Stochastic interpretation of quantum mechanics assuming that vacuum fields are real

Emilio Santos

REVIEW 5 major objections 3 minor 36 references

Stochastic interpretation of quantum mechanics assuming that vacuum fields are real

T0 review · 5 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that treating the quantum vacuum as a set of real stochastic fields—zero-point electromagnetic radiation with a fixed spectrum—lets Maxwellian waves reproduce the particle behavior of light, atomic stability, the Casimir…

desk verdict A candid review of the author's own stochastic electrodynamics program, where the Weyl-Wigner mapping is solid but the hydrogen ground-state derivation rests on an unsupported equilibrium ansatz. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.06859 v1 pith:WHV3KFAD submitted 2025-02-07 physics.gen-ph

Emilio Santos This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.gen-ph PACS 03.65.-w42.50.-p

keywords stochasticelectrodynamicsquantumvacuumzero-pointfieldWignerfunctionhydrogenatomCasimireffectparametricdown-conversionBellinequalities

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper is an attempt to show that the quantum world can be understood realistically: the vacuum is not empty but contains real stochastic electromagnetic fields whose spectrum is fixed by Lorentz invariance and Planck's constant. With that single assumption, the author argues, ordinary Maxwell theory plus zero-point fluctuations reproduces a string of 'quantum' facts: discrete energy exchange in light absorption, the stability and size of the hydrogen atom, the Casimir force, and the strong correlations of photon pairs from parametric down-conversion. The upshot, if the assumption holds, is that the Hilbert-space formalism of quantum mechanics is a compact algorithm for predictions about an underlying world of real fluctuating fields, not a bar against picturing that world.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Gaussian joint distribution eq. (22), which serves double duty as the probability law of the stochastic vacuum and as the Wigner function of the vacuum state in the standard formalism. With the spectrum eq. (2) it fixes Planck's constant as the scale of the vacuum, and through the Weyl transform it maps operators and expectation values of the Hilbert-space formalism onto averages over complex Gaussian random variables; normal ordering becomes a subtraction of $1/2$ from the field intensity. A second, separate ingredient carries the atomic-stability argument: the heuristic equality $|E|\simeq\frac{1}{2}\hbar\omega$ between the electron's mean kinetic energy and half the zero-point energy of the resonant modes.

