This preprint re-examines the widespread belief that “Einstein was wrong about quantum mechanics.” While Einstein is often portrayed as rejecting quantum theory due to his criticism of its probabilistic interpretation, this simplified narrative does not accurately reflect his actual position or the historical context. The paper organizes Einstein’s original arguments, clarifies common misunderstandings—such as the misattribution that he “advocated hidden variables”—and reviews the development of Bell’s inequalities and their experimental tests. These experiments ruled out simple local hidden-variable models but did not fully resolve Einstein’s deeper concern: the possible incompleteness of quantum mechanics as a physical theory. By revisiting historical documents and theoretical developments, this work argues that Einstein’s critique was not a fundamental mistake but has been misinterpreted over time. The goal is to provide a more accurate understanding of the Einstein–Bohr debates and the conceptual foundations of quantum mechanics.
The traditional view is that a theory is a conceptual framework providing predictions, and the results of experiments or observations decide whether the theory is right or wrong. It will be contrasted with the modern view that one must incorporate the conditions of applicability of a concept into the very meaning of the concept (measurability analysis), and that only a series of theories (scientific research program) can be said to be scientific or unscientific. This modern view will be applied to a number of questions in quantum mechanics (what is quantization?, states vs processes, open vs closed systems) and quantum field theory (particles and field quanta, bosons vs fermions), and to the search for a theory of quantum gravity (background independent vs fixed background theories).
Quantum entanglement has been misinterpreted for a century. The Standard Model describes it as non-local, non-separable, and fundamentally probabilistic. This interpretation was not derived from physics. It was derived from pure mathematics — from the algebra of Hilbert spaces, the linearity of operators, and the symmetry of equations. This deposit contains two complementary theses that together form a complete correction of this error. Volume 148 — The Quantum Misstep:This thesis argues that the mathematical interpretation of entanglement is wrong at its foundation. The symmetry of an equation is not a property of nature. The linearity of an operator is not a property of the real. The non-locality of a correlation is not a mechanism. From this initial error, everything else follows: the qubit was built on a mathematical abstraction, not a physical structure; the quantum computer was built on the qubit; the entire field of quantum computing is built on a misinterpretation. Volume 149 — Phase Locking:This thesis presents what replaces the misinterpretation. Entanglement is not a non-local mystery. It is a phase locking through a continuous physical medium. This mechanism has two outcomes: when the phase locks, the effective coupling is established and information flows; when the phase does not lock, the coupling fails and erroneous information is rejected at the source. The true quantum computer is not a collection of fragile qubits. It is a system of phase modes in a physical medium, operating at ambient temperature, without error correction, and scalable naturally. Together, these two volumes provide:- A refutation of the mathematical misinterpretation of entanglement.- A mechanical theory of quantum coupling in a physical medium.- A new foundation for quantum computing based on phase modes, not qubits.- A bilingual edition (English / French) for international accessibility. Key ideas:1. Entanglement is not a non-local mystery. It is a local phase coupling.2. The qubit is a mathematical abstraction, not a physical object.3. The quantum computer is not a collection of qubits. It is a system of phase modes in a physical medium.4. The quantum computer is not a qubit. It is an ocean.