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

Journal of Physics Conference Series

Completely geometric theory II: basics of quantum mechanics

Sergey Siparov

Published Nov 1, 2021• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Abstract The geometrical approach suggested earlier, makes it possible to investigate the regions both in mega-and micro worlds that cannot be accessed by the direct observation. This makes it possible not only to interpret the basic experiments of quantum mechanics in a new way but also to escape the paradoxes stemming from the wave function introduction. It also gives perspectives to adjust the quantum mechanics and the relativity theory.

DOI
10.1088/1742-6596/2081/1/012032

Related papers

Measurement in classical and quantum physics

Alexey A. Kryukov

It was recently shown that quantum and classical mechanics are related in a deeper and more intimate way than previously thought possible. A geometric framework for both theories that allowed going back and forth between quantum and classical processes was discovered. The quantum-mechanical experiments were presented in a new and illuminating fashion, paving a way to resolve the paradoxes of quantum theory. The downside of the theory is a relatively involved machinery of functional analysis and differential geometry used to derive the results. At the same time, the main conclusions are fundamentally simple and can be presented without complicated math. The goal of this paper is to provide such a ``no math" presentation of the theory.

•Feb 24, 2000•0 citations

The wave function in Quantum Mechanics

Kiyoung Kim

Through a new interpretation of Special Theory of Relativity and with a model given for physical space, we can find a way to understand the basic principles of Quantum Mechanics consistently from Classical Theory. It is supposed that natural phenomena have a connection with intangible reality which cannot be measured directly. Furthermore, the intangible reality is supposed as vacuum particles -- stationary vacuum electrons as a model. In addition, 4-Dimensional Complex Space is introduced, in which each dimension has an internal complex space.

arXiv:quant-ph/9701023•Jan 19, 1997•1 citation

Problems of Quantum Mechanics (UET7B)

H. J. Spencer

This paper re-opens the debate on the failure of quantum mechanics to provide an understandable view of micro-reality. A critique is offered of the commonly accepted ‘Copenhagen Interpretation’ of a theory that is only a mathematical approach to the level of reality characterized by atoms and electrons. This critique is based on the oldest approach to thinking about nature for over 2500 years, known as Natural Philosophy. Quantum mechanics (QM) was developed over the first quarter of the 20th Century, when scientists were enthralled by a new philosophy known as Positivism, whose foundations were based on the assumption that material objects exist only when measured by humans – this central assumption conflates epistemology (knowledge) with ontology (existence). The present critique rejects this human-centered view of reality by assuming material reality has existed long before (and will persist long after) human beings (“Realism”). The defensive view that the micro-world is too different to understand using regular thinking (and only a mathematical approach is possible) is rejected totally. At least 12 earlier QM interpretations are critically analyzed, indicating the broad interest in “what does QM mean?” The standard theory of quantum mechanics is thus constructed on only how the micro-world appears to macro measurements - as such, it cannot offer any view of how the foundations of the world are acting when humans are not observing it - this has generated almost 100 years of confusion and contradiction at the very heart of physics. Significantly, we live in a world that is not being measured by scientists but is interacting with itself and with us. QM has failed to provide explanations: only recipes (meaningless equations), not insights. Physics has returned to the pre-Newtonian world of Ptolemaic phenomenology: only verifiable numbers without real understanding. The focus needs to be on an explicit linkage between the micro-world, when left to itself, and our mental models of this sphere of material reality, via the mechanism of measurement. This limits the role of measurement to confirming our mental models of reality but never confusing these with a direct image of ‘the thing in itself’. This implies a deep divide between reality and appearances, as Kant suggested. This paper includes an original analysis of several major assumptions that have been implicit in Classical Mechanics (CM) that were acceptable in the macroscopic domain of reality, demonstrated by its proven successes. Unfortunately, only a few of these assumptions were challenged by the developers of QM. We now show that these other assumptions are still generating confusions in the interpretation of QM and blocking further progress in the understanding of the microscopic domain. Several of these flawed assumptions were introduced by Newton to support the use of continuum mathematics as a model of nature. This paper proposes that it is the attempt to preserve continuum mathematics (especially calculus), which drives much of the mystery and confusion behind all attempts at understanding quantum mechanics. The introduction of discrete mathematics is proposed to help analyze the discrete interactions between the quintessential quantum objects: the electrons and their novel properties. A related paper demonstrates that it is possible to create a point-particle theory of electrons that explains all their peculiar (and ‘paradoxical’) behavior using only physical hypotheses and discrete mathematics without introducing the continuum mathematical ideas of fields or waves. Another (related) paper proves that all the known results for the hydrogen atom can also be exactly calculated from this new perspective with the discrete mathematics. * Surrey, B.C. Canada (604) 542-2299 spsi99@telus.net Version 2.015 08-05-2017 Begun 23-06-2008 {pp. 82, 70.2 Kw; 800 KB}

