Quantum Mechanics: Reality or Trick? # Quantum Mechanics and the Limits of Representation: An Inquiry into the "Mathematical Trick" Hypothesis 1. Introduction Quantum mechanics stands as arguably the most empirically successful theoretical framework in the history of physics.1 Its mathematical formalism permits the calculation and prediction of outcomes for a vast array of experiments with unparalleled power and precision, underpinning much of modern technology.4 Despite this predictive triumph, the fundamental interpretation of quantum mechanics remains profoundly contested nearly a century after its inception.6 A persistent tension exists between the theory's operational effectiveness – its capacity as a mathematical machine for generating predictions 5 – and its ontological ambiguity. While the mathematical structure is well-understood 5, there is no consensus on how this structure corresponds to experienced reality or what it reveals about the physical world independent of observation.1 This report critically examines a skeptical hypothesis that lies at the heart of these interpretational debates: Could the core mathematical constructs of quantum mechanics – the wavefunction (Ψ), the principle of superposition, the postulate of wave function collapse, and the formalism of entanglement – be understood primarily as highly successful predictive algorithms or "mathematical tricks," rather than direct, faithful representations of an underlying physical reality? This perspective questions whether the mathematical elegance and predictive power of the formalism necessarily imply a direct correspondence between its elements and the fundamental constituents or processes of the world. It probes the possibility that the very structure of quantum mathematics, while extraordinarily effective for calculation, might obscure or even mislead our attempts to grasp the intrinsic nature of the reality it describes. To evaluate this "mathematical trick" hypothesis, this report will undertake a systematic analysis of the ontological status of quantum mechanics' central concepts. It will delve into the philosophical debates surrounding the nature of the quantum state, contrasting ontic (representing reality) and epistemic (representing knowledge) interpretations. It will explore how alternative formulations of quantum mechanics – including Bohmian mechanics, the Many-Worlds interpretation, Consistent Histories, QBism, Relational Quantum Mechanics, and Objective Collapse Models – conceptualize the quantum state, superposition, and the measurement process, potentially circumventing the paradoxical features of the standard account. The enduring measurement problem and the role of decoherence will be analyzed. The report will further investigate the status of quantum information, questioning whether it constitutes a fundamental substance or serves as an abstract descriptor of correlations. The perplexing phenomenon of entanglement will be examined through the lens of Bell's theorem and the Kochen-Specker theorem, exploring the implications for locality and realism. Finally, the inherent probabilistic nature of the theory will be scrutinized, comparing views that treat probability as fundamental versus those that see it as arising from incomplete knowledge. Throughout this analysis, potential and actual experimental efforts aimed at distinguishing between interpretations will be considered. By synthesizing these diverse lines of inquiry, drawing upon established research and philosophical arguments 9, the report aims to provide a nuanced assessment of the extent to which the foundational mathematical machinery of quantum mechanics might function as an exceptionally effective, yet potentially representationaly indirect, predictive tool. 2. The Quantum State: Representation of Reality or Knowledge? The quantum state, typically represented by the wavefunction (Ψ) or a state vector in Hilbert space, is the central mathematical object used to describe a quantum system.6 However, its physical meaning and relationship to reality are subjects of intense debate, forming a crucial battleground for assessing the "mathematical trick" hypothesis. Does the wavefunction directly map onto the physical state of a system, or is it merely a summary of what we know or can predict about it? 2.1 The Wavefunction (Ψ): Ontic vs. Epistemic Interpretations The core philosophical dispute revolves around whether the wavefunction is ontic or epistemic.1 An ontic interpretation posits that Ψ represents a real, objective physical state of the system – it corresponds to something "out there" in the world.13 An epistemic interpretation, conversely, views Ψ as representing a state of knowledge, information, or belief about the system, rather than the system itself.13 A formal framework for this distinction was provided by Harrigan and Spekkens.9 They introduced the concept of an underlying "ontic state" (λ), which represents a complete description of the system's physical reality within a given ontological model.13 Within this framework: - ψ-ontic models are those where the ontic state λ uniquely determines the quantum state ψ. If you knew the complete physical state λ, you could deduce ψ.14 Different ontic states might map to the same ψ (if the model is ψ-incomplete), but a single λ cannot correspond to multiple ψ's.14 - ψ-epistemic models are those where the quantum state ψ is not uniquely determined by the ontic state λ. The same ontic state λ can be consistent with multiple, distinct quantum states ψ.14 Here, ψ reflects incomplete knowledge about the underlying λ.14 It is crucial to recognize that this categorization itself presupposes the existence of an underlying ontic state λ, which might be questioned by some interpretations.13 Arguments for Ψ as Epistemic: Several interpretations explicitly or implicitly support an epistemic view of the wavefunction: * Quantum Bayesianism (QBism): This interpretation is perhaps the most explicitly epistemic. It defines the quantum state Ψ as representing an agent's subjective degrees of belief about the potential outcomes of future actions (measurements) performed by that agent.8 The state is personal to the agent assigning it and is updated via Bayesian rules upon gaining new experience.8 It is a tool for decision-making.16 * Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM): RQM rejects an ontic view of Ψ, considering it an auxiliary mathematical tool.20 The wavefunction codes information that one system (the "observer") has about another system (the "observed") relative to their past interactions.20 It does not describe an absolute, observer-independent state.21 * Pragmatist/Instrumentalist Views: Some variants of the Copenhagen interpretation and other pragmatic approaches view quantum mechanics primarily as a tool for coordinating experience and predicting experimental outcomes.9 Ψ serves as a calculational device rather than a description of reality.1 Richard Healey, for instance, argues quantum states are objective but not representational.9 * Incompleteness: If Ψ is purely epistemic, it implies that quantum mechanics is an incomplete description of reality, as it only reflects our knowledge about some underlying ontic state λ.14 Einstein's famous critique of quantum mechanics is often interpreted as favoring an epistemic view linked to the theory's incompleteness.13 * Entropic Dynamics (ED): This framework reconstructs QM formalism using entropic methods and proposes a realist ψ-epistemic model where the underlying ontology consists of particle positions plus a discrete variable, with Ψ describing the probabilities associated with this ontology.25 Arguments for Ψ as Ontic: Other interpretations strongly support an ontic view, treating the wavefunction as a part of physical reality: * Realist Interpretations: Generally, interpretations aiming for a realist description of the quantum world tend to treat Ψ (or related entities) as ontic.1 * ψ-ontic Models: By definition, these models link Ψ directly to the underlying reality λ.14 * Pusey, Barrett, Rudolph (PBR) Theorem: This theorem provides a significant argument against ψ-epistemic models.9 It shows that under the assumption that quantum systems prepared independently have independent physical states, any ontological model reproducing quantum predictions must be ψ-ontic.9 This suggests that the wavefunction corresponds directly to reality. However, the theorem's assumptions, particularly preparation independence, can be challenged to maintain an epistemic view.9 * Bohmian Mechanics: This theory includes both the wavefunction Ψ and definite particle positions Q in its description of the state.27 While the particles represent the "primitive ontology" in 3D space 9, the wavefunction, defined on configuration space, plays a crucial role in guiding the particles. Its ontological status is debated – sometimes viewed as a physical field, sometimes as nomological (law-like).23 In either case, it's treated as an objective component of the theory's description of reality. * Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI): MWI posits that the universal wavefunction is objectively real and constitutes the fundamental entity describing the entirety of existence, encompassing all parallel worlds.10 * Objective Collapse Theories (OCM): Models like GRW and CSL treat the wavefunction as a physical field that undergoes real, stochastic collapse processes governed by modified dynamical equations.33 The collapse is a physical event, implying an ontic status for Ψ.33 Completeness vs. Incompleteness: Closely related to the ontic/epistemic debate is whether Ψ provides a complete description of a quantum system.13 * ψ-complete models, a subset of ψ-ontic models, assert that the wavefunction is informationally equivalent to the complete physical state λ.14 Knowing ψ means knowing everything about the system. MWI is often considered ψ-complete in this sense.10 * ψ-incomplete models hold that Ψ is only a partial description. This is true for all ψ-epistemic models, where Ψ only reflects knowledge about λ.14 It is also true for some ψ-ontic models, like Bohmian mechanics, where the complete state includes both Ψ and the particle positions Q.14 2.2 The "Mathematical Trick" Perspective on Ψ Given the deep disagreements about the wavefunction's status, the "mathematical trick" hypothesis gains traction. Could the specific mathematical form of Ψ – a function mapping a high-dimensional configuration space to complex numbers 6 – be merely a highly effective computational tool for encoding probabilities and correlations, without directly mirroring the structure of physical reality? The very success of the complex Hilbert space formalism 35 might be seen as evidence for its fundamental nature, or simply its remarkable utility as a mathematical language. Attempts to reformulate quantum mechanics using alternative mathematical structures, such as real numbers or quaternions, exist.37 While possible in principle, these reformulations often introduce mathematical complexities, particularly when dealing with concepts like spin, suggesting that complex numbers offer a more natural or "perspicuous" representation.37 However, the possibility of alternative formalisms indicates that the specific complex Hilbert space structure might not be logically indispensable, potentially supporting the view that it's a convenient mathematical choice rather than a direct reflection of reality's substrate.37 Furthermore, the persistent difficulty in fitting all interpretations neatly into the standard ontic/epistemic framework 13 hints that the dichotomy itself might be too restrictive. Interpretations where the wavefunction represents relational information (RQM) 20, subjective belief (QBism) 17, or a physical law (nomological Bohmian view) 29 challenge the simple mapping of Ψ to either an objective state or mere knowledge about an objective state. This suggests the "trick" might not be that Ψ is merely epistemic, but rather the assumption that it must directly represent an objective, observer-independent physical state in the classical sense. The formalism's success might stem precisely from reality having a structure (relational, observer-dependent, nomological) that defies such simple representation, requiring the abstract mathematical tool of the wavefunction to capture its behavior. Ultimately, the debate over the wavefunction's status is deeply entangled with broader philosophical commitments regarding the aims of scientific theories and the nature of reality itself.9 Realist interpretations strive to find an ontology where Ψ, or something closely related, is a fundamental component of the world.6 Anti-realist or instrumentalist approaches, focusing on empirical adequacy, are more comfortable viewing Ψ as a predictive tool.9 Structural Realism might find reality in the mathematical structure itself, rather than in what Ψ represents.39 From an instrumentalist perspective, the "mathematical trick" hypothesis is unproblematic – the tool works. From a realist perspective, if Ψ is indeed a "trick," it poses a profound puzzle: why does this particular mathematical structure provide such an accurate description of the world, and what is the underlying reality it so effectively models? 3. Superposition: Physical Existence or Mathematical Formalism? Quantum superposition, the principle that quantum systems can exist in combinations of multiple distinct states simultaneously, is arguably one of the most counterintuitive and debated features of the theory.40 It stems directly from the linearity of the Schrödinger equation: if state A and state B are possible solutions, then any linear combination (superposition) of A and B is also a valid solution.40 The "mathematical trick" hypothesis prompts a critical examination: Is this superposition a literal feature of physical reality, or a consequence of the mathematical formalism we use to describe probabilistic outcomes? 3.1 The Standard Interpretation The conventional understanding, often associated with the Copenhagen interpretation, posits that a quantum system described by a superposition, such as (c_A \ket{A} + c_B \ket{B}), physically exists in a state that is somehow "both A and B" until a measurement is performed.40 Measurement then forces the system into one of the definite states (A or B) with probabilities given by the squared amplitudes ((|c_A|^2) or (|c_B|^2)) according to the Born rule.40 The interference patterns observed in the double-slit experiment, even when particles pass through one at a time, are considered strong evidence for this physical superposition.2 3.2 Skepticism and the "Mathematical Trick" View Skepticism towards the literal interpretation of superposition arises from its clash with macroscopic intuition – we never observe objects like Schrödinger's cat being simultaneously alive and dead.24 This leads to the question: Is superposition truly an ontological state of simultaneous existence, or is it a mathematical artifact of the linear formalism that reflects our uncertainty about the system's actual, definite (though perhaps unknown or rapidly fluctuating) state?.43 Could the mathematical construct of superposition simply be a necessary "trick" within the linear algebra of Hilbert space to correctly calculate the probabilities of mutually exclusive outcomes? [User Query]. A common misconception is to interpret the "+" in a superposition like ( \ket{\text{Alive}} + \ket{\text{Dead}} ) as a logical "AND".44 However, measurements never confirm that the cat is both alive AND dead; they yield either "alive" OR "dead".44 The mathematical structure involves a sum (+) representing the superposition, distinct from the product (x or ⊗) used to represent conjunctions of properties within a single state (e.g., "atom decayed" AND "cat dead" forming one term in the cat state ( (A_i \times C_L) + (A_d \times C_D) )).44 The superposition represents a potentiality for different, exclusive outcomes upon measurement, not a simultaneous actuality of all possibilities in the classical sense. 