What would settle it

A stochastic electrodynamics simulation of hydrogen that integrates the Maxwell–Lorentz dynamics with the zero-point spectrum and fails to settle into a stable ground state near 13.6 eV with radius near the Bohr radius would falsify the atomic-stability derivation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the quantum vacuum is real and stochastic, with the Lorentz-invariant spectrum $S(\omega)=\hbar\omega^3/(2\pi^2 c^3)$, i.e. an average energy $\frac{1}{2}\hbar\omega$ per normal mode, and that this zero-point radiation interacting with charges through the Maxwell–Lorentz equations accounts for the phenomena usually taken as proof of nonclassicality. The probabilistic law of the field is taken to be the Gaussian distribution $\rho(\{a_j,a_j^*\})=\prod_j (2/\pi)\exp(-2|a_j|^2)$, eq. (22); the Weyl–Wigner transform shows this is exactly the Wigner function of the quantum vacuum state, and the same transform converts Hilbert-space expectation values into averages over the real random amplitudes. In this picture photons are calculational objects rather than physical entities, and entanglement in optical tests is a correlation between fluctuations of real fields at distant locations, carried by the same normal modes entering both detection stations.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the heuristic equality, asserted without derivation in Section 3.5, that the electron's mean kinetic energy in the hydrogen ground state equals half the zero-point energy of the resonant vacuum modes ($\frac{1}{2}mv^2 \sim \frac{1}{2}\hbar\omega$); if that equality fails, the derived atomic energy and size collapse, even though the broader claim that vacuum fields are real could still stand.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Hydrogen's ground-state energy and radius, $E\sim -me^4/(2\hbar^2)$ and $r\sim\hbar^2/(me^2)$, follow from classical electrodynamics once the real zero-point radiation is included.
The Heisenberg uncertainty relations and the long-time memory of momentum in free motion are consequences of the $\omega^3$ vacuum spectrum, not separate postulates.
The Casimir force between conducting plates is the mechanical effect of the real zero-point radiation whose allowed modes are constrained by the plates.
In parametric down-conversion the model predicts maximum positive correlation, $P_{AB}=P_A=P_B$, because the same vacuum mode amplitudes contribute to both output beams; detector clicks are threshold crossings of continuous fields, not photon arrivals.
Fock states with a definite nonzero photon number are not physical states in this interpretation, because their Wigner functions are not positive probability distributions.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Editorial extension: if eq. (22) is literal, then true single-photon Fock-state preparation is impossible in principle; a faithful demonstration of a single-photon number state with a provably non-positive Wigner function would speak against this picture.
Editorial extension: the paper's detector model predicts a small vacuum-induced dark rate at zero temperature that scales with the detector's bandwidth and the $\omega^3$ spectrum; measuring this rate would test the reality of the zero-point field independently of the atom and Casimir derivations.
Editorial extension: the correlated-fluctuation mechanism for SPDC suggests that disrupting the shared vacuum modes between the two arms, for example with a fast, frequency-selective scrambler before detection, should reduce the coincidence rate continuously rather than abruptly, a prediction that differs from the photon-pair picture.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a review of the author's own stochastic electrodynamics program rather than a new result. The most solid part is the Weyl-Wigner material in Section 6, where eq. (22) is correctly identified as the Wigner function of the vacuum state and the transform machinery is applied cleanly. The stochastic model of SPDC in Section 7 also works at its level: introducing the real vacuum field into the beam-splitter and SPDC calculations produces the right single/coincidence ratio, and the explanation of antibunching as correlated Gaussian fluctuations is a legitimate piece of classical-wave reasoning.

The soft spots are where the stress-test note lands. Section 3.5 derives the hydrogen ground state from the equality |E| = (1/2)mv^2 = (1/2)ħω, introduced as 'plausible' with no derivation. The paper itself says a rigorous stochastic treatment is 'not yet available.' That matters because atomic stability is the paper's motivating physics; if the equilibrium ansatz fails, the stability-of-matter argument collapses. The stress-test is right that this is the load-bearing unsupported premise. It is also right about the photoelectric factor: eq. (29) gives (π/4)ħω, not ħω, and 'rough agreement' papers over a factor that matters for thresholds. The Casimir derivation is not a derivation: the cutoff K is chosen to match the known result, K~6. These are not fatal to the paper's value as a review, because the author is unusually candid about the heuristic status: the Bell-inequality violation section explicitly says 'I have no clear interpretation, and it will not be discussed.' That candor is a point in its favor. The abstract mentioning entanglement and Bell tests oversells the content slightly.

The citation pattern is what you would expect from a senior author summarizing his own program: heavy self-citation, but the earlier papers are real and the Weyl-Wigner connection is reproducible. Nothing here is incoherent. The paper is a perspective piece, not an original research article.

For a reader: someone wanting a compact statement of Santos's SED position, including the formal mapping to the Wigner representation, will get value. A referee should be found who knows SED and can check whether the hydrogen ansatz can be derived in a future treatment; the paper should be accepted as a perspective only if that caveat is explicit, which it already is. I would send it to peer review rather than desk-reject: the Weyl-Wigner section is worth a referee's time, and the limitations are stated honestly.

Referee Report

5 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper argues that a realistic interpretation of quantum mechanics can be based on treating the electromagnetic vacuum as a real stochastic field. It postulates a Lorentz-invariant vacuum spectrum S(ω) ∝ ω³, fixes the amplitude by the Planck constant, and assumes Gaussian statistics for the mode amplitudes. On this basis it attempts to explain or reinterpret the stability of atoms, the photoelectric effect and discrete energy exchange, the Casimir effect, anticorrelation and recombination in interferometry, and the correlations observed in spontaneous parametric down-conversion. The paper also develops the Weyl–Wigner correspondence, showing that its Gaussian vacuum distribution is the Wigner function of the quantum vacuum, and uses this to present SPDC correlations as correlations of stochastic field fluctuations.

