journal article·2026-07-01

On the multifarious relations between experiments and interpretations in quantum mechanics

Osvaldo Pessoa

Publisher page

Abstract

This paper explores how experiments influence the reception of interpretations of quantum mechanics, and also other relations between experiments and interpretations in that field. We start by surveying the struggle of different schools of philosophy of science in the 19th and early 20th centuries to adapt to the scientific advances, and then give a brief overview of realist and antirealist interpretations in quantum mechanics. Eight different types of relations between interpretations and experiments are then examined, with case studies from the history of quantum mechanics. (1) Many interpretations agree with all of the predictions of the instrumentalist interpretation, which is a good strategy for survival. (2) Some interpretations make different predictions that are not testable. (3) Other interpretations constitute ‘a different theory’ and are testable, although sometimes this is not anticipated by the interpretation. (4) Some interpretations have generated many variations, by adjustment of parameters or hypotheses, and part of these variations have been tested and ruled out by experiment. (5) At times experiments reinforce an interpretation. (6) Some experiments lead to a refinement of the interpretation. (7) There are experiments that suggest the creation of an interpretation. (8) And there are cases in which experiments are suggested by an interpretation, while not affecting its rivals.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Quantum Mechanics and Applications · Relativity and Gravitational Theory · Quantum and Classical Electrodynamics

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

University of São Paulo

References (68)

