Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 37 references

On the Stochastic-Quantum Correspondence

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that all six axioms of quantum mechanics — Hilbert spaces, Born's rule, superposition, collapse, Schrödinger equation — follow from a single stochastic axiom.

desk verdict A readable but logically circular restatement of the Barandes programme; the six-axiom derivation collapses on the unproven unistochastic step, though the environment-counting and classical-limit sections are worth a look. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.18720 v2 pith:KK67QNH4 submitted 2026-01-26 quant-ph

Sami Calvo This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P0560J2015B51 PACS 03.65.Ta02.50.-r
keywords stochasticprocessesquantumfoundationsBorn'sruleunistochasticmatricesmeasurementproblemclassicallimitdiscretespacemechanicsaxioms
topics The Measurement Problem
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

The paper's central claim is Theorem 1: a single postulate — the Stochastic Axiom, that every physical system evolves according to a generally indivisible stochastic process — implies all six axioms of textbook quantum mechanics: Hilbert state space, self-adjoint observables, collapse, Born's rule, superposition, and the Schrödinger equation. The argument identifies the system's transition matrix Γ with the Born-rule probabilities |⟨i|U|j⟩|², made possible by representing Γ in unistochastic form, so that probabilities are mod-squares of unitary amplitudes. If the claim holds, then the standard quantum formalism requires no independent postulation: the wavefunction describes our knowledge of a system that always occupies a definite configuration, and the measurement problem dissolves into conditional probability. The paper further argues that continuous configuration bases break the stochastic normalization, indicating that space and other physical variables are fundamentally discrete, and that a large low-entropy environment induces wavefunction collapse, with many-particle systems obeying Newton's second law in expectation.

What carries the argument

The unistochastic representation of the transition matrix: the claim that any stochastic matrix Γ can be expressed as Γ_ij = |U_ij|² for some unitary matrix U (in a 'diluted' Hilbert space, per footnote 7). This identity is the load-bearing bridge: it converts probability-conserving discrete stochastic dynamics into complex inner-product amplitudes, from which Born's rule, the state vector, unitary time evolution, and the Schrödinger equation follow. A second key mechanism is the 'division event' — a moment when indivisible stochastic dynamics momentarily becomes divisible — which is used to explain interference loss, wavefunction collapse, and the emergence of classical behaviour in large s

What would settle it

Construct an explicit finite-dimensional stochastic transition matrix Γ (e.g., a 3×3 or 4×4 matrix) that is provably not unistochastic — known to exist for dimensions ≥3 — and verify whether the paper's 'diluted Hilbert space' construction nevertheless produces a unitary U with Γ_ij=|U_ij|². If no such U exists for a valid physical process, the Stochastic Axiom does not imply unitarity and Theorem 1 is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the Stochastic Axiom — every physical system evolves according to a generally indivisible stochastic process — alone implies all six textbook axioms of quantum mechanics. The bridge is the unistochastic theorem: the transition matrix Γ can be written entrywise as |U_ij|² for a unitary U, so the state vector |ψ⟩=U|j⟩ yields Born's rule Γ_ij=|⟨i|U|j⟩|², unitary evolution yields the Schrödinger equation, and the interference formula yields superposition. Collapse is derived as conditional probability following a division event induced by an environment, whose defining feature is a large number of degrees of freedom. The paper further argues that continuous base

