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

Quantum Mechanics Is Not Wrong, but…

Fred-Rick Schermer

Published Jan 1, 2025• 0 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.13140/rg.2.2.28720.62720

Related papers

Why quantum mechanics might be wrong

Physics Today•May 21, 2008•0 citations

What’s Wrong with Quantum Mechanics

Tim Folger

Scientific American•May 19, 2026•0 citations

Prologue: ‘Not even wrong’

Jesús Felipe, John S. L. McCombie

Prologue: 'Not even wrong'The physicist Wolfgang Pauli was, with Heisenberg, Schrödinger and Dirac, one of the early leaders in the development of quantum mechanics.He was renowned for being a tough audience, exclaiming 'wrong' (falsch), or 'completely wrong' (ganz falsch) when he disagreed with a speaker.Near the end of his life, when asked his opinion of a recent article by a younger physicist, he sadly said 'it is not even wrong' (Das ist nicht einmal falsch) . . .A scientific idea is 'not even wrong' if it is so incomplete that it cannot be used to make predictions that could be compared to observations to see if the idea is wrong.

Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks•Oct 31, 2013•0 citations

Anomalies in experimental data for the EPR-Bohm experiment: Are both classical and quantum mechanics wrong?

Guillaume Adenier, Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

We analyze anomalies in data to test the violation of Bell's inequality for the EPR-Bohm experiment. We found that the experimental correlations for photon polarization have an intriguing property. In the experimental data there are visible non-negligible deviations of probabilities $P_{++}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β), P_{+-}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β), P_{-+}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β), P_{--}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β) $ from the predictions of quantum mechanics, namely, $P_{++}(α, β)=P_{--}(α, β)= {1/2}\cos^2(α-β)$ and $P_{+-}=P_{-+}(α, β)={1/2}\sin^2(α-β).$ However, in some mysterious way those deviations compensate each other and finally the correlation $E^{\rm{exp}}(α, β)= P_{++}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β)- P_{+-}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β)- P_{-+}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β)+ P_{--}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β)$ is in the complete agreement with the QM-prediction, namely, $E(α, β)= P_{++}(α, β)- P_{+-}(α, β)- P_{-+}(α, β)+ P_{--}(α, β)= \cos 2(α-β).$ Therefore such anomalies play no role in the Bell's inequality framework. Nevertheless, other linear combinations of experimental probabilities do not have such a compensation property. There can be found non-negligible deviations from predictions of quantum mechanics. Thus neither classical nor quantum model can pass the whole family of statistical tests given by all possible linear combinations of the EPR-Bohm probabilities. Does it mean that both models are wrong?

arXiv:quant-ph/0607172•Jul 25, 2006•6 citations

The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics... and a possible solution

Angelo Bassi

Bulletin of the American Physical Society•Mar 18, 2021•0 citations

Quantum mechanics: Are we seeing reality as it is?

Peter Verheyen

Quantum mechanics: Are we seeing reality as it is? Dr Peter Verheyen from the Sola Society and Academy at Vienna University examines whether quantum mechanics and information serve as the fundamental descriptions of reality. Anton Zeilinger, Alain Aspect, and John F. Clauser were awarded the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics for their contributions to Quantum Mechanics, establishing QM as the foundation of reality. ‘Einstein was wrong, God plays dice, Quantum Mechanics rules.’

Open Access Government•Oct 14, 2025•0 citations
Prologue: 'Not even wrong'The physicist Wolfgang Pauli was, with Heisenberg, Schrödinger and Dirac, one of the early leaders in the development of quantum mechanics.He was renowned for being a tough audience, exclaiming 'wrong' (falsch), or 'completely wrong' (ganz falsch) when he disagreed with a speaker.Near the end of his life, when asked his opinion of a recent article by a younger physicist, he sadly said 'it is not even wrong' (Das ist nicht einmal falsch) . . .A scientific idea is 'not even wrong' if it is so incomplete that it cannot be used to make predictions that could be compared to observations to see if the idea is wrong.
We analyze anomalies in data to test the violation of Bell's inequality for the EPR-Bohm experiment. We found that the experimental correlations for photon polarization have an intriguing property. In the experimental data there are visible non-negligible deviations of probabilities $P_{++}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β), P_{+-}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β), P_{-+}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β), P_{--}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β) $ from the predictions of quantum mechanics, namely, P++(α,β)=P−−(α,β)=1/2cos⁡2(α−β)P_{++}(α, β)=P_{--}(α, β)= {1/2}\cos^2(α-β)P++​(α,β)=P−−​(α,β)=1/2cos2(α−β) and P+−=P−+(α,β)=1/2sin⁡2(α−β).P_{+-}=P_{-+}(α, β)={1/2}\sin^2(α-β).P+−​=P−+​(α,β)=1/2sin2(α−β). However, in some mysterious way those deviations compensate each other and finally the correlation Eexp(α,β)=P++exp(α,β)−P+−exp(α,β)−P−+exp(α,β)+P−−exp(α,β)E^{\rm{exp}}(α, β)= P_{++}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β)- P_{+-}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β)- P_{-+}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β)+ P_{--}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β)Eexp(α,β)=P++exp​(α,β)−P+−exp​(α,β)−P−+exp​(α,β)+P−−exp​(α,β) is in the complete agreement with the QM-prediction, namely, E(α,β)=P++(α,β)−P+−(α,β)−P−+(α,β)+P−−(α,β)=cos⁡2(α−β).E(α, β)= P_{++}(α, β)- P_{+-}(α, β)- P_{-+}(α, β)+ P_{--}(α, β)= \cos 2(α-β).E(α,β)=P++​(α,β)−P+−​(α,β)−P−+​(α,β)+P−−​(α,β)=cos2(α−β). Therefore such anomalies play no role in the Bell's inequality framework. Nevertheless, other linear combinations of experimental probabilities do not have such a compensation property. There can be found non-negligible deviations from predictions of quantum mechanics. Thus neither classical nor quantum model can pass the whole family of statistical tests given by all possible linear combinations of the EPR-Bohm probabilities. Does it mean that both models are wrong?