• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What is wrong with Quantum Mechanics?

Re: The family business

The biggest problem with Quantum Mechanics is
not one of them know how to properly tune a
1971 Pontiac Firebird ..
or a '93 Ford f-250 truck ..
Obviously all that education is NOT the
value it was once.
 
Re: The family business

The biggest problem with Quantum Mechanics is
not one of them know how to properly tune a
1971 Pontiac Firebird ..
or a '93 Ford f-250 truck ..
Obviously all that education is NOT the
value it was once.

Quantum mechanics is like the dark closet of speculative answers where scientists go when they cannot otherwise explain discrepancies in calculations produced by normal physics. Physics is the study of things that are real or observable, whereas quantum mechanics involves things that can only be theorized about, not seen and scientifically recorded as evidence. Quantum mechanics is like God. Invisible. Incapable of comprehension. Impossible to irrefutably describe or define.

I am reminded of the invention of the neutrino, for example. When scientists abandoned Lord Byron's gravitational contraction theory of the sun's energy source and jumped onto the nuclear fusion theory, they ran into a problem with the actual measurements of beta particles emitted from the sun's nuclear reactions when assuming that new theory. The end result was the invention of the neutrino. It took nearly 70 years to even begin to find actual evidence of the neutrino in particle measurements, but the theorists persisted. Now we have new theories involving quarks and dark matter and more incomprehensible mysteries baffling researchers. They invented the super collider but never really found the 'God particle' they were looking for, even though they claimed they achieved success in spite of their failure.

We have scientific stalwarts like the Standard Model of Particle Physics which have uncovered more unresolved questions than answers. It must be frustrating to researchers seeking answers to keep uncovering new and more puzzling questions and contradictions to have to deal with as they move forward.
 
Last edited:
Re: The family business

Quantum mechanics is like the dark closet of speculative answers where scientists go when they cannot otherwise explain discrepancies in calculations produced by normal physics. Physics is the study of things that are real or observable, whereas quantum mechanics involves things that can only be theorized about, not seen and scientifically recorded as evidence. Quantum mechanics is like God. Invisible. Incapable of comprehension. Impossible to irrefutably describe or define.

I am reminded of the invention of the neutrino, for example. When scientists abandoned Lord Byron's gravitational contraction theory of the sun's energy source and jumped onto the nuclear fusion theory, they ran into a problem with the actual measurements of beta particles emitted from the sun's nuclear reactions when assuming that new theory. The end result was the invention of the neutrino. It took nearly 70 years to even begin to find actual evidence of the neutrino in particle measurements, but the theorists persisted. Now we have new theories involving quarks and dark matter and more incomprehensible mysteries baffling researchers. They invented the super collider but never really found the 'God particle' they were looking for, even though they claimed they achieved success in spite of their failure.

We have scientific stalwarts like the Standard Model of Particle Physics which have uncovered more unresolved questions than answers. It must be frustrating to researchers seeking answers to keep uncovering new and more puzzling questions and contradictions to have to deal with as they move forward.

Lord Byron was a poet! The rest of your post is equally ill-informed. Are you saying that neutrinos do not exist?
 
Re: The family business

Quantum mechanics is like the dark closet of speculative answers where scientists go when they cannot otherwise explain discrepancies in calculations produced by normal physics. Physics is the study of things that are real or observable, whereas quantum mechanics involves things that can only be theorized about, not seen and scientifically recorded as evidence. Quantum mechanics is like God. Invisible. Incapable of comprehension. Impossible to irrefutably describe or define.

I am reminded of the invention of the neutrino, for example. When scientists abandoned Lord Byron's gravitational contraction theory of the sun's energy source and jumped onto the nuclear fusion theory, they ran into a problem with the actual measurements of beta particles emitted from the sun's nuclear reactions when assuming that new theory. The end result was the invention of the neutrino. It took nearly 70 years to even begin to find actual evidence of the neutrino in particle measurements, but the theorists persisted. Now we have new theories involving quarks and dark matter and more incomprehensible mysteries baffling researchers. They invented the super collider but never really found the 'God particle' they were looking for, even though they claimed they achieved success in spite of their failure.

We have scientific stalwarts like the Standard Model of Particle Physics which have uncovered more unresolved questions than answers. It must be frustrating to researchers seeking answers to keep uncovering new and more puzzling questions and contradictions to have to deal with as they move forward.