Show source-provided references
1. A. Franklin, The Neglect of Experiment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1986, pp. 165–191.10.1017/CBO9780511624896.007 ↗
2. M. Redhead, Incompleteness, Nonlocality, and Realism, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1987, pp. 44–45.
3. I. Niiniluoto, Critical Scientific Realism, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1999, ch. 6.
4. R. Fox, The rise and fall of Laplacian physics. Hist. Stud. Phys. Sci. 4 (1974), pp. 89–136.
5. S.G. Brush, Mach and atomism. Synthese 18 (1968), pp. 192–215. See pp. 193–197.10.1007/BF00413775 ↗
6. T. Lenoir, The Strategy of Life: Teleology and Mechanics in Nineteenth Century German Biology, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1982.
7. K. Hentschel, Philosophical interpretations of relativity theory: 1910-1930, in PSA 1990, v. 2, A. Fine, M. Forbes, and L. Wessels, eds., Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing, MI, 1991. pp. 169–179.
8. M. Jammer, The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics: The Interpretations of QM in Historical Perspective, Wiley, New York, 1974.
9. P.A.M. Dirac, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1930, p. 6.
10. O. Freire Jr., The Quantum Dissidents: Rebuilding the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (1950-1990), Springer, Berlin, 2015, p. 183.10.1007/978-3-662-44662-1 ↗
11. H. Everett III, Relative state formulation of quantum mechanics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 29 (1957), pp. 454–462.10.1103/RevModPhys.29.454 ↗
12. B.S. DeWitt, Quantum mechanics and reality. Phys. Today 23(9) (1970), pp. 30–35.10.1063/1.3022331 ↗
13. G.C. Ghirardi, A. Rimini, and T. Weber, Unified dynamics for microscopic and macroscopic systems. Phys. Rev. D 34 (1986), pp. 470–491.10.1103/PhysRevD.34.470 ↗
14. E. Gibney, What does quantum mechanics say about reality? Nature 643 (2025), pp. 1175–1179.10.1038/d41586-025-02342-y ↗
15. D. Bohm, A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of ‘hidden’ variables. I. II. Phys. Rev. 85 (1952), pp. 166–193. See p. 179.10.1103/PhysRev.85.166 ↗
16. K.R. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Hutchinson, London, 1959. ch. 4.
17. O. Freire Jr., David Bohm: A Life Dedicated to Understanding the Quantum World, Springer, Cham, 2019, p. 92.10.1007/978-3-030-22715-9 ↗
18. C. Philippidis, C. Dewdney, and B.J. Hiley, Quantum interference and the quantum potential. Nuovo Cim 52 B (1979), pp. 15–28.10.1007/BF02743566 ↗
19. J.T. Cushing, Quantum Mechanics: Historical Contingency and the Copenhagen Hegemony, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1994.
20. F. London and E. Bauer, La Théorie de l’Observation en Mécanique Quantique, Hermann, Paris, 1939. English translation in J.A. Wheeler & W.H. Zurek, eds. (1983), Quantum Theory and Measurement, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1983, pp. 217-259.
21. A. Daneri, A. Loinger, and G.M. Prosperi, Quantum theory of measurement and ergodicity conditions. Nucl. Phys. 33 (1962), pp. 297–319.10.1016/0029-5582(62)90528-X ↗
22. D. Bohm and J. Bub, A proposed solution of the measurement problem in quantum mechanics by a hidden variable theory. Rev. Mod. Phys. 38 (1966), pp. 453–469.10.1103/RevModPhys.38.453 ↗
23. C. Papaliolios, Experimental test of a hidden-variable quantum theory. Phys. Rev. Lett. 18 (1967), pp. 622–625.10.1103/PhysRevLett.18.622 ↗
24. J.R. Croca, A. Garuccio, V.L. Lepore, and R.N. Moreira, Quantum-optical predictions for an experiment on the de Broglie waves detection. Found. Phys. Lett. 3 (1990), pp. 557–564.10.1007/BF00666024 ↗
25. X.Y. Zou, T. Grayson, L.J. Wang, and L. Mandel, Can an “empty” de Broglie pilot wave induce coherence? Phys. Rev. Lett. 68 (1992), pp. 3667–3669.10.1103/PhysRevLett.68.3667 ↗
26. J.R. Croca, P. Castro, M. Gatta, and R.N. Moreira, Louis de Broglie realistic research program and the experimental detection of quantum waves. Ann. Fond. L. de Broglie 46 (2021), pp. 197–215.
27. X.Y. Zou, L.J. Wang, and L. Mandel, Induced coherence and indistinguishability in optical interference. Phys. Rev. Lett. 67 (1991), pp. 318–321.10.1103/PhysRevLett.67.318 ↗
28. V. Buonomano, The non-ergodic interpretation of quantum mechanics and neutron interferometry. Physica B 151 (1988), pp. 349–350.10.1016/0378-4363(88)90191-X ↗
29. J. Summhammer, Neutron interferometric test of the non-ergodic interpretation of quantum mechanics. Nuovo Cim 103 B (1989), pp. 265–280.10.1007/BF02737131 ↗
30. V. Buonomano, Summhammer’s experimental test of the non-ergodic interpretation of quantum mechanics. Found. Phys. Lett. 2 (1989), pp. 565–576. See p. 574.10.1007/BF00692833 ↗
31. A. Landé, Quantum fact and fiction. Am. J. Phys, 33 (1965), pp. 123–127.10.1119/1.1971264 ↗
32. G. Möllenstedt and H. Düker, Beobachtungen und Messungen an Biprisma-Interferenzen mit Elektronenwellen. Zeit. f. Phys 145 (1956), pp. 377–397.10.1007/BF01326780 ↗
33. R. Rosa, Electron interference: Landé’s approach upset by a recent elegant experiment. Lett. Nuovo Cim 24 (1979), pp. 549–550.10.1007/BF02725734 ↗
34. G.C. Ghirardi, P. Pearle, and A. Rimini, Markov processes in Hilbert space and continuous spontaneous localization of systems of identical particles. Phys. Rev. A 42 (1990), pp. 78–89.10.1103/PhysRevA.42.78 ↗
35. L. Diósi, Models for universal reduction of macroscopic quantum fluctuations. Phys. Rev. A 40 (1989), pp. 1165–1174.10.1103/PhysRevA.40.1165 ↗
36. Y.Y. Fein, P. Geyer, P. Zwick, F. Kiałka, S. Pedalino, M. Mayor, S. Gerlich, and M. Arndt, Quantum superposition of molecules beyond 25 kDa. Nature Phys 13 (2019), pp. 1242–1245.10.1038/s41567-019-0663-9 ↗
