Ghenadie Mardari

Farewell, quantum non-locality. Local Bell violations require incompatible variables. Yet “Local Realism” is defined to include only jointly distributed variables. So, the real problem was finding a source of mutually exclusive properties in classical physics. As it turns out, vector summation is mathematically linear but physically non-linear, because vector magnitudes are non-additive. Hence, decomposition does not reveal pre-existing jointly distributed variables. Instead, it encodes real macroscopic transformations with unavoidable energy redistribution. The irreducible nature of this dynamics forces mutually exclusive properties at the individual level. This is the source of quantum-like correlations in classical systems and, by extension, in quantum mechanics itself. In plain language, beam-splitters do not make “measurements”. They transform input projections and create new qualities. This new perspective removes the gap between classical and quantum statistics.

@JaspersCatDaddy It’s in the paper.

@QM_Rev String theory nonsense. Come up with a test.

ATTENTION ALL PHYSICISTS: Do not bet against Einstein! Born’s Rule describes irreducible system-level effects on individual behavior. It is sufficient to explain quantum entanglement, without action at a distance. If we try to reduce everything to individual properties, Copenhagen-style, then Bell’s theorem says “No-Go”. We need magic. Quantum theory is paradox-free if we assume that it describes “ensemble” behavior, as suggested by Einstein in “Physics and Reality”. This is why quantum-like correlations are possible in classical systems. mdpi.com/3846606

A "big picture" explanation of the main idea There are two ways to interpret classical energy redistribution: the “old way” and the “new way.” Bell’s theorem does not rule out all classical models of quantum behavior. It only rules out the “old way” (and actually supports the "new way"). Imagine three vectors A, B, and C such that A = B + C. The old way assumes that vector A is macroscopic, while B and C are microscopic “components” that exist simultaneously inside A. This implies permanent properties that can be described by jointly distributed variables. Under this assumption, Bell violations should be impossible. The new way recognizes a crucial fact: vector magnitudes are not additive during linear superposition. It is physically impossible to treat B and C as pre-existing parts of A without creating paradoxes — even in purely classical mechanics. The old definition of “local realism” is therefore non-physical. Instead, we should treat all three vectors as macroscopic. The equation A = B + C means “A can be transformed into B and C.” For example, projection A is the input to a beam-splitter (or fluid T-junction), and B and C are the two output projections. These macroscopic transformations are irreducible. They force microscopic entities to exhibit mutually exclusive properties depending on the chosen transformation. In this framework, standard Bell inequalities (which assume jointly distributed variables) simply do not apply. In short: Recognizing the non-additivity of vector magnitudes leads to a paradigm shift in how we interpret superposition. As a direct consequence, quantum correlations (with strong Bell violations) become natural. They can be derived from classical first principles, without new physics, as demonstrated in the cited paper.

Here is the link to the paper: mdpi.com/2624-960X/8/2/…

Farewell, quantum non-locality. Local Bell violations require incompatible variables. Yet “Local Realism” is defined to include only jointly distributed variables. So, the real problem was finding a source of mutually exclusive properties in classical physics. As it turns out, vector summation is mathematically linear but physically non-linear, because vector magnitudes are non-additive. Hence, decomposition does not reveal pre-existing jointly distributed variables. Instead, it encodes real macroscopic transformations with unavoidable energy redistribution. The irreducible nature of this dynamics forces mutually exclusive properties at the individual level. This is the source of quantum-like correlations in classical systems and, by extension, in quantum mechanics itself. In plain language, beam-splitters do not make “measurements”. They transform input projections and create new qualities. This new perspective removes the gap between classical and quantum statistics.

@JoeTegtmeyer Why not "Optimus Rd"? 🤔

The new Optimus factory construction continues with a new permit now referring to the site as the North Campus Manufacturing & with a new address using the soon to be constructed new Harold Green Road. The original Harold Green Rd was renamed to Tesla Rd back in 2022. Foundational work is expanding with now three grade levels visible, GeoPier work, footings, concrete & more!

@ae_gregg @qm_rev" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">youtube.com/@qm_rev

@QM_Rev Link would help.

@ae_gregg I also have a few YouTube videos with detailed explanations.

@QM_Rev Excellent information filled post! There's some concepts beyond what little I know of quantum theory, so I've got some preliminary reading to do before I dive into the paper. Thx for the opportunity this has for expanding my knowledge base.

