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.
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.
Classical physics assumes that the things exist independently of an act of observation; however, quantum theory suggests that the apparent form of quantum system emerges as a consequence of an act of observation. However, quantum theory is silent on the state of the systems prior to the act of observation. It assumes that the wavefunction collapses as a consequence of an act of observation but does not explain the mechanism of the collapse of wavefunction. Therefore, it is at least incomplete, if not incorrect. In this paper, we have shown that our understanding of the nature of physical reality is based on the false premise that we observe the physical entities, but the mechanism of perception is such that we can only perceive the information generated by the physical entities, not the physical entities. As per the current understanding of the process of perception, the brain projects the information it receives from the sense organs in the physical forms. Therefore, the entity that generates the information must preexist before it can be projected in the physical form. We do not perceive the actual Moon. The apparent form of the Moon is only a projection created by our brain. The apparent form is only a manifestation of something that generates information, but that cannot be observed directly. In the light of this observation, it becomes necessary to examine if we can establish causal relationships between events assuming that the place and time and events are observer independent. Apart from using the criterion prescribed by the EPR paper, we have also used these two methods to determine if we can have an observer independent description of reality. We have shown that an entity must have observer independent values of the physical quantities, but the act of measurement only reveals the observer dependent values of the physical quantities even in the macro world. We have confirmed our observations experimentally as well as through the observation of the natural phenomena.
In this work a very simple model of physical experiential creation is developed and then used to provide a single, consistent, and clear solution to the riddles posed by the phenomena that lie at the heart of quantum physics. By providing a unitary framework for understanding all of these heretofore inexplicable phenomena, this model demonstrates that physical reality is a reality that has to be created in order to be known. What this model also demonstrates is that the way in which physical reality is created is through a specific type of relation that takes place at a level of reality that is more fundamental than the physical level of reality. Understanding that physical reality has to be created in order to be known first makes it possible to recognize the experiential mechanism that produces wave-particle duality. Recognizing that experiential mechanism then makes it possible to identify and define the fundamental limitation that exists in the creation of physical experience that produces quantum uncertainty. Following that, that same experiential mechanism and limitation is then used to explain both the creation and collapse of the wave function, as well as quantum nonlocality. Ultimately, this model of physical experiential creation, by providing a single solution to all of these heretofore insoluble riddles, allows for the unification of classical and quantum physical experiential reality, by demonstrating that the only difference between determinate classical physical reality and indeterminate quantum physical reality lies in the relational conditions under which each of these physical experiential realities is created. What this model also makes clear is that the probability or randomness that is so much a part of quantum theory is not an actual feature of reality, but is only an artifact of the process by which quantum physical reality is created, thereby vindicating Einstein for his never-relinquished view that reality is not fundamentally probabilistic.
The article argues that-at least in certain interpretations, such as the one assumed in this article under the heading of "reality without realism"-the quantum-theoretical situation appears as follows: While-in terms of probabilistic predictions-connected to and connecting the information obtained in quantum phenomena, the mathematics of quantum theory (QM or QFT), which is continuous, does not represent and is discontinuous with both the emergence of quantum phenomena and the physics of these phenomena, phenomena that are physically discontinuous with each other as well. These phenomena, and thus this information, are described by classical physics. All actually available information (in the mathematical sense of information theory) is classical: it is composed of units, such as bits, that are-or are contained in-entities described by classical physics. On the other hand, classical physics cannot predict this information when it is created, as manifested in measuring instruments, in quantum experiments, while quantum theory can. In this epistemological sense, this information is quantum. The article designates the discontinuity between quantum theory and the emergence of quantum phenomena the "Heisenberg discontinuity", because it was introduced by W. Heisenberg along with QM, and the discontinuity between QM or QFT and the classical physics of quantum phenomena, the "Bohr discontinuity", because it was introduced as part of Bohr's interpretation of quantum phenomena and QM, under the assumption of Heisenberg discontinuity. Combining both discontinuities precludes QM or QFT from being connected to either physical reality, that ultimately responsible for quantum phenomena or that of these phenomena themselves, other than by means of probabilistic predictions concerning the information, classical in character, contained in quantum phenomena. The nature of quantum information is, in this view, defined by this situation. A major implication, discussed in the Conclusion, is the existence and arguably the necessity of two-classical and quantum-or with relativity, three and possibly more essentially different theories in fundamental physics.
We shall draw an affirmative answer to the question posed in the title.The key point will be a quantum description of physical reality.Once fixed at ontic level two basic elements, namely the laws of physics and the matter, we argue that the underlying physical reality emerges from the interconnection between these two elements.We consider any physical process, including measurement, modeled by unitary evolution.In this context, we will deduce quantum randomness as a consequence of inclusion of the observer into the quantum system.The global picture of the universe is in a sense deterministic, but from our own local perspective (as part of the system) we perceive quantum mechanical randomness.Then, the notion of "information" turns out to be a derivative concept.I've spent much more time thinking about the photon problem [i.e., about quantum theory] than about relativity. A. Einstein
In this paper two hypotheses are developed. The first hypothesis is the existence of random phenomena/experiments in which the events cannot generally be assigned a definite probability but that nevertheless admit a class of nearly certain events. These experiments are referred to as \textit{typicalistic} (instead of probabilistic) experiments. As probabilistic experiments are represented by probability spaces, typicalistic experiments can be represented by \textit{typicality spaces}, where a typicality space is basically a probability space in which the probability measure has been replaced by a much less structured typicality measure T. The condition T(A)≈1 defines the typical sets, and a typicality space is related to a typicalistic experiment by associating the typical sets of the former with the nearly certain events of the latter. Some elements of a theory of typicality, including the definition of typicality spaces, are developed in the first part of the paper. The second hypothesis is that the evolution of a quantum particle (or of a system of quantum particles) can be considered a typicalistic phenomenon, so that it can be represented by the combination of typicality theory and quantum mechanics. The result is a novel formulation of quantum mechanics that does not present the measurement problem and that could be a viable alternative to Bohmian mechanics. This subject is developed in the second part of the paper.
Applications of quantum mechanics have led to many successful predictions and explanations of puzzling phenomena, and we now apply quantum mechanics to gain, process, and communicate information in novel ways. We can understand quantum mechanics by understanding how we have applied it. We should not seek agreement on the nature of the world it represents, because this theory does not itself represent the physical world (though its applications do help us to represent it better). When applied to a quantum state, quantum mechanics yields probabiities for physical events: both state and probability are objective--not because they represent elements of phyiscal reality, but because each exerts norrmative authority over the beliefs of anyone who accepts quantum mechanics and applies it relative to a physical situation they may (but need not) occupy. These events may be described by statements that are meaningful in an appropriate environmental context, and quantum mechanics can help one to say when that is. Measurement creates an appropriate context, so here the Born rule indirectly yields probabilities of measurement outcomes. The quantum state of a system does not "collapse" on measurement: a new state must be assigned relative to a physical situation in which information about the outcome is accessible. Understood this way, there is no measurement problem, and violations of Bell inequalities does not demonstrate "spooky" non-local action. Quantum field theories have no physical ontology of their own: a quantum field is a mathematical object in a model whose application helps us to improve and extend our descriptions of the world in other terms. We cannot realise the scenario of Wigner's friend and its recent extensions: but the data that provide overwhelming evidence for quantum mechanics are objective in the same sense as the relative measurement outcomes described in those scenarios.