Significance. If the program were made rigorous, it would provide a genuinely intuitive realist alternative to the instrumentalist reading of quantum mechanics, and the paper contains several elements that are sound and useful. In particular, the identification of the Gaussian distribution (22) with the Wigner function of the vacuum is correct and is worked out explicitly; the Weyl–Wigner correspondence in Section 6 is standard and carefully presented; and the stochastic calculation in Section 7.4 reproduces the maximal correlation structure of SPDC while avoiding photon language. The paper is also honest about several of its own limitations. However, the main explanatory claims currently rest on heuristic equalities and fitted parameters rather than derivations, so the significance is that of a programmatic sketch rather than an established result.

major comments (5)

[§3.5, Eq. (8)] The hydrogen ground-state derivation rests entirely on the unsupported equality |E| = (1/2)mv² ∼ (1/2)ħω. This relation is introduced as 'plausible' with no derivation, and the paper itself states in §3.5 that a rigorous stochastic treatment is 'not yet available.' Since Eq. (9), and with it the claimed explanation of atomic stability and size, follows directly from this equality, the central claim of the paper is not established. The equality must either be derived from the stochastic equations of motion or, if intended as a separate postulate, this must be stated explicitly so that the reader can see what is assumed.
[§5.2, Eq. (29)] The derivation of discrete energy exchange gives E ≈ (π/4)ħω rather than ħω. A factor π/4 is not a negligible correction for the photoelectric threshold: the condition ħω > E₀ would become (π/4)ħω > E₀, shifting thresholds by about 22%. Calling this 'rough agreement' with Eq. (27) is insufficient for a quantitative claim. The calculation should either be corrected to yield ħω, or the paper should clearly state that it only provides an order-of-magnitude estimate and not a derivation of Planck's relation.
[§3.2, Eqs. (2)–(4)] The paper fixes the constant in the vacuum spectrum by fitting the Planck constant, so the per-mode energy (1/2)ħω and the later quanta ħω are inputs rather than consequences of the stochastic hypothesis. This is not by itself a defect, but the paper should be explicit that it is assuming the quantum scale from the outset. As written, the 'explanations' of quantization in Eqs. (8), (15), and (29) partly reproduce the assumed spectrum and therefore do not constitute an independent derivation of quantum behavior from Maxwell theory plus real vacuum fluctuations.
[§7.2 and §7] The abstract promises a treatment of 'entanglement in the optical tests of Bell inequalities,' but §7 explicitly states: 'For the empirical violation of Bell inequalities I have no clear interpretation, and it will not be discussed in this article.' Since the violation of Bell inequalities is the central obstacle for local realistic models, the paper does not actually provide a realistic interpretation of the full Bell-test phenomenology. This limitation should be acknowledged in the abstract and conclusions, or the corresponding claim should be removed.
[§3.7] The heuristic Casimir derivation obtains the correct force only by choosing the cutoff parameter K ≃ 6 to match Eq. (17). This is a fitted parameter, not a prediction. The paper correctly notes that the rigorous SED derivation reproduces the quantum result, but the simplified derivation should not be presented as an independent explanation without emphasizing that the numerical agreement is obtained by fixing K.

minor comments (3)

[Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors, including 'hdrogen' in the abstract, 'Winger' in §6.3, 'intepretation' in §2.2, 'staarting' in §6.1, and 'obvervables' in §7.3; a careful proofreading pass is needed.
[§5.2] The geometric derivation of the effective absorption area A ∼ (1/2)(πc/ω)² is presented without a diagram or a more explicit definition of the angles θ and δω; even as a heuristic, the relation θ ≃ δω/ω and the choice T ≃ π/δω deserve a brief justification so that the reader can check the order-of-magnitude estimate.
[§6.3] In the discussion of the Wigner function, the paper says a physical electron is 'a cloud of electrons and positrons interacting with electromagnetic interacting with the vacuum radiation'; the doubled 'interacting' appears to be a typo, and the sentence would benefit from rewriting.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Hydrogen ground-state 'derivation' and Casimir heuristic reduce to assumed/fitted quantization conditions; the Wigner and SPDC sections are independent.