Load-bearing premise

The entire derivation rests on the unproven-in-this-paper claim that every stochastic transition matrix Γ is unistochastic — i.e., equal to the entrywise squared magnitude of some unitary matrix; if that theorem gives way, Born's rule and the rest do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the unistochastic theorem holds as assumed, textbook quantum mechanics loses its status as an irreducible axiomatic foundation: a single stochastic postulate generates the Hilbert-space formalism, Born's rule, superposition, collapse, and the Schrödinger equation.
  • The continuous-basis divergence would imply that space (and other physical variables such as field values) is fundamentally discrete, with time possibly remaining continuous.
  • The measurement problem dissolves: wavefunction collapse is conditional-probability updating after interaction with a measuring device (a low-entropy environment with many degrees of freedom), and systems always occupy definite configurations.
  • The classical limit is recovered: a large system of stochastically evolving particles under cohesive, short-range, analytic interactions has a centre of mass whose expectation value follows Newton's second law, unifying classical and quantum dynamics in one ontology.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The derivation's reliance on the unistochastic theorem is external: the paper cites the result rather than proving it, and the footnote's 'diluted Hilbert space' caveat means the single-axiom claim is only as strong as that dilation theorem's domain. A reader might test whether the reduction survives for infinite-dimensional or continuous configuration spaces without such dilation.
  • If continuous bases are genuinely inadequate, the paper's own field-theory discussion suggests that quantum field theory requires both spatial discreteness and confined momenta (a box); one testable consequence is that Lorentz invariance would be only emergent, not exact, at the fundamental discrete level.
  • The 'division event' mechanism is left qualitative: the paper does not specify the microscopic condition under which an indivisible process becomes divisible, so an inference is that a precise dynamical criterion — perhaps involving the number of coupled degrees of freedom — would be needed to turn the collapse explanation into a quantitative prediction.
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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper aims to derive the six standard axioms of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics—Hilbert-space states, self-adjoint observables, collapse, Born's rule, superposition, and Schrödinger's equation—from a single 'Stochastic Axiom': that every physical system evolves according to a (generally indivisible) stochastic law. The argument begins with a finite configuration space and a stochastic matrix Γ, asserts that Γ can always be written in unistochastic form, and then defines the Hilbert space, state vector, and Hamiltonian from the resulting unitary U. It further claims that continuous bases are inadequate, that fields require discretization, that environments are systems with many degrees of freedom, and that a large system under cohesive, short-range interactions obeys Newton's second law for its centre of mass. The paper is an exposition and extension of the programme of Barandes [1,2] aimed at solving the measurement problem and unifying classical and quantum mechanics.