3.3 Alternative Interpretations' Handling of Superposition Different interpretations offer distinct perspectives on the status of superposition: - Bohmian Mechanics: This interpretation avoids literal physical superposition of particle positions. Particles always possess definite trajectories.27 The wavefunction, which exists in configuration space, is indeed in a superposition and evolves according to Schrödinger's equation. This wave guides the particle, and its superposition nature is responsible for quantum effects like interference, but the particle itself is never in multiple locations simultaneously.29 The "superposition" resides in the guiding field, not the particle's ontology. - Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI): MWI embraces superposition wholeheartedly but applies it to the universal wavefunction.10 Measurement doesn't collapse the superposition; instead, the observer becomes entangled with the system, causing the universe to branch.31 In each branch, one outcome of the superposition is realized.10 Schrödinger's cat is both alive and dead, but these realities exist in separate, non-interacting branches of the multiverse.31 Superposition is ontologically real at the level of the multiverse. - Consistent Histories (CH): This approach analyzes superposition within the framework of 'histories,' which are sequences of quantum events (projections).47 Superposition manifests as interference between alternative histories. Probabilities are assigned only to sets of histories that satisfy a consistency condition (decoherence), ensuring classical probability rules apply.47 The focus shifts from the simultaneous existence of states to the consistency of descriptions of sequences of events over time. Superposition is a feature of the probabilistic structure of histories. - Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM): In RQM, superposition is observer-dependent.20 A system S can be in a superposition of states relative to observer O', while simultaneously being in a definite state relative to an interacting observer O.20 The state description is always relative to another system. For Schrödinger's cat, its state (superposed or definite) depends on whether the observer is considered relative to the internal mechanism or an external observer opening the box.21 Superposition describes a relationship, not an absolute state. - QBism: From the QBist perspective, a superposition represented in the wavefunction reflects an agent's state of belief.8 It might represent maximal uncertainty or a complex web of credences about the potential outcomes of future interactions, rather than an objective physical state of simultaneous existence.17 Superposition is a feature of the agent's epistemic state. 3.4 Experimental Distinctions Can experiments definitively distinguish between a genuine physical superposition and alternative scenarios, like a system rapidly fluctuating between classical states? [User Query]. - Interference Experiments: The double-slit experiment is the paradigmatic example.2 The appearance of interference fringes, even with single particles, demonstrates that the possibilities associated with both slits contribute to the final probability distribution. Detecting which slit the particle went through destroys the interference pattern 2, suggesting that the potential for interference (associated with superposition) is physically real but sensitive to information acquisition. - Macroscopic Superpositions: Creating and verifying superposition states in increasingly large objects (e.g., buckyballs 40, micromirrors, mechanical resonators 49) tests the boundaries of quantum mechanics. These experiments probe whether superposition breaks down at larger scales, as predicted by objective collapse models, or persists as standard QM suggests.49 - Distinguishing Superposition from Mixtures: Experiments, often conceptualized using Stern-Gerlach devices measuring spin 51, can distinguish between a coherent superposition (e.g., ( \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\ket{\uparrow_z} + \ket{\downarrow_z}) )) and an incoherent mixture (a collection where 50% are (\ket{\uparrow_z}) and 50% are (\ket{\downarrow_z})). Measuring spin along an orthogonal axis (e.g., the x-axis) yields different statistics for the superposition (all particles measured as (\ket{\uparrow_x})) compared to the mixture (50% (\ket{\uparrow_x}), 50% (\ket{\downarrow_x})).51 This demonstrates that superposition entails specific phase relationships absent in classical mixtures. However, the interpretation of these experiments remains complex. While they confirm the predictive accuracy of the mathematical formalism incorporating superposition and rule out simple classical alternatives, they do not uniquely determine the ontology of superposition.3 Bohmian mechanics reproduces interference without literal particle superposition.29 MWI explains it via branching.10 RQM uses relative states 20, and QBism uses agent beliefs.17 What experiments verify is the success of the mathematical structure – the linear combination of state vectors and the resulting interference terms. Whether this structure directly mirrors a physical reality of coexisting states or serves as a mathematical tool within a different ontological framework (wave guidance, relative information, belief states) remains a matter of interpretation. The "mathematical trick" hypothesis gains plausibility from this interpretational ambiguity: the math works, but its literal ontological reading might be misleading. Furthermore, the challenge lies not only in understanding the status of superposition but also in explaining the transition from a superposition of possibilities to a single definite outcome upon measurement.9 All interpretations must provide an account for this transition, whether through collapse (standard QM 24), branching (MWI 31), particle dynamics (Bohmian 45), modified dynamics (OCM 33), or epistemic updates (QBism 17, RQM 20). Evaluating superposition as a potential "trick" is therefore inseparable from evaluating the mechanism – physical or epistemic – that connects the superposition formalism to the definite results observed in experiments. The success of the superposition principle in predicting probabilities must ultimately be reconciled with the observation of singular outcomes. 4. Quantum Measurement: Physical Process or Epistemic Update? The process of measurement lies at the heart of quantum mechanics' interpretational difficulties, giving rise to the famous measurement problem.9 This problem stems from the apparent conflict between the theory's description of quantum evolution and the observed outcomes of experiments. 4.1 The Measurement Problem Quantum mechanics describes the evolution of isolated systems via the linear, deterministic Schrödinger equation.24 Linearity implies that if a system can be in state A or state B, it can also exist in a superposition of A and B.40 When a quantum system interacts with a measuring apparatus (which is itself composed of quantum particles), the Schrödinger equation predicts that the combined system-apparatus state should evolve into an entangled superposition reflecting all possible outcomes.24 For example, in the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment, the cat, coupled to a radioactive atom via a deadly mechanism, should end up in a superposition of ( \ket{\text{Atom Intact}} \otimes \ket{\text{Cat Alive}} + \ket{\text{Atom Decayed}} \otimes \ket{\text{Cat Dead}} ).24 However, upon observation (measurement), we always find a definite outcome – the cat is either alive or dead, never both.24 The measurement problem encapsulates several related questions 24: 1. The Problem of Outcomes: Why does a measurement yield a single definite outcome when the theory predicts a superposition of possibilities? 2. The Problem of Probability: Why are the probabilities of obtaining specific outcomes given by the Born rule (the squared amplitudes of the corresponding terms in the superposition)? 3. The Quantum-Classical Divide: What constitutes a "measurement"? Where is the boundary (often called the "Heisenberg cut" 9) between the quantum system evolving unitarily and the "classical" apparatus (or observer) that registers a definite result?.52 4.2 Wave Function Collapse: Real Physical Process? The traditional approach, often associated with the Copenhagen interpretation, introduces the postulate of wave function collapse (or state vector reduction).1 This postulate states that upon measurement, the superposition instantaneously and randomly "collapses" into one of the possible outcome states, with probabilities given by the Born rule.42 This process is non-unitary (it doesn't preserve the norm of the state vector in the same way as Schrödinger evolution) and irreversible.24 In this view, collapse is treated as a real physical process triggered by the act of measurement or observation.24 However, the collapse postulate faces significant criticism.46 It appears ad hoc, introduced specifically to bridge the gap between theory and observation without a clear underlying physical mechanism. It creates a dualistic dynamics for quantum systems: unitary evolution via the Schrödinger equation when unobserved, and non-unitary collapse during measurement. Defining precisely what constitutes a "measurement" sufficient to trigger collapse remains ambiguous.52 4.3 Collapse as an Artifact/Epistemic Update Several interpretations reject the notion of a physical collapse, viewing the apparent reduction of the state vector as an artifact of the formalism or an update of information: - QBism: Collapse is not a physical process but simply the updating of an agent's subjective Bayesian probabilities based on the new information gained from the measurement outcome.8 Since the wavefunction represents belief, its change reflects a change in belief, not a change in physical reality. - Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM): Collapse is relative to the observer.20 When observer O interacts with system S, the state of S relative to O updates (collapses) to reflect the outcome of the interaction. However, relative to a different observer O', who hasn't interacted, the S-O system remains in an entangled superposition.21 Collapse is an update of relative information. - Instrumentalist Views: For instrumentalists, the quantum formalism is primarily a tool for calculating probabilities. Collapse is simply a necessary step in the algorithm connecting the initial state preparation to the final probability prediction.9 It doesn't need to correspond to a physical event. 4.4 Solutions Avoiding Explicit Collapse Several major interpretations attempt to provide a complete description of quantum phenomena without invoking a fundamental collapse postulate: - Decoherence: This physical process, arising from the unavoidable interaction of any realistic quantum system with its surrounding environment, plays a crucial role.24 Entanglement with the vast number of environmental degrees of freedom effectively "smears out" the coherence (phase relationships) between different components of a superposition in the system's local description.56 The system's reduced density matrix rapidly becomes diagonal (or nearly diagonal) in a preferred basis (the "pointer basis") determined by the nature of the system-environment interaction.57 This explains why macroscopic superpositions are not observed in practice – they decohere extremely quickly – and why certain "classical" properties (like position for macroscopic objects) are robust and preferentially observed.54 - Limitation: While decoherence explains the suppression of interference between different outcomes and the emergence of a classical-like mixture of possibilities, it does not, by itself, solve the problem of definite outcomes.54 The total system-environment state remains a superposition; decoherence only explains why the different branches become effectively independent and non-interfering from a local perspective. It doesn't explain why one specific outcome is actualized in any single experimental run. - Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI): MWI takes unitary evolution as universal and exact – there is no collapse.10 Measurement is simply a physical interaction that causes the observer (and their environment) to become entangled with the system being measured. This entanglement leads to a splitting or "branching" of the universal wavefunction into multiple, non-interacting worlds, each corresponding to one possible outcome.10 All possibilities are physically realized in different branches.10 Decoherence is invoked to explain why these branches behave like quasi-classical, independent worlds.31 - Bohmian Mechanics: This theory also avoids fundamental collapse.29 Particles always have definite positions, guided by the wavefunction.29 During a measurement, the system and apparatus particles evolve deterministically according to the guiding equation, leading to a definite final configuration corresponding to a specific outcome. The appearance of collapse arises from the behavior of the conditional wave function of the measured subsystem, which effectively reduces to the component corresponding to the actual outcome once the environment's configuration is taken into account.29 - Consistent Histories (CH): CH avoids collapse by focusing on assigning probabilities to entire sequences of events ("histories") that evolve unitarily.47 Probabilities are only assigned to sets of histories that satisfy a consistency condition, which essentially requires interference between alternative histories to be negligible.47 Decoherence ensures that histories involving macroscopic events, like measurement outcomes, are consistent.47 4.5 Objective Collapse Models (OCM): Modifying Dynamics A distinct approach tackles the measurement problem by modifying the Schrödinger equation itself.1 Objective Collapse Models, such as the Ghirardi–Rimini–Weber (GRW) theory 24, Continuous Spontaneous Localization (CSL) 33, and the Diósi-Penrose (DP) model 33, introduce additional non-linear and stochastic terms into the dynamics.24 These terms cause the wavefunction to undergo spontaneous, random collapses towards localized states.33 The collapse rate is typically proposed to depend on the size or mass of the system, being negligible for microscopic particles but becoming significant for macroscopic objects.33 This mechanism aims to provide a unified dynamics for both micro and macro systems, explaining why quantum superpositions persist at small scales but are rapidly destroyed at large scales, leading naturally to definite measurement outcomes without invoking observers or a special measurement process.33 Crucially, these modifications lead to predictions that differ slightly from standard quantum mechanics under certain conditions, making OCMs experimentally testable 24 (see Section 8). 4.6 Is Collapse a Necessary "Trick"? Evaluating the collapse postulate in light of these alternatives raises the question of whether it is merely a convenient "trick" or mathematical patch needed to reconcile the linear quantum formalism with our experience of definite outcomes [User Query]. Interpretations that eliminate fundamental collapse (MWI, Bohmian, CH, RQM, QBism) or modify the dynamics to induce it physically (OCM) suggest that the standard collapse postulate might indeed be a placeholder for a deeper, more consistent description. However, the measurement problem proves to be multifaceted, and no single interpretation provides a universally accepted solution to all its aspects.57 Decoherence successfully explains the emergence of classical appearance and the preferred basis, but not the selection of a single outcome.57 MWI faces challenges with the meaning and origin of probability.10 Bohmian mechanics introduces nonlocality and a potentially complex ontology.29 OCMs introduce new parameters and face ongoing experimental scrutiny.63 Epistemic and relational views dissolve the problem by reinterpreting the wavefunction, but may be seen by some as sacrificing ontological explanation.17 Furthermore, the role of the observer, or more generally the context of observation, remains a persistent and contentious issue, even in interpretations designed to be observer-independent.65 Copenhagen explicitly invokes measurement.24 MWI struggles with subjective probability from an observer's perspective within a branch.10 Bohmian mechanics requires a preferred frame for its dynamics.29 RQM elevates observer-dependence (relative to any system) to a fundamental principle.20 QBism is explicitly agent-centered.17 OCMs must explain the values of their collapse parameters.34 Decoherence explains classicality for practical purposes or relative to tracing out the environment, implicitly involving a perspective.10 This persistent entanglement with the concept of observation or context suggests that the interaction between the describer and the described is a fundamental aspect that the quantum formalism captures, perhaps making the idea of a purely observer-independent "trick" an oversimplification. The "collapse" might be a necessary feature of any formalism that attempts to connect the underlying quantum description to the specific, contextual results obtained through interaction. 5. Quantum Information: Fundamental Substance or Abstract Description? The rise of quantum information theory has introduced powerful new concepts like qubits and entanglement, revolutionizing our understanding of computation and communication, and prompting fundamental questions about the nature of information itself within the quantum framework.9 Is quantum information merely a useful mathematical abstraction for describing correlations and probabilities, or could it be a fundamental constituent of reality – a new kind of "stuff"? 5.1 The Concept Quantum information extends classical information theory by utilizing quantum phenomena like superposition and entanglement. The basic unit is the qubit, which, unlike a classical bit (0 or 1), can exist in a superposition of both states.40 Entanglement allows for correlations between qubits that are stronger than any classical correlation.9 These features enable potentially powerful quantum algorithms and secure communication protocols. 