Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

AIP conference proceedings

Understanding Quanta Beyond Quantum Mechanics

Ghenadie N. Mardari, Guillaume Adenier, Andrei Yu. Khrennikov, PEKKA J. LAHTI, Vladimir I. Man’ko, Theo M. Nieuwenhuizen

Published Jan 1, 2007• 1 citation
Publisher

Abstract

Quantum Mechanics must satisfy two conditions before it can be validated as complete. Firstly, there should be some compelling reason to believe that no microscopic phenomena are possible beyond the scope of the theory. Secondly, there should be a similar reason to believe that no macroscopic observations depend on the existence of additional pre‐quantum properties. Yet, the Universe appears to have some verifiable properties, which prevent the fulfillment of the second condition.

DOI
10.1063/1.2827318

Related papers

The quantum world and the completeness of quantum mechanics

James T. Cushing

What does not satisfy me in that theory [quantum mechanics], from the standpoint of principle, is its attitude towards that which appears to me to be the programmatic aim of all physics: the complete description of any (individual) real situation (as it supposedly exists irrespective of any act of observation or substantiation). Albert Einstein, Reply to Criticisms [This] implies the impossibility of any sharp separation between the behaviour of atomic objects and the interaction with the measuring instruments which serve to define the conditions under which the phenomena appear . In fact, the individuality of the typical quantum effects finds its proper expression in the circumstance that any attempt of subdividing the phenomena will demand a change in the experimental arrangement introducing new possibilities of interaction between objects and measuring instruments which in principle cannot be controlled. Consequently, evidence obtained under different experimental conditions cannot be comprehended within a single picture, but must be regarded as complementary in the sense that only the totality of the phenomena exhausts the possible information about the objects. Indeed the finite interaction between object and measuring agencies conditioned by the very existence of the quantum of action entails – because of the impossibility of controlling the reaction of the object on the measuring instruments, if these are to serve their purpose – the necessity of a final renunciation of the classical idea of causality and a radical revision of our attitude towards the problem of physical reality. […]

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Jan 29, 1998•0 citations

Problems of Quantum Mechanics (UET7B)

H. J. Spencer

This paper re-opens the debate on the failure of quantum mechanics to provide an understandable view of micro-reality. A critique is offered of the commonly accepted ‘Copenhagen Interpretation’ of a theory that is only a mathematical approach to the level of reality characterized by atoms and electrons. This critique is based on the oldest approach to thinking about nature for over 2500 years, known as Natural Philosophy. Quantum mechanics (QM) was developed over the first quarter of the 20th Century, when scientists were enthralled by a new philosophy known as Positivism, whose foundations were based on the assumption that material objects exist only when measured by humans – this central assumption conflates epistemology (knowledge) with ontology (existence). The present critique rejects this human-centered view of reality by assuming material reality has existed long before (and will persist long after) human beings (“Realism”). The defensive view that the micro-world is too different to understand using regular thinking (and only a mathematical approach is possible) is rejected totally. At least 12 earlier QM interpretations are critically analyzed, indicating the broad interest in “what does QM mean?” The standard theory of quantum mechanics is thus constructed on only how the micro-world appears to macro measurements - as such, it cannot offer any view of how the foundations of the world are acting when humans are not observing it - this has generated almost 100 years of confusion and contradiction at the very heart of physics. Significantly, we live in a world that is not being measured by scientists but is interacting with itself and with us. QM has failed to provide explanations: only recipes (meaningless equations), not insights. Physics has returned to the pre-Newtonian world of Ptolemaic phenomenology: only verifiable numbers without real understanding. The focus needs to be on an explicit linkage between the micro-world, when left to itself, and our mental models of this sphere of material reality, via the mechanism of measurement. This limits the role of measurement to confirming our mental models of reality but never confusing these with a direct image of ‘the thing in itself’. This implies a deep divide between reality and appearances, as Kant suggested. This paper includes an original analysis of several major assumptions that have been implicit in Classical Mechanics (CM) that were acceptable in the macroscopic domain of reality, demonstrated by its proven successes. Unfortunately, only a few of these assumptions were challenged by the developers of QM. We now show that these other assumptions are still generating confusions in the interpretation of QM and blocking further progress in the understanding of the microscopic domain. Several of these flawed assumptions were introduced by Newton to support the use of continuum mathematics as a model of nature. This paper proposes that it is the attempt to preserve continuum mathematics (especially calculus), which drives much of the mystery and confusion behind all attempts at understanding quantum mechanics. The introduction of discrete mathematics is proposed to help analyze the discrete interactions between the quintessential quantum objects: the electrons and their novel properties. A related paper demonstrates that it is possible to create a point-particle theory of electrons that explains all their peculiar (and ‘paradoxical’) behavior using only physical hypotheses and discrete mathematics without introducing the continuum mathematical ideas of fields or waves. Another (related) paper proves that all the known results for the hydrogen atom can also be exactly calculated from this new perspective with the discrete mathematics. * Surrey, B.C. Canada (604) 542-2299 spsi99@telus.net Version 2.015 08-05-2017 Begun 23-06-2008 {pp. 82, 70.2 Kw; 800 KB}

