The standard interpretation of quantum mechanics holds that a particle exists in a superposition of multiple states prior to measurement — that it simultaneously occupies more than one location, or simultaneously possesses more than one value of an observable. This paper argues, by reductio ad absurdum, that the physical realisation of superposition — simultaneous multi-location existence — is incompatible with seven independent and well-established physical principles: (1) the observational fact that no infinite physical quantity has ever been measured; (2) conservation of energy; (3) the mass-energy equivalence E = mc²; (4) the Bekenstein entropy bound; (5) the second law of thermodynamics; (6) the Heisenberg uncertainty principle; and (7) causality. The argument proceeds through a foundational identification: information, energy, and mass stand in proportional existential relation, established by the Bekenstein bound (I ∝ M), Landauer's principle (E ∝ I), and mass-energy equivalence (E = mc²). Given this proportionality, the infinite information-processing load required by complete superposition implies infinite energy and infinite mass — quantities that are universally absent from the observational record of physics. Finite N-state superposition is excluded by a complementary argument: maintaining N states simultaneously requires N times the information-processing load of a single undetermined state, violating the principle that nature selects minimum-load configurations. The physical alternative proposed is the undetermined state: during propagation, the matter wave is real and physically present, but matter has not yet appeared at any location. This is not a hidden-variable state — no definite position exists to be hidden — but an ontological absence of localisation prior to the formation of a constructive interference maximum. The present paper does not claim to determine which path matter takes; it claims to demonstrate that simultaneous multi-location existence is physically impossible. The undetermined state is the unique physically consistent alternative. Experimental consequences and the connection to the double-slit experiment are developed in a companion paper.
The standard interpretation of quantum mechanics holds that a particle exists in a superposition of multiple states prior to measurement — that it simultaneously occupies more than one location, or simultaneously possesses more than one value of an observable. This paper argues, by reductio ad absurdum, that the physical realisation of superposition — simultaneous multi-location existence — is incompatible with seven independent and well-established physical principles: (1) the observational fact that no infinite physical quantity has ever been measured; (2) conservation of energy; (3) the mass-energy equivalence E = mc²; (4) the Bekenstein entropy bound; (5) the second law of thermodynamics; (6) the Heisenberg uncertainty principle; and (7) causality. The argument proceeds through a foundational identification: information, energy, and mass stand in proportional existential relation, established by the Bekenstein bound (I ∝ M), Landauer's principle (E ∝ I), and mass-energy equivalence (E = mc²). Given this proportionality, the infinite information-processing load required by complete superposition implies infinite energy and infinite mass — quantities that are universally absent from the observational record of physics. Finite N-state superposition is excluded by a complementary argument: maintaining N states simultaneously requires N times the information-processing load of a single undetermined state, violating the principle that nature selects minimum-load configurations. The physical alternative proposed is the undetermined state: during propagation, the matter wave is real and physically present, but matter has not yet appeared at any location. This is not a hidden-variable state — no definite position exists to be hidden — but an ontological absence of localisation prior to the formation of a constructive interference maximum. The present paper does not claim to determine which path matter takes; it claims to demonstrate that simultaneous multi-location existence is physically impossible. The undetermined state is the unique physically consistent alternative. Experimental consequences and the connection to the double-slit experiment are developed in a companion paper.