self definitional [Section 3.5, eqs. (8)-(9)]
"|E| = 1/2 m v^2 = 1/2 e^2/r, v = rω, |E| ∼ 1/2 ħω, the latter corresponding to the condition of dynamical equilibrium with radiation... Hence the energy and the size of the atom may be got removing the quantities v and ω from eqs.(8), which leads to E ∼ −me^4/(2ħ^2), r ∼ ħ^2/(me^2), in rough agreement with the quantum predictions and with experiments. In this example we have used a heuristic approach, a rigorous stochastic treatment ... is not yet available."

The paper presents eq. (9) as a consequence of the assumed vacuum radiation, but the only quantum ingredient is the equality |E| ∼ 1/2 ħω, which is asserted as the condition of dynamical equilibrium with radiation. Eliminating v and ω from eqs. (8) is ordinary algebra; the result therefore carries the quantization condition as an input rather than deriving it from Maxwellian stochastic dynamics. The paper itself concedes that no rigorous stochastic treatment exists, so the 'explanation' of atomic stability and ground-state energy reduces to the assumed resonance/zero-point condition by construction.
fitted input called prediction [Section 3.7, Casimir effect]
"If we assume that an effective cut-off exists for λ ≥ Kl then the decrease of energy of the ZPF in the space between plates becomes E ∼ A × l × ... The derivative of E/A with respect to the distance l agrees with eq.(17) if K ≃ 6."

The Casimir force law eq. (17) is the target; the free cutoff parameter K is then chosen so that the derivative of the computed ZPF energy reproduces eq. (17). Thus the 'agreement' with the known Casimir coefficient is enforced by fitting K, not predicted from the stochastic-vacuum model. The subsequent assertion that a rigorous SED derivation reproduces eq. (17) is a citation (to [10],[11],[2]), not a derivation within this paper.

full rationale

The formal core of the paper is not circular: the Gaussian amplitude distribution eq. (22) is a stated assumption and is subsequently shown, by a self-contained Weyl-Wigner calculation (Sec. 6.5), to be the Wigner function of the vacuum state |0><0|; the SPDC correlation calculation in Sec. 7.4 is a genuine computation using that Gaussian statistics and does not presuppose the result (it reproduces the quantum prediction up to a factor 1/2). The paper's explicit limitations—the lack of a rigorous stochastic treatment of the hydrogen atom (Sec. 3.5), the admission that discrete stable orbits 'cannot be easily derived' from real vacuum radiation (Sec. 3.6), and the statement that Bell-inequality violations have 'no clear interpretation' (Sec. 7)—are stated honestly and weigh as scientific gaps rather than as hidden circularity. However, two presented 'predictions' are not independent: the hydrogen ground-state energy and size follow algebraically from the assumed equilibrium condition |E| ∼ 1/2 ħω (eqs. 8-9), and the Casimir heuristic selects the cutoff K ≃ 6 to match eq. (17). These steps import the quantization condition or fit the target coefficient, so the derivation chain is partially circular even though the Wigner and SPDC sections stand on their own. Self-citations are numerous but are not the main source of the circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim depends on the assumed reality and statistical properties of the vacuum field, on a specific equilibrium ansatz for atomic electrons, and on a heuristic detector model. The only fitted numbers are the spectrum scale (h), the Casimir cutoff K, and an arbitrary detection normalization; these are not derived from the stochastic assumption.

free parameters (3)