Significance. If the central theorem were correct, the paper would provide a substantial foundational result: a single stochastic axiom implying all of textbook quantum mechanics, together with a resolution of the measurement problem and a derivation of classical dynamics. The paper also offers a clear, well-written introduction to the stochastic-quantum correspondence and makes the notable admission that the stochastic approach has no immediate practical advantage, since Γ already contains the full solution. However, the main derivation rests on an unproven and false claim about unistochasticity, and several other 'derivations' are definitional. The paper does not provide machine-checked proofs, reproducible code, or parameter-free derivations. As it stands, the central claim is not established.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 1, unistochasticity claim] The load-bearing step is the assertion, 'As it is proven in [2], Γ can always be expressed in a unistochastic form, that is, Θ is a unitary matrix.' This is false for general stochastic matrices. A concrete finite counterexample is the doubly stochastic 3×3 matrix M = [[1/2,1/2,0],[1/2,0,1/2],[0,1/2,1/2]]. Any unitary U with |U_ij|² = M_ij must have U_{13}=U_{22}=U_{31}=0, which forces the first two rows to have inner product U_{11}\overline{U_{21}} = 1/2 ≠ 0, contradicting unitarity. Footnote 7's qualification 'at least in a diluted Hilbert space' changes the dimension and thereby invalidates the equality Γ_ij = |U_ij|² in the original configuration space; the paper neither states nor proves a precise dilution theorem. Since Theorem 1 uses Γ_ij = |⟨i|U(t)|j⟩|² to derive Born's rule and then Schrödinger's equation, the entire derivation collapses if unistochasticity is not guaranteed. Th
  2. [Section 2, Theorem 1 proof] The proof of Born's rule and Schrödinger's equation is definitional rather than derivational. Born's rule is obtained by defining |ψ⟩ := U(t)|j⟩, so that Γ_ij = |⟨i|U(t)|j⟩|² is true by construction—but Γ_ij was already asserted in Section 1 to equal |Θ_ij|² for a unitary Θ. Similarly, the Hamiltonian is defined as Ĥ := i(∂_t U)U†, making the Schrödinger equation i∂_t|ψ⟩ = Ĥ|ψ⟩ immediate by definition. The paper's own Remark concedes that 'we don't get the exact form of the Hamiltonian only from the stochastic approach' and that Ĥ 'necessitates an outside imposition.' Thus the stochastic axiom alone does not determine the dynamics; the theorem's claim to derive all six axioms from a single axiom is not supported.
  3. [Section 2 / Section 6.1, measurement axiom] The measurement axiom is explicitly not proven: the text says 'Its proof is relegated to Section 6.1,' but Section 6 is 'Conclusions and further work' and contains no Section 6.1. The later discussion in Section 5.2 is heuristic: it asserts that wavefunction collapse is 'just a consequence of conditional probability' and that the system 'always is in a definite configuration,' but it does not derive collapse from the stochastic axiom with the same formal structure used elsewhere. Since the measurement axiom is one of the six axioms that Theorem 1 claims to derive, this missing proof is a load-bearing gap, not a presentation issue.
  4. [Section 5.3, Theorem 3 and classical limit] Theorem 3 is not derived from the Stochastic Axiom alone. The proof invokes the Ehrenfest theorem, which is a quantum-mechanical result obtained from Schrödinger's equation, and then adds external assumptions: bounded relative coordinates (|s_i| ≤ K), a 'cohesive force' defined by lim_{N→∞} ⟨s_i s_j⟩ = 0, a 'short-range interaction' defined by convergence of Σ_j Cov(s_i,s_j), and analyticity of the potential. These are substantial physical assumptions, not consequences of the stochastic law, and they are not justified from the single axiom. Moreover, the treatment of the classical limit here returns expectation values, not a demonstration of deterministic individual trajectories, so the claimed unification is not established.
  5. [Section 3, continuous bases] The argument that continuous bases are inadequate is not rigorously made. The central step is garbled: the text writes 'Γij = K(x_i,x_j)K*(x_i,x_j) ⇒ ∫ Γij dx_i = ∫ K(x_i,x')K*(x',x_i)dx' = δ(0)', which is dimensionally inconsistent and mixes the two arguments of K. A precise treatment of the continuous limit would require specifying the measure, the regularisation, and the sense in which Γ is a probability density. As it stands, the conclusion that 'physical variables are discrete in nature' is not a theorem but an interpretive gloss on an unresolved divergence. The cardinality arguments in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 also use arithmetic on infinite cardinals in a way that is not made precise.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] Numerous typos and formatting errors: 'quamtum' (abstract), 'stochasatic' (§5), 'Leftr⫯g⊸tl⫯ne⇒' in two displayed equations, 'V(RCM)' notation without boldface, and inconsistent use of m for both the exponent in a ∝ N^m and the mass in M = N m.
  2. [Section 3.2, fields] The expression for QFT states is simplified to the point of inaccuracy: the statement 'any state can be written as |ψ⟩ = ∫ a†(p)|0⟩ dp + ∫ a†(p)a†(p)|0⟩ dp + ⋯' omits normalisation and treats a one-particle state with a continuous momentum label as a single configuration. The subsequent box regularisation changes the cardinality claim but the physical status of the continuum limit is left unclear.
  3. [Section 5.1, probability calculation] The expression for P(n,m) = m!/((m-n)! m^n) is the probability that n draws from m possibilities are all distinct, but the statement 'the total amount of possible environment configuration assignments to the n system configurations is m^n' should be clarified: it assumes each of the n system configurations is assigned one of m environment configurations independently and uniformly. The approximation P ≈ exp(-n(n-1)/2m) is correct for m ≫ n but the relevance to 'randomly chosen environment' is not formalised.
  4. [References] Reference [2] is a preprint; the paper relies on it for the key unistochasticity theorem without stating the theorem precisely or providing a proof. Since the claim is central and false in the finite-dimensional case, a careful statement and proof are essential, not optional.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Born's rule and Schrödinger's equation are repackaged definitions; the claimed single-axiom derivation imports the unistochastic theorem from [2] and two further axioms from [1], so Theorem 1 is not self-contained.

