The Quantum Structure Sub-Programme

Given the complex $\mathrm{SU}(2)$ Weil amplitude carrier $V_\rho$ supplied by O18/O23, do the structures of quantum mechanics built upon it — phase coherence, Born rule, singlet correlator, Bell-type correlations — follow from admissibility alone, or must they be separately postulated? This is not currently established. This page states plainly the current, narrow scope of each of the three constituent papers, and is the hub to all of them.

Read the synthesis note DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20562949

Overview

A finite Heisenberg carrier, its non-trivial central character, and the associated Weil action are supplied model data rather than consequences of A1–A4 (Note 5). The thread $Q_8 \subset 2I \subset \mathrm{SU}(2)$ and its spin-$\tfrac{1}{2}$ sector are likewise programme inputs, not a uniquely selected physical carrier (Note 1). Do the structures of quantum mechanics already follow from this much?

Not currently. Q1's proved theorem is a representation-theoretic rigidity and no-go result, unrelated to phase coherence or the Born rule. Q2 proves only a finite Laplacian-eigenvalue coincidence between the spin-$\tfrac12$ and spin-$\tfrac32$ representations of $2I$. Q3 proves a theorem conditional on an explicit, undemonstrated hypothesis — that a bipartite state on a supplied carrier is invariant under the diagonal action of $2I$ — not derived from admissibility or from Born–Infeld indiscernibility. No result in this sub-programme derives phase coherence, a singlet correlator, a Tsirelson bound, the Born rule, or a physically preferred sector from the admissibility axioms alone.

What does hold unconditionally. Q1's Fourier-support rigidity theorem and no-go corollary, and Q2's eigenvalue degeneracy are unconditional. Q3's singlet and Casimir-correlator theorem holds conditional on its stated hypothesis (H-inv). The Bell paper's central implication is false.

Papers of the sub-programme

Q1 — Fourier-support rigidity (proved, unconditional).

Q2 — an exact eigenvalue degeneracy on $2I$ (proved, unconditional).

Q3 — a conditional universal singlet.

Bell factorisation bridge (published claim refuted).

Inputs and outputs

Inputs. Of the results once cited here as upstream inputs — the admissible fibre and Heisenberg structure (Note 5), $\mathrm{Im}\,\mathbb{H} \cong \mathfrak{su}(2)$ and isotropic saturation (O23), the parity involution and unit-norm amplitudes (O18, O22), and BI indiscernibility of conjugate Weil blocks (BornInfeld) — none is actually used by the current, narrow content of Q1, Q2, or Q3. The only upstream input the current papers rely on is the Laplacian-eigenvalue data of the spectral admissibility programme (Note 1, SpectralAdmissibility), which fixes which representation sectors of $2I$ are admissible and is used by Q2 and Q3. Non-injectivity as a structural necessity ($\mathcal{S}_\Pi > 0$) does not supply a Bell non-factorisability result.

Outputs. No output of this sub-programme currently supplies phase coherence, a correlator, a Tsirelson bound, an $\mathrm{SU}(2)$ fixed-point identification, or the Born rule to any downstream branch. Q2's eigenvalue degeneracy fixes which five sectors are in scope for Q3. Bell non-factorisability remains open: the programme lacks a derived obstruction to a setting-independent global coupling.

Status

The sub-programme's original ambition — deriving the structures of quantum mechanics from admissibility alone, given the supplied complex $\mathrm{SU}(2)$ Weil carrier — is not established. Q1 proves an exact, unconditional Fourier-support rigidity theorem, unrelated to phase coherence or the Born rule. Q2 proves an exact, unconditional finite-group eigenvalue degeneracy on $2I$. Q3 proves a theorem conditional on an explicit, undemonstrated hypothesis (H-inv); neither (H-inv), phase coherence, nor the Born rule is derived by any constituent of this sub-programme. The published Bell paper's central implication is refuted by a finite Bell-local countermodel.

Open problems: deriving phase coherence of the supplied Weil carrier from the admissibility axioms; deriving Q3's invariance hypothesis (H-inv) rather than supplying it; deriving the Born rule, in the $\mathrm{SU}(2)$ sector or beyond it; and deriving a genuine cross-context obstruction sufficient for Bell non-factorisability.