Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 36 references

Solitons, chaos, and quantum phenomena: a deterministic approach to the Schr\"odinger equation

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The Schrödinger equation emerges as the ensemble statistics of solitons in a chaotic background.

desk verdict A genuinely interesting construction with a fixable arithmetic slip and an overclaimed 'exact' relation; worth refereeing, but needs a careful rewrite. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.22868 v1 pith:ALO4WU3P submitted 2025-07-30 quant-ph nlin.PS

Damià Gomila This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phnlin.PS PACS 03.65.-w05.45.-a
keywords solitonsSchrödingerequationquantumtunnelingchaoticbackgroundexactuncertaintyprincipleensembledynamicsGalileancomplexsine-Gordondeterministicinterpretationsofmechanics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that the time-dependent Schrödinger equation is not a fundamental axiom but the ensemble-level description of solitons moving through a chaotic background field. On a zero background, solitons obey Newton's second law; on a small nonzero chaotic background, their position and momentum fluctuate with an exact uncertainty product $\sigma_X \sigma_P = \varepsilon^2/(3\pi)$. Comparing this product with the exact uncertainty principle $\sigma_X \sigma_P = \hbar/2$ fixes the effective Planck constant as $\hbar = 2\varepsilon^2/(3\pi)$ and yields the Schrödinger equation for the ensemble. Simulations of 4500 solitons scattering off a Gaussian barrier reproduce the Schrödinger tunneling probabilities, giving a deterministic realization of quantum tunneling. If the claim holds, the size of $\hbar$ is set by background noise, and quantum randomness is coarse-grained deterministic chaos.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the soliton solution of the Galilean complex sine-Gordon equation, a localized particle-like field configuration with a conserved Noether charge that keeps it stable, moving through a chaotic background of unstable plane waves. The paper's central identity is the soliton uncertainty relation $\sigma_X\sigma_P = \varepsilon^2/(3\pi)$, derived at leading order for small soliton amplitude $w'$ and small background amplitude $\varepsilon$. The derivation's second input is the exact uncertainty principle $\sigma_X\sigma_P = \hbar/2$, which fixes the effective Planck constant $\hbar = (2/3\pi)\varepsilon^2$ and converts the general ensemble argument into the explicit Schrödinger equation (20). The numerical confirmation uses an ensemble of 4500 noise realizations, a Gaussian potential barrier, and the trajectory-extracted probability density and local mean velocity.

