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 as Energy-State Transitions: An Energy-Efficiency Interpretation

Hongpu Yang

Published Mar 26, 2026• 15 citations
Publisher

Abstract

An energy-ontological interpretation of quantum mechanics within Energy-Efficiency Theory: quantum phenomena as dynamic relations between unfolding and localizing energy configurations, with heuristic candidates for measurement timescales, entanglement stability, and decoherence scaling.
DOI
10.5281/zenodo.19238676

Related papers

Experiential Structural Ontology and the Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

Darren Hearst

Quantum mechanics is empirically extraordinarily successful yet continues to admit a wide range of competing interpretations. While the formalism constrains probabilistic relations between preparation procedures, measurements, and outcomes, it does not uniquely determine the ontology that realises those relations. Interpretations such as Everettian quantum mechanics, Bohmian mechanics, objective collapse theories, relational quantum mechanics, and QBist approaches preserve the predictive structure of the theory while diverging sharply in their metaphysical commitments. At the same time, developments within quantum theory itself weaken the classical ontology of independently existing objects with intrinsic properties. Entanglement, violations of Bell inequalities, and decoherence theory collectively support the view that physical description is fundamentally relational. Structural realism therefore provides a natural interpretive framework, treating the mathematical structure of physical theory as ontologically primary. However, structural realism alone leaves open the question of instantiation: how relational organisation becomes concrete as a determinate world.This paper develops Experiential Structural Ontology (ESO) as a non-interventionist interpretation of quantum mechanics that addresses this problem. ESO retains the relational ontology suggested by quantum theory while proposing that relational constraint organisation is enacted as manifestation within a fundamental experiential field. On this interpretation, the wavefunction represents relational constraint architecture governing transitions within this field, measurement corresponds to the stabilisation of particular regimes within that structure, and decoherence explains the emergence of classical stability without invoking collapse dynamics or ontological branching.

•Mar 3, 2026•0 citations

Energy and the interpretation of quantum mechanics

Clifford Alan Hooker

(1971). Energy and the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Australasian Journal of Philosophy: Vol. 49, No. 3, pp. 262-270.

Australasian Journal of Philosophy•Dec 1, 1971•8 citations

The Two Fundamental Forms of Energy: Free State and Constrained State A Physical Ontological Foundation of Energy-Efficiency Theory

Hongpu Yang

Energy-Efficiency Theory (EET) takes the first axiom “energy is the sole ontology” as its starting point. This paper systematically expounds the two fundamental forms of energy: the free state (continuously distributed, propagating at the speed of light, such as waves and fields) and the constrained state (localized, stable, subluminal, such as particles and matter). We provide rigorous definitions, mathematical characterizations, and a quantitative model of state transitions. Based on this framework, we unify three fundamental physical phenomena: (1) wave particle duality as a dynamic sliding of energy between the two states (superposition |ψ⟩ = α|free⟩ + β|bound⟩), with quantitative compatibility demonstrated via the electron wavepacket example; (2) quantum measurement collapse as an irreversible transition from the free state to the constrained state, with transition time satisfying ∆tmin = dmin/c and energy dissipation obeying Landauer’s limit; (3) the mass-energy equivalence E = mc2 as a conversion formula between the two states, where mass is the spatial density of constrained-state energy, validated by experimental data from the carbon-12 nucleus. We further derive quantitative transition rate formulas and engage with contemporary structural realism. This work provides a unified energy-ontological interpretation of quantum mechanics and relativity, establishing the physical foundation of the EET framework. Keywords: free-state energy; constrained-state energy; wave-particle duality; quantum measurement; mass-energy equivalence; Energy-Efficiency Theory

•Mar 26, 2026•0 citations

2. The Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

Michael Epperson

Fordham University Press eBooks•Dec 31, 2020•3 citations

Measurement as Phase Locking: A Physical Interpretation of Quantum Measurement

Rob ten Napel

Measurement as Phase Locking: A Physical Interpretation of Quantum Measurement (Phase Ontology — Part III) addresses one of the most stubborn puzzles in modern physics: what “measurement” physically is, and why a quantum superposition yields a single definite outcome. The paper argues that the measurement problem persists largely because phase is treated as merely descriptive, rather than as a physically real organizing layer. Within a phase-ontological framework, measurement is reinterpreted as a coupling-driven coherence transition. A quantum system begins as a distributed phase configuration. When it interacts with a macroscopic detector (and its environment), the interaction imposes many competing constraints on phase relations. Once coupling crosses a practical threshold, only those configurations that can remain coherently stable with the detector–environment system survive: the system phase-locks into a local, dynamically stable configuration. What standard interpretations call “collapse” is therefore not a mysterious, observer-triggered discontinuity, but an emergent stabilization process governed by coupling strength, environmental structure, and phase stability. The paper also situates this account relative to decoherence: decoherence explains the suppression of interference, while phase locking is proposed as the missing stabilizing mechanism that explains why one localized outcome is realized. Probabilities are interpreted not as hidden variables, but as the relative stability of available phase-locking channels, offering a physical reading of the Born rule. This work is Part III of a seven-part series (Parts I–VII). It builds on the foundations of Parts I and II, prepares the ground for Part IV (entanglement and nonlocal correlations), and points ahead to Part VII for experimental implications and falsifiability.