:roll:
...in 1964, physicist John Stewart Bell proved that quantum physics was in fact a complete and workable theory. His results, now called Bell’s Theorem, effectively proved that quantum properties like entanglement are as real as the moon, and today the bizarre behaviors of quantum systems are being harnessed for use in a variety of real-world applications. Here are five of the most intriguing:
Five Practical Uses for "Spooky" Quantum Mechanics.
 
Re: The family business

Ignoring the ignorant, let's explore QM further. Shall we?

One fascinating aspect of QM is that it stumped Einstein. In fact, I'd stipulate that QM ushered in the downside of the great scientist's career.

...in a 1964 paper titled "On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox", referring to a 1935 thought experiment that Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen used to argue that quantum physics is an "incomplete" theory.[1][2] By 1935, it was already recognized that the predictions of quantum physics are probabilistic. Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen presented a scenario that, in their view, indicated that quantum particles, like electrons and photons, must carry physical properties or attributes not included in quantum theory, and the uncertainties in quantum theory's predictions are due to ignorance of these properties, later termed "hidden variables". Their scenario involves a pair of widely separated physical objects, prepared in such a way that the quantum state of the pair is entangled.

Bell carried the analysis of quantum entanglement much further. He deduced that if measurements are performed independently on the two separated halves of a pair, then the assumption that the outcomes depend upon hidden variables within each half implies a constraint on how the outcomes on the two halves are correlated. This constraint would later be named the Bell inequality. Bell then showed that quantum physics predicts correlations that violate this inequality. Consequently, the only way that hidden variables could explain the predictions of quantum physics is if they are "nonlocal", somehow associated with both halves of the pair and able to carry influences instantly between them no matter how widely the two halves are separated.[3][4] As Bell wrote later, "If [a hidden-variable theory] is local it will not agree with quantum mechanics, and if it agrees with quantum mechanics it will not be local."[5]

Multiple variations on Bell's theorem were proved in the following years, introducing other closely related conditions generally known as Bell (or "Bell-type") inequalities.

Bell's theorem - Wikipedia

Most physicist today agree that when it came to QM, Einstien was out of his league.
 
Re: The family business

...

We have scientific stalwarts like the Standard Model of Particle Physics which have uncovered more unresolved questions than answers. It must be frustrating to researchers seeking answers to keep uncovering new and more puzzling questions and contradictions to have to deal with as they move forward.

Um, that's the point of science. Science is empirical - there are no preconceived notions, except a dedication to discovering truth & continuing to investigate the World from there. Since the Industrial Revolution, our instruments & methodologies keep improving - we can measure smaller intervals, see smaller objects, & so on. With new observations come theories to account for observations. Once consensus coalesces around the likeliest explanation, we move on to further investigations, & so on.
 
The problem most people have with QM is that they don't understand it. I blame lack of education for that deficit.
 
Re: The family business

Lord Byron was a poet! The rest of your post is equally ill-informed. Are you saying that neutrinos do not exist?

You are right. I meant Lord Kelvin, not Lord Byron. I fear I may be suffering from the same degenerative old age brain disorder that Biden currently seems to be afflicted with. I offer no excuses for myself and extend condolences to Biden and his family.

I'm simply pointing out that scientists were having a problem getting their scientific measurements of the decay particles from the sun to match up with their newly promoted theory of nuclear fusion as the sun's energy source, so they invented the neutrino, a new particle which had never before been detected or identified. In fact, researchers were unable to positively demonstrate the existence of the neutrino for nearly 70 years and only then were able to offer some proof of its existence after changing their assumptions about it.

Here is an interesting article on neutrinos:

The Solar FAQ: Solar Neutrinos and Other Solar Oddities

What are neutrinos?

Interestingly enough, the neutrino was first invented as an ad hoc hypothesis, in order to save the laws of conservation of energy and momentum from falsification. Around 1930, in the first detailed studies of radioactive beta-decays, it was found that some energy and momentum went missing in each decay. Beta decay involves the conversion of a neutron into a proton, accompanied by the emission of an electron, and nothing else visible. The energy carried away by the electron ought to match the energy released by the atom in the process – but it didn't! Wolfgang Pauli proposed to explain this discrepancy by postulating that an additional, invisible particle was emitted along with the electron, carrying away the missing energy and momentum. This "ghost particle" was named neutrino.

