A new quantum ontology of quantum mechanics has been proposed recently. This ontology is based on impossible to realize measurements which need to be performed repeatedly on the same single physical system or on the same pair of physical systems. We agree that quantum mechanics is a contextual theory and that the experimental contexts have to be a part of any description of quantum phenomena but in our opinion this new ontology is neither convincing nor useful. In particular the authors claim that their ontology explains the peaceful coexistence between quantum mechanics and relativity in spin polarization correlation experiments. We show that, contrary to their claim, the authors are unable to explain why strong correlations, between the outcomes of distant local measurements, do exist and why they preserve a condition of parameter independence (non-signaling). Strangely enough the authors ignore that these strong but imperfect correlations can be explained in a local and causal way using statistical contextual interpretation of quantum mechanics what was demonstrated in several articles.
A new quantum ontology of quantum mechanics has been proposed recently. This ontology is based on impossible to realize measurements which need to be performed repeatedly on the same single physical system or on the same pair of physical systems. We agree that quantum mechanics is a contextual theory and that the experimental contexts have to be a part of any description of quantum phenomena but in our opinion this new ontology is neither convincing nor useful. In particular the authors claim that their ontology explains the peaceful coexistence between quantum mechanics and relativity in spin polarization correlation experiments. We show that, contrary to their claim, the authors are unable to explain why strong correlations, between the outcomes of distant local measurements, do exist and why they preserve a condition of parameter independence (non-signaling). Strangely enough the authors ignore that these strong but imperfect correlations can be explained in a local and causal way using statistical contextual interpretation of quantum mechanics what was demonstrated in several articles.
This year we celebrate 100 years of quantum mechanics (QM). Incorrect interpretations of QM and incorrect mental models of the invisible details of quantum phenomena lead to paradoxes. To explain these, we advocate the statistical contextual interpretation (SCI) of quantum mechanics. State vectors (wave functions) and various operators are purely mathematical entities that permit quantitative probabilistic predictions. “State vector” describes an ensemble of identically prepared physical systems, and a specific “operator” represents a class of equivalent measurements of a physical observable. A collapse of wavefunction is not a mysterious and instantaneous physical process; a collapsed quantum state describes a new ensemble of physical systems prepared in a particular way. A value of a physical observable, such as a spin projection, associated with a pure quantum ensemble is a characteristic of this ensemble created by its interaction with measuring instruments. Probabilities are objective properties of random experiments in which empirical frequencies stabilize. Following Einstein, SCI rejects the claim that QM provides a complete description of individual physical systems, but it remains agnostic about whether a more detailed subquantum description can be found or is necessary. In conformity with Bohr contextuality, SCI rejects Bell-local and Bell-causal hidden variable models. Nevertheless, by incorporating into a probabilistic model contextual hidden variable measuring instruments, long distance quantum correlations studied in Bell tests can be explained without evoking quantum nonlocality or retro-causality. SCI allows the explanation of several quantum phenomena without evoking quantum magic. SCI does not claim to provide a complete description of quantum phenomena; in fact, it is unknown whether quantum probabilities even provide a complete description of existing experimental data. Time series of experimental data may contain much more information than is obtained using empirical frequencies and histograms. Therefore, predictable completeness of QM must be tested and not taken for granted.
This note presents a concise and non-polemical comparison of several major interpretations of quantum mechanics, with a particular emphasis on the distinction between FAPP-solutions ("For All Practical Purposes'') versus ontological solutions to the measurement problem. Building on this distinction, we argue that the Contexts-Systems-Modalities (CSM) framework, supplemented by the operator-algebraic description of macroscopic contexts, provides a conceptually complete, non-FAPP ontology that naturally incorporates irreversibility and the physical structure of measurement devices. This approach differs significantly from other ontological interpretations such as Bohmian mechanics, spontaneous collapse, or many-worlds, and highlights the major role of contextual quantization in shaping quantum theory.
Realist interpretations of quantum mechanics presuppose the existence of elements of reality that are independent of the actions used to reveal them. Such a view is challenged by several no-go theorems that show quantum correlations cannot be explained by non-contextual ontological models, where physical properties are assumed to exist prior to and independently of the act of measurement. However, all such contextuality proofs assume a traditional notion of causal structure, where causal influence flows from past to future according to ordinary dynamical laws. This leaves open the question of whether the apparent contextuality of quantum mechanics is simply the signature of some exotic causal structure, where the future might affect the past or distant systems might get correlated due to non-local constraints. Here we show that quantum predictions require a deeper form of contextuality: even allowing for arbitrary causal structure, no model can explain quantum correlations from non-contextual ontological properties of the world, be they initial states, dynamical laws, or global constraints.
