Current quantum theory is extremely successful at the computational level, but its core objects have long been under multiple competing interpretations: whether the wave function is ontology, knowledge, a statistical tool, or a projection of hidden structure; why measurement changes the result; whether uncertainty is a fuzziness of natural ontology or a readout limitation; whether entanglement implies real action‑at‑a‑distance; and why the classical world emerges from quantum structure. This paper, building on the object rewriting, electron candidate, quantum‑optical background release packets, vacuum lowest state, time‑rate field, and reality‑bridging framework already accomplished in the three‑pillar system of Non‑manifest Selection of Being, invokes only the minimal public interfaces directly relevant to quantum foundational problems, and attempts to provide a unified rewriting of the above five questions. Our core conclusions are threefold. First, the wave function should not be primarily regarded as an a priori matter cloud or a purely cognitive symbol, but should be understood as: the readable complex‑amplitude projection of the joint state of a locally stable structural body and the free‑state background, under a given observational context \mathcal C. Define the object‑background joint state as $$\mathfrak P \otimes \Theta_f,$$ then the minimal object‑position of the wave function is written as $$\Psi_{\mathcal C} = \mathcal R_{\mathcal C}\!\left(\mathfrak P\otimes \Theta_f\right),$$ where \mathcal R_{\mathcal C} denotes the contextual projection operator jointly determined by the apparatus, boundaries, readout directions, and filtering rules. Thus, |\Psi|^2 is no longer "material density," but the realisable weight density of the joint state on a given readout channel. Second, measurement is not "looking" or a mysterious collapse, but the real coupling, channel filtering, and recording‑state freezing among the object, apparatus, and background. If the set of readable channels of the apparatus is \{\Pi_k^{(\mathcal A)}\}, then a measurement corresponds to the structural rewriting $$(\mathfrak P,\mathcal A,\Theta_f) \longrightarrow (\mathfrak P'_k,\mathcal A'_k,\Theta_f')$$ and, in conditionalised readout language, appears as $$\Psi_{\mathcal C} \longmapsto \Psi_{\mathcal C,k}' = \frac{\Pi_k^{(\mathcal A)}\Psi_{\mathcal C}} {\|\Pi_k^{(\mathcal A)}\Psi_{\mathcal C}\|}.$$ The so‑called "collapse" is therefore not an uncaused event, but a conditionalised rewriting on a designated channel after coupling. Third, uncertainty, entanglement, and the classical limit should all be derived from the main line of "joint state + background + finite readout." The minimal action bridge $$\hbar_* = m_e c \ell_e$$ specifies the minimal readout scale in phase space, so the position‑momentum‑type uncertainty relation is written as $$\Delta x\,\Delta p \gtrsim \frac{\hbar_*}{2},$$ whose essence is not the world's ontology being self‑contradictory, but the incompatibility between localisation and directional readout. Entanglement need not be interpreted as controllable action‑at‑a‑distance, but is written as: $$\Psi_{AB}\neq \Psi_A\Psi_B,$$ i.e., the non‑factorisable common background‑channel constraints under joint preparation conditions. The classical limit is not "quantum suddenly failing," but after $$\frac{S}{\hbar_*}\gg 1,$$ accompanied by stable‑island locking, environmental decoherence, and coarse‑grained averaging, the joint‑state projection contracts to near‑classical trajectories and near‑deterministic macroscopic readings. Finally, we give the object‑position of the wave function, the structural formula of measurement, the origin of uncertainty, the non‑superluminal reading of entanglement, the criterion for the classical limit, comparison with reality, and falsifiability conditions. The goal of this paper is not to replace the entire set of quantum mechanical techniques in one article, but first to lock down the deepest main line: if microscopic objects are not points, the vacuum is not emptiness, and propagation depends on the free‑state background, then the wave function, measurement, uncertainty, entanglement, and the classical world should no longer be fragmented into five mutually unrelated problems, but should be uniformly seen as "different representations of the structure‑background joint state under finite readout."