Paper 74 — No Quantum Superposition This paper argues, by reductio ad absurdum, that the physical realisation of superposition — simultaneous multi-location existence — is incompatible with seven independent and well-established physical principles: (1) the observational fact that no infinite physical quantity has ever been measured; (2) conservation of energy; (3) the mass-energy equivalence E = mc²; (4) the Bekenstein entropy bound; (5) the second law of thermodynamics; (6) the Heisenberg uncertainty principle; and (7) causality. The foundational identification is that information, energy, and mass stand in proportional existential relation (Bekenstein bound: I ∝ M; Landauer principle: ΔE ∝ ΔI; mass-energy equivalence: E = mc²). Complete superposition requires infinite information processing, and therefore infinite energy and infinite mass — quantities universally absent from the observational record of physics. Finite N-state superposition is excluded by a complementary argument: maintaining N states simultaneously requires N times the information-processing load of a single undetermined state, violating the principle that nature selects minimum-load configurations. The positive alternative proposed is the undetermined state: during matter-wave propagation, the matter wave is real and physically present, but matter has not yet appeared at any location. This is not a hidden-variable state but an ontological absence of localisation prior to the formation of a constructive interference maximum. Paper 75 — The Double-Slit Experiment Reinterpreted This paper applies the undetermined-state ontology to the paradigmatic demonstration of quantum mechanics. The de Broglie matter wave — a real physical wave — passes through both slits, while the particle remains in an undetermined state until a constructive interference maximum is formed at the detection screen. The disappearance of the interference pattern upon which-path measurement is explained without wavefunction collapse: the measurement interaction physically disrupts the matter wave's coherent two-slit propagation. Three experimentally testable predictions distinguish this framework: (1) weak-measurement trajectory reconstruction should reveal single-path trajectories inconsistent with simultaneous two-slit passage; (2) diffraction fringe spacing should depend on the mass density of the slit material, because denser slit edges generate a steeper refractive-index gradient; (3) the fringe pattern should exhibit a density-dependent phase shift measurable with current matter-wave interferometry technology. The Schrödinger equation and Born's rule are retained without modification. Paper 76 — Discriminating Experiments for the Constructive-Interference Account of Gravity This paper derives the specific numerical values predicted by Paper 29 — n(r) from the Schwarzschild metric, Δφ = k₀∫[n₁(r)−n₂(r)]dr from the medium-structure integral, and Δx_max = f(∇n, geometry, λ₀) from the interference structure — and assesses whether current experimental technology can measure the gap between Paper 29's predictions and standard QM's predictions. Three formal conditions for a discriminating experiment are established: structural absence of the variable from standard QM, signal exceeding current resolution, and impossibility of alternative explanation. Two experimental classes satisfy all three conditions with existing apparatus: COW path-geometry (predicted δ(Δφ) ~ 10⁻³ rad vs. resolution ~10⁻⁴ rad, path shape structurally absent from the standard COW formula) and slit-material density (predicted Δx_max ~ tens of nm vs. resolution 1–5 nm, material density structurally absent from Δy ≈ λL/a). Cumulative agreement across both systems constitutes genuine inductive support for the proposed mechanism. Paper 77 — From Electrons to Fullerenes This paper addresses three questions that Paper 76 does not: (1) why the slit-material density experiment has never been performed in the hundred years since matter-wave interferometry began — the answer being that standard QM contains no density variable in the slit formula, so experimenters had no reason to vary it, with the Copenhagen prohibition on mechanism questions as the deeper structural reason; (2) why confirmation in exactly two systems — electrons and fullerenes C₆₀ — is sufficient to establish the theoretical outline across six orders of magnitude in mass, because these systems are maximally independent in particle type, mass, apparatus, energy scale, and decoherence environment; (3) what confirmation across this mass range would establish for physics: the first experimentally supported identification of the physical mechanism of gravity, the first experimentally verifiable quantum-gravity connection at accessible energy scales, a physical grounding of Born's rule, and a mechanistic account of the measurement problem. A complete three-layer control protocol for excluding the slit-width confound is specified. Paper 78 — A Three-Dimensional Experimental Matrix This paper extends the experimental programme by introducing slit thickness as a third independent variable alongside matter-wave species and slit-material density. The wave-mechanical account predicts that phase shift scales linearly with slit thickness d: Δφ(ρ,d) = (2π/λ)·[n(ρ)−1]·d — a prediction structurally absent from standard QM, which assigns no physical role to slit thickness. The resulting 5×5×3 matrix of 75 independent measurements has a random coincidence probability of approximately 1/1,728,000, rendering chance agreement with theoretical prediction physically impossible. Three-layer control protocols for fabrication, TEM cross-section verification, and linearity testing are specified for the thickness dimension. Together, the five papers constitute a complete programme: ontological foundation (P74), phenomenological reinterpretation (P75), formal discriminating analysis (P76), strategic and historical argument (P77), and three-dimensional experimental design (P78).
