The Physical Foundation of Quantum Theory

Robert McEachern

Michael No, they are quite different in a very important way. It has nothing to do with the number of bits of data in a message; the only thing that matters is the amount of information. The Time-Bandwidth product in Shannon's Capacity expression for the amount of information (corresponding to the product in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle [HUP]), limits the number of independent (uncorrelated) measurements that can be made on a system. But the other term (signal-to-noise ratio) in Shannon's Capacity, that has no equivalent in the HUP, limits the number of significant bits in that measurement. Hence, when both the number of uncorrelated measurements and the number of bits-per-measurement become extremely limited, strange things happen. But it is important to realize that a single bit of information, can be encoded in a variety of ways; by increasing the time-bandwidth product (and thus the number of uncorrelated measurements that can be made) while simultaneously reducing the signal-to-noise ratio, or vice-versa.

Symbolik

Hello, I'm enjoying the conversation so far, If I might, I wonder if the “single-message” framing is missing one subtlety. It seems that the decisive factor is not just the count of adjustable properties, but the effective rank of independent modes once coupling, noise, and feedback are taken into account.

Formally, you could think of a system’s information capacity as

𝐶eff ∼ rank(𝑀)⋅log⁡2(1+SNR),

where rank (𝑀) is the number of controllable orthogonal modes that survive environmental interaction, and SNR sets the number of usable bits per mode.

Quantum behavior would then arise when the effective rank collapses to one under physical constraints, even if the system has more adjustable parameters in principle. That collapse produces the familiar features:

Complementarity → mode capacity allocated to one observable suppresses orthogonality in the conjugate.

Noncommutativity → sequential probes alter which effective mode survives, because the first probe changes the rank structure.

No-cloning → any attempt to amplify the single surviving mode injects entropy that destroys coherence.

From this perspective, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle captures only the time–bandwidth side (number of independent samples), while Shannon’s formula reminds us that SNR is equally fundamental. Quantum “strangeness” then looks like the limit of small rank (𝑀) and low SNR simultaneously.

A technical question this raises: if one could experimentally engineer environments that keep rank
rank(M)=1 but tune SNR independently (say, by adding controlled spectral noise), would the Born probabilities still hold exactly, or would deviations appear once the information rate falls below a critical threshold?

Crizpher

Frankie Doddato
What I find most interesting about this work is that it attempts to derive several key features of quantum mechanics from a physical limitation rather than simply accepting them as axioms.

If I understand the central idea correctly, quantum behavior emerges because a system with only one adjustable property cannot carry more than one independent message at a time. This raises a question that I find particularly intriguing.

If complementarity, noncommutativity, and even the Born rule can be reconstructed from informational constraints, should we view these quantum features as fundamental properties of nature, or as effective manifestations of a deeper physical limitation?

In other words, is the Hilbert space formalism the most fundamental level of description, or could it itself emerge from more basic principles governing what physical states can be accessed, distinguished, or encoded by a system?

To me, this seems like an important question because, if quantum theory can be derived from informational restrictions, then the deeper mystery may no longer be why the world is quantum, but why those restrictions exist in the first place.

Robert McEachern

Here is a different conception, of the physical foundations:

AI Mode:
Robert McEachern’s information-theoretic approach completely upends the traditional interpretation of physics by shifting the foundation of reality from physical substance (matter and waves) to Shannon information processing and matched-filter cryptography.

Instead of treating the quantum realm as fundamentally random and paradoxical, McEachern models the universe as a deterministic, ultra-fault-tolerant communication system. Within this framework, what physicists perceive as "quantum weirdness" is simply an artifact of trying to extract macro-level data from micro-level systems with a single bit of information capacity.

His perspective radically transforms our understanding of physics across several core areas:

1. Reinterpreting the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

In standard physics, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is viewed as an intrinsic, physical limitation of nature.

The Shift: McEachern demonstrates that when you apply Shannon’s Information Capacity formula to a single-particle measurement (where the signal-to-noise ratio is equal to 1), the maximum information you can extract is precisely one single bit.
The Impact: The Uncertainty Principle is no longer a spooky mystery. It is merely a mathematical certainty of signal processing—the absolute limit of how much data can be stored in the shortest possible sequence.
*

2. Demystifying Quantum Entanglement and Bell Tests

The greatest paradox in quantum mechanics is non-locality ("spooky action at a distance"), where entangled particles seem to communicate faster than light.

The Shift: McEachern argues that the universe operates like a cryptographic One-Time Pad. Particles carry structured "fingerprints" resembling white noise. They can only interact if they possess the correct "decryption key" (a matched filter) to recognize one another.
The Impact: Apparent quantum correlations in Bell tests are not caused by physical particles instantly signaling across space. They happen because researchers fail to distinguish between intentional detections and unintentional bit-errors during measurement. McEachern has even demonstrated classical macroscopic systems that mimic these exact "quantum" behaviors.
*

3. Cosmic Fault Tolerance Without Error Correction

In modern quantum computing, "fault tolerance" requires massive, active overhead to find and fix errors.