Current quantum theory is extremely successful at the computational level, but its core objects have long been under multiple competing interpretations: whether the wave function is ontology, knowledge, a statistical tool, or a projection of hidden structure; why measurement changes the result; whether uncertainty is a fuzziness of natural ontology or a readout limitation; whether entanglement implies real action‑at‑a‑distance; and why the classical world emerges from quantum structure. This paper, building on the object rewriting, electron candidate, quantum‑optical background release packets, vacuum lowest state, time‑rate field, and reality‑bridging framework already accomplished in the three‑pillar system of Non‑manifest Selection of Being, invokes only the minimal public interfaces directly relevant to quantum foundational problems, and attempts to provide a unified rewriting of the above five questions. Our core conclusions are threefold. First, the wave function should not be primarily regarded as an a priori matter cloud or a purely cognitive symbol, but should be understood as: the readable complex‑amplitude projection of the joint state of a locally stable structural body and the free‑state background, under a given observational context \mathcal C. Define the object‑background joint state as P⊗Θf, then the minimal object‑position of the wave function is written as ΨC=RC(P⊗Θf), where \mathcal R_{\mathcal C} denotes the contextual projection operator jointly determined by the apparatus, boundaries, readout directions, and filtering rules. Thus, |\Psi|^2 is no longer "material density," but the realisable weight density of the joint state on a given readout channel. Second, measurement is not "looking" or a mysterious collapse, but the real coupling, channel filtering, and recording‑state freezing among the object, apparatus, and background. If the set of readable channels of the apparatus is {\Pi_k^{(\mathcal A)}}, then a measurement corresponds to the structural rewriting (P,A,Θf)⟶(Pk′,Ak′,Θf′) and, in conditionalised readout language, appears as ΨC⟼ΨC,k′=∥Πk(A)ΨC∥Πk(A)ΨC. The so‑called "collapse" is therefore not an uncaused event, but a conditionalised rewriting on a designated channel after coupling. Third, uncertainty, entanglement, and the classical limit should all be derived from the main line of "joint state + background + finite readout." The minimal action bridge ℏ∗=mecℓe specifies the minimal readout scale in phase space, so the position‑momentum‑type uncertainty relation is written as ΔxΔp≳2ℏ∗, whose essence is not the world's ontology being self‑contradictory, but the incompatibility between localisation and directional readout. Entanglement need not be interpreted as controllable action‑at‑a‑distance, but is written as: ΨAB=ΨAΨB, i.e., the non‑factorisable common background‑channel constraints under joint preparation conditions. The classical limit is not "quantum suddenly failing," but after ℏ∗S≫1, accompanied by stable‑island locking, environmental decoherence, and coarse‑grained averaging, the joint‑state projection contracts to near‑classical trajectories and near‑deterministic macroscopic readings. Finally, we give the object‑position of the wave function, the structural formula of measurement, the origin of uncertainty, the non‑superluminal reading of entanglement, the criterion for the classical limit, comparison with reality, and falsifiability conditions. The goal of this paper is not to replace the entire set of quantum mechanical techniques in one article, but first to lock down the deepest main line: if microscopic objects are not points, the vacuum is not emptiness, and propagation depends on the free‑state background, then the wave function, measurement, uncertainty, entanglement, and the classical world should no longer be fragmented into five mutually unrelated problems, but should be uniformly seen as "different representations of the structure‑background joint state under finite readout."