The double-slit experiment has stood for a century as the paradigmatic demonstration of quantum superposition: the standard interpretation holds that a particle passes through both slits simultaneously, existing in a superposition of two spatially separated states. This paper proposes a physically distinct alternative: the particle's matter wave — a real physical wave propagating through space in accordance with de Broglie's relation λ = h/p — passes through both slits, while the particle itself (matter) remains in an undetermined state until a constructive interference maximum is formed at the detection screen. The particle does not simultaneously occupy two locations; the wave does. This distinction eliminates the need for superposition as an ontological commitment while fully reproducing the observed interference pattern. We further show that the disappearance of the interference pattern upon which-path measurement is explained without invoking wavefunction collapse: the measurement interaction redirects the matter wave to a single-slit geometry, eliminating the two-wave interference condition. Three experimentally testable predictions distinguish this framework from the standard interpretation: (1) weak-measurement trajectory reconstruction should reveal single particle paths inconsistent with simultaneous two-slit passage; (2) diffraction fringe spacing should depend on the mass density of the slit material, because denser slit edges generate a steeper refractive-index gradient for the matter wave; (3) the fringe pattern should exhibit a density-dependent phase shift measurable with current matter-wave interferometry technology. This reinterpretation requires no new mathematical formalism — the Schrödinger equation and Born's rule are retained — but replaces the ontological claim of simultaneous multi-location existence with the physically consistent picture of matter-wave propagation through an undetermined-state particle.
Schrödinger's cat has long been interpreted by the mainstream as intuitive proof of quantum superposition, but its original intention was Schrödinger's irony and reduction to absurdity of the Copenhagen interpretation. This paper points out that the so-called quantum superposition is not the real physical state of microscopic particles, but the uncertainty phenomenon caused by limited observation methods and inevitable measurement interference. Modern double-slit experiments have realized the emission of single electrons and single photons one by one. Even if only one particle is emitted each time, interference fringes still appear after accumulation. This fact directly proves that each particle has a unique and definite position and path at any time, rather than a superposition state passing through double slits simultaneously. The fundamental reason why a single particle can produce interference is that the particle itself vibrates continuously and has wave properties, rather than a metaphysical superposition state. From the four aspects of original intention, experimental evidence, physical nature and logical judgment, this paper thoroughly clarifies the conceptual substitution of superposition, reveals the objective laws of reality, certainty and uniqueness in the microscopic world, and calls on physics to return to rationality, logic and common sense.
This chapter introduces quantum mechanics through the experimental discoveries that revealed the limits of classical physics. Beginning with the historical debate over whether light is a wave or a particle, it examines Young’s double-slit experiment and its modern single-particle versions, which demonstrate that quantum objects can exist in superpositions of mutually exclusive states. The chapter explains how interference arises when alternative possibilities are not measured and how interaction with the environment suppresses these effects through decoherence, giving rise to classical behavior at macroscopic scales. A sequence of thought experiments involving interferometers and Stern–Gerlach devices highlights the counterintuitive structure of quantum measurement and the incompatibility of certain physical properties, as captured by the uncertainty principle. The chapter emphasizes that quantum mechanics does not describe particles taking multiple paths simultaneously in a classical sense but rather requires a new framework for probability based on amplitudes and interference. Finally, the discussion connects these foundational ideas to emerging technologies such as quantum computing, showing how superposition and entanglement can be harnessed to perform computations that have no classical analogue.
