Mistakes in Quantum Mechanics as Seen from the History of Science

You missed out Maxwell 1865

James Clerk Maxwell - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Quote from kazunori miura

I wrote articles about wrong of Quantum Mechanics. please Read on and let me know what you think.

We here (SM church thread) linked already many papers that refute SM logic and assumptions.

Like::

- There is no separate strong force. Proof bei experiment - B Schaeffer

- Nuclear charge is toroidal. Experimental proof by Sardin

- Charge cannot orbit a nucleus as this violates momentum conservation and symmetry rules.

- ...

QM is just a highly simplified engineering model for electron orbits in the far field (< 1eV fluctuation).

QM: Is fringe physics for the nucleus as the Dirac equation wrongly uses a fictive mass wave equivalent.

https://vixra.org/abs/2209.0037

So be precise: AS an engineering model QM has some value but no physical meaning.

" No one"

Sumimasen..

Watashi to Unzicker Sensei

takusan shimpai suru.

Nihongo ni yakushite kudasai

I think that viewing super determinism as nonphysical and to be frown upon as a huge mistake and have given birth to a lot of confusion

like the Copenhagen interpretation which means stuff need to travel at arbitrary speed or many word interpretation. I now think that

I have found a super deterministic example that really looks much less strange that the traditional interpretations.

Here is my newest version of a super deterministic model

i like this :

it was all young researchers who claimed the theory underlying quantum mechanics.

• Einstein 1879-1955 Age 26

• Heisenberg 1901-1976 Age 26

• Schrödinger 1887-1961 Age 39

• Bohr 1885-1962 Age 28

• de Broglie 1892-1987 Age 32

• Hideki Yukawa 1907-1981 Age 27 When he published his theory that age is important

Due to the effects of World War I and the Spanish Flu, mid-career researchers disappeared, and young researchers emerged. Quantum mechanics is the result of youthful determination to make some groundbreaking discoveries.

It is interesting to note that the slightly older Einstein and Schrödinger were against quantum mechanics. The rise of quantum mechanics did not come from old researchers thinking about classical physics who understood new theories and changed their minds. Few researchers switched from classical physics to quantum mechanics. Even Heisenberg, creator of the uncertainty principle, recalled that it was very difficult to let go of the old notions of classical physics. The reason why quantum mechanics spread is that old researchers left the research stage.

I am discussing QM and possible Deterministic models that can explain Aspects experiment. Actually I can define a not unreasonable

deterministic model that gives exactly the quantum mechanical results related to the experiment (see post above). And the QM proponent claimed that

he did not want to do the work and read my paper because,

A deterministic model will mean that there is no free will! And he thinks that we have free will.

And he get's all the up votes!

That must be one of the biggest mistakes in quantum mechanics I have ever seen. I can't see the difference between a seeded

good pseudo random generator and a real one, so now we must accept QM or there is no free will.

I thought it was a joke but then I saw this excellent take on QM,

Discussion of superdeterminism

I use her definition of it the video to prove that my model is indeed super deterministic as it should.

Quote from stefan

so now we must accept QM or there is no free will.

This is nonsense in square (nonsense)²! QM is an approximate and totally unphysical model and has no value beyond far field solid state modelling. The particle spin of e/p is fully random due to the 5 rotation induced "Zitterbewegung".

Thus aspect/QM just distinguish between the random spin up/down position of the particle moment vector. (left touch going right right touch going left!).

For a deterministic explanation see:: https://www.researchgate.net/p…m_an_Ontological_Solution

To relate QM with free will shows that you deal with idiots.

Quote from Wyttenbach

that you deal with idiots

Bohemian Mechanics... something from Bohemian Pilsner..

but don't drive under the influence of a Quantum Mechanic..

This is probably mi final version of the super deterministic example that produces exactly the QM analysis of the Aspect experiment.

final version

Quote from Wyttenbach

This is nonsense in square (nonsense)²! QM is an approximate and totally unphysical model and has no value beyond far field solid state modelling. The particle spin of e/p is fully random due to the 5 rotation induced "Zitterbewegung".

Thus aspect/QM just distinguish between the random spin up/down position of the particle moment vector. (left touch going right right touch going left!).

For a deterministic explanation see:: https://www.researchgate.net/p…m_an_Ontological_Solution

To relate QM with free will shows that you deal with idiots.

Display More

yeah, insane or trolling.

