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

Spectrum Journal of Innovation, Reforms and Development

PROBABILITY THEORY ISSUES MATHEMATICAL MODEL CONCLUSION

Abdimumin Abdiraxmanov, To'raeva Farangiz

Published Mar 15, 2024• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

Its effects or the result of a random experiment is any fundamental physics of a phenomenon called. Experience consists of all the fundamental forces of physics phenomena that can happen as a result of the package of the fundamental forces of physics phenomena space or the package space, and we are called through the understanding of the character, while each is a phenomenon of physics fundamental understanding of the character through

Related papers

EPR Paradox, Locality and Completeness of Quantum Theory

Marian Kupczyński, Guillaume Adenier, Andrei Yu. Khrennikov +3 more

The quantum theory (QT) and new stochastic approaches have no deterministic prediction for a single measurement or for a single time‐series of events observed for a trapped ion, electron or any other individual physical system. The predictions of QT being of probabilistic character apply to the statistical distribution of the results obtained in various experiments. The Copenhagen interpretation (CI) of QT acknowledged the abstract and statistical character of the predictions of QT but at the same time claimed that a state vector Ψ provided complete description of each individual physical system. The assigning the state vector to an individual physical system together with a postulate of its instantaneous reduction in the measurements was shown by Einstein Podolski and Rosen to lead to so called EPR paradox for the experiments with the entangled pairs of the particles. EPR concluded that a state vector could not provide a complete description of the individual systems and the question arose whether the probabilistic predictions of QT could be derived from some more fundamental spatio‐temporal deterministic description of the invisible sub‐phenomena by introduction of supplementary parameters. The experimental violation of the Bell inequalities in the spin polarization correlation experiments (SPCE) which were the implementations of Bohm and EPR gedanken experiments eliminated so called local and realistic models of the sub‐phenomena. Quite often the violation of these inequalities has been incorrectly interpreted as a proof of the completeness of QT or as the violation of the locality and causality in the micro‐world. The local and realistic models overlooked the fact that an experimental outcome is only the information about a particular system‐system or system‐instrument interaction. Namely the quantum phenomena are described in terms of the probabilities. It is well known that the probability distribution is not an attribute of a dice but it is a characteristic of a whole random experiment: “rolling a dice”. In this paper we will underline: that the quantum probabilities do not describe the lack of knowledge about the physical systems but the lack of knowledge about the experiments and therefore they are “contextual” and that the statistical long range correlations between two random variables X and Y are not a proof of any causal relation between these variables. Moreover any probabilistic model used to described a random experiment is consistent only with a specific protocol telling how the random experiment has to be performed. The probabilistic model used to prove Bell inequalities implied a protocol completely inappropriate and impossible to implement for SPCE . We conclude that the meaningful question about the predictable completeness of QT is still open and it should be answered by a careful and unconventional analysis of the experimental data. The correct understanding of statistical and contextual character of QT is essential for the research in the domain of quantum information and quantum computing.

arXiv:0710.3510•AIP conference proceedings•Jan 1, 2007•20 citations

The Theory of Experiment: Operational Definition of the Probability Space

Milton Philip Olson

The Annals of Mathematical Statistics•Apr 1, 1967•3 citations

What are the phenomena of physics?

Brigitte Falkenburg

Synthese•Jul 13, 2009•13 citations

Magnetism: Further Proof of Wave Particle Duality

Bhekuzulu Khumalo

The question of what magnetism is vital to quantum physics. We know what all other quantum phenomenon is, but we did not know what magnetism is. It is not enough to say it is a force because of a charge. That force must be something, for consistencies sake it had to be tested. This paper was written in order to confirm the results that were received in the experiments that took place that led to the paper “Magnetism: Insights from the Thomas Young Experiment” where it was concluded the magnetic phenomenon is both a particle and a wave. Will different interference patterns confirm a khumalon and wave like behaviour? The khumalon is the name of the particle associated with magnetic phenomenon. This paper concludes by confirming what was discovered in mentioned paper. Magnetism organizes into a wave no matter the interference. Understanding this reality, it allows us to understand what is happening with simple magnetic interactions. When like poles meet because they can not occupy the same space they push each other. Opposite poles are antiparticles to each other and annihilate each other. South pole scientifically speaking is not attracted to the north pole, the reason why the magnets slam each other is because they are closing a magnetic vacuum caused by the particles annihilating each other. We can now start theorizing on why a lodestone attracts iron because we now know we are dealing with a particle.

