Ephemeral Properties and the Illusion of Microscopic Particles

Abstract

Founding our analysis on the Geneva-Brussels approach to quantum mechanics, we use conventional macroscopic objects as guiding examples to clarify the content of two important results of the beginning of twentieth century: Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen’s reality criterion and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. We then use them in combination to show that our widespread belief in the existence of microscopic particles is only the result of a cognitive illusion, as microscopic particles are not particles, but are instead the ephemeral spatial and local manifestations of non-spatial and non-local entities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Aerts D. (1982) Description of many physical entities without the paradoxes encountered in quantum mechanics. Foundations of Physics 12: 1131–1170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Aerts D. (1984) The missing element of reality in the description of quantum mechanics of the EPR paradox situation. Helvetia Physica Acta 57: 421–428

    Google Scholar 

  3. Aerts D. (1990) An attempt to imagine parts of the reality of the micro-world. In: Mizerski J. et al (eds) Problems in quantum physics II; Gdansk’89. World Scientific, Singapore, pp 3–25

    Google Scholar 

  4. Aerts D. (1992a) The construction of reality and its influence on the understanding of quantum structures. International Journal of Theoretical Physics 31: 1815–1837

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Aerts D. (1992b) A possible explanation for the probabilities of quantum mechanics. International Journal of Theoretical Physics 27: 202–210

    Google Scholar 

  6. Aerts D. (1998) The entity and modern physics: The creation-discovery view of reality. In: Castellani E. (Ed.) Interpreting bodies: Classical and quantum objects in modern physics. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  7. Aerts D. (1999) The stuff the world is made of: Physics and reality (p. 129). In: Aerts D., Broekaert J., Mathijs E. (eds) The white book of ‘Einstein Meets Magritte’. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  8. Aerts D. (2000) The description of joint quantum entities and the formulation of a paradox. International Journal of Theoretical Physics 39: 485–496

    Google Scholar 

  9. Aerts D. (2009) Quantum particles as conceptual entities. A possible explanatory framework for quantum theory. Foundations of Science 14: 361–411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Aerts D. (2010) Interpreting quantum particles as conceptual entities. International Journal of Theoretical Physics 49: 2950–2970

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Aspect A. (1999) Bell’s inequality test: More ideal than ever. Nature (London) 398: 189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Aspect A. et al (1982) Experimental realization of Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen–Bohm Gedankenexperiment: A new violation of Bell’s inequalities. Physical Review Letters 49: 91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bell, J. S. (1964). On the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox. In Physics (Vol. 1, p. 195), Long Island City, NY.

  14. Bell J. S. (1987) Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  15. Christiaens, W. (2002). Some notes on Aerts’ interpretation of the EPR-paradox and the violation of Bell-inequalities (pp. 259–286). In Probing the structure of quantum mechanics: Nonlocality, computation and axiomatics (394 pp.). Singapore: World Scientific.

  16. Einstein A., Podolsky B., Rosen N. (1935) Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?. Physical Review 47: 777–780

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Feynman R. (1970) The Feynman lectures on physics. Addison Wesley Longman, Reading, MA

    Google Scholar 

  18. Feynman R. P. (1992) The character of physical law. Penguin Books, London

    Google Scholar 

  19. Henry R. C. (2009) The real scandal of quantum mechanics. American Journal of Physics 77(10): 869–870

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hobson A. (2005) Electrons as field quanta: A better way to teach quantum physics in introductory general physics courses. American Journal of Physics 73(7): 630–634

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hobson A. (2009a) Response to ‘The scandal of quantum mechanics,’ by N. G. van Kampen. American Journal of Physics 77(4): 293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hobson A. (2009b) Response to ‘The real scandal of quantum mechanics,’ by R. Conn Henry. American Journal of Physics 77(10): 870–871

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Piron C. (1976) Foundations of quantum physics. W. A. Benjamin Inc., Massachusetts

    Google Scholar 

  24. Piron C. (1978) La Description d’un Système Physique et le Présupposé de la Théorie Classique. Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie 3: 131–152

    Google Scholar 

  25. Piron, C. (1990). Mécanique quantique. Bases et applications (1st ed.). Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes, Lausanne (2nd corrected edition 1998).

  26. Piron C. (1999) Quanta and relativity: Two failed revolutions (p. 107). In: Aerts D., Broekaert J., Mathijs E. (eds) The White book of ‘Einstein meets Magritte’. Kluwer, Dordrecht, p 274

    Google Scholar 

  27. Preparata G. (2002) An introduction to realistic quantum physics. World Scientific Publishing, Singapore

    Google Scholar 

  28. Smets S. (2005) The modes of physical properties in the logical foundations of physics. Logic and Logical Philosophy 14: 37–53

    Google Scholar 

  29. van Kampen N. G. (2008) The scandal of quantum mechanics. American Journal of Physics 76(11): 989–990

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Weinberg S. (1983) Heinz Pagels’s “The Cosmic Code”. Bantam Books, New York, p 239

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Massimiliano Sassoli de Bianchi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sassoli de Bianchi, M. Ephemeral Properties and the Illusion of Microscopic Particles. Found Sci 16, 393 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-011-9227-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Microscopic particle
  • Existence
  • Spatiality
  • Individuality