AG-2024.02-1550·quant-ph
Why engineers are right to avoid the quantum reality offered by the orthodox theory?
Authors
- X. Oriols
- D. K. Ferry
Abstract
A proper knowledge of the reality of a physical theory is important to get an understanding of empirical phenomena. Despite its extraordinary predictive successes, the orthodox (also known as the Copenhagen) theory provides an indigestible definition of quantum reality: objects (such as electrons) become part of a nebulous many-particle wave function with no properties at all, unless the property is explicitly measured. To make matters worse, orthodox theory does not define measurements in a clear way. This view of reality is foreign to most modern engineers who assume that quantum objects, like classical objects, always have real properties, independent of any measurement. Despite being contrary to the orthodox theory, the intuition of engineers is not in conflict with other quantum theories, where the observer plays no fundamental role. Good quantum intuition needs to be based on a correct knowledge of the fundamental elements of the quantum theory that is being used. We argue that engineers are actually led to the natural quantum reality offered by these alternative approaches.
Submitted
10 February 20242 years ago
Version
v1
License
CC-BY-4.0
DOI
10.48550/arXiv.2402.06851
Summary
The paper argues that engineers are right to reject the orthodox quantum view where particles lack definite properties until measured, and that alternative quantum theories (like pilot-wave theory) offer a more intuitive picture where objects always have real properties.
- Orthodox quantum theory leaves particles in a fuzzy state with no definite properties unless measured, which conflicts with how engineers naturally think about physical systems.
- Alternative quantum theories don't require an observer or measurement to collapse reality into existence, offering a clearer ontology where objects have properties independent of observation.
- Engineers' intuition that quantum objects behave like classical ones (with real properties) isn't wrong—it's just incompatible with Copenhagen interpretation and aligns better with deterministic alternatives like de Broglie-Bohm theory.
curious · generated by claude-haiku-4-5
Chat with this PDF
Ask questions, probe assumptions, request a plain-English summary. Answers cite sections from the preprint itself.
Community
Questions and answers about this paper from other readers. No formal peer review — just a place to think out loud.