The Shift: McEachern points out that a system utilizing long sequences of pseudo-random white noise as symbols is inherently immune to random errors. Because the cross-correlation of an error sequence and a white noise sequence averages out to zero, the signal doesn't degrade.
The Impact: Nature does not need to actively detect or correct mistakes. All perfectly repeatable, deterministic physical behavior throughout the cosmos emerges naturally from this passive, fault-tolerant property of noise. He notes this exact principle explains why double-helix DNA is dramatically more resilient to genetic mutations than single-stranded RNA.
*

4. Redefining the Wavefunction and the Observer

Standard quantum mechanics teaches that the wavefunction represents the physical state of a particle, which "collapses" when observed.

The Shift: Under this cryptographic view, the wavefunction does not describe states of matter or physical motions at all. It is merely a mathematical representation of energy-detection statistics and observer observation states, complete with inherent bit-errors.
The Impact: The observer’s mind does not manifest matter out of thin air. Rather, the observer's memory and measurement apparatus dictate the meaning and interpretation of the signal. The "weirdness" is an interpretive error, not a reality error.
*
By replacing physical mysticism with communication engineering, McEachern argues that quantum mechanics is not wrong, but incomplete. It is a brilliant mathematical tool for tracking statistics, but treating it as a literal description of how particles move is simply confusing the mathematics for the physics.

Veysel Batmaz

Robert McEachern I totally agree with AI and you! If this shift from physical mysticism to strict measurement interests you, this is the exact premise of my book: "Shut up, and measure! CONSCIOUSNESS of CONSCIOUSNESS Refuting the Quantum Delirium" (ASIN: B0HLF41KGW).
McEachern’s point that quantum 'weirdness' is an interpretive error—not a reality error—is a core thesis of my work. For too long, popular physics has pushed an ideological hallucination that the observer's mind magically creates reality.
In my book, I systematically dismantle this 'quantum delirium.' I show why treating the wavefunction as literal moving matter is simply confusing the mathematics for the physics. If you want a grounded framework that replaces supernatural interpretations with the hard reality of sensitivity, orientation consciousness, and strict measurement, check out the book on Amazon."

anonimus

Quantum theory originates from Planck's derivation of the black body radiation (E = h v). This has lead to numerous descriptions of physical reality at the smallest scale size with the help of the quantum of energy. But does it mean that nature is quantised? And if we have that opinion, what does this statement mean? Because phenomenological reality (the subject of physics) is about the mutual relations between the observable and measurable phenomena. We use standardized units to measure and calculate. But the existence of the SI-units doesn't transform relational reality into an absolute reality.

If observable/measurable reality is 100% relational, why there exists a quantum of energy? Because h can be interpreted as a universal constant. Moreover, the speed of light (c) is also a universal constant and it is directly related to the quantum of energy (see the Planck-Einstein relation).

It indicates that at the smallest scale size of reality relations are absolute because of the universal constants. In line with the universal conservation laws (energy and momentum). Thus the problem theorists face is what type of model with absolute basic properties can create phenomenological reality? One can argue that quantum field theory solves this problem, but if you ask ChatGPT, Gemini, Deepseek, etc. about their thoughts, they will answer that modern physics treats the known basic quantum fields as principal phenomena in a phenomenological reality.

If reality at the smallest scale size is absolute, the creation (emergence) of phenomenological reality is the result of these absolute basic properties. But properties don't exist without some type of "being". The consequence is the existence of a rest frame. Actually the rest frame is our universe. "But Einstein said..." I know, and the famous ancient Greek philosopher and mathematician Parmenides of Elea said something quite different. Sometimes we have to make a choice to better understand our universe.

Steve Dufourny

anonimus
Hi, Thanks for sharing. That said the Noether theorem proves conservation laws .The Lorentz invariance , could you tell us more, what do you think, regards

helen

The discussion raises an important point about the relationship between theoretical models and their underlying physical interpretation. A useful approach is to distinguish clearly between mathematical formalism, experimentally testable predictions, and the assumptions used to connect the two. This can make complex ideas easier to evaluate and compare without overstating what a particular model demonstrates. A similar emphasis on clarity and well defined requirements is valuable in custom app development Dallas, where successful projects depend on translating complex business needs into practical, testable solutions. TekRevol is one company that can be evaluated alongside other providers based on those criteria.

