Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:1701.03019

Some issues of quantum theory and subquantum processes

Vladimir A. Skrebnev, Maria V. Polski

Published Jan 6, 2017• 3 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

This paper critically considers the main interpretations of the wave function and offers an interpretation in which wave function is a consequence of subquantum processes taking place at the level of the organization of matter which underlies the phenomena described by quantum mechanics. We show that this interpretation provides a common ground to explain problematic issues of quantum theory (wave function collapse, electrons passing through two slits, behavior of electrons within the atom, quantum entanglement). The paper also shows that entropy is determined by the maximum number of macrosystem states which appear as the result of subquantum processes.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1701.03019

Related papers

Quantum Interference

Jeffrey Alan Barrett

Abstract Moving to more subtle experiments, we consider how the standard formulation of quantum mechanics predicts and explains interference phenomena. Tracking the conditions under which one observes interference phenomena leads to the notion of quantum decoherence. We see why one must sharply distinguish between collapse phenomena and decoherence phenomena on the standard formulation of quantum mechanics. While collapses explain determinate measurement records, environmental decoherence just produces more complex, entangled states where the physical systems involved lack ordinary physical properties. We characterize the quantum-mechanical wave function as both an element of a Hilbert space and a complex-valued function over a configuration space. We also discuss how the wave function is interpreted in the standard theory.

•Dec 26, 2019•0 citations

The quantum mechanics needs the principle of wave function collapse, but this principle should not be misunderstood

Sofia Wechsler

The postulate of the collapse of the wave function stands between the microscopic, quantum world, and the macroscopic world. Because of this intermediate position, the collapse process cannot be examined with the formalism of the quantum mechanics (QM), neither with that of classical mechanics. This fact makes some physicists to propose interpretations of QM, which avoid this postulate. However, the common procedure used in that, is making assumptions incompatible with the QM formalism. The present work discusses the most popular interpretations. It is shown that because of such assumptions those interpretations fail, i.e. predict for some experiments results which differ from the QM predictions. Despite of that, special attention is called to a proposal of S. Gao, the only one which addresses and tries to solve an obvious and major contradiction. A couple of theorems are proved for showing that the collapse postulate is necessary in the QM. Although nonexplainable with the quantum formalism this postulate cannot be denied, otherwise one comes to conclusions which disagree with the QM. It is also proved here that the idea of collapse at a distance is problematic especially in relativistic cases, and is a misunderstanding. Namely, in an entanglement of two quantum systems, assuming that the measurement of one of the systems (accompanied by collapse of that system on one of its states) collapses the other system too without the second system being measured, leads to a contradiction.

arXiv:2102.10000•Feb 19, 2021•0 citations

The Quantum Mechanics Needs the Principle of Wave-Function Collapse—But This Principle Shouldn’t Be Misunderstood

Sofia Wechsler

The postulate of the collapse of the wave-function stands between the microscopic, quantum world, and the macroscopic world. Because of this intermediate position, the collapse process cannot be examined with the formalism of the quantum mechanics (QM), neither with that of classical mechanics. This fact makes some physicists propose interpretations of QM, which avoid this postulate. However, the common procedure used in that is making assumptions incompatible with the QM formalism. The present work discusses the most popular interpretations. It is shown that because of such assumptions those interpretations fail, i.e. predict for some experiments results which differ from the QM predictions. Despite that, special attention is called to a proposal of S. Gao, the only one which addresses and tries to solve an obvious and major contradiction. A couple of theorems are proved for showing that the collapse postulate is necessary in the QM. Although non-explainable with the quantum formalism, this postulate cannot be denied, otherwise one comes to conclusions which disagree with the QM. It is also proved here that the idea of “collapse at a distance” is problematic especially in relativistic cases, and is a misunderstanding. Namely, in an entanglement of two quantum systems, assuming that the measurement of one of the systems (accompanied by collapse of that system on one of its states) collapses the other systems, too without the second system being measured, which leads to a contradiction.