What would settle it

Run the ensemble simulation with a background that is initially a single deterministic plane-wave perturbation instead of random noise, and compare the resulting trajectory statistics with the Schrödinger equation; if they still match, the white-noise assumption is not essential, and if they do not, the derivation's key premise is exposed. Alternatively, compute the two-time correlation function of the background field in the existing simulations: if its correlation time is comparable to the soliton response time, the delta-correlation approximation fails and Eq. (15) should break down.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the solitons of a Galilean-invariant complex field theory, when immersed in spatiotemporally chaotic background fluctuations, satisfy an exact uncertainty relation, and that this relation is exactly what a known ensemble argument needs to produce the Schrödinger equation. The paper computes the momentum variance from the phase fluctuations of the background and the position variance from a finite-window centroid, obtaining Eq. (15), then identifies $\hbar = (2/3\pi)\varepsilon^2$ by matching to the exact uncertainty principle $\sigma_X\sigma_P = \hbar/2$. The resulting time-dependent Schrödinger equation (20) is tested against 4500 deterministic soliton trajectories impinging on a bell-shaped barrier: the ensemble probability density and local mean velocity agree with the Schrödinger prediction, with transmission coefficient 0.495 from the trajectories and 0.492 from the Schrödinger equation. The paper further argues that, because the chaotic background couples the measuring device to the outcome, the standard statistical-independence assumption used in no-go theorems for local hidden variables need not hold in this model.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the deterministic chaotic background can be treated as delta-correlated white noise over the relevant scales, together with the choice of a finite integration window for position fluctuations; the paper admits the noise assumption is strictly speaking not correct.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For gentle potentials, small solitons, and $\varepsilon \ll w'$, the ensemble of deterministic soliton trajectories should follow the time-dependent Schrödinger equation, including its spreading and tunneling predictions.
  • Tunneling through a classically forbidden barrier becomes a deterministic process: each trajectory either bounces or crosses depending on the chaotic background realization, and the ensemble transmission coefficient matches the Schrödinger value.
  • The effective Planck constant is controlled by the background amplitude through $\hbar = (2/3\pi)\varepsilon^2$, so changing the noise level changes the quantum behavior of the same field theory.
  • In the zero-background limit $\varepsilon \to 0$, the uncertainty product vanishes and the solitons return to Newtonian mechanics, so classical and quantum regimes are connected by a single parameter.
  • The chaotic background generates correlations between measurement devices and outcomes, which the paper argues can evade the statistical-independence premise of local hidden-variable no-go theorems.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the background has a finite correlation time instead of being delta-correlated, the uncertainty relation should acquire correction terms; measuring the two-time correlation function of $\eta(x,t)$ in the simulations would show where the Schrödinger description starts to break down.
  • The position uncertainty depends on the chosen integration window $l$, so one could reinterpret $\sigma_X$ as a coarse-graining-scale-dependent quantity rather than an intrinsic property of the soliton.
  • The mechanism is generic: any Galilean- or Lorentz-invariant soliton theory whose linearized fluctuations couple phase noise to soliton momentum should produce a similar Schrödinger-like ensemble equation, possibly with a different effective $\hbar$.
  • Extending the model to two- or three-dimensional vortex solitons might give spin-like degrees of freedom, and entangled soliton pairs would be the natural test of whether the proposed relaxation of statistical independence reproduces quantum correlations.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes that the Schrödinger equation describes the ensemble-mean dynamics of solitons in a Galilean-invariant complex scalar field theory. On a zero background the solitons obey Newton's second law; on a non-zero chaotic background their momentum and position fluctuate, and the paper claims an exact uncertainty relation σ_X σ_P = (1/3π)ε². Comparing this with Hall and Reginatto's exact uncertainty principle yields ℏ = (2/3π)ε² and the time-dependent Schrödinger equation for the ensemble. The claim is supported by numerical simulations of 4500 solitons incident on a potential barrier, comparing the ensemble probability density and local mean velocity with the Schrödinger equation, and by a discussion of how measurement independence may be relaxed in this deterministic framework.

