Quantum mechanics is one of the most successful theories in the history of science.
It underlies atomic physics, semiconductors, lasers, and modern quantum technologies.
However, nearly a century after its development, a peculiar situation remains:
we can predict experimental results with remarkable precision, yet we still do not fully understand what quantum theory actually represents.
Does it describe physical reality “as it is,” or does it instead describe the structure of conditions under which observable facts become possible?
In this article, I propose the following hypothesis:
quantum theory does not describe reality itself, but the conditions and mechanisms through which observable reality emerges.
1. What Is “Reality”?
Let us start with a basic assumption:
The World exists independently of any observers and is in constant flux.
However, different parts of the World—including observers—interact with it in different ways and register different aspects of those interactions.
This leads to a workable definition:
Reality for an observer is that part of the World which is capable of affecting the observer and which the observer can register.
Consequently, relative to any given observer, the World can be conditionally divided into two domains:
• Reality — phenomena that can be registered by the observer.
• A deeper level of existence that may not manifest directly, but is capable of giving rise to one or another observable reality under specific interaction conditions.
It follows that there are as many realities as there are observers.
In other words, every observer has their own conditional reality.
This makes it useful to introduce two additional concepts:
• Subjective reality — the set of phenomena through which the World affects a particular observer.
• Objective (or intersubjective) reality — the set of phenomena that manifest approximately the same way for several different observers.
For example, every person perceives the World slightly differently, yet a significant portion of those perceptions coincide across many people.
It is precisely this overlapping part that forms what we call objective reality.
Clearly, subjective reality is always broader than intersubjective (objective) reality.
Therefore, some part of subjective reality is in principle inaccessible to other observers and cannot become objective.
2. Reality Manifests Discretely There is another crucial limitation.
No observer can perceive the World as a continuous whole in its full depth and variety.
Every observer interacts only with a certain set of stable and finite manifestations of the World.
These manifestations form what can be called the observer’s subjective space (world).
Since everything in the World is continuously changing, these manifestations change as well.
This allows us to introduce the notion of subjective time — as a characteristic of changes within subjective reality.
Moreover, both the phenomena themselves and their changes can only be registered by an observer with a certain minimal resolution.
We are accustomed to describing this limitation through the concept of quanta.
Thus, several foundational statements can be formulated:
• The observer does not perceive the World as a continuous whole;
• They interact only with finite and relatively stable manifestations;
• The structure of these manifestations forms the subjective phenomenal geometry of space-time;
• The subjective world is quantized: below a certain threshold, the observer cannot register changes.
3. Measurement in Quantum Theory Is Not Merely Reading, But a Condition for ManifestationIn
Everyday life, measurement is understood as a passive act: we assume the object already possesses definite properties, and measurement merely reveals them.
In quantum experiments, however, the situation appears different.
Measurement behaves not as simple readout, but rather as the imposition of conditions under which a stable outcome emerges from a multitude of possibilities.
In other words, measurement defines a context — the architecture of the measurement — within which certain outcomes become possible and registrable.
This idea has long been present in modern quantum physics:
• The result depends on the measurement context;
• Properties of the system do not always exist in the classical sense before registration;
• What is observed is determined not only by the system, but also by the mode of interaction with it.
This naturally raises the question:
Are we measuring an already existing reality, or are we participating in the process of its emergence?
4. A Small Shift: From “Reality” to “Possibility of Reality”
Discussions of quantum mechanics often contrast two positions:
• The wave function is a real physical entity;
• The wave function is merely information about the system.
There is, however, a third interpretation.
Quantum mechanics can be viewed as a theory of structured possibility — a system of rules describing:
which manifestations can become stable and observable within a given measurement architecture.
The quantum formalism remains the same precise predictive tool.
What changes is the ontological interpretation of what its symbols mean.
This idea forms the basis of the hypothesis I call the Interference Model of Noumena (IMN).
IMN does not propose new equations of quantum mechanics.
It offers an ontological framework in which the quantum formalism can be interpreted as a description of the structure of possible manifestations.
5. The Interference Model of Noumena
IMN relies on a simple organizing idea:
Relative to an observer, the World can be regarded as consisting of three levels (layers):
• Extraphenomenal (noumenal) level
The existence of the World as such, independent of observers.
Here there are still no objects, space, or time in the familiar physical sense.
There is no “real world” yet, but there is something from which it can arise.
