The hydrodynamical formalism for the quantum theory of a nonrelativistic particle is considered, together with a reformulation of it which makes use of the methods of kinetic theory and is based on the existence of the Wigner phase-space distribution. It is argued that this reformulation provides strong evidence in favor of the statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics, and it is suggested that this latter could be better understood as an almost classical statistical theory. Moreover, it is shown how, within this (...) context, the Wigner and the Margenau-Hill functions are not equivalent, and that the latter is essentially unsatisfactory, as well as the associated symmetrization rule. Arguments in favor of a stochastic picture of the phenomena at the microscopic level are also presented. (shrink)

Quantal penetration through a (stationary) one-dimensional potential barrier is considered as a time evolution of an initially prepared wave packet. The large-time asymptotics of the process is concerned. Locality of the potential imposes certain analytical properties of the interaction amplitudes in the energy representation. The results are presented in terms of development of the phase-space (Wigner's) quasi-distribution. The phase-space evolution kernel is constructed, and it is shown that in the presence of a positive potential no part of the distribution is (...) transported faster than the free particle. For the case of a small initial momentum uncertainty, the deformation of the coordinate density is considered, including a possible advance of its maximum, which would not mean any noncausal signal transport. (shrink)

Interference of more and more massive objects provides a spectacular confirmation of quantum theory. It is usually regarded as support for “wave–particle duality” and in an extension of this duality even as support for “complementarity”. We first give an outline of the historical development of these notions. Already here it becomes evident that they are hard to define rigorously, i.e. have mainly a heuristic function. Then we discuss recent interference experiments of large and complex molecules which seem to support this (...) heuristic function of “duality”. However, we show that in these experiments the diffraction of a delocalized center-of-mass wave function depends on the interaction of the localized structure of the molecule with the diffraction element. Thus, the molecules display “dual features” at the same time, which contradicts the usual understanding of wave–particle duality. We conclude that the notion of “wave–particle duality” deserves no place in modern quantum physics. (shrink)

Does the quantum state represent reality or our knowledge of reality? In making this distinction precise, we are led to a novel classification of hidden variable models of quantum theory. We show that representatives of each class can be found among existing constructions for two-dimensional Hilbert spaces. Our approach also provides a fruitful new perspective on arguments for the nonlocality and incompleteness of quantum theory. Specifically, we show that for models wherein the quantum state has the status of something real, (...) the failure of locality can be established through an argument considerably more straightforward than Bell’s theorem. The historical significance of this result becomes evident when one recognizes that the same reasoning is present in Einstein’s preferred argument for incompleteness, which dates back to 1935. This fact suggests that Einstein was seeking not just any completion of quantum theory, but one wherein quantum states are solely representative of our knowledge. Our hypothesis is supported by an analysis of Einstein’s attempts to clarify his views on quantum theory and the circumstance of his otherwise puzzling abandonment of an even simpler argument for incompleteness from 1927. (shrink)

Scientific results are often presented as ‘surprising’ as if that is a good thing. Is it? And if so, why? What is the value of surprise in science? Discussions of surprise in science have been limited, but surprise has been used as a way of defending the epistemic privilege of experiments over simulations. The argument is that while experiments can ‘confound’, simulations can merely surprise (Morgan, 2005). Our aim in this paper is to show that the discussion of surprise can (...) be usefully extended to thought experiments and theoretical derivations. We argue that in focusing on these features of scientific practice, we can see that the surprise-confoundment distinction does not fully capture surprise in science. We set out how thought experiments and theoretical derivations can bring about surprises that can be disruptive in a productive way, and we end by exploring how this links with their future fertility. (shrink)