•May 1, 2017•0 citations

Decoherence and the Transition from Quantum to Classical

Wojciech Hubert Zurek

Quantum mechanics works exceedingly well in all practical applications. No example of conflict between its predictions and experiment is known. Without quantum physics we could not explain the behavior of solids, the structure and function of DNA, the color of the stars, the action of lasers or the properties of superfluids. Yet well over half a century after its inception, the debate about the relation of quantum mechanics to the familiar physical world continues. How can a theory that can account ith precision for everything we can measure still be deemed lacking?

Physics Today•Oct 1, 1991•2,633 citations

Set Theory and Many Worlds

Paul Tappenden

The 2022 Tel Aviv conference on the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics highlighted many differences between theorists. A very significant dichotomy is between Everettian fission (splitting) and Saunders–Wallace–Wilson divergence. For fission, an observer may have multiple futures, whereas for divergence they always have a single future. Divergence was explicitly introduced to resolve the problem of pre-measurement uncertainty for Everettian theory, which is universally believed to be absent for fission. Here I maintain that there is indeed pre-measurement uncertainty prior to fission, so long as objective probability is a property of Everettian branches. This is made possible if the universe is a set and branches are subsets with a probability measure. A universe that is a set of universes that are macroscopically isomorphic and span all possible configurations of local beäbles fulfills that role. If objective probability is a property of branches, then a successful Deutsch–Wallace decision-theoretic argument would justify the Principal Principle and be part of probability theory rather than specific to many-worlds theory. Any macroscopic object in our environment becomes a set of isomorphs with different microscopic configurations, each in an elemental universe (elemental in the set-theoretic sense). This is similar to the many-interacting-worlds theory, but the observer inhabits the set of worlds, not an individual world. An observer has many elemental bodies.

arXiv:2306.03583•Quantum Reports•Mar 2, 2023•4 citations

Towards a new interpretation of quantum mechanics?

André Julg, Pierre Julg

Abstract Quantum mechanics is a remarkable formalism for studying problems in the microscopic domain, and nobody has reasonably contested its power. Nevertheless, in spite of the many interpretations which have been proposed, its true meaning is far from being clear. The aim of this preliminary paper is to show that it is possible to conceive within a classical framework an interpretation of quantum mechanics and to make its limits of validity precise.

International Journal of Quantum Chemistry•Feb 1, 1983•4 citations

Quantum Laws and Their Origins: An Exploration Based on Three Foundational Hypotheses

