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

International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics

Constructing deterministic models for quantum mechanical systems

Gerard ’t Hooft

Published Mar 7, 2020• 3 citations
Publisher

Abstract

A sharper formulation is presented for an interpretation of quantum mechanics advocated by the author. We claim that only those quantum theories should be considered for which an ontological basis can be constructed. In terms of this basis, the entire theory can be considered as being deterministic. An example is illustrated: massless, noninteracting fermions are ontological. Subsequently, as an essential element of the deterministic interpretation, we put forward conservation laws concerning the ontological nature of a variable, and the uncertainties concerning the realization of states. Quantum mechanics can then be treated as a device that combines statistics with mechanical, deterministic laws, such that uncertainties are passed on from initial states to final states.

DOI
10.1142/s0219887820400071

Related papers

The Ontology Conservation Law as an Alternative to the Many World Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

Gerard ’t Hooft

A sharper formulation is presented for an interpretation of quantum mechanics advocated by author. As an essential element we put forward conservation laws concerning the ontological nature of a variable, and the uncertainties concerning the realisation of states. Quantum mechanics can then be treated as a device that combines statistics with mechanical, deterministic laws, such that uncertainties are passed on from initial states to final states.

arXiv:1904.12364•Apr 28, 2019•6 citations

A study of deterministic models for quantum mechanics

Roderick I. Sutherland

A theoretical investigation is made into the difficulties encountered in constructing a deterministic model for quantum mechanics and into the restrictions that can be placed on the form of such a model.The various implications of the known 11 impossi bil ity proofs II are examined.A possible explanation for the non-locality required by Bell's proof is suggested in terms of backwards-in-time causality.The efficacy of the Kochen and Specker proof is brought into doubt by showing that there is a possible way of avoiding its implications in the only known physically realizable situation to which it applies.Also, a new thought experiment is put forward to show that a particle's predetermined momentum and energy values cannot satisfy the laws of momentum and energy conservation without conflicting with the predictions of quantum mechanics.Special attention is paid to a particular class of deterministic models which appear not to have been explicitly studied before.The models considered are those for which the individual outcomes of measurements are not dependent on hidden variables associated with the measuring apparatus and for which the hidden variables of a particle do not need to be randomized after each measurement.Specific models of this type are constructed and examined for the cases of both discrete and continuous spectra of eigenvalues.In developing these models a need is found for a joint distribution for position and momentum.In relation to this point, it is demonstrated that the quantum mechanical wave equations actually point to a particular joint distribution expression, namely the Margenau and Hill distribution.The schemes considered are found to have certain shortcomings and possible steps towards more satisfactory models are suggested.

•Mar 18, 2022•0 citations

Quantum Mechanics and Reality

Virendra Singh

We begin by discussing ``What exists?'', i.e. ontology, in Classical Physics which provided a description of physical phenomena at the macroscopic level. The microworld however necessitates a introduction of Quantum ideas for its understanding. It is almost certain that the world is quantum mechanical at both microscopic as well as at macroscopic level. The problem of ontology of a Quantum world is a difficult one. It also depends on which interpretation is used. We first discuss some interpretations in which Quantum Mechanics does not provide a complete framework but has to be supplemented by extra ingredients e.g. (i) Copenhagen group of interpretations associated with the names of Niels Bohr, Heisenberg, von-Neumann, and (ii) de-Broglie-Bohm interpretations. We then look at some interpretations in which Quantum mechanics is supposed to provide the entire framework such as (i) Everett-deWitt many world, (ii) quantum histories interpretations. We conclude with some remarks on the rigidity of the formalism of quantum mechanics, which is sharp contrast to it's ontological fluidity.

arXiv:quant-ph/0412148•Dec 20, 2004•0 citations

Unified interpretation and theoretical extension of quantum phenomena on the basis of the "constraint–uncertainty" hypothesis

