A New Realism and Ontology for Quantum Foundations with an Initial Formalization Attempt:
A Conceptual Research Program Beyond Wave-Particle Duality
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24297/jap.v24i.9892Keywords:
pre–spatiotemporal dynamics, energistic ontology, physical realism, wave–particle dualityAbstract
Quantum mechanics is empirically unmatched, yet its ontology remains unsettled. This paper advances a realist research program that treats wave–particle duality as a deep source of several tensions in quantum foundations, including measurement, localization, and wave–function collapse. It further argues that these issues are often intensified by hypostatization: the elevation of abstract elements of the formalism, especially the wave function, to the status of concrete physical entities without clear criteria for physical reality. To address this, the paper develops physical realism, a realist framework that regulates ontological commitment by explicit anti–hypostatization criteria. On that basis, it proposes an energistic ontology for quantum foundations at the quantum level. This gives rise to the hypothesis of a Universal Energy Field (UEF) and energy wave–forms as alternatives to the dualistic wave-particle framework. Although its main emphasis is on ontology, the paper introduces also an initial formal description of energistic dynamics in Appendix A. Its role is primarily to show that the paper’s main conceptual claims can be mathematically tractable, with the UEF and energy wave–forms being expressed through primitive postulates, an initial regime–dependent dynamics, and a stationary condensation equation.
Downloads
References
Auletta, G. (2000). Foundations and Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: In the Light of a Critical-Historical Analysis of the Problems and of a Synthesis of the Results. World Scientific.
Allori, V. (2019). Scientific realism without the wave-function: An example of naturalized quantum metaphysics. In Scientific Realism and the Quantum (pp. 235-258). Oxford University Press (2019) https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198814979.003.0011
Bohm, D., Hiley, B. J., & Kaloyerou, P. N. (1987). An ontological basis for the quantum theory. Physics Reports, 144(6), 321-375 https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-1573(87)90024-X
Chakravartty, A. Scientific realism. (2017). In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Chiou, D. W., & Hsu, H. C. (2024). Complementarity relations of a delayed-choice quantum eraser in a quantum circuit. Quantum Information Processing, 23(1), 18 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11128-023-04214-8
Egg, M., & Saatsi, J. (2021). Scientific realism and underdetermination in quantum theory. Philosophy Compass, 16(11) https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12773
French, S., & Ladyman, J. (2003). Remodelling structural realism: Quantum physics and the metaphysics of structure. Synthese, 136(1), 31-56. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024156116636
Floridi, L. (2008). A defence of informational structural realism. Synthese, 161(2), 219-253 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-007-9163-z
Ghirardi, G. C., Rimini, A., & Weber, T. (1986). Unified dynamics for microscopic and macroscopic systems. Physical review D, 34(2), 470. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.34.470
Griffiths, R. B. (2013). A consistent quantum ontology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 44(2), 93-114 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsb.2012.12.002
Holladay, W. G. (1998). The nature of particle–wave complementarity. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 27-33 https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18805
Howard, D. (2022). The Copenhagen Interpretation https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198844495.013.21
Jentschel, M., Krempel, J., & Mutti, P. (2009). A validity test of E= m⋅ c 2. The European Physical Journal Special Topics, 172(1), 353-362 https://doi.org/10.1140/epjst/e2009-01060-4
Jentschel, M., & Blaum, K. (2018). Balancing energy and mass with neutrons. Nature Physics, 14(5), 524-524 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-018-0132-x
Luis, A. (2004). Operational approach to complementarity and duality relations. Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 70(6), 062107 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.70.062107
Mehra, J. (1974). The Copenhagen Interpretation. In The Quantum Principle: Its Interpretation and Epistemology (pp. 4-8). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-2234-7_2
Maudlin, T. (2016). The metaphysics of quantum theory. (Collected essays) https://doi.org/10.5937/BPA1629005M
Namiki, M., Pascazio, S., & Schiller, C. (1994). What is wave-function collapse by measurement?. Physics Letters A, 187(1), 17-25 https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9601(94)90857-5
Ney, A. (2023). Three arguments for wave function realism. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 13(4), 50 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-023-00554-5
Rainville, S., Thompson, J. K., Myers, E. G., Brown, J. M., Dewey, M. S., Kessler Jr, E. G., ... & Pritchard, D. E. (2005). A direct test of E= mc2. Nature, 438(7071), 1096-1097 https://doi.org/10.1038/4381096a
Ruebeck, J. B., Lillystone, P., & Emerson, J. (2020). $ ψ $-epistemic interpretations of quantum theory have a measurement problem. Quantum, 4, 242 https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2020-03-16-242
Wallace, D. (2012). The emergent multiverse: Quantum theory according to the Everett interpretation. OUP Oxford https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199546961.001.0001
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Czesław A. Grochowina

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All articles published in Journal of Advances in Linguistics are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.