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

Journal of Modern Physics

Einstein’s Non-Euclidean Line Element Theory and Quantum Mechanics Interpretation

WU Xin-zhong

Published Jan 1, 2016• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

In “The third speech on the wave mechanics” (1926), E. Schodinger pointed that the Hamilton-Maupertuis principle as a classical starting point of wave mechanics in the definition of generalized coordinate space line element, introduced the generalized non-Euclidean geometry, and finally obtained the wave equation including Laplace operator in the generalized non Euclidean geometry line element. At the 1927 meeting of the Prussian Academy of Sciences in Berlin, Albert Einstein read a paper entitled “Does Schodinger’s wave mechanics determines the dynamics of a system’s movement completely or only sence in statistics?”. In this paper, Einstein used the Schodinger equation to obtain a representation of the kinetic energy, and used the non-Euclidean line element of the Configuration space to define the velocity component of a single particle, and return to determinism. But Bothe pointed out that when people considered a system composed of two subsystems, the wave function of the whole system can be decomposed into two simple products of the wave function of the two subsystems, but the hidden variables are dependent on each other. Einstein be-lieved that this was not acceptable, gave up the publication of the paper on the non-European line hidden variables theory. In the long-term controversy with the Copenhagen school, Einstein was convinced that the probability interpretation of the wave function was indispensable because of the incompleteness of quantum mechanics, but not the wave function probability led to the incompleteness of quantum mechanics. Any attempt to seek a complete explanation of quantum mechanics is inevitable to change the current formal system of quantum mechanics.

DOI
10.4236/jmp.2016.715187

Related papers

Reflections on Copenhagen School Explanation of Quantum Mechanics

Guoqing Chen

The form of quantum mechanics is established ahead of of a system of physics interpretation,which is a realistic possibility premise for the group explained of quantum mechanics.But quantum mechanics and the classical physics language system contain different noumenon suppose.It is intrinsically different between the classical physics which describes the macro world and quantum mechanism which describes the micro world in the function mechanism,particle abstract,the probability application.Thus,the concept of classical physics language describing the micro-world will be no adaptation in essence,just as using Euclidean geometry can not explain non-Euclidean geometry.In this context,we believe there is no any interpretation system which is better than the Copenhagen School on the whole,though it has some shortage.

Journal of Hanshan Normal University•Jan 1, 2008•0 citations

Foundations of Quantum Mechanics Revealed by the Conservation Laws

Richard Joseph Oldani

It is often claimed that Einstein is wrong about quantum mechanics. However, when comparisons are made with respect to theoretical foundations rather than experimental results Einstein’s theories are found to be superior. Because he did not complete his own quantum theory its far-reaching, intuitively motivated derivations were never properly appreciated despite the fact that his is the only theory based on a relativistically correct foundation. The development of his arguments reveals that although non-relativistic theory correctly predicts what it is possible to observe (the emissions) with remarkable accuracy it neglects the other half of natural phenomena, that which cannot be observed (the absorptions), thereby violating the conservation of energy. The deficiencies in non-relativistic theory are corrected by applying Hamilton’s principle to derive relativistic equations of motion. This allows quantum mechanical formalism in abstract space to be interpreted as the juxtaposition of particle field geometries in real space. Direct application of the calculus of variations to an electron cycle reveals that the wave function is incomplete because it requires twice the allowable action minimum.