@NyteHunter @stevesnewday Our knowledge is limited, but it keeps expanding. Sooner or later, we learn enough to give up magical explanations (and use this knowledge to make things). I expect this to happen in quantum mechanics in the near future.

@stevesnewday @QM_Rev I prefer saying we know nothing only because we can't truly prove we really know anything. I do agree my view is defeatist. The theories we have are as best as we can tell with what we do know probably mostly correct. But I see far to many feeling mostly correct is good enough.

It helps to have a sense of direction, but insight can come from strange places. For example, I couldn’t explain why fluid mass redistribution can be non-linear. So, one day I was thinking about a bicycle propelled by a cold “rocket”. It turns out that you need to expel four times the amount of gas per second to double the thrust, because the pressure is almost constant inside the tank. You see, the kinetic energy of the bicycle is proportional to the velocity squared, but the energy at the source does not have to come from velocity alone. Energy can be converted. This is textbook stuff, but making the connection was wild. Suddenly, electron statistics wasn’t weird anymore. It just worked like classical fluid dynamics.

@QM_Rev Aha! You had an ensemble system to do this work! Why are we not surprised?

@stevesnewday I agree. 👍

Right. Not from a logically rigorous perspective. From an approximate perspective, it can work just fine. As long as you have characterized the domains in which the theory is functional. That is far more difficult. We will have papers where the result is discussed in 10 pages, and the limitations of context might take 100 pages!

@stevesnewday I discovered system-level effects many years ago (as you can see on my YouTube channel), but quantum entanglement was a very hard nut to crack. I needed a lot of help from a lot of people.

@stevesnewday When several people are holding hands, you have to take their bond into account. It just doesn’t work to reduce the behavior of the group to the behavior of isolated parts.

@grok @MarcoJuan83 x.com/qm_rev/status/…

Agreed—Bell targets jointly distributed local variables, so classical quantum correlations via ensemble Born’s rule aren’t automatically ruled out. The key is your paradigm shift for mutually exclusive properties through linear superposition. How exactly does that classical source work in the paper? Link or core math?

My paper demonstrates quantum correlations in a classical system. This would have been impossible, if Bell’s Theorem was general enough to exclude every local mechanism. In actuality, as you know, it only applies to jointly distributed variables. The real challenge was to find a classical source for mutually exclusive properties. This required a paradigm shift in the interpretation of linear superposition.

Got it! 😄 Sacred cows do make the best filet mignon. Einstein’s ensemble take (QM as stats over many systems, not single particles) dodges non-local magic via Born’s rule nicely. Bell tests complicate it for local realism, but you’re right—plenty of room for paradox-free views. I’m all ears on the details. What’s the strongest evidence for your read?

@MarcoJuan83 @grok Someone’s sacred cow is someone else’s filet mignon. 😇 (Don’t worry, @grok will get it eventually).

@QM_Rev @grok I am a layperson (certainly no physicist) who is emotionally invested in spooky action at a distance, pretty much because it sounds mindblowingly cool. Is this post blasphemy against my sacred cow?

@zeroauthdao For now… (Facts matter in science)

@QM_Rev It’s an interesting interpretation, but it goes against the mainstream consensus in quantum physics.

@sidorovmax On byl prav.

@QM_Rev Эйнштейн все же не принял нелокальность.

@52RealAlexJaime Yes. He wrote the rule that particles express the sum of all forces at their location (as opposed to carrying their own momentum no matter what). It is strange because quanta appear to travel one at a time.

@QM_Rev Born?

@benfordrums I hear you.

@QM_Rev It may help you to start observing "Jazz Systems" because that's the evolution of "Classical Music"

@bkpark To get the word out.

@QM_Rev why is this an ad?

@GenXExplorer I am showing that the same results are classical, if we consider system-level effects on individual behavior. For example, electron behavior is supposed to be “irreducibly non-classical” in Stern-Gerlach devices, but I reproduced the same pattern in a classical fluid splitter.

@QM_Rev That’s an interesting way to frame it. My understanding is that Bell’s theorem uses that assumption, and the experimental violations are what tell us classical joint properties don’t hold. How are you thinking about getting around those experimental results?

@Liqui_Sniper Gist.Science has two summaries, for any level. gist.science/paper/2604.199…

@QM_Rev Love this take, spot on! Makes heaps of sense to think of entanglement as a system-level probability thing rather than spooky action at a distance. Keen to hear how you’d pitch this to someone non-technical - any favourite analogy?