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

Journal of Chemical Education

Quantum mechanics and the nature of physical reality

Jim Baggott

Published Aug 1, 1990• 5 citations
Publisher

Abstract

What is the wave function? Is it real? What kind of physical interpretation should it be given? Straight answers to these questions are not available.
DOI
10.1021/ed067p638

Related papers

The Wave Function Cannot Be a Real Wave—Then, Can We Speak of an Ontology of Particles?

Sofia Wechsler

Is the wave-function a physical reality traveling through our apparatus? Is it a real wave, or it is only a mathematical tool for calculating probabilities of results of measurements? Different interpretations of the quantum mechanics (QM) assume different answers to this question. It is shown in this article that the assumption that the wave-function is a real wave entails a contradiction with the predictions of the QM, when the special relativity is invoked. Therefore, this text concentrates on interpretations that conjecture that the reality that moves in our apparatuses is particles, and they move under the constraints of the wave-function. The de Broglie-Bohm interpretation, which matches this picture, assumes that the particle travels along a continuous trajectory. However, the idea of continuous trajectories was proved to lead to a contradiction with the quantum predictions. Therefore this interpretation is not considered here. S. Gao conjectured that the particle is in a permanent random and discontinuous motion (RDM). As it jumps all the time from place to place, the total set of occupied positions at a certain time is given by the absolute square of the wave-function. As motivation for his idea, Gao argued that if a charged particle were simultaneously in two or more locations at the same time, the copies of the particle would repel one another, destroying the wave-function. It is proved here that the quantum formalism renders this motivation wrong. Although refuting this motivation, the RDM interpretation is examined here. A couple of problems of this interpretation are examined and it is proved that they don’t lead to any observable contradictions with the QM predictions, except one problem which seems to have no solution. In all, it appears that none of the wide-spread interpretations of the QM is free of contradictions.

arXiv:2210.03530•Journal of Quantum Information Science•Jan 1, 2022•0 citations

Can We Consider Quantum Mechanics to Be a Description of Reality?

Hervé Zwirn C

Springer eBooks•Jan 1, 2008•2 citations

Mental and Physical Objects in Quantum Mechanics:Any Lessons for Other Disciplines?

Marcello Cini

Abstract: The standard formulation of Quantum Mechanics has raised from its beginning animated discussions about the interpretation of the counterintuitive properties of mental objects (wave functions or Schrödinger waves) introduced to represent the properties of the physical objects.Two questions have since then been formulated to which a universally accepted answer is still lacking. The first one (Bohr, von Neumann) concerns the ontological nature of physical reality (the existence of classical objects) and the role of the observer (wave packet collapse) in assessing it. The second one is the non local character of quantum physical quantities (Einstein Podolski Rosen [EPR] long distance correlation of particles). An alternative formulation of Quantum Mechanics, originally proposed in 1932 by Eugene Wigner, taken up by Richard Feynman in 1987, and reelaborated by myself in the years from 1998 to 2003, is possible. The mental objects of standard Quantum Mechanics (Schrödinger waves) no longer appear in this new formulation and are replaced by new ones (Wigner functions) which do not show any more the puzzling properties which worried Einstein. My conclusion from the preceding discussion is that different explanations of a given set of experimental data may be derived according to the different nature of the mental objects introduced to represent the properties of the physical objects involved. The confusion between these two kind of objects may be, however, very misleading. I will finally discuss two examples of this conclusion from Biology

•Jan 1, 2007•1 citation

Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Correct?

Gilles Brassard A, André Allan Méthot

Foundations of Physics•Jan 13, 2010•10 citations

Survey of the Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics

Mario Bunge

A survey is made of the hitherto proposed answers to the following crucial questions arising in the physical interpretation of the mathematical formalism of wave mechanics: (I) What is the meaning of the dynamical variables and of their eigenvalues? (II) What is the meaning of the wave function? (III) What is the nature and origin of Heisenberg's uncertainty relations? (IV) What is the nature of the systems dealt with by wave mechanics? Taking into account the interpretations that have been proposed in the last few years, a surprisingly large number of answers is found. The present situation in quantum mechanics is compared with similar crises in the past history of physics. The mere multiplicity of consistent interpretations of quantum mechanics is regarded as a warning against the dogmatic adherence to any one of them, to the exclusion of new possibilities.