Quantum mechanics represents physical states through complex amplitudes, state vectors, and density operators, yet the ontological status of these objects remains interpretation-dependent. This paper develops a closure-based formulation in which a quantum state is interpreted as a representation of contextually partial relational closure: the state possesses definite mathematical and relational structure while remaining unresolved relative to one or more observational contexts. Within this language, decoherence differentiates closure channels and redistributes locally accessible coherence into relational structure; environmental redundancy stabilizes records; and classical facts emerge as approximately fixed, effectively commuting, redundantly recorded structures. Measurement is separated into three problems—context, weight, and outcome—so that decoherence, Born weighting, and unique outcome selection are not conflated. The paper then distinguishes two stronger research programs from the exact reformulation. First, it asks whether Hilbert-space quantum mechanics can be reconstructed from primitive closure, incompatibility, composition, and consistency principles. Second, it formulates a falsifiable closure-history extension in which physically relevant information might exist beyond the present density operator. Quantum Partial Closure Theory is therefore presented as a relational interpretation and information calculus, a reconstruction program, and a prospective experimental framework rather than as an established replacement for quantum mechanics. Keywords: quantum foundations; closure; wavefunction ontology; coherence; entanglement; decoherence; measurement; classical emergence; quantum information; Hilbert-space reconstruction The wavefunction question Quantum theory is operationally clear about what a wavefunction does. For a normalized pure-state vector ψ∈H and a projective measurement with alternatives {Π_i}, the Born weights are p_i=Tr(ρ_ψ Π_i ), ρ_ψ=ψψ^†. For a rank-one outcome Π_i=e_i e_i^†, this reduces to p_i=|e_i^† ψ|^2. Yet the mathematical clarity of the formalism does not by itself settle what the state vector is ontologically. Interpretations of quantum theory differ over whether the state should be regarded as physical, epistemic, relational, branch-relative, dispositional, or otherwise. The present paper proposes a specific interpretive and reconstructive language: partial relational closure. The central claim is not that the wavefunction is literally a new material substance called closure. Rather, ▭(ψ "is interpreted as a Hilbert-space representation of coherent partial relational closure" .) The word partial is crucial. It does not mean that a state is a scalar fraction of being real or complete. It means that information and constraint are distributed across local, coherent, and relational sectors, and that closure is always specified relative to a context. A Bell state, for example, can be locally indefinite while being relationally exact. A decohered state can be closed with respect to one effective macroscopic context while retaining a larger quantum embedding. A selective outcome can be locally definite without implying that every larger-scale relation in the universe is globally closed. This formulation is motivated by three observations. First, projective dephasing is naturally closure-like because it is idempotent. Second, modern quantum information already supplies exact measures for local coherence, correlations, and record redundancy. Third, the quantum-to-classical transition is naturally relational: local coherence can disappear from a subsystem while information migrates into system-environment correlations. The paper has three epistemic layers. Layer A uses established quantum mathematics. Layer B derives exact information identities and interprets them in closure language. Layer C states reconstruction conjectures and an explicitly speculative beyond-QM closure-history hypothesis. These layers are kept separate throughout. A quantum system is not structureless before measurement. Its amplitudes, phases, conservation relations, and correlations are tightly organized. What remains unresolved is how that structure will become locally definite relative to a chosen measurement context. The partial-closure view therefore distinguishes three broad regimes: Coherent partial closure. Alternatives remain phase-related and can interfere. Contextual differentiation. Interaction or dephasing suppresses coherence between alternatives relative to a context without necessarily choosing one. Selective local closure. A particular outcome is conditioned or realized relative to the measurement relation. In this language, wave-like behavior corresponds to spatially or otherwise contextually unresolved coherent closure, while particle-like detection corresponds to localized closure. Entanglement is closure stored in relations rather than in isolated subsystems. Decoherence is not simply destruction: in a globally pure description it can be a transfer of local coherence into relational entanglement. Classical objectivity appears when relevant records become stable and redundantly accessible. The framework does not assign consciousness a privileged dynamical role. An observer is a partial closure process for constraining possibilities. Explainer video Watch on YouTube (Roots of Reality): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYx_omk3h3A The video, its thumbnail and description are included in this record.
