There is still no scientific consensus on the existence of ontic randomness. Understanding it is especially important for physics, as the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics is believed to be irreducible. This theory aims to explain how the existence of true randomness is possible for the referential of a non-omniscient observer.The theory is built on a toy model in two thought experiments. We propose the concept of invisible and inaccessible laws as explanation for the occurrence of unpredictability and states that it represents the physical reification of Gödel's incompleteness theorem.The article proposes that the geometry of spacetime is able to explain several physical phenomena in the set of dimensional random events. Among these are the event horizon in black holes, the hypersensitivity to initial conditions, and the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. We develope the theorem of dimensional randomness for proving that a non-causal theory in a dimensionally incomplete space have correspondence with a causal theory in a dimensionally complete space. The theorem is used to question the fundamentally probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics through an implicit assumption that is made about the number of dimensions in spacetime for the development of Bell's theorem.
There is still no scientific consensus on the existence of ontic randomness. Understanding it is especially important for physics, as the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics is believed to be irreducible. This theory aims to explain how the existence of true randomness is possible for the referential of a non-omniscient observer.The theory is built on a toy model in two thought experiments. We propose the concept of invisible and inaccessible laws as explanation for the occurrence of unpredictability and states that it represents the physical reification of Gödel's incompleteness theorem.The article proposes that the geometry of spacetime is able to explain several physical phenomena in the set of dimensional random events. Among these are the event horizon in black holes, the hypersensitivity to initial conditions, and the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. We develope the theorem of dimensional randomness for proving that a non-causal theory in a dimensionally incomplete space have correspondence with a causal theory in a dimensionally complete space. The theorem is used to question the fundamentally probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics through an implicit assumption that is made about the number of dimensions in spacetime for the development of Bell's theorem.
· Building upon the foundational framework of a discrete six dimensional spacetime manifold, this paper isolates and formalizes the concept of Spacetime Randomness as a definitional clarification of deterministic wave collapse. · I propose that true randomness cannot be verified by analyzing statistical distributions within a single spatial or temporal frame. · A genuinely random system must exhibit strict independence across disparate coordinates in both space and time. · This paper addresses the apparent contradiction between a deterministic temporal standing wave and the probabilistic nature of quantum collapse by analyzing the topography of temporal wave interference. · I reframe the terminology, demonstrating that both predictable and unpredictable events are governed by the same deterministic 6D wave mechanics. · Predictability arises from asymmetrically weighted events, while true randomness is the deterministic output of a symmetrically weighted temporal distribution. · I formalize the mathematics of spacetime independence, demonstrating that quantum randomness is a geometric reality of uniform phase interference. · Furthermore, I resolve the apparent conflict with Bell theorem by redefining entanglement as a shared temporal dimension, and I propose a unique application of the Leggett Garg inequality, predicting a mass dependent temporal correlation variance that standard four dimensional quantum mechanics strictly forbids.
Quantum Physics is usually defined as a theory that affirms a primary role of randomness and probability. Eleven well-known quantum experiments are examined and the result is the coexistence of both random and causal type behaviour. We need both to describe experiments. Quantum Mechanics states the general overcoming of causality and this statement constitutes an unlimited generalization, not supported by experience. Determinism and indeterminism are philosophical systems, that universalize causality or chance. The crucial point is the difference between epistemic and intrinsic randomness. In the first aspect, randomness does not have a fundamental meaning, in the second, randomness of the individual event is explained, but the detection of high stable regularities remains to be explained. The article addresses the question of entanglement and various aspects of probability theory, including the law of large numbers, arriving at the thesis that many relevant questions are unresolved. A causal description is in quantum mechanics impossible in principle, given its assumptions. In order not to contradict experience, both points of view are necessary, causal and random. This is the state of the research, to return to and start again from.
Abstract Quantum mechanics (QM) has led to spectacular technological developments, including the discovery of new constituents of matter and new materials: however, there is still no consensus regarding its interpretation and limitations. Some scientists and scientific writers promote some exotic interpretations and evoke quantum magic. In this paper we point out that magical explanations mean the end of the science. Magical explanations are misleading and counterproductive. We explain how a simple probabilistic local causal model is able to reproduce quantum correlations in Bell tests. We also discuss the difficulties of mathematical modeling of the physical reality and dangers of incorrect mental images. We examine in detail when and how a probabilistic model may completely describe a random experiment. We give some arguments in favor of the contextual statistical interpretation of QM. We conclude that we still do not know whether quantum theory provides a complete description of physical phenomena and we explain how it may be tested. We also point out, that there remain several open questions and challenges in QM, in quantum field theory and in the Standard Model. Moreover, there is still no consensus about how to reconcile quantum theory with general relativity and cosmology.