American Journal of Physics•Apr 1, 1956•40 citations

A Brief Survey of Main Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics

Jarosław Pykacz

SpringerBriefs in physics•Jan 1, 2015•7 citations
Is the wave-function a physical reality traveling through our apparatus? Is it a real wave, or it is only a mathematical tool for calculating probabilities of results of measurements? Different interpretations of the quantum mechanics (QM) assume different answers to this question. It is shown in this article that the assumption that the wave-function is a real wave entails a contradiction with the predictions of the QM, when the special relativity is invoked. Therefore, this text concentrates on interpretations that conjecture that the reality that moves in our apparatuses is particles, and they move under the constraints of the wave-function. The de Broglie-Bohm interpretation, which matches this picture, assumes that the particle travels along a continuous trajectory. However, the idea of continuous trajectories was proved to lead to a contradiction with the quantum predictions. Therefore this interpretation is not considered here. S. Gao conjectured that the particle is in a permanent random and discontinuous motion (RDM). As it jumps all the time from place to place, the total set of occupied positions at a certain time is given by the absolute square of the wave-function. As motivation for his idea, Gao argued that if a charged particle were simultaneously in two or more locations at the same time, the copies of the particle would repel one another, destroying the wave-function. It is proved here that the quantum formalism renders this motivation wrong. Although refuting this motivation, the RDM interpretation is examined here. A couple of problems of this interpretation are examined and it is proved that they don’t lead to any observable contradictions with the QM predictions, except one problem which seems to have no solution. In all, it appears that none of the wide-spread interpretations of the QM is free of contradictions.
Abstract: The standard formulation of Quantum Mechanics has raised from its beginning animated discussions about the interpretation of the counterintuitive properties of mental objects (wave functions or Schrödinger waves) introduced to represent the properties of the physical objects.Two questions have since then been formulated to which a universally accepted answer is still lacking. The first one (Bohr, von Neumann) concerns the ontological nature of physical reality (the existence of classical objects) and the role of the observer (wave packet collapse) in assessing it. The second one is the non local character of quantum physical quantities (Einstein Podolski Rosen [EPR] long distance correlation of particles). An alternative formulation of Quantum Mechanics, originally proposed in 1932 by Eugene Wigner, taken up by Richard Feynman in 1987, and reelaborated by myself in the years from 1998 to 2003, is possible. The mental objects of standard Quantum Mechanics (Schrödinger waves) no longer appear in this new formulation and are replaced by new ones (Wigner functions) which do not show any more the puzzling properties which worried Einstein. My conclusion from the preceding discussion is that different explanations of a given set of experimental data may be derived according to the different nature of the mental objects introduced to represent the properties of the physical objects involved. The confusion between these two kind of objects may be, however, very misleading. I will finally discuss two examples of this conclusion from Biology
A survey is made of the hitherto proposed answers to the following crucial questions arising in the physical interpretation of the mathematical formalism of wave mechanics: (I) What is the meaning of the dynamical variables and of their eigenvalues? (II) What is the meaning of the wave function? (III) What is the nature and origin of Heisenberg's uncertainty relations? (IV) What is the nature of the systems dealt with by wave mechanics? Taking into account the interpretations that have been proposed in the last few years, a surprisingly large number of answers is found. The present situation in quantum mechanics is compared with similar crises in the past history of physics. The mere multiplicity of consistent interpretations of quantum mechanics is regarded as a warning against the dogmatic adherence to any one of them, to the exclusion of new possibilities.