Orthodox quantum mechanics has another implicit postulate stating that temporal and spatial frequencies of the Planck–Einstein and de Broglie formulas can only be linked with the infinite, in time and space, harmonic plane waves of Fourier analysis. From this assumption, nonlocality either in space and time follows directly. This is what is called Fourier Ontology. In order to build nonlinear causal and local quantum physics, it is necessary to reject Fourier ontology and accept that in certain cases a finite wave may have a well defined frequency. Now the mathematical tool to describe this new approach is wavelet local analysis. This more general nonlinear local and causal quantum physics, in the limit of the linear approximation, contains formally orthodox quantum mechanics as a particular case.
Orthodox quantum mechanics has another implicit postulate stating that temporal and spatial frequencies of the Planck–Einstein and de Broglie formulas can only be linked with the infinite, in time and space, harmonic plane waves of Fourier analysis. From this assumption, nonlocality either in space and time follows directly. This is what is called Fourier Ontology. In order to build nonlinear causal and local quantum physics, it is necessary to reject Fourier ontology and accept that in certain cases a finite wave may have a well defined frequency. Now the mathematical tool to describe this new approach is wavelet local analysis. This more general nonlinear local and causal quantum physics, in the limit of the linear approximation, contains formally orthodox quantum mechanics as a particular case.
Fourier ontology claims that only the physically inexistent abstract harmonic plane waves do have a pure perfect frequency, therefore, a finite wave being in this ontology a sum of many harmonic plane waves cannot have a single pure frequency. The causal nonlinear approach based onto the more general wavelet analysis assumes that a finite wave may indeed have a single frequency. An experimental process is proposed for testing nonlocal and nontemporal Fourier ontology against local wavelet analysis. The experiment also checks the general validity of Heisenberg indetermination relations. The proposed experiment uses an asymmetric Mach-Zehnder interferometer and increasingly better monochromators.
Focusing on the initial development of quantum mechanics, we will give a brief historical synopsis of the theory foundations, based on the Fourier framework and stating the philosophical conclusions inspired by that same mathematical formalism. We will then proceed, introducing an alternative way of describing the undulatory aspects of quantum entities, using local Gaussian Morlet wavelets. As we shall see, this change implies different philosophical interpretations about quantum reality and, even more, about the contemporary accepted differences between the quantum and the macroscopic realms. From these we will witness the formal and heuristic power of wavelet local analysis applied to the physical description of Nature. The ideas presented in this paper are initial standpoints of what can hopefully be expected to be a more mature and unifying physical theory, still undergoing development.
PROSPECTIVE The concern of this paper will be different from that of most studies of quantum gravity. There will be no discussion of the problem of quantizing the gravitational field equations, hence nothing about the modifications which quantization requires of space-time structure at distances of the order of the Planck length (∼ 10 −33 cm). The emphasis will be rather upon the implications of quantum mechanics for certain general properties of events and processes which occur in the theatre of space-time, specifically with non-locality and nonlinearity . Quantum mechanics is undoubtedly a non-local theory when it treats correlated spatially separated systems. When one examines closely the character of this non-locality, however, one does not find reasons for modifying the causal structure of space-time as described by special or general relativity theory, but rather reasons for refining the concept of an event. The occurrence of definite outcomes of measurements implies that there are processes in nature governed by nonlinear laws. Nonlinearity is very peculiar from the standpoint of quantum mechanics, since it is contrary to the linearity of the time-dependent Schrödinger equation, which is commonly assumed to govern the dynamics of any isolated physical system. Hence it is necessary to inquire whether a rational treatment of the occurrence of outcomes is possible without some modifications of current quantum mechanics. Whatever decision is reached on this question, however, it does not appear to bear directly on space-time structure, but rather on the general character of processes.