Vacuum spectrum amplitude (Planck scale h) = h/(2*pi^2*c^3)
In Section 3.2 the spectrum S(omega) = const * omega^3 is fixed by fitting empirical results to h/(2*pi^2*c^3), so h enters as an empirical input rather than a derived scale.
Casimir cutoff ratio K = approximately 6
In Section 3.7 the upper cutoff lambda >= K*l is chosen so that the energy derivative reproduces the measured Casimir force, eq. (17).
Detection proportionality constant = 1 (arbitrary)
In Section 7.4 the detection probability is assumed proportional to mean intensity with coefficient unity; the author notes this causes a factor 1/2 discrepancy with the Hilbert-space result, which is not resolved.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The vacuum radiation is homogeneous, isotropic, and Lorentz invariant, forcing S(omega) proportional to omega^3.
Invoked in Section 3.2 to fix the spectrum, before fitting h.
ad hoc to paper A bound electron's mean kinetic energy equals roughly half the mean energy of the resonant vacuum modes, |E| approximately one half h-bar omega.
This dynamical-equilibrium ansatz (eqs. 6 and 8) is the load-bearing step in the hydrogen ground-state derivation, with no derivation given.
domain assumption Mode amplitudes are independent, Gaussian, random-phase variables with <|a_j|^2> = 1/2.
Eq. (22) defines the stochastic vacuum; it is consistent with the Wigner function of the quantum vacuum (verified in Section 6.5), so it has external support.
ad hoc to paper Photodetectors count only when the integrated Poynting flux during an activation time T exceeds the vacuum level, and the vacuum flux averages to zero.
Introduced in Section 7.4 to make the stochastic SPDC rates match the quantum ones; no derivation from detector physics is given.
domain assumption The vacuum-mode phases at Alice and Bob are mutually uncorrelated.
Used in Section 7.4 to drop the interference term in eq. (78); the author asserts the phases are uncorrelated but does not quantify this.

invented entities (1)

Real stochastic electromagnetic vacuum field (ZPF) independent evidence
purpose: Serves as the common physical background whose fluctuations drive atomic stability, discrete energy exchanges, and correlated photodetections.
Not new to this paper; it is assumed from SED and QFT. Independent handles cited are the Casimir effect (Section 3.7) and the fact that eq. (22) is the Wigner function of the QED vacuum (Section 6.5). No new entity with a distinct experimental signature is introduced.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stochastic interpretation of quantum mechanics assuming that vacuum fields are real." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WHV3KFAD

@misc{pith2026250206859,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stochastic interpretation of quantum mechanics assuming that vacuum fields are real},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WHV3KFAD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.06859}
}

read the original abstract

I review the realistic interpretation of several typically quantum phenomena using a heuristic approach that rests on the assumption that the electromagnetic quantum vacuum is a stochastic field. I include the particle behaviour of light, the photoelectric effect, the hdrogen atom, the Casimir effect, and entanglement in the optical tests of Bell inequalities. The stochastic approach might be formally connected with the standard Hilbert space formalism via the Wigner representation of the field.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

[1]

David Mermin: Making better sense of quantum mechanics

N. David Mermin: Making better sense of quantum mechanics. Rep. Prog. Phys. 82, 012002 (2019)

work page 2019
[2]

Santos: Realistic interpretation of quantum mechanics

E. Santos: Realistic interpretation of quantum mechanics. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. 2022

work page 2022
[3]

Drummond: Understanding quantum mechanics

B. Drummond: Understanding quantum mechanics. A review and s yn- thesis in precise language. Open Phys. 17, 390-437 (2019)

work page 2019
[4]

Isham: Lectures on quantum theory

Chris J. Isham: Lectures on quantum theory. Mathematical and struc- tural foundations . Imperial College Press, London, 1995

work page 1995
[5]

Suppe, F: The structure of scientiﬁc theories

F. Suppe, F: The structure of scientiﬁc theories. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, 1977

work page 1977
[6]

Redhead: Incompleteness, nonlocality and realism

M. Redhead: Incompleteness, nonlocality and realism. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1990. 49

work page 1990
[7]

