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

Intuition of Quantum Phenomena

Fernando Sánchez-Escribano Pérez

Published Mar 1, 2019• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

Natural intuitive explanations, given by my physical theory, of some key quantum phenomena, without any such in official theory, are exposed.

Related papers

The Basic Physics of Quantum Theory

Basil S. Davis

WORLD SCIENTIFIC eBooks•Feb 23, 2020•0 citations

A Logical Explanation of Quantum Superposition Based on Temporal Desynchronization

Branislav Hláčik

Primary repository DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18899853 This paper presents a new model of quantum superposition based on the premise of temporal desynchronization between a quantum system and the observer's time frame. The proposed theory interprets superposition as a result of the particle not being anchored in the same "now" as the observer. The model offers a logical explanation not only for superposition but also for wavefunction collapse, quantum entanglement, and tunneling, using the concept of a universal temporal framework. It introduces an alternative, causal, and intuitively accessible perspective on key phenomena of quantum physics.

•Aug 20, 2026•0 citations

Natural-Philosophical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics

Grete Hermann

Studies in history and philosophy of science•Jan 1, 2016•13 citations

A Unified Explanation of Quantum Phenomena? The Peer-to-Peer Simulation Hypothesis

Marcus Arvan

In my 2013 article in The Philosophical Forum, “A New Theory of Free Will”, I argued that several serious hypotheses in philosophy and modern physics jointly entail that our reality is structurally identical to a peer-to-peer (P2P) networked computer simulation. The present paper shows that quantum phenomena emerge naturally from the computational structure of a P2P simulation. §1 explains the P2P Hypothesis in detail. §2 then shows how it explains quantum superposition and wave-function collapse (§2.1.), quantum indeterminacy (§2.2.), wave-particle duality (§2.3.), and quantum entanglement (§2.4.).

•Feb 1, 2014•0 citations

Quantum picturalism

Bob Coecke

Why did it take us 50 years since the birth of the quantum mechanical formalism to discover that unknown quantum states cannot be cloned? Yet, the proof of the ‘no-cloning theorem’ is easy, and its consequences and potential for applications are immense. Similarly, why did it take us 60 years to discover the conceptually intriguing and easily derivable physical phenomenon of ‘quantum teleportation’? We claim that the quantum mechanical formalism doesn't support our intuition, nor does it elucidate the key concepts that govern the behaviour of the entities that are subject to the laws of quantum physics. The arrays of complex numbers are kin to the arrays of 0s and 1s of the early days of computer programming practice. Using a technical term from computer science, the quantum mechanical formalism is ‘low-level’. In this review we present steps towards a diagrammatic ‘high-level’ alternative for the Hilbert space formalism, one which appeals to our intuition. The diagrammatic language as it currently stands allows for intuitive reasoning about interacting quantum systems, and trivialises many otherwise involved and tedious computations. It clearly exposes limitations such as the no-cloning theorem, and phenomena such as quantum teleportation. As a logic, it supports ‘automation’: it enables a (classical) computer to reason about interacting quantum systems, prove theorems, and design protocols. It allows for a wider variety of underlying theories, and can be easily modified, having the potential to provide the required step-stone towards a deeper conceptual understanding of quantum theory, as well as its unification with other physical theories. Specific applications discussed here are purely diagrammatic proofs of several quantum computational schemes, as well as an analysis of the structural origin of quantum non-locality. The underlying mathematical foundation of this high-level diagrammatic formalism relies on so-called monoidal categories, a product of a fairly recent development in mathematics. Its logical underpinning is linear logic, an even more recent product of research in logic and computer science. These monoidal categories do not only provide a natural foundation for physical theories, but also for proof theory, logic, programming languages, biology, cooking, … So the challenge is to discover the necessary additional pieces of structure that allow us to predict genuine quantum phenomena. These additional pieces of structure represent the capabilities nature has provided us with to manipulate entities subject to the laws of quantum theory.

arXiv:0908.1787•Contemporary Physics•Dec 15, 2009•176 citations

Philosophical Interpretations of Quantum Physics

Henry Mehlberg, Robert S. Cohen

Boston studies in the philosophy of science•Jan 1, 1980•0 citations
Primary repository DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18899853 This paper presents a new model of quantum superposition based on the premise of temporal desynchronization between a quantum system and the observer's time frame. The proposed theory interprets superposition as a result of the particle not being anchored in the same "now" as the observer. The model offers a logical explanation not only for superposition but also for wavefunction collapse, quantum entanglement, and tunneling, using the concept of a universal temporal framework. It introduces an alternative, causal, and intuitively accessible perspective on key phenomena of quantum physics.
In my 2013 article in The Philosophical Forum, “A New Theory of Free Will”, I argued that several serious hypotheses in philosophy and modern physics jointly entail that our reality is structurally identical to a peer-to-peer (P2P) networked computer simulation. The present paper shows that quantum phenomena emerge naturally from the computational structure of a P2P simulation. §1 explains the P2P Hypothesis in detail. §2 then shows how it explains quantum superposition and wave-function collapse (§2.1.), quantum indeterminacy (§2.2.), wave-particle duality (§2.3.), and quantum entanglement (§2.4.).
Why did it take us 50 years since the birth of the quantum mechanical formalism to discover that unknown quantum states cannot be cloned? Yet, the proof of the ‘no-cloning theorem’ is easy, and its consequences and potential for applications are immense. Similarly, why did it take us 60 years to discover the conceptually intriguing and easily derivable physical phenomenon of ‘quantum teleportation’? We claim that the quantum mechanical formalism doesn't support our intuition, nor does it elucidate the key concepts that govern the behaviour of the entities that are subject to the laws of quantum physics. The arrays of complex numbers are kin to the arrays of 0s and 1s of the early days of computer programming practice. Using a technical term from computer science, the quantum mechanical formalism is ‘low-level’. In this review we present steps towards a diagrammatic ‘high-level’ alternative for the Hilbert space formalism, one which appeals to our intuition. The diagrammatic language as it currently stands allows for intuitive reasoning about interacting quantum systems, and trivialises many otherwise involved and tedious computations. It clearly exposes limitations such as the no-cloning theorem, and phenomena such as quantum teleportation. As a logic, it supports ‘automation’: it enables a (classical) computer to reason about interacting quantum systems, prove theorems, and design protocols. It allows for a wider variety of underlying theories, and can be easily modified, having the potential to provide the required step-stone towards a deeper conceptual understanding of quantum theory, as well as its unification with other physical theories. Specific applications discussed here are purely diagrammatic proofs of several quantum computational schemes, as well as an analysis of the structural origin of quantum non-locality. The underlying mathematical foundation of this high-level diagrammatic formalism relies on so-called monoidal categories, a product of a fairly recent development in mathematics. Its logical underpinning is linear logic, an even more recent product of research in logic and computer science. These monoidal categories do not only provide a natural foundation for physical theories, but also for proof theory, logic, programming languages, biology, cooking, … So the challenge is to discover the necessary additional pieces of structure that allow us to predict genuine quantum phenomena. These additional pieces of structure represent the capabilities nature has provided us with to manipulate entities subject to the laws of quantum theory.