Quote from stefan

I think that viewing super determinism as nonphysical and to be frown upon as a huge mistake and have given birth to a lot of confusion

like the Copenhagen interpretation which means stuff need to travel at arbitrary speed or many word interpretation. I now think that

I have found a super deterministic example that really looks much less strange that the traditional interpretations.

Here is my newest version of a super deterministic model

(1) Any Hidden Variable interpretation of QM compatible with known experiments must have non-local hidden variables

(not just Bell's inequality - which is approximate - but may similar versions - non-local entanglement forces this)

(2) Whenever concrete hidden variable theories are tested we find new counterexamples which show that experiments are truly non-deterministic

Here is a recent one:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/closed-loophole-confirms-the-unreality-of-the-quantum-world-20180725/

You cannot in principle rule out non-local hidden variables as a way to get nondeterminism - and we may in the end get to that through quantum spacetime - but they all look a lot more complex then QM

(3) New proof that Copenhagen-style "collapse" versions of QM cannot be physical:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-theorem-maps-out-the-limits-of-quantum-physics-20201203/

(4) Pilot-wave style theories do not cut it (the quantum weirdness is weirder than that)

https://www.quantamagazine.org/famous-experiment-dooms-pilot-wave-alternative-to-quantum-weirdness-20181011/

People publish silly things about QM based on slippery English language assumptions that do not stand up

https://www.quantamagazine.org/frauchiger-renner-paradox-clarifies-where-our-views-of-reality-go-wrong-20181203/

Really? Read the paper, then read

https://www.physics.nus.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2020/08/hyp-1819-2.pdf

For why it is flawed (as so many "English language" accounts of QM apparent paradoxes are.

Somone set a poor FYP student the job of proving this!

Or - for an easier read:

The flaw in Frauchiger and Renner’s argument | More Quantum

Frauchiger & Renner is a fun and interesting version of classic Wigner's friend that exposes the true nature of quantum physics - it does not however contradict QM.

The well-known argument by Frauchiger and Renner about the consistency of quantum mechanics has finally been published (in Nature Communications). With publication came a substantial change to the conclusion of the paper: while the old version claimed that “no single-world interpretation can be logically consistent”, the new version claims that “quantum theory cannot be extrapolated to complex systems” or, to use the title, that “quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself”.

This is clearly bollocks. We need to find out, though, where exactly has the argument gone wrong. Several discussions popped up on the internet to do so, for example in Scott Aaronson’s blog, but to my surprise nobody pointed out the obvious mistake: the predictions that Frauchiger and Renner claim to follow from quantum mechanics do not actually follow from quantum mechanics. In fact, they are outright wrong.

Anthropocentrism - little electrons buzzing around like planets etc - or "obvious" notions of reality - is a trap. What seems "intuitive" and "simple" may just be "familiar".

Unless you are very arrogant and anthropocentric there is no reason why all space and energy scales should look like the ones we are familiar with.

THH

Quote from THHuxleynew

claims that “quantum theory cannot be extrapolated to complex systems” or, to use the title, that “quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself”.

QM cannot even describe the most simple system = Hydrogen. This has once been believed/claimed in old ages where measurement was poor.

The failure has two sides:

- QM assume a near field point charge what is wrong

- QM uses the Coulomb gauge that breaks down in the near field as the force clearly is not linear. (linearity starts at state n=3)

QM just is a mathematical model to generate so called energy surfaces by the use of extrapolation/Superposition of mathematical waves and phase functions. These waves are by no mean physical!. It is just the standard method we have to solve partial differential equations.

Any discussion about QM being a theory of our real world is an idiots/fools distraction, that never did learn the real basics of physics.

Quote from Wyttenbach

the most simple system = Hydrogen.

and the deuteron is out of QM =QCD's reach..

the measured binding energy is B=2:2246.....MeV

QCD gets 11 +/-17 Mev

https://scholarworks.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2589&context=aspubs

Quote from RobertBryant

and the deuteron is out of QM =QCD's reach..

the measured binding energy is B=2:2246.....MeV

QCD gets 11 +/-17 Mev

https://scholarworks.wm.edu/cg…ticle=2589&context=aspubs

Display More

Leave off the deuteron.