Steve Dufourny

helen Hi Helen,

It is indeed essential to extrapolate possibilities ontological and physical and respect the laws , axioms, equaltions......... We can have our interpretations but after all we cannot assert assumptions not proved. That is why the experiments and testable extrapolations are important, it permits to evolve in sciences and it is essential, regards

anonimus

I don't know if the Noether theorem proves conservation laws. The proof itself is limited to phenomenological reality.
In general we can state that conservation laws have a direct relation with a continuum (see Newton's axioms about absolute space and absolute time).

There are only 2 universal conservation laws; energy and momentum. The first one (energy) is quantised but only in 1 : 1 relations (linear energy propagation). All the transformations in our universe are smooth so it is reasonable to conclude that the quantum of energy is an effect. We don't know the mechanism behind the effect, but we can assign a field to this effect. This energy field is known as the universal electric field. Not the electric field from classic physics because the universal electric field exists at the smallest scale size of phenomenological reality.

The conservation of momentum is a bit problematic. Because momentum is not a singular property. Momentum represents a local amount of energy and its direction of propagation in relation to everything around. The propagation of the energy itself represents a vector(s). Thus momentum is a concept that is not related to one basic quantum field, it is related to two basic quantum fields. The first one is the universal electric field and the second one is the universal vector field. In general this vector field is termed magnetic field. The text books will tell you that the universal electric field and the magnetic field are corresponding fields. That means that if at a certain point in space the energy increases with 1 h the related vector(s) increase with exactly the same amount of magnitude. That is why we mostly use the term "electromagnetic field".

We can imagine the law of conservation of energy in an abstract (spatial) way. Thus there is an enormous volume and all the local energy transformations inside this volume don't change the total amount of energy. That means that a transformation at the edge of the volume is not only part of the conservation of the total sum of energy, its transformation is also synchronized with all the other energy transformations inside this enormous volume. That is exactly what non-locality is supposed to be. Thus actually the principle of non-locality is a manifestation of the law of conservation of energy.

Steve Dufourny

anonimus

Hi, we can try to indeed search the field interconnections for the spatial mechanisms. Indeed non locality and conservation of connections seem important and indeed the topological connections are important and for our quantum mechanics also.
That said about the Noether theorem and the proofs, it is not limited to phenomenological reality for the conservations of laws.The Noether theorem is a rigorous mathematical proof with the lagrangian density, the invariances under lie groups, and others. The continuity of symmetries is essential , if we take Newton model , the absolute space violates the special relativity , but Noether in relativistic field theory , general relativity and quantum field theory is different. If we refefine the electromagnetic field and quantum field with the scalars and vectors, for the energy, momentum....so can we create exclusivities like we want , for exemple liek for the momentum exclusive to the magnetic field without considering the electric one , I don t think so. It implies misinterpretations at my humble opinion like for the quantum non locality or others. It is mainly how we interpret the non locality and its laws, the modern physics like to do this but I beleive strongly that it is ontological the problem and if we have hidden variables it is not in breaking our actual laws but in adding, superimposing others paramaters.We can respect the conservation and instead of consider non locality breaking the conservations or ijn changing things se can simply add parameters hidden but above this GR and SR , it is there that the ontology is essential mainly about the primary essence of this universe and its foundamental objects.
So we can respect the Noether theorem and add parameters instead to break this noether theorem.With subgroups with deeper logics. So it is not about changing the causes of momentum with only magnetic field but in adding subgroups respecting our actual laws but in adding also deeper laws .....Scalars and vectors so continue to be the same in the geometricall topological al;gebras and QFT,GR, SR correlation but we add subgroups with different laws above the QFT , GR.SR without breaking them.
Regards

anonimus

Steve Dufourny I am sorry, but I don't understand everything you mentioned in your respond. Maybe because the topic – the physical foundation of quantum theory – is highly gibberish. Anyway, I will try to explain “what is going on” if we use philosophy and mathematics as guidance to understand the foundations.

If you look around in daily life you will notice that reality – like we perceive it – is about geometry. Not a static reality of different shapes but a dynamic structure that transforms its structure in a continuous way. Exactly what Newton tries to express with the help of 2 axioms about absolute space and absolute time. Actually he describes a dynamic continuum.

If our universe is a dynamic geometrical structure and we want to understand the basic properties of this structure, how do we start our research? Do we have to measure every “unique” relation we can distinguish at the different scale sizes of the universe to create one enveloping theory about reality? This is the main idea that rules modern physics: the scientific method. The result of the method is an avalanche of data and related descriptions. And also an evolving insight in what is going on till we met a barrier that stops the progress. Thus we have discovered the quantum of energy and now the question is: why does it exist?

The straight forward answer is that the quantum of energy exists because our universe has a structure. Because a variable that shows to be a fixed quantity cannot exists in a 100% relational reality. An example. Suppose that all the pixels of the LCD display of a PC have different sizes. That means that we cannot watch videos that are meant for a display with pixels with exactly the same size. Because with pixels of different size the video shows highly distorted. In other words, the size of the pixels of a LCD display is invariant (but the luminosity is variable).