  1. self definitional [Section 1, 'Hilbert space', item 4; Section 2, Theorem 1 proof, 'Schrödinger's equation'; Remark after Theorem 1]
    "Hˆ := i ∂U(t)/∂t U†(t) ... i∂t∣ψj⟩ = i(∂tU(t))∣j⟩ = ... = (i∂tU(t)U†(t))∣ψ⟩ = Hˆ∣ψ⟩ ... Remark: ... we don't get the exact form of the Hamiltonian only from the stochastic approach ... necessitates an outside imposition of the analytical expression of Hˆ."

    Axiom 6 is the Schrödinger equation i∂t|ψ⟩ = H|ψ⟩. The paper defines H to be i(dU/dt)U†, so the equation is an identity for any differentiable unitary U. The stochastic axiom supplies only Γ; unitarity is imported from the unistochastic claim. The Remark concedes the Hamiltonian must be imposed from outside. Thus the 'derivation' of the Schrödinger equation is a renaming of the definition of H, not a consequence of the single stochastic axiom.

  2. self definitional [Section 1, 'Stochastic process'; Section 2, Theorem 1 proof, 'Born's rule']
    "Since the values Γ can take are always positive, because they are probabilities, we can equate each entry of Γ: Γ_ij = |Θ_ij|^2 ... As it is proven in [2], it turns out that Γ can always be expressed in a unistochastic form, that is, Θ is a unitary matrix ... Γ_ij = |⟨i|U(t)|j⟩|^2 = |⟨i|ψ⟩|^2."

    Born's rule is assumed when Γ is written as |U_ij|^2. The stochastic axiom only guarantees a column-stochastic matrix Γ; unistochasticity is an extra theorem cited to [2], with footnote 7 adding the qualification 'at least in a diluted Hilbert space'. The proof then simply reads Γ_ij = |⟨i|U|j⟩|^2. Hence the probability rule is an input, not an output of the stochastic axiom; if the unistochastic representation is unavailable, no Born rule follows.

full rationale

The paper is largely an exposition of [1,2], and the two most central 'derivations' in Theorem 1 are definitional identities. The Born rule is the assumed representation of the transition matrix as |U_ij|^2; the Schrödinger equation is the definition H := i(dU/dt)U† applied to |ψ⟩ = U|j⟩. Both depend on the unistochasticity theorem, which is cited, not proved, and whose footnote restricts it to 'a diluted Hilbert space.' If that theorem is not available — and the standard 3×3 doubly stochastic counterexample shows it is false for arbitrary stochastic matrices in the original space — the derivations collapse. This is partly a correctness/missing-support problem rather than pure circularity, but the definitional reductions are real. The remaining axioms are not derived from the stochastic axiom either: superposition is delegated to [1] IV.D, self-adjoint observables to [1] V.B, and the measurement axiom assumes unitary evolution and Born's rule in Section 5. The paper's own Remark concedes that the exact Hamiltonian must be imposed from outside, and Section 4 concedes that the Γ matrix is not known without first solving the problem traditionally. These concessions undercut the headline claim that six textbook axioms follow from a single stochastic axiom. I score 6 rather than 8 because the measurement/collapse and classical-limit sections contain independent reasoning, and the unistochastic theorem, if proven, would be a nontrivial bridge — but the central derivation is only partially self-contained and partly reduces to definitions and imported results.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The paper's single-axiom programme imports, from [1,2] and unproved assumptions: the unistochastic theorem (which makes Γ unitary and hence yields Born's rule), the definite-configuration ontology (which does the work in the measurement discussion), and Stone/spectral theorems for the Hilbert-space side. Two 'derived' axioms (Born's rule, Schrödinger's equation) are true by construction of Γ and Ĥ. The classical-limit theorem adds ad hoc conditions (boundedness, cohesiveness, short-range, analyticity) that are crafted to force the conclusion. Net: the reader pays for the central claim upstream (via [1,2]) and via definitions, not from the stated stochastic axiom alone.