5.2 Quantum Information as Fundamental ("It from Qubit") Inspired by the power of quantum information, some physicists and philosophers have explored the idea that information, specifically quantum information, might be ontologically primary.68 This resonates with John Archibald Wheeler's influential slogan "It from Bit," which suggests that physical reality ("It") arises from observer-elicited answers to yes/no questions ("Bits").69 In the quantum context, this evolves into "It from Qubit".68 - Zeilinger-Brukner Foundational Principle: A prominent formulation posits that "an elementary system carries one bit of information".75 This principle is used to derive core quantum features like randomness and complementarity. If a system can only represent one bit, asking a different "question" (measurement) must yield a partially or wholly random result.75 Proponents often argue that the distinction between reality and information is blurred or even non-existent.68 - Unification Potential: Some propose that forces and matter might ultimately be unified through the concept of quantum information, perhaps emerging from patterns of entanglement among fundamental qubits.68 5.3 Quantum Information as Abstraction/Correlation Measure A contrasting view holds that information, whether classical or quantum, is fundamentally abstract.77 - Information Needs Embodiment: Information requires a physical substrate (matter) for its storage or representation and energy for its transmission.77 Abstract concepts like "two" or "circle" are embodied in physical objects but are not the objects themselves.77 - Information as Description: Scientific theories use mathematical structures and information (equations, state vectors like Ψ) to represent or model physical reality, but this representation is not the reality itself.12 Information is generally about something.75 - Barbour's "Bit from It": Julian Barbour argues for inverting Wheeler's aphorism, contending that our perceived information ("Bits") derives from an underlying physical reality ("It"), not the other way around.69 Ontological primacy belongs to things, not the information we extract from them. - Interpretation Dependence: Interpretations like QBism and RQM treat quantum states (and thus quantum information) as inherently epistemic or relational. For QBism, it's subjective belief 17; for RQM, it's information relative to an observer system.20 In these views, quantum information quantifies knowledge or correlations, not a fundamental substance. 5.4 Relationship to Matter and Energy The ontological status of quantum information hinges on its relationship with matter and energy. If information is fundamental, how does it give rise to the particles and fields we observe?.68 Conversely, if information is abstract, how is it encoded, processed, and constrained by the properties of physical systems?.77 Can all quantum phenomena be explained solely in terms of the interactions of matter and energy, without needing to reify "quantum information" as a distinct entity? [User Query]. The standard view is that information is carried by physical systems, suggesting matter/energy is primary. 5.5 Paradoxes/Limitations of Information as Substance Treating information as a fundamental substance faces several conceptual challenges: - Tautology Criticism: Critics argue that defining reality solely in terms of information leads to a tautology where information only refers to itself, losing connection to an external world and failing to answer "Information about what?".75 - Observer Dependence: Information seems inherently linked to observers or agents who interpret it.75 Can information exist fundamentally without potential interpreters? - Causal Power: How does abstract information exert causal influence on the physical world?.78 While information certainly plays a role in decision-making by agents, attributing causal power to information itself as a fundamental substance requires clarification. Could the notion of "quantum information" as a fundamental entity be another "mathematical trick" – a reification of a powerful descriptive framework? Its utility in quantifying quantum correlations and enabling quantum technologies is undeniable, but this operational success doesn't automatically grant it fundamental ontological status. The debate between "It from Qubit" and "Bit from It" reflects a broader tension in physics between operational/informational viewpoints and traditional substance-based ontologies.69 Quantum information theory provides potent tools, leading some towards information-centric interpretations (like QBism or Zeilinger's principle) that prioritize knowledge, prediction, and interaction.9 Traditional realism, however, seeks an underlying "It" – be it particles, fields, or branching worlds – from which information arises.72 The "mathematical trick" hypothesis, applied here, asks whether "quantum information" represents a genuinely new ontological layer or is a highly effective abstraction for managing the complexities of quantum phenomena, particularly correlations and probabilities. Complicating this is the ambiguity of the term "information" itself.72 If it refers to Shannon information (a measure of uncertainty reduction) or semantic information (meaningful content), it is clearly abstract or observer-dependent.75 If "It from Qubit" posits a novel physical information, its properties and relationship to matter and energy remain largely undefined.68 The power of the "quantum information" concept might stem partly from this ambiguity, allowing it to function both as an abstract tool and hint at a deeper reality. 6. Entanglement: Nonlocal Connection or Statistical Correlation? Quantum entanglement represents one of the most profound departures from classical physics, challenging fundamental intuitions about locality and realism.9 It describes a situation where two or more quantum systems are linked in such a way that their fates are intertwined, regardless of the distance separating them. The properties of the composite system cannot be fully described by specifying the properties of the individual parts.11 6.1 The Phenomenon Consider the classic Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox setup 81, often illustrated with a pair of particles created in a spin singlet state.83 In this state, the total spin is zero, meaning if one particle is measured to have spin-up along a certain axis, the other must instantly be found to have spin-down along the same axis, and vice versa, no matter how far apart they are.81 This perfect anti-correlation holds for measurements along any chosen axis. The state describes the pair as a whole, but assigns no definite spin state to either individual particle before measurement. 6.2 "Spooky Action at a Distance" vs. Pre-existing Correlations This instantaneous correlation across distance troubled Einstein, who famously derided it as "spooky action at a distance" ("spukhafte Fernwirkung"), as it seemed to imply faster-than-light influence, violating the principle of locality central to relativity.81 The alternative, favored by EPR, was that the correlations were not due to instantaneous influence but were predetermined by properties (hidden variables) the particles carried with them from their initial interaction.81 The measurement would simply reveal these pre-existing, correlated properties [User Query]. 6.3 Bell's Theorem and Experimental Tests In 1964, John Stewart Bell devised a way to experimentally distinguish between the predictions of quantum mechanics and those of any theory based on local hidden variables (LHV).81 Bell's theorem showed that LHV theories impose mathematical constraints (Bell inequalities) on the strength of correlations that can be observed between measurements on separated entangled particles.81 Quantum mechanics, however, predicts correlations that violate these inequalities under certain experimental conditions.83 Numerous experiments, starting with Freedman and Clauser 86 and notably Aspect et al. 81, have been performed to test Bell inequalities. The overwhelming result is that the inequalities are violated, and the predictions of quantum mechanics are confirmed with high accuracy.81 While early experiments suffered from potential "loopholes" (e.g., the detection loophole, locality/communication loophole, freedom-of-choice loophole), subsequent experiments have systematically closed these, providing strong evidence against the viability of LHV theories.86 6.4 Implications for Locality, Realism, and Causality The experimental violation of Bell inequalities forces a profound choice regarding our fundamental assumptions about the physical world.38 It demonstrates that quantum mechanics is incompatible with the conjunction of locality and certain assumptions typically associated with classical realism. At least one of these assumptions must be abandoned: - Locality: The principle that events are only influenced by their immediate surroundings, and that influences cannot propagate faster than light.84 Many interpret Bell's theorem as proof that nature is fundamentally nonlocal.81 Bohmian mechanics explicitly incorporates nonlocality in its guiding equation.29 - Realism/Hidden Variables Assumptions: The term "realism" here is complex, but Bell's original proof and subsequent analyses often involve assumptions like: - Outcome Determinism: Hidden variables determine the definite outcome of any possible measurement.91 Bell showed locality implies this for EPR correlations.90 - Non-Contextuality: The outcome of measuring an observable is independent of which other compatible observables are measured alongside it.66 The Kochen-Specker (KS) theorem proves that non-contextual hidden variable theories are incompatible with QM for systems with Hilbert space dimension ≥ 3.66 Bell's theorem can be seen as implying contextuality if locality is assumed.83 Bohmian mechanics is contextual for observables other than position.93 - Measurement Independence (Statistical Independence): The assumption that the hidden variables describing the particles are statistically independent of the settings chosen by the experimenters.26 Violating this leads to "superdeterminism," where the state of the particles and the measurement settings are correlated from the beginning, perhaps by some common cause in the past.26 This preserves locality but is often seen as conspiratorial or undermining scientific methodology. - Standard Causality: Some interpretations explore abandoning the assumption of purely forward-in-time causation, allowing for retrocausality, where future measurement settings can influence past hidden variables.26 This can potentially explain Bell correlations locally. 6.5 Alternative Descriptions of Correlation Interpretations that reject a simple LHV framework offer different ways to understand entanglement correlations: - RQM: Views correlations as arising from the consistency requirements between different observers' relative state descriptions. When Alice measures her particle, its state relative to her changes, and the state of Bob's particle relative to her also changes due to the initial entanglement. If Bob measures, his description relative to himself changes. If Alice and Bob later compare results, the interaction involved in comparison ensures consistency. Nonlocal influence is not invoked; properties are fundamentally relational.95 - QBism: Entanglement correlations reflect correlations in an agent's beliefs about the outcomes of measurements on separated systems. The update of beliefs about Bob's particle upon measuring Alice's particle is just standard Bayesian updating, not spooky action. Locality is preserved in the sense that an agent's actions only have consequences in their future light cone.17 - Consistent Histories: Correlations between distant measurements are described as features of globally consistent histories for the entire entangled system. The focus is on the logical and probabilistic structure of these histories, governed by unitary evolution, rather than on causal mechanisms between space-like separated events.97 6.6 Is the Entanglement Formalism a "Trick"? Could the mathematical formalism of entanglement – using shared wavefunctions defined on high-dimensional configuration spaces 23 – be a "trick" that accurately predicts experimental correlations but misleads us about the underlying causal structure, perhaps suggesting nonlocality where none truly exists? [User Query]. Bell's theorem fundamentally demonstrates that no explanation based on classical intuitions of local realism can account for quantum correlations.81 The mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics correctly predicts these correlations, but forces any interpretation seeking to explain why these correlations occur to embrace non-classical features: either nonlocality, contextuality, indeterminism, rejection of measurement independence, or perhaps a relational or subjective view of reality. The "trick" may not lie in the mathematics of entanglement itself, which seems empirically correct, but in our persistent attempt to map it onto a classical causal framework. The formalism works, but it describes a world that operates differently from our classical expectations. The interpretation of the implications of Bell's theorem – whether it primarily reveals nonlocality, the failure of realism, or the failure of statistical independence – remains dependent on the chosen interpretation and its stance on the nature of the wavefunction and probability.83 If Ψ is ontic and describes individual systems, nonlocality seems hard to avoid. If Ψ is epistemic or relational, the "nonlocality" might be understood in terms of correlated knowledge or relative facts, potentially preserving locality at a more fundamental level, albeit at the cost of revising classical notions of reality or causality. The entanglement formalism, therefore, appears less like a misleading trick and more like a precise mathematical description of a deeply non-classical aspect of reality, the full causal and ontological implications of which are still debated. 7. The Nature of Quantum Probability: Ontic Randomness or Epistemic Ignorance? A defining characteristic of quantum mechanics is its inherent probabilistic nature.36 Unlike classical mechanics, which is deterministic at its core, quantum theory typically predicts only the probabilities of different outcomes for measurements on identically prepared systems.1 The status of this probability – whether it reflects a fundamental, objective randomness in nature (ontic) or merely our incomplete knowledge of an underlying deterministic reality (epistemic) – is a central interpretational question.1 7.1 The Standard View: Ontic Randomness The mainstream view, often associated with the Copenhagen interpretation, holds that quantum probability is ontic – an irreducible, fundamental feature of reality.1 The indeterminism is not due to missing information but is intrinsic to quantum processes.1 The probabilities for measurement outcomes are calculated using the Born rule, typically stated as the squared absolute value of the probability amplitude associated with that outcome in the system's wavefunction.1 This rule is usually taken as a fundamental postulate of the theory. 