1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990,

1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000,

- Aerts, D. (1998). The hidden measurement formalism: what can be explained and where paradoxes remain.
International Journal of Theoretical Physics,37,pp. 291-304. Archive reference and link: http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0105126.

Abstract:In the hidden measurement formalism that we develop in Brussels we explain the quantum structure as due to the presence of two effects, (a) a real change of state of the system under influence of the measurement and, (b) a lack of knowledge about a deeper deterministic reality of the measurement process. We show that the presence of these two effects leads to the major part of the quantum mechanical structure of a theory describing a physical system where the measurements to test the properties of this physical system contain the two mentioned effects. We present a quantum machine, where we can illustrate in a simple way how the quantum structure arises as a consequence of the two effects. We introduce a parameter epsilon that measures the amount of the lack of knowledge on the measurement process, and by varying this parameter, we describe a continuous evolution from a quantum structure (maximal lack of knowledge) to a classical structure (zero lack of knowledge). We show that for intermediate values of epsilon we find a new type of structure that is neither quantum nor classical. We analyze the quantum paradoxes in the light of these findings and show that they can be divided into two groups: (1) The group (measurement problem and Schrodingers cat paradox) where the paradoxical aspects arise mainly from the application of standard quantum theory as a general theory (e.g. also describing the measurement apparatus). This type of paradox disappears in the hidden measurement formalism. (2) A second group collecting the paradoxes connected to the effect of non-locality (the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox and the violation of Bell inequalities). We show that these paradoxes are internally resolved because the effect of non-locality turns out to be a fundamental property of the hidden measurement formalism itself.- Aerts, D. (1998). The entity and modern physics: the creation-discovery view of reality. In E. Castellani (Ed.),
Interpreting Bodies: Classical and Quantum Objects in Modern Physics(pp. 223-257). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Abstract:The classical concept of 'physical entity', be it particle, wave, field or system, has become a problematic concept since the advent of relativity theory and quantum mechanics. The recent developments in modern quantum mechanics, with the performance of delicate and precise experiments involving single quantum entities, manifesting explicit non-local behavior for these entities, brings essential new information about the nature of the concept of entity. Such fundamental categories as space and time are put into question, and only a recourse to more axiomatic descriptions seems possible. In this contribution we want to put forward a 'picture' of what an 'entity' might be, taking into account these recent experimental and theoretical results, and using fundamental results of the axiomatic physical theories (describing classical as well as quantum entities) such as they have been developed during the last decade. We call our approach the 'creation-discovery view' because it considers measurements as physical interactions that in general entail two aspects: (1) a discovery of an already existing reality and (2) a creation of new aspects of reality during the act of measurement. We analyze the paradoxes of orthodox quantum mechanics in this creation-discovery view and point out the pre-scientifc preconceptions that are contained in the well-known orthodox interpretations of quantum mechanics. Finally we identify orthodox quantum mechanics as a first order non classical theory, and explain in this way why it is so successful in its numerical predictions.- Aerts, D. (1998). Kwantumtheater.
Etcetera,15,64, p. 7.- Aerts, D. (1998). Synthesis and analysis, interdisciplinarity and foundations.
Foundations of Science,3,pp. 203-206.- Aerts, D., Broekaert, J. and Smets, S. (1998). Inconsistencies in constituent theories of world views: quantum mechanical examples.
Foundations of Science,3,pp. 313-340.

Abstract:We put forward the hypothesis that there exist three basic attitudes towards inconsistencies within world views: (1) The inconsistency is tolerated temporarily and is viewed as an expression of a temporary lack of knowledge due to an incomplete or wrong theory. The resolution of the inconsistency is believed to be inherent to the improvement of the theory. This improvement ultimately resolves the contradiction and therefore we call this attitude the 'regularising' attitude; (2) The inconsistency is tolerated and both contradicting elements in the theory are retained. This attitude integrates the inconsistency and leads to a paraconsistent calculus; therefore we will call it the paraconsistent attitude. (3) In the third attitude, both elements of inconsistency are considered to be false and the 'real situation' is considered something different that can not be described by the theory constructively. This indicates the incompleteness of the theory, and leads us to a paracomplete calculus; therefore we call it the paracomplete attitude. We illustrate these three attitudes by means of two 'paradoxical' situations in quantum mechanics, the wave-particle duality and the situation of non locality.- Aerts, D. and Rohrlich, F. (1998). Reduction. Foundations of Science,
3,pp. 27-35.

1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990,

1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000,