There is beginning for anything; we used to hear that phrase. The same wisdom word applies to the authors too. What began in 2005 as a short email on some ideas related to interpretation of the Wave Mechanics results in a number of papers and books up to now. Some of these papers can be found in Progress in Physics or elsewhere. It is often recognized that when a mathematician meets a physics-inclined mind then the result is either a series of endless debates or publication. In this story, authors preferred to publish rather than perish. Therefore, the purpose with this book is to present a selection of published papers in a compilation which enable the readers to find some coherent ideas which appear in those articles. For this reason, the ordering of the papers here is based on categories of ideas.
There is beginning for anything; we used to hear that phrase. The same wisdom word applies to the authors too. What began in 2005 as a short email on some ideas related to interpretation of the Wave Mechanics results in a number of papers and books up to now. Some of these papers can be found in Progress in Physics or elsewhere. It is often recognized that when a mathematician meets a physics-inclined mind then the result is either a series of endless debates or publication. In this story, authors preferred to publish rather than perish. Therefore, the purpose with this book is to present a selection of published papers in a compilation which enable the readers to find some coherent ideas which appear in those articles. For this reason, the ordering of the papers here is based on categories of ideas.
There is beginning for anything; we used to hear that phrase. The same wisdom word applies to us too. What began in 2005 as a short email on some ideas related to interpretation of the Wave Mechanics results in a number of papers and books up to now. Some of these papers can be found in Progress in Physics or elsewhere. It is often recognized that when a mathematician meets a physics-inclined mind then the result is either a series of endless debates or publication. In our story, we prefer to publish rather than perish. Therefore, our purpose with this book is to present a selection of published papers in a compilation which enable the readers to find some coherent ideas which appear in those articles. For this reason, the ordering of the papers here is based on categories of ideas. While some of these articles have been published in book format elsewhere, we hope that reading this book will give the readers an impression of the progress of our thoughts. A few other papers are not yet published elsewhere, or being planned to publish in other journal. We wish to extend our sincere gratitude to plenty of colleagues, friends and relatives all around the world for sharing their ideas, insightful discussions etc. Special thanks to D. Rabounski, S. Crothers, L. Borissova for their great service in Progress in Physics journal. One of these authors (VC) would like to thank to Profs. A. Yefremov and M. Fil’chenkov for all hospitality extended to him in the Institute of Gravitation and Cosmology of PFUR, where this book is prepared. Discussions with Prof. V.V. Kassandrov, Prof. V. Ivashchuk, & Prof. Yu P. Rybakov are appreciated. Many thanks also to Dr. S. Trihandaru and others from UKSW, Central Java,Indonesia. Sincere thanks to good friends in PFUR, especially to D. Kermite, Y. Umniyati, Anastasia Golubtsova & Serguey– all other friends are of course worth mentioning here, but the margin of this book is quite limited to mention all of you. And to all other scientist colleagues, allow us to say: Full speed ahead! FS & VC, March 2009
The two essays here published for the first time are separated by an interval of thirty-five years. The first and longer one was written shortly before my appointment as Max Planck's successor in Berlin, and a few months before the idea of what is now called wave mechanics began for a while to monopolise my whole interest; the second and shorter one dates from two years after my appointment as Professor Emeritus at the University of Vienna. The two are closely related in theme, and, of course, also connect with many ideas which I have publicly advocated in the intervening period. I do not know whether it is presumptuous of me to suppose that readers will be interested in ‘my’ view of the world. The critics, not myself, will decide on this. But a gesture of decorous modesty is usually in fact a disguise for arrogance. I should prefer not to be guilty of this. Anyway, the total (I have counted) is about twenty-eight to twenty-nine thousand words. Not an excessive size for a view of the world. There is one complaint which I shall not escape. Not a word is said here of acausality, wave mechanics, indeterminacy relations, complementarity, an expanding universe, continuous creation, etc. Why doesn't he talk about what he knows instead of trespassing on the professional philosopher's preserves? Ne sutor supra crepidam .
