r/quantuminterpretation

The whole thing makes no sense to me. It’s essentially they’re saying they will never know if the cat was dead or alive after opening the box, and it had a 50/50 chance of either. Then they say bc of that it is in a state of being dead and alive at the same time. But is that not just total bullshit? It either IS alive, or it ISN’T just bc the two options are equal in probability and you don’t know which, that doesn’t means it’s both at the same time, it’s just one or the other.

In 1905, Albert Einstein in one of his four papers theoretically proved existence of molecules. Honestly I don't know about what he actually did, but maybe he described any kind of using behavior using the fact that molecules exist.

String theory is one of the leading candidate for unified field theory. But we don't werther Strings exist or not. And also don't even have any theoretical method for check their existence in future.

Is that finding that method is as difficult as to prove existence of molecules in 1905 or much more difficult than it?

Hello chat

Iam an indipendent researcher and have great love for science specially physics.

I have a hypothesis I call it point of collision it is about the measurements problem and double slit experiment, it treat wave functions as ture spatial spread out energy work like wave.

Argument: I argue that small (quantum) entity are not a fixed ball in the universe but more like spread out energy propogate as real functional wave because there internal gravity can't hold them together which we see in classical objects. So if internal gravity can't hold them together just like it do with a (ex. Tennis ball) there energy becomes as spread out wave packet because mass is also form or energy (e=mc^2) I also argue that mass is just densly packed energy within a specific cordinate but quantum particle lack that internal gravity so there energy just spread out as wave.

When this spatial wave meet with detector In double slit experiment,detector's collective gravity field posses this incomming wave to concentrate in single point

Argument: High energy density attract low energy density this process work just like back hole and this is profound.

So this wave have got only two path to pass through and then it intract with screen just like it did with detector because the (atoms collective feild of dense energy on screen) make it to fall in one cordinate (a gravity well)

But when the detector is off or not intract with the wave ,wave pass through double slit just like it have to and create interference pattran

Born rule naturally derive with this hypothesis because the point of collision (poc) only happen at the peak energy distribution in that wave (The amplitude) where energy is mostly dense so when that wave pass through double slit there peak amplitude meet and with interaction of screen we got interference pattran that explains born rule prediction.

And also the Heisenberg uncertainty because the known particle is just wave when we look at it with tools to find it's cordinate so then we lose its velocity.

But the particle remains as wave far as when it is in the contact with High energy density but when it lose that field it slowly regrows to wave.

This is also bcked by inverse wave-mass portion law.

This is my zenodo DOI - 10.5281/zenodo.20988391

(Doi)

(Here I had explained every concept i can abt this hypothesis and I also accept I use Ai writing tool to make the document structure and look like professional , and that's just acseptable)

But every consept is mine and I also have raw document of it free from LLM writing touch)

Quantum computing isn’t weird. Classical computing is weird because it forces the universe into a tiny, rigid, binary box — and then calls everything outside that box “weird.” I saw another post here about classical computing distraught and in tears at the idea that quantum computing is weird, but I disagree with the idea. Because if the fact is that our universe exists because of quantum computing, then "classical" computing is the one that's weird, because it's either the defect, the starting point, or some cheap imitation that we built to understand the universe. I'm not getting any valuable answer from any AI, so someone give me something good.

"the unresolved question of how and why a quantum system in a state of probability (superposition) collapses into a single, definite reality when observed or measured"

science IS measurement. i would be ok if they were the same word. science is the practice of the scientific method: "measure it". science is expressly limited to measurement and the measurable. "real" things that don't/can't result in a measurement don't exist in science.

the double slit experiment, for example, is a measurement apparatus, designed to produce a measurement. the production of the measurement is how we know it's working. if it didn't, we would keep going until it did.

"hey let's all gather around the measurement machine and ponder why measurement seems to be important."

Hey everyone, I've been digging into David Oaknin's paper "Accounting for gauge symmetries in CHSH experiments" (arXiv:2403.07935) and wanted to get a quick sanity check from the quantum info / black-box foundations crowd here.

