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

The Machine (Quest for Entropy #2)

Marijus Masteika

Published Jul 28, 2026• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Quest for Entropy #2: how a clockwork with no dice fakes quantum mechanics — the machine taken apart, the exam it passed, and the one wall it cannot get past. This is a demonstration, not a discovery about nature. It does not say our universe is a clockwork, does not reinterpret quantum mechanics, and does not dodge Bell's theorem — the hidden machinery is global, not local, exactly because Bell rules out the local kind (we checked). The recipe was found by an optimizer and only later shown to sit at a fixed point of the geometry; the build is engineering, and we say so. The claim is only this: quantum-looking behaviour can come out of a deterministic machine plus a physical measurement — not that this is why our world is quantum. Everything here describes one family of machines at the settings we tested, and where it fails, it fails in public.

DOI
10.5281/zenodo.21650661

Related papers

The Machine Takes a Quantum Exam (Quest for Entropy #3)

Marijus Masteika

Quest for Entropy #3: twenty questions, one deterministic clockwork, and the two answers it could not give. This is a demonstration, not a discovery about nature. The scorecard says one family of machines, at one frozen setting, reproduced twenty specific behaviours — it does not say our universe is a clockwork, does not reinterpret quantum mechanics, and does not dodge Bell's theorem, since the hidden machinery here is global, not local. Question 16 is unfinished, not won: the certified pair sits exactly on the classical bound, and entanglement remains unreproduced. Question 6 is a confessed failure, and the cliff-or-floor dichotomy is a named conjecture, measured on both sides and proved on neither. Every number behind this piece is at the machine's own precision, about one percent, and every pass means "within that".

•Jul 28, 2026•0 citations

The Universe with No Dice (Quest for Entropy #1)

Marijus Masteika

How much of quantum mechanics can a machine with no dice fake? This deposit accompanies the article "The Universe with No Dice" (Quest for Entropy #1), which builds a fully deterministic, classical toy universe and shows that a bounded observer inside it counts Born-rule statistics and double-slit interference to within about one percent of the quantum prediction, with the model's exact failure mode published as a falsifiable limit rather than hidden in error bars. Article: https://questforentropy.substack.com/p/the-universe-with-no-dice Code and reproduction instructions: https://github.com/masteris777/quest-for-entropy-the-universe-with-no-dice

•Jul 20, 2026•0 citations

Building a Wave (Quest for Entropy #5)

Marijus Masteika

Quest for Entropy #5: I wanted a probability cloud that spreads into a shape and then stops — and oscillates. I built six worlds to find one. Here is exactly how each of them failed. - Nothing here is a claim about how quantum mechanics works, and no Born rule is derived or attempted. This is what classical probability distributions can and cannot do. - Six systems, one ruler, finite runs. The ordering held at every resolution I tried; the exact numbers are the ruler's.

•Aug 6, 2026•0 citations

The Observer That Had To Touch (Quest for Entropy #11)

Marijus Masteika

Quest for Entropy #11: I spent this whole quest watching my machines. Then I understood that watching can never work. - Nothing here derives quantum mechanics, the Born rule, or measurement. A no-go result says what a class of approaches cannot do; it builds nothing. - The temporal Bell inequality is Leggett and Garg's, from 1985, with a large and good literature around it. - The ping-pong balls explain why measurement has to be an interaction, and that is all I use them for. They are not an explanation of the uncertainty principle — "we bumped it" is a famously insufficient account of that, and the real story is deeper than clumsiness.

•Aug 18, 2026•0 citations

Bell's Theorem Refuted: Einstein and Locality Prevail

Gordon Watson

In our terms, this is Bell's 1964 theorem, ‘No local hidden-variable theory can reproduce exactly the quantum mechanical predictions.' Against this, and bound by what Bell takes to be Einstein's definition of locality, we refute Bell's theorem and reveal his error. We show that Einstein was right: the physical world is local; and we advance Einstein's quest to make quantum mechanics intelligible in a classical way. With respect to understanding, and taking mathematics to be the best logic, the author is as close as an email: eprb@me.com

•Sep 1, 2021•0 citations

Spooky Action on the Ledger (Quest for Entropy #16)

Marijus Masteika

Quest for Entropy #16: two particles, far apart, agree on an answer neither was carrying. On the ledger it is neither spooky nor action. This episode demonstrates that a distributed append-only ledger, with entangled particles modelled as two worldlines sharing one non-factorising wave in a hidden layer, reproduces the standard Bell/CHSH statistics (|S| measured at 2.82, standard deviation 0.01 over six runs, against the quantum 2√2 = 2.8284) while structurally forbidding signalling — with flat marginals, order-swap invariance, and a graph-traversal audit showing the two measurements have no causal path between them. It does not derive quantum mechanics: the wave arithmetic is imported from standard quantum libraries, and the Tsirelson bound is reproduced, not explained. It is not a claim that the universe is a blockchain, that there is any faster-than-light influence, or that Bell's theorem is wrong — Bell's theorem is an input here, and the model respects it by keeping its shared variable global and unreadable rather than carried locally by each particle. The reference code is a slice of the architecture: it has no space, so spatial motion, contact-fired interaction and the detection of measurement are design, not demonstrated by that code; the spatial layer is a separate part of the model with separate instruments. All numbers are code-generated, reproducible from the repository below, and under continuing verification.