(For some of Pauli's original musings about the neutrino, see Mössbauer (1998).)
Now, ad hoc hypotheses, invented purely to save our favorite theories, are generally frowned upon in science, and for good reason. But the neutrino hypothesis was ultimately vindicated, when the ghost particle was finally demonstrated to have a real existence, more than twenty years later. Today, the neutrino is well established as partner to the electron in our standard theory of elementary particles. It has the same basic properties as the electron, and participates in the same interactions, except that it lacks an electric charge, and has a nearly zero mass.
 
Re: The family business


QM is a theory which is plagued with scientific problems. It shows promise while at the same time demonstrates unsolvable problems and difficulties in scientific measurements and other theories.

Here is an example of the types of difficulties QM assumptions pose:

List of unsolved problems in physics - Wikipedia

Interpretation of quantum mechanics: How does the quantum description of reality, which includes elements such as the superposition of states and wavefunction collapse or quantum decoherence, give rise to the reality we perceive?[4] Another way of stating this question regards the measurement problem: What constitutes a "measurement" which apparently causes the wave function to collapse into a definite state? Unlike classical physical processes, some quantum mechanical processes (such as quantum teleportation arising from quantum entanglement) cannot be simultaneously "local", "causal", and "real", but it is not obvious which of these properties must be sacrificed,[5] or if an attempt to describe quantum mechanical processes in these senses is a category error such that a proper understanding of quantum mechanics would render the question meaningless. Can a multiverse resolve it?
 
Re: The family business

Ignoring the ignorant, let's explore QM further. Shall we?

One fascinating aspect of QM is that it stumped Einstein. In fact, I'd stipulate that QM ushered in the downside of the great scientist's career.

Most physicist today agree that when it came to QM, Einstien was out of his league.

Quantum Mechanics is not settled science. There remain many respectable scientists who disagree with one or more aspects of QM theories.

Physicists Disagree Over Meaning of Quantum Mechanics, Poll Shows | Live Science

The 16-question poll was given to 33 physicists, philosophers and mathematicians at a conference on "Quantum Physics and the Nature of Reality" in Austria in July 2011. The poll probed the experts' thoughts on fundamental tenets of the theory, such as the randomness of nature and the impact of outside measurements on quantum systems.

Though the pollsters admit the sample size is small and the test not completely scientific, they found a striking divide among the experts on some of the most basic principles of quantum mechanics.

 
Re: The family business

You are right. I meant Lord Kelvin, not Lord Byron. I fear I may be suffering from the same degenerative old age brain disorder that Biden currently seems to be afflicted with. I offer no excuses for myself and extend condolences to Biden and his family.

I'm simply pointing out that scientists were having a problem getting their scientific measurements of the decay particles from the sun to match up with their newly promoted theory of nuclear fusion as the sun's energy source, so they invented the neutrino, a new particle which had never before been detected or identified. In fact, researchers were unable to positively demonstrate the existence of the neutrino for nearly 70 years and only then were able to offer some proof of its existence after changing their assumptions about it.

Here is an interesting article on neutrinos:

The Solar FAQ: Solar Neutrinos and Other Solar Oddities

What are neutrinos?

Interestingly enough, the neutrino was first invented as an ad hoc hypothesis, in order to save the laws of conservation of energy and momentum from falsification. Around 1930, in the first detailed studies of radioactive beta-decays, it was found that some energy and momentum went missing in each decay. Beta decay involves the conversion of a neutron into a proton, accompanied by the emission of an electron, and nothing else visible. The energy carried away by the electron ought to match the energy released by the atom in the process – but it didn't! Wolfgang Pauli proposed to explain this discrepancy by postulating that an additional, invisible particle was emitted along with the electron, carrying away the missing energy and momentum. This "ghost particle" was named neutrino.

(For some of Pauli's original musings about the neutrino, see Mössbauer (1998).)
Now, ad hoc hypotheses, invented purely to save our favorite theories, are generally frowned upon in science, and for good reason. But the neutrino hypothesis was ultimately vindicated, when the ghost particle was finally demonstrated to have a real existence, more than twenty years later. Today, the neutrino is well established as partner to the electron in our standard theory of elementary particles. It has the same basic properties as the electron, and participates in the same interactions, except that it lacks an electric charge, and has a nearly zero mass.

