I QM through stochastic optimization on spacetimes

fresh_42
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
2024 Award
Messages
20,627
Reaction score
27,769
TL;DR Summary
This is an attempt to explain QM on basic principles:

As students, Jussi Lindgren and Jukka Liukkonen had found one element of their quantum mechanics lectures unsatisfying. "When we were taught physics, there were some fundamental elements you were told were true, and you had to accept they were true without it being shown why," said Jussi Lindgren, "and I didn't really like this".
I have a simple question as a layman in the field:
Is this worth reading, and even more, is it a contribution to possibly shorten the endless discussions in this subforum?

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-56357-3.pdf
 
  • Like
Likes *now*
Physics news on Phys.org
In my opinion, not worth reading.

It somehow derives some equation which would have to replace the Schrödinger equation in the relativistic equation which imho does not make sense.
 
fresh_42 said:
Is this worth reading, and even more, is it a contribution to possibly shorten the endless discussions in this subforum?

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-56357-3.pdf
Neither. The paper explains how some elementary ingredients to the relativistic quantum mechanics of a single particle can be understood. It is very far from giving complete foundations of quantum mechanics.

It leaves most of the difficult issues untouched, and is unlikely to have any effect on the discussions here.
 
  • Like
Likes fresh_42
I would like to know the validity of the following criticism of one of Zeilinger's latest papers https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.07756 "violation of bell inequality with unentangled photons" The review is by Francis Villatoro, in Spanish, https://francis.naukas.com/2025/07/26/sin-entrelazamiento-no-se-pueden-incumplir-las-desigualdades-de-bell/ I will translate and summarize the criticism as follows: -It is true that a Bell inequality is violated, but not a CHSH inequality. The...
I understand that the world of interpretations of quantum mechanics is very complex, as experimental data hasn't completely falsified the main deterministic interpretations (such as Everett), vs non-deterministc ones, however, I read in online sources that Objective Collapse theories are being increasingly challenged. Does this mean that deterministic interpretations are more likely to be true? I always understood that the "collapse" or "measurement problem" was how we phrased the fact that...
This is not, strictly speaking, a discussion of interpretations per se. We often see discussions based on QM as it was understood during the early days and the famous Einstein-Bohr debates. The problem with this is that things in QM have advanced tremendously since then, and the 'weirdness' that puzzles those attempting to understand QM has changed. I recently came across a synopsis of these advances, allowing those interested in interpretational issues to understand the modern view...
Back
Top