Emmanouil Markoulakis ,

I have proposed a new technique to derive Planck's law without the concept of light quanta. It is in the end of this video:

https://youtu.be/oudaulTkuJg?si=2xVoYOjnvXTN_TTa

It is not published yet but I have published a paper about Compton effect, where I have replicated the results without relativity or quantization of energy but only with classical electromagnetism.

Thank you for this thoughtful question, Emmanouil. I’ve also often wondered whether the perceived “weirdness” of quantum mechanics might reflect less about nature itself and more about the structures we’ve built to describe it.

In my own recent work, I’ve been exploring the idea that information coherence might offer a deeper ontological substrate—something that gives rise to both quantum behavior and spacetime curvature as emergent phenomena, rather than axiomatic ones.

From that view, the quantum world may not be intrinsically “weird,” but contextually misunderstood, because we’re viewing it through a model (QM) that’s effective, but not necessarily complete in a physical sense. In that sense, some paradoxes and mysteries may indeed be artifacts—like map distortions rather than landscape features.

Your point resonates strongly with this line of thinking.

There's nothing ``weird" about quantum mechanics, beyond statements made by the people who invented it and were trying to understand it. They were in particular confused by the fact that a quantum system has a different, much larger, space of states than its classical limit and wondered whether the additional states were physical, or not. The answer came from experiments that showed that the additional states were indeed physical.

There is no separate quantum mechanics and classical mechanics. There is only physics we understand and physics we do not understand.

Stam Nicolis ,

These extra states you are talking about are artificial caused by the measurement apparatus and the measurement problem in quantum experiments in general and not native to the original undisturbed quantum system. I believe many of the weird concepts of the micro-world described by QM like superposistion, non-locality, non-determinism are actually artifacts of the theory and not physical.

No, they aren’t produced by measurement and it’s a straightforward exercise to show they aren’t.

A classical two-level system (a bit) has a space of two states. It’s the classical limit of a quantum two-state system, whose space of states is the unit 2-sphere. It’s possible to show that the former is a limiting case of the latter, not the other way around, which confused too many people.

Non-locality isn’t an issue. Non-relativistic quantum mechanics has the same causal structure as non-relativistic classical mechanics and relativistic quantum mechanics the same causal structure as relativistic classical mechanics.

Quantum mechanics is non-deterministic, because it describes a physical system in equilibrium with a bath of quantum fluctuations, that’s why probability distributions are the physically relevant quantities. However classical mechanics is, in fact, typically, also non-deterministic, only in a different way. It was indeed realized by Poincaré in 1895 that classical systems typically have more degrees of freedom than conserved quantities and it is that property that makes them non-detetmistic. Only so-called integrable classical systems are deterministic.

Maybe the quantum world isn’t “weird” at all, maybe we are just classically trained minds trying to dance to an entangled rhythm with Newtonian shoes on.

After all, wavefunction collapse, decoherence, and measurement-induced disturbance could simply be symptoms of our interface with a system whose natural language isn’t particles or waves, but states of information. And what if even familiar formulas hide something deeper?

Take the classical wave speed relation:

v = \sqrt{\frac{p}{\rho}}

What if that’s not just about sound or fluids , but a hint that wave propagation (even gravitational or quantum) reflects underlying informational pressure over some effective mass-energy density?

Not saying it’s an aether… but it might be a whisper from whatever substrate spacetime itself condenses from.

quote: "It is not the quantum micro-world that is weird but it is due to the nonphysical artificial man-made QM framework created by us to describe the quantum world. QM is not a physical ontological model theory."

Yes. A state of fact recognized by more and more people in the community.

Few however are even yet aware that it is grounded on an involuntary error in calculating the velocity of the phase wave by de Broglie, that neither Schrödinger nor Heisenberg, and later neither Feynman himself became aware of.

Numerically established and analyzed in this paper published in 2024:

Article Critical Analysis of the Origins of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle

"Electromagnetic mechanics", left aside for the past 120 years by the theoreticians physics community seems to bring interesting answers to many of the unresolved issues.