Significance. If established, the result would provide a concrete, parameterized field-theoretic model in which deterministic soliton dynamics reproduces quantum phenomena such as tunneling, with the chaotic background playing the role of hidden variables and the background amplitude determining the effective Planck constant. The paper's strengths include the explicit nonlinear field model, a stability analysis of plane waves in Appendix A, a clearly stated derivation path from soliton fluctuations to the Schrödinger equation, and a substantial numerical ensemble simulation. However, the central uncertainty relation is not exact as claimed: it relies on an acknowledged white-noise approximation, an arbitrary integration window for the position variance, and a displayed arithmetic inconsistency between Eqs. (12), (14), and (15). These issues affect the load-bearing derivation and must be resolved before the central claim is accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [§III.A, Eqs. (12), (14), and (15)] There is an internal arithmetic inconsistency. Multiplying Eq. (12), σ_P² = (4/3)w′³ε², by Eq. (14), σ_X² = (π²/12)w′⁻³ε², gives σ_X σ_P = (π/3)ε², not (1/(3π))ε² as stated in Eq. (15). Consequently Eq. (19) should read ℏ = (2π/3)ε², and indeed Eq. (20) and the de Broglie wavelength h = (4/3)π²ε² already use the corrected value. The displayed derivation is therefore inconsistent as written and must be corrected and re-verified.
  2. [§III.A and Appendix C] The word 'exact' in Eq. (15) overstates what is derived. The position uncertainty σ_X is defined through a finite integration window l in Eq. (13)/(C1), and the variance in Eq. (C3) contains a term proportional to ⟨|η|⁴⟩l³/12 that is dropped using inequalities that require particular choices of l. In addition, Eq. (C4) approximates a finite-l integral by its infinite-l limit. The result is thus an effective, window-dependent approximation, not an exact uncertainty relation, and the approximation conditions must be explicitly stated whenever Eq. (15) is used.
  3. [§III, paragraph before §III.A] The derivation of the Schrödinger equation relies critically on the assumption that the deterministic chaotic background η(x,t) has delta-correlated statistics, ⟨η(x,t)η*(x′,t′)⟩ = ε²δ(x−x′)δ(t−t′). The manuscript explicitly acknowledges this is 'strictly speaking, not correct' and that it is 'key to obtain statistical predictions equivalent to those of the Schrödinger equation.' For the central claim to hold, the paper must provide quantitative evidence that the spatiotemporal chaos decorrelates on time and length scales short compared to the soliton dynamics, and that background fluctuations are uncorrelated with the soliton position. Without such evidence, the bridge from soliton dynamics to the Schrödinger equation is an unverified assumption.
  4. [§IV, Figs. 3–5] The numerical confirmation is limited to a single parameter set and uses visual comparison only. The initial condition for the Schrödinger equation is initialized with the theoretical σ_X from Eq. (14), so the comparison is not a fully independent test of the uncertainty relation. Please provide a quantitative measure of agreement (e.g., L² or Kullback–Leibler divergence between ρ_sim and ρ_SE), and test at least one additional parameter regime by varying ε, w′, V0, or σ_V, to demonstrate that the claimed correspondence is not accidental.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§III.A, Eq. (14)] The symbol ω′ is used in the denominator of Eq. (14) where w′ is intended; the notation should be made uniform throughout the manuscript.
  2. [Abstract and title] The title contains a spacing error ('ap proach') and the abstract uses an inconsistent apostrophe ('Newton`s'). These should be corrected.
  3. [Appendix B, footnote [35]] The far-field expression for ⟨θ(x,t)θ(x′,t′)⟩ in footnote [35] gives π²/3, which is inconsistent in form with the core expression in Eq. (B4); clarify the domain of validity and whether the phase fluctuations are assumed Gaussian in both regimes.
  4. [§IV, text after Fig. 5] The sentence 'The transmission coefficient is given by the the area...' contains a duplicated article and should be fixed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the uncertainty relation and Schrödinger equation are derived from model parameters and an external theorem, with independent numerical confirmation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. The momentum variance (Eq. 12) and position variance (Eq. 14) are computed from the model's own perturbative expansion in the noise amplitude ε and soliton width w′; their product gives an uncertainty relation (Eq. 15) that is then compared with the externally established Hall–Reginatto exact uncertainty principle (Eq. 16, Ref. [16]) to identify the effective Planck constant ℏ (Eqs. 19–20). Ref. [16] is not authored by the present author and is an independent mathematical result, so this comparison is not a self-citation chain. The numerical tunneling study is an independent check: 4500 soliton trajectories with different noise realizations are compared with separately integrated Schrödinger equation, and the transmission coefficients (0.495 vs 0.492) agree. The acknowledged white-noise approximation and the finite integration window l in Eq. (13) are stated limitations on the exactness of the derived relation, not circular inputs. One correctness issue, not circularity, should be flagged: the displayed Eq. (15) is arithmetically inconsistent with Eqs. (12) and (14) — the product is π/3 ε², not 1/(3π) ε² — and Eq. (19) should correspondingly read ℏ = 2π/3 ε²; Eq. (20) uses the corrected coefficient. This does not make the argument circular, because the effective ℏ is fixed by the model's noise amplitude rather than fitted to the Schrödinger predictions.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The derivation rests on an external theorem, a white-noise approximation that is not derived, small-soliton assumptions, and a finite integration cutoff. The free parameters ε, w′, v0, and l are model inputs rather than fitted constants, but they control the effective Planck constant, mass, and position uncertainty, so the quantum mapping inherits their arbitrariness. No new particles or forces are introduced; the measuring device is another soliton.