Open Journal of Microphysics•Jan 1, 2023•3 citations

Zero.probabilystic Foundation Oftheoretyical Physics

Gunn Quznetsov

No need models - the fundamental theoretical physics is a part of classical probability theory (the part that considers the probability of dot events in the 3 + 1 space-time)

•Sep 1, 2017•0 citations

Two basic criteria for the correctness of microscopic theory

B. V. Vasiliev

The first important criterion for the correctness of the theory, which is commonly called Gilbert’s principle, is its confirmation by experimental data. To date, experimental physicists have studied the properties of a very large number of objects and phenomena of the physical world. Therefore, the lack of experimental data that are important for understanding the fundamental laws of Nature is very rare. Such a lack of measurement data caused the long-term discussion between A. Einstein and N. Bohr. Almost a hundred years ago, they and their colleagues actively discussed the role of chance in the microcosm. Since then, the opinion of the creators of quantum mechanics that radioactive decay is a purely random phenomenon had taken root. However, the majority of the physical community leaned towards this view as a result of some implicit vote without relying on measurement data. Therefore, checking the correctness of the solution to this problem required a focused experimental study. Recent results of the study of the phenomenon of beta-decay [18] have shown its forced nature, i.e., the correctness of the proponents of determinism. However, theoretical models are usually based on existing experimental data and create to explain them. Therefore, they satisfy this data, so to speak, automatically. But among the theories created in the twentieth century, there are some that are well developed mathematically, but can not explain several other properties of the objects under study [9],[14]. In this case, the application of Gilbert’s principle is ambiguous. Therefore, an additional criterion is needed to determine the correctness of the microscopic theory. Since microscopic theories must rely on the equations of quantum mechanics, the coefficients of which are world constants, then the solutions of these equations must be consisting of these constants. Thus, we can formulate an additional criterion for the correctness of the microscopic theory: it should be based on relations consisting only of fundamental constants. The correctness of this criterion is seen in the work of models of superfluidity and superconductivity, models of several particles and models of the interior of stars.

