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

Quantum Mechanics Explained

Kichoon Yang

Published Sep 16, 2016• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Related papers

Why Does Quantum Mechanics not Scale Up

Dirk John Pons, Arion Pons, Ariel M. Pons +1 more

Quantum mechanics (QM) has the problem of lacking a coherent conceptual foundation, even if its quantitative algorithms are functionally adequate. This paper appraises the conceptual logic beneath quantum mechanics, using as the point of reference a novel alternative conceptual framework called the cordus conjecture. If the cordus conjecture is correct then the comparison suggests that quantum mechanics is conceptually fallacious in several areas: (1) Particles need not be zero-dimensional points after all. (2) Bell�s theorem is refuted as being not universally applicable, and the principle of locality also fails. (3) The wavefunction is a mathematical approximation of a deeper reality, and superposition is not a physical state. (4) Superposition confounds positional and causal (temporal) variability, and this causes the weirdness of the QM interpretations. (5) Cordus identifies the factors that cause decoherence and (6) explains why quantum mechanics does not scale up to macroscopic objects. (7) It is fallacious to consider fields and particles as independent phenomena. Instead they are closely coupled in the cordus, and this explains the measurement context. Several core principles of QM are thereby refuted. The paradox of Schr�dinger�s Cat is explained as an artefact of these flawed premises. The paper also explains why the mathematical machinery of quantum mechanics is a reasonable approximation to reality, even if the concepts are not. The mathematics works, at least within a certain scale-range where: (a) things look like particles and the proposed cordus structure is not evident (i.e. not too small) and (b) where body-coherence is attainable (i.e. not too large). Outside of that range quantum mechanics seems neither conceptually nor mathematically relevant. The same analysis predicts QM is unlikely to scale down to the next deeper level of physics. The implications are that QM is profoundly deficient in its conceptual foundations, and is only an approximation of a deeper and more logically consistent mechanics.

•Jul 1, 2011•3 citations

Understanding Quantum Mechanics

G. J. Troup, M. L. Whippman

WORLD SCIENTIFIC eBooks•Mar 1, 2025•1 citation

Understanding Quantum Mechanics

GORDON J. TROUP, M. L. Whippman

American Journal of Physics•Nov 1, 1969•4 citations

Quantum Mechanics (QM)

Antonella Vannini, Ulisse Di Corpo

Quantum Mechanics originated at the beginning of the 20 th Century in order to explain the behaviour of the microscopic world. In this paper QM will be briefly described and the topic of retrocausality introduced.

•Jan 1, 2007•0 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.

Proceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE•Sep 10, 2015•0 citations

Understanding Quantum Mechanics

Roland L. Omnes

Princeton University Press eBooks•Dec 31, 1999•188 citations
Quantum mechanics (QM) has the problem of lacking a coherent conceptual foundation, even if its quantitative algorithms are functionally adequate. This paper appraises the conceptual logic beneath quantum mechanics, using as the point of reference a novel alternative conceptual framework called the cordus conjecture. If the cordus conjecture is correct then the comparison suggests that quantum mechanics is conceptually fallacious in several areas: (1) Particles need not be zero-dimensional points after all. (2) Bell�s theorem is refuted as being not universally applicable, and the principle of locality also fails. (3) The wavefunction is a mathematical approximation of a deeper reality, and superposition is not a physical state. (4) Superposition confounds positional and causal (temporal) variability, and this causes the weirdness of the QM interpretations. (5) Cordus identifies the factors that cause decoherence and (6) explains why quantum mechanics does not scale up to macroscopic objects. (7) It is fallacious to consider fields and particles as independent phenomena. Instead they are closely coupled in the cordus, and this explains the measurement context. Several core principles of QM are thereby refuted. The paradox of Schr�dinger�s Cat is explained as an artefact of these flawed premises. The paper also explains why the mathematical machinery of quantum mechanics is a reasonable approximation to reality, even if the concepts are not. The mathematics works, at least within a certain scale-range where: (a) things look like particles and the proposed cordus structure is not evident (i.e. not too small) and (b) where body-coherence is attainable (i.e. not too large). Outside of that range quantum mechanics seems neither conceptually nor mathematically relevant. The same analysis predicts QM is unlikely to scale down to the next deeper level of physics. The implications are that QM is profoundly deficient in its conceptual foundations, and is only an approximation of a deeper and more logically consistent mechanics.
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.