We prove, with conclusive mathematical and physical proofs, that the contradiction between General Relativity (GR) and Quantum Mechanics (QM) is not real. Both share $V_{\text{atomic}}=0$ . Neither $g_{\mu\nu}$ nor $\psi$ has physical meaning in isolation. Meaning arises only via grounding $G(T,C) = P(O\vert{}T,C)$ . The structural gap between the Machian global context $C_1$ and the quantum measurement context $C_2$ is defined as $\Delta(H) = D_{\text{JS}}[G(T,C_1) \parallel G(T,C_2)]$ , measured in bits and carrying Fisher-Rao geometry. We derive the Law of Conservation of Meaning: $M_{\text{total}} = G(T,C_1) + G(T,C_2) + \Delta(H) = \text{Constant}$ Quantum Gravity is identified as $\Delta(H)$ itself: the quantized Fisher geometry of the Meaning Gap. This law reframes 14 open problems in physics as measurable variations of $\Delta(H)$ .We prove, with conclusive mathematical and physical proofs, that the contradiction between General Relativity (GR) and Quantum Mechanics (QM) is not real. Both share $V_{\text{atomic}}=0$. Neither $g_{\mu\nu}$ nor $\psi$ has physical meaning in isolation. Meaning arises only via grounding $G(T,C) = P(O\vert{}T,C)$. The structural gap between the Machian global context $C_1$ and the quantum measurement context $C_2$ is defined as $\Delta(H) = D_{\text{JS}}[G(T,C_1) \parallel G(T,C_2)]$, measured in bits and carrying Fisher-Rao geometry. We derive the Law of Conservation of Meaning: $$M_{\text{total}} = G(T,C_1) + G(T,C_2) + \Delta(H) = \text{Constant}$$ Quantum Gravity is identified as $\Delta(H)$ itself: the quantized Fisher geometry of the Meaning Gap. This law reframes 14 open problems in physics as measurable variations of $\Delta(H)$.

Sep 2, 20260 citations

Classical explanations of results of quantum mechanics

Albrecht Giese

We present a particle model which was developed to explain special relativity by classical means. This model is also able to account for physical processes that are normally attributed to quantum mechanics. The model is able to describe several well-known QM processes by means of classical calculations, making them accessible to the imagination. An essential difference compared with the Standard Model of present-day particle physics is the fact that, in the model presented, particles are viewed as being extended rather than point-like. In addition, the strong force is shown to be the universal force operating in all particles. Also, the photon, which quantum mechanics views as being nothing but a quantum of energy, can be understood to have an internal structure. The model presented here is not merely a different way of explaining physics with similar results; in contrast to quantum mechanics, it has the ability to provide deeper insights into physical processes.We present a particle model which was developed to explain special relativity by classical means. This model is also able to account for physical processes that are normally attributed to quantum mechanics. The model is able to describe several well-known QM processes by means of classical calculations, making them accessible to the imagination. An essential difference compared with the Standard Model of present-day particle physics is the fact that, in the model presented, particles are viewed as being extended rather than point-like. In addition, the strong force is shown to be the universal force operating in all particles. Also, the photon, which quantum mechanics views as being nothing but a quantum of energy, can be understood to have an internal structure. The model presented here is not merely a different way of explaining physics with similar results; in contrast to quantum mechanics, it has the ability to provide deeper insights into physical processes.

Proceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESep 10, 20150 citations

The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

Roland L. Omnes

Princeton University Press eBooksJun 5, 20182 citations

Conceptual diagrams in Quantum Mechanics

J. E. Horvath, Rodrigo Rosas Fernandes

Abstract Quantum Mechanics (QM) stands alone as a (very) successful physical theory, but the meaning of its variables and the status of many quantities in the mathematical formalism is obscure. This unique situation prompted the need for attribution of a physical meaning to the latter, a procedure known as interpretation. On the other hand, the study of QM is usually presented, even to future scientists, within the only framework developed by Bohr and the Copenhagen researchers, known as the Copenhagen interpretation. As a contribution to the understanding and teaching of Quantum Mechanics, aimed to a broader and deeper appreciation of its fundamentals, including contemplating alternatives and updated interpretations for physicists and philosophers interested in the study of exact sciences (through Ontology, Epistemology, Logic or the Theory of Knowledge), we present a set of Conceptual Diagrams elaborated and designed to expose and facilitate the visualization of elements intervening in any interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and apply them to several well‐developed cases of the latter.Abstract Quantum Mechanics (QM) stands alone as a (very) successful physical theory, but the meaning of its variables and the status of many quantities in the mathematical formalism is obscure. This unique situation prompted the need for attribution of a physical meaning to the latter, a procedure known as interpretation. On the other hand, the study of QM is usually presented, even to future scientists, within the only framework developed by Bohr and the Copenhagen researchers, known as the Copenhagen interpretation. As a contribution to the understanding and teaching of Quantum Mechanics, aimed to a broader and deeper appreciation of its fundamentals, including contemplating alternatives and updated interpretations for physicists and philosophers interested in the study of exact sciences (through Ontology, Epistemology, Logic or the Theory of Knowledge), we present a set of Conceptual Diagrams elaborated and designed to expose and facilitate the visualization of elements intervening in any interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and apply them to several well‐developed cases of the latter.

arXiv:2303.14306Astronomische NachrichtenMar 15, 20231 citation

Interpretation of quantum mechanics

Roland L. Omnes

Physics Letters ANov 1, 1987147 citations

We prove, with conclusive mathematical and physical proofs, that the contradiction between General Relativity (GR) and Quantum Mechanics (QM) is not real. Both share

V_{\text{atomic}}=0

. Neither

g_{\mu\nu}

nor

\psi

has physical meaning in isolation. Meaning arises only via grounding

G(T,C) = P(O\vert{}T,C)

. The structural gap between the Machian global context

C_1

and the quantum measurement context

C_2

is defined as

\Delta(H) = D_{\text{JS}}[G(T,C_1) \parallel G(T,C_2)]

, measured in bits and carrying Fisher-Rao geometry. We derive the Law of Conservation of Meaning:

M_{\text{total}} = G(T,C_1) + G(T,C_2) + \Delta(H) = \text{Constant}

Quantum Gravity is identified as

\Delta(H)

itself: the quantized Fisher geometry of the Meaning Gap. This law reframes 14 open problems in physics as measurable variations of

\Delta(H)