Quantum mechanics is the study of uncertainty. But what does uncertainty mean within the structure of physical reality? From Newton onward, mathematical physics has largely approached motion by specifying a state, identifying the laws governing its evolution, and determining the subsequent behavior of the system. Fourier extended this program to heat, Maxwell to electromagnetic fields, Navier and Stokes to fluids, Hamilton and Lagrange to variational and canonical mechanics, Einstein to spacetime, and quantum mechanics to the evolution and measurement of the quantum state. Across these theories, increasingly powerful mathematics has described what a physical system may do and how its state may evolve. This work asks a logically prior question: Does everything that is mathematically accessible participate equally in physical realization? We propose that it does not. The central distinction developed in this work is between accessibility, admissibility, participation, and realization. A mathematical representation may contain a large space of possible states, trajectories, modes, or outcomes. Physical realization, however, need not occupy that space uniformly. We propose that relational structure establishes an admissible geometry within the accessible space; that geometry determines which possibilities participate strongly or weakly; and probability subsequently quantifies the residual uncertainty among physically supported realizations. The resulting ordering is: Potentiality → Relations → Structure → Geometry → Admissibility → Participation → Realization → Evolution. Under this interpretation, probability is not abolished. Superposition is not abolished. Quantum mechanics is not rejected. Rather, their physical ordering is reconsidered. Superposition describes what the mathematical representation can contain; relational geometry determines how strongly those possibilities can participate; probability describes the uncertainty remaining within that structured support; and observation records the realization that occurs. The NIST loophole-free two-photon Bell experiment provides the principal empirical test developed in this work. Beginning from the experimentally characterized entangled state—not from subsequently observed outcome counts—we construct a relational geometry and the corresponding outcome-dependent participation and information-cost landscapes. The NIST measurement configurations then become experimental sampling coordinates on a geometry determined independently from the later event records. The resulting analysis identifies several mutually reinforcing features: strong inequality among the participation of mathematically accessible Bell outcomes; a corresponding hierarchy of geometric information cost; concentration of experimental variation into reduced effective dimensions; agreement between predicted geometric support and held-out experimental records; preservation of Bell-inequality violation on the reduced realization geometry; compatibility with no-signalling; and robustness tests against multinomial, temporal, detector, and other alternative explanations. The interpretation is not a restoration of Bell-local hidden variables and does not require superluminal signalling. Bell's theorem continues to exclude the relevant locally factorized descriptions. Instead, the observed correlations are interpreted as local measurements of a common non-separable relational structure. Spatial separation does not imply relational or informational separability. This distinction also reframes the quantum measurement problem. Wave-function collapse need not be regarded as the event that creates the physical structure responsible for an outcome. The framework instead proposes that admissibility constrains participation prior to observation, with measurement revealing a realization from an already structured physical domain. A definitive replacement for the standard measurement postulate will require discriminating predictions beyond those already shared with conventional quantum mechanics. The broader implication concerns the theory of motion itself. Newtonian mechanics, Hamiltonian dynamics, Maxwell's equations, Fourier transport, Navier–Stokes flow, relativity, and quantum mechanics employ very different evolution equations, yet all operate upon structured physical domains. The admissibility framework proposes that their deeper commonality lies not in a single dynamical equation but in an ontological ordering: the laws of motion govern how reality evolves; admissibility governs the structure within which reality can become realized. This has consequences beyond quantum foundations. In engineering and computational physics, enormous mathematical state spaces are routinely explored through CFD, finite-element simulation, optimization, Monte Carlo methods, and digital twins. If physically significant behavior occupies a substantially smaller admissible geometry, computation can be redirected from exhaustive exploration toward the structures in which realizable behavior is concentrated. This provides a theoretical basis for reduced-order physical prediction, targeted simulation, transport localization, and deterministic Physics Intelligence. In AI infrastructure and high-performance computing, the same principle suggests that workloads, thermal transport, energy utilization, routing, scheduling, and hardware states need not be treated as equally relevant points within enormous combinatorial spaces. Identifying admissible low-dimensional structure before exhaustive computation offers a route toward reduced search complexity, improved orchestration, higher computational and energy efficiency, and physics-informed predictive control. In aerospace, energy, advanced manufacturing, climate systems, and data-center infrastructure, the framework similarly motivates identifying the geometry of physically participating transport before expending computational resources resolving the entire mathematically accessible domain. The work therefore proposes a common principle extending