zhigang Ye

Abstract This paper presents an in-depth investigation into quantum effects and the three established principles of quantum mechanics, including the dynamics derived from the development of physical systems—specifically, the reversal of positive and negative energy directions, as well as the density expansion and contraction caused by interactions between energy systems. Additionally, this study introduces a novel theoretical framework that proposes a new scope for understanding quantum phenomena. A truly universal principle must satisfy both Galileo’s principle of relativity and the law of covariance, thereby enabling the identification of global hidden variables or underlying mechanisms behind physical phenomena, and allowing for the explanation and demonstration of the deductive logic and outcomes of all physical processes.Contemporary quantum experiments, evaluated through Bell’s inequality, suggest that quantum mechanics is currently regarded as complete. Furthermore, it is widely accepted that quantum entanglement exhibits uncertainty prior to measurement, with its process being superluminal and non-local. However, the fundamental reasons behind these characteristics—particularly their true physical principles, dynamic behavior, and evolutionary logic—remain inadequately addressed. In fact, current interpretations of quantum mechanics are largely superficial and do not fully incorporate Galilean covariance, indicating an inherent incompleteness.At present, the major frameworks of quantum mechanics—including quantum theory, relativity, quantum field theory, and the Schrödinger equation—are primarily confined to the description of the positive (observable) world. They generally deny the possibility of energy direction reversing into negative energy states or transitioning into a hypothetical negative world. Moreover, they reject the idea that quantum entanglement can occur within the negative world and subsequently return to the positive world, implying oscillatory motion, reciprocation, energy exchange, and superluminal properties.The prevailing interpretation—that the interaction between entangled quanta, involving energy, force, reference frames, and positively entangled particles, constitutes a holistic effect—is insufficient. Specifically, attempting to explain the instantaneous, superluminal, and uncertain nature of quantum effects solely based on dynamics restricted to the positive world domain appears fundamentally flawed. Current quantum mechanical explanations fail to identify the global hidden variables or the underlying mechanisms governing physical phenomena. Furthermore, they cannot account for why quantum entanglement results violate Bell’s inequality.According to Galileo’s law of covariance, quantum mechanics should not be satisfied with partial or limited covariance. Therefore, we propose a new quantum mechanical principle grounded in three hypotheses to address these limitations. Given that energy possesses both positive and negative directional properties, particularly under dynamic conditions where energy direction reverses, the instantaneous density ratio becomes extremely small. This leads to the physical realization of quantum superluminal phenomena. Through the principle of resonance—such as energy direction reversal and quantum entanglement—these phenomena become possible.To satisfy Galilean covariance, it can be inferred that only the reversal of the energy vector direction and transition into the negative world can fulfill such requirements. Due to the potential existence of negative entanglement in negative energy and the reciprocal exchange between the positive and negative worlds, there remains uncertainty regarding the parity of energy increase or spin quantity in returning quanta or systems. Furthermore, experimental observations from phase-locked reverse measurements—where "the jump value of PDV data consistently exceeds the rise"—suggest new physical interpretations involving imaginary numbers and calculus related to energy direction and the negative world. These findings demonstrate the pre-measurement uncertainty of quantum states, as well as the superluminal and non-local nature of quantum processes, thereby supporting the inference of a new foundational theory of quantum mechanics.Finally, the quantum teleportation experiment provides evidence of vector reversals in energy and information transmission, further confirming the existence of superluminal communication.