free parameters (1)
  • cohesive-force scaling a (exponent m) = a = a0·N^m with m > 1 (a0 arbitrary)
    Section 5.3: 'To model that the interaction increases with N... we can define a := a0·N^m. If m>1, the interaction is strong enough, and the variance decreases with N.' The scaling (and the Gaussian-type p(r)) is chosen to produce the desired classical-limit conclusion; no microscopic derivation is given.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Every stochastic matrix admits a unistochastic dilation (Γ = |U|² entrywise), at least in a diluted Hilbert space.
    Invoked at the start (Section 1, footnote 7) and needed for Born's rule; proven in [2], not in this paper.
  • domain assumption The system always occupies a definite configuration; the configuration basis is the set of eigenstates of some self-adjoint operator.
    Section 1 (Hilbert space) and Section 2 (Measurement axiom discussion): 'the state is always in one of its possible configurations'. This ontology is postulated, not derived.
  • standard math Stone's theorem: U(t) unitary iff Ĥ = i(∂_t U)U† is self-adjoint.
    Used in Section 2 to justify Schrödinger's equation and the self-adjointness of Ĥ.
  • standard math Spectral theorem: self-adjoint operators decompose into real-eigenvalue projectors.
    Used for Axiom 2 in Section 2.
  • standard math Hilbert spaces of equal cardinality are isomorphic; any basis of an operator whose spectrum is C is a valid configuration basis.
    Section 1, footnote 3: 'Given any closed subset S of R, we can always find a self-adjoint operator whose spectrum is precisely S.'
  • ad hoc to paper Classical-limit assumptions: bounded relative coordinates (|s_i| ≤ K), cohesive force (central moments → 0), short-range interaction (Σ Cov converges), analytic potential.
    Definitions 5.4, 5.5, Proposition 1, and Theorem 3 (Section 5.3) are conditioned on these crafted assumptions; they are introduced specifically to make Newton's law follow.
invented entities (2)
  • division event
    purpose: A time instant where the indivisible dynamics temporarily becomes divisible, used to explain interference loss, wavefunction collapse, and the classical limit.
    Introduced in Section 5 ('A division event is a point in time where the dynamics is momentarily no longer indivisible'); no observable handle is specified beyond the framework's own ontology.
  • definite configuration as ontic state
    purpose: The system's true state, with the wavefunction demoted to an epistemic (knowledge) object; collapses are Bayesian updates.
    Section 2 (Measurement axiom) and Section 5.2: 'the system is always in a definite configuration'; this ontology is the paper's answer to the measurement problem and carries no testable signature distinguishing it from standard QM.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the Stochastic-Quantum Correspondence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KK67QNH4

@misc{pith2026260118720,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the Stochastic-Quantum Correspondence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KK67QNH4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.18720}
}
read the original abstract

This paper aims to first explain, somewhat more clearly, the Stochastic-Quantum correspondence put forward in by Barandes in 2023. Specifically, the quantum-mechanical bra-ket notation is used, illuminating some results of previous results. With this, we prove the six axioms of textbook quantum mechanics from a single axiom: every physical system evolves according to a, generally indivisible, stochastic law. Afterwards, we generalise the treatment to continuous bases, which showcases a problem with them, indicating that space (and other physical variables) may be discrete in nature. Some concrete examples are also given, including the generalisation to classical and quantum fields. Then, we treat some practical issues of this new stochastic approach, regarding the solving of problems in physics, which turns out to still be most tractable in the traditional way. Finally, we explain the classical limit, where a system of many particles is found to behave classically according to Newton's second law. Along with that, we present a way of solving the measurement problem, characterising what is an environment and a measuring device and explaining how the wavefunction collapse comes about. Specifically, it is found that what distinguishes an environment is its number of degrees of freedom, while a measuring device is a low-entropy type of environment.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Philosophy of Physics, 3(1)