Quantum nonlocality has been a long-standing and fascinating problem in the foundations of quantum theory since its proof by the Bell inequality. It seems to contradict our intuitive picture of space-time and thus urges us to reconsider its foundation. With the advent of quantum information science, it has attracted renewed interest from a fundamental point of view as well as from a quantum information-theoretic one. Another fundamental question on the nature of quantum theory is how we understand what quantum states represent. (Quantum states hereafter refer to pure states.) This is also a long-standing problem since the early days of quantum theory. Roughly speaking, there are two conflicting views on this matter: one is ontology and the other is epistemology. Ontological models of quantum theory are models in which we assume some underlying reality for physical systems and require that all the predictions of quantum theory should be reproduced. The ontological models are divided into two categories, depending on which views the models are based on, ontology or epistemology. In the models based on ontology, quantum states represent the underlying reality in some sense, and different quantum states correspond to different realities. In the models based on epistemology, quantum states do not necessarily correspond to the underlying realities, and even different quantum states can be consistent with a common underlying reality. The former type of ontological models of quantum theory is called 1⁄4-ontic. The latter is called 1⁄4-epistemic. Thus, it might be rather confusing that ontological models are classified further into 1⁄4-ontic models and 1⁄4-epistemic ones. We use these terms here in accordance with the recent literature on quantum foundations. (For details of these notions in the ontological models of quantum theory, see the paper by Harrigan and Spekkens.) Quite recently, the question just mentioned has been answered by Pusey et al., and one of the above models has been refuted. It was shown that 1⁄4-epistemic models are inconsistent with the predictions of quantum theory. In other words, epistemological views on quantum states turned out to be false as long as we assume some underlying reality for physical systems. Therefore, only 1⁄4-ontic models of quantum theory are valid for describing quantum systems. This significantly advances our understanding on the nature of quantum states. It is expected that various conclusions will be drawn from this fact. In this paper, we will discuss a connection with nonlocality. The above two fundamental questions, nonlocality and the nature of quantum states, are intimately connected, and the connection was first implicitly recognised by Einstein in the early days of quantum theory. In a private correspondence with Schrodinger, Einstein constructed a fascinating argument that relates the above two. (That argument is distinctly different from the well-known EPR argument.) Recently, it was revisited and reconstructed in accordance with more rigorous notions in quantum foundations. Nonlocality is usually shown by violations of Bell inequalities. (Bell inequalities hereafter include all the subsequent developments such as the CHSH inequality.) Even if it is not clear whether the models of quantum theory are 1⁄4-ontic or 1⁄4-epistemic, we can prove nonlocality just by showing the violation of Bell inequalities. However, the above argument originated by Einstein implies that if we know the models are 1⁄4-ontic in advance (as we do now), we can prove nonlocality in a simpler way without Bell inequalities. (This argument had been known in quantum foundations before the refutation of 1⁄4-epistemic models.) Nonlocality is rigorously defined as a violation of the notion of local causality defined by Bell. Showing the violation of Bell inequalities is one way of demonstrating the violation of local causality. Since the simpler proof initiated by Einstein directly demonstrates the violation of local causality, it is a more straightforward proof of nonlocality from a conceptual point of view. In the following, we will see that this simple argument of nonlocality without Bell inequalities can be used to show multipartite nonlocality as well. Before moving onto multipartite cases, first let us define the necessary notions for presenting our result. First of all, we assume that there exists a complete specification of the properties of a physical system, which we refer to as the ontic state of that system. The ontic states represent the underlying realities and are not necessarily equal to ordinary quantum states. (In other words, the ontic states correspond to hidden variables.) Ontological models of quantum theory are models that assume ontic states and reproduce all the predictions of quantum theory. An important question is how ontic states correspond to quantum states in quantum theory. In order to frame the question accurately, we need the notion of an epistemic state, which represents the relation between them. Suppose we prepare a physical system in a quantum state 1⁄4. Although the system is uniquely specified as 1⁄4 in quantum theory, there still remains a possibility that it allows a more detailed specification in the ontic state space, in which case many different ontic states turn out to be consistent with 1⁄4. The relation between ontic states and the preparation procedure, P1⁄4, is described by a conditional probability distribution over the ontic state space, pð jP1⁄4Þ, which we refer to as an epistemic state. In general, the preparation P can be a preparation of a physical system in a mixed sate. Unless there exists a one-to-one correspondence between ontic states and quantum states, the probability distribution spreads over . (See Fig. 1.) The question of whether an ontological model is 1⁄4-ontic or 1⁄4-epistemic is concerned with the behaviour of the epistemic states for two distinct preparations of quantum states. Consider two distinct preparations of quantum states, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 82 (2013) 055003
This paper develops a temporal interpretation of quantum mechanics through the concept of chronomorphic reduction: a controlled mapping from the event latency of a physical process to an amplitude–phase representation, termed a chromogent. Revisiting de Broglie’s phase-wave approach, it examines phase closure, reconstruction of selected observation data, and the conditions under which a tangent provides an adequate local approximation. The harmonic oscillator supplies an explicit model with controlled spectral approximation errors. The accompanying archive, Zeittheorie_Lean_v1.1.0.zip, contains eleven Lean 4 modules with pinned Mathlib dependencies, documentation linking formal statements to the article, reproduction instructions, and successful build records. Verified results include local Taylor and readout-error bounds, phase and rescaled-action limits, common-unitary stability estimates, oscillator truncation bounds, phase identities, and comparison-space identification. Formal verification applies to the encoded mathematical statements under their explicit hypotheses. The oscillator spectrum and eigenbasis, the Born readout, and the prescribed unitary evolution enter as model assumptions. The package does not constitute a formal verification of the entire manuscript or its physical and ontological interpretation. The scope and limitations are detailed in Appendix B.