•May 1, 2017•0 citations

What is geometry in quantum theory

Gennadi Aleksandrovich Sardanashvily, GIOVANNI GIACHETTA

In this scientific preface to the first issue of International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics, we briefly survey some peculiarities of geometric techniques in quantum models.

arXiv:hep-th/0401080•Jan 13, 2004•0 citations

Geometrical Approach in Atomic Physics: Atoms of Hydrogen and Helium

Oleg A. Olkhov

The hypothesis was earlier suggested by the author where all micro-objects are considered as specific distortions of the physical space-time pseudo-Euclidean geometry, namely, as closed topological 4-manifolds. The foundation of the hypothesis is a geometrical interpretation of the basic equation of quantum mechanics for classical (not quantized) wave fields -- the Dirac equation for free particle. Such hypothesis does not contradict to any physical laws and experimental facts and gives firstly an opportunity to explain qualitatively within classical notions (geometrical) the so called “paradoxical” properties of quantum particles such as wave-corpuscular duality, appearance of probabilities in the quantum mechanics formalism, spin, EPR-paradox.To demonstrate prospects for suggested geometrical approach the author early attempted to find new dynamic equations other than known quantum-mechanical ones for atomic spectra calculations. In this work above investigation is being continued on a more rigorous basis, representing a new geometrical interpretation of the equation for hydrogen atoms. Results of calculations of ionization potentials for helium atom are in agreement with experimental data.

American Journal of Physics and Applications•Jan 1, 2014•3 citations

A realistic model for completing Quantum Mechanics

M. Baldo

In the well known Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum mechanics, advocated by N. Bohr, the physical objects and the experimental results can be described only in a macroscopic language, leaving any possible microscopic description as unspeakable. This point of view has been deepened by C. Rovelli in the relational interpretation of Quantum mechanics. Most of the alternative interpretations, which try a detailed microscopic description of physical phenomena and of their evolution, have in common the explicit introduction of the wave function as the basic element of the theory. These interpretations require the notion of quantum state as the fundamental concept of the theory, which is the typical unspeakable physical element according to the Copenhagen interpretation. The two basic physical entities are intimately bound together by the integrity of the wave function. These interpretations are usually indicated as realistic. It is well known that the use of the wave function and its time evolution in the description of the physical processes leads unavoidably to some difficulties or so-called paradoxes. The measurement problem is at the center of these difficulties, mainly because it requires the introduction of the reduction process of the wave function, which is not included explicitly within the mathematical formalism of Quantum Mechanics. In this paper we build up and propose a model which goes beyond the standard formalism and which is able to solve the measurement problem and all the other difficulties which, in a way or in another, are related to it.