    Barandes, J (2023).The Stochastic-Quantum Correspondence. Philosophy of Physics, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.31389/pop.186

    doi:10.31389/pop.186 2023

  2. [2]

    arXiv preprint arXiv: 2309.03085

    Barandes, J (2023).The Stochastic-Quantum Theorem. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2309.03085

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Bell, J.S.(1964).On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox.PhysicsPhysique, 1(3), 195–200

    1964

  4. [4]

    (1952).A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of “hidden” variables I & II.Physical Review, 85(2), 166–193

    Bohm, D. (1952).A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of “hidden” variables I & II.Physical Review, 85(2), 166–193

    1952

  5. [5]

    Relative state

    Everett, H. (1957). “Relative state” formulation of quantum mechanics.Reviews of Modern Physics, 29(3), 454–462

    1957

  6. [6]

    Zurek, W. H. (2003).Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical. Reviews of Modern Physics, 75(3), 715–775

    2003

  7. [7]

    C., Rimini, A., & Weber, T

    Ghirardi, G. C., Rimini, A., & Weber, T. (1986).Unified dynamics for microscopic and macro- scopic systems.Physical Review D, 34(2), 470

    1986

  8. [8]

    Spekkens, R. W. (2007).Evidence for the epistemic view of quantum states: A toy theory. Physical Review A, 75(3), 032110

    2007

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    (2005).Decoherence, the measurement problem, and interpretations of quan- tum mechanics.Reviews of Modern Physics, 76(4), 1267–1305

    Schlosshauer, M. (2005).Decoherence, the measurement problem, and interpretations of quan- tum mechanics.Reviews of Modern Physics, 76(4), 1267–1305

    2005

  2. [10]

    (2012).The Emergent Multiverse: Quantum Theory According to the Everett Interpretation.Oxford University Press

    Wallace, D. (2012).The Emergent Multiverse: Quantum Theory According to the Everett Interpretation.Oxford University Press

    2012

  3. [11]

    Spekkens, R. W. (2019).The Ontological Identity of Empirical Indistinguishability.Founda- tions of Physics, 49, 1009–1030

    2019

  4. [12]

    (1952).Eine wahrscheinlichkeitstheoretische Begründung und Interpretation der Quantenmechanik.Zeitschrift für Physik, 132(1), 81–106

    Fenyes, I. (1952).Eine wahrscheinlichkeitstheoretische Begründung und Interpretation der Quantenmechanik.Zeitschrift für Physik, 132(1), 81–106. 16

    1952

  5. [13]

    (1985).Quantum Fluctuations.Princeton University Press

    Nelson, E. (1985).Quantum Fluctuations.Princeton University Press

    1985

  6. [14]

    Bohm, D., & Hiley, B. J. (1993).The Undivided Universe: An Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory.Routledge

    1993

  7. [15]

    Ballentine, L. E. (1970).The statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics.Reviews of Modern Physics, 42(4), 358–381

    1970

  8. [16]

    de la Peña, L., & Cetto, A. M. (1996).The Quantum Dice: An Introduction to Stochastic Electrodynamics.Kluwer Academic Publishers

    1996

  9. [17]

    The Principles of Quantum Mechanics

    Dirac, P.A.M (1930). "The Principles of Quantum Mechanics" (Oxf. Univ. Press)

    1930

  10. [18]

    Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics

    von Neumann, J. (1932). "Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics" (Princeton Univ. Press)

    1932

  11. [19]

    (2001).Quantum theory from five reasonable axioms

    Hardy, L. (2001).Quantum theory from five reasonable axioms. arXiv:quant-ph/0101012

    2001 arXiv

  12. [20]

    M., & Perinotti, P

    D’Ariano, G. M., & Perinotti, P. (2017). Quantum Theory from First Principles: An Infor- mational Approach. Cambridge University Press

    2017

  13. [21]

    (1966).Derivation of the Schrödinger Equation from Newtonian Mechanics.Phys- ical Review, 150(4), 1079–1085