7.2 Epistemic Probability / Hidden Variables An alternative perspective suggests that quantum probabilities are epistemic, arising from our ignorance of a deeper, deterministic level of reality described by "hidden variables".43 If we knew the values of these hidden variables, the outcome of any measurement could, in principle, be predicted with certainty. - Bohmian Mechanics: This is the most well-developed deterministic hidden variable theory.29 It posits particles with definite positions evolving deterministically according to the guiding equation, which depends on the wavefunction.29 The probabilistic predictions of standard quantum mechanics are recovered under the quantum equilibrium hypothesis: the assumption that the initial positions of particles in a system (or the universe) are distributed randomly according to the probability density (|\psi(q)|^2).29 This distribution is preserved by the dynamics (equivariance).45 Thus, in Bohmian mechanics, probability is epistemic, reflecting our ignorance of the precise initial configuration, much like in classical statistical mechanics.29 - Challenges: As discussed previously, Bell's theorem rules out local hidden variable theories 82, and the Kochen-Specker theorem rules out non-contextual ones.66 Bohmian mechanics evades these by being explicitly nonlocal and contextual.29 The quantum equilibrium hypothesis itself also requires justification – why should the initial distribution match the Born rule? 7.3 Subjective Probability - QBism: This interpretation adopts a personalist Bayesian view of probability.17 All probabilities in quantum mechanics, including those derived from the Born rule, represent an agent's subjective degrees of belief (credences) about their future experiences resulting from their actions.8 Probability is fundamentally epistemic, but also agent-dependent. The Born rule is not a description of objective chances but a normative constraint an agent should impose on their beliefs for coherence, beyond standard probability theory.17 7.4 Probability in Other Interpretations - Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI): Probability is notoriously problematic in MWI.10 Since the universal wavefunction evolves deterministically and all possible outcomes occur in different branches, it's unclear what probability refers to. Why should we care about the amplitude squared of a branch if it's guaranteed to exist? Proposed solutions involve: - Subjective Uncertainty: An observer's uncertainty about which branch they will find themselves in post-measurement.10 - Decision Theory: Arguments that rational agents should bet according to the Born rule probabilities.10 - Branch Weight/Measure: Relating probability to the "measure of existence" (squared amplitude) of a branch.10 The status remains debated: is it an emergent ontic property of branches or an epistemic state related to self-location?.10 - Objective Collapse Models (OCM): In these theories, probability is typically considered ontic, arising directly from the fundamentally stochastic nature of the collapse process itself.24 The non-linear, stochastic terms added to the Schrödinger equation dictate the probabilities of collapse into different states, ideally reproducing the Born rule.24 7.5 Is Probability a Fundamental Feature or a "Trick"? The question remains: Is the probabilistic framework of quantum mechanics, particularly the Born rule, a reflection of fundamental indeterminism (ontic probability), a consequence of our limited knowledge of a deterministic reality (epistemic probability), or a tool for guiding subjective beliefs? [User Query]. Could the probabilistic nature be a highly successful "mathematical trick" adopted because the alternatives are unpalatable or undiscovered? Perhaps we embrace indeterminism because a deterministic theory like Bohmian mechanics requires nonlocality and contextuality, which clash with classical intuition.29 Or perhaps the underlying reality is deterministic but vastly larger than our experience (as in MWI), and the Born rule emerges as a rule for observers within branches.10 The status of probability serves as a major dividing line between interpretations, closely linked to their views on determinism and the nature of the quantum state.1 Ontic state + indeterministic dynamics (Copenhagen, OCM) implies ontic probability. Ontic state + deterministic dynamics (Bohmian) implies epistemic probability. Epistemic state (QBism) implies epistemic/subjective probability. MWI struggles to fit probability neatly into either category at the observer level. Furthermore, the origin and status of the Born rule itself remain puzzling across most interpretations.43 It is typically postulated in standard QM. Bohmian mechanics relies on the quantum equilibrium hypothesis, which effectively postulates the Born rule distribution for initial conditions.29 MWI faces significant hurdles in deriving it from its deterministic formalism.10 QBism treats it as an additional normative rule for rational belief.17 OCMs aim to have it emerge from their modified dynamics, but this needs to be demonstrated rigorously.24 The remarkable empirical success of this simple (|\psi|^2) rule, coupled with the lack of a universally accepted derivation or justification, lends credence to the idea that it might be a profound insight whose deeper origin is obscured, or perhaps a highly effective calculational rule – a "trick" – whose success masks underlying complexities or a different reality structure. The question "Why the Born rule?" remains a fundamental challenge in quantum foundations.43 8. Experimental Distinctions and Future Probes While much of the debate surrounding quantum interpretations occurs at a philosophical or conceptual level, the possibility of experimentally distinguishing between them remains a crucial, albeit challenging, pursuit. If different interpretations make distinct empirical predictions, even in subtle or extreme regimes, then the discussion moves beyond mere preference towards potential falsification or confirmation. 8.1 Challenges in Distinguishing Interpretations A major hurdle is that most mainstream interpretations – including standard Copenhagen-style QM, Bohmian mechanics, Many-Worlds, and Consistent Histories – are explicitly constructed to reproduce the same statistical predictions for all standard quantum experiments.98 This empirical equivalence makes direct experimental discrimination difficult.100 Some argue that the differences are purely interpretational or semantic, residing in the stories told about the unobservable processes underlying the agreed-upon measurement outcomes.100 However, others contend that subtle differences might emerge in specific scenarios or that certain interpretations, particularly those modifying the core dynamics, are indeed testable.101 8.2 Proposed Experiments Several experimental avenues have been proposed or are being pursued to probe the boundaries of quantum mechanics and potentially distinguish interpretations: - Macroscopic Quantum Phenomena: Experiments pushing the limits of superposition and interference towards larger, more massive objects.2 This includes matter-wave interferometry with large molecules 40 or nanoparticles 105, and creating quantum states in optomechanical systems like mirrors or cantilevers.50 These experiments directly test the persistence of quantum effects at scales approaching the macroscopic, potentially revealing deviations predicted by Objective Collapse Models (OCMs).63 - Quantum Arrival Time Measurements: Standard QM struggles with defining a time-of-arrival observable. Different theoretical approaches (semiclassical, standard QM methods, quantum flux, Bohmian trajectories) yield slightly different predictions for the joint spatiotemporal distribution of particle detection events, particularly in unconventional setups like modified double-slit experiments.101 It is proposed that high-precision experiments, potentially using single-atom interferometry, could distinguish these predictions.101 - Multi-Detector Correlation Experiments: Asghar Qadir proposed a sequence of experiments using varying configurations of detectors surrounding an entangled source.102 By measuring detection efficiencies and timing correlations in different setups (e.g., full sphere, hemispheres, partially removed detectors, detectors in "shadows", reversed detectors), the proposal aims to elicit distinct statistical patterns predicted by different interpretations (including LHV, MWI, Pilot Wave, Copenhagen, etc.).102 - Contextuality Tests: Experiments designed to test and confirm violations of Kochen-Specker (KS) inequalities provide empirical evidence for quantum contextuality – the dependence of measurement outcomes on the measurement context.92 These tests rule out non-contextual hidden variable theories.92 - Bell Tests: Continued refinement of experiments testing Bell inequalities aims to close remaining loopholes (detection, locality, freedom-of-choice).86 These provide increasingly robust evidence against local hidden variable theories 82 and confirm the non-classical nature of quantum correlations. 8.3 Testing Objective Collapse Models (OCMs) OCMs stand out because they explicitly modify the Schrödinger equation and therefore predict deviations from standard quantum mechanics, making them directly testable in principle.33 Experimental tests generally fall into two categories 33: 1. Interferometric Tests: These experiments aim to create large spatial superpositions of massive objects and look for a reduction in interference contrast or coherence beyond standard environmental decoherence effects. The predicted collapse effect increases with mass and superposition size/duration.33 Examples include matter-wave interferometry with large molecules or clusters 104 and experiments with levitated nanoparticles.105 2. Non-Interferometric Tests: These look for indirect effects of the stochastic "noise" field postulated by OCMs to cause collapse. This noise, besides collapsing superpositions, should also induce a tiny amount of random motion (diffusion) or energy increase in all matter, even when seemingly localized.33 Proposed signatures include: - Anomalous Heating/Diffusion: Detecting unexplained random motion or heating in sensitive systems like cold atoms 33, micro-mechanical oscillators (cantilevers) 33, levitated particles 105, or the test masses in gravitational wave detectors.33 - Spontaneous Radiation Emission: The random acceleration of charged particles (protons, electrons) by the collapse noise should cause them to emit faint electromagnetic radiation (bremsstrahlung), predicted to be primarily in the X-ray range for typical OCM parameters.42 Experiments search for this spontaneous radiation from bulk matter, often conducted in low-background underground laboratories.61 - Other Effects: Searches for unexpected phonon excitations in cryogenic detectors (like CUORE) 63 or noise in novel devices like the "displacemon".50 Current Constraints and Status: These experiments have significantly constrained the parameter space of popular OCMs like CSL and DP.63 Non-interferometric tests, particularly those involving spontaneous radiation searches and gravitational wave detector noise analysis, have currently placed the strongest bounds, ruling out large portions of the originally proposed parameter space.61 For instance, the original parameter values suggested by Ghirardi, Rimini, and Weber for their model are now largely excluded.63 The Diósi-Penrose model, particularly with the theoretically preferred cutoff length (nucleon Compton wavelength), predicts excessive heating rates inconsistent with observations, unless dissipative effects are added or its applicability is restricted.119 Table 8.1 summarizes the current situation. Table 8.1: Experimental Constraints on Objective Collapse Models (OCMs) | | | | | | |---|---|---|---|---| |Model|Key Parameters|Test Type (Examples)|Current Strongest Constraints / Excluded Regions (Illustrative, based on snippets)|Status/Notes| |CSL (Continuous Spontaneous Localization)|Collapse Rate (λ), Correlation Length (r_C)|Interferometric: Matter-wave (molecules, nanoparticles) 104; Optomechanics 63|Upper bounds on λ for given r_C. Bounds becoming stringent, especially for larger r_C.63|Parameter space significantly reduced, but viable regions remain.63 Theoretical values (e.g., Adler's) still partially allowed.63| |||Non-Interferometric: X-ray Emission 61; Cantilever Heating 106; Levitated Particle Diffusion 105; GW Detectors (LISA Pathfinder, LIGO) 63; Cold Atoms 63; Underground Detectors (phonon excitation) 63|Strongest bounds currently from non-interferometric tests, particularly X-ray and GW detectors, excluding large λ values across a wide range of r_C.61|Original GRW value (λ≈10^-16 Hz at r_C=10^-7m) excluded.63 White noise CSL strongly constrained by X-ray tests.61| |DP (Diósi-Penrose)|Cutoff Length (R₀)|Interferometric: Currently weak constraints.63|-|Gravity-related collapse. Original proposal links R₀ to gravitational effects.| |||Non-Interferometric: X-ray Emission 116; Heating/Diffusion (various systems) 105|Strongest bound on R₀ from X-ray emission (R₀ > ~0.5 Å or 5 x 10^-11 m).116 Heating constraints problematic for theoretically preferred R₀ (nucleon Compton wavelength).119|Simplest version (nucleon cutoff, no dissipation) appears ruled out by heating.119 Requires larger R₀ or dissipative extensions.119| |GRW (Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber)|Collapse Rate (λ_GRW ≈ 10^-16 s^-1), Localization Length (r_C ≈ 10^-7 m)|(Discrete version of CSL)|Constraints from CSL tests apply.|Original GRW parameters largely excluded by non-interferometric tests.63| Future Prospects: Ongoing efforts aim to improve experimental sensitivity through larger test masses, longer coherence times, lower background noise (e.g., deep underground labs 116), and novel detection schemes.50 The goal is to either detect definitive evidence of collapse-induced effects or further constrain the OCM parameter space, potentially ruling out these models entirely.117 While most interpretations remain empirically equivalent in standard regimes, the experimental frontiers, particularly those probing macroscopic quantum effects and searching for deviations predicted by OCMs, offer potential pathways for discrimination.62 The active pursuit of such experiments underscores the desire within the physics community to move the interpretation debate beyond purely philosophical arguments and towards empirical grounding.98 However, even when experiments yield potentially discriminating results, their interpretation can itself be complex and potentially interpretation-dependent. As seen with the double-slit experiment 2, different interpretations can provide different explanations for the same observed phenomenon (e.g., loss of interference upon path detection). Similarly, a null result in an OCM test might be interpreted by proponents as merely constraining parameters, while opponents see it as evidence against the model.118 Proposed tests relying on subtle statistical differences 102 might also face challenges in interpretation if results are ambiguous. Thus, while experiments are crucial, they may not provide definitive adjudication between interpretations without accompanying shifts in conceptual understanding or the development of more robust theoretical frameworks. 9. Synthesis: Evaluating the "Mathematical Trick" Hypothesis Having surveyed the interpretational landscape surrounding the core components of quantum mechanics – the wavefunction, superposition, measurement, information, entanglement, and probability – we can now synthesize these findings to evaluate the central hypothesis: To what extent could these mathematical constructs be considered highly successful predictive "tricks" rather than direct descriptions of physical reality? 9.1 Consolidating the Evidence - Wavefunction (Ψ): The status of the wavefunction remains deeply contested. Strong arguments support epistemic, instrumentalist, or relational views (QBism, RQM, some Copenhagen variants), where Ψ is primarily a tool for calculating probabilities or encoding knowledge/beliefs.8 However, the PBR theorem 9 and the explicit ontologies of realist interpretations (MWI, Bohmian mechanics, OCMs) argue for an ontic status, where Ψ represents (at least part of) the physical state.29 The "trick" hypothesis finds support in the epistemic/instrumentalist camp but is challenged by realist arguments. - Superposition: While the mathematical principle of superposition is essential for explaining interference and other quantum phenomena 40, its literal ontological interpretation as simultaneous physical existence is challenged by numerous alternatives. Bohmian mechanics achieves the same predictions via particle trajectories guided by a superposed wave.29 MWI places the literal superposition at the level of branching universes.10 RQM makes it observer-relative 20, and QBism makes it a feature of belief states.17 Experiments confirm the predictive power of the superposition formalism but not its unique ontological interpretation.3 This suggests the mathematical structure works, but its naive physical reading could be the "trick." - Measurement/Collapse: The standard collapse postulate appears ad hoc and problematic.52 Decoherence explains the appearance of classicality and suppression of interference but not the selection of a single outcome.57 Interpretations that avoid fundamental collapse (MWI, Bohm, CH, RQM, QBism) or modify dynamics to induce it physically (OCMs) offer potentially more coherent, albeit diverse, pictures.17 Collapse, in its standard formulation, strongly resembles a "trick" or placeholder needed to reconcile the linear dynamics with observed results. - Quantum Information: The idea of information as a fundamental substance ("It from Qubit") is speculative and faces conceptual hurdles regarding its relationship to matter/energy and its potential tautological nature.68 Arguments viewing information as an abstract quantity, a measure of correlation, or an epistemic concept seem more grounded.72 Quantum information appears more likely to be a powerful descriptive framework – a mathematical tool – rather than a new fundamental "stuff." - Entanglement/Nonlocality: Bell's theorem and experiments decisively rule out local hidden variable theories.81 The quantum formalism correctly predicts these non-classical correlations. However, whether this violation implies "spooky action at a distance" (nonlocality) or the failure of other classical assumptions (realism, contextuality, measurement independence, standard causality) is interpretation-dependent.83 The entanglement formalism accurately captures the correlations, but the common interpretation of nonlocality as its sole implication might be the "trick" if alternative explanations (superdeterminism, retrocausality, relational views) are viable. - Probability: The Born rule is empirically successful but lacks a universally accepted derivation or justification across interpretations.10 Its status – ontic, epistemic, subjective, or emergent – is a major point of divergence. This ambiguity surrounding the origin and nature of quantum probability supports the view that the Born rule might be a remarkably effective calculational rule whose fundamental basis remains unclear, potentially functioning as a highly refined "trick." 