37. A. Bassi, K. Lochan, S. Satin, T.P. Singh, and H. Ulbricht, Models of wave-function collapse, underlying theories, and experimental tests. Rev. Mod. Phys. 85 (2013), pp. 471–527.10.1103/RevModPhys.85.471 ↗
38. S. Koscis, B. Braverman, S. Ravets, M.J. Stevens, R.P. Mirin, L.K. Shalm, and A.M. Steinberg, Observing the average trajectories of single photons in a two-slit interferometer. Science 332 (2011), pp. 1170–1173.10.1126/science.1202218 ↗
39. D. Dürr, S. Goldstein, and N. Zanghì, Quantum equilibrium and the origin of absolute uncertainty. J. Stat. Phys 67 (1992), pp. 843–907.10.1007/BF01049004 ↗
40. Y. Couder, A. Boudaoud, S. Protière, and E. Fort, Walking droplets: a form of wave-particle duality at macroscopic scale? Europhys. News 41(1) (2010), pp. 14–18.10.1051/epn/2010101 ↗
41. G. Pucci, D.M. Harris, L.M. Faria, and J.W.M. Bush, Walking droplets interacting with single and double slits. J. Fluid Mech 835 (2018), pp. 1136–1156.10.1017/jfm.2017.790 ↗
42. N. Bohr, Discussion with Einstein on epistemological problems in atomic physics, in Albert Einstein, Philosopher-Scientist, P.A. Schilpp, ed., Open Court, Urbana, IL, 1949. pp. 199–241. See p. 238.
43. W.K. Wootters and W.H. Zurek, Complementarity in the double-slit experiment: quantum nonseparability and a quantitative statement of Bohr’s principle. Phys. Rev. D 19 (1979), pp. 473–484.10.1103/PhysRevD.19.473 ↗
44. M. Chown, The quantum rebellion. New Sci. 183(issue 2457, July 24) (2004), pp. 30–35.
45. O. Pessoa Jr., Refinamentos da interpretação da complementaridade a partir do experimento de Afshar. Scientiae Studia (São Paulo) 11 (2013), pp. 119–139. See p. 130.10.1590/S1678-31662013000100006 ↗
46. S.S. Afshar, E. Flores, K.F. McDonald, and E. Knoesel, Paradox in wave-particle duality. Found. Phys 37 (2007), pp. 295–305.10.1007/s10701-006-9102-8 ↗
47. D.S. Starke, M.L.W. Basso, and J. Maziero, An updated quantum complementarity principle. Proc. Roy. Soc. A 480 (2024), pp. 20240517.10.1098/rspa.2024.0517 ↗
48. M.O. Scully, B.-G. Englert, and H. Walther, Quantum optical tests of complementarity. Nature 351 (1991), pp. 111–116.10.1038/351111a0 ↗
49. J.S. Bell, On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. Physics (College Park, Md) 1 (1964), pp. 195–200.
50. J.F. Clauser, M.A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R.A. Holt, Proposed experiment to test local hidden variable theories. Phys. Rev. Lett. 23 (1969), pp. 880–884.10.1103/PhysRevLett.23.880 ↗
51. B. d’Espagnat, The quantum theory and reality. Sci. Am. 241(5) (1979), pp. 158–181.10.1038/scientificamerican1179-158 ↗
52. T.W. Marshall, E. Santos, and F. Selleri, Local realism has not been refuted by atomic cascade experiments. Phys. Lett. 98 A (1983), pp. 5–9.10.1016/0375-9601(83)90531-5 ↗
53. J.F. Clauser and M.A. Horne, Experimental consequences of objective local theories. Phys. Rev. D 10 (1974), pp. 526–535. See p. 530.10.1103/PhysRevD.10.526 ↗
54. A. Aspect, P. Grangier, and G. Roger, Experimental tests of realistic local theories via Bell’s theorem. Phys. Rev. Lett. 47 (1981), pp. 460–463.10.1103/PhysRevLett.47.460 ↗
55. E.P. Wigner, Remarks on the mind-body question, in The Scientist Speculates, I.J. Good, ed., Heinemann, London, 1962. pp. 284–302.
56. C. Rovelli, Relational quantum mechanics. Int. J. Theor. Phys. 35 (1996), pp. 1637–1678.10.1007/BF02302261 ↗
57. H.D. Zeh, On the interpretation of measurement in quantum theory. Found. Phys 1 (1970), pp. 69–76.10.1007/BF00708656 ↗
58. S. Nimmrichter and K. Hornberger, Macroscopicity of mechanical quantum superposition states. Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (2013), pp. 160403.10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.160403 ↗
59. Č. Brukner, A no-go theorem for observer-independent facts, Entropy 20 (2018), pp. 350.10.3390/e20050350 ↗
60. A. Peres and W.H. Zurek, Is quantum theory universally valid? Am. J. Phys. 50 (1982), pp. 807–810. See p. 809.10.1119/1.13086 ↗
61. T. Riedel, Relational quantum mechanics, quantum relativism, and the iteration of relativity. Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 104 (2024), pp. 109–118.10.1016/j.shpsa.2024.02.007 ↗
62. M. Proietti, A. Pickston, F. Graffiti, P. Barrow, D. Kundys, C. Branciard, M. Ringbauer, and A. Fedrizzi, Experimental test of local observer independence. Sci. Adv. 5 (2019), pp. eaaw9832.10.1126/sciadv.aaw9832 ↗
63. Emerging Technology from the arXiv MIT Review of Technology 2019. Online: https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/03/12/136684/a-quantum-experiment-suggests-theres-no-such-thing-as-objective-reality/
64. M. Proietti A. Pickston F. Graffitti P. Barrow D. Kundys C. Branciard M. Ringbauer and A. Fedrizzi Experimental rejection of observer-independence in the quantum world. arxiv:1902.05080v1 [quant-ph] (2019).10.1109/CLEOE-EQEC.2019.8872242 ↗
65. M. Żukowski and M. Markiewicz, Physics and metaphysics of Wigner’s friends: even performed premeasurements have no results. Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (2021), pp. 130402.10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.130402 ↗
66. D. Frauchiger and R. Renner, Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself. Nature Comm 9 (2018), pp. 3711.10.1038/s41467-018-05739-8 ↗
67. J.G. Cramer, The transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics. Rev. Mod. Phys 58 (1986), pp. 647–687.10.1103/RevModPhys.58.647 ↗
68. R.B. Griffiths, Consistent histories and the interpretation of quantum mechanics. J. Stat. Phys. 36 (1984), pp. 219–272.10.1007/BF01015734 ↗