from fundamental physics to computational engineering: Mathematical possibility is larger than physical realization. Uncertainty may remain genuine at the level of an individual event without implying an absence of antecedent structure. The results presented here provide empirical evidence consistent with the proposition that physical realization is organized by relational geometry prior to probability, while identifying the further tests required to establish whether this ordering constitutes a fundamental law of quantum and classical motion. The next decisive tests include prospective Bell predictions, multipartite and contextuality experiments, Lorentz-covariant formulation, recovery of the classical limit, and extension to quantum field theory and curved spacetime. Nature need not explore everything mathematics permits. Motion is the realization of what physical structure admits. That description captures the actual architecture of the finished 130-page work: it preserves Bell's theorem rather than attempting to evade it, explicitly separates mathematical accessibility from physical participation, and treats the NIST comparison as evidence for the proposed framework while acknowledging that a distinctive prediction beyond standard quantum mechanics remains necessary for a physical replacement of collapse. Principal Implications What This Means for Bell’s Inequality Bell's theorem remains intact. The present framework does not attempt to restore Bell-local hidden variables, weaken Bell's result, or explain the observed correlations through faster-than-light signalling. Bell establishes that the correlations observed between Alice and Bob cannot be reproduced by the relevant locally factorized description. The question developed here begins after that result: if Bell-local separability fails, what physical structure carries the correlations? The proposed answer is relational geometry. Alice and Bob remain spatially separated and perform local measurements, but their outcomes arise from different interrogations of a common non-separable quantum structure. Spatial separation therefore does not imply informational or relational separability. The correlation need not be interpreted as something transmitted from Alice to Bob at the moment of measurement; it can instead be understood as a property of the joint structure to which both measurements belong. The NIST analysis gives this interpretation a quantitative form. The characterized entangled state determines the relational geometry before the subsequent detector records are used for evaluation. Alice's and Bob's measurement settings sample different regions of that geometry. The resulting Bell outcomes exhibit strongly unequal participation, while Bell violation and no-signalling are preserved. The proposed implication is therefore: Bell violation demonstrates the failure of Bell-local factorization; admissibility proposes a geometry for the non-separable physical structure that remains. This reframes the familiar intuition of "action at a distance." The deeper question may not be how information crosses the distance between Alice and Bob, but why spatial distance should require the relational information defining their joint state to become separable in the first place. What This Means for Wave-Function Collapse The framework does not discard wave-function collapse as an operational rule for updating the quantum state after an observation. It changes the proposed ontological role assigned to collapse. In the conventional collapse-centered picture, the quantum state contains multiple possible outcomes and measurement marks the transition to a definite result. This leaves a foundational question: what physically distinguishes the outcome that becomes real from those that do not? Admissibility inserts a structural stage before observation. The accessible quantum
We develop a structural reinterpretation of the foundational ontological problems of quantum mechanics within the program of Metamonism [1] and its physical extension Basic Ontodynamics [2]. Three ontological placeholders that have resisted satisfactory interpretation for a century — wave function collapse, wave-particle duality, and virtual particles — are identified as symptoms of a foundational gap: the absence of a structural account of what quantum objects are. The present framework proposes that quantum objects are activation regimes of the F-hierarchy at different degrees of F7 closure. The photon is F56 without F7 — an unclosed coherence regime. The electron is F56 with residual St closure. Wave-particle duality dissolves: there is one object at different closure states, not two natures. Collapse dissolves: measurement is a continuous F7 closure process driven by structural resonance, not a discontinuous transition. Virtual particles dissolve as ontological entities: interactions are direct F56 coherence redistributions through the shared background F123, with virtual particles as mathematical parametrizations of transient incomplete F7 closures. The uncertainty principle receives a structural reading: ∆x · ∆p and ∆E · ∆t are two aspects of the single constraint that F7 closure and F56 phase sharpness cannot be simultaneously maximal. Renormalization is identified as a symptom of ontological incompleteness: it compensates for the point particle idealization, the free propagator treatment of virtual particles, and the empty vacuum assumption— all of which the F-hierarchy framework replaces structurally. Five falsifiable predictions are stated: finite duration of atomic transitions, natural ultraviolet cutoff in vacuum fluctuations, vacuum birefringence at high laser intensity, confinement scale from F7 closure geometry, and renormalization group fixed points as F7 closure transitions. The paper is a programmatic contribution within Metamonism: it proposes a structurally unified ontological reading of quantum phenomena and establishes a research program in which the formal derivation of quantum mechanics from F-hierarchy dynamics becomes a well-posed task.