9.2 Strengths and Weaknesses of the "Trick" Perspective Viewing the core mathematical constructs of QM as potentially "tricks" has several implications: - Strengths: This perspective readily accounts for QM's immense predictive success without demanding commitment to a specific, often counterintuitive or paradoxical, ontology.23 It aligns well with instrumentalist, pragmatist, or epistemic philosophical stances.9 It acknowledges the profound underdetermination of theory by evidence in the quantum realm 99, suggesting ontological caution is warranted. It highlights the operational core of the theory. - Weaknesses: It can be perceived as anti-realist, potentially hindering the scientific goal of achieving a deeper understanding of reality.38 It struggles to explain why these particular mathematical structures (Hilbert spaces, complex amplitudes, Born rule) are the ones that work so effectively. It might prematurely dismiss evidence pointing towards realism, such as the PBR theorem or the progress in experimentally testing OCMs.9 It fails to satisfy the explanatory drive that motivates much of the work in quantum foundations.39 9.3 Relation to Broader Philosophical Stances The plausibility of the "mathematical trick" hypothesis depends significantly on one's background philosophy of science: - Instrumentalism/Anti-realism: Fits naturally. If theories are just tools for prediction, their mathematical elements don't need to map directly onto reality.9 - Realism: Presents a challenge. Realists must either argue that the mathematics does represent reality, however strange (e.g., MWI's branching universes 31, Bohmian mechanics' configuration space wave 29, OCM's physical collapse 33), or propose that the current formalism is an approximation of a deeper, perhaps unknown, realist theory. Contextual Realism 38 offers a nuanced path, suggesting the math represents reality as accessed through specific experimental contexts, denying access to an uncontextualized "reality in itself." - Structural Realism (SR): Offers a potential reconciliation. Ontic Structural Realism (OSR) posits that the mathematical structure described by the theory is what is real, rather than the objects or entities (like a field-like wavefunction) that supposedly instantiate it.39 From this perspective, the QM formalism isn't a "trick" but a revelation of the relational structure of reality. The "trick" might be the attempt to impose a classical ontology of objects with intrinsic properties onto this structure.39 9.4 Explanatory Power vs. Predictive Convenience Does treating the QM formalism as a potential "trick" diminish its explanatory power? Interpretations that embrace an epistemic or instrumentalist stance (like QBism) often focus on clarifying the role of the agent and the nature of probability, potentially sacrificing a traditional ontological explanation of why the world behaves quantum mechanically.17 Conversely, realist interpretations like MWI or Bohmian mechanics offer detailed ontological stories but face challenges regarding extravagance (MWI's unobservable worlds 41) or conflicts with other principles (Bohmian nonlocality 29). OCMs offer a realist explanation via modified dynamics but introduce new physics requiring experimental verification.33 There appears to be a trade-off between predictive convenience/operational clarity and ontological/explanatory depth across the interpretational spectrum. The "mathematical trick" hypothesis itself is not monolithic. It seems more applicable to specific postulates added to the core formalism (like wave function collapse) or to particular ontological readings (like literal superposition of macroscopic objects) than to the fundamental mathematical framework (Hilbert spaces, Schrödinger evolution) that underpins the theory's predictive success across all interpretations. Furthermore, the very persistence and divergence of the interpretation debate 1, with multiple, radically different ontological pictures being compatible with the same empirical data 99, lends credence to the idea that the formalism underdetermines the ontology. This underdetermination suggests that the mathematical structure might function as a remarkably successful predictive framework without uniquely specifying the underlying reality, aligning with the spirit of the "trick" hypothesis or potentially pointing towards structural realism. 10. Conclusion The investigation into whether the core mathematical constructs of quantum mechanics function as highly effective predictive "tricks" rather than direct representations of physical reality reveals a complex and deeply interpretation-dependent landscape. The wavefunction's status remains ambiguous, with compelling arguments supporting both ontic (reality-representing) and epistemic/instrumentalist (knowledge/tool-representing) views. Superposition, while mathematically essential for explaining interference, finds its literal physical interpretation challenged by numerous alternatives that reproduce empirical results without positing simultaneous existence in the same world. The standard postulate of wave function collapse appears particularly vulnerable to the "trick" characterization, given the success of decoherence in explaining its appearance and the existence of coherent interpretations (MWI, Bohmian, CH, RQM, QBism, OCM) that avoid or modify it. Quantum information seems more plausibly an abstract descriptive framework than a fundamental substance. Entanglement, confirmed by Bell tests to defy local realism, showcases the formalism's predictive power in describing non-classical correlations, but the specific ontological implications (nonlocality vs. failure of other classical assumptions) remain debated. The probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, particularly the Born rule, stands as a remarkably successful yet poorly understood element across most interpretations, lending itself to characterization as a fundamental law, an epistemic rule, or perhaps a profound "trick" whose origins are obscure. The "mathematical trick" hypothesis finds strength in QM's unparalleled predictive power coupled with its persistent interpretational paradoxes and ontological ambiguity. It aligns with philosophical positions emphasizing empirical adequacy over ontological commitment. However, it faces weaknesses in potentially undermining the search for deeper explanation and failing to account for why these specific mathematical structures are so successful. Its plausibility varies depending on the specific quantum feature and the interpretive lens adopted. Ultimately, the question cannot be answered with a simple affirmation or denial. The mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics is undeniably more than just a "trick" in the sense of being arbitrary; it captures profound truths about the behavior of the physical world at its most fundamental level. However, the persistent interpretational divergence and the challenges in mapping its abstract structures (like complex wavefunctions on configuration space) directly onto intuitive pictures of reality suggest that the relationship between the formalism and the reality it describes is subtle and non-trivial. The mathematics might be a remarkably effective language for predicting phenomena in a world whose fundamental nature resists description in classical terms, potentially involving inherent relationality, contextuality, or observer-dependence. The enduring measurement problem, the quest for the origin of quantum probability, and the challenge of reconciling quantum mechanics with gravity remain central open questions. Progress hinges on the continued interplay between theoretical innovation – refining existing interpretations and exploring new ones – and experimental investigation, particularly tests probing the quantum-classical boundary and searching for deviations predicted by theories like Objective Collapse Models.62 While experiments may eventually constrain or falsify specific interpretations, the fundamental question of how our most successful physical theory relates to the reality it describes is likely to remain a source of profound scientific and philosophical inquiry. The "mathematical trick" hypothesis serves as a valuable critical perspective in this ongoing quest, reminding us to distinguish rigorously between the predictive power of our mathematical tools and the ultimate nature of the world they seek to represent. #### Works cited 1. Interpretations of quantum mechanics - Wikipedia, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049905598%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw0mItCwXn_FPRJm9vC0FSCV&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050002786&usg=AOvVaw2oQaUdplmVKchfuYzftWzC) 2. Quantum mechanics - Interpretation, Wave-Particle Duality, Uncertainty | Britannica, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://www.britannica.com/science/quantum-mechanics-physics/The-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.britannica.com/science/quantum-mechanics-physics/The-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049906017%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw1xpHdLYMBmyFCN04L-elfw&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050003272&usg=AOvVaw1z-vHRmIabxihEDFgE2p8J) 3. Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://iep.utm.edu/int-qm/](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://iep.utm.edu/int-qm/%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049906244%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw13OrOD9ZJO86wvEXqcbaVj&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050003408&usg=AOvVaw2KytIsUSty5fj6756y6tY1) 4. Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-copenhagen/](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-copenhagen/%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049906534%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw0UfKV-drXmTihQJL0nCzgN&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050003503&usg=AOvVaw2BA5j8mHt6spwFhEZJtlip) 5. Quantum Mechanics - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm/](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm/%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049906780%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw08ZwRikpdbzK6fhSy5uroW&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050003625&usg=AOvVaw3ufB0qhAPbxPIryGCTa_Nx) 6. Realism about the Wave Function - PhilArchive, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://philarchive.org/archive/CHERAT-5](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://philarchive.org/archive/CHERAT-5%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049907034%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw39dWtcOj_o2jDj1OYtGB8b&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050003749&usg=AOvVaw2663edsvXCacdP_fqk5ZkA) 7. Realism about the Wave Function - arXiv, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.07010](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.07010%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049907285%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw1P5FfJXH-6YNVBBGKkCQ7w&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050003881&usg=AOvVaw37NMvdZW0f5FCjRFRX-Myj) 8. QBism and Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger experiments: A simple worked example - Bucknell University, accessed April 16, 2025, [http://www.eg.bucknell.edu/~mligare/qbism_ghz.pdf](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttp://www.eg.bucknell.edu/~mligare/qbism_ghz.pdf%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049907631%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw0iQ9_-OTrfedcNoz2sXiZR&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050004012&usg=AOvVaw2pzUTy3KVv34as4MPhPich) 9. Philosophical Issues in Quantum Theory - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-issues/](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-issues/%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049907908%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw1eZitRVtb6KuyW1JAD6gEY&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050004139&usg=AOvVaw0Q_Kf_3ADsejpjPNuX6ArO) 10. Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (Stanford ..., accessed April 16, 2025, [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049908165%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw1gG8aBZ-hnP_IXbfW-6Mhn&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050004223&usg=AOvVaw2YdCII1VpVJY2m9IfaVwtv) 11. Modal Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-modal/](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-modal/%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049908503%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw3dmR3wdvr3CwJ0Ytz9HxqT&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050004358&usg=AOvVaw2ncJ19rJeCF6i_5XeBmbAH) 12. Does quantum information require additional structure? - arXiv, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://arxiv.org/html/2408.11183v1](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://arxiv.org/html/2408.11183v1%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049908865%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw2_ufjLa0SWWrCJmL05Qe3p&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050004432&usg=AOvVaw1paQDizLHrBnSFyKjCB9PC) 13. On the Classification Between -Ontic and -Epistemic Ontological Models, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://d-nb.info/1220274224/34](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://d-nb.info/1220274224/34%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049909113%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw1nLNrllHdACdub7XtmnNMN&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050004521&usg=AOvVaw0WHoIXCeu9HhvlN4elVLDI) 14. wavefunction - What are the differences between a $\psi$-epistemic ..., accessed April 16, 2025, [https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290522/what-are-the-differences-between-a-psi-epistemic-ontological-model-and-a-ps](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290522/what-are-the-differences-between-a-psi-epistemic-ontological-model-and-a-ps%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049909521%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw0tlm0lGTyjyApZeLBLo5UM&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050004603&usg=AOvVaw3vf_fnosZUeY-9C1nQ3lpt) 15. philsci-archive.pitt.edu, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/21411/1/onto-models.pdf](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/21411/1/onto-models.pdf%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049909748%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw3_OEDCuE7dlj7HjxkXcrPB&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050004702&usg=AOvVaw0nFiL4b9g_GGMwJneKkvbL) 16. Quantum Dynamics Happens Only on Paper QBism's Account of Decoherence - arXiv, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://arxiv.org/html/2312.14112v1](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://arxiv.org/html/2312.14112v1%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049910049%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw3IyNGCHz8altktEvZErHGN&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050004784&usg=AOvVaw0bblPqGQI3_WD6XTP6WYbk) 17. Quantum Bayesianism - Wikipedia, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Bayesianism](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Bayesianism%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049910275%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw2RH-feOG4Br3xCltjjkCvq&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050004864&usg=AOvVaw2JoTSpydkJirG5QAwNAmER) 18. Review of QBism: The Future of Quantum Physics - Chapman University Digital Commons, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1559&context=scs_articles](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article%253D1559%2526context%253Dscs_articles%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049910631%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw2mzjJopWrOA8D8saGvxBU_&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050004968&usg=AOvVaw15F8FPfdzjtYWMT0itFIXI) 19. Quantum-Bayesian and Pragmatist Views of Quantum Theory - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quantum-bayesian/](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quantum-bayesian/%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049910927%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw3nflFy-beH80ZCu1Y49prx&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050005090&usg=AOvVaw2xj37CWDsN-mXYslgI418y) 20. Relational Quantum Mechanics - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-relational/](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-relational/%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049911207%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw0t_F7FoLaQvSTziYOxA2vl&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050005174&usg=AOvVaw3OwNqaZxfFu-FKw3wy30bg) 21. Relational