Journal of Quantum Information Science•Jan 1, 2021•8 citations

A Continuum Universe Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

Vijay Shankar, Narayanankutty Karuppath

The measurement problem in quantum mechanics has been a cause of much puzzlement over the years. The very idea of having two different versions of reality for the same system has been a cause for much debate. Often quantum mechanics textbooks follow the ‘shut up and calculate’ paradigm. This denies the opportunity for the common student to understand the consequence of one of the most elegant and beautiful aspects of science. The state of the art textbooks give a purely algebraic, perfunctory and monotonous approach where the real consequence of the system is not fully appreciated. A good reason for this is the considerable deviation of the quantum mechanical process from the commonsensical idea of truth, reality and reason. We tend to look at the world in a materialistic, deterministic, causal and objectivistic way. We tend not to accept a world of contradictions. A quantum measurement is essentially an amalgamation of contradictions, mystery and duality. It encompasses an implicit dependence on subjectivity and contradicts with causality as we know it. We look at the world as in the present. But a quantum mechanical measurement is a prediction of the future influenced by the observer or the measurer. This offers a philosophical and pedagogical conundrum. It poses a challenge on not just how our perception of the world might change in addition to providing a big challenge on how to make it compatible with the other successful theories of physics. The most common text book interpretation of quantum mechanics has been the Copenhagen Interpretation suggests the ‘collapse of the wave function’ as a mechanism of transition between duality. But a more bizarre yet elegant theory, extending quantum formalism to the classical domain, called the Many Worlds Interpretation has been catching up very quickly; it stands for the split of the universe when we make a quantum mechanical measurement. Consequently, reality as we is redefined as a universal wave function which is a superposition of several outcomes, which is incompatible with many of the successful concepts of physics and has several problems like the correct idea about probability or basis. We adapt the idea of the universal wave function, but instead suggest a continuum interpretation of quantum mechanics where the universal wave function represents the entire singular universe and the concept of atoms or electrons as conceptually a continuous part of it rather than a distinct separate entity. Such an interpretation could be compatible with other continuum theories like the Superfluid vacuum theory or the Higgs Field.

•May 1, 2021•0 citations

Reality and the Role of the Wave Function in Quantum Theory

Sheldon Goldstein, Nino Zanghı̀

The most puzzling issue in the foundations of quantum mechanics is perhaps that of the status of the wave function of a system in a quantum universe. Is the wave function objective or subjective? Does it represent the physical state of the system or merely our information about the system? If the former, does it provide a complete or partial description of the system ? We address these questions mainly from a Bohmian perspective and argue that part of the difficulty in ascertaining the status of the wave function arises from the fact that there are two different sorts of wave functions involved. The most fundamental wave function is that of the universe, which, we argue, has a law-like character. From the wave function of the universe together with its configuration one can define the wave function of a subsystem of the universe. This, although objective, has a strong informational/subjective aspect.

arXiv:1101.4575•Oxford University Press eBooks•Apr 8, 2013•92 citations

Subquantum Processes as the True Cause of the Canonical Distribution and the Entropy

Vladimir A. Skrebnev, Maria V. Polski

This paper views canonical distribution as the consequence of subquantum processes. It is these processes that lead to the macrosystem’s irreversible evolution towards the maximum freedom in realizing its state, i.e. towards maximum entropy. The paper presents a formula which connects the macrosystem’s entropy with the maximum number of its state realizations as a consequence of subquantum processes.