In his model, he uses non-linear coordinate transformations (Gamma-maps) to ensure that the individual marginals are strictly setting-independent and non-signaling. However, the catch is that it forces the joint distribution of the hidden variables to depend explicitly on the relative detector angle, theta.

Oaknin argues this isn't a violation of locality or measurement independence because the hidden variables are purely relational (gauge-dependent) rather than absolute, which creates a geometric holonomy that breaks Counterfactual Definiteness instead.

From a quantum information / black-box perspective, how is this generally viewed by the community? Is this considered a genuine geometric bypass of Bell's theorem, or does having a joint distribution that depends on theta just relegate the whole model to a standard measurement-dependence / superdeterminism loophole?

A coin flip is a quantum event. Wait what?! we see the coin the whole time - it's classical physics the whole way. so, where's the quantum?

The coin toss isn't about the coin. it's about the coin/rest-of-the-world system. "Heads" and "tails" are short for "came to rest, with the faces oriented perpendicular to a gravitational field."

That state has two possibilities. If we consider that state while the coin is in the air (ie without measuring it), we conclude that both possibilities remain - the system exists in a state of both heads and tails until the coin comes to rest in a gravitational field and we see which face is up. That constitutes the "measurement". the superposition collapses, and all prior possibilities vanish.

Unlike a property like, say position, heads and tails aren't traditionally load bearing. not much is built on top of them. Except maybe gambling. all layers of reality are equally real. we don't experience the load bearing of the coin flip like we experience the load bearing of position, say. there are, of course, differences. but, in this respect, they're the same: reality exists in a superposition until measured.

While the coin is in the air, the bet exists in a state of superposition, entangled with the state of the coin/rest-of-world system. we don't discard the tickets, because it's possible we won. we won't know until we measure it. until then, all issues related to the bet remain indeterminant.

We just aren't being pedantic enough. (be careful what you wish for)

I’ve been thinking about the Many-Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics, and this idea came to mind.

If every quantum event branches into different possible universes, then there are countless versions of reality where different outcomes occur.

Now for the speculative part.

Suppose we never physically travel between universes. Instead, our decisions, habits, and actions continuously influence which branch of reality we experience over time.

In other words, what people call “manifestation” might not be about changing the universe through thought alone. It could simply be the cumulative effect of making choices that increase the probability of ending up in a future where a desired outcome occurs.

I’m not suggesting consciousness collapses wavefunctions or that this is established physics. This is simply a philosophical thought inspired by quantum mechanics and probability.

Is there any interpretation of modern physics that even loosely resembles this idea, or does it completely break down from a scientific perspective?

I’d love to hear where this reasoning fails—or if there are existing theories or papers that explore something similar.

