Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Has Quantum theory ever predicted anything useful?

  • Please log in to reply
74 replies to this topic

#1 bcgilbert

bcgilbert

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 46
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2020
  • Loc: Tamworth, NSW, Australia

Posted 29 January 2020 - 04:11 AM

       Almost every article in the popular scientific media, preface their "drivel", with statements, like, "the most successful theory ever", or "the most accurate theory ever",  I actually wonder if anyone actually use It? I believe chemists use a set of cook book rules, probably derived from Schrodinger's equations.

     Our modern technological marvels don't use it.  Engineers  do all the heavy lifting In spite of QM's saying you can't do this or that because of Heisenberg's  uncertainty principle.  QM has put Its neck on the line with Its Quantum computer, It's always just another  twenty years away.  The underlying principle of Entanglement  has not been successfully demonstrated, yet they persist, because funding abounds.

 

 Anyone care to take exception to my rant?

 Barry


  • Huangdi likes this

#2 happylimpet

happylimpet

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,353
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2013
  • Loc: Southampton, UK

Posted 29 January 2020 - 04:15 AM

It's balls, but Im at work and dont have time to elaborate.


  • brave_ulysses and lee14 like this

#3 sg6

sg6

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,931
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2010
  • Loc: Norfolk, UK.

Posted 29 January 2020 - 06:48 AM

It probably comes into electronics and the smaller scale of chips and processors. They are I expect getting small enough now that quantum theory has to be taken into account.

Does come into quantum tunnelling where the uncertainty allows for nuclear fusion, without it then no sun, and no us to argue the merits, or otherwise, of it.

 

Not sure how to quantify "most successful".

It is a bit like having software that instead of:

IF (Condition) THEN

ELSE

 

You have software more like:

IF (Condition) THEN MAYBE

OR

 

Just think what fun a "Maybe" condition would be like in software.

 

If the success of something is based on a sort of it might do A or B then in a way can it be wrong, but also is it right?

We like 1+1 equals 2.

Getting 1+1 might equal 2.

Just doesn't sit overly well.

 

Strange as in one way we use something similar every day: I might have a car accident or I might not. And I guess several thousand other chance things. But we do not think if them as mathematical probabilities of no specific outcome/result.

 

Quantum theory is a calculation to predict the probability of something, not the absolute.

So back to "successful", if the probability is say 75% that something occurs then if whatever it is occurs or not, quantum theory got it right. lol.giflol.giflol.gif



#4 nic35

nic35

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 987
  • Joined: 08 Sep 2007

Posted 29 January 2020 - 07:47 AM

I think it's lots of stuff

 

 

https://www.forbes.c...s/#7365db954046


Edited by nic35, 29 January 2020 - 07:49 AM.

  • Astrola72 and starbuckin like this

#5 bcgilbert

bcgilbert

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 46
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2020
  • Loc: Tamworth, NSW, Australia

Posted 29 January 2020 - 07:53 AM

I will guess, that one of the comebacks to my rant, will be be the incredible resolution, of the g factor of the electron.  2.00231930436182(52).

Early classical calculations came up with the number equal to 1.00, then P. A. M.Dirac set it at 2.00, that number lasted about 20 years.  Theoretical work and experimental work then got it up to 2.002319, 

 

Currently  2.00231930436182(52), is the most accurate EXPERIMENTAL measurement in physics, classical and Maxwellian of course.    QED obviously predicts a number very close to this, but the bullseye already exists.

 

We can discuss the Lamb shift tomorrow, the other accurate EXPERIMENTAL measurement in physics, classical and Maxwellian of course.    QED obviously predicts a number very good number for this also.