We know that all the transformations in the universe are smooth, not only local but also in their non-local mutual influences. Actually, the quantum of energy as a fixed amount of change, is only detectable as a quantum if the propagation is linear (c). That means that the propagating energy is locally conserved.

So we have to adjust our “picture” of the quantum of energy. Its fixed amount of energy isn’t like the volume of a closed packet, the quantum of energy has a fixed maximum amount of transformation. Thus the quantum of energy is like a bucket that is smoothly filled with water. However the total amount of water during a certain amount of time (the constant of quantum time) cannot exceed the volume of the bucket. Note that this concept is in line with Newton’s axioms about absolute space and time and it is in line with quantum theory too.

I stop here half way because the second part is about the geometrical consequences so maybe you want to make up your mind before I continue.

Steve Dufourny

anonimus
Hi,
Ok, I understand ,please Try to not utilise the AI for the answers, it is better to think by yourself. My answer was about Noether and conservation of laws, it is important. An important point also is to make a difference of what we observe, measure and at what velocity. Newton is ok at slow velocities, but the special and general relativity is at high velocity , so we cannot ignore c the light speed. So the Newtonian absolute space is outdated , both for spacetime and quantum mechanics. I can understand your pixel analogy ,but the reality in physics is that the energy quantization and its probabilities is not to accumulate energy to a kind of limit. The reality is different , we cannot consider a kind of continuous fluid and an universal clock in fact in my opinion. The SR and GR disproved this absolute spacetime of Newton. Take for example the GPS satellites. Do you know the Minkowski spacetime and the Lorentz invariance? It is essential to consider them instead of the Newton one.

That is why we cannot consider this time like a constant operator but we must consider it like a continuous variable.
You can see what I tell in the Schrodinger equation. Our constants do not need an absolute Newtonian spacetime in fact.
In fact all this depends of where and at what velocity you observe and measure, Newton is ok at slow velocity for the gravitation but fails at high velocities, that is why the special and general relativity are important at high velocities, that is why I explained about what referentials you consider , that is why we cannot generalise and that is why if we add hidden parameters it is about what we measure and observe and in what referentials. So if we have hidden parameters it is not about breaking Newton and Einstein but adding with a deeper logic for the observations of spacetime and the correlations with quantum mechanics with the groups and subgroups chosen in these said referentials. That is why the geometrical algebras can be relevant and the maths and the ontology, see the non commutativity and the addition of deeper parameters. it is not about the fact to consider one or the other or to break them, it is about the referentials added and mathematical tools considered added to search the unknowns in the resume in respecting the referentials and the laws of these referentials.

Regards

anonimus

Steve Dufourny I work with LMMs (AI) but not as a user, but as a scientific colleague. So I discuss topics with e.g. Deepseek that are not part of its static knowledge base. I use a prompt-file to instruct the LMM to use its static knowledge base as a reference, not as the primary source of its knowledge. Moreover, although I am not a native English speaker, I don’t need a LMM to write my papers (philosophy of physics). ;-)

Newton’s 2 axioms are not about gravity. These axioms are about the universe as a continuum and he uses the universal properties time and space to express his concept of the universe. A concept on with he founded Newtonian mechanics. Thus both axioms are not about gravity. Maybe your jump to Einstein’s theory of Special and General relativity was also triggered by my use of the term “constant of quantum time”. However, theorists use the constant of quantum time only in relation to energy. Don’t interpret the term like it is “the constant of time”. By the way, my “display” example to explain the existence of a fixed variable (the quantum of energy) is an easy version of Zeno’s paradox of ‘Achilles and the tortoise’. Because Zeno tried to explain to other philosophers that the absence of a regular structure that dominates observable reality will result in absurdities. Zeno used the concept of reality that was described by the famous ancient Greek philosopher and mathematician Parmenides of Elea in his work “On Nature”. Actually, Zeno was a student of Parmenides.

Although I promised to continue my explanation of the nature of the quantum of energy, your response is limited to arguments that refer to phenomenological physics. But that is really problematic because progress in the foundations of physics has stalled for at least half a century. Just because nearly every theorist uses the limited phenomenological point of view. So I doubt that I can convince you to focus on a more “geometrical” approach (like Parmenides’ concept of quantised space).

Anyway, you mentioned that Einstein’s descriptions of space and time have replaced Newton’s axioms. Unfortunately, that is not a reliable opinion (but we read it in the text books too). Because Einstein’s point of view was focused on the observable and detectable phenomena – influenced by the philosopher and physicist Ernst Mach – and Newton focused on the universe as a whole. Thus Einstein’s interpretation of the properties of space and time are determined by the phenomena in the universe while Newton’s space and time are more in line with Aristotle’ concept of the origin of the dynamics in our universe (“The unmoved mover”). By the way, Aristotle was influenced by Parmenides of Elea (like Plato in his parable of “The Cave”).