This work challenges the conventional assumption that quantum randomness is fundamentally intrinsic. Instead, it proposes that a significant class of observed probabilistic outcomes may arise as a projection effect from inaccessible higher-dimensional structure. A minimal boundary-weighted projection formalism is developed entirely within standard quantum mechanics, preserving unitary evolution, the Born rule, and all established no-go theorems, including Bell and Kochen–Specker constraints. Randomness is therefore reinterpreted not as a primitive law, but as a boundary-sensitive manifestation of restricted geometric access to an enlarged state space. The framework introduces a concrete operator-level model for boundary-dependent reduction and outlines experimentally testable distinctions from standard decoherence-based explanations. By relocating indeterminacy from intrinsic dynamics to projection geometry, this work offers a structurally distinct interpretation of quantum measurement while remaining fully operationally equivalent to established theory. The proposal bridges foundational questions with measurable consequences, positioning randomness as a geometric phenomenon rather than a fundamental ontological axiom. Nothing is random. It’s the cut we live in that makes it look that way.
We propose a geometric framework in which the apparent indeterminacy of quantum mechanics arises naturally from the projection of higher-dimensional objects onto lower-dimensional observer spaces. Using cardinality arguments from set theory, we establish a strict hierarchy: the set of all k-dimensional shapes embeddable in 3-dimensional space has cardinality ℵ(k+1), strictly increasing with k. Combined with a cardinality-existence correspondence principle, this implies the physical existence of infinitely many spatial dimensions. We then develop a dimensional projection framework in which quantum phenomena — superposition, wave-particle duality, wave function collapse, entanglement, tunneling, and spin — are reinterpreted as geometric consequences of a 3-dimensional observer perceiving higher-dimensional objects. The Heisenberg uncertainty relations are shown to be observer-relative rather than fundamental limits of nature. The incompatibility between general relativity and quantum mechanics is argued to stem from Einstein's implicit assumption that observer dimensionality is absolute. We propose that treating observer dimensionality as a relative quantity — analogously to how Einstein relativised time and space — may provide a path toward unification. Keywords: quantum mechanics, dimensional projection, cardinality, Heisenberg uncertainty, wave-particle duality, quantum gravity, higher dimensions, measurement problem
This paper proves that quantum mechanics emerges as a mathematical necessity when a deterministic classical system possesses compact Kähler dimensions inaccessible to observation. The proof rests on three independent results from established mathematics: Spectral discreteness: The spectral theorem for elliptic operators on compact manifolds guarantees a discrete eigenspectrum, producing superposition and complex phase structure. The uncertainty principle: The Gromov non-squeezing theorem establishes an irreducible lower bound on observable uncertainties, with Planck's constant identified as the symplectic capacity of the compact space. The Born rule: The unique Kähler-compatible L² inner product determines the probability rule P = |ψ|² with no alternatives. Together, these results demonstrate that the complete axiomatic structure of quantum mechanics — complex Hilbert space, superposition, interference, the uncertainty principle, the Born rule, and entanglement — is a necessary consequence of dimensional projection rather than a set of independent postulates. The paper further shows that: The complex numbers in quantum mechanics originate from the complex structure (J) of the compact manifold, providing a geometric explanation for recent experiments ruling out real-valued quantum mechanics (Renou et al., Nature 2021; Chen et al., PRL 2022). Unitary time evolution arises because the complex structure converts what would otherwise be dissipative dynamics into probability-preserving oscillation. The number field of quantum mechanics (real, complex, or quaternionic) is determined by the topology of the compact dimensions (Riemannian, Kähler, or hyperkähler respectively), making laboratory quantum experiments probes of extra-dimensional geometry. CPT symmetry corresponds to orientation-invariance of the compact manifold, connecting discrete symmetry tests to the topology of the extra dimensions. The theorem requires no physical assumptions beyond the existence of inaccessible compact Kähler dimensions. It applies to any number of dimensions, any compact Kähler geometry, and any deterministic dynamics. The paper concludes that quantum mechanics is not a law of nature but a law of perspective — the second such law in physics, following relativity. Where relativity revealed that the separation of spacetime into space and time is observer-dependent, this work shows that the separation of dynamics into deterministic and probabilistic is equally observer-dependent. Originally submitted to Foundations of Physics on March 16, 2026