 

Cheers,

Barry



#6 brave_ulysses

brave_ulysses

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,291
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2009
  • Loc: far outside the wire

Posted 29 January 2020 - 08:18 AM

management here leans pretty heavily on the uncertainty principle for our yearly bonuses


  • Astrojensen, Keith Rivich and rowdy388 like this

#7 bcgilbert

bcgilbert

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 46
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2020
  • Loc: Tamworth, NSW, Australia

Posted 29 January 2020 - 08:40 AM

I think it's lots of stuff

 

 

https://www.forbes.c...s/#7365db954046

Can I just take the laser first,  the inventor of the laser was Charles H.Townes, he happened to mention to Niels Bohr, what he was working on, Bohr said that such a device couldn't possibly work, due to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.  Twenty years later QM came up with "bunching" and "antibunching of photons", Poisson sub Poisson and Super Poisson arrival statistics, they then erroneously claimed the wrong arrival statistics to the laser, not realising that they were in fact measuring the contribution of the attenuator following the laser to the statistics and not the laser,  truth is the laser is a classical continuous wave device that has no photons.  Classical standing wave patterns, in the atoms orbitals provide the discrete energy levels required for the laser to operate.

 

Cheers,

Barry


  • Migwan likes this

#8 TOMDEY

TOMDEY

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,730
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014
  • Loc: Springwater, NY

Posted 29 January 2020 - 08:55 AM

Well... let's see here. Ok, OK... here's the most spectacular one >>>

 

One hallmark success of QM is the wonderful Atomic Bomb, first successfully demonstrated on July 16th, 1945, and used just three weeks later to hasten the end of global conflagration. So, as you can see, Quantum Mechanics cascades our understanding of the sub-microscopic world to utilitarian applications in our more familiar worlds of bigger things. Even the garden-variety "bulk engineering" rules-of-thumb that you allude; those utilitarian approximations are generated upward from QM and Relativity combined --- all of them!

 

We shall be forever grateful to ingenious giants like Dirac, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Oppenheimer and Feynman... for our comfortable and exciting modern world, made possible by their pioneering decoding of the nature of the Universe that we are allowed to occupy. Ain't Quantum Mechanics and Electrodynamics the coolest things ever?!    Tom

 

~ click on ~ >>>

Attached Thumbnails

  • 60 mushroom cloud atomic bomb 150.jpg

  • Migwan and Rock22 like this

#9 bcgilbert

bcgilbert

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 46
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2020
  • Loc: Tamworth, NSW, Australia

Posted 29 January 2020 - 09:04 AM

It probably comes into electronics and the smaller scale of chips and processors. They are I expect getting small enough now that quantum theory has to be taken into account.

Does come into quantum tunnelling where the uncertainty allows for nuclear fusion, without it then no sun, and no us to argue the merits, or otherwise, of it.

 

Not sure how to quantify "most successful".

It is a bit like having software that instead of:

IF (Condition) THEN

ELSE

 

You have software more like:

IF (Condition) THEN MAYBE

OR

 

Just think what fun a "Maybe" condition would be like in software.

 

If the success of something is based on a sort of it might do A or B then in a way can it be wrong, but also is it right?

We like 1+1 equals 2.

Getting 1+1 might equal 2.

Just doesn't sit overly well.

 

Strange as in one way we use something similar every day: I might have a car accident or I might not. And I guess several thousand other chance things. But we do not think if them as mathematical probabilities of no specific outcome/result.

 

Quantum theory is a calculation to predict the probability of something, not the absolute.

So back to "successful", if the probability is say 75% that something occurs then if whatever it is occurs or not, quantum theory got it right. lol.giflol.giflol.gif

Quantum tunneling devices have existed for many decades in radio devices, transformers , directional couplers, capacitors totally explicable by Maxwell's equations.  You hear a lot of talk about near field devices these days old hat to a trained Maxwellian (another example of quantum tunneling, that they have failed realize just yet).

       You are correct, that near field, or quantum tunneling effects, are causing problems for chip designers, as gate insulation thicknesses decrease to a two or three atoms. 

 

 

Cheers,

Barry



#10 bcgilbert

bcgilbert

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 46
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2020
  • Loc: Tamworth, NSW, Australia

Posted 29 January 2020 - 09:18 AM

Well... let's see here. Ok, OK... here's the most spectacular one >>>

 

One hallmark success of QM is the wonderful Atomic Bomb, first successfully demonstrated on July 16th, 1945, and used just three weeks later to hasten the end of global conflagration. So, as you can see, Quantum Mechanics cascades our understanding of the sub-microscopic world to utilitarian applications in our more familiar worlds of bigger things. Even the garden-variety "bulk engineering" rules-of-thumb that you allude; those utilitarian approximations are generated upward from QM and Relativity combined --- all of them!