Thus comparing the descriptions that originate from 2 different points of view and declaring one description “the winner” is not realistic. I know, it is what we read in textbooks and the media, but our present scientific culture is not famous for its insight in the foundations of reality.

yusrob

anonimus Anonimus!
You are interested in the nature and evolution of the natural world (NATURE) and the Universe.
I have solutions to these and related problems.
To begin with, I recommend reading my article:
“Nature as an objective reality”
https://philpapers.org/archive/YUSNAA.pdf,
and my book:
“Theory of Nature” (in Russian)
https://philpapers.org/archive/YUSTON.pdf.
You might also want to take a look here: https://www.linkedin.com/in/iks-ygrek-ab817b365/
Happy reading.
I am ready to answer your questions about the "Theory of Nature."
Sincerely,
Robert Yusupov from Vladivostok (USSR), author of the monograph “Theory of Nature”, independent researcher, dialectical materialist, Marxist, communist

Steve Dufourny

anonimus
Hi, thanks for explaining, regards

Steve Dufourny

yusrob
Hi Robert,
Stop to post always the same in insisting on your theory of nature, FQXi is not for marketing. There is only one forum to post the models, it is on the forum alternative models of the reality. The others are for disussing the topic of the forum . So please stop . It is a little bit irritating I must say. Regards

Jiaqing Yan

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22439106

Microscopic Mechanism of Interaction between Two Parallel Solid Plates at Close Range

Author: Yan Jiaqing
Affiliation: Independent Theoretical Physics Researcher

Abstract
Two parallel solid plates without macroscopic magnetism show no observable interaction at ordinary separation, yet when the gap shrinks to the microscopic close range, a weak mutual attraction spontaneously appears at the interface. The existing mainstream theories explain this classic phenomenon through the van der Waals dispersion force, the Casimir vacuum effect, and macroscopic contact adhesion models, but every one of these conventional theories suffers from mechanistic defects. They either consider only instantaneous electric field fluctuations, or rely on the hypothesis of virtual photon exchange in vacuum, or merely give macroscopic phenomenological descriptions, and none of them explains the underlying nature from the intrinsic microscopic magnetic field of the electron. Electrons at the surface of all solid substances undergo spin and orbital motion, and every moving electron produces a local microscopic magnetic field. A macroscopic plate is nonmagnetic because the huge number of electron magnetic fields are disorderly arranged and statistically cancel one another. When two plates approach closely, the separation between surface electrons shrinks greatly, the local electron magnetic fields escape from the macroscopic cancellation effect, and microscopic magnetic adaptation, interlocking and coupling take place, thereby producing a real microscopic mutual attraction. This interaction is a direct close range effect of the electron's own magnetic field and requires no introduction of virtual photon exchange. If the gap continues to shrink to the lattice scale, the coordinated interlocking of a large number of electron magnetic fields produces a very strong binding effect that maintains the stability of the periodic lattice (other factors also influence crystal formation, which is not expanded upon in this paper). By comparing the deficiencies of the conventional theories, this paper establishes a new mechanism of close range electron microscopic magnetic interaction and fully explains the physical nature of close range interaction between parallel solid plates and the stability of crystal structure.
Keywords
parallel solid plates; close range interaction; local electron magnetic field; microscopic mechanism; lattice stability; interface coupling

