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 via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aerts D. (1982) Description of many physical entities without the paradoxes encountered in quantum mechanics. Foundations of Physics 12: 1131–1170
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
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
Aerts D. (1992a) The construction of reality and its influence on the understanding of quantum structures. International Journal of Theoretical Physics 31: 1815–1837
Aerts D. (1992b) A possible explanation for the probabilities of quantum mechanics. International Journal of Theoretical Physics 27: 202–210
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
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
Aerts D. (2000) The description of joint quantum entities and the formulation of a paradox. International Journal of Theoretical Physics 39: 485–496
Aerts D. (2009) Quantum particles as conceptual entities. A possible explanatory framework for quantum theory. Foundations of Science 14: 361–411
Aerts D. (2010) Interpreting quantum particles as conceptual entities. International Journal of Theoretical Physics 49: 2950–2970
Aspect A. (1999) Bell’s inequality test: More ideal than ever. Nature (London) 398: 189
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
Bell, J. S. (1964). On the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox. In Physics (Vol. 1, p. 195), Long Island City, NY.
Bell J. S. (1987) Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
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.
Einstein A., Podolsky B., Rosen N. (1935) Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?. Physical Review 47: 777–780
Feynman R. (1970) The Feynman lectures on physics. Addison Wesley Longman, Reading, MA
Feynman R. P. (1992) The character of physical law. Penguin Books, London
Henry R. C. (2009) The real scandal of quantum mechanics. American Journal of Physics 77(10): 869–870
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
Hobson A. (2009a) Response to ‘The scandal of quantum mechanics,’ by N. G. van Kampen. American Journal of Physics 77(4): 293
Hobson A. (2009b) Response to ‘The real scandal of quantum mechanics,’ by R. Conn Henry. American Journal of Physics 77(10): 870–871
Piron C. (1976) Foundations of quantum physics. W. A. Benjamin Inc., Massachusetts
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
Piron, C. (1990). Mécanique quantique. Bases et applications (1st ed.). Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes, Lausanne (2nd corrected edition 1998).
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
Preparata G. (2002) An introduction to realistic quantum physics. World Scientific Publishing, Singapore
Smets S. (2005) The modes of physical properties in the logical foundations of physics. Logic and Logical Philosophy 14: 37–53
van Kampen N. G. (2008) The scandal of quantum mechanics. American Journal of Physics 76(11): 989–990
Weinberg S. (1983) Heinz Pagels’s “The Cosmic Code”. Bantam Books, New York, p 239
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sassoli de Bianchi, M. Ephemeral Properties and the Illusion of Microscopic Particles. Found Sci 16, 393–409 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-011-9227-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-011-9227-x