Dear Emmanouil Markoulakis: An old but still crucial question. Attached is a logical and understandable model that passed AI reasoning and questioning. All in nature is quantum; the classical view is just a simplified and observable way we begin understanding the macro-world. The problem in QM is that we arrived at the math first, and we are still dissatisfied with all the physical models developed during the last 100 years. A 4D reality solves this, like a coin that contains two antagonistic 2D figures (head and tail) due to its 3D status. Idem with a dice that contains six 2D values (six orthogonal states). The physical world is in a 4D configuration, and our observables are the projections of this 4D over 3D. Orthogonal eigenstates in 4D with a single eigenstate in 3D. An oscillatory eigenstate characteristic of this novel model, which provides a logical model that fully agrees with the approved quantum math. Hope it will inspire you, regards

Really scientific answer to

“Is really the quantum micro-world that is "weird" or is it because our man-made Quantum Mechanics we use is a nonphysical model?”

- is as “really the quantum micro-world is "weird" - and so mainstream physics describes and analyzes what exists and happens in Matter on QM scale by using indeed man-made Quantum Mechanics, since QM is really based on really by no means scientifically grounded postulates, which for/by some quite weird reasons/ways make the the description and analysis be fitted with experiments.”

That is fundamentally inevitable because that in mainstream philosophy and sciences , including physics, all fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case “Matter” , “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information” [and so everything in Matter, i.e. “particles”, “fundamental Nature forces” – and so “fields”, etc.] are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational, and so in every case when the mainstream addresses to any really fundamental problem, the result completely inevitably is transcendent/mystic something;

- when in any theory main fundamental problem is “for what reason, why and how the theory’s postulates are as they are?”

The phenomena/notions above can be, and are, rigorously scientifically defined only in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s really philosophical 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed

- and more concretely in Matter case in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model, which is based on the conception, two main papers are https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391209088_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics, and

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367397025_The_Informational_Physical_Model_and_Fundamental_Problems_in_Physics

Including in the model it is shown that not only QM, but all other mainstream physics theories are based on postulates, where for/to fundamentally weird in the mainstream phenomena/notions – and to particles, fileds, etc., above really some strange properties, etc., are established.

Including in the model it is explained why on QM scale states of objects and interactions are fundamentally uncertain, however at that everything in Matter is rigorously detemoined, including QM should be, and really well essentially is, deterministic theory: all QM objects are fundamentally deterministically identical, and so, say, exist and interact in completely deterministically identical states everywhere in Space on distances at least a few hundreds of millions of light years from Earth.

Including - see the model - so, say, really the QM uncertainty is fundamental, and contribution of possible environment fluctuations is non-princpal; and this

“…After all, wavefunction, and measurement-induced disturbance could simply be symptoms of our interface with a system whose natural language isn’t particles or waves, but states of information. …..”

- really is a typical mainstream QM really transcendent/senseless and wrong claim: really at any “measurements” at interactions of studied particles in detectors all/ everything happens as that happens in matter fundamentally always,

- and fundamentally without any relation - that happens at/in some measurement or not,

- when in myriads of myriads elementary interactions of particles the real particles wavefunctions constantly collapse, decoherence, etc., quite equally as in the detectors. Just so at experiments really true information can be obtain. That is another thing that the information can be quite strangely transcendently interpreted – as that often happens in the mainstream, including in this “weird collapse, decoherence” case.

Recent SS posts in

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Probability_What_are_the_implications_of_non-classical_probability_theories_in_modeling_uncertain_systems_in_quantum_mechanics

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Wrong_calculation_of_the_possible_physical_spin_speed_of_the_Bohr_electron

- are relevant to this thread question.

Cheers

For example emphasizing the inability of QM to ontologically describe the physical sub-atomic microworld are the excited states of H-1 atom. The only QM wavefuncion than can represented classically in this case is the ground state of the H-1 atom shown in this animation with a electron as a point particle forming in superposition a thin shell horn spheroid around the nucleus and inside the nucleus:

(see animation below)

https://www.horntorus.com/particle-model/H-1-m-flux.html

In the ground state, the electron's wavefunction shown classically with the blue manifold in the above animation has no orbital angular momentum but only spin angular momentum as described by QM.

However, in an excited state QM says that the electron in superposition has both spin and orbital angular momentum which is not possible to drawn classically. The only way I can imagine it is if the whole spinning sphere in the above animation besides its equatorial spin starts in an exited state, wobbling around a small circle around the nucleus but always keeping the nucleus (i.e. proton) inside the electron wavefunction (i.e. blue manifold with the nucleus inside)?

Recent SS post in

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Wrong_calculation_of_the_possible_physical_spin_speed_of_the_Bohr_electron

- is relevant to this thread question.

Cheers

The previously mentioned related question, https://www.researchgate.net/post/Wrong_calculation_of_the_possible_physical_spin_speed_of_the_Bohr_electron

has now been updated.