free parameters (4)
  • ε = 0.01 in tunneling simulations
    Amplitude of the initial background noise. It sets the effective Planck constant through the uncertainty relation, so the mapping to quantum mechanics inherits its arbitrariness.
  • w′ = 0.1 in tunneling simulations; 0.2 in Fig. 1
    Soliton amplitude and inverse width. The soliton mass is m ≈ w′, so this choice sets the particle mass and the small-parameter regime w′ ≪ 1.
  • l = Range restricted by π√6/w′ ≪ l ≪ (4π²/(3w′ε²))^(1/3)
    Finite integration domain used to define soliton position in a fluctuating background. The position variance σ_X² depends on this cutoff, so the uncertainty relation is not fully independent of an ad hoc scale.
  • initial velocity v0 = 0.0604 in tunneling simulations
    Initial mean soliton velocity, chosen so that the average kinetic energy is just below the barrier height. It determines the transmission probability and is a hand-picked setup parameter.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Hall-Reginatto theorem: an ensemble satisfying σ_X σ_P = ℏ/2 with appropriate randomness follows the Schrödinger equation.
    Invoked in Section III.B as an external result [16]; not proved in the paper. It is the bridge from the uncertainty relation to the Schrödinger equation.
  • ad hoc to paper The chaotic background fluctuations behave as delta-correlated white noise with amplitude ε.
    Stated in Section III and explicitly acknowledged as 'strictly speaking, not correct.' This is the key stochastic assumption that makes the derivation work.
  • domain assumption Soliton stability and negligible deformation for w′ ≪ 1 and gentle potentials.
    Used to derive Newton's second law Eq. (7) and to write the field as soliton plus small background, φ = φ_s + η.
  • domain assumption Energy conservation fixes the mean background amplitude ⟨|η|²⟩ = ε².
    Used in Section III to connect the initial noise amplitude to the fluctuating background during evolution.
  • ad hoc to paper The ⟨|η|^4⟩ contribution to the position variance is negligible on the chosen integration window.
    Appendix C relies on inequalities involving l, ε, and w′ to discard a divergent term. The validity is only approximate and is checked numerically for a narrow parameter range.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Solitons, chaos, and quantum phenomena: a deterministic approach to the Schr\"odinger equation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ALO4WU3P

@misc{pith2026250722868,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Solitons, chaos, and quantum phenomena: a deterministic approach to the Schr\"odinger equation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ALO4WU3P}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.22868}
}
abstract

We show that the Schr\"odinger equation describes the ensemble mean dynamics of solitons in a Galilean invariant field theory where we interpret solitons as particles. On a zero background, solitons move classically, following Newton`s second law, however, on a non-zero amplitude chaotic background, their momentum and position fluctuate fulfilling an exact uncertainty relation, which give rise to the emergence of quantum phenomena. The Schrodinger equation for the ensemble of solitons is obtained from this exact uncertainty relation, and the amplitude of the background fluctuations is what corresponds to the value of $\hbar$. We confirm our analytical results running simulations of solitons moving against a potential barrier and comparing the ensemble probabilities with the predictions of the time dependent Schr\"odinger equation, providing a deterministic version of the quantum tunneling effect. We conclude with a discussion of how our theory does not present statistical independence between measurement and experiment outcome.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.22868 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Newton’s second law for solitons. (a) and (b) show [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Soliton moving in a chaotic background. Panels (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Soliton bouncing off a potential barrier. Panels (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Same as in Fig. 3 for a soliton tunneling through the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Quantum tunneling: comparison of the ensemble [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Statistical dependence between the measurement per [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Variance of the position fluctuations, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bush and A