Holographic Information Ontological Framework•Revolution (HIOF·Revolution) A Layer-Sensitive Reading of Quantum "Revolution" This is a short, non-technical companion to the 8-paper HIOF·Revolution series. It is written for readers with a background in physics, philosophy of science, or the history of ideas — not for readers already familiar with the author's wider theoretical framework. The core idea, stated plainly The word revolution is often used to describe quantum mechanics as if it rewrote reality itself. This series argues something narrower and, it claims, more defensible: quantum mechanics revolutionised what can be predicted and checked — a cut-plane of testable, referee-confirmed results — without settling deeper questions about what, if anything, is really happening underneath. The claim is not that those deeper questions are unimportant; it is that conflating the two layers is where most popular and even academic confusion about quantum mechanics begins. Why "shut up and calculate" has two very different meanings One version of this phrase is operational discipline: use the formalism to compute checkable predictions, and defer unresolved interpretive questions until the evidence is in. The other version is dismissive closure: treat those same questions as meaningless, not worth asking. This series endorses the first and rejects the second — interpretation is not noise to be silenced, but a separate, legitimate activity that must not be mistaken for physics itself. Why interpretations don't compete like theories do Copenhagen, many-worlds, QBism, and pilot-wave theory all reproduce the same checkable predictions. This series treats interpretation as narrative laid over a closed set of results, not as a second formalism competing on equal empirical footing. A "school" forms around a favoured narrative, but choosing between schools is a different kind of decision than confirming a prediction — and the two should not be scored on the same ledger. Why claims of "unification" need a gate, not just a new cover Merging two frameworks under shared vocabulary feels satisfying, but this series insists that real unification must clear one of two tests: it must generate a falsifiable prediction the separate frameworks could not produce, or it must render a previously viable alternative structurally impossible. Anything short of that is verdict-level harmonisation — easier storytelling, not unification. Why unresolved puzzles don't undo a finished result Superposition's deeper meaning remains genuinely open. But superluminal signalling is a closed, negative result, and classical "total stillness" was excluded decades ago by the uncertainty principle. This series argues that a still-open philosophical corner on one scoreboard does not retroactively cancel a result already confirmed on another. There are, in effect, two championships — one about what can be checked, another about what may be true beneath — and progress on one does not require progress on the other. A live test: the qubit that must not lose its phase The series closes by testing its own framework against an unfinished problem: keeping a quantum bit's phase coherent long enough for fault-tolerant computation. Recent experiments demonstrating error suppression below the fault-tolerance threshold are treated as exactly the kind of cut-plane revolution the series defines — confirmed, checkable, and entirely silent on the deeper questions left open elsewhere. What the full series covers The main papers work through the cut-plane revolution itself, the pedagogical trap of promising a return to classical intuition, the referee-versus-narrator distinction behind competing schools, the two legitimate gates for unification claims, and why a missing philosophical corner does not invalidate the series' title. A glossary locks the five core terms, and a closing paper tests the whole framework against present-day quantum-computing engineering. A note on method The series is explicit about separating three registers: established physics results, original framing proposals, and illustrative metaphor. Readers are encouraged to treat the framing claims as a lens for clearer discussion, testable against how physicists themselves use these words — not as a settled philosophical verdict. Keywords: quantum mechanics, scientific revolution, philosophy of science, interpretation, falsifiability, unification, Bell inequality, quantum error correction, decoherence, epistemologyAuthorWai-Hung Tam (Pan), Independent ResearcherORCID: 0009-0002-7789-8464Email: panxtam@protonmail.com
Recent years have seen a good deal of work done on one of the most mind blowing and conceptually radical views in quantum mechanics, namely the ‘many worlds’ interpretation of quantum mechanics. Many worlds was first proposed by Hugh Everett III in his long Ph.D. dissertation, which only some years later, and after significant shortening, came to be published as the ‘Relative State Formulation of Quantum Mechanics’ (Everett 1957). To commemorate the 50th anniversary of the first publication of Everett's ideas, two conferences were held at Oxford University and the Perimeter Institute, which brought together some of the most active researchers in the field. The works presented in these two conferences have now been compiled in the volume Many Worlds? Everett, Quantum Theory and Reality, edited by Simon Saunders, Jonathan Barrett, Adrian Kent and David Wallace.1 This is then a comprehensive collection of papers – 23 papers altogether – where the reader will find virtually anything that can be said about the many worlds interpretation today.