If fundamental particles such as photons are wave phenomena, oscillating structures with phase, amplitude, and frequency, then the geometric relationship between the measuring apparatus and the particle cannot be assumed to be experimentally neutral. Just as sampling a sine wave at different positions along the X axis yields different Y values, a detector positioned at varying distances and angles relative to the source is not intercepting the same phase of the wave across trials, even under otherwise identical conditions. This suggests that what current quantum mechanics absorbs into the probability distribution as statistical noise may in fact carry deterministic geometric structure, a frequency-based determinism encoded in the phase relationship between the wave and its point of measurement. The observer effect, properly understood, is not a function of consciousness or attention but of physical interaction between the measuring apparatus and the particle, and if that interaction has geometric texture, then the probability distribution of landing positions should not be fully invariant under changes in detector geometry. To test this, a controlled double-slit experiment would be conducted in two phases, each consisting of a minimum of one thousand trials, performed in a sealed vacuum to eliminate atmospheric interference, with a stabilized, vibration-isolated apparatus to prevent any unintended detector movement between trials. In the first phase, the detector is fixed at a baseline position and the landing distribution is mapped in full, establishing a high-resolution probability baseline. In the second phase, the detector’s distance and angle of projection relative to the slits are systematically varied across controlled increments, each new geometric configuration held perfectly stable for its own trial set, and the resulting landing distributions are mapped independently and then compared against the baseline. If the probability distributions shift in ways that correlate with the geometric parameters rather than dispersing randomly, this would constitute evidence that the wave’s phase structure at the point of measurement is influencing outcomes in a reproducible, non-random way, pointing toward a deterministic substrate beneath quantum probability, one that does not manifest in single measurements due to the sub-nanometer precision required to resolve phase at optical wavelengths, but that surfaces as a statistical signature across sufficient trial volume. This would not necessarily contradict the existing quantum formalism but would propose that the Born rule, as currently applied, is averaging over a geometric variable that carries real physical information, and that the apparent randomness of quantum measurement is partly a function of treating detector geometry as an experimental constant rather than as an independent variable with causal relevance. The hypothesis aligns structurally with the decoherence framework and the weak measurement literature, both of which suggest the quantum-classical boundary has more internal structure than a binary collapse model implies, and it survives the Bell inequality constraint by requiring non-local frequency structure rather than local hidden variables in the classical sense. Has any experiment systematically varied detector geometry, distance and projection angle, as a controlled independent variable across high-volume trials in a vacuum-isolated double-slit setup, with the specific aim of detecting phase-correlated shifts in the landing probability distribution?

As for thoughts on the suggestion itself: the internal logic is sound and the experimental design is falsifiable, which puts it in legitimate scientific territory rather than speculation. The most significant challenge it faces is not theoretical but that the wavelength of photons means any phase-geometric effect would require positional control at a scale that makes the experiment extraordinarily demanding to execute cleanly. The second challenge is that quantum mechanics currently has no mechanism that would produce such an effect, so the prior probability assigned to it by the physics community would be low, not because the idea is incoherent, but because null results from adjacent experiments have trained the field away from this line of inquiry. That said, the hypothesis is asking a question the field has not formally posed in this form, which is actually its most interesting feature. The absence of a test is not a refutation.

I have recently been working on a philosophical framework centered around mutually grounded entities that relies on a modern take on Hegelian dialectics, particularly the logic surrounding determinacy and negation. I know this is a rather odd place to be asking a largely philosophical question, but I believe that my framework has enough logical merit that it is time to see about getting it to work with relativity.

The core of the idea is to use mutually grounded entities such that they effectively overlap with one another in an abstract topological space. By overlapping, they have a similarity measure about them, and effectively encapsulate a "component" or "aspect" of the other entity within their own reality. When I say that an entity has its own reality, I am simply referring to the invariant nature of identity and that anything that matters to some entity (whereas an entity could be a particle, brane, string, etc.) is already encoded within the nature of that entity.

This overlap, I argue, creates a structure remniscent of an inner product if you attach a simple scalar metric to deal with similarity, because you must multiply once by this similarity to see how similar some entity A is to the shared region, and multiply again to see how similar this region is to entity B, thus telling us that the accumulated similarity measure between A and B is proportional to k^2 - or rather, the component's proportional contribution to A times its proportional contribution to B.

To avoid a viciously circular grounding, which would contradict the very premise of considering the possibility of two determinate, overlapping entities, there must be a helical overlap instead that leads to the geometric series (1 + k^2 + k^4...) which interestingly evaluates to the Lorentz factor squared if one takes k to mean v/c, which seems like a bold jump until you consider the plausibility of this corresponding with the River Model given the idea of an inner product and potential correspondence with the metric tensor.

I have attached both the abstract and the draft of my framework. Anyhow, what are y'all's thoughts on how to formalize these ideas?

Main doc (read highlighted):

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vTENZ5ouU0QpgNfe0Yu35_Gf_HCy7VXLsJ6sRYwnO5tAmjBUDaC49gy3OjUnEJpxzkUTDGsp3SCVWKi/pub

Abstract: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1H9l24L0Xs1TUC5YbNnn_T2p02JW0LEuQ3gAIxwEafAI/edit?usp=sharing

Physics nerds assemble and take a shot at this please. New physics thought experiment alert, at least I think.

