Quantum mechanics and modeling of physical reality

Abstract

Quantum mechanics led to spectacular technological developments, discovery of new constituents of matter and new materials: however there is still no consensus on its interpretation and limitations. Some scientists and scientific writers promote some exotic interpretations and evoke quantum magic. In this paper we point out that magical explanations mean the end of the science. Magical explanations are misleading and counterproductive. We explain how a simple probabilistic locally causal model is able to reproduce quantum correlations in Bell tests. We also discuss difficulties of mathematical modelling of the physical reality and dangers of incorrect mental images. We examine in detail when and how a probabilistic model may describe completely a random experiment. We give some arguments in favor of contextual statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics. We conclude that we still don't know whether the quantum theory provides a complete description of physical phenomena and we explain how it may be tested. We also point out that there remain several open questions and challenges which we discuss in some detail. In particular there is still no consensus about how to reconcile quantum theory with general relativity and cosmology.Keywords: Statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics and problem of completeness,, EPR-Bohm paradox, Bell-type inequalities and quantum non-locality, locally causal explanation of quantum correlations, testing predictable completeness of quantum mechanics, problems with a description of physical reality: abstract models and incorrect mental images, quantum magic, successes and challenges of quantum theory, semi-empirical models and free parameters, infinities in quantum field theory and renormalization procedures.

Contextuality-by-Default Description of Bell Tests: Contextuality as the Rule and Not as an Exception

“…Many authors tried to explain the true meaning of Bell-type inequalities and of their violations [ 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 ]. They arrived, often independently to the conclusion, that Bell inequalities are only the necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of a counterfactual joint probability distribution describing outcomes of incompatible random experiments.…”

“…Nevertheless, speculations about quantum nonlocality and quantum magic are still quite frequent in blogs, books, and scientific papers. Such unfounded speculations are not only motivated by the violation of Bell inequalities but also by incorrect interpretations of quantum mechanics, as it was clearly explained in several recent papers [ 53 , 54 , 55 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 ].…”

Understanding quantum mechanics: a review and synthesis in precise language

“…In each such event, system and apparatus are combined [180]. -By analogy, the distribution characterizes spinning a specific coin with a specific spinning device [181,182].…”

Closing the Door on Quantum Nonlocality

“…To describe the time-series of data in detail in various domains of science, we usually have to use stochastic processes. It is reasonable to ask whether quantum probabilities may explain all fine structures in experimental time-series [ 53 , 101 , 102 , 103 ]. Computer simulations, which enter into details on how individual data items are created, allow for the modelling of real experiments and for incorporating time delays and time-windows, which is impossible in QM.…”

“…In several papers, we advocated that in order to check the predictable completeness of QM, one has to search for unexpected regularities in the experimental time-series of data [ 53 , 101 , 102 , 103 ]. Some interesting regularities in time-series from Bell experiments have already been discovered by using nonlinear analyses of data [ 107 , 108 ].…”