This article presents a novel interpretation of quantum mechanics. It extends the meaning of “measurement” to include all property-indicating facts. Intrinsically, space is undifferentiated: There are no points on which a world of locally instantiated physical properties could be built. Instead, reality is built on facts, in the sense that the properties of things are extrinsic, or supervenient on property-indicating facts. The actual extent to which the world is spatially and temporally differentiated (that is, the extent to which spatiotemporal relations and distinctions are warranted by the facts) is necessarily limited. Notwithstanding that the state vector does nothing but assign probabilities, quantum mechanics affords a complete understanding of the actual world. If there is anything that is incomplete, it is the actual world, but its incompleteness exists only in relation to a conceptual framework that is more detailed than the actual world. Two deep-seated misconceptions are responsible for the interpretational difficulties associated with quantum mechanics: the notion that the spatial and temporal aspects of the world are adequately represented by sets with the cardinality of the real numbers, and the notion of an instantaneous state that evolves in time. The latter is an unwarranted (in fact, incoherent) projection of our apparent “motion in time” into the world of physics. Equally unwarranted, at bottom, is the use of causal concepts. There nevertheless exists a “classical” domain in which language suggestive of nomological necessity may be used. Quantum mechanics not only is strictly consistent with the existence of this domain but also presupposes it in several ways.

## REFERENCES

*Quantum Theory*(Prentice–Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1951).

*Quantum Theory and Measurement*, edited by John Archibald Wheeler and Wojciech Hubert Zurek (Princeton U. P., Princeton, NJ, 1983), pp. 680–686.

*Time’s Arrow & Archimedes’ Point*(Oxford U. P., New York, 1996).

*that*a detector will respond (no matter which) and the probability that a specific detector will respond

*given*that any one detector will respond. The latter (conditional) probability is the one that quantum mechanics is concerned with. The former (absolute) probability can be measured (for instance, by using similar detector in series), but it cannot be calculated using the quantum formalism (nor, presumably, any other formalism). One can analyze the efficiency of, say, a Geiger counter into the efficiencies of its “component detectors” (the ionization cross sections of the ionizable targets it contains), but the efficiencies of the “elementary detectors” cannot be analyzed any further. The efficiency of a real detector cannot be calculated from “first principles.” And since the efficiency of a real detector is determined by at least one fundamental coupling constant such as the fine structure constant, this also implies that a fundamental coupling constant cannot be calculated; it can only be gleaned from the experimental data.

*Incompleteness, Nonlocality and Realism*(Clarendon, Oxford, 1987), p. 72.

*t*if and only if the system at

*t*is “in the corresponding eigenstate of this observable.” It is obvious that the PIQM rejects this claim, since it rejects the very notion that quantum states warrant inferences to actualities.

*logically*impossible to reverse this. For the relevant fact is not that the needle deflects to the left (which could be reversed by returning the needle to the neutral position); the relevant fact is that

*at a time t*the needle deflects (or points) to the left. This is a timeless truth. If at the time

*t*the needle deflects to the left, then it always has been and always will be true that at the time

*t*the needle deflects to the left.

*Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics*(Princeton U. P., Princeton, 1955).

*Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information*, edited by W. H. Zurek (Addison–Wesley, Reading, MA, 1990), pp. 425–458.

*Quantum Classical Correspondence*, edited by Da Hsuan Feng and Bei Lok Hu (International Press, Cambridge, MA, 1997), pp. 51–68.

*Ficciones*(Everyman’s Library, Knopf/Random House, New York, 1993).

*The New Physics*, edited by Paul Davies (Cambridge U. P., Cambridge, 1989), pp. 373–395.

*Physics and Philosophy*(Harper and Row, New York, 1958), Chap. 3.

*Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics*, edited by W. W. Bartley III (Rowan & Littlefield, Totowa, NJ, 1982).

*necessarily*unpredictable: if it could be predicted, the inference basis would remain unchanged.

*The View from Nowhere*(Oxford U. P., New York, 1986).

*Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology*(Macmillan, New York, 1960).

*Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics*, 2nd ed. (Benjamin, Reading, MA, 1976), p. 251.

*Essays 1958–62 on Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge*(Wiley, New York, 1963), p. 3.

*Atomic Theory and the Description of Nature*(Cambridge U. P., Cambridge, 1934).

*Subtle is the Lord…’: The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein*(Clarendon, Oxford, 1982).

*A fortiori*, no theoretical account can be given of why or when a detector is certain to click. It never is.

*Mind, Matter, and Quantum Mechanics*(Springer, Berlin, 1993).

*Mind, Brain and the Quantum*(Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1989).

*Quantum Mechanics and Experience*(Harvard U. P., Cambridge, MA, 1992).

*The Unity of Nature*(Farrar, Straus, Giroux, New York, 1980), Sec. IV.4.

*Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge*(Wiley, New York, 1958), p. 72.

*D*is manifestly fuzzy, there are detectors with smaller sensitive regions, so

*D*cannot be among the ultimate detectors.

*Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist*, edited by P. A. Schilpp (Open Court, La Salle, IL, 1970), p. 85.

*The Character of Physical Law*(MIT, Cambridge, MA, 1967), p. 129.

*Philosophical Papers, Volume II*(Oxford U. P., New York, 1986), p. x.

*American Journal of Physics*and

*The Physics Teacher*as a member benefit. To learn more about this member benefit and becoming an AAPT member, visit the Joining AAPT page.