Hengxin Zhao

On the basis of quantum-mechanical realism and the philosophical view that “determinism and indeterminism are mutually dual and symbiotically coexisting,” philosophical and physical perspectives are integrated to propose the “constraint–uncertainty” hypothesis in this paper. Combined with a temporal ontology of “a determined history and an open future,” a unified interpretative framework for quantum phenomena is established. First, in conjunction with experimental results on fullerene quantum interference and spin decoherence in diamond NV centers, the core hypothesis is proposed: when a system is subject to a single dominant constraint, its behavior exhibits deterministic characteristics and uncertainty is suppressed; when subject to multiple competing constraints, its behavior becomes indeterministic and determinism is weakened. It is further clarified that the “constraint” in this work refers to a physically real underlying dynamical mechanism. Second, based on this hypothesis and temporal ontology, a self-consistent interpretation is provided for quantum phenomena such as wave-function superposition and quantum entanglement. It is argued that the “constraint–uncertainty” hypothesis offers an ontological basis for the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, thereby correcting the imprecise characterization in mainstream quantum theory that reduces uncertainty to an intrinsic property of particles. This paper further explores the tension between quantum mechanics and general relativity, suggesting that they correspond to different physical regimes governed by distinct constraint structures. A complete constraint-based model should naturally incorporate gravity, potentially offering a new perspective for the unification of the two theories. This paper further elaborates on the issues concerning temporal ontology. The author holds that variability serves as the meta-setting of physics, and the irreversibility of time is essentially a combination of variability and uncertainty, which also gives rise to the openness of the future. The uniqueness of the subject’s existential position determines the definiteness of history.

•May 20, 2026•0 citations

Deterministic Models in Quantum Notation

Gerard ’t Hooft

In the most basic deterministic models that one can imagine, a transition from a down-to-earth, deterministic formulation towards a fundamentally quantum mechanical notation, is not mysterious at all, but instead points towards a general picture of what quantum mechanics might really mean.

Fundamental theories of physics•Jan 1, 2016•0 citations

Philosophical problems of quantum ontology.

Graeme Donald Robertson

What is a physical object according to the theory of quantum mechanics? The first answer to be considered is that given by Bohr in terms of the concept of complementarity. This interpretation is illustrated by way of an example, the two slit experiment, which highlights some of the associated problems of ontology. One such problem is the so-called problem of measurement or observation. Various interpretations of measurement in Quantum Theory, including those of Heisenberg, von Neumann, Everett and Bohr, are compared and contrasted. A second problem concerns whether or not QT can be considered complete and therefore satisfactory as a basis for physics. Various attempts to complete QT by means of the addition of ‘hidden variables’ to the quantum mechanical state function are considered and their aims and achievements assessed. Finally, we investigate some of the characteristic ontological problems for the orthodox interpretation of Relativistic Quantum Theory.

