The so-called "mystery" of quantum mechanics is not an intrinsic property of nature, but rather the result of an initial misinterpretation and faulty assumptions, which were subsequently reinforced and solidified through mathematical self-consistency, ultimately forming a theoretical framework that deviates from physical reality yet achieves computational success.
I. The Original Error: The Absolutization of Discreteness
1.1 Planck’s Expedient Became a Fundamental Principle
Initial faulty assumption: In 1900, Planck introduced energy quantization E = n h ν solely as a mathematical expedient to solve the blackbody radiation problem. He himself did not believe energy was truly discrete and spent years attempting to return to a classical continuous description.
Error solidification: However, the physics community elevated this calculational trick to a fundamental principle of nature—that energy is inherently discrete. This leap lacked support from any physical mechanism. In fact, "quantization" of energy likely arises merely from standing wave modes under periodic boundary conditions—just as an organ pipe can only produce specific frequencies, which does not imply that sound waves themselves are discrete.
1.2 Overinterpretation of the Light Quantum Hypothesis
Einstein’s explanation of the photoelectric effect only required the assumption that energy transfer is discrete, but it was erroneously generalized to mean that light itself consists of particles. In reality, the photoelectric effect can be fully explained by resonant absorption: energy transfer is efficient only when the frequency of the light wave matches the characteristic frequency of the electron.
This error led to the mystification of wave-particle duality, whereas in fact this duality merely reflects our misattribution of detector characteristics to light itself.
II. Conceptual Confusion: Mathematical Tools Mistaken for Physical Reality
2.1 Reification of the Wave Function
Original error: The Schrödinger equation was originally merely a mathematical tool describing the propagation of matter waves, analogous to equations for sound or water waves. However, the wave function ψ was erroneously granted ontological status as the "mode of existence" of a particle.
Deepening of the error:
Born’s probabilistic interpretation |ψ|² interpreted the mathematical intensity distribution as "the probability of finding the particle at a location."
This led to the absurd conclusion that "a particle exists simultaneously in multiple places."
In reality, ψ might simply describe a physical guiding field, with the particle always possessing a definite position.
2.2 Over-Abstraction of Operator Formalism
The replacement of physical quantities by operators is a purely mathematical operation, yet it was mistakenly regarded as reflecting the "essence of the quantum world":
Position x → x̂ (multiplication operator)
Momentum p → -iℏ ∂/∂x (differential operator)
Key error: The commutation relation [x̂, p̂] = iℏ was treated as a fundamental principle of nature, whereas it is merely a mathematical property of the Fourier transform. We erroneously interpreted a mathematical operational relation as physical "incompatibility."
III. Spin: The Most Typical Conceptual Error
3.1 From Experimental Phenomenon to Misleading Label
The Stern–Gerlach experiment showed that a beam of silver atoms splits into two in a magnetic field, which clearly demonstrated magnetic interaction. However:
Faulty naming: Pauli called it "spin," implying some form of rotation.
Faulty quantization: s = 1/2 was assigned without derivation from a physical mechanism.
Faulty generalization: It was promoted as an "intrinsic property" of all fermions.
3.2 Concealing the True Physics
The actual situation might be:
The electron does rotate (in the classical sense), producing a magnetic moment.
Relativistic effects (Thomas precession) correct the apparent spin from 1 to 1/2.
We replaced concrete rotational motion with an abstract "spin operator."
Chain of errors:
The spin–statistics theorem was built upon this faulty concept of spin.
The Pauli exclusion principle might simply be a consequence of magnetic interaction.
The entire particle classification scheme (fermions/bosons) may need reexamination.
IV. The Measurement Problem: Epistemological Error Turned into Ontological Mystery
4.1 Mystification of the Observer
Core error: The epistemological limitation (we can only obtain statistical results) was wrongly elevated to an ontological principle (nature is inherently probabilistic).
Erroneous evolutionary chain:
We can only measure statistical properties of ensembles → (faulty inference) → individual particles have no definite state.
Measurement alters the system → (faulty inference) → consciousness causes wave function collapse.
Position and momentum cannot be simultaneously measured precisely → (faulty inference) → particles fundamentally lack definite position and momentum.
4.2 Misunderstanding of Quantum Entanglement
The EPR paradox was originally Einstein’s argument demonstrating the incompleteness of quantum mechanics, yet it was mistakenly interpreted as a "magical prediction" of quantum theory.
Error chain:
Two particles share a conserved quantity (e.g., total spin = 0).
Measuring one particle immediately reveals the state of the other.
→ (faulty interpretation) → spooky action at a distance, nonlocality.
In reality, this may simply reflect preservation of initial correlations, with nothing mysterious involved.
V. Mathematical Success Concealing Conceptual Errors
5.1 Computational Success ≠ Conceptual Correctness
The enormous computational success of quantum mechanics (precision up to 10⁻¹²) has been wrongly taken as evidence for the correctness of its conceptual framework. However:
Ptolemaic geocentrism could also accurately predict planetary positions, yet this did not mean Earth was the center of the universe.
Quantum mechanics may be the modern equivalent of an "epicycle–deferent" system:
Mathematically self-consistent
Computationally precise
Conceptually erroneous
5.2 Self-Reinforcement of Formalism
Once the initial faulty assumptions were accepted, the entire theoretical framework began to self-reinforce:
Mathematical aesthetics: successful applications of symmetry and group theory were seen as signs of theoretical correctness.
Prediction–verification cycle: predictions based on faulty concepts were "confirmed" by experiment, reinforcing those concepts.
Educational entrenchment: generations of physicists trained within this framework lost the ability to question its foundations.
VI. Erroneous Philosophical Consequences
6.1 Abandonment of Realism
Starting from faulty assumptions, the physics community gradually abandoned the pursuit of objective reality:
Copenhagen interpretation: no reality without measurement
Many-worlds interpretation: all possibilities are realized
Consciousness-based interpretations: consciousness creates reality
These are all larger errors invented to explain paradoxes arising from initial misconceptions.
6.2 Invasion of Mysticism
Conceptual errors in quantum mechanics opened the door to various forms of mysticism:
Quantum consciousness
Quantum spirituality
Quantum medicine
These pseudosciences exploit the "mystery" of quantum mechanics to promote their own theories—yet this very "mystery" is itself a product of misinterpretation.
VII. Returning to a Correct Physical Picture
7.1 Re-examining Foundational Assumptions
Assumptions that must be questioned:
Is energy inherently discrete? → Possibly just a result of boundary conditions.
Do particles lack definite trajectories? → Possibly just due to our ignorance.
Is spin an intrinsic quantum number? → Possibly actual rotational motion.
Does measurement cause collapse? → Possibly just a natural result of interaction.
7.2 Restoring Causal Determinism
The probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics may merely reflect our ignorance of an underlying deterministic process:
de Broglie–Bohm theory shows determinism is possible.
Randomness may stem from details beyond our current grasp.
Chaotic dynamics can produce apparent randomness.
7.3 Building a New Conceptual Framework
What is needed is not patching, but reconstruction:
Start from physical mechanisms, not mathematical formalism.
Preserve classical intuition to guide theory construction.
Pursue unified understanding and eliminate the artificial quantum–classical divide.
Uphold physical realism and refuse to mystify epistemological limitations.
VIII. Conclusion: Dispelling Mystery and Returning to Science
The so-called "mystery" of quantum mechanics is indeed the cumulative result of a series of faulty assumptions and misunderstandings. Beginning with Planck’s energy quantization, each step built new errors upon prior ones, ultimately forming a theoretically successful but conceptually reality-detached framework.
Key realizations:
Computational tools ≠ physical reality: wave functions, operators, spin, etc., are calculational tools, not physical entities.
Statistical description ≠ essential property: probability distributions reflect our ignorance, not the essence of nature.
Mathematical success ≠ conceptual correctness: accurate prediction does not imply true understanding of mechanism.
Mystification is failure: when a theory produces mystery rather than understanding, it indicates a fundamental flaw.
Path forward:
Physics needs a new conceptual revolution—not incremental fixes to quantum mechanics, but a thorough re-examination of its entire conceptual foundation and a reconstruction of theory based on correct physical imagery. This requires:
Courage to challenge the "sacred" quantum dogma
Wisdom to identify hidden conceptual errors
Commitment to pursuing genuine physical understanding
Only by recognizing that quantum "mystery" is a human-made illusion can we break through current theoretical impasses and move toward true understanding of nature. The mission of science is to eliminate mystery, not to create it. The failure of quantum mechanics in this regard precisely indicates that it must be transcended.