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

International Journal of Theoretical Physics

Failure of Standard Quantum Mechanics for the Description of Compound Quantum Entities

Diederik Aerts, Frank Valckenborgh

Published Jan 1, 2004• 7 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1023/b:ijtp.0000028862.91652.98

Related papers

The Quantum Entity and Quantum Mechanics

Belal Ehsan Baaquie

Springer eBooks•Dec 15, 2012•0 citations

The Linearity of Quantum Mechanics at Stake: The Description of Separated Quantum Entities

Diederik Aerts, Frank Valckenborgh

We consider the situation of a physical entity that is the compound entity consisting of two ‘separated ’ quantum entities. In earlier work it has been proved by one of the authors that such a physical entity cannot be described by standard quantum mechanics. More precisely, it was shown that two of the axioms of traditional quantum axiomatics are at the origin of the impossibility for standard quantum mechanics to describe this type of compound entity. One of these axioms is equivalent with the superposition principle, which means that separated quantum entities put the linearity of quantum mechanics at stake. We analyze the conceptual steps that are involved in this proof, and expose the necessary material of quantum axiomatics to be able to understand the argument. 1

•Jan 1, 2002•9 citations

THE LINEARITY OF QUANTUM MECHANICS AT STAKE: THE DESCRIPTION OF SEPARATED QUANTUM ENTITIES

Diederik Aerts, FRANK VALCKENBORGH

We consider the situation of a physical entity that is the compound entity consisting of two 'separated' quantum entities. In earlier work it has been proven by one of the authors that such a physical entity cannot be described by standard quantum mechanics. More precisely, it was shown that two of the axioms of traditional quantum axiomatics are at the origin of the impossibility for standard quantum mechanics to describe this type of compound entity. One of these axioms is equivalent with the superposition principle, which means that separated quantum entities put the linearity of quantum mechanics at stake. We analyze the conceptual steps that are involved in this proof, and expose the necessary material of quantum axiomatics to be able to understand the argument

arXiv:quant-ph/0205162•Jun 1, 2002•3 citations

Conceptual problems in quantum mechanics

V. P. Demut︠s︡kiĭ, R.V. Polovin

Soviet Physics Uspekhi•Oct 31, 1992•2 citations

The Enticuant: An Operational Linguistic Framework for Quantum Entities

Arturo Cerezo

This work introduces the term “enticuant” as an operational linguistic construct for referring to quantum entities whose behavior is defined by coherent structures of alternatives with phase relations, irreducible to classical wave–particle categories. The enticuant does not modify the formalism of quantum mechanics, nor does it propose a new ontological framework. Instead, it provides a minimal conceptual bridge between formalism and intelligibility, addressing the persistent mismatch between mathematical description and classical language. Standard quantum phenomena—including interference, decoherence, entanglement, and delayed-choice quantum erasure—are reinterpreted within this framework without invoking retrocausality or non-standard interpretations. The concept is compatible with all standard interpretations of quantum mechanics and is presented as a cognitive-operational refinement rather than a theoretical extension.

•Apr 13, 2026•0 citations

The Standard Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

Springer eBooks•Nov 13, 2007•0 citations
We consider the situation of a physical entity that is the compound entity consisting of two ‘separated ’ quantum entities. In earlier work it has been proved by one of the authors that such a physical entity cannot be described by standard quantum mechanics. More precisely, it was shown that two of the axioms of traditional quantum axiomatics are at the origin of the impossibility for standard quantum mechanics to describe this type of compound entity. One of these axioms is equivalent with the superposition principle, which means that separated quantum entities put the linearity of quantum mechanics at stake. We analyze the conceptual steps that are involved in this proof, and expose the necessary material of quantum axiomatics to be able to understand the argument. 1
We consider the situation of a physical entity that is the compound entity consisting of two 'separated' quantum entities. In earlier work it has been proven by one of the authors that such a physical entity cannot be described by standard quantum mechanics. More precisely, it was shown that two of the axioms of traditional quantum axiomatics are at the origin of the impossibility for standard quantum mechanics to describe this type of compound entity. One of these axioms is equivalent with the superposition principle, which means that separated quantum entities put the linearity of quantum mechanics at stake. We analyze the conceptual steps that are involved in this proof, and expose the necessary material of quantum axiomatics to be able to understand the argument
This work introduces the term “enticuant” as an operational linguistic construct for referring to quantum entities whose behavior is defined by coherent structures of alternatives with phase relations, irreducible to classical wave–particle categories. The enticuant does not modify the formalism of quantum mechanics, nor does it propose a new ontological framework. Instead, it provides a minimal conceptual bridge between formalism and intelligibility, addressing the persistent mismatch between mathematical description and classical language. Standard quantum phenomena—including interference, decoherence, entanglement, and delayed-choice quantum erasure—are reinterpreted within this framework without invoking retrocausality or non-standard interpretations. The concept is compatible with all standard interpretations of quantum mechanics and is presented as a cognitive-operational refinement rather than a theoretical extension.