 

We shall be forever grateful to ingenious giants like Dirac, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Oppenheimer and Feynman... for our comfortable and exciting modern world, made possible by their pioneering decoding of the nature of the Universe that we are allowed to occupy. Ain't Quantum Mechanics and Electrodynamics the coolest things ever?!    Tom

 

~ click on ~ >>>

I surreptitiously left out, the only decent achievement of QM, hoping I wouldn't get caught, buggar! 

 

Bloody old Albert started it, but he redeemed himself later,  by saying  he wouldn't be attending any more of Bohr's "witches covens".

 

Cheers.

Barry 



#11 Dynan

Dynan

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,614
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2018
  • Loc: NOLA

Posted 29 January 2020 - 09:51 AM

I'm just worn out figuring how to keep my Quantum Computer cooled to −273.14° (−459.66°F). The price of liquid helium is impinging on my astronomy purchases...


  • Rock22 likes this

#12 EJN

EJN

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,544
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2005
  • Loc: Between what is and what's not there

Posted 29 January 2020 - 12:06 PM

In astrophysics, QM was used to explain electron degenerate stars (white dwarfs), and predict neutron degenerate stars (neutron stars). This was through the Fermi-Dirac statistics and the Pauli exclusion principle.

While not necessarily "useful", it certainly had great explanatory power.


Is this thread yet another case of "I don't understand it therefore it is wrong"?

Edited by EJN, 29 January 2020 - 03:33 PM.

  • lee14, happylimpet and TOMDEY like this

#13 TOMDEY

TOMDEY

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,730
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014
  • Loc: Springwater, NY

Posted 29 January 2020 - 04:04 PM

In astrophysics, QM was used to explain electron degenerate stars (white dwarfs), and predict neutron degenerate stars (neutron stars). This was through the Fermi-Dirac statistics and the Pauli exclusion principle.

While not necessarily "useful", it certainly had great explanatory power.


Is this thread yet another case of "I don't understand it therefore it is wrong"?

I'm guessing possibly piquish just for the sake of attracting constructive conversation... something used by ... come to think of it ... politicians?!

Similarity: My lazy cats are napping in the sun over there... and I'm about to toss this pinch of catnip in their general direction...  Tom

 

~ click on ~  >>>

Attached Thumbnails

  • 62 catnip 50.jpg

  • lee14 likes this

#14 Jeff Lee

Jeff Lee

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,850
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2006

Posted 29 January 2020 - 04:24 PM

Well... let's see here. Ok, OK... here's the most spectacular one >>>

 

One hallmark success of QM is the wonderful Atomic Bomb, first successfully demonstrated on July 16th, 1945, and used just three weeks later to hasten the end of global conflagration. So, as you can see, Quantum Mechanics cascades our understanding of the sub-microscopic world to utilitarian applications in our more familiar worlds of bigger things. Even the garden-variety "bulk engineering" rules-of-thumb that you allude; those utilitarian approximations are generated upward from QM and Relativity combined --- all of them!

 

We shall be forever grateful to ingenious giants like Dirac, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Oppenheimer and Feynman... for our comfortable and exciting modern world, made possible by their pioneering decoding of the nature of the Universe that we are allowed to occupy. Ain't Quantum Mechanics and Electrodynamics the coolest things ever?!    Tom

 

~ click on ~ >>>

If you had been slated to be in the first wave to invade the main island, you would think the Bomb wonderful. The world has always been a dangerous place, just ask the dinosaurs.



#15 bcgilbert

bcgilbert

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 46
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2020
  • Loc: Tamworth, NSW, Australia

Posted 29 January 2020 - 07:16 PM

In astrophysics, QM was used to explain electron degenerate stars (white dwarfs), and predict neutron degenerate stars (neutron stars). This was through the Fermi-Dirac statistics and the Pauli exclusion principle.

While not necessarily "useful", it certainly had great explanatory power.


Is this thread yet another case of "I don't understand it therefore it is wrong"?