•Dec 31, 2020•0 citations
Its effects or the result of a random experiment is any fundamental physics of a phenomenon called. Experience consists of all the fundamental forces of physics phenomena that can happen as a result of the package of the fundamental forces of physics phenomena space or the package space, and we are called through the understanding of the character, while each is a phenomenon of physics fundamental understanding of the character through
The quantum theory (QT) and new stochastic approaches have no deterministic prediction for a single measurement or for a single time‐series of events observed for a trapped ion, electron or any other individual physical system. The predictions of QT being of probabilistic character apply to the statistical distribution of the results obtained in various experiments. The Copenhagen interpretation (CI) of QT acknowledged the abstract and statistical character of the predictions of QT but at the same time claimed that a state vector Ψ provided complete description of each individual physical system. The assigning the state vector to an individual physical system together with a postulate of its instantaneous reduction in the measurements was shown by Einstein Podolski and Rosen to lead to so called EPR paradox for the experiments with the entangled pairs of the particles. EPR concluded that a state vector could not provide a complete description of the individual systems and the question arose whether the probabilistic predictions of QT could be derived from some more fundamental spatio‐temporal deterministic description of the invisible sub‐phenomena by introduction of supplementary parameters. The experimental violation of the Bell inequalities in the spin polarization correlation experiments (SPCE) which were the implementations of Bohm and EPR gedanken experiments eliminated so called local and realistic models of the sub‐phenomena. Quite often the violation of these inequalities has been incorrectly interpreted as a proof of the completeness of QT or as the violation of the locality and causality in the micro‐world. The local and realistic models overlooked the fact that an experimental outcome is only the information about a particular system‐system or system‐instrument interaction. Namely the quantum phenomena are described in terms of the probabilities. It is well known that the probability distribution is not an attribute of a dice but it is a characteristic of a whole random experiment: “rolling a dice”. In this paper we will underline: that the quantum probabilities do not describe the lack of knowledge about the physical systems but the lack of knowledge about the experiments and therefore they are “contextual” and that the statistical long range correlations between two random variables X and Y are not a proof of any causal relation between these variables. Moreover any probabilistic model used to described a random experiment is consistent only with a specific protocol telling how the random experiment has to be performed. The probabilistic model used to prove Bell inequalities implied a protocol completely inappropriate and impossible to implement for SPCE . We conclude that the meaningful question about the predictable completeness of QT is still open and it should be answered by a careful and unconventional analysis of the experimental data. The correct understanding of statistical and contextual character of QT is essential for the research in the domain of quantum information and quantum computing.
The question of what magnetism is vital to quantum physics. We know what all other quantum phenomenon is, but we did not know what magnetism is. It is not enough to say it is a force because of a charge. That force must be something, for consistencies sake it had to be tested. This paper was written in order to confirm the results that were received in the experiments that took place that led to the paper “Magnetism: Insights from the Thomas Young Experiment” where it was concluded the magnetic phenomenon is both a particle and a wave. Will different interference patterns confirm a khumalon and wave like behaviour? The khumalon is the name of the particle associated with magnetic phenomenon. This paper concludes by confirming what was discovered in mentioned paper. Magnetism organizes into a wave no matter the interference. Understanding this reality, it allows us to understand what is happening with simple magnetic interactions. When like poles meet because they can not occupy the same space they push each other. Opposite poles are antiparticles to each other and annihilate each other. South pole scientifically speaking is not attracted to the north pole, the reason why the magnets slam each other is because they are closing a magnetic vacuum caused by the particles annihilating each other. We can now start theorizing on why a lodestone attracts iron because we now know we are dealing with a particle.
The first important criterion for the correctness of the theory, which is commonly called Gilbert’s principle, is its confirmation by experimental data. To date, experimental physicists have studied the properties of a very large number of objects and phenomena of the physical world. Therefore, the lack of experimental data that are important for understanding the fundamental laws of Nature is very rare. Such a lack of measurement data caused the long-term discussion between A. Einstein and N. Bohr. Almost a hundred years ago, they and their colleagues actively discussed the role of chance in the microcosm. Since then, the opinion of the creators of quantum mechanics that radioactive decay is a purely random phenomenon had taken root. However, the majority of the physical community leaned towards this view as a result of some implicit vote without relying on measurement data. Therefore, checking the correctness of the solution to this problem required a focused experimental study. Recent results of the study of the phenomenon of beta-decay [18] have shown its forced nature, i.e., the correctness of the proponents of determinism. However, theoretical models are usually based on existing experimental data and create to explain them. Therefore, they satisfy this data, so to speak, automatically. But among the theories created in the twentieth century, there are some that are well developed mathematically, but can not explain several other properties of the objects under study [9],[14]. In this case, the application of Gilbert’s principle is ambiguous. Therefore, an additional criterion is needed to determine the correctness of the microscopic theory. Since microscopic theories must rely on the equations of quantum mechanics, the coefficients of which are world constants, then the solutions of these equations must be consisting of these constants. Thus, we can formulate an additional criterion for the correctness of the microscopic theory: it should be based on relations consisting only of fundamental constants. The correctness of this criterion is seen in the work of models of superfluidity and superconductivity, models of several particles and models of the interior of stars.