MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3040330777 · doi:10.4006/0836-1398-33.1.1

An interactions-based interpretation for quantum mechanics

2020· article· en· W3040330777 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jay Kerr

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics Essays · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum Mechanics and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOnticQuantum entanglementPhysicsTheoretical physicsQuantum decoherenceInterpretations of quantum mechanicsMinority interpretations of quantum mechanicsQuantization (signal processing)Relational quantum mechanicsInterpretation (philosophy)Consistent historiesQuantum mechanicsPhenomenology (philosophy)QuantumEpistemologyStatistical physicsMathematicsQuantum dynamicsQuantum processPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A small group of simple, lateral assumptions about the structure and nature of space, some of them at the Planck scale, produces a new conceptual basis. The background theory allows a rederivation of several areas of theory it interprets, leading in other areas to alternative mathematics that closely mimics existing physics, but diverging enough for testable predictions. This paper focusses on the phenomenology of quantum mechanics (QM), with a nonlocal interpretation, in which the wave function is primarily ontic, but also has an epistemic aspect. It differs widely from all other interpretations for QM, but has general similarities to some objective collapse theories, and in particular to relational QM (RQM). State reduction is set off by interactions, not measurements, but unlike in RQM, the “exchange of information” between two systems is not only made possible by the interaction, it is a direct result of it. The interpretation includes an explanation for quantization, the probabilistic aspect of QM, entanglement, and state reduction as in decoherence.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.598

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics EssaysSame topicQuantum Mechanics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207