Methodological requirements and some basic issues of quantum mechanics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Waves and particles are alternative modes of being for the elements of atomic dimensions. This feature appears to be evident at the experimental level but remains a conundrum at the theoretical level. The squared wavefunction |Ψ| 2 yields the probability of finding a particle at a particular position and time, namely, the wave is conceived as a derivation or a physical condition of the particle and not a condition of the quantum . What the wavefunction represents, whether it really exists, whether it is a purely formal representation and if the observer influences the wavefunction are the major arguments of quantum mechanics (QM). The double nature of electrons, photons, and so on has been clearly recognized, and the two natures should be established by precise formulations. This work adheres totally to this methodological criterion and puts forward two formal definitions. The measurement process and wave collapse problems are also discussed. Finally, we verify the theoretical conclusions using the double slit experiment and the photoelectric effect. Probability plays a crucial role in the quantum literature, and the definitions of the wave and the particle should be illustrated by exploiting the probability theory; however, the various probability theories are not univocal and propose irreconcilable views. Therefore, in a preliminary stage, we unify the ontological and epistemic interpretations of probability using four theorems that have been already published. In summary, this work is developed on the basis of two methodological criteria, which seek to improve the probability theory and fix the definitional formulas of QM.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".