    J. Bush and A. Oza, Hydrodynamic quantum analogs, Rep. Prog. Phys. 84, 017001 (2020)

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    (16) Thus, hypothetical classical particles of mass m whose momentum and position fluctuations fulfil (16) follow, as an ensemble, the Schr¨ odinger equation ∂tψ =i ℏ 2m∂xxψ −i 1 ℏVp(x)ψ. (17) Here, Vp(x) is the potential energy of a particle at po- sition x and the wave function is written as ψ(x,t ) =√ ρ(x,t )ei S(x,t) ℏ , where ρ(x,t ) is the probability...

  3. [3]

    Hance, S

    J. Hance, S. Hossenfelder, and T. Palmer, Supermea- sured: Violating Bell-statistical independence without violating physical statistical independence, Found. Phys . 52, 81 (2022)

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Hance and S

    J. Hance and S. Hossenfelder, Bell’s theorem allows lo- cal theories of quantum mechanics, Nat. Phys. 18, 1382 (2022)

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    M. J. W. Hall, Bell vs. Bell: A ding-dong battle over quantum incompleteness, Foundations 4, 658 (2024)

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Cetto, A

    A. Cetto, A. Casado, K. Hess, and A. Vald´ es-Hern´ andez, Editorial: Towards a local realist view of the quantum phenomenon, Front. Phys. 9, 651127 (2021)

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Dewdney, Rekindling of de Broglie–Bohm pilot wave theory in the late twentieth century: A personal account, Fond

    C. Dewdney, Rekindling of de Broglie–Bohm pilot wave theory in the late twentieth century: A personal account, Fond. Phys. 53, 24 (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Drezet, Quantum solitodynamics: Non-linear wave mechanics and pilot-wave theory, Found

    A. Drezet, Quantum solitodynamics: Non-linear wave mechanics and pilot-wave theory, Found. Phys. 53, 31 (2023)

    work page 2023

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Hatifi, Relativistic Bohmian mechanics revisited: A covariant reformulation for spin-1/2 particles, Physics Letters A 518, 129680 (2024)

    M. Hatifi, Relativistic Bohmian mechanics revisited: A covariant reformulation for spin-1/2 particles, Physics Letters A 518, 129680 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    Skyrme, A non-linear field theory, Proc

    T. Skyrme, A non-linear field theory, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 260, 127–138 (1961)

    1961

  3. [11]

    G. H. Derrick, Comments on nonlinear wave equations as models for elementary particles, Journal of Mathematical Physics 5, 1252 (1964)

    1964

  4. [12]

    Manton and P

    N. Manton and P. Sutcliffe, Topological Solitons, Cam- bridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cam- bridge University Press, 2004)

    2004

  5. [13]

    N. S. Manton, Solitons as elementary particles: a paradigm scrutinized, Nonlinearity 21, T221 (2008)

    2008

  6. [14]

    Bowcock, D

    P. Bowcock, D. Foster, and P. Sutcliffe, Q-balls, integr a- bility and duality, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 42, 085403 (2009)

    2009

  7. [15]

    de Melo, M

    G. de Melo, M. de Montigny, J. Pinfold, and J. Tuszynski, Symmetries and soliton solutions of the Galilean complex sine-Gordon equation, Phys. Lett. A 380, 1223 (2016)

    2016

  8. [16]

    K. D. Lozanov, M. Sasaki, and V. Takhistov, Univer- sal gravitational wave signatures of cosmological soliton s, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2025 (01), 094

    2025

  9. [17]

    M. J. Hall and M. Reginatto, Schr¨ odinger equation from an exact uncertainty principle, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 35, 3289 (2002)

    2002

  10. [18]

    Palmer, The invariant set postulate: a new geometric framework for the foundations of quantum theory and the role played by gravity, Proc