The quantum measurement problems are revisited from a new perspective. One of the main ideas of this work is that the basic entities of our world are various types of particles, elementary or composite. It follows that each elementary process, hence each measurement process at its core, is a space–time, pointlike, event. Another key idea is that, when a microsystem [Formula: see text] gets into contact with the experimental device, factorization of [Formula: see text] rapidly fails and entangled mixed states appear. The wave functions for the microsystem-apparatus coupled systems for different measurement outcomes then lack overlapping space–time support. It means that the aftermath of each measurement is a single term in the sum: a “wave function collapse.” Our discussion leading to a diagonal density matrix, [Formula: see text] shows how the information encoded in the wave function [Formula: see text] gets transcribed, via entanglement with the experimental device and environment, into the relative frequencies [Formula: see text] for various experimental results [Formula: see text]. These results represent the first, significant steps towards filling in the logical gaps in the standard interpretation based on Born’s rule, and replacing it with a more natural one. Accepting objective reality of quantum fluctuations, independent of any experiments, and independently of human presence, one renounces the idea that in a fundamental, complete theory of Nature the result of each single experiment must necessarily be predictable. A few well-known puzzles such as the Schrödinger cat conundrum and the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR) paradox are briefly reviewed: they can all be naturally explained away.
In the prevailing physics language, light is usually written simultaneously as "particle" and "wave," while atomic spectral lines are understood as photon frequencies emitted by energy-level transitions. However, without asking: what is the electron, why are shells discrete, what exactly is released in a transition, and what background does propagation depend on, the so-called "light-quantum effect" remains within the old object representation. This paper operates within the particle redefinition, electron candidate, atomic stability island, background propagation, and wavefunction projection framework already established by the Wu Xian Ze You San Zong System New Paradigm, invoking only the minimal publicly available interfaces directly relevant to this problem, and discusses three questions: what is the object position of the light quantum; why discrete spectral lines necessarily appear; and how the so-called wave-particle duality should be rewritten in this system. The core thesis of this paper has three layers. First, if microscopic objects are not a priori point particles but locally stable structural bodies \mathfrak P_n = (\mathcal C_n, \mathcal H_n), if the electron candidate has been locked as \mathfrak e_* = \operatorname*{arg\,min}_{\mathfrak P_n \in \mathcal E_{\mathrm{shell}}^-} \mathcal E_n^{(\mathrm{str})}, if the atom-like structural body is defined as \mathfrak A(Z,m) = (\mathcal K_Z,\ \{\mathfrak e_*\}_m,\ \mathcal H_Z^{(\mathrm{tot})}), then the so-called "light quantum" should not first be regarded as an a priori point object, but should be rewritten as: the minimal background packet released into the free-state background when discrete rearrangements occur between stable shell windows. This is denoted as \Pi_{i\to f}, and is defined as the background release packet that carries away the structural cost difference \Delta \mathcal E_{if} during the transition \mathfrak A_i \to \mathfrak A_f. Second, discrete spectral lines are not empirical accidents, but the direct result of the discrete structure of stability islands. If we define the normalized structural total cost relative to the electron candidate as \bar\mu(\mathfrak P) = \mathcal E_{\mathfrak