    Nelson, E. (1966).Derivation of the Schrödinger Equation from Newtonian Mechanics.Phys- ical Review, 150(4), 1079–1085

    1966

  14. [22]

    Guerra, F., & Morato, L. M. (1983).Quantization of dynamical systems and stochastic control theory.Physical Review D, 27(8), 1774–1786

    1983

  15. [23]

    (2020).Nelsonian Mechanics Revisited

    Bacciagaluppi, G. (2020).Nelsonian Mechanics Revisited. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 71, 87–100

    2020

  16. [24]

    (1973).New interpretation of stochastic mechanics.Lettere al Nuovo Cimento(1971–1985), 8(8), 497–501

    Guerra, F., & Ruggiero, P. (1973).New interpretation of stochastic mechanics.Lettere al Nuovo Cimento(1971–1985), 8(8), 497–501

    1973

  17. [25]

    (1979).A stochastic model of quantum mechanics.Journal of Mathematical Physics, 20(9), 1865–1870

    Davidson, M. (1979).A stochastic model of quantum mechanics.Journal of Mathematical Physics, 20(9), 1865–1870

    1979

  18. [26]

    (1983).Stochastic mechanics and quantum theory.Foun- dations of Physics, 13(3), 253–278

    Cufaro Petroni, N., & Guerra, F. (1983).Stochastic mechanics and quantum theory.Foun- dations of Physics, 13(3), 253–278

    1983

  19. [27]

    (1981).Stochastic calculus of variations.Journal of Functional Analysis, 41(3), 327–340

    Yasue, K. (1981).Stochastic calculus of variations.Journal of Functional Analysis, 41(3), 327–340

    1981

  20. [28]

    (1969).Space-Time Code.Physical Review, 184(5), 1261–1271

    Finkelstein, D. (1969).Space-Time Code.Physical Review, 184(5), 1261–1271

    1969

  21. [29]

    (2016).The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.Springer International Publishing

    ’t Hooft, G. (2016).The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.Springer International Publishing

    2016

  22. [30]

    (1994).Weyl, Dirac, and Maxwell equations on a lattice as unitary cellular automata.Physical Review D, 49(12), 6920–6927

    Bialynicki-Birula, I. (1994).Weyl, Dirac, and Maxwell equations on a lattice as unitary cellular automata.Physical Review D, 49(12), 6920–6927

    1994

  23. [31]

    (1987).Space-time as a causal set.Physical Review Letters, 59(5), 521–524

    Bombelli, L., Lee, J., Meyer, D., & Sorkin, R. (1987).Space-time as a causal set.Physical Review Letters, 59(5), 521–524

    1987

  24. [32]

    (2020).A Class of Models with the Potential to Represent Fundamental Physics

    Wolfram, S. (2020).A Class of Models with the Potential to Represent Fundamental Physics. Complex Systems, 29(2), 107–536

    2020

  25. [33]

    (2006).Programming the Universe.Knopf

    Lloyd, S. (2006).Programming the Universe.Knopf

    2006

  26. [34]

    Decoherence and the Appearance of a Classical World in Quantum Theory

    Joos, E., Zeh, H. D., Kiefer, C., Giulini, D. J. W., Kupsch, J., & Stamatescu, I. O. (2003). "Decoherence and the Appearance of a Classical World in Quantum Theory".Springer

    2003

  27. [35]

    Zurek, W. H. (1991).Decoherence and the transition from quantum to classical.Physics Today, 44(10), 36–44. 17

    1991

  28. [36]

    (2007).Decoherence and the Quantum-to-Classical Transition.Springer

    Schlosshauer, M. (2007).Decoherence and the Quantum-to-Classical Transition.Springer

    2007

  29. [37]

    QuantumTheoryattheCrossroads: Reconsidering the 1927 Solvay Conference

    Bacciagaluppi, G., &Valentini, A.(2009)."QuantumTheoryattheCrossroads: Reconsidering the 1927 Solvay Conference". Cambridge University Press. 18

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.