•Jun 17, 1977•0 citations
A sharper formulation is presented for an interpretation of quantum mechanics advocated by the author. We claim that only those quantum theories should be considered for which an ontological basis can be constructed. In terms of this basis, the entire theory can be considered as being deterministic. An example is illustrated: massless, noninteracting fermions are ontological. Subsequently, as an essential element of the deterministic interpretation, we put forward conservation laws concerning the ontological nature of a variable, and the uncertainties concerning the realization of states. Quantum mechanics can then be treated as a device that combines statistics with mechanical, deterministic laws, such that uncertainties are passed on from initial states to final states.
A theoretical investigation is made into the difficulties encountered in constructing a deterministic model for quantum mechanics and into the restrictions that can be placed on the form of such a model.The various implications of the known 11 impossi bil ity proofs II are examined.A possible explanation for the non-locality required by Bell's proof is suggested in terms of backwards-in-time causality.The efficacy of the Kochen and Specker proof is brought into doubt by showing that there is a possible way of avoiding its implications in the only known physically realizable situation to which it applies.Also, a new thought experiment is put forward to show that a particle's predetermined momentum and energy values cannot satisfy the laws of momentum and energy conservation without conflicting with the predictions of quantum mechanics.Special attention is paid to a particular class of deterministic models which appear not to have been explicitly studied before.The models considered are those for which the individual outcomes of measurements are not dependent on hidden variables associated with the measuring apparatus and for which the hidden variables of a particle do not need to be randomized after each measurement.Specific models of this type are constructed and examined for the cases of both discrete and continuous spectra of eigenvalues.In developing these models a need is found for a joint distribution for position and momentum.In relation to this point, it is demonstrated that the quantum mechanical wave equations actually point to a particular joint distribution expression, namely the Margenau and Hill distribution.The schemes considered are found to have certain shortcomings and possible steps towards more satisfactory models are suggested.
We begin by discussing ``What exists?'', i.e. ontology, in Classical Physics which provided a description of physical phenomena at the macroscopic level. The microworld however necessitates a introduction of Quantum ideas for its understanding. It is almost certain that the world is quantum mechanical at both microscopic as well as at macroscopic level. The problem of ontology of a Quantum world is a difficult one. It also depends on which interpretation is used. We first discuss some interpretations in which Quantum Mechanics does not provide a complete framework but has to be supplemented by extra ingredients e.g. (i) Copenhagen group of interpretations associated with the names of Niels Bohr, Heisenberg, von-Neumann, and (ii) de-Broglie-Bohm interpretations. We then look at some interpretations in which Quantum mechanics is supposed to provide the entire framework such as (i) Everett-deWitt many world, (ii) quantum histories interpretations. We conclude with some remarks on the rigidity of the formalism of quantum mechanics, which is sharp contrast to it's ontological fluidity.
On the basis of quantum-mechanical realism and the philosophical view that “determinism and indeterminism are mutually dual and symbiotically coexisting,” philosophical and physical perspectives are integrated to propose the “constraint–uncertainty” hypothesis in this paper. Combined with a temporal ontology of “a determined history and an open future,” a unified interpretative framework for quantum phenomena is established. First, in conjunction with experimental results on fullerene quantum interference and spin decoherence in diamond NV centers, the core hypothesis is proposed: when a system is subject to a single dominant constraint, its behavior exhibits deterministic characteristics and uncertainty is suppressed; when subject to multiple competing constraints, its behavior becomes indeterministic and determinism is weakened. It is further clarified that the “constraint” in this work refers to a physically real underlying dynamical mechanism. Second, based on this hypothesis and temporal ontology, a self-consistent interpretation is provided for quantum phenomena such as wave-function superposition and quantum entanglement. It is argued that the “constraint–uncertainty” hypothesis offers an ontological basis for the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, thereby correcting the imprecise characterization in mainstream quantum theory that reduces uncertainty to an intrinsic property of particles. This paper further explores the tension between quantum mechanics and general relativity, suggesting that they correspond to different physical regimes governed by distinct constraint structures. A complete constraint-based model should naturally incorporate gravity, potentially offering a new perspective for the unification of the two theories. This paper further elaborates on the issues concerning temporal ontology. The author holds that variability serves as the meta-setting of physics, and the irreversibility of time is essentially a combination of variability and uncertainty, which also gives rise to the openness of the future. The uniqueness of the subject’s existential position determines the definiteness of history.
What is a physical object according to the theory of quantum mechanics? The first answer to be considered is that given by Bohr in terms of the concept of complementarity. This interpretation is illustrated by way of an example, the two slit experiment, which highlights some of the associated problems of ontology. One such problem is the so-called problem of measurement or observation. Various interpretations of measurement in Quantum Theory, including those of Heisenberg, von Neumann, Everett and Bohr, are compared and contrasted. A second problem concerns whether or not QT can be considered complete and therefore satisfactory as a basis for physics. Various attempts to complete QT by means of the addition of ‘hidden variables’ to the quantum mechanical state function are considered and their aims and achievements assessed. Finally, we investigate some of the characteristic ontological problems for the orthodox interpretation of Relativistic Quantum Theory.