•Feb 15, 2026•0 citations

The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: The Reality of Possibility

Ruth E. Kastner

A comprehensive treatment of the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics for researchers and graduate students in the philosophy of physics.

•Nov 26, 2012•108 citations
Quantum mechanics is empirically extraordinarily successful yet continues to admit a wide range of competing interpretations. While the formalism constrains probabilistic relations between preparation procedures, measurements, and outcomes, it does not uniquely determine the ontology that realises those relations. Interpretations such as Everettian quantum mechanics, Bohmian mechanics, objective collapse theories, relational quantum mechanics, and QBist approaches preserve the predictive structure of the theory while diverging sharply in their metaphysical commitments. At the same time, developments within quantum theory itself weaken the classical ontology of independently existing objects with intrinsic properties. Entanglement, violations of Bell inequalities, and decoherence theory collectively support the view that physical description is fundamentally relational. Structural realism therefore provides a natural interpretive framework, treating the mathematical structure of physical theory as ontologically primary. However, structural realism alone leaves open the question of instantiation: how relational organisation becomes concrete as a determinate world.This paper develops Experiential Structural Ontology (ESO) as a non-interventionist interpretation of quantum mechanics that addresses this problem. ESO retains the relational ontology suggested by quantum theory while proposing that relational constraint organisation is enacted as manifestation within a fundamental experiential field. On this interpretation, the wavefunction represents relational constraint architecture governing transitions within this field, measurement corresponds to the stabilisation of particular regimes within that structure, and decoherence explains the emergence of classical stability without invoking collapse dynamics or ontological branching.
Energy-Efficiency Theory (EET) takes the first axiom “energy is the sole ontology” as its starting point. This paper systematically expounds the two fundamental forms of energy: the free state (continuously distributed, propagating at the speed of light, such as waves and fields) and the constrained state (localized, stable, subluminal, such as particles and matter). We provide rigorous definitions, mathematical characterizations, and a quantitative model of state transitions. Based on this framework, we unify three fundamental physical phenomena: (1) wave particle duality as a dynamic sliding of energy between the two states (superposition |ψ⟩ = α|free⟩ + β|bound⟩), with quantitative compatibility demonstrated via the electron wavepacket example; (2) quantum measurement collapse as an irreversible transition from the free state to the constrained state, with transition time satisfying ∆tmin = dmin/c and energy dissipation obeying Landauer’s limit; (3) the mass-energy equivalence E = mc2 as a conversion formula between the two states, where mass is the spatial density of constrained-state energy, validated by experimental data from the carbon-12 nucleus. We further derive quantitative transition rate formulas and engage with contemporary structural realism. This work provides a unified energy-ontological interpretation of quantum mechanics and relativity, establishing the physical foundation of the EET framework. Keywords: free-state energy; constrained-state energy; wave-particle duality; quantum measurement; mass-energy equivalence; Energy-Efficiency Theory
Measurement as Phase Locking: A Physical Interpretation of Quantum Measurement (Phase Ontology — Part III) addresses one of the most stubborn puzzles in modern physics: what “measurement” physically is, and why a quantum superposition yields a single definite outcome. The paper argues that the measurement problem persists largely because phase is treated as merely descriptive, rather than as a physically real organizing layer. Within a phase-ontological framework, measurement is reinterpreted as a coupling-driven coherence transition. A quantum system begins as a distributed phase configuration. When it interacts with a macroscopic detector (and its environment), the interaction imposes many competing constraints on phase relations. Once coupling crosses a practical threshold, only those configurations that can remain coherently stable with the detector–environment system survive: the system phase-locks into a local, dynamically stable configuration. What standard interpretations call “collapse” is therefore not a mysterious, observer-triggered discontinuity, but an emergent stabilization process governed by coupling strength, environmental structure, and phase stability. The paper also situates this account relative to decoherence: decoherence explains the suppression of interference, while phase locking is proposed as the missing stabilizing mechanism that explains why one localized outcome is realized. Probabilities are interpreted not as hidden variables, but as the relative stability of available phase-locking channels, offering a physical reading of the Born rule. This work is Part III of a seven-part series (Parts I–VII). It builds on the foundations of Parts I and II, prepares the ground for Part IV (entanglement and nonlocal correlations), and points ahead to Part VII for experimental implications and falsifiability.