Einstein, B

A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, N. Rosen: Can quantum-mechanical de scrip- tion of physical reality be considered complete? Phys. Rev. 47, 777-780 (1935)

work page 1935
[8]

Heisenberg: Physics and beyond : encounters and conversations

W. Heisenberg: Physics and beyond : encounters and conversations. Harper & Row, New York, 1971. Chapter 5: Quantum Mechanics and a talk with Einstein (1925-1926) p. 59-69

work page 1971

Show all 36 references

[9]

Santos: Is there an electromagnetic background radiation u nderly- ing the quantum phenomena?

E. Santos: Is there an electromagnetic background radiation u nderly- ing the quantum phenomena?. Anales de Fisica (Madrid) , 64, 317-320 (1968)

1968
[10]

de la Pe˜ na, A

L. de la Pe˜ na, A. M. Cetto: The quantum dice. An introduction to stochastic electrodynamics. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1996

1996
[11]

Santos: Stochastic electrodynamics and the interpretatio n of quan- tum physics

E. Santos: Stochastic electrodynamics and the interpretatio n of quan- tum physics. arXiv:1205.0916 (2012). Revised April 2020

2012 arXiv
[12]

P. W. Milonni: The quantum vacuum. An introduction to quantum elec- trodynamics. Academic Press. New York. 1994

1994
[13]

Santos: Critical analysis of the empirical tests of local hidde n- variables theories

E. Santos: Critical analysis of the empirical tests of local hidde n- variables theories. Phys. Rev. A 46, 3646 (1992)

1992
[14]

Grangier, G

P. Grangier, G. Roger, A. Aspect: Experimental evidence for a photon anticorrelation eﬀect on a beam splitter: a new light on single-photon interferences”. Europhys. Lett. 1, 173 (1986)

1986
[15]

T. W. Marshall, E. Santos: Stochastic optics. A reaﬃrmation of the wave nature of light”. Found. Phys. 18, 185 (1988)

1988
[16]

Lamb: The interpretation of quantum mechanics

W. Lamb: The interpretation of quantum mechanics. Rinton Press, Princeton, 2001

2001
[17]

Santos: Dark energy as a curvature of space-time induced by quantum vacuum ﬂuctuations

E. Santos: Dark energy as a curvature of space-time induced by quantum vacuum ﬂuctuations. Astrophys. Space Sci. 332, 423-435 (2011)

2011
[18]

Santos: Dark matter as an eﬀect of the quantum vacuum

E. Santos: Dark matter as an eﬀect of the quantum vacuum. Astrophys. Space Sci. 363, 74 (2018). 50

2018
[19]

Santos: Neutron stars in generalized f(R) gravity

E. Santos: Neutron stars in generalized f(R) gravity. Astrophys. Space Sci. 341, 411-416 (2012)

2012
[20]

Weyl: The theory of groups and quantum mechanics

H. Weyl: The theory of groups and quantum mechanics. Dover, New York, 1931. (German original, 1928)

1931
[21]

Hillery, R

M. Hillery, R. F. O´Connell, M. O. Scully, E. P. Wigner: Phys. Rep. 106, 121-168 (1984)

1984
[22]

C. K. Zachos, D. B. Fairlie, T. L. Curtright: Quantum mechanics in phase space. World Scientiﬁc, Singapore, 2005

2005
[23]

E. P. Wigner: On the quantum correction for thermodynamic eq uilib- rium, Phys. Rev. 40, 749 (1932)

1932
[24]

Santos: Local realistic interpretation of entangled photon pairs in the Weyl-Wigner formalism

E. Santos: Local realistic interpretation of entangled photon pairs in the Weyl-Wigner formalism. Front. Phys. 8, 191 (2020)

2020
[25]

Santos: Local model of entangled photon experiments com patible with quantum predictions based on the reality of the vacuum ﬁelds

E. Santos: Local model of entangled photon experiments com patible with quantum predictions based on the reality of the vacuum ﬁelds. Found. Phys. 50, 1587-1607 (2020)

