Collapse or no collapse? What is the best ontology of quantum mechanics in the primitive ontology framework?

TL;DR

This paper argues that adding collapse to quantum mechanics is problematic without a clear primitive ontology, and advocates for a deterministic particle ontology over collapse-based interpretations.

Contribution

It clarifies the necessity of a primitive ontology for measurement outcomes and compares collapse-based and particle ontology approaches within this framework.

Findings

Collapse postulate is less attractive without a primitive ontology.

Deterministic particle ontology offers a consistent alternative.

Collapse addition complicates the interpretation without resolving measurement issues.

Abstract

Recalling the state of the art in the interpretation of quantum physics, this paper emphasizes that one cannot simply add a collapse parameter to the Schr\~A{\P}dinger equation in order to solve the measurement problem. If one does so, one is also committed to a primitive ontology of a configuration of matter in physical space in order to have something in the ontology that constitutes the determinate measurement outcomes. The paper then argues that in the light of this consequence, the collapse postulate loses its attractiveness in comparison to an ontology of persisting particles moving on continuous trajectories according to a deterministic law.