I. What is "Scientific Realism"?

In the context of physics, scientific realism asserts:

• Physical theories describe an objective reality independent of observation.

• Core concepts in theories (e.g., fields, particles, trajectories) must have clear physical counterparts.

• Successful theories succeed because they approximately reveal the real structure of the world, not merely as computational tools.

II. The Global Approximation Interpretation: A Radical Physical Realism

The Global Approximation Interpretation (GAI) system, including its latest extensions, firmly adheres to a realist stance:

1. Clear Ontological Commitments

• Particles are real extended objects. They possess physical dimensions defined by the Compton wavelength \(\lambda_C = \hbar/mc\), not mathematical points.

• Spin is real rotation. The magnetic moments of electrons/protons originate from the classical rotation of their internal charge distributions (with relativistic corrections).

• The wave function is a physical field. It describes real wave patterns (e.g., resonances, standing waves) within particles or their environments, not probability amplitudes.

• Gauge fields are derived quantities. The electromagnetic potential \(A_\mu\) records the spatial variation of magnetic moment directions, not a fundamental entity.

2. Rejecting "Observation Creates Reality"

• Measurement is not a "collapse" but a new dynamical equilibrium achieved after coupling between the system and the instrument.

• Quantum entanglement is not a "nonlocal mysterious interaction" but ordinary correlation generated during measurement interactions.

3. Mathematics Serves Physical Images

• All mathematical structures (e.g., SU(2) transformations, path integrals) must have intelligible classical correspondences (e.g., magnetic moment direction selection, wave interference).

• Opposing "mathematics for mathematics’ sake": Super symmetry and extra dimensions are regarded as mathematical fantasies due to lack of experimental support and physical imagery.

✅ Conclusion: This theory attempts to reconstruct a continuous, local, causal, and visualizable physical worldview, fully aligning with the spirit of classical realism.

III. Standard Quantum Field Theory (QFT): Instrumentalist/Anti-Realist Tendencies

Despite QFT’s unparalleled computational success, its mainstream interpretation (especially the Copenhagen tradition) carries strong anti-realist or instrumentalist overtones:

1. Vague or Absent Ontology

• Particles are excitations of fields, but "fields" themselves are operator-valued distributions defined on infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces, lacking intuitive physical imagery.

• Virtual particles and vacuum fluctuations are widely used, yet no one claims they "really exist"—they are merely intermediate steps in perturbative calculations.

• Wave function (or state vector): The mainstream view holds it is only a tool for calculating probabilities, not representing physical reality (e.g., Peres: "Unperformed experiments have no results").

2. The Central Role of Observation

• QFT’s predictions always concern the probability distribution of measurement results, not the system’s state before measurement.

• The "vacuum" is attributed complex properties (e.g., Casimir effect, Hawking radiation), but these effects depend on boundaries or horizons, implying the "vacuum" is not an independent entity.

3. Mathematical Form Takes Priority Over Physical Mechanisms

• Gauge symmetry is treated as a fundamental principle, not a manifestation of deeper physics (e.g., magnetic moment dynamics).

• Renormalization, while effective, is criticized as "sweeping infinities under the rug"—using mathematical tricks to conceal theoretical flaws (e.g., point-particle divergences).

• The 19 free parameters of the Standard Model cannot be derived from first principles and require experimental input, indicating theoretical incompleteness.

❌ Conclusion: In practice, QFT is often treated as a black-box computational engine—so long as outputs match experiments, whether the interior is "real" is irrelevant. This is a typical instrumentalist stance.

IV. Key Divide: How to Treat "Success"?

Stance	Interpretation of QFT’s Success
Global Approximation Interpretation (Realism)	QFT’s success stems from its unintentional capture of certain statistical features of real wave/resonance systems, but its mathematical framework obscures physical mechanisms, leading to conceptual confusion and loss of predictive power (e.g., inability to calculate the proton g-factor).
Standard QFT (Instrumentalism)	QFT’s success proves the correctness of its mathematical structure; whether the physical imagery is "real" is a philosophical question irrelevant to scientific practice. "Shut up and calculate!"

"Ptolemy’s geocentric theory also accurately predicted planetary positions, but that did not mean the Earth was truly the center of the universe. Quantum mechanics may be the modern version of the 'epicycle-deferent' system: mathematically consistent, computationally precise, and conceptually wrong."

V. A Profound Paradox: QFT’s "Realist Attempts" Are Even Less Realistic

Interestingly, some attempts to establish a realist foundation for QFT (e.g., Many-Worlds Interpretation, Bohmian Mechanics, GRW Collapse Model) often introduce more exotic ontologies (infinitely splitting universes, nonlocal guiding waves, spontaneous collapse mechanisms), further departing from classical realist intuition.

In contrast, Lei Yian’s approach is reverse:Abandon quantum mysticism → Return to classical waves and extended objects → Explain the same phenomena with a simpler realist imagery.

VI. Summary

Theory	Realist?	Core Ontology	Role of Mathematics
Global Approximation Interpretation and its extensions	✅ Yes	Extended particles, real rotation, physical wave fields	Tool for describing reality
Standard Quantum Field Theory (mainstream interpretation)	❌ No (Instrumentalist)	No clear ontology (or only measurement results)	Algorithm for predicting probabilities

The goal of the Global Approximation Interpretation and its extensions is to liberate physics from the "computationally successful but conceptually lost" quantum formalism, reconstructing a realist physics that is "mathematically simple, visually clear, and mechanistically explicit."

This is not merely a theoretical choice but a fundamental divide in scientific philosophical stance: Do we want a world we can "understand," or one we only need to "calculate"?

Would you like me to polish the academic tone further, adjust the formatting for journal submission, or add citations for key claims? I can also generate a concise abstract of this English version for your convenience.