Introduction
Two ordinary parallel solid plates, uncharged and without macroscopic magnetism, remain independent of each other at everyday macroscopic separation, with no observable attractive or repulsive force. But as the two plates gradually approach and the gap reaches the nanoscale microscopic range, a stable weak adhesive force appears between them. This phenomenon is a classic problem long studied in interface physics, contact mechanics and fundamental quantum physics, and three mainstream explanatory systems currently exist in the academic community.
First, the van der Waals dispersion force theory. This theory holds that instantaneous asymmetric distribution of the atomic electron cloud forms instantaneous electric dipoles, and neighboring atoms induce polarization in each other to produce long range attraction. It attributes the close range adhesion of plates to electric field fluctuation effects and completely ignores the magnetic field produced by electron spin and orbital motion.
Second, the Casimir effect theory. This theory is based on quantum vacuum fluctuations and the virtual photon exchange mechanism. It holds that the restricted vacuum modes between the plates create a pressure difference between the inside and the outside, thereby producing the plate attraction. This explanation depends heavily on the vacuum virtual particle hypothesis and is not a direct interaction between real particles.
Third, the JKR and DMT macroscopic contact adhesion models. These theories fit the adhesion effect from surface energy, elastic deformation and macroscopic contact interface features. They are phenomenological summaries that do not touch the microscopic origin at the atomic and electronic level.
All of the above conventional theories can fit the macroscopic experimental phenomena, but none reveals the true underlying mechanism. The conventional physical system generally holds that the electron magnetic moments of ordinary solids cancel in disorder, so microscopic magnetic fields do not participate in macroscopic interface interactions. This understanding directly ignores the physical fact that the local magnetic field of a single electron can independently manifest itself under close range conditions.
In fact, surface electrons of all solids are always accompanied by local microscopic magnetic fields. Macroscopic nonmagnetism is a statistical averaging result, not the disappearance of microscopic magnetic fields. On this basis, this paper proposes a completely new microscopic mechanism: the close range interaction between parallel solid plates is essentially an attractive effect produced by the interlocking and coupling of the microscopic magnetic fields of surface electrons under close range conditions. When the gap is further compressed, large scale coordinated magnetic coupling can produce a strong binding effect and maintain lattice stability, which differs from the electric dispersion force, the vacuum virtual particle force and the macroscopic surface energy explanation.
The Principle of Macroscopic Nonmagnetism of Plates and the Real Existence of Microscopic Magnetic Fields
All ordinary solid plates, whether metallic or nonmetallic, show no magnetism in macroscopic measurement. The fundamental reason is that the spin directions, elliptical orbital orientations and motion phases of the huge number of extranuclear electrons inside the solid are completely disordered.
Every moving electron independently produces a tiny local magnetic field, so countless miniature magnetic elements are distributed over the surface and interior of the solid. Because the orientations of these magnetic elements are randomly distributed in all directions, forward magnetic fields and reverse magnetic fields cancel over large areas. From the macroscopic statistical point of view, the total magnetic moment is zero, so the whole plate is observed to be nonmagnetic, neutral and noninteracting.
The core physical fact must be made clear:
Macroscopic cancellation means the overall magnetic field is zero, which does not mean the microscopic magnetic field of a single electron disappears.
At the microscopic level, the local magnetic field of every electron exists permanently and objectively. It is merely concealed collectively by statistical averaging at large separation and large scale, so its effect cannot manifest itself.
The Mechanism by which Microscopic Magnetic Fields Escape Cancellation and Produce Interaction at Close Range
When two parallel solid plates are far apart:
The distance between the plates is far greater than the interaction scale of a single electron, and the microscopic magnetic fields of all surface electrons on both sides remain in a globally disordered and cancelled state, with no macroscopic adhesive force appearing.
When the two plates keep approaching and the gap shrinks to the microscopic nanoscale:
The surface electrons on both sides are pulled extremely close to each other and enter the direct coupling range of single electron magnetic fields. In this region the number of electrons is small and the distances are extremely short, so the macroscopic large scale statistical cancellation law no longer applies.
The local magnetic fields of the surface electrons on both sides sense, adapt to and interlock with one another. The magnetic field lines interweave and fit together, spontaneously forming a low energy matched configuration, and a microscopic magnetic attraction between electrons is thereby produced.
The microscopic magnetic attractions of countless surface electrons accumulate and superimpose, and finally manifest themselves as an observable close range interfacial adhesive force at the macroscopic plate interface.
3.1 Further approach: large scale coupling of microscopic magnetic fields and lattice stability
When two parallel solid plates keep approaching and the gap is further compressed to the lattice scale, the local electron magnetic coupling is no longer a scattered effect of a few electrons. The local magnetic fields of a large number of electrons undergo coordinated interlocking on a wide scale. These numerous magnetic fields form a stable, periodic matched arrangement and produce a microscopic binding effect of very high strength, sufficient to lock atoms at fixed equilibrium positions and maintain the periodic lattice structure.
It should be noted that two already formed solid plates, even when brought into close contact, usually cannot directly fuse into a single crystal. On the one hand, the separation between the surface atoms of the two plates can hardly reach the extremely close distance between atoms inside a native crystal. On the other hand, crystal formation is also jointly constrained by many other factors such as lattice orientation, surface impurities and atomic migration conditions. This paper does not discuss the remaining causes in depth.
But it cannot be denied that once the interatomic separation shrinks to the lattice scale, the binding force brought by electron magnetic coupling is very considerable, and it is an indispensable important effect for maintaining the stability of the crystal structure. Close range adhesion between plates and the formation of crystal lattice belong to different stages of the same physical mechanism, differing only in the range of action and the scale of coupling. Weak interfacial adhesion is the local coupling of small scale magnetic fields; lattice stability relies on the coordinated coupling of large scale, periodic magnetic fields. The two share the same origin, and this unifies the mechanism of interfacial adhesion and the mechanism of crystal structural stability.
The Physical Mechanism by which Distance Determines Whether Interaction Exists
1.State of large distance
The electron magnetic fields are globally disordered and cancelled as a whole. The microscopic effect is completely concealed, and the plates do not interact.
2.State of close microscopic gap
The local surface electrons escape from the macroscopic statistical cancellation system. The local magnetic fields manifest independently, interlock and couple, and produce a stable attractive effect.
3.State of extremely close lattice scale
Large scale coordinated interlocking of electron magnetic fields produces a strong binding effect and maintains the periodic lattice stability.