A bit below the belt mate,  however you're right, I Don't understand astrology, theism, pyramid power, entanglement, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, the collapse of the wave function, the photon, quantum encryption, quantum teleportation, or Santa.  Therefore It's all wrong!

 

Basically anything supernatural or superluminal. In other words, I agree with Einstein, except for his absurd "light quanta".

      Surprisingly I do believe in wave particle duality, in some special cases.  an electron can  simultaneously have wave and particle properties.  The tumbling magnetic moment of a fast moving electron, must radiate.  This form of wave particle duality solves Feynman's, "only one real problem in physics", Young's two slit with electrons.  Where is my Nobel prize, that he promised, to anyone that could explain ?

      The rest of physics, quantum or otherwise, is fine with me, I know very little nuclear or particle physics so I can't really comment on your white dwarfs, other than to say Pauli's

exclusion principle relies on wave functions. I boil it down to, two granite boulders cannot occupy the same space, but the magnetic field surrounding two magnets can.

 

     I am treading on dangerous ground here, mentioning Fred Hoyle, but he would surely have a lot say about your white dwarfs, I'm pretty sure, he was not a QM.

 

Supernatural or superluminal has no place in physics It Is Theism creeping into our physics,

 

Barry. 


Edited by bcgilbert, 29 January 2020 - 07:34 PM.


#16 EJN

EJN

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,544
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2005
  • Loc: Between what is and what's not there

Posted 29 January 2020 - 08:15 PM

I am treading on dangerous ground here, mentioning Fred Hoyle, but he would surely have a lot say about your white dwarfs, I'm pretty sure, he was not a QM.

 

Well as it so happens I have 2 books by Hoyle, the classic Frontiers of Astronomy and A Different

View of Cosmology

 

In Frontiers of Astronomy, he talks about electron degeneracy pressure in white dwarfs. I just

pulled out the book to check this.

 

In the other book, which defends his later "quasi-steady state theory," the C-field he postulates in

steady state which is responsible for the continuous creation of matter is a scalar quantum field,

in some respects similar to the Higgs field.

 

Also, his most well known "mainstream" work was of stellar nucleosynthesis, by fusion and

neutron capture through the R and S process, which are QM phenomena.

 

So saying he was not QM is just...wrong.

 

 

 

 

I know very little nuclear or particle physics so I can't really comment on your white dwarfs, other than to say Pauli's exclusion principle relies on wave functions. I boil it down to, two granite boulders cannot occupy the same space, but the magnetic field surrounding two magnets can.

 

More precisely, it says that two fermions with identical quantum numbers cannot be in the same place

at the same time. That's why each individual orbital of an atom can contain 2 electrons, one of spin 1/2 and

the other of spin -1/2, because that is the only degree of freedom available.

 

However that restriction does not apply to bosons and their associated fields.

 

 

 

 

 

I agree with Einstein, except for his absurd "light quanta".

 

E = hv


Edited by EJN, 30 January 2020 - 08:11 PM.

  • Jay_Bird likes this

#17 BillP

BillP

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 19,137
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Spotsylvania, VA

Posted 29 January 2020 - 10:05 PM

 Our modern technological marvels don't use it.

Why does it matter?  Nothing in cosmology is the slightest bit practically useful.  As physicist Richard Feynman wrote: "He [a friend] does work on cosmology and astronomy, and he wondered how he would explain what the applications of this work were [for a radio show].  'Well' I said, 'there aren't any.' "  He wrote this is a section talking about the lack of ethics in science sometimes.  In this instance he was making the point to not to be dishonest with the public trying to say there is practical benefit to maintain your funding.  Instead tell the truth and let the cards fall where they will without deception.

 

As far as technologies that use QM, I believe you will find that how QM describes things is needed for atomic clocks, like the cesium fountain clock.  There are also quite a host of quantum algorithms that have been developed to speed up calculations over conventional algorithms for such things as Integer Factorization, Fourier Transformations, many others.  In the realm of quantum computation there are numerous real-world improvements in the pipeline from nitrogen fixation to cloud computing.  NASA got their first quantum computer in 2013 and it proved in their first test on a difficult problem to be just about 100 million times faster!