2020
[26]

Schr¨ odinger: The present situation of quantum mechanics

E. Schr¨ odinger: The present situation of quantum mechanics . Naturwis- senschaften, 23: pp. 807-812; 823-828; 844-849. (1935)

1935
[27]

Santos: Mathematical and physical meaning of the Bell inequ alities

E. Santos: Mathematical and physical meaning of the Bell inequ alities. Eur. J. Phys. 37, 055402 (2016)

2016
[28]

J. S. Bell: Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics . Cambridge University Press , 2004 (Second edition. First published in 1987 ). This book contains reprints of many articles of Bell on foundations of qu an- tum physics

2004
[29]

J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne: Experimental consequences of ob jective local theories. Phys. Rev. D 10, 526 (1974)

1974
[30]

Brunner, D

N. Brunner, D. Cavalcanti, S. Pironio, V. Scarani and S. Wehne r: Bell nonlocality. Rev. Mod. Phys . 86, 419478 (2014)

2014
[31]

L. K. Shalm et al.: A strong loophole-free test of local realism. Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 250402 (2015). 51

2015
[32]

Giustina et al.: A signiﬁcant loophole-free test of Bell´s theore m with entangled photons

M. Giustina et al.: A signiﬁcant loophole-free test of Bell´s theore m with entangled photons. Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 250401 (2015)

2015
[33]

Dechoum, T

K. Dechoum, T. W. Marshall, E. Santos: Parametric up and down con- version in the Wigner representation of quantum optics. J. Mod. Opt. 47, 1273-1287 (2000)

2000
[34]

Casado, A

A. Casado, A. Fern´ andez-Rueda, T. W. Marshall, J. Mart ´ ınez, R. Risco- Delgado, E. Santos: Dependence on crystal parameters of the c orrelation time between signal and idler beams in parametric down conversion calculated in the Wigner representation. Eur. Phys. J. D 11, 46...

2000
[35]

Z. Y. Ou, L. J. Wang, L. Mandel: Evidence for phase memory in tw o- photon down conversion through entanglement with the vacuum. Phys. Rev. A 41, 566 (1990)

1990
[36]

Menzel, A

R. Menzel, A. Heuer, P. W. Milonni: Entanglement, complementar ity, and vacuum ﬁelds in spontaneous parametric down-conversion. Atoms 7, 27 (2019). 52

2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

David Mermin: Making better sense of quantum mechanics

N. David Mermin: Making better sense of quantum mechanics. Rep. Prog. Phys. 82, 012002 (2019)

work page 2019

[2] [2]

Santos: Realistic interpretation of quantum mechanics

E. Santos: Realistic interpretation of quantum mechanics. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. 2022

work page 2022

[3] [3]

Drummond: Understanding quantum mechanics

B. Drummond: Understanding quantum mechanics. A review and s yn- thesis in precise language. Open Phys. 17, 390-437 (2019)

work page 2019

[4] [4]

Isham: Lectures on quantum theory

Chris J. Isham: Lectures on quantum theory. Mathematical and struc- tural foundations . Imperial College Press, London, 1995

work page 1995

[5] [5]

Suppe, F: The structure of scientiﬁc theories

F. Suppe, F: The structure of scientiﬁc theories. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, 1977

work page 1977

[6] [6]

Redhead: Incompleteness, nonlocality and realism

M. Redhead: Incompleteness, nonlocality and realism. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1990. 49

work page 1990

[7] [7]

Einstein, B

A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, N. Rosen: Can quantum-mechanical de scrip- tion of physical reality be considered complete? Phys. Rev. 47, 777-780 (1935)

work page 1935

[8] [8]

Heisenberg: Physics and beyond : encounters and conversations

W. Heisenberg: Physics and beyond : encounters and conversations. Harper & Row, New York, 1971. Chapter 5: Quantum Mechanics and a talk with Einstein (1925-1926) p. 59-69

work page 1971