Errors and Paradoxes in Quantum Mechanics

Daniel Rohrlich

Errors and paradoxes in quantum mechanics, entry in the Compendium of Quantum Physics: Concepts, Experiments, History and Philosophy, ed. F. Weinert, K. Hentschel, D. Greenberger and B. Falkenburg (Springer), to appear

Luigi E. Picasso

Uthraa Murali

Quantum mechanics predicts experimental outcomes with extraordinary precision, yet its conceptual foundations remain unsettled. Persistent paradoxes—superposition, tunneling, nonlocal correlations, and measurement—suggest not a failure of the theory, but a mismatch between physical processes and the dimensional limits of observation. This work proposes that many quantum paradoxes arise from dimensional projection errors: systematic misinterpretations that occur when observers confined to three spatial dimensions attempt to describe processes involving higher-dimensional structure. By treating quantum probabilities as consequences of observer limitation rather than intrinsic randomness, the framework restores determinism without altering any established predictions of quantum mechanics. The result is not a replacement of quantum theory, but a coherent reinterpretation that dissolves paradoxes into perspective effects. In this restricted yet profound sense, Einstein was right again.

V. K. Igatovich

EPR paper contains an error. Its correction leads to a conclusion that position and momentum of a particle can be defined precisely simultaneously, EPR paradox does not exist and uncertainty relations have nothing to do with quantum mechanics. Logic of the EPR paper shows that entangled states of separated particles do not exist and therefore there are no nonlocality in quantum mechanics. Bell's inequalities are never violated, and results of experiments, proving their violation, are shown to be false. Experiments to prove absence of nonlocality are proposed where Bell's inequalities are replaced by precise prediction. Interpretation of quantum mechanics in terms of classical field theory is suggested. Censorship against this paper is demonstrated.

CHRISTOF WETTERICH