Quantum Mechanics - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://plato.stanford.edu/archIves/fall2024/entries/qm-relational/](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://plato.stanford.edu/archIves/fall2024/entries/qm-relational/%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049911491%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw0-xhrmuyqoDKZt9zcjsxtZ&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050005268&usg=AOvVaw0KiWQVRO1xYuJ_DVVjzNB1) 22. Relational quantum mechanics - Wikipedia, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_quantum_mechanics](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_quantum_mechanics%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049911730%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw0aRm-oW_BaZihgTmovFuAO&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050005372&usg=AOvVaw0OLqgt2DJVBA_pBLBR1l9t) 23. Realism and instrumentalism about the wave function. How should we choose? - CORE, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/19445768.pdf](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/19445768.pdf%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049911995%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw25IBGaaBa2IHhssm9oNYuu&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050005464&usg=AOvVaw1dLYcK5yRZwpbd_jJpqLx6) 24. Measurement problem - Wikipedia, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049912213%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw30R019-30hSY9-ZR8KXTZz&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050005545&usg=AOvVaw2xng7kktsWyqrZJ6AwxarS) 25. What Is Ontic and What Is Epistemic in the Quantum Mechanics of Spin? - MDPI, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/27/3/315](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/27/3/315%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049912454%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw1YicvPDlpZjk5Pdx023R4R&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050005629&usg=AOvVaw2MPYyyR1b4r5ZYKNXSo6k6) 26. philsci-archive.pitt.edu, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/18545/1/ExoticCausality_vPP.pdf](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/18545/1/ExoticCausality_vPP.pdf%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049912722%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw0hOi8LHc7B78d0L_7Zpd_G&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050005715&usg=AOvVaw32XNGTagzajjObER40LZff) 27. A nonstandard formulation of Bohmian mechanics - UCI Mathematics, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://www.math.uci.edu/~isaac/invaders.pdf](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.math.uci.edu/~isaac/invaders.pdf%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049912967%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw3_mFoYRijPjWkMZQsUOS-n&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050005794&usg=AOvVaw2w81fF1PZCDLqM7RC2NYzc) 28. plato.stanford.edu, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/#:~:text=In%20Bohmian%20mechanics%20a%20system,actual%20positions%20of%20the%20particles.](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/%2523:~:text%253DIn%252520Bohmian%252520mechanics%252520a%252520system,actual%252520positions%252520of%252520the%252520particles.%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049913270%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw3ddtatt7i0LlJGdbvKxWml&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050005932&usg=AOvVaw1yh8V3_TEgwappsGvMJ3pE) 29. Bohmian Mechanics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy), accessed April 16, 2025, [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049913495%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw0ZMteaFpSBwexpkwS1PRFI&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050006079&usg=AOvVaw1OF5EzDwd9E-IK2VacJT0e) 30. Can the ontology of Bohmian mechanics consists only in particles? The PBR theorem says no - arXiv, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://arxiv.org/html/2501.03275v1](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://arxiv.org/html/2501.03275v1%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049913755%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw2R4yWZsjR2J7PGZDNhqlSX&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050006195&usg=AOvVaw0drxIL5eoj1AF3EB4zMvOL) 31. Many-worlds interpretation - Wikipedia, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049914001%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw2BsqUXJ5ncXRlP7uaM5fha&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050006277&usg=AOvVaw2NNx4laygN0YVyRG4-Hu43) 32. Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://plato.stanford.edu/archivES/FALL2017/Entries/qm-manyworlds/](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://plato.stanford.edu/archivES/FALL2017/Entries/qm-manyworlds/%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049914310%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw32-FnhWxy1kZ9qZCPusQNV&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050006390&usg=AOvVaw3wp6GBYWx37pl9EvxfV-2V) 33. Objective-collapse theory - Wikipedia, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective-collapse_theory](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective-collapse_theory%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049914558%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw1uaCRtXfu8fOmdFJjJfeS-&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050006492&usg=AOvVaw1bHdOildI1X6uIuh5wmell) 34. Collapse Theories - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-collapse/](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-collapse/%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049914866%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw3dkJtIRmP-Fp6FldmVQB13&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050006596&usg=AOvVaw1ujtYlLZKIaZOIbC2I-FQR) 35. Mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics - Wikipedia, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_formulation_of_quantum_mechanics](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_formulation_of_quantum_mechanics%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049915173%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw3rAQje5IFWAE58l2NKmF1Z&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050006701&usg=AOvVaw3fByJRA0Tnv_9Ru6nrElp6) 36. Quantum mechanics - Wikipedia, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049915473%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw3TyuHIMzdeFfQ7QW5j3OUm&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050006787&usg=AOvVaw2NtKwsFgo3bLNmGCAHRgUU) 37. Complex Numbers? It's Complicated: Philosopher Explores The ..., accessed April 16, 2025, [https://thequantuminsider.com/2024/09/28/complex-numbers-its-complicated-philosopher-explores-the-important-but-maybe-not-indispensable-role-of-complex-numbers-in-quantum-mechanics/](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://thequantuminsider.com/2024/09/28/complex-numbers-its-complicated-philosopher-explores-the-important-but-maybe-not-indispensable-role-of-complex-numbers-in-quantum-mechanics/%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049916090%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw3hoizLOJhmU15xwNtO7kSh&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050006950&usg=AOvVaw0duI2PqbJvKJhWzj_oQHUB) 38. philsci-archive.pitt.edu, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/9042/1/Realism_and_Objectivism_in_Quantum_Mechanics.pdf](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/9042/1/Realism_and_Objectivism_in_Quantum_Mechanics.pdf%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049916527%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw00RSfTIDXDD8boO02LI7P6&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050007058&usg=AOvVaw1o3YleM0o8WWetR4gaKTvd) 39. Ontic structural realism and the interpretation of quantum mechanics - PhilSci-Archive, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/9091/1/OSR-ont0412.pdf](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/9091/1/OSR-ont0412.pdf%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049916852%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw3ZiDmuER-GJ3EC_xZ3NKri&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050007147&usg=AOvVaw1EUz6rxre4OCP2rCs4GiZF) 40. Quantum superposition - Wikipedia, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049917139%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw2K5DFP_OrQoiUj9n2L28j8&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050007223&usg=AOvVaw2DoSs6-UiFBdtCN-EnPVCi) 41. A Comparative Analysis of Interpretations Addressing the Measurement Problem in Quantum Mechanics - The Cupola: Scholarship at Gettysburg College, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2201&context=student_scholarship](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://cupola.gettysburg.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article%253D2201%2526context%253Dstudent_scholarship%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049917558%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw1Sx2-iZRQwBSnu3BUJAPRO&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050007312&usg=AOvVaw0Y-YVlPt8-EKEiFmwLta0V) 42. Quantum Paradoxes Unraveled by New X-Ray Techniques - SciTechDaily, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://scitechdaily.com/quantum-paradoxes-unraveled-by-new-x-ray-techniques/](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://scitechdaily.com/quantum-paradoxes-unraveled-by-new-x-ray-techniques/%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049917860%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw1Bxx-9VidUDYqSmIg5lc1q&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050007405&usg=AOvVaw1FRU_Ty7kGg8Bddu1Q9RhR) 43. Epistemic vs. Ontic Uncertainty in Quantum Mechanics – Are We Misinterpreting the “Uncertainty”? : r/QuantumPhysics - Reddit, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://www.reddit.com/r/QuantumPhysics/comments/1iec228/epistemic_vs_ontic_uncertainty_in_quantum/](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.reddit.com/r/QuantumPhysics/comments/1iec228/epistemic_vs_ontic_uncertainty_in_quantum/%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049918244%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw3Xdl-HsmVdwYlO5ig8JZU5&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050007497&usg=AOvVaw041fNcN-E9uN2KFS78va1W) 44. Is Superposition Really an "OR"? - Matt Strassler, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://profmattstrassler.com/2025/04/14/is-superposition-really-an-or/](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://profmattstrassler.com/2025/04/14/is-superposition-really-an-or/%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049918512%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw1GHHsiwX6mtsmX8Ko_cjBY&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050007579&usg=AOvVaw2mc0pXwdbgefLAtGc8MHdc) 45. Bohmian Mechanics - rutgers math, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://sites.math.rutgers.edu/~oldstein/papers/bm.pdf](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://sites.math.rutgers.edu/~oldstein/papers/bm.pdf%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049918745%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw10LpawVtBI3sjtgo7xU-Ny&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050007656&usg=AOvVaw2p92TQmdcBKbIWtpCnb7sT) 46. Why the Many-Worlds Interpretation Has Many Problems - Quanta Magazine, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-the-many-worlds-interpretation-has-many-problems-20181018/](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.quantamagazine.org/why-the-many-worlds-interpretation-has-many-problems-20181018/%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049919062%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw3hwBuTosV1oDnnUfDldDm1&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050007795&usg=AOvVaw2yH7cOsTzmpQXfAzt-dnXA) 47. Consistent histories - Wikipedia, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_histories](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_histories%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049919284%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw10lcu3CFC_MqCq5bVkeYyi&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050007962&usg=AOvVaw2V10OKkD3sDvp4vvW1-xrk) 48. The Consistent Histories Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics - PhilSci-Archive, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/4549/2/FinalCH.pdf](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/4549/2/FinalCH.pdf%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049919545%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw1HEOhnhId4lCYTMbcpOjQQ&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050008106&usg=AOvVaw1awb6xlnHuZbg1GyfI_CBm) 49. Quantum Paradoxes Unraveled by New X-Ray Techniques : r/Futurology - Reddit, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1g5kr6g/quantum_paradoxes_unraveled_by_new_xray_techniques/](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1g5kr6g/quantum_paradoxes_unraveled_by_new_xray_techniques/%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049919871%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw1Vqu_Emg4-B_5vmkVBBhE2&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050008238&usg=AOvVaw3uiwhUpFMom2fH7cQ4tWn4) 50. Can the displacemon device test objective collapse models? - ResearchGate, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357261359_Can_the_displacemon_device_test_objective_collapse_models](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/357261359_Can_the_displacemon_device_test_objective_collapse_models%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049920248%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw0R8vLYzpP0EFlL0kR-FAVM&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050008390&usg=AOvVaw2uunjfNoI8WRmrqQsku70x) 51. Student ability to distinguish between superposition states and mixed states in quantum mechanics - Physical Review Link Manager, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.11.020135](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.11.020135%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049920628%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw1pgiArDSUs511NQBK75GMa&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050008541&usg=AOvVaw1phMdnBtuR9rGhnkWPCJD2) 52. The Measurement Problem - University of Pittsburgh, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://sites.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/quantum_theory_measurement/index.html](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://sites.