In this article we present a possible way to make usual quantum mechanics fully compatible with physical realism, defined as the statement that the goal of physics is to study entities of the natural world, existing independently from any particular observer’s perception, and obeying universal and intelligible rules. Rather than elaborating on the quantum formalism itself, we propose a new quantum ontology, where physical properties are attributed jointly to the system, and to the context in which it is embedded. In (...) combination with a quantization principle, this non-classical definition of physical reality sheds new light on counter-intuitive features of quantum mechanics such as the origin of probabilities, non-locality, and the quantum-classical boundary. (shrink)

In previous articles we presented a simple set of axioms named “Contexts, Systems and Modalities”, where the structure of quantum mechanics appears as a result of the interplay between the quantized number of modalities accessible to a quantum system, and the continuum of contexts that are required to define these modalities. In the present article we discuss further how to obtain Born’s rule within this framework. Our approach is compared with other former and recent derivations, and its strong links with (...) Gleason’s theorem are particularly emphasized. (shrink)

In standard quantum mechanics, a state vector \ may belong to infinitely many different orthogonal bases, as soon as the dimension N of the Hilbert space is at least three. On the other hand, a complete physical observable A is associated with a N-dimensional orthogonal basis of eigenvectors. In an idealized case, measuring A again and again will give repeatedly the same result, with the same eigenvalue. Let us call this repeatable result a modality \, and the corresponding eigenstate \. (...) A question is then: does \ give a complete description of \? The answer is obviously no, since \ does not specify the full observable A that allowed us to obtain \; hence the physical description given by \ is incomplete, as claimed by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen in their famous article in 1935. Here we want to spell out this provocative statement, and in particular to answer the questions: if \ is an incomplete description of \, what does it describe? is it possible to obtain a complete description, maybe algebraic? Our conclusion is that the incompleteness of standard QM is due to its attempt to describe systems without contexts, whereas both are always required, even if they can be separated outside the measurement periods. (shrink)

Following an article by John von Neumann on infinite tensor products, we develop the idea that the usual formalism of quantum mechanics, associated with unitary equivalence of representations, stops working when countable infinities of particles (or degrees of freedom) are encountered. This is because the dimension of the corresponding Hilbert space becomes uncountably infinite, leading to the loss of unitary equivalence, and to sectorisation. By interpreting physically this mathematical fact, we show that it provides a natural way to describe the (...) “Heisenberg cut”, as well as a unified mathematical model including both quantum and classical physics, appearing as required incommensurable facets in the description of nature. (shrink)

After reminding the main issues at stake in the famous Einstein–Bohr debate initiated in 1935, we tentatively propose a way to get them closer, thus shedding a new light on this historical discussion.