•Sep 2, 2026•0 citations
Quest for Entropy #2: how a clockwork with no dice fakes quantum mechanics — the machine taken apart, the exam it passed, and the one wall it cannot get past. This is a demonstration, not a discovery about nature. It does not say our universe is a clockwork, does not reinterpret quantum mechanics, and does not dodge Bell's theorem — the hidden machinery is global, not local, exactly because Bell rules out the local kind (we checked). The recipe was found by an optimizer and only later shown to sit at a fixed point of the geometry; the build is engineering, and we say so. The claim is only this: quantum-looking behaviour can come out of a deterministic machine plus a physical measurement — not that this is why our world is quantum. Everything here describes one family of machines at the settings we tested, and where it fails, it fails in public.
Quest for Entropy #3: twenty questions, one deterministic clockwork, and the two answers it could not give. This is a demonstration, not a discovery about nature. The scorecard says one family of machines, at one frozen setting, reproduced twenty specific behaviours — it does not say our universe is a clockwork, does not reinterpret quantum mechanics, and does not dodge Bell's theorem, since the hidden machinery here is global, not local. Question 16 is unfinished, not won: the certified pair sits exactly on the classical bound, and entanglement remains unreproduced. Question 6 is a confessed failure, and the cliff-or-floor dichotomy is a named conjecture, measured on both sides and proved on neither. Every number behind this piece is at the machine's own precision, about one percent, and every pass means "within that".
How much of quantum mechanics can a machine with no dice fake? This deposit accompanies the article "The Universe with No Dice" (Quest for Entropy #1), which builds a fully deterministic, classical toy universe and shows that a bounded observer inside it counts Born-rule statistics and double-slit interference to within about one percent of the quantum prediction, with the model's exact failure mode published as a falsifiable limit rather than hidden in error bars. Article: https://questforentropy.substack.com/p/the-universe-with-no-dice Code and reproduction instructions: https://github.com/masteris777/quest-for-entropy-the-universe-with-no-dice
Quest for Entropy #11: I spent this whole quest watching my machines. Then I understood that watching can never work. - Nothing here derives quantum mechanics, the Born rule, or measurement. A no-go result says what a class of approaches cannot do; it builds nothing. - The temporal Bell inequality is Leggett and Garg's, from 1985, with a large and good literature around it. - The ping-pong balls explain why measurement has to be an interaction, and that is all I use them for. They are not an explanation of the uncertainty principle — "we bumped it" is a famously insufficient account of that, and the real story is deeper than clumsiness.
In our terms, this is Bell's 1964 theorem, ‘No local hidden-variable theory can reproduce exactly the quantum mechanical predictions.' Against this, and bound by what Bell takes to be Einstein's definition of locality, we refute Bell's theorem and reveal his error. We show that Einstein was right: the physical world is local; and we advance Einstein's quest to make quantum mechanics intelligible in a classical way. With respect to understanding, and taking mathematics to be the best logic, the author is as close as an email: eprb@me.com
Quest for Entropy #16: two particles, far apart, agree on an answer neither was carrying. On the ledger it is neither spooky nor action. This episode demonstrates that a distributed append-only ledger, with entangled particles modelled as two worldlines sharing one non-factorising wave in a hidden layer, reproduces the standard Bell/CHSH statistics (|S| measured at 2.82, standard deviation 0.01 over six runs, against the quantum 2√2 = 2.8284) while structurally forbidding signalling — with flat marginals, order-swap invariance, and a graph-traversal audit showing the two measurements have no causal path between them. It does not derive quantum mechanics: the wave arithmetic is imported from standard quantum libraries, and the Tsirelson bound is reproduced, not explained. It is not a claim that the universe is a blockchain, that there is any faster-than-light influence, or that Bell's theorem is wrong — Bell's theorem is an input here, and the model respects it by keeping its shared variable global and unreadable rather than carried locally by each particle. The reference code is a slice of the architecture: it has no space, so spatial motion, contact-fired interaction and the detection of measurement are design, not demonstrated by that code; the spatial layer is a separate part of the model with separate instruments. All numbers are code-generated, reproducible from the repository below, and under continuing verification.