. Yet, that model is as far as Quantum Mechanics from the goal of providing a complete description of physical reality in the EPR-sense. Such complete description includes the capacity to calculate, from the values taken by the hidden variables, the time values when particles are detected. This can be achieved by replacing Born's…
