MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399781424 · doi:10.4006/0836-1398-37.2.133

Understanding quantum mechanics

2024· article· en· W4399781424 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
D. J. Larson

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics Essays · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum Mechanics and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMatter wavePhysicsUncertainty principleClassical mechanicsWave packetHidden variable theoryQuantum mechanicsObservableWave function collapseTheoretical physicsInterpretations of quantum mechanicsBohr modelCorrespondence principle (sociology)De Broglie–Bohm theoryQuantumQuantum processQuantum dynamicsEpistemologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantum mechanics presently has many unanswered questions, paradoxes, and even outright logical contradictions. To make progress in understanding quantum mechanics, we begin by proposing that relativity be set aside in favor of an absolute aetherial theory. Once that step is taken, we can understand quantum collapse as a description of real wave-packets collapsing in a faster-than-light way. By assuming that a partially observable reality exists, we can then extend our analysis of wave-packets into the subquantum, and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle then follows from the Fourier uncertainty principle coupled with the de Broglie relation. Further progress in understanding quantum mechanics is possible by modifying the de Broglie and Planck relations. Those modifications lead to matter-waves moving at the speed of light rather than superluminally as presently theorized, and they allow the results of matter-wave two-slit experiments to be understood from any reference frame. A modified time-dependent Schrödinger Equation results from our modifications, but the spatial time-independent Schrödinger equation is retained.

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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.999
Threshold uncertainty score0.572

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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