And they were correct, so what is the problem?
 
Re: The family business

Um, that's the point of science. Science is empirical - there are no preconceived notions, except a dedication to discovering truth & continuing to investigate the World from there. Since the Industrial Revolution, our instruments & methodologies keep improving - we can measure smaller intervals, see smaller objects, & so on. With new observations come theories to account for observations. Once consensus coalesces around the likeliest explanation, we move on to further investigations, & so on.

QM may find more acceptance as solid science over time, but it has not yet been proven to be solid right now.

Physicists Disagree Over Meaning of Quantum Mechanics, Poll Shows | Live Science

The 16-question poll was given to 33 physicists, philosophers and mathematicians at a conference on "Quantum Physics and the Nature of Reality" in Austria in July 2011. The poll probed the experts' thoughts on fundamental tenets of the theory, such as the randomness of nature and the impact of outside measurements on quantum systems.

Though the pollsters admit the sample size is small and the test not completely scientific, they found a striking divide among the experts on some of the most basic principles of quantum mechanics.
 
Re: The family business

Quantum Mechanics is not settled science. There remain many respectable scientists who disagree with one or more aspects of QM theories.

Physicists Disagree Over Meaning of Quantum Mechanics, Poll Shows | Live Science

The 16-question poll was given to 33 physicists, philosophers and mathematicians at a conference on "Quantum Physics and the Nature of Reality" in Austria in July 2011. The poll probed the experts' thoughts on fundamental tenets of the theory, such as the randomness of nature and the impact of outside measurements on quantum systems.

Though the pollsters admit the sample size is small and the test not completely scientific, they found a striking divide among the experts on some of the most basic principles of quantum mechanics.

Science is not set in stone, new discoveries happen a lot.
Do you have an alternative to QM?
 
The problem most people have with QM is that they don't understand it. I blame lack of education for that deficit.

True. QM is very hard to understand, although it may be edited and refined over time to become more acceptable as solid science by more respectable scientists. Right now, however, it does not find universal acceptance among respectable physicists.
 
Re: The family business

And they were correct, so what is the problem?

Wikipedia once had a listing under the title "The Neutrino Problem." I have a paper copy of that listed article in my files, but Wikipedia has since modified the report and changed its title. I can understand why. Nevertheless, scientists struggled for decades with problems with their neutrino, including the problem of capturing actual evidence of it in scientific measurements and observations. Wikipedia still alludes to the problem in the revised article on neutrinos:

Solar neutrino problem - Wikipedia.

The solar neutrino problem was resolved with an improved understanding of the properties of neutrinos. According to the Standard Model of particle physics, there are three flavors of neutrinos: electron neutrinos, muon neutrinos, and tau neutrinos. Electron neutrinos are the ones produced in the Sun and the ones detected by the above-mentioned experiments, in particular the chlorine-detector Homestake Mine experiment.
 
Re: The family business

QM may find more acceptance as solid science over time, but it has not yet been proven to be solid right now.

Physicists Disagree Over Meaning of Quantum Mechanics, Poll Shows | Live Science

The 16-question poll was given to 33 physicists, philosophers and mathematicians at a conference on "Quantum Physics and the Nature of Reality" in Austria in July 2011. The poll probed the experts' thoughts on fundamental tenets of the theory, such as the randomness of nature and the impact of outside measurements on quantum systems.

Though the pollsters admit the sample size is small and the test not completely scientific, they found a striking divide among the experts on some of the most basic principles of quantum mechanics.

A good source. But the small poll was executed nine years ago, & not written up in LiveScience until 2013.

There isn't more recent - & more rigorous - polling?
 
Re: The family business

QM may find more acceptance as solid science over time, but it has not yet been proven to be solid right now.

Physicists Disagree Over Meaning of Quantum Mechanics, Poll Shows | Live Science

The 16-question poll was given to 33 physicists, philosophers and mathematicians at a conference on "Quantum Physics and the Nature of Reality" in Austria in July 2011. The poll probed the experts' thoughts on fundamental tenets of the theory, such as the randomness of nature and the impact of outside measurements on quantum systems.

Though the pollsters admit the sample size is small and the test not completely scientific, they found a striking divide among the experts on some of the most basic principles of quantum mechanics.