P}^{(\mathrm{str})}/\mathcal E_{\mathfrak e_*}^{(\mathrm{str})}, then the transition energy bridging between any two stable windows is \Delta E_{if} = m_e c^2 (\bar\mu_i - \bar\mu_f). Further introducing the minimal action bridge candidate \hbar_* = m_e c \ell_e, the corresponding frequency bridging is \nu_{if} = \Delta E_{if}/h_* = c/(2\pi\ell_e)(\bar\mu_i - \bar\mu_f), where h_* = 2\pi\hbar_*. This expression shows that frequency is no longer an a priori empirical quantity, but a real-world reading of the stability-island total-cost difference bridged through c and \ell_e. In particular, in the minimal single-center bound window, if the effective potential enters the hydrogen-like 1/r bound structure, then necessarily E_n(Z_{\mathrm{eff}}) = -(1/2)m_e c^2 \alpha^2 Z_{\mathrm{eff}}^2/n^2, so that the transition frequencies satisfy the hydrogen-like discrete spectral structure. Thus, "why spectral lines are discrete" is for the first time pressed back to: stability-island discreteness + the minimal bound eigenproblem. Third, the so-called wave-particle duality in this system no longer corresponds to two mysterious ontologies, but to two levels of the same process: the emission/absorption layer is a local discrete transition event, and the propagation/interference layer is continuous wave propagation in the free-state background. That is: "particle" comes from discrete rearrangements between shell stability islands, "wave" comes from the propagable channel expansion of the background release packet \Pi_{i\to f} in the free-state background. Therefore, "light is both particle and wave" should be rewritten as: the light-quantum effect is the dual appearance of discrete transition events and continuous background propagation at different readout layers. Finally, this paper provides object-position definitions, transition-energy bridging, frequency bridging, minimal hydrogen-like bridging, hierarchical clarifications, and falsification conditions. The goal of this paper is not to complete the entire quantum optics in a single work, but to lock one mainline: if the electron candidate and atomic stability-island mainline hold, then the light-quantum effect must be rewritten as background packets released by discrete stability-island transitions, and is no longer an a priori point-photon object.
The quantum measurement problems are discussed from a new perspective.
One of the main ideas of this work is that the basic entities of our world are various types of particles, elementary or composite. It follows that each elementary process, hence each measurement process at its core, is a spacetime, pointlike, event. Another key idea is that, when a microsystem ψ gets into contact with the experimental device, factorization of ψ rapidly fails and entangled mixed states appear. The wave functions for the microsystem-apparatus coupled systems for different measurement outcomes then lack overlapping spacetime support. It means that the aftermath of each measurement is a single term in the sum: a ``wave-function collapse.
Our discussion leading to a diagonal density matrix, ρ=diag(∣c1∣2,…,∣cn∣2,…) shows how the information encoded in the wave function ∣ψ⟩=∑ncn∣n⟩ gets transcribed, via entanglement with the experimental device and environment, into the relative frequencies Pn=∣cn∣2 for various experimental results F=fn.
These results represent the first, significant steps towards filling in the logical gaps in the standard interpretation based on Born's rule, and replacing it with a more natural one. Accepting objective reality of quantum fluctuations, independent of any experiments, and independently of human presence, one renounces the idea that in a fundamental, complete theory of Nature the result of each single experiment must necessarily be predictable.
A few well-known puzzles such as the Schr\odinger cat conundrum and the EPR paradox are briefly reviewed: they can all be naturally explained away.