 

Here's a nice NASA video of a talk on QM and some research being done.  https://www.nasa.gov...s/mark-kasevich


Edited by BillP, 29 January 2020 - 10:09 PM.


#18 MikiSJ

MikiSJ

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 337
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2018
  • Loc: San Jose

Posted 29 January 2020 - 10:25 PM

The price of liquid helium is impinging on my astronomy purchases...

We need to stop filling party balloons with the stuff.


  • Dynan likes this

#19 bcgilbert

bcgilbert

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 46
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2020
  • Loc: Tamworth, NSW, Australia

Posted 29 January 2020 - 11:03 PM

   I stand corrected on Fred not being a QM. 

 

     But I agree with Max Plank that quantization E = hv only exists in the particles of matter not in the field.  The radiated field behaves as per Maxwell.  Albert did not agree with this, on energy conservation grounds, and was somewhat justified for the state of knowledge at that time. 

Max and Albert eventually fell out over this issue.  The problem that Albert wrestled with, was that a Plank unit of energy radiated from a particle in a Maxwellian fashion would follow 1/ distance drop off of the field, he claimed that the maxwellian radiation would have to be in the form of 'needle radiation" or "nadel strahlung" which is not observed in nature.

      The modern laser, is an example of needle radiation, as is the microwave parabolic dish. However needle radiation alone cannot explain Plank units of energy be translated large distances between particles.  You have to invoke real zero point energy.

      Zero point energy is a classical  entity that is more or less identical to quantum noise, virtual particles, or quantum uncertainty, but is considered real, and when added to attenuated maxwellian fields, the vector sum can provide a Plank unit of energy to a particle at great distances from the source particle.     Stochastic Electro Dynamic adherents, subscribe to this theory, they are much derided by QM's of course.

 

      I take It you don't have a problem with superluminal or supernatural aspects QM because you failed to acknowledge anything I said about being fine with all of QM except  for those aspects. 

 

Explain  your view of the EPR debate, or entanglement, or faster than light quantum tunneling, how a photon know what to do when interacting with a pile of plates polariser  or better yet when can I expect my quantum computer.

 

cheers .

Barry 



#20 bcgilbert

bcgilbert

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 46
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2020
  • Loc: Tamworth, NSW, Australia

Posted 29 January 2020 - 11:37 PM

Why does it matter?  Nothing in cosmology is the slightest bit practically useful.  As physicist Richard Feynman wrote: "He [a friend] does work on cosmology and astronomy, and he wondered how he would explain what the applications of this work were [for a radio show].  'Well' I said, 'there aren't any.' "  He wrote this is a section talking about the lack of ethics in science sometimes.  In this instance he was making the point to not to be dishonest with the public trying to say there is practical benefit to maintain your funding.  Instead tell the truth and let the cards fall where they will without deception.

 

As far as technologies that use QM, I believe you will find that how QM describes things is needed for atomic clocks, like the cesium fountain clock.  There are also quite a host of quantum algorithms that have been developed to speed up calculations over conventional algorithms for such things as Integer Factorization, Fourier Transformations, many others.  In the realm of quantum computation there are numerous real-world improvements in the pipeline from nitrogen fixation to cloud computing.  NASA got their first quantum computer in 2013 and it proved in their first test on a difficult problem to be just about 100 million times faster!

 

Here's a nice NASA video of a talk on QM and some research being done.  https://www.nasa.gov...s/mark-kasevich

    I don't believe the crap about NASA's 100 million times faster  computer, It's probably a D -wave, even QM's don't believe it's a quantum computer.

   You mention Fourier Transformations, did you know that a glass lense, out of your telescope, can perform 3D transforms at light speed with resolution equal to the diffraction limit of your lense faster than any quantum computer proposed, at room temperature.  By the way it's totally classical.

As for your algorithms, I'm totally fine with them as long as there is no magic sauce in them     

No superluminal or supernatural I'm totally fine.

 

Cheers,

Barry



#21 Keith Rivich

Keith Rivich

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,986
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2011
  • Loc: Cypress, Tx

Posted 30 January 2020 - 12:52 PM

       Almost every article in the popular scientific media, preface their "drivel", with statements, like, "the most successful theory ever", or "the most accurate theory ever",  I actually wonder if anyone actually use It? I believe chemists use a set of cook book rules, probably derived from Schrodinger's equations.