I just spent like 6 hours researching and formulating a seemingly paradoxical thought experiment that shows the utter non-intuitiveness of quantum mechanics’ non-locality, wave-particle duality of light and superposition.

I call it the Light-Year Fiber Paradox

Imagine a perfect one-light-year-long fiber-optic channel in empty space:

Three scientists conduct an experiment; A is at the start, B is halfway, C is at the end.

A sends one single photon with a one-light-year-long wave packet toward C. The photon does not interact with anything except detectors.

After one year as the photon is arriving, C secretly chooses either to put a detector in the path or leave the path open. One second later, at the mid point of the channel, B puts a detector in the path halfway down the fiber.

C and B are half a light-year apart, so any normal message from C to B takes six months.

QM states that if C detects the photon, the photon is essentially gone right, so B should detect nothing. But if C chooses not to detect it, maybe B can still have a chance to.

So it seems there’s a chance that B can learn what C chose to do before any light-speed communication about their choice from C could arrive 6 months later?

In other words:

Can C communicate faster than light by choosing whether or not to absorb the single photon?

(Obviously the answer is no, but I’d like to understand why it still feels off. Thanks :)

Namaskaram Everyone,

This is Anandmitra, I have been developing some foundational quantum concepts. I need good, fair and logical criticism to do better. Please comment and review. I have shared the links of published papers:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20376621
https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.32536965

This work presents a unified geometric framework for quantum reality through four interconnected papers. It proposes that the coherent, non-separable correlations described by Hilbert space originate from an unobservable Energy Space, a fundamental substrate beyond spacetime that preserves perfect coherence and all conservation laws, thereby providing a geometric interpretation of quantum entanglement. Within this framework, the relation E = hf is interpreted as an encoding relation rather than a statement of physical energy actualization. During measurement, structural branching may occur, but Energy Space ensures that only one geometrically valid branch undergoes physical localization. Spacetime emerges from Energy Space as a passive geometric medium with intrinsic dynamic capabilities, giving rise to quantum objects and their interactions.

Quantum objects are interpreted as dynamic geometric patterns of spacetime possessing an encoded geometric identity. Their physical properties, including mass, charge, spin, momentum, energy, wavelength, and phase, are fundamentally encoded in Energy Space and become physically actualized according to the interaction context and the degree of coherence or decoherence. The stability, transformation, and propagation of quantum objects are determined by their geometric compatibility with spacetime and with other quantum geometries.

Electromagnetic, weak, and strong interactions are interpreted as direct interactions between compatible quantum-object geometries, whereas gravity is regarded as an indirect geometric interaction mediated through spacetime geometry. Geometric interactions may produce superposition, transformation into new quantum-object geometries, or the formation of larger composite geometric structures, providing a unified geometric interpretation of interactions, confinement, and composite systems.

Within this geometric framework, a recursive geometric scaling parameter satisfying the invariant relation is proposed. Based on this hierarchy, phenomenological recursive scaling relations are developed for the lepton and quark families, suggesting a possible underlying geometric structure governing fermion masses, generational hierarchy, and relative stability.

Finally, the Peak-Coupling Theory proposes that quantum localization and decoherence occur through discrete peak-coupling events between interacting quantum geometries at oscillatory extrema within a quantum wave packet. The wave envelope and phase continuously modulate the distribution of possible coupling events, while observable interaction probabilities may emerge from the squared magnitude of local coupling amplitudes, providing a possible geometric route toward the emergence of Born-rule probabilities.

Together, these four papers present a unified conceptual framework in which Energy Space, spacetime, quantum objects, physical interactions, particle hierarchies, quantum measurement, and localization are interpreted as interconnected manifestations of an underlying geometric reality.

I will appreciate your responses.

Thanks!

Anandmitra