Abstract Quantum mechanics (QM) has led to spectacular technological developments, including the discovery of new constituents of matter and new materials: however, there is still no consensus regarding 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 local causal model is able to reproduce quantum correlations in Bell tests. We also discuss the difficulties of mathematical modeling of the physical reality and dangers of incorrect mental images. We examine in detail when and how a probabilistic model may completely describe a random experiment. We give some arguments in favor of the contextual statistical interpretation of QM. We conclude that we still do not know whether quantum theory provides a complete description of physical phenomena and we explain how it may be tested. We also point out, that there remain several open questions and challenges in QM, in quantum field theory and in the Standard Model. Moreover, there is still no consensus about how to reconcile quantum theory with general relativity and cosmology.
Quantum theory shows that natural laws cannot be understood as ruling single events since the latter occur randomly. Nevertheless, the physical world shows everywhere order whose source cannot be represented by the latter. It is shown that this order is due to the presence of quantum correlations. Since their e↵ect is to reduce the space of the possible events, they can be considered as causal factors. However, being correlations, they do not display the dynamic character that would be required in order to produce a determinate e↵ect. This is why they need additional local factors in order to concur to the production of a certain event. If not so, this would even imply a violation of Einstein’s locality since correlations could be used by themselves to transmit superluminal signals. Due to such a character of correlation, they can be understood as kind of potential reality needing actual (and local) context to be e↵ective. This allows also a distinction that is classically unknown between locality and globality. Such a distinction solves the important problem of measurement showing that ultimately we have irreversible local processes while globally everything is still reversible. In particular, it is a shift of information that can explain this local phenomenon. In fact, quantum systems are essentially information and also the measurement process is ultimately a dealing with information: information processing (preparing a system), information sharing (coupling a system with an apparatus) and information selection (detecting). State, observable and property appear as equivalence classes of these three procedures, respectively. Finally, the distinction between interpreted and uninterpreted ontology is considered in a Kantian perspective, but it is also shown that the approach supported here is rather a critical realism.
The quantum theory (QT) and new stochastic approaches have no deterministic prediction for a single measurement or for a single time‐series of events observed for a trapped ion, electron or any other individual physical system. The predictions of QT being of probabilistic character apply to the statistical distribution of the results obtained in various experiments. The Copenhagen interpretation (CI) of QT acknowledged the abstract and statistical character of the predictions of QT but at the same time claimed that a state vector Ψ provided complete description of each individual physical system. The assigning the state vector to an individual physical system together with a postulate of its instantaneous reduction in the measurements was shown by Einstein Podolski and Rosen to lead to so called EPR paradox for the experiments with the entangled pairs of the particles. EPR concluded that a state vector could not provide a complete description of the individual systems and the question arose whether the probabilistic predictions of QT could be derived from some more fundamental spatio‐temporal deterministic description of the invisible sub‐phenomena by introduction of supplementary parameters. The experimental violation of the Bell inequalities in the spin polarization correlation experiments (SPCE) which were the implementations of Bohm and EPR gedanken experiments eliminated so called local and realistic models of the sub‐phenomena. Quite often the violation of these inequalities has been incorrectly interpreted as a proof of the completeness of QT or as the violation of the locality and causality in the micro‐world. The local and realistic models overlooked the fact that an experimental outcome is only the information about a particular system‐system or system‐instrument interaction. Namely the quantum phenomena are described in terms of the probabilities. It is well known that the probability distribution is not an attribute of a dice but it is a characteristic of a whole random experiment: “rolling a dice”. In this paper we will underline: that the quantum probabilities do not describe the lack of knowledge about the physical systems but the lack of knowledge about the experiments and therefore they are “contextual” and that the statistical long range correlations between two random variables X and Y are not a proof of any causal relation between these variables. Moreover any probabilistic model used to described a random experiment is consistent only with a specific protocol telling how the random experiment has to be performed. The probabilistic model used to prove Bell inequalities implied a protocol completely inappropriate and impossible to implement for SPCE . We conclude that the meaningful question about the predictable completeness of QT is still open and it should be answered by a careful and unconventional analysis of the experimental data. The correct understanding of statistical and contextual character of QT is essential for the research in the domain of quantum information and quantum computing.