     Our modern technological marvels don't use it.  Engineers  do all the heavy lifting In spite of QM's saying you can't do this or that because of Heisenberg's  uncertainty principle.  QM has put Its neck on the line with Its Quantum computer, It's always just another  twenty years away.  The underlying principle of Entanglement  has not been successfully demonstrated, yet they persist, because funding abounds.

 

 Anyone care to take exception to my rant?

 Barry

I suppose I am on the other side of the fence on this question. Asking for and expecting immediate "correct" answers to very difficult questions seem a bit off to me. Do I believe scientist fudge a bit to keep funding...sure, they are human with human qualities. Do I believe in some underlying conspiracy...no. 

 

As far as articles go I take all with a giant grain of salt. These authors are trying to sell their product and embellishing is a huge part of the game. 


  • llanitedave likes this

#22 Rock22

Rock22

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 423
  • Joined: 28 Aug 2017
  • Loc: Diamond Bar, California

Posted 30 January 2020 - 01:28 PM

Well... let's see here. Ok, OK... here's the most spectacular one >>>

 

One hallmark success of QM is the wonderful Atomic Bomb, first successfully demonstrated on July 16th, 1945, and used just three weeks later to hasten the end of global conflagration. So, as you can see, Quantum Mechanics cascades our understanding of the sub-microscopic world to utilitarian applications in our more familiar worlds of bigger things. Even the garden-variety "bulk engineering" rules-of-thumb that you allude; those utilitarian approximations are generated upward from QM and Relativity combined --- all of them!

 

We shall be forever grateful to ingenious giants like Dirac, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Oppenheimer and Feynman... for our comfortable and exciting modern world, made possible by their pioneering decoding of the nature of the Universe that we are allowed to occupy. Ain't Quantum Mechanics and Electrodynamics the coolest things ever?!    Tom

 

~ click on ~ >>>

... just electrodynamics... and gravity.  Maybe catnip.


Edited by Rock22, 30 January 2020 - 01:31 PM.


#23 bcgilbert

bcgilbert

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 46
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2020
  • Loc: Tamworth, NSW, Australia

Posted 30 January 2020 - 10:24 PM

1) Superluminal - I take it you are referring to what is more commonly called "non-locality" in quantum entanglement which lead to Bell's theorem, and the experiments by Alain Aspect & others which confirmed the theorem. What do you object to, the theorem or the experimental data?

 

      I'm bothered with the same aspects of QM as Einstein.  It's that simple.

You can quibble about language and style, but my mission is to continue supporting Einsteins strong objection to the Copenhagen interpretation of QM.

In Einstein's language "spooky action at a distance".

In philosopher's speak,  "nonlocality".

I prefer "superluminal", because nonlocality has evolved over time to mean almost anything.

If you are familiar with the arguments between Bohr and Einstein back in the 1920's, Einstein came up with a brilliant thought experiment to disprove Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

 

I believe Einstein won the argument there and then, however the majority of the physicists of the day supported Bohr's view.  The Copenhagen interpretation is born.

 

In Bohr and Einsteins day, no one ever thought an experiment could be devised to test their arguments.

In 1972, S.J. Freedman and F. Clauser, performed low energy photon  polarization correlations, from calcium transitions. Bell tests of the form, known as the Freedman inequality  and also the CSSH inequality were used in the experiment, disagreement with these inequalities was the result, therefore supporting the Einstein interpretation.

 

QM's not happy with this result suspected unspecified faults in the experiment and repeated the experiment many many times since.  The experiments have used different physics(low and high energy photons, particles nonlinear parametric down conversion etc.) different forms of Bell inequalities.  The score to date is Einstein 2, Bohr 30+, the experiments continue to this day.   These experiments have free parameters as well quantum assumptions that invalidate them according to Popperian logic 

 

It may come to you as a bit of a surprise, that the much revered (by QM's) John Bell, says these experiments prove nothing and are of little  value, and that QM is a "dirty theory" that one day will be replaced. You won't find quotes like this, in new scientist or Scientific American, more likely "Bell proves Einstein wrong"

 

So now we have another bloke bothered by QM, Einstein, J. S. Bell, me and a few others.