Qeios•Feb 22, 2024•2 citations

Quantum mechanical reality according to Copenhagen 2.0

A.M. Din

The long-standing conceptual controversies concerning the interpretation of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics are argued, on one hand, to be due to its incompleteness, as affirmed by Einstein. But on the other hand, it appears to be possible to complete it at least partially, as Bohr might have appreciated it, in the framework of its standard mathematical formalism with observables as appropriately defined self-adjoint operators. This completion of quantum mechanics is based on the requirement on laboratory physics to be effectively confined to a bounded space region and on the application of the von Neumann deficiency theorem to properly define a set of self-adjoint extensions of standard observables, e.g. the momenta and the Hamiltonian, in terms of certain isometries on the region boundary. This is formalized mathematically in the setting of a boundary ontology for the so-called Qbox in which the wave function acquires a supplementary dependence on a set of Additional Boundary Variables (ABV). It is argued that a certain geometric subset of the ABV parametrizing Quasi-Periodic Translational Isometries (QPTI) has a particular physical importance by allowing for the definition of an ontic wave function, which has the property of epitomizing the spatial wave function “collapse.” Concomitantly the standard wave function in an unbounded geometry is interpreted as an epistemic wave function, which together with the ontic QPTI wave function gives rise to the notion of two-wave duality, replacing the standard concept of wave-particle duality. More generally, this approach to quantum physics in a bounded geometry provides a novel analytical basis for a better understanding of several conceptual notions of quantum mechanics, including reality, nonlocality, entanglement and Heisenberg’s uncertainty relation. The scope of this analysis may be seen as a foundational update of the multiple versions 1.x of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is sufficiently incremental so as to be appropriately characterized as Copenhagen 2.0.

International Journal of Modern Physics A•May 26, 2016•0 citations

Foundations of quantum mechanics revealed by the conservation laws

Richard Joseph Oldani

It is often claimed that Einstein is wrong about quantum mechanics. However, when comparisons are made with respect to theoretical foundations rather than experimental results Einstein’s theories are found to be superior. Although statistical formulations of quantum mechanics correctly describe energy and momentum exchange with remarkable accuracy there are individual cases, paradoxically, that violate the conservation laws. A recent study finds that in order to account for observed violations frames of reference involved in preparation of the initial state must be explicitly taken into account [1]. We show here that the same conclusion was arrived at in a much simpler way by Einstein over 100 years ago. Deficiencies in the foundations of non-relativistic theory are corrected by introducing Hamilton’s principle and deriving relativistic equations of motion. This allows quantum mechanical formalism in abstract space to be replaced by the superposition of particle field geometries in real space. Applying the calculus of variations to the Schrödinger wave equation reveals that the wave function is incomplete because it requires twice the allowable action minimum.

Qeios•Oct 10, 2023•1 citation

The physical interpretation of the quantum dynamics

P. A. M. Dirac

Abstract The new quantum mechanics consists of a scheme of equations which are very closely analogous to the equations of classical mechanics, with the funda­mental difference that the dynamical variables do not obey the commutative law of multiplication, but satisfy instead the well-known quantum conditions. It follows that one cannot suppose the dynamical variables to be ordinary numbers (c-numbers), but may call them numbers of a special type (q-numbers). The theory shows that these q-numbers can in general be represented by matrices whose elements are c-numbers (functions of a time parameter). When one has performed the calculations with the q-numbers and obtained all the matrices one wants, the question arises how one is to get physical results from the theory, i. e., how can one obtain c-numbers from the theory that one can compare with experimental values ? Hitherto this has been done with the help of a number of special assumptions. In Heisenberg’s original matrix mechanics it was assumed that the elements of the diagonal matrix that repre­sents the energy are the energy levels of the system, and the elements of the matrix that represents the total polarisation, which are periodic functions of the time, determine the frequencies and intensities of the spectral lines in analogy to the classical theory. Schrodinger’s wave representation of the quantum mechanics has provided new ways of obtaining physical results from the theory, based on the assumption that the square of the amplitude of the wave function can in certain cases be interpreted as a probability. From this assumption one can, for instance, work out the probability of a transition being produced in a system (or the number of transitions produced in an assembly of like systems) by an arbitrary external perturbing force, and can thus, by supposing the perturbation to consist of incident radiation, obtain directly Einstein’s B coefficients. Again in Born’s treatment of collision problems it is assumed that the square of the amplitude of the wave function scattered in any direction determines the probability of the colliding electron (or other body) being scattered in that direction.

Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A Containing Papers of a Mathematical and Physical Character•Jan 1, 1927•404 citations

Foundations of Quantum Mechanics Revealed by the Conservation Laws

Richard Joseph Oldani

It is often claimed that Einstein is wrong about quantum mechanics. However, when comparisons are made with respect to theoretical foundations rather than experimental results Einstein’s theories are found to be superior. Because he did not complete his theory its far-reaching, intuitively motivated derivations were never properly appreciated despite the fact that his is the only theory based on a relativistically correct foundation. The development of his arguments reveals that although non-relativistic theory correctly predicts what it is possible to observe (the emissions) with remarkable accuracy it neglects the other half of natural phenomena, that which cannot be observed (the absorptions), thereby violating the conservation of energy. The deficiencies in non-relativistic theory are corrected by applying Hamilton’s principle and deriving relativistic equations of motion. This allows quantum mechanical formalism in abstract space to be replaced by the juxtaposition of particle field geometries in real space. Direct application of the calculus of variations to an electron cycle reveals that the wave function represents a non-conservative force which is incomplete because it requires twice the allowable action minimum.

