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

Hyperscience International Journals

The Invisible Reality of Quantum Mechanics: The Deterministic Perspective

According to the request of the author of this article, the affiliation has been secured with Hyperscience International Journal, Albert V Herrebrugh ‎

Published Jun 1, 2023• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

The fundamental deterministic nature of quantum mechanics (QM) is mathematically demonstrated by the modeling of the ‎‎‎quantum (multiple) slit experiments; hence this paper is written from a deterministic perspective (DP) in quantum mechanics.‎ ‎Due to approximately 90 years of indeterminism and probabilistic statistical results, the theory consists of many ‎‎‎interpretations and is often regarded as counterintuitive. The latter is in the deterministic perspective not the case and is ‎‎‎illustrated with some examples. After a brief historic perspective, ‘invisible’ i.e. invisible entities of reality in mathematical ‎‎‎treatment, are introduced. These entities are handled by mathematics indirectly i.e. are described in a transformed domain ‎‎‎without variables violating the Heisenberg relation. In nature, i.e. on micro and macro levels, causality is fully ‘entangled’ with ‎‎‎energy, information - in the meaning of ordering or coding - as well as time. In contrast with the macro scale with many forms ‎‎‎and types of memory functions, without a memory property of quanta, causality is the bearer of information symmetry on ‎‎the ‎quantum scale. Further on in this DP paper: mathematical and philosophical consequences and influences in several ‎‎‎paragraphs, regarding subjects such as ‘free will’ and expected ‘threats to science’, the Bell inequalities, Alice and Bob & ‎‎‎entanglement, causality, information, retro-causality, spooky action, encryption and computing, teleportation, and in general ‎‎‎interpretations rooted in indeterminacy in QM as well as associated topics on independence, fine-tuning. The last paragraph ‎‎‎outlines the mathematical treatment of QM more extensively and may clarify references to the above-mentioned topics of ‎‎‎discussion in QM further.‎

DOI
10.55672/hij2023pp5-16

Related papers

QUANTUM MECHANICS – DETERMINISTIC VS. PROBABILISTIC

Péter Vadász

A deterministic quantum mechanics theory is presented. The proposed theory is shown to be consistent with the current mainstream statistical quantum theory as well as with classical physics. It produces solutions that demonstrate that causality, physical reality, and determinism are restored and can explain in simple form concerns raised by results from the current mainstream statistical quantum theory. The meaning of particle-wave duality and complementarity, the possibility of a particle, like an electron, crossing through the nucleus as it does when the angular momentum of the electron is zero at the ground state of the hydrogen atom, the possibility of a point-size particle to have an “intrinsic spin,” the possibility of “quantum jumps” as the electron transitions instantaneously from one stable orbital to another without passing through the space in between the orbitals and does that at irregular time intervals. The natural collapse of the wave function as part of the solution is a result that emerges from the proposed deterministic quantum mechanics theory. The phenomenon of entanglement is also discussed in the context that information transfer between entangled “particles” does not occur in a superluminal fashion and is not a “spooky action at a distance” but rather the local measurement of global property. A linear stability method presents actual analytical solutions consistent with current mainstream quantum theory and classical physics. The Bohr-Schrödinger energy levels leading to the experimentally confirmed spectral lines and the fine structure constant emerge from an approximate solution to these equations.

14th CONSTRUCTAL LAW CONFERENCE | 10-11 October 2024 Bucharest Romania•Dec 18, 2024•0 citations

Is a Deterministic and Local Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Possible?… First Steps

Eduardo Nahmad-Achar, Natalia Sánchez-Kuntz

Abstract Quantum states in superposition cannot be observed, suggesting that they merely embody information on possible measurement results. Yet, we think of them as describing physical systems that evolve in time according to given mathematical equations. Furthermore, evolution takes place in physical space-time, and local causality is imposed on space-time by Special Relativity (a sequence of cause and effect that constitutes a fundamental principle by which we think about and do scientific work). It is therefore strange that there is non–locality and violation of causality embedded in Quantum Mechanics. We try to give here a first step to see whether a deterministic and local interpretation is possible. We will show that Bell’s inequality is not conclusive about the non–local nature of Quantum Mechanics, in that there exists an interpretation of reality (which we put forward) which is local and in which Bell’s inequality cannot be derived. Assuming determinism and locality a new Bell-like inequality is derived, which is always satisfied by Quantum Mechanics and which allows for local hidden variables [1].