Quantum computing's most consequential claim — that quantum computers provide exponential computational speedup over classical computation — rests on a specific physical assumption: that superposition is ontologically real, that a qubit genuinely and simultaneously occupies multiple states, and that quantum algorithms exploit this simultaneity as a physical resource. A quantum computer with n qubits is claimed to process 2ⁿ computational paths in parallel by virtue of this simultaneous occupation. This paper argues that all three foundational assumptions are precluded by Quantum-Geometry Dynamics (QGD), the physical theory derived from the Minimal Physically Derivable Theories (MPDT) framework established by the Uniqueness Theorem. In QGD, physical reality is strictly and absolutely deterministic. Every fundamental constituent — every preon(+) — has a definite position and definite intrinsic momentum at every moment. There are no indeterminate states, no superpositions, and no wave function collapse at the fundamental level. What quantum mechanics describes as superposition is not a physical state of simultaneous occupation but an epistemic description of ignorance of the deterministic microstate of a preonic configuration. The wave function is a probabilistic description of deterministic preonic dynamics — a calculational tool that correctly predicts statistical outcomes — not a description of a physical state in which a system genuinely occupies multiple configurations simultaneously. This distinction has a direct and specific consequence for quantum computing. Quantum computing devices are genuine physical systems that exploit real quantum mechanical phenomena — phenomena that QGD derives from the deterministic dynamics of preons(+) and preons(−) in the finite discrete preon(−) lattice. The MPDT framework does not forbid the construction or operation of quantum computing devices. What QGD precludes is the ontological foundation on which the exponential speedup argument rests. A quantum computing device is a deterministic preonic configuration occupying one microstate at each moment. The 2ⁿ simultaneous amplitude states of the quantum formalism are elements of a probabilistic description of that microstate — not physical states simultaneously instantiated in the device. Quantum parallelism is a feature of the formalism, not of the underlying physics. The paper develops this argument systematically across eight sections. Section 2 establishes QGD's account of quantum phenomena as emergent from deterministic preonic dynamics, including the derivation of wave-like interference patterns and Bell correlations without superposition. Section 3 examines precisely what superposition is and is not in QGD, culminating in the formal statement that a qubit in the state α|0⟩ + β|1⟩ is not a system simultaneously occupying both states but a deterministic preonic configuration whose microstate determines measurement outcomes but is not individually accessible at the observational level. Section 4 identifies the exact point at which the exponential speedup argument fails: the physical resource it invokes — simultaneous occupation of 2ⁿ states — does not exist in the physical universe that QGD describes. Sections 5 examines three specific quantum algorithms: Shor's factoring algorithm, whose polynomial-time complexity is demonstrated within the quantum formalism but whose underlying preonic complexity remains an open question; Grover's search algorithm, whose quadratic speedup rests on the same ontological assumption; and quantum simulation, which survives the critique more robustly because it does not require exponential parallelism as a resource. Section 6 addresses decoherence, reinterpreting it not as an engineering challenge to be solved by better isolation but as a fundamental feature of reality — the inevitable influence of the instantaneous gravitational field of the entire preon(−) lattice on every qubit configuration, which cannot be shielded against in principle. Sections 7 and 8 develop the implications for the quantum computing programme and conclude. The argument connects directly to the P vs NP analysis in the companion Physicality of Logic paper. Shor's algorithm is the canonical example of a quantum algorithm claimed to solve a classically hard problem — integer factoring — in polynomial time, with significant implications for the security of RSA encryption. If QGD is correct and the exponential speedup argument fails, the classical hardness of factoring is preserved and the cryptographic implications attributed to quantum computing do not follow. The paper does not claim that quantum computing devices are useless — it claims that the specific resource driving the most dramatic projections for quantum computing does not physically exist, and that whatever computational advantages quantum devices possess must be explained within the deterministic preonic framework rather than by appeal to quantum parallelism. The paper is intended for physicists working on quantum computing and quantum foundations, philosophers of physics, and computer scientists working on computational complexity. It is submitted to Foundations of Physics. It is a companion to the author's papers on the Uniqueness Theorem and the Physicality of Logic, and to the book Quantum-Geometry Dynamics: An Axiomatic Approach to Physics.
We argue that quantum nonlocality of entangled states is not an actual phenomenon. It appears in quantum mechanics as a consequence of the inconsistency of its superposition principle with the corpuscular properties of a quantum particle. In the existing form, this principle does not distinguish between macroscopically distinct states of a particle and their superpositions: it implies introducing observables for a particle, even if it is in an entangled state. However, a particle cannot take part simultaneously in two or more alternative macroscopically distinct sub-processes. Thus, calculating the expectation values of the one-particle's observables, for entangled states, is physically meaningless: Born's formula is not applicable to such states. The same concerns the entangled states of compound quantum systems. In the {\it existing} quantum mechanics, introducing Bell's inequalities is fully legal. However, these inequalities imply averaging over an entangled state, and, hence, they have no basis for their clear physical interpretation. Experiments to confirm the violation of Bell's inequalities do not prove the existence of nonlocality in microcosm. They confirm only that correlations introduced in the existing theory of entangled states have no physical sense, for they contradict special relativity.