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/quantum_theory_measurement/index.html%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049920961%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw0IyVZrbbLeNyT-TgVhAS45&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050008640&usg=AOvVaw0U4ue5RMpC4AFsScJ-4x-z) 53. Interpreting the Many Worlds Interpretation - Sites@Rutgers, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://sites.rutgers.edu/barry-loewer/wp-content/uploads/sites/195/2019/06/Albert-Loewer-Interpreting-the-Many-Worlds-Interpretation.pdf](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://sites.rutgers.edu/barry-loewer/wp-content/uploads/sites/195/2019/06/Albert-Loewer-Interpreting-the-Many-Worlds-Interpretation.pdf%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049921355%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw3-9vOFEUGnIKyMc-syVUJ8&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050008737&usg=AOvVaw0DY1_V9MFydqmhYkXhIZbm) 54. Understanding Quantum Mechanics #5: Decoherence - Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction, accessed April 16, 2025, [http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2020/08/understanding-quantum-mechanics-5.html](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttp://backreaction.blogspot.com/2020/08/understanding-quantum-mechanics-5.html%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049921707%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw15bcWbScZV-4nrCJB2Tspe&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050008840&usg=AOvVaw1Xt6vrmG9tqHBseHq3WrXk) 55. Everett's interpretation and Convivial Solipsism - arXiv, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://arxiv.org/pdf/2301.07532](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://arxiv.org/pdf/2301.07532%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049922061%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw34zBhmdoMh9b7IGappJAtQ&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050008925&usg=AOvVaw3wgGvaHcZguWMgGmHKi942) 56. Quantum decoherence - Wikipedia, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049922282%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw1-rHfFkpLgmkA8pTwd5Nih&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050009016&usg=AOvVaw2cLhVdRQqgJRUiE4px9Q0n) 57. Decoherence, the measurement problem, and interpretations of ..., accessed April 16, 2025, [https://link.aps.org/pdf/10.1103/RevModPhys.76.1267](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://link.aps.org/pdf/10.1103/RevModPhys.76.1267%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049922533%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw2Jcwh7PJ_0sOSgrJMTGGfk&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050009103&usg=AOvVaw1YpLuEiWVprT9PbW3Nmgv0) 58. Decoherence, the measurement problem and realism | PhilSci-Archive, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/22497/1/Decoherence%2C_the_measurement_problem_and_realism.pdf](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/22497/1/Decoherence%25252C_the_measurement_problem_and_realism.pdf%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049922859%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw10dRJgUbchFPyFtqUggYy_&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050009182&usg=AOvVaw11iiULozpHnenytayQA2nE) 59. quantum mechanics - Decoherence and collapse - Physics Stack Exchange, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/38221/decoherence-and-collapse](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/38221/decoherence-and-collapse%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049923153%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw0TmPpgirkbKDsdc1iX6B3A&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050009264&usg=AOvVaw0Z-FvMqGz3baNP5YUbpiNC) 60. The Quantum Measurement Problem: A Review of Recent Trends arXiv:2502.19278v1 [quant-ph] 26 Feb 2025, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://arxiv.org/pdf/2502.19278](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://arxiv.org/pdf/2502.19278%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049923468%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw2YX1ajFN5zXLhqBa_aUh1M&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050009343&usg=AOvVaw0q90xWbr8fWPlXJ_-BKsrB) 61. PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 129, 080401 (2022) Search for Spontaneous Radiation from Wave Function Collapse, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10359712](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10359712%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049923782%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw3O-ANbEZG2bQB5c7CyQgFn&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050009418&usg=AOvVaw3iiXmsYh9pSeNdCRaYj5jW) 62. Collapse Models: A Theoretical, Experimental and Philosophical Review - MDPI, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/25/4/645](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/25/4/645%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049924036%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw1aeet7JawEbWzYHpaSmFy-&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050009491&usg=AOvVaw0cEvaqHMYLpZ4qPyzWgQYb) 63. Collapse models and gravitational decoherence at test: How far can we push the limits of quantum mechanics? - arXiv, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.05284](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.05284%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049924285%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw2cys0xK_eZjBPFijvIEzhG&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050009568&usg=AOvVaw25nriBgHggdaX-Yqv9F55b) 64. Collapse Models: A Theoretical, Experimental and Philosophical Review - PhilSci-Archive, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/22670/1/entropyopenaccess.pdf](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/22670/1/entropyopenaccess.pdf%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049924573%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw1OjmyqS6vMe7eBoe1v89BR&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050009649&usg=AOvVaw2WTkIbl9QU07Sjb1kZp39o) 65. The Kochen-Specker Theorem - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://plato.stanford.edu/archIves/fall2006/entries/kochen-specker/](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://plato.stanford.edu/archIves/fall2006/entries/kochen-specker/%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049924847%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw1rqQZ7pgUEMGh_NVWwLPuB&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050009735&usg=AOvVaw3SUgVtGWiIuaKiAlswOKch) 66. The Kochen-Specker Theorem (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy), accessed April 16, 2025, [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kochen-specker/](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kochen-specker/%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049925088%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw25nwkjeoqvclaxDh_0slBF&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050009849&usg=AOvVaw0DCgOe-vZWptwJTJseZzxF) 67. QBism and the Limits of Scientific Realism - PhilSci-Archive, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/18863/7/QBism_EJPS.pdf](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/18863/7/QBism_EJPS.pdf%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049925432%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw1sljc5EQ7dAMtdRhqUBqhH&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050009940&usg=AOvVaw1oIcFJcDbABXeCDCH9g5hH) 68. The Second Quantum Revolution and Its Philosophical Meaning - MDPI, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://www.mdpi.com/2504-3900/81/1/71](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.mdpi.com/2504-3900/81/1/71%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049925746%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw3z0xxZloDtUa3POZOwc23-&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050010018&usg=AOvVaw36aDHsqCldgXXWTiLYyiOA) 69. It From Bit or Bit From It?: On Physics and Information | Request PDF - ResearchGate, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321615168_It_From_Bit_or_Bit_From_It_On_Physics_and_Information](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/321615168_It_From_Bit_or_Bit_From_It_On_Physics_and_Information%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049926123%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw1StKWlF_tfPZxGBXjCDbca&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050010098&usg=AOvVaw0nOVoRN06R30sAFoQjB3cg) 70. David Deutsch, It from qubit - PhilPapers, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://philpapers.org/rec/DEUIFQ](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://philpapers.org/rec/DEUIFQ%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049926397%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw2rFExC5CqV_1iK6P4fIQYb&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050010179&usg=AOvVaw1n84Rbnt2uv3b48nFAxkUD) 71. It from Qubit: How to Draw Quantum Contextuality - ResearchGate, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237000385_It_from_Qubit_How_to_Draw_Quantum_Contextuality](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/237000385_It_from_Qubit_How_to_Draw_Quantum_Contextuality%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049926727%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw0LDQ2nLQceUBE1wEVBjU7D&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050010255&usg=AOvVaw27ztvLeamdMh-tpOiW-mG2) 72. Bit from It - Julian Barbour, accessed April 16, 2025, [http://platonia.com/bit_from_it.pdf](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttp://platonia.com/bit_from_it.pdf%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049926915%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw39AMwEY7BTNfu5cri4Nzst&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050010334&usg=AOvVaw1UtT3yQooqYJogk8m5PY3H) 73. Ali Barzegar, Afshin Shafiee & Mostafa Taqavi, “It from Bit” and Quantum Mechanics - PhilPapers, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://philpapers.org/rec/BARIFB-4](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://philpapers.org/rec/BARIFB-4%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049927252%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw3aqTwGwE2U0WON8uJpreuW&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050010423&usg=AOvVaw10mhyyrROPSDeofSLafWEl) 74. Blog Archive » Lecture notes! Intro to Quantum Information Science - Shtetl-Optimized, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=3943](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://scottaaronson.blog/?p%253D3943%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049927508%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw0nMGOjlsUcAr_k-fOd6KGg&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050010500&usg=AOvVaw315MPz6Bl4FLdvEFwiMbxr) 75. quanta.ws, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://quanta.ws/ojs/index.php/quanta/article/download/24/88](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://quanta.ws/ojs/index.php/quanta/article/download/24/88%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049927803%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw2Y9oyVwXBTscZdnOxfzOF0&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050010570&usg=AOvVaw0Y8ahMdfAdRgCT8iIE55b1) 76. Realism and Antirealism in Informational Foundations of Quantum Theory - ResearchGate, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274451883_Realism_and_Antirealism_in_Informational_Foundations_of_Quantum_Theory](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/274451883_Realism_and_Antirealism_in_Informational_Foundations_of_Quantum_Theory%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049928210%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw1W6RnsEI9eNcdWFb63iuI6&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050010658&usg=AOvVaw0zLjqqJh0UKQOeGosI4YoN) 77. Ontology - The Information Philosopher, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://informationphilosopher.com/books/problems/Ontology.pdf](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://informationphilosopher.com/books/problems/Ontology.pdf%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049928464%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw2YD8sLh9fwslSkm4Fw21Yg&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050010742&usg=AOvVaw0xxdgwjaqZu1AiSe6YF7Fv) 78. [Ontology] Is information concrete or abstract? : r/askphilosophy - Reddit, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/9yexp9/ontology_is_information_concrete_or_abstract/](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/9yexp9/ontology_is_information_concrete_or_abstract/%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049928827%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw0Xka7G8TRjpDc6Yl7oTdEI&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050010838&usg=AOvVaw2wUxTMEZlYkhic1n3S2pW-) 79. Ontologies of common sense, physics and mathematics - PhilArchive, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://philarchive.org/archive/LANOOC](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://philarchive.org/archive/LANOOC%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049929095%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw0iFZZc2dHN6PWQY4AeXlIr&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050010919&usg=AOvVaw2Vu8e4MuVqvUg6_A7q0NDY) 80. arXiv:2408.11183v3 [quant-ph] 26 Feb 2025, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://arxiv.org/pdf/2408.11183](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://arxiv.org/pdf/2408.11183%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049929317%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw2Xg8uCLoCve9lpI7j_DldV&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050010995&usg=AOvVaw2hhEE6XuHYCara-RYWDuq8) 81. Bell's theorem - Scholarpedia, accessed April 16, 2025, [http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Bell%27s_theorem](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttp://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Bell%252527s_theorem%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049929539%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw06HkYLjgC7Wt-BzkgvAaXi&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050011068&usg=AOvVaw2XFkKA2-Jy4iIx6BEXwZB-) 82. Hidden-variable theory - Wikipedia, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden-variable_theory](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden-variable_theory%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049929785%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw3AyPKHcL_z8WIU5CdOe3CX&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050011147&usg=AOvVaw0HqPPX1OYDHxA42gPwIA6I) 83. Bell's Theorem 55 Years On - The University of Chicago Press: Journals, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/pb-assets/docs/journals/bjps/bell-intro-1612984433587.pdf](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.journals.uchicago.edu/pb-assets/docs/journals/bjps/bell-intro-1612984433587.pdf%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049930090%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw1sF6dOuCc543qunmlERdY2&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050011226&usg=AOvVaw0Te6QtnJZCt5VhR_kcm3Ya) 84. Bell's theorem - Wikipedia, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%252527s_theorem%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049930297%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw0iLsms4AJvGKcQb16B_cX6&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050011308&usg=AOvVaw19qhcRANtPucn9iiD25JUz) 85. Hidden Variables and Bell's Theorem: Local or Not - PhilSci-Archive, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/23378/1/dBB-vs-SD-info-revised-2.pdf](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/23378/1/dBB-vs-SD-info-revised-2.pdf%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049930708%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw2tTotEXiIGVYje1uwWriju&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050011387&usg=AOvVaw1Dl6b5iCHk1TRdIRCQm3So) 86. (PDF) Experimental Test of Local Hidden-Variable Theories - ResearchGate, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255881438_Experimental_Test_of_Local_Hidden-Variable_Theories](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/255881438_Experimental_Test_of_Local_Hidden-Variable_Theories%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049931084%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw1XWyep3ml_7Hh_9W7Y1oTT&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050011469&usg=AOvVaw3Yfvpi1vxeOWI24pKwgSG3) 87. The incompatibility between local hidden variable theories and the fundamental conservation laws - Indian Academy of Sciences, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/pram/065/03/0359-0379](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/pram/065/03/0359-0379%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049931451%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw1vmaALSitZEl6U997pnmUz&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050011554&usg=AOvVaw2v-xWmLHlhja5OzN9nfJR7) 88. An Expansion of Current Loopholes in Bell Experiments - NHSJS, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://nhsjs.com/2025/an-expansion-of-current-loopholes-in-bell-experiments/](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://nhsjs.com/2025/an-expansion-of-current-loopholes-in-bell-experiments/%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049931752%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw3rBIDaXXHoFcwgK0mlwnog&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050011682&usg=AOvVaw0XoIU1cG6lStH258UKncrX) 89. Making Sense of Bell's Theorem and Quantum Nonlocality - PhilArchive, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://philarchive.org/archive/BOUMSO](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://philarchive.org/archive/BOUMSO%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049931985%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw08kPwVt3FEE9lzbZ_HCa2w&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050011765&usg=AOvVaw3d-9jxQX_h33w2oNt5ja7K) 90. Quantum Nonlocality and Reality: 50 Years of Bell's Theorem | Reviews, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/quantum-nonlocality-and-reality-50-years-of-bells-theorem/](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/quantum-nonlocality-and-reality-50-years-of-bells-theorem/%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049932323%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw03tZombR5J8QRP5Ue4WIhj&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050011850&usg=AOvVaw2qhNEuWikFTexD9xr4EPJp) 91. Bell's Theorem - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bell-theorem/](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bell-theorem/%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049932576%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw0MadhzrgJt1cTXbwO2hrkD&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050011952&usg=AOvVaw2kXZ9NxGftQH3clx1mWFEu) 92. Kochen–Specker theorem - Wikipedia, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kochen%E2%80%93Specker_theorem](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kochen%2525E2%252580%252593Specker_theorem%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049932849%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw3XKc9fkcbNvhgJo7jQpRy5&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050012037&usg=AOvVaw1w8rfV43hsdysLxuA9ew_1) 93. Recent review article: "Kochen-Specker Contextuality" : r/QuantumPhysics - Reddit, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://www.reddit.com/r/QuantumPhysics/comments/xpigsv/recent_review_article_kochenspecker_contextuality/](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.reddit.com/r/QuantumPhysics/comments/xpigsv/recent_review_article_kochenspecker_contextuality/%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049933202%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw0cNb3UUgl9sns_q8zAHRg6&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050012134&usg=AOvVaw3Cb_vgsbv-oVQ7rKywxoPW) 94. Retrocausality in Quantum Mechanics - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-retrocausality/](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-retrocausality/%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049933462%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw1Alc7T4-qKNZgj_7OVtRKi&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050012219&usg=AOvVaw0-4licnT4m36KMvh0lJvEQ) 95. A dilemma for relational quantum mechanics - PhilSci-Archive, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/23794/1/RQM2%20%2812%29.pdf](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/23794/1/RQM2%252520%25252812%252529.pdf%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049933755%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw1tNfryyRYBfmq2QLKYYfDr&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050012297&usg=AOvVaw1mFA_2vM5onzfssYEHBSw_) 96. Assessing Relational Quantum Mechanics arXiv:2105.13338v2 [quant-ph] 12 Sep 2022, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://arxiv.org/pdf/2105.13338](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://arxiv.org/pdf/2105.13338%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049934078%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw3v4PMm9XOnDv_wEJsEYO7O&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050012373&usg=AOvVaw248AgGKeggJPihy75obWBx) 97. Consistent Histories Home Page - CMU Quantum Theory Group, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://quantum.phys.cmu.edu/CHS/histories.html](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://quantum.phys.cmu.edu/CHS/histories.html%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049934322%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw1I5anVsCyIpz6LmcivAGQE&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050012445&usg=AOvVaw2weGiBprbGz4Bq139sCEa6) 98. Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics: A General Purview - Scholars Junction - Mississippi State University, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://scholarsjunction.msstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=cas-publications](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://scholarsjunction.msstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article%253D1013%2526context%253Dcas-publications%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049934674%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw36a-W-oL6qEyV31Wd3bpt1&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050012526&usg=AOvVaw3whMnzO3wYWGFUq3t_iJFD) 99. Knowledge of the Quantum Domain: An Overlap Strategy - PhilSci-Archive, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/21695/1/Knowledge%20of%20the%20Quantum%20Domain%20Preprint%20Version.pdf](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/21695/1/Knowledge%252520of%252520the%252520Quantum%252520Domain%252520Preprint%252520Version.pdf%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049935028%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw2GmcvgpZIFGnyWpWT1T02o&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050012614&usg=AOvVaw3TESN-olURh3jGGkSrh48Y) 100. In principle, could the Many-Worlds Interpretation be tested via interference?, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/842008/in-principle-could-the-many-worlds-interpretation-be-tested-via-interference](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/842008/in-principle-could-the-many-worlds-interpretation-be-tested-via-interference%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049935415%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw3InO4movt4L4DndlSGzvzh&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050012703&usg=AOvVaw3-C28XXmRQQPVXnGOLATc5) 101. [2301.02641] Can the double-slit experiment distinguish between quantum interpretations? - arXiv, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.02641](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2301.02641%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049935666%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw3HdDP47OLB6-_8h31tGhQZ&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050012788&usg=AOvVaw3TNH2POauWu6rTlhhfWIVO) 102. (PDF) A Proposal for Experimentally Testing Different ..., accessed April 16, 2025, [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370476238_A_Proposal_for_Experimentally_Testing_Different_Interpretations_of_Quantum_Mechanics](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/370476238_A_Proposal_for_Experimentally_Testing_Different_Interpretations_of_Quantum_Mechanics%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049936102%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw06reKMhbyn37FT-5tJvPqo&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050012894&usg=AOvVaw3tuprghuHX641PONjARuG2) 103. Can the double-slit experiment distinguish between quantum interpretations?, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/372785585_Can_the_double-slit_experiment_distinguish_between_quantum_interpretations](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/372785585_Can_the_double-slit_experiment_distinguish_between_quantum_interpretations%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049936476%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw18DeQOwhPbBjDXB_1IesCO&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050012988&usg=AOvVaw3e_zksECMLnjchZMxRJSq6) 104. Bayesian inference for near-field interferometric tests of collapse models | Phys. Rev. A, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.110.012214](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.110.012214%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049936745%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw38w4b_-4NbZ0vT_wAcCKQx&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050013078&usg=AOvVaw113M4I62x8YUfT8fkq4LKq) 105. Ultranarrow-linewidth levitated nano-oscillator for testing dissipative wave-function collapse | Phys. Rev. Research - Physical Review Link Manager, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.023349](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.023349%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049937149%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw1h3cTR4mgLU2qURGdHO9em&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050013165&usg=AOvVaw1cNbn9TxrzAWwYLUj0yixY) 106. Testing Spontaneous Wave-Function Collapse Models on Classical Mechanical Oscillators | Request PDF - ResearchGate, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268451832_Testing_Spontaneous_Wave-Function_Collapse_Models_on_Classical_Mechanical_Oscillators](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/268451832_Testing_Spontaneous_Wave-Function_Collapse_Models_on_Classical_Mechanical_Oscillators%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049937597%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw38xcAE6LClhx-8EMOue3_5&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050013254&usg=AOvVaw0EgBwFTyVyl7o83SMhgcFO) 107. When does a particle arrive? - Quantum Journal, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://quantum-journal.org/papers/q-2023-03-30-968/](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://quantum-journal.org/papers/q-2023-03-30-968/%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049937860%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw3lgfKmnHOVy6AySE9zvg_6&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050013342&usg=AOvVaw3Lp0HRWS_cl1_QF-nMwb_p) 108. Non-local temporal interference - OUCI, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://ouci.dntb.gov.ua/en/works/lRnae3Pl/](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://ouci.dntb.gov.ua/en/works/lRnae3Pl/%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049938102%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw0aU9NYYo-WQLGhHQWgamDu&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050013425&usg=AOvVaw2V_gJj3NKTHStRpj_n1niM) 109. [PDF] When does a particle arrive? - Semantic Scholar, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/11bdc08f5a61a87b6b4a0477918aa132c27c9653](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/11bdc08f5a61a87b6b4a0477918aa132c27c9653%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049938489%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw0ZDQw1-U628kSiiBTXU9Nd&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050013505&usg=AOvVaw1Rrpgo3r6uILl0LiYV5c_Q) 110. ‪MohammadJavad Kazemi‬ - ‪Google Scholar‬, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=h3LbMMEAAAAJ&hl=en](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://scholar.google.com/citations?user%253Dh3LbMMEAAAAJ%2526hl%253Den%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049938801%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw21TgzjVJAcZjfE-dYEvMqN&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050013585&usg=AOvVaw0W4__q7osslrHbcNe4OQdn) 111. ‪Ali Ayatollah Rafsanjani‬ - ‪Google Scholar‬, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=o3MIxdYAAAAJ&hl=en](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://scholar.google.com/citations?user%253Do3MIxdYAAAAJ%2526hl%253Den%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049939140%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw0K2LJ-nBvGYgjUCX_iTwQJ&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050013677&usg=AOvVaw2UavtanclFWoFdhE7CtPUG) 112. On detection statistics in double slit expert - GoTriple, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://gotriple.eu/documents/ftarxivpreprints%3Aoai%3AarXiv.org%3A2208.01325](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://gotriple.eu/documents/ftarxivpreprints%25253Aoai%25253AarXiv.org%25253A2208.01325%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049939534%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw3rqDri-odtQtQwlOVkAR5H&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050013773&usg=AOvVaw3HG-JDKHB4yga_sK-A1AbA) 113. The Role of the Probability Current for Time Measurements - OUCI, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://ouci.dntb.gov.ua/en/works/7AqKvKa7/](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://ouci.dntb.gov.ua/en/works/7AqKvKa7/%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049939803%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw2Hi7AWg_v4sVl2pq-Xd2t3&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050013861&usg=AOvVaw3yxbV1_uOO2Ugytf26z2rM) 114. Kochen-Specker contextuality - Simple search, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://liu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1730642/FULLTEXT01.pdf](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://liu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1730642/FULLTEXT01.pdf%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049940066%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw0XwWWHr08-W8VncMfrpEpp&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050013951&usg=AOvVaw0nir2BKa3aRZw1ezxAy0hV) 115. arXiv:2501.08971v2 [quant-ph] 25 Feb 2025, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://arxiv.org/pdf/2501.08971](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://arxiv.org/pdf/2501.08971%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049940265%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw0TTM25I03tjv3BG_AmEOWm&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050014037&usg=AOvVaw0nut8ZXaXi8Re4FBfsz3yX) 116. Updating the constraint on the quantum collapse models via kilogram masses, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/386143489_Updating_the_constraint_on_the_quantum_collapse_models_via_kilogram_masses](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/386143489_Updating_the_constraint_on_the_quantum_collapse_models_via_kilogram_masses%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049940660%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw0FdUNNqHj9V4S9tbzwQH7_&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050014141&usg=AOvVaw0HjlviSKBiGQPn-8cCegf3) 117. X-rays from atomic systems could reveal new clues about rival quantum theories, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1057221](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1057221%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049940953%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw0fX1SpQ5EMwFcGyIt5X2pl&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050014237&usg=AOvVaw2ynKqDq8pvqdrogj3wYPur) 118. Physics Experiments Spell Doom for Quantum 'Collapse' Theory | Quanta Magazine, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://www.quantamagazine.org/physics-experiments-spell-doom-for-quantum-collapse-theory-20221020/](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.quantamagazine.org/physics-experiments-spell-doom-for-quantum-collapse-theory-20221020/%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049941331%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw2KmOBYTqEtjG0kBmnAWMzy&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050014350&usg=AOvVaw240YzqKUwjv_88FiPmwIDj) 119. Role of gravity in the collapse of a wave function: A probe into the Diósi-Penrose model, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.90.062105](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.90.062105%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049941614%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw29iUqFbiImomcHwCuXb7tw&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050014505&usg=AOvVaw2YsCm5BLq-xQhUnKilsJD2) 120. Gravity and the Collapse of the Wave Function: a Probe into Diósi-Penrose model - arXiv, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://arxiv.org/pdf/1408.6460](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://arxiv.org/pdf/1408.6460%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049941899%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw2pY762cH0vkf471PiX4ZZQ&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050014613&usg=AOvVaw1SPDKzl4kobm-ojvcLWtyu) 121. Quantum Collapse Models - ETH Zürich, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/phys/solid-state-physics/hyqu-dam/documents/semester-report-Leo-Konzett.pdf](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/phys/solid-state-physics/hyqu-dam/documents/semester-report-Leo-Konzett.pdf%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049942246%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw0qu6JVbOdyVk0vhfyn9rj0&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050014721&usg=AOvVaw3F74JrPVT8fYaV_Gqb1gw0) 122. Quantum ontology without speculation - PMC - PubMed Central, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7847445/](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7847445/%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049942494%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw2lVF3EO9OiJfHT6xu5B_Yw&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050014881&usg=AOvVaw1vQ-W8-5q2ThPGwiYUYkg3) 123. How does scientific realism deal with differing interpretations of quantum mechanics? If the same math can describe very different realities, what are we supposed to believe? : r/askphilosophy - Reddit, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/170gyar/how_does_scientific_realism_deal_with_differing/](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/170gyar/how_does_scientific_realism_deal_with_differing/%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049942937%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw1HPvZr6bqXx-OXYH3r--BL&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050015055&usg=AOvVaw3vugpLQGj-v1N2_DozIed3) 124. A CHAPTER OF THE DEBATE BETWEEN REALISM AND ANTI- REALISM IN THE BEGINNINGS OF QUANTUM MECHANICS EDUARDO SIMÕES1, accessed April 16, 2025, [https://periodicos.uefs.br/index.php/revistaideacao/article/download/7248/6369/30483](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.google.com/url?q%3Dhttps://periodicos.uefs.br/index.php/revistaideacao/article/download/7248/6369/30483%26amp;sa%3DD%26amp;source%3Deditors%26amp;ust%3D1744779049943263%26amp;usg%3DAOvVaw1DXRBaGflNc9MSyxYXoljK&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1744779050015212&usg=AOvVaw2iYv34HFVXiAWezH0rZw7o)