Journal of Physics Conference Series•Apr 1, 2020•0 citations

Quantum mechanics and modeling of physical reality

Marian Kupczyński

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.

arXiv:1804.02288•Physica Scripta•Sep 18, 2018•18 citations

Quantum Mechanics

Hans J. Briegel, Thomas Müller

Abstract Quantum mechanics is our most successful and versatile account of the basic constituents of matter, of their interaction and of their compounds. We introduce the theory via a sketch of its history and lay out its mathematical structure in some detail. Before this background we address the important and controversial question of how to interpret that structure. We contextualise our own position, which is linked to our account of ontological emergence as detailed in Chap. 2 , and which is mathematically best expressed in the Heisenberg picture of quantum dynamics. Indeterminism and irreversible processes are fundamental for our approach. We discuss the dialectics of the deterministic challenge to our position and argue that indeterminism in the form of quantum randomness has turned from a philosophical riddle to a technological resource. This claim is supported by a discussion of quantum information science, including some of its basic protocols. Towards the end of the chapter we argue that agency and quantum mechanics come as a package deal. For one, quantum mechanics describes the world as offering open possibilities for the future at a fundamental physical level, which is needed for real higher-order organisation, including agency. Of course, this does not in any way show that the actual existence of agents in our world is guaranteed. But it does show that general agency scepticism has no basis in physics. Second, we show that quantum mechanics is best understood as a theory that describes our agential interactions with nature, and not as a theory that represents nature from the point of view of an inert, detached observer.

Synthese Library/Synthese library•Jan 1, 2025•1 citation

Quantum Philosophy

F. J. Duarte

One way to look at physics is from the perspective of philosophy. Indeed, physics can also be described as natural philosophy . Let us remember that universities don't award doctorates in physics (maybe they should) but they do award doctorates in philosophy to those who do physics. Here, we approach the subject of quantum philosophy without using any of the language associated with philosophy. We want a clear and direct discussion. The message is quite simple: quantum mechanics is based on indeterminism . Classical mechanics comes from determinism which is also one of the philosophical schools of thought. Given the enormous success of quantum mechanics, perhaps it is time for our philosophy friends to explore how indeterminism and uncertainty may temper deterministic perspectives in the classical domain. An additional message in this chapter, of interest to philosophers, is the fact that the physics of quantum entanglement , that is, derivation of its equations, is utterly independent of Bell's theorem .

CRC Press eBooks•Apr 10, 2026•0 citations

Indeterminism in Quantum Mechanics: Beyond and/or Within Causation

Vasil Dinev Penchev

The problem of indeterminism in quantum mechanics usually being considered as a generalization determinism of classical mechanics and physics for the case of discrete (quantum) changes is interpreted as an only mathematical problem referring to the relation of a set of independent choices to a well-ordered series therefore regulated by the equivalence of the axiom of choice and the well-ordering “theorem”. The former corresponds to quantum indeterminism, and the latter, to classical determinism. No other premises (besides the above only mathematical equivalence) are necessary to explain how the probabilistic causation of quantum mechanics refers to the unambiguous determinism of classical physics. The same equivalence underlies the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics. It merged the well-ordered components of the vectors of Heisenberg’s matrix mechanics and the non-ordered members of the wave functions of Schrödinger’s undulatory mechanics. The mathematical condition of that merging is just the equivalence of the axiom of choice and the well-ordering theorem implying in turn Max Born’s probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics. Particularly, energy conservation is justified differently than classical physics. It is due to the equivalence at issue rather than to the principle of least action. One may involve two forms of energy conservation corresponding whether to the smooth changes of classical physics or to the discrete changes of quantum mechanics. Further both kinds of changes can be equated to each other under the unified energy conservation as well as the conditions for the violation of energy conservation to be investigated therefore directing to a certain generalization of energy conservation.