Even the proton, as shown by experiment, is quite extraordinarily complex. So any alt-physics theory of its structure must predict that complexity.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/inside-the-proton-the-most-complicated-thing-imaginable-20221019/

There is a philosophical point here. QCD's ability to predict low energy (and therefore 3 quark) proton behaviour is poor, not from theoretical uncertainty, but because the simulations needed to predict behaviour are so very, very complex.

What should physicists do? Throw up hands at God's frustrating inability to allow us easily to predict the nature of his works? No true picture of the universe could be so incalculable?

What we have in the proton is emergent complexity - a bit like the Boltzmannian collisions in a gas are impossible for us to predict, so the quark/gluon soup in a proton is complex and difficult to predict. (Not as bad as a macroscopic amount of gas - but similarly chaotic). A gas might need tracking 10^10 particles. Proton interior tracking 10^6. Protons are bounded in size so we can hope for better brute force prediction over time (and we have that a supercomputers get better and programmers cleverer). Prediction of the poistions of particles in a gas will always be beyond us - just use a larger number of particles and the chaotic system will defeat any long-term attempt to predict.

The alert reader will argue that for a gas this does not matter - the emergent properties of a gas are all we need, an they are easy-peasy to predict.

True. But not in general true. We have many chaotic physical systems where what matters to us is impossible to predict long-term. (e.g. earthquakes, volcanos).

A more alert reader will argue this is not fair. The quark-gluon soup is a chaotic system - but also one whose structure is mediated by a force that is computationally very very difficult to calculate.

I am a great believer, when thinking about physics, in anti-anthropocentric thinking. The 20th century with GR (breaks notions of time) and QM (breaks notions of locality and determinism) shows us that what happens to make sense to us at human and even planetary scales fails in different regimes. The only guide taht God seems to have given us is for the underlying rules to be very simple. There is no requirement for their emergent consequences to be easy to calculate.

Where I a theist I might look at this inherent non-calculability it various levels - evolution, chaotic systems - low energy proton collisions - as being God's way to build free will into the Cosmos.

Luckily I am not that - so instead I wonder whether just perhaps this complexity is needed to select from a multiverse one containing beings able to think about its physics and origins.

Anyway - that is why I have so little sympathy with reductionist hadronic models posted here which:

(1) ignore all that experimentally observed complexity.

(2) provide anthropocentric views that ignore the experimentally validated weirdness of QM

Apart from anything else what we have in QM and string theory is fascinating and a wonder.

Of course, like everyone here, I hope for (but do not necessarily expect) better ways to calculate the behaviour of particles - maybe even that hint at underlying deeper structures. I'd respect claims here that this exist if they showed how their simpler calculations were equivalent to .(at least in approximation) existing known and experimentally validated methods. There is an awful lot of collision data from accelerators and cosmic rays that needs detailed explanation - and which is explained by standard model (in many cases predicted before ever seen). A few magic numbers (say particle masses) is maybe one billionth that amount of data.

Where we can see real progress is in a deeper understanding of why we have those particles, forces, 4-D structure of space-time. Something from which the standard model emerges. Exciting times for theoretical physics - for those wanting a decent easy-read popular overview I'd recommend the (free) Quanta Magazine.

THH

Quote from THHuxleynew

So any alt-physics theory of its structure must predict that complexity.

What these idiots say:: The proton is a quantum mechanical object that exists as a haze of probabilities until an experiment forces it to take a concrete form.

Starting with a nonsensical model and then claiming some surreal facts like fake quarks inside proton....

These people are a joke of themselves. A proton is the most real particle of the universe that never follows a probability...

But if you shoot it in a random way.... then idiots claim to to something random...Give them the Monty python award.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Starting with a nonsensical model

The 'correction'adds to the nonsense

"

Correction: October 20, 2022

A previous version of the article erroneously implied that lower-momentum quarks live shorter lives than higher-momentum quarks in the quark sea.

The text has been updated to clarify that all these quarks are lower-momentum and shorter-lived than those in the three quark-picture.

Quote from RobertBryant

The 'correction'adds to the nonsense

Why?

And why does the proton being a quantum superposition which therefore looks like different things when measured in different ways seem nonsensical to you?

It does readers here a disservice unnecessarily to trash this stuff - it is so very interesting.

Quote from THHuxleynew

And why does the proton being a quantum superposition which therefore looks like different things when measured in different ways seem nonsensical to you?

To many clowns and idiots do populate physics research. The proton is no quantum only brain damage can believe such nonsense.