    T. Palmer, The invariant set postulate: a new geometric framework for the foundations of quantum theory and the role played by gravity, Proc. R. Soc. A 465, 3165 (2009)

    2009

  11. [19]

    M. J. W. Hall, Local deterministic model of singlet stat e correlations based on relaxing measurement indepen- dence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 250404 (2010)

    2010

  12. [20]

    M. J. W. Hall, Relaxed Bell inequalities and Kochen- Specker theorems, Phys. Rev. A 84, 022102 (2011)

    2011

  13. [21]

    Goldstein, Classical Mechanics (Addison-Wesley, 1980)

    H. Goldstein, Classical Mechanics (Addison-Wesley, 1980)

    1980

  14. [22]

    Chat´ e and P

    H. Chat´ e and P. Manneville, Phase diagram of the two- dimensional complex ginzburg-landau equation, Phys- ica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 224, 348–368 (1996)

    1996

  15. [23]

    Ablowitz and C

    M. Ablowitz and C. Schober, Effective chaos in the non- linear Schr¨ odinger equation, Contemporary Mathematics 172, 253 (1994)

    1994

  16. [24]

    Frisch, Turbulence: The Legacy of A.N

    U. Frisch, Turbulence: The Legacy of A.N. Kolmogorov (Cambridge University Press, 1995)

    1995

  17. [25]

    Tsekov, E

    R. Tsekov, E. Heifetz, and E. Cohen, Derivation of the local-mean stochastic quantum force, Fluctuations and Noise Letters 16, 1750028 (2017)

    2017

  18. [26]

    Heifetz and I

    E. Heifetz and I. Plochotnikov, Effective classical sto chas- tic theory for quantum tunneling, Phys. Lett. A 384, 126511 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    Nelson, Derivation of the Schr¨ odinger equation fro m Newtonian mechanics, Phys

    E. Nelson, Derivation of the Schr¨ odinger equation fro m Newtonian mechanics, Phys. Rev. 150, 1079 (1966)

    1966

  20. [28]

    Ramos, D

    R. Ramos, D. Spierings, I. Racicot, and A. Steinberg, Measurement of the time spent by a tunneling atom within the barrier region, Nature 583, 529 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    Aspect, Closing the door on Einstein and Bohr’s quan- tum debate, Physics 8, 123 (2015)

    A. Aspect, Closing the door on Einstein and Bohr’s quan- tum debate, Physics 8, 123 (2015)

    2015

  22. [30]

    Storz, J

    S. Storz, J. Sch¨ ar, A. Kulikov, et al. , Loophole-free Bell inequality violation with superconducting circuits, Na- ture 617, 265–270 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    ’t Hooft, Free will in the theory of everything, arXiv:1709.02874 [quant-ph] (2017)

    G. ’t Hooft, Free will in the theory of everything, arXiv:1709.02874 [quant-ph] (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Hossenfelder and T

    S. Hossenfelder and T. Palmer, Rethinking superdeter- minism, Front. Phys. 8, 139 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    Papatryfonos, L

    K. Papatryfonos, L. Vervoort, A. Nachbin, M. Labousse, and J. W. M. Bush, Static Bell test in pilot-wave hydro- dynamics, Phys. Rev. Fluids 9, 084001 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    Palmer, Chaos theory eliminates quantum uncer- tainty, IAI News (2022), 13 October 2022

    T. Palmer, Chaos theory eliminates quantum uncer- tainty, IAI News (2022), 13 October 2022

    2022

  27. [35]

    Pismen, Vortices in Nonlinear Fields (Oxford Univer- sity Press, New York, 1999)

    L. Pismen, Vortices in Nonlinear Fields (Oxford Univer- sity Press, New York, 1999)

    1999

  28. [36]

    Away from the soliton’s core, where |φs| → 0, the phase of η must be uniformly distributed over [ −π,π] and, therefore, ⟨θ(x, t)θ(x′, t′)⟩ = π 2 3 δ(x − x′)δ(t − t′)

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.