•Jan 1, 2020•0 citations
The fundamental deterministic nature of quantum mechanics (QM) is mathematically demonstrated by the modeling of the ‎‎‎quantum (multiple) slit experiments; hence this paper is written from a deterministic perspective (DP) in quantum mechanics.‎ ‎Due to approximately 90 years of indeterminism and probabilistic statistical results, the theory consists of many ‎‎‎interpretations and is often regarded as counterintuitive. The latter is in the deterministic perspective not the case and is ‎‎‎illustrated with some examples. After a brief historic perspective, ‘invisible’ i.e. invisible entities of reality in mathematical ‎‎‎treatment, are introduced. These entities are handled by mathematics indirectly i.e. are described in a transformed domain ‎‎‎without variables violating the Heisenberg relation. In nature, i.e. on micro and macro levels, causality is fully ‘entangled’ with ‎‎‎energy, information - in the meaning of ordering or coding - as well as time. In contrast with the macro scale with many forms ‎‎‎and types of memory functions, without a memory property of quanta, causality is the bearer of information symmetry on ‎‎the ‎quantum scale. Further on in this DP paper: mathematical and philosophical consequences and influences in several ‎‎‎paragraphs, regarding subjects such as ‘free will’ and expected ‘threats to science’, the Bell inequalities, Alice and Bob & ‎‎‎entanglement, causality, information, retro-causality, spooky action, encryption and computing, teleportation, and in general ‎‎‎interpretations rooted in indeterminacy in QM as well as associated topics on independence, fine-tuning. The last paragraph ‎‎‎outlines the mathematical treatment of QM more extensively and may clarify references to the above-mentioned topics of ‎‎‎discussion in QM further.‎
A deterministic quantum mechanics theory is presented. The proposed theory is shown to be consistent with the current mainstream statistical quantum theory as well as with classical physics. It produces solutions that demonstrate that causality, physical reality, and determinism are restored and can explain in simple form concerns raised by results from the current mainstream statistical quantum theory. The meaning of particle-wave duality and complementarity, the possibility of a particle, like an electron, crossing through the nucleus as it does when the angular momentum of the electron is zero at the ground state of the hydrogen atom, the possibility of a point-size particle to have an “intrinsic spin,” the possibility of “quantum jumps” as the electron transitions instantaneously from one stable orbital to another without passing through the space in between the orbitals and does that at irregular time intervals. The natural collapse of the wave function as part of the solution is a result that emerges from the proposed deterministic quantum mechanics theory. The phenomenon of entanglement is also discussed in the context that information transfer between entangled “particles” does not occur in a superluminal fashion and is not a “spooky action at a distance” but rather the local measurement of global property. A linear stability method presents actual analytical solutions consistent with current mainstream quantum theory and classical physics. The Bohr-Schrödinger energy levels leading to the experimentally confirmed spectral lines and the fine structure constant emerge from an approximate solution to these equations.
Abstract Quantum states in superposition cannot be observed, suggesting that they merely embody information on possible measurement results. Yet, we think of them as describing physical systems that evolve in time according to given mathematical equations. Furthermore, evolution takes place in physical space-time, and local causality is imposed on space-time by Special Relativity (a sequence of cause and effect that constitutes a fundamental principle by which we think about and do scientific work). It is therefore strange that there is non–locality and violation of causality embedded in Quantum Mechanics. We try to give here a first step to see whether a deterministic and local interpretation is possible. We will show that Bell’s inequality is not conclusive about the non–local nature of Quantum Mechanics, in that there exists an interpretation of reality (which we put forward) which is local and in which Bell’s inequality cannot be derived. Assuming determinism and locality a new Bell-like inequality is derived, which is always satisfied by Quantum Mechanics and which allows for local hidden variables [1].
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.
Abstract Quantum mechanics is our most successful and versatile account of the basic constituents of matter, of their interaction and of their compounds. We introduce the theory via a sketch of its history and lay out its mathematical structure in some detail. Before this background we address the important and controversial question of how to interpret that structure. We contextualise our own position, which is linked to our account of ontological emergence as detailed in Chap. 2 , and which is mathematically best expressed in the Heisenberg picture of quantum dynamics. Indeterminism and irreversible processes are fundamental for our approach. We discuss the dialectics of the deterministic challenge to our position and argue that indeterminism in the form of quantum randomness has turned from a philosophical riddle to a technological resource. This claim is supported by a discussion of quantum information science, including some of its basic protocols. Towards the end of the chapter we argue that agency and quantum mechanics come as a package deal. For one, quantum mechanics describes the world as offering open possibilities for the future at a fundamental physical level, which is needed for real higher-order organisation, including agency. Of course, this does not in any way show that the actual existence of agents in our world is guaranteed. But it does show that general agency scepticism has no basis in physics. Second, we show that quantum mechanics is best understood as a theory that describes our agential interactions with nature, and not as a theory that represents nature from the point of view of an inert, detached observer.
One way to look at physics is from the perspective of philosophy. Indeed, physics can also be described as natural philosophy . Let us remember that universities don't award doctorates in physics (maybe they should) but they do award doctorates in philosophy to those who do physics. Here, we approach the subject of quantum philosophy without using any of the language associated with philosophy. We want a clear and direct discussion. The message is quite simple: quantum mechanics is based on indeterminism . Classical mechanics comes from determinism which is also one of the philosophical schools of thought. Given the enormous success of quantum mechanics, perhaps it is time for our philosophy friends to explore how indeterminism and uncertainty may temper deterministic perspectives in the classical domain. An additional message in this chapter, of interest to philosophers, is the fact that the physics of quantum entanglement , that is, derivation of its equations, is utterly independent of Bell's theorem .
The problem of indeterminism in quantum mechanics usually being considered as a generalization determinism of classical mechanics and physics for the case of discrete (quantum) changes is interpreted as an only mathematical problem referring to the relation of a set of independent choices to a well-ordered series therefore regulated by the equivalence of the axiom of choice and the well-ordering “theorem”. The former corresponds to quantum indeterminism, and the latter, to classical determinism. No other premises (besides the above only mathematical equivalence) are necessary to explain how the probabilistic causation of quantum mechanics refers to the unambiguous determinism of classical physics. The same equivalence underlies the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics. It merged the well-ordered components of the vectors of Heisenberg’s matrix mechanics and the non-ordered members of the wave functions of Schrödinger’s undulatory mechanics. The mathematical condition of that merging is just the equivalence of the axiom of choice and the well-ordering theorem implying in turn Max Born’s probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics. Particularly, energy conservation is justified differently than classical physics. It is due to the equivalence at issue rather than to the principle of least action. One may involve two forms of energy conservation corresponding whether to the smooth changes of classical physics or to the discrete changes of quantum mechanics. Further both kinds of changes can be equated to each other under the unified energy conservation as well as the conditions for the violation of energy conservation to be investigated therefore directing to a certain generalization of energy conservation.