 

I hope this was not interpreted as a rant, I can provide references for all of the above, if you're genuinely interested.   There is a group that I'm loosely associated with, that dabble with an alternative theory to QM, called Stochastic  Electrodynamics (SED), Google them.

 

Trying not to rant.

Barry.


Edited by bcgilbert, 30 January 2020 - 10:25 PM.


#24 DaveC2042

DaveC2042

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 229
  • Joined: 18 Jul 2018
  • Loc: Sydney, Australia

Posted 31 January 2020 - 12:26 AM

Taking the question seriously, and assuming good faith:

 

The question in my view profoundly misunderstands the structure of modern science.

 

First, modern science is an integrated structure.  At bottom it is based on three 'big' theories: relativity, quantum mechanics and statistical mechanics.  These are not perfect understandings of how the universe works, and are not even fully consistent with each other, but at the moment they are the best we have.

 

Everything else in science is built up from these theories.  So for example, we combine relativity and QM as best we can and get the Dirac equation.  The Dirac equation then describes chemistry perfectly.  But the physics is too complicated so we have the approximations that are chemistry.  Chemistry then describes molecular biology perfectly.  But the chemistry is too complicated so we have the approximations that are molecular chemistry.  Etc.

 

So to pick out any bit of science (eg QM) and say you don't like it, doesn't make any sense unless you then follow through and say you also don't like all the things it is connected to, which is really all of science.

 

So here, complaining about QM and saying EM is 'better' is missing the point that they are really different aspects of the same thing.

 

Secondly, science is not trying to explain what is 'really' going on.  It is a working description of phenomena.  This is not a problem with science, it is a problem with reality.  We can only ever experience reality intermediated by equipment or our senses,  So the interpretation of a theory (eg is the wavefunction 'real') is only ever a useful heuristic.  The heuristics are sometimes extremely useful, and sometimes look like they are connected with 'reality', but they are still just heuristics.  At bottom, 'shut up an calculate' is actually where we are.

 

So here, complaining that a particular interpretation of QM 'makes no sense' is missing the point that QM is a scientific theory, and its value is the ability to guide us to getting the right answers when we ask what will happen in a particular circumstance, and the interpretation is not actually a core part of the theory.


  • llanitedave, Astrojensen, Crow Haven and 3 others like this

#25 DaveC2042

DaveC2042

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 229
  • Joined: 18 Jul 2018
  • Loc: Sydney, Australia

Posted 31 January 2020 - 03:32 AM

And thirdly, it's worth ticking off various cases:

  1. If your theory produces all the same observable results as QM, it is QM, and arguing about whether your theory 'makes more sense' is pointless.  All you've done is repackage QM;
  2. If your theory disagrees with QM where QM is already verified to correctly predict observations, your theory is wrong regardless of how much sense it makes;
  3. If your theory disagrees with QM where QM is known to fail to correctly predict observations, and your theory correctly predicts those observations, then your theory is right and you get a Nobel Prize;
  4. If your theory disagrees with QM where QM is known to fail to correctly predict observations, and your theory gives different incorrect predictions, then so what;
  5. If your theory disagrees with QM in circumstances where we cannot test the predictions (eg inside a black hole), then that's nice, and maybe you have something, but let's wait until we can test it before you claim your Nobel Prize.  String theory seems to fall into this category.

My sense is that most attempts to 'prove QM is wrong' fall into categories 1 and 2, but are loudly proclaimed to be in category 3.  String theorists seem to at least be honest that they are in category 5.

 

One key thing in recent decades is that category 2 has been greatly enlarged by the experimental verification of Bell's Theorem.  Essentially, this says that, like it or not, there is apparent 'spooky action at a distance', and this aspect of QM is correct.  (I say apparent because it doesn't transfer information faster than light, however there is a very real effect.)  This kills off a whole bunch of possible theories that claim to 'make more sense' than QM - maybe your theory makes sense, but unfortunately the universe doesn't.


  • Astrojensen, Crow Haven, brave_ulysses and 3 others like this


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics