``Probabilist results'' are ``exact quantified values''-about the pobability distribution in question. Not all probability distributions are delta functions, but this doesn't mean that they are uniform, either.

``Probabilist results'' are ``exact quantified values''-about the pobability distribution in question. Not all probability distributions are delta functions, but this doesn't mean that they are uniform, either.

It depends on what you call "quantum mechanics". Traditional quantum mechanics gives deterministic answers, but experiments are probabilistic, so to compare them, one needs "interpretation". Quantum mechanics of open systems, developed since 1980s provides probabilistic, or deterministic answer dependent on context.

I have offered a very simple interpretation of the principles of superposition and reduction of the wave function during measurement. The probabilistic aspect in any case arises, but its deep reasons may be different. See my little article `Subquantum Leapfrog`

https://vixra.org/abs/1801.0379

Deterministic nature of equations in the Hilbert space is not directly relevant to a measurement (cf Peter Lerner's reply). E.g., in spinor QED, wave functions of electrons are inaccessible. Only currents are subject to observation. In practice, all one can do in a lab is scatter light off a macroscopic device (with obvious reservations regarding natural light sources, as, e.g., in astronomy). There is a fundamental gap between the full microscopic picture and that what we can observe macroscopically. IMHO, this gap is the primary reason for observable quantum stochasticity.

If quantum mechanics can be verified experimentaly only with probabilist interpretation, the mechanics provides only "the most probables "values that we should measure. Do we have to complete quantum mechanics with determism like De Broglie Bohm wave interpretation?

Probabilities of the results of measurements should be rigorously calculated as measures of fibers of the measurement value. Unfortunately, it does not mostly happen, including infinite mess of works on the Bell's inequality.

Dear Fabrice Marty

I am disagree with all mechanical theories regarding atoms.

Atoms are complete well organized entity that can interact with other atom intelligently. If we are smart and our DNA smart then an atom is smart. Thus an atom is composited of Panpsychist constituent of Elementary particle.

to my understanding we are looking at atom in the wrong direction. we must test an atom as a whole, not by the part. This unprecedented statement means, SPACE of an atom is not just holder or container, it is a functioning element of an atom.

regards.