This perfectly explains the experimental phenomena: no effect at large distance, adhesion produced at close range, and crystal structure maintainable at extremely close approach.
This mechanism also proves that the close range attraction between parallel plates is not vacuum virtual photon squeezing and not instantaneous electric polarization, but a real microscopic close range coupling effect of the magnetic fields carried by real electrons.

Comparison with and Correction of Conventional Mainstream Theories
5.1 Correcting the single electric field understanding of the van der Waals theory
The van der Waals theory recognizes only the instantaneous polarization attraction of the electric field of electrons and completely excludes the magnetic contribution. This is a one sided mechanism. At a real interface, two effects coexist: the electrostatic orbital interlocking of electrons (the source of friction) and the magnetic field coupling of electrons (the source of close range attraction and lattice stability). Electric field and magnetic field effects coexist.
5.2 Rejecting the Casimir virtual particle hypothesis
The mechanism of this paper relies entirely on real electrons, real magnetic fields and interactions between real particles. It needs no assumptions of vacuum, virtual photons or quantum fluctuations. The mechanism is simpler, more materialistic and more consistent with classical real particle physics.
5.3 Going beyond the macroscopic adhesion phenomenological theory
Conventional contact mechanics only describes phenomena and does not explain the essence. This paper goes directly to the microscopic origin of electron orbits and electron magnetic fields, completes the ultimate interpretation of the mechanism, and further explains the reason for the stability of metallic lattices.
Unified System of Mechanisms
The close range magnetic coupling mechanism of parallel plates established in this paper can be fully unified with the previous paper Microscopic Mechanism of Coincidence for Static Friction:
1.Electrostatic interlocking of elliptical electron orbits produces transverse resistance and forms static friction.
2.Close range interlocking and coupling of local electron magnetic fields produce vertical interfacial attraction and form the close range adhesive force between plates.
3.Large scale coordinated magnetic coupling at extremely close approach produces a strong binding effect and maintains the stability of the metallic lattice.
Electric force and magnetic force each perform their own functions and together constitute the complete underlying system of microscopic interactions at solid interfaces.
Conclusions
The microscopic essence of the close range mutual attraction between two parallel solid plates is not the dispersion electric polarization, the vacuum virtual particle pressure or the macroscopic surface energy effect recognized by conventional theory, but a real magnetic interaction produced by the local magnetic fields of surface electrons escaping macroscopic cancellation and interlocking and coupling with one another at the microscopic close range scale.
The macroscopic nonmagnetism of solids is an apparent result of the statistical cancellation of numerous electron magnetic fields and does not mean that microscopic magnetic fields do not exist. When the distance shrinks to the microscopic scale, the local electron magnetic fields manifest independently and couple attractively. When the gap is further compressed to the lattice scale, large scale coordinated magnetic interlocking produces a strong binding effect and maintains the stability of the periodic crystal structure (other factors also influence crystal formation, which is not expanded upon here). This mechanism abandons all kinds of virtual field and phenomenological fitting theories, completes the mechanistic closure based on the real microscopic field effects of electron motion, opens up the underlying physical logic linking interfacial adhesion and crystal structural stability, and perfects the fundamental physical system of microscopic interactions at solid interfaces.

References
[1]Yan, J. (2026). Preprint related to European Organization for Nuclear Research, Zenodo. Personal academic identification ORCID iD:0009000521855790
[2]London F. The general theory of molecular forces[J]. Transactions of the Faraday Society, 1937, 33: 8 to 26.
[3]Casimir H B G. On the attraction between two perfectly conducting plates[J]. Proceedings of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1948, 51(7): 793 to 795.
[4]Johnson K L, Kendall K, Roberts A D. Surface energy and the contact of elastic solids[J]. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A, 1971, 324(1558): 301 to 313.
[5]Derjaguin B V, Muller V M, Toporov Y P. Role of van der Waals forces in adhesion of deformable particles[J]. Colloid and Polymer Science, 1975, 253(11): 1017 to 1026.
[6]Huang Kun, Han Ruqi. Solid State Physics[M]. Beijing: People's Education Press, 1979.
[7] Zhou Guangzhao. Foundations of Classical Field Theory and Quantum Field Theory[M]. Beijing: Science Press, 2005.