Journal of High Energy Physics Gravitation and Cosmology•Jan 1, 2025•0 citations
This paper critically considers the main interpretations of the wave function and offers an interpretation in which wave function is a consequence of subquantum processes taking place at the level of the organization of matter which underlies the phenomena described by quantum mechanics. We show that this interpretation provides a common ground to explain problematic issues of quantum theory (wave function collapse, electrons passing through two slits, behavior of electrons within the atom, quantum entanglement). The paper also shows that entropy is determined by the maximum number of macrosystem states which appear as the result of subquantum processes.
Abstract Moving to more subtle experiments, we consider how the standard formulation of quantum mechanics predicts and explains interference phenomena. Tracking the conditions under which one observes interference phenomena leads to the notion of quantum decoherence. We see why one must sharply distinguish between collapse phenomena and decoherence phenomena on the standard formulation of quantum mechanics. While collapses explain determinate measurement records, environmental decoherence just produces more complex, entangled states where the physical systems involved lack ordinary physical properties. We characterize the quantum-mechanical wave function as both an element of a Hilbert space and a complex-valued function over a configuration space. We also discuss how the wave function is interpreted in the standard theory.
The postulate of the collapse of the wave function stands between the microscopic, quantum world, and the macroscopic world. Because of this intermediate position, the collapse process cannot be examined with the formalism of the quantum mechanics (QM), neither with that of classical mechanics. This fact makes some physicists to propose interpretations of QM, which avoid this postulate. However, the common procedure used in that, is making assumptions incompatible with the QM formalism. The present work discusses the most popular interpretations. It is shown that because of such assumptions those interpretations fail, i.e. predict for some experiments results which differ from the QM predictions. Despite of that, special attention is called to a proposal of S. Gao, the only one which addresses and tries to solve an obvious and major contradiction. A couple of theorems are proved for showing that the collapse postulate is necessary in the QM. Although nonexplainable with the quantum formalism this postulate cannot be denied, otherwise one comes to conclusions which disagree with the QM. It is also proved here that the idea of collapse at a distance is problematic especially in relativistic cases, and is a misunderstanding. Namely, in an entanglement of two quantum systems, assuming that the measurement of one of the systems (accompanied by collapse of that system on one of its states) collapses the other system too without the second system being measured, leads to a contradiction.
The postulate of the collapse of the wave-function stands between the microscopic, quantum world, and the macroscopic world. Because of this intermediate position, the collapse process cannot be examined with the formalism of the quantum mechanics (QM), neither with that of classical mechanics. This fact makes some physicists propose interpretations of QM, which avoid this postulate. However, the common procedure used in that is making assumptions incompatible with the QM formalism. The present work discusses the most popular interpretations. It is shown that because of such assumptions those interpretations fail, i.e. predict for some experiments results which differ from the QM predictions. Despite that, special attention is called to a proposal of S. Gao, the only one which addresses and tries to solve an obvious and major contradiction. A couple of theorems are proved for showing that the collapse postulate is necessary in the QM. Although non-explainable with the quantum formalism, this postulate cannot be denied, otherwise one comes to conclusions which disagree with the QM. It is also proved here that the idea of “collapse at a distance” is problematic especially in relativistic cases, and is a misunderstanding. Namely, in an entanglement of two quantum systems, assuming that the measurement of one of the systems (accompanied by collapse of that system on one of its states) collapses the other systems, too without the second system being measured, which leads to a contradiction.
The measurement problem in quantum mechanics has been a cause of much puzzlement over the years. The very idea of having two different versions of reality for the same system has been a cause for much debate. Often quantum mechanics textbooks follow the ‘shut up and calculate’ paradigm. This denies the opportunity for the common student to understand the consequence of one of the most elegant and beautiful aspects of science. The state of the art textbooks give a purely algebraic, perfunctory and monotonous approach where the real consequence of the system is not fully appreciated. A good reason for this is the considerable deviation of the quantum mechanical process from the commonsensical idea of truth, reality and reason. We tend to look at the world in a materialistic, deterministic, causal and objectivistic way. We tend not to accept a world of contradictions. A quantum measurement is essentially an amalgamation of contradictions, mystery and duality. It encompasses an implicit dependence on subjectivity and contradicts with causality as we know it. We look at the world as in the present. But a quantum mechanical measurement is a prediction of the future influenced by the observer or the measurer. This offers a philosophical and pedagogical conundrum. It poses a challenge on not just how our perception of the world might change in addition to providing a big challenge on how to make it compatible with the other successful theories of physics. The most common text book interpretation of quantum mechanics has been the Copenhagen Interpretation suggests the ‘collapse of the wave function’ as a mechanism of transition between duality. But a more bizarre yet elegant theory, extending quantum formalism to the classical domain, called the Many Worlds Interpretation has been catching up very quickly; it stands for the split of the universe when we make a quantum mechanical measurement. Consequently, reality as we is redefined as a universal wave function which is a superposition of several outcomes, which is incompatible with many of the successful concepts of physics and has several problems like the correct idea about probability or basis. We adapt the idea of the universal wave function, but instead suggest a continuum interpretation of quantum mechanics where the universal wave function represents the entire singular universe and the concept of atoms or electrons as conceptually a continuous part of it rather than a distinct separate entity. Such an interpretation could be compatible with other continuum theories like the Superfluid vacuum theory or the Higgs Field.
The most puzzling issue in the foundations of quantum mechanics is perhaps that of the status of the wave function of a system in a quantum universe. Is the wave function objective or subjective? Does it represent the physical state of the system or merely our information about the system? If the former, does it provide a complete or partial description of the system ? We address these questions mainly from a Bohmian perspective and argue that part of the difficulty in ascertaining the status of the wave function arises from the fact that there are two different sorts of wave functions involved. The most fundamental wave function is that of the universe, which, we argue, has a law-like character. From the wave function of the universe together with its configuration one can define the wave function of a subsystem of the universe. This, although objective, has a strong informational/subjective aspect.