Qeios•Jan 15, 2024•0 citations
In “The third speech on the wave mechanics” (1926), E. Schodinger pointed that the Hamilton-Maupertuis principle as a classical starting point of wave mechanics in the definition of generalized coordinate space line element, introduced the generalized non-Euclidean geometry, and finally obtained the wave equation including Laplace operator in the generalized non Euclidean geometry line element. At the 1927 meeting of the Prussian Academy of Sciences in Berlin, Albert Einstein read a paper entitled “Does Schodinger’s wave mechanics determines the dynamics of a system’s movement completely or only sence in statistics?”. In this paper, Einstein used the Schodinger equation to obtain a representation of the kinetic energy, and used the non-Euclidean line element of the Configuration space to define the velocity component of a single particle, and return to determinism. But Bothe pointed out that when people considered a system composed of two subsystems, the wave function of the whole system can be decomposed into two simple products of the wave function of the two subsystems, but the hidden variables are dependent on each other. Einstein be-lieved that this was not acceptable, gave up the publication of the paper on the non-European line hidden variables theory. In the long-term controversy with the Copenhagen school, Einstein was convinced that the probability interpretation of the wave function was indispensable because of the incompleteness of quantum mechanics, but not the wave function probability led to the incompleteness of quantum mechanics. Any attempt to seek a complete explanation of quantum mechanics is inevitable to change the current formal system of quantum mechanics.
The form of quantum mechanics is established ahead of of a system of physics interpretation,which is a realistic possibility premise for the group explained of quantum mechanics.But quantum mechanics and the classical physics language system contain different noumenon suppose.It is intrinsically different between the classical physics which describes the macro world and quantum mechanism which describes the micro world in the function mechanism,particle abstract,the probability application.Thus,the concept of classical physics language describing the micro-world will be no adaptation in essence,just as using Euclidean geometry can not explain non-Euclidean geometry.In this context,we believe there is no any interpretation system which is better than the Copenhagen School on the whole,though it has some shortage.
It is often claimed that Einstein is wrong about quantum mechanics. However, when comparisons are made with respect to theoretical foundations rather than experimental results Einstein’s theories are found to be superior. Because he did not complete his own quantum theory its far-reaching, intuitively motivated derivations were never properly appreciated despite the fact that his is the only theory based on a relativistically correct foundation. The development of his arguments reveals that although non-relativistic theory correctly predicts what it is possible to observe (the emissions) with remarkable accuracy it neglects the other half of natural phenomena, that which cannot be observed (the absorptions), thereby violating the conservation of energy. The deficiencies in non-relativistic theory are corrected by applying Hamilton’s principle to derive relativistic equations of motion. This allows quantum mechanical formalism in abstract space to be interpreted as the juxtaposition of particle field geometries in real space. Direct application of the calculus of variations to an electron cycle reveals that the wave function is incomplete because it requires twice the allowable action minimum.
The long-standing conceptual controversies concerning the interpretation of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics are argued, on one hand, to be due to its incompleteness, as affirmed by Einstein. But on the other hand, it appears to be possible to complete it at least partially, as Bohr might have appreciated it, in the framework of its standard mathematical formalism with observables as appropriately defined self-adjoint operators. This completion of quantum mechanics is based on the requirement on laboratory physics to be effectively confined to a bounded space region and on the application of the von Neumann deficiency theorem to properly define a set of self-adjoint extensions of standard observables, e.g. the momenta and the Hamiltonian, in terms of certain isometries on the region boundary. This is formalized mathematically in the setting of a boundary ontology for the so-called Qbox in which the wave function acquires a supplementary dependence on a set of Additional Boundary Variables (ABV). It is argued that a certain geometric subset of the ABV parametrizing Quasi-Periodic Translational Isometries (QPTI) has a particular physical importance by allowing for the definition of an ontic wave function, which has the property of epitomizing the spatial wave function “collapse.” Concomitantly the standard wave function in an unbounded geometry is interpreted as an epistemic wave function, which together with the ontic QPTI wave function gives rise to the notion of two-wave duality, replacing the standard concept of wave-particle duality. More generally, this approach to quantum physics in a bounded geometry provides a novel analytical basis for a better understanding of several conceptual notions of quantum mechanics, including reality, nonlocality, entanglement and Heisenberg’s uncertainty relation. The scope of this analysis may be seen as a foundational update of the multiple versions 1.x of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is sufficiently incremental so as to be appropriately characterized as Copenhagen 2.0.