Borrowing from Immanuel Kant, we can call this the noumenal level.
• Prephenomenal level
The structure of possible manifestations for a given observer.
It is precisely this level that quantum mechanics formally describes.
• Phenomenal level
Stabilized manifestations — events, measured values, facts.
This is the level we usually call reality.
In the simplest possible terms:
Quantum mechanics describes not the events themselves, but the structure of possibilities — which events can manifest.
Measurement, in this picture, is the process by which one of those possibilities becomes a stable phenomenal fact.
6. Why “Interference” Matters Here
Interference appears everywhere in quantum mechanics:
• the double-slit experiment
• phase amplitudes
• quantum superpositions
Quantum interference demonstrates one key thing:
what becomes real depends on how possibilities combine.
Structured possibilities can amplify or suppress one another before anything definite and stable — a phenomenal result, a reality — emerges.
You don’t have to take literally the picture of “waves in space-time” to accept this operational fact:
different measurement contexts lead to different stable outcomes, even when the underlying experimental “system” is described as “the same one.”
It is interference that shows quantum theory deals not with ready-made objects, but with the structure of possible manifestations that can reinforce or cancel each other.
Thus, quantum mechanics can be understood as the theory of how possible manifestations interfere and, upon measurement, turn into observable facts.
Schematically, the core idea of IMN looks like this:
World “as it is in itself” outside observers
↓
structure of possible manifestations for a specific observer
↓
interference of possibilities within a given observation/measurement
↓
measurement (stabilization)
↓
phenomenal reality for that observer
The central principle of IMN therefore is:
Phenomenal reality for any observer arises as stable manifestations stabilized out of the interference structure of possible interactions between the observer and the World.
Quantum mechanics, in this view, describes precisely that structure of possibilities, while measurement is the process of their stabilization into an observable fact.
7. An Engineering Perspective: Measurement Architecture
This interpretation requires neither consciousness, mysticism, nor radical subjectivism.
It is fully compatible with the idea that measurement is a physical interaction.
At the same time, it adds an important emphasis:
the architecture of measurement influences which outcomes become stable.
This gives rise to an engineering question:
Which architectures stabilize which outcomes, and with what degree of stability?
Measurement should then be understood not as the extraction of pre-existing information, but as an act of stabilization or articulation of a result — in which one possibility crosses a certain threshold and transitions into a phenomenal fact.
Thus, according to IMN:
measurement architecture
↓
shapes the structure of possibilities
↓
stabilizes one of the outcomesIn
Other words, the design of the measurement becomes part of the physics of the result.
By controlling measurement architecture, we can therefore unlock new ways to steer quantum systems.
8. What Is Not Being Claimed Here
It is important to stress:
• This is not a replacement for quantum mechanics;
• It is not a new physical theory;
• It does not claim that reality depends on consciousness;
• It does not deny objectivity.
It is an ontological interpretation.
Physics becomes the study of stable, manifested structures at the phenomenal-intersubjective (objective) level, as well as of the possibilities and the conditions under which those structures can manifest.
9. Why This Interpretation Might Be Useful
When quantum mechanics is interpreted as a theory of stabilization of possibilities, the measurement problem changes its form.
The “collapse of the wave function” ceases to look like a mystery of nature and becomes similar to a registration threshold.
The focus shifts from “What is the wave function?” to:
What makes a possibility stable enough to become an observable fact?
This does not solve every problem, but it makes the conceptual picture more coherent and unified.
10. Conclusion
If we treat quantum mechanics as a theory of the transition from possibilities to observable reality, then measurement becomes the key process of stabilizing manifestations.
This suggests a slightly different philosophical stance:
We do not merely observe the World.
We operate inside a structured interface of interaction that makes the emergence of stable facts possible.
Consequently, the study of measurement architectures may turn out to be not only a philosophical exercise, but also a practical direction for the development of quantum technologies.
P.S.
As a practical continuation of these ideas, the deep-tech startup Quantum Measurement Technologies OÜ has been founded in Tallinn.
The project develops new architectures of measurement systems aimed at increasing the stability and precision of quantum and precision measurements.
In 2026, the first prototypes of such devices are planned.
Several patent applications have also been filed in the United States.If you are interested in this conceptual or engineering direction — I would be glad to discuss and collaborate.
Aleksandr Korobov, physicist, philosopher