arXiv:2104.12701•Apr 26, 2021•1 citation
Abstract The geometrical approach suggested earlier, makes it possible to investigate the regions both in mega-and micro worlds that cannot be accessed by the direct observation. This makes it possible not only to interpret the basic experiments of quantum mechanics in a new way but also to escape the paradoxes stemming from the wave function introduction. It also gives perspectives to adjust the quantum mechanics and the relativity theory.
It was recently shown that quantum and classical mechanics are related in a deeper and more intimate way than previously thought possible. A geometric framework for both theories that allowed going back and forth between quantum and classical processes was discovered. The quantum-mechanical experiments were presented in a new and illuminating fashion, paving a way to resolve the paradoxes of quantum theory. The downside of the theory is a relatively involved machinery of functional analysis and differential geometry used to derive the results. At the same time, the main conclusions are fundamentally simple and can be presented without complicated math. The goal of this paper is to provide such a ``no math" presentation of the theory.
Through a new interpretation of Special Theory of Relativity and with a model given for physical space, we can find a way to understand the basic principles of Quantum Mechanics consistently from Classical Theory. It is supposed that natural phenomena have a connection with intangible reality which cannot be measured directly. Furthermore, the intangible reality is supposed as vacuum particles -- stationary vacuum electrons as a model. In addition, 4-Dimensional Complex Space is introduced, in which each dimension has an internal complex space.
This paper re-opens the debate on the failure of quantum mechanics to provide an understandable view of micro-reality. A critique is offered of the commonly accepted ‘Copenhagen Interpretation’ of a theory that is only a mathematical approach to the level of reality characterized by atoms and electrons. This critique is based on the oldest approach to thinking about nature for over 2500 years, known as Natural Philosophy. Quantum mechanics (QM) was developed over the first quarter of the 20th Century, when scientists were enthralled by a new philosophy known as Positivism, whose foundations were based on the assumption that material objects exist only when measured by humans – this central assumption conflates epistemology (knowledge) with ontology (existence). The present critique rejects this human-centered view of reality by assuming material reality has existed long before (and will persist long after) human beings (“Realism”). The defensive view that the micro-world is too different to understand using regular thinking (and only a mathematical approach is possible) is rejected totally. At least 12 earlier QM interpretations are critically analyzed, indicating the broad interest in “what does QM mean?” The standard theory of quantum mechanics is thus constructed on only how the micro-world appears to macro measurements - as such, it cannot offer any view of how the foundations of the world are acting when humans are not observing it - this has generated almost 100 years of confusion and contradiction at the very heart of physics. Significantly, we live in a world that is not being measured by scientists but is interacting with itself and with us. QM has failed to provide explanations: only recipes (meaningless equations), not insights. Physics has returned to the pre-Newtonian world of Ptolemaic phenomenology: only verifiable numbers without real understanding. The focus needs to be on an explicit linkage between the micro-world, when left to itself, and our mental models of this sphere of material reality, via the mechanism of measurement. This limits the role of measurement to confirming our mental models of reality but never confusing these with a direct image of ‘the thing in itself’. This implies a deep divide between reality and appearances, as Kant suggested. This paper includes an original analysis of several major assumptions that have been implicit in Classical Mechanics (CM) that were acceptable in the macroscopic domain of reality, demonstrated by its proven successes. Unfortunately, only a few of these assumptions were challenged by the developers of QM. We now show that these other assumptions are still generating confusions in the interpretation of QM and blocking further progress in the understanding of the microscopic domain. Several of these flawed assumptions were introduced by Newton to support the use of continuum mathematics as a model of nature. This paper proposes that it is the attempt to preserve continuum mathematics (especially calculus), which drives much of the mystery and confusion behind all attempts at understanding quantum mechanics. The introduction of discrete mathematics is proposed to help analyze the discrete interactions between the quintessential quantum objects: the electrons and their novel properties. A related paper demonstrates that it is possible to create a point-particle theory of electrons that explains all their peculiar (and ‘paradoxical’) behavior using only physical hypotheses and discrete mathematics without introducing the continuum mathematical ideas of fields or waves. Another (related) paper proves that all the known results for the hydrogen atom can also be exactly calculated from this new perspective with the discrete mathematics. * Surrey, B.C. Canada (604) 542-2299 spsi99@telus.net Version 2.015 08-05-2017 Begun 23-06-2008 {pp. 82, 70.2 Kw; 800 KB}
The hypothesis was earlier suggested by the author where all micro-objects are considered as specific distortions of the physical space-time pseudo-Euclidean geometry, namely, as closed topological 4-manifolds. The foundation of the hypothesis is a geometrical interpretation of the basic equation of quantum mechanics for classical (not quantized) wave fields -- the Dirac equation for free particle. Such hypothesis does not contradict to any physical laws and experimental facts and gives firstly an opportunity to explain qualitatively within classical notions (geometrical) the so called “paradoxical” properties of quantum particles such as wave-corpuscular duality, appearance of probabilities in the quantum mechanics formalism, spin, EPR-paradox.To demonstrate prospects for suggested geometrical approach the author early attempted to find new dynamic equations other than known quantum-mechanical ones for atomic spectra calculations. In this work above investigation is being continued on a more rigorous basis, representing a new geometrical interpretation of the equation for hydrogen atoms. Results of calculations of ionization potentials for helium atom are in agreement with experimental data.
In the well known Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum mechanics, advocated by N. Bohr, the physical objects and the experimental results can be described only in a macroscopic language, leaving any possible microscopic description as unspeakable. This point of view has been deepened by C. Rovelli in the relational interpretation of Quantum mechanics. Most of the alternative interpretations, which try a detailed microscopic description of physical phenomena and of their evolution, have in common the explicit introduction of the wave function as the basic element of the theory. These interpretations require the notion of quantum state as the fundamental concept of the theory, which is the typical unspeakable physical element according to the Copenhagen interpretation. The two basic physical entities are intimately bound together by the integrity of the wave function. These interpretations are usually indicated as realistic. It is well known that the use of the wave function and its time evolution in the description of the physical processes leads unavoidably to some difficulties or so-called paradoxes. The measurement problem is at the center of these difficulties, mainly because it requires the introduction of the reduction process of the wave function, which is not included explicitly within the mathematical formalism of Quantum Mechanics. In this paper we build up and propose a model which goes beyond the standard formalism and which is able to solve the measurement problem and all the other difficulties which, in a way or in another, are related to it.