It is often claimed that Einstein is wrong about quantum mechanics. However, when comparisons are made with respect to theoretical foundations rather than experimental results Einstein’s theories are found to be superior. Although statistical formulations of quantum mechanics correctly describe energy and momentum exchange with remarkable accuracy there are individual cases, paradoxically, that violate the conservation laws. A recent study finds that in order to account for observed violations frames of reference involved in preparation of the initial state must be explicitly taken into account [1]. We show here that the same conclusion was arrived at in a much simpler way by Einstein over 100 years ago. Deficiencies in the foundations of non-relativistic theory are corrected by introducing Hamilton’s principle and deriving relativistic equations of motion. This allows quantum mechanical formalism in abstract space to be replaced by the superposition of particle field geometries in real space. Applying the calculus of variations to the Schrödinger wave equation reveals that the wave function is incomplete because it requires twice the allowable action minimum.
Abstract The new quantum mechanics consists of a scheme of equations which are very closely analogous to the equations of classical mechanics, with the funda­mental difference that the dynamical variables do not obey the commutative law of multiplication, but satisfy instead the well-known quantum conditions. It follows that one cannot suppose the dynamical variables to be ordinary numbers (c-numbers), but may call them numbers of a special type (q-numbers). The theory shows that these q-numbers can in general be represented by matrices whose elements are c-numbers (functions of a time parameter). When one has performed the calculations with the q-numbers and obtained all the matrices one wants, the question arises how one is to get physical results from the theory, i. e., how can one obtain c-numbers from the theory that one can compare with experimental values ? Hitherto this has been done with the help of a number of special assumptions. In Heisenberg’s original matrix mechanics it was assumed that the elements of the diagonal matrix that repre­sents the energy are the energy levels of the system, and the elements of the matrix that represents the total polarisation, which are periodic functions of the time, determine the frequencies and intensities of the spectral lines in analogy to the classical theory. Schrodinger’s wave representation of the quantum mechanics has provided new ways of obtaining physical results from the theory, based on the assumption that the square of the amplitude of the wave function can in certain cases be interpreted as a probability. From this assumption one can, for instance, work out the probability of a transition being produced in a system (or the number of transitions produced in an assembly of like systems) by an arbitrary external perturbing force, and can thus, by supposing the perturbation to consist of incident radiation, obtain directly Einstein’s B coefficients. Again in Born’s treatment of collision problems it is assumed that the square of the amplitude of the wave function scattered in any direction determines the probability of the colliding electron (or other body) being scattered in that direction.
It is often claimed that Einstein is wrong about quantum mechanics. However, when comparisons are made with respect to theoretical foundations rather than experimental results Einstein’s theories are found to be superior. Because he did not complete his theory its far-reaching, intuitively motivated derivations were never properly appreciated despite the fact that his is the only theory based on a relativistically correct foundation. The development of his arguments reveals that although non-relativistic theory correctly predicts what it is possible to observe (the emissions) with remarkable accuracy it neglects the other half of natural phenomena, that which cannot be observed (the absorptions), thereby violating the conservation of energy. The deficiencies in non-relativistic theory are corrected by applying Hamilton’s principle and deriving relativistic equations of motion. This allows quantum mechanical formalism in abstract space to be replaced by the juxtaposition of particle field geometries in real space. Direct application of the calculus of variations to an electron cycle reveals that the wave function represents a non-conservative force which is incomplete because it requires twice the allowable action minimum.