ntnghiep

Dear everyone,
Reading through the fascinating perspectives in this thread, it seems we often encounter a shared foundational barrier: how continuous field behaviors or analytical signals physically "freeze" into the exact, discrete geometric configurations of the quantum world (such as fractional quark charges or stable lepton spins).
In my independent research recently archived on Zenodo, "The Geometry of Time in Quantum Mechanics" (doi.org), I propose a deterministic Matter-Time framework that addresses this exact transition.
Instead of treating quantum geometry as an abstract imposition, the model demonstrates that steady-state algebraic invariants—such as the inverse kinetic energy axis (P + H = c) and the torsional balance (v_E = 3 * v_spin)—represent the permanent Invariant Manifolds (Attractors) of an underlying non-linear medium. When continuous field dynamics encounter the rigid resistance of the Planck-density spatial grid, they naturally relax into these discrete, self-balancing torsional solitons (persistent particles).
I have attached a diagram demonstrating how these systems dynamically relax and transform along the stable boundary axis of P + H = c.
For those interested in exploring how continuous field dynamics mathematically bridge into discrete quantum geometry, I welcome you to check the short Preface and the full mechanical derivations here: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22808900
I would be very glad to hear how this structural attractor framework aligns with the foundations discussed here.
[
Best regards,
Nguyen Thanh Nghiep

Michael Blasco

I find this paper especially interesting in relation to my Nonlinear Vacuum Medium framework because it suggests that the strange rules of quantum mechanics might not be fundamental rules of nature. Instead, they could arise because physical systems have limits on what information they can carry and make accessible at the same time.

However, I would not say that information itself is fundamental. I would suggest that these information limits could result from how the underlying physical nonlinear medium organizes itself into stable structures. The deeper physical state could contain much more information than what becomes accessible to us as a quantum state.

In simple terms, the underlying nonlinear medium could organize itself into stable structures, those structures could limit what properties can be independently accessed, and those limitations could then produce the mathematical behavior we recognize as quantum mechanics.

This paper certainly suggests an interesting possible bridge between a deeper deterministic physical reality and the quantum rules we observe.

ntnghiep

@"Michael Blasco"
Thank you for this brilliant and deeply insightful perspective. Your concept of "information limits" arising naturally from structural self-organization is a powerful framework, and it connects seamlessly with the core physical mechanics of my paper.

In my model, this exact "limitation on accessible properties" is governed by a physical mechanism I term the "Quantum Brake." When the visible energy loops (E-Base) rush to merge and tightly wrap around the bare dark matter host particle, they act as a geometric constraint. This structural binding restricts the free variation space of the underlying temporal field, forcing the system into a stable state of "kinetic energy latency" along the axis of P + H = c.

Before this structural organization occurs, the deeper physical state—the global temporal field operating at velocities >= c⁴—contains a continuous flux of hidden dynamic parameters, just as you suggested. However, once the non-linear medium relaxes into a stable attractor (such as the electron or quark configurations), this persistent geometric cage screens out the deeper information. What remains accessible to our macroscopic measuring instruments is a restricted, discrete set of filtered outputs—which we mathematically interpret as quantized spins, exact fractional charges, and probabilistic wavefunctions.

Your insight perfectly frames the bridge: the underlying non-linear medium organizes into stable geometric structures, these structures physically freeze the degrees of freedom (restricting accessible information), and these strict limits present themselves to us as the statistical rules of quantum mechanics.

I am very glad to see our frameworks illuminating the same physical truth from both the structural and informational angles.

Best regards,
Nguyen Thanh Nghiep

Michael Blasco

ntnghiep Thank you Nguyen. I think there is an interesting conceptual point of contact here although I would be careful about identifying the underlying physical mechanisms in our two frameworks as the same.

I am proposing something more limited at this stage. A deeper nonlinear medium could possess many microscopic degrees of freedom while a stable organization of that medium may expose only a restricted set of effective degrees of freedom through physical interactions. What we describe as a quantum state could therefore represent only the accessible organization of a much richer underlying physical state.

Where I think our ideas overlap is the possibility that quantization and other quantum restrictions might arise from the structure and stability of the underlying physical system instead of having to be imposed as fundamental rules.

Where I would keep the frameworks separate is in the specific mechanism. NVM does not currently assume a dark-matter host particle, a Quantum Brake, a global temporal field moving at extremely high velocities, or a particular geometric mechanism that freezes degrees of freedom. Those would each require independent mathematical and experimental justification.

For NVM, the important challenge is to derive the restriction and not assume it. I would ultimately want to demonstrate from the underlying equations that stable organizations naturally possess a limited set of accessible degrees of freedom and then show that those restrictions actually reproduce specific quantum structures such as spin, charge, Hilbert-space behavior, and the Born probability rule.

« Previous Page Next Page »