•Sep 11, 2025•0 citations
Quantum Mechanics must satisfy two conditions before it can be validated as complete. Firstly, there should be some compelling reason to believe that no microscopic phenomena are possible beyond the scope of the theory. Secondly, there should be a similar reason to believe that no macroscopic observations depend on the existence of additional pre‐quantum properties. Yet, the Universe appears to have some verifiable properties, which prevent the fulfillment of the second condition.
What does not satisfy me in that theory [quantum mechanics], from the standpoint of principle, is its attitude towards that which appears to me to be the programmatic aim of all physics: the complete description of any (individual) real situation (as it supposedly exists irrespective of any act of observation or substantiation). Albert Einstein, Reply to Criticisms [This] implies the impossibility of any sharp separation between the behaviour of atomic objects and the interaction with the measuring instruments which serve to define the conditions under which the phenomena appear . In fact, the individuality of the typical quantum effects finds its proper expression in the circumstance that any attempt of subdividing the phenomena will demand a change in the experimental arrangement introducing new possibilities of interaction between objects and measuring instruments which in principle cannot be controlled. Consequently, evidence obtained under different experimental conditions cannot be comprehended within a single picture, but must be regarded as complementary in the sense that only the totality of the phenomena exhausts the possible information about the objects. Indeed the finite interaction between object and measuring agencies conditioned by the very existence of the quantum of action entails – because of the impossibility of controlling the reaction of the object on the measuring instruments, if these are to serve their purpose – the necessity of a final renunciation of the classical idea of causality and a radical revision of our attitude towards the problem of physical reality. […]
This paper re-opens the debate on the failure of quantum mechanics to provide an understandable view of micro-reality. A critique is offered of the commonly accepted ‘Copenhagen Interpretation’ of a theory that is only a mathematical approach to the level of reality characterized by atoms and electrons. This critique is based on the oldest approach to thinking about nature for over 2500 years, known as Natural Philosophy. Quantum mechanics (QM) was developed over the first quarter of the 20th Century, when scientists were enthralled by a new philosophy known as Positivism, whose foundations were based on the assumption that material objects exist only when measured by humans – this central assumption conflates epistemology (knowledge) with ontology (existence). The present critique rejects this human-centered view of reality by assuming material reality has existed long before (and will persist long after) human beings (“Realism”). The defensive view that the micro-world is too different to understand using regular thinking (and only a mathematical approach is possible) is rejected totally. At least 12 earlier QM interpretations are critically analyzed, indicating the broad interest in “what does QM mean?” The standard theory of quantum mechanics is thus constructed on only how the micro-world appears to macro measurements - as such, it cannot offer any view of how the foundations of the world are acting when humans are not observing it - this has generated almost 100 years of confusion and contradiction at the very heart of physics. Significantly, we live in a world that is not being measured by scientists but is interacting with itself and with us. QM has failed to provide explanations: only recipes (meaningless equations), not insights. Physics has returned to the pre-Newtonian world of Ptolemaic phenomenology: only verifiable numbers without real understanding. The focus needs to be on an explicit linkage between the micro-world, when left to itself, and our mental models of this sphere of material reality, via the mechanism of measurement. This limits the role of measurement to confirming our mental models of reality but never confusing these with a direct image of ‘the thing in itself’. This implies a deep divide between reality and appearances, as Kant suggested. This paper includes an original analysis of several major assumptions that have been implicit in Classical Mechanics (CM) that were acceptable in the macroscopic domain of reality, demonstrated by its proven successes. Unfortunately, only a few of these assumptions were challenged by the developers of QM. We now show that these other assumptions are still generating confusions in the interpretation of QM and blocking further progress in the understanding of the microscopic domain. Several of these flawed assumptions were introduced by Newton to support the use of continuum mathematics as a model of nature. This paper proposes that it is the attempt to preserve continuum mathematics (especially calculus), which drives much of the mystery and confusion behind all attempts at understanding quantum mechanics. The introduction of discrete mathematics is proposed to help analyze the discrete interactions between the quintessential quantum objects: the electrons and their novel properties. A related paper demonstrates that it is possible to create a point-particle theory of electrons that explains all their peculiar (and ‘paradoxical’) behavior using only physical hypotheses and discrete mathematics without introducing the continuum mathematical ideas of fields or waves. Another (related) paper proves that all the known results for the hydrogen atom can also be exactly calculated from this new perspective with the discrete mathematics. * Surrey, B.C. Canada (604) 542-2299 spsi99@telus.net Version 2.015 08-05-2017 Begun 23-06-2008 {pp. 82, 70.2 Kw; 800 KB}
