What Is the Stochastic Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics?

gabrielh
Messages
79
Reaction score
0
Would anyone have any resources on the stochastic interpretation of quantum mechanics? It appears to be a relatively new interpretation, proposed this year by Roumen Teskov, based on John Wheeler's "quantum foam."

That's really the extent of the information I have, and I'm curious to find out more, or if this new idea is even worth looking into.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There is not necessarily just one Stochastic interpretation. I am not familiar with the name Teskov nor did I find anything on it.

Most familiar to me is Stochastic Electrodynamics (SED) by E. Santos and T. Marshall. This interpretation is intended to restore locality and realism to quantum theory. That would be in contradiction to Bell's Theorem and related experimental results. As such, SED has been unsuccessful in fending off critical challenges and is mostly relegated to the dust bin at this point.

There is also current work being done by Peter Morgan, which is up a somewhat similar alley (but without trying to take on Bell directly):

An empirically equivalent random field for the quantized electromagnetic field
 
I would like to know the validity of the following criticism of one of Zeilinger's latest papers https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.07756 "violation of bell inequality with unentangled photons" The review is by Francis Villatoro, in Spanish, https://francis.naukas.com/2025/07/26/sin-entrelazamiento-no-se-pueden-incumplir-las-desigualdades-de-bell/ I will translate and summarize the criticism as follows: -It is true that a Bell inequality is violated, but not a CHSH inequality. The...
I understand that the world of interpretations of quantum mechanics is very complex, as experimental data hasn't completely falsified the main deterministic interpretations (such as Everett), vs non-deterministc ones, however, I read in online sources that Objective Collapse theories are being increasingly challenged. Does this mean that deterministic interpretations are more likely to be true? I always understood that the "collapse" or "measurement problem" was how we phrased the fact that...
This is not, strictly speaking, a discussion of interpretations per se. We often see discussions based on QM as it was understood during the early days and the famous Einstein-Bohr debates. The problem with this is that things in QM have advanced tremendously since then, and the 'weirdness' that puzzles those attempting to understand QM has changed. I recently came across a synopsis of these advances, allowing those interested in interpretational issues to understand the modern view...
Back
Top