Quantum mechanics works exceedingly well in all practical applications. No example of conflict between its predictions and experiment is known. Without quantum physics we could not explain the behavior of solids, the structure and function of DNA, the color of the stars, the action of lasers or the properties of superfluids. Yet well over half a century after its inception, the debate about the relation of quantum mechanics to the familiar physical world continues. How can a theory that can account ith precision for everything we can measure still be deemed lacking?
The 2022 Tel Aviv conference on the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics highlighted many differences between theorists. A very significant dichotomy is between Everettian fission (splitting) and Saunders–Wallace–Wilson divergence. For fission, an observer may have multiple futures, whereas for divergence they always have a single future. Divergence was explicitly introduced to resolve the problem of pre-measurement uncertainty for Everettian theory, which is universally believed to be absent for fission. Here I maintain that there is indeed pre-measurement uncertainty prior to fission, so long as objective probability is a property of Everettian branches. This is made possible if the universe is a set and branches are subsets with a probability measure. A universe that is a set of universes that are macroscopically isomorphic and span all possible configurations of local beäbles fulfills that role. If objective probability is a property of branches, then a successful Deutsch–Wallace decision-theoretic argument would justify the Principal Principle and be part of probability theory rather than specific to many-worlds theory. Any macroscopic object in our environment becomes a set of isomorphs with different microscopic configurations, each in an elemental universe (elemental in the set-theoretic sense). This is similar to the many-interacting-worlds theory, but the observer inhabits the set of worlds, not an individual world. An observer has many elemental bodies.
Abstract This paper presents an in-depth investigation into quantum effects and the three established principles of quantum mechanics, including the dynamics derived from the development of physical systems—specifically, the reversal of positive and negative energy directions, as well as the density expansion and contraction caused by interactions between energy systems. Additionally, this study introduces a novel theoretical framework that proposes a new scope for understanding quantum phenomena. A truly universal principle must satisfy both Galileo’s principle of relativity and the law of covariance, thereby enabling the identification of global hidden variables or underlying mechanisms behind physical phenomena, and allowing for the explanation and demonstration of the deductive logic and outcomes of all physical processes.Contemporary quantum experiments, evaluated through Bell’s inequality, suggest that quantum mechanics is currently regarded as complete. Furthermore, it is widely accepted that quantum entanglement exhibits uncertainty prior to measurement, with its process being superluminal and non-local. However, the fundamental reasons behind these characteristics—particularly their true physical principles, dynamic behavior, and evolutionary logic—remain inadequately addressed. In fact, current interpretations of quantum mechanics are largely superficial and do not fully incorporate Galilean covariance, indicating an inherent incompleteness.At present, the major frameworks of quantum mechanics—including quantum theory, relativity, quantum field theory, and the Schrödinger equation—are primarily confined to the description of the positive (observable) world. They generally deny the possibility of energy direction reversing into negative energy states or transitioning into a hypothetical negative world. Moreover, they reject the idea that quantum entanglement can occur within the negative world and subsequently return to the positive world, implying oscillatory motion, reciprocation, energy exchange, and superluminal properties.The prevailing interpretation—that the interaction between entangled quanta, involving energy, force, reference frames, and positively entangled particles, constitutes a holistic effect—is insufficient. Specifically, attempting to explain the instantaneous, superluminal, and uncertain nature of quantum effects solely based on dynamics restricted to the positive world domain appears fundamentally flawed. Current quantum mechanical explanations fail to identify the global hidden variables or the underlying mechanisms governing physical phenomena. Furthermore, they cannot account for why quantum entanglement results violate Bell’s inequality.According to Galileo’s law of covariance, quantum mechanics should not be satisfied with partial or limited covariance. Therefore, we propose a new quantum mechanical principle grounded in three hypotheses to address these limitations. Given that energy possesses both positive and negative directional properties, particularly under dynamic conditions where energy direction reverses, the instantaneous density ratio becomes extremely small. This leads to the physical realization of quantum superluminal phenomena. Through the principle of resonance—such as energy direction reversal and quantum entanglement—these phenomena become possible.To satisfy Galilean covariance, it can be inferred that only the reversal of the energy vector direction and transition into the negative world can fulfill such requirements. Due to the potential existence of negative entanglement in negative energy and the reciprocal exchange between the positive and negative worlds, there remains uncertainty regarding the parity of energy increase or spin quantity in returning quanta or systems. Furthermore, experimental observations from phase-locked reverse measurements—where "the jump value of PDV data consistently exceeds the rise"—suggest new physical interpretations involving imaginary numbers and calculus related to energy direction and the negative world. These findings demonstrate the pre-measurement uncertainty of quantum states, as well as the superluminal and non-local nature of quantum processes, thereby supporting the inference of a new foundational theory of quantum mechanics.Finally, the quantum teleportation experiment provides evidence of vector reversals in energy and information transmission, further confirming the existence of superluminal communication.