Yah. & the other problem - the headline refers only to physicists. But it wasn't only physicists who responded. See https://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.1069.pdf

"Just as Tegmark’s poll, our poll cannot claim to be representative of the communities at large.
But, as a snapshot, it contains interesting—and in parts even surprising—information. A total
of 33 people turned in their completed questionnaires; of those, 27 stated their main academic
affiliation as physics, 5 as philosophy, and 3 as mathematics (here, too, multiple answers were

∗E-mail: schlossh@up.edu
1
arXiv:1301.1069v1 [quant-ph] 6 Jan 2013

"allowed). While this is not a huge sample size, it is to our knowledge the most comprehensive poll
of quantum-foundational views ever conducted.1 Also, we were certainly aware of the fact that the
multiple-choice format can sometimes obliterate the all-important nuances: two people may check
the answer “local realism is untenable,” and yet mean completely different concepts by each word
in this sentence."

(My emphasis - More @ the URL)

Eight of 33 respondents don't self-identify as physicists. & so a more honest headline would have been Respondents disagree ... But maybe the uncertainty principle overwhelmed them, hm? Also, two of the attendees @ the conference (where the polling took place) did not respond to the poll @ all.
 
True. QM is very hard to understand, although it may be edited and refined over time to become more acceptable as solid science by more respectable scientists. Right now, however, it does not find universal acceptance among respectable physicists.

:roll:

:lamo

Then, you are really not going to like this one. :lol:

Quantum gravity - Wikipedia.

This signals the break down of the general theory of relativity and the need for a theory that goes beyond general relativity into the quantum. At distances very close to the center of the black hole (closer than the Planck length), quantum fluctuations of spacetime are expected to play an important role.[2] To describe these quantum effects a theory of quantum gravity is needed. Such a theory should allow the description to be extended closer to the center and might even allow an understanding of physics at the center of a black hole. On more formal grounds one can argue that a classical system cannot consistently be coupled to a quantum one.[3][4]:11–12

The field of quantum gravity is actively developing and theorists are exploring a variety of approaches to the problem of quantum gravity, the most popular approaches being string theory and loop quantum gravity.

Loop quantum gravity - Wikipedia
According to Albert Einstein, gravity is not a force – it is a property of spacetime itself. So far, all attempts to treat gravity as another quantum force equal in importance to electromagnetism and the nuclear forces have failed, and loop quantum gravity is an attempt to develop a quantum theory of gravity based directly on Einstein's geometric formulation rather than the treatment of gravity as a force. To do this, in LQG theory space and time are quantized analogously to the way quantities like energy and momentum are quantized in quantum mechanics. The theory gives a physical picture of spacetime where space and time are granular and discrete directly because of quantization just like photons in the quantum theory of electromagnetism and the discrete energy levels of atoms. An implication of a quantized space is that a minimum distance exists.

LQG postulates that the structure of space is composed of finite loops woven into an extremely fine fabric or network. These networks of loops are called spin networks. The evolution of a spin network, or spin foam, has a scale on the order of a Planck length, approximately 10−35 metres, and smaller scales are meaningless. Consequently, not just matter, but space itself, prefers an atomic structure.
:2rofll:
 
My thoughts on space-time coincide with the quantum, in that I always had a gut feel that the "moment" does not really exist. There is a fluid collection of events we perceive as a moment, but an exact instant of time? It ain't there, say I.

I think of it this way. Is there an exact instant of death or even one for the onset of new life? I say no.

IMO, there are only a series of steps that result in new life or its termination. Break it down to the Planck time, and I am sure we need several of them to achieve the end or beginning of life. Ditto pretty much anything. Events happen in jerky bits of discreet events run through as if in slow motion. The universe is not analog, it's digital.
 
My thoughts on space-time coincide with the quantum, in that I always had a gut feel that the "moment" does not really exist. There is a fluid collection of events we perceive as a moment, but an exact instant of time? It ain't there, say I.

I think of it this way. Is there an exact instant of death or even one for the onset of new life? I say no.

IMO, there are only a series of steps that result in new life or its termination. Break it down to the Planck time, and I am sure we need several of them to achieve the end or beginning of life. Ditto pretty much anything. Events happen in jerky bits of discreet events run through as if in slow motion. The universe is not analog, it's digital.

If memory serves, part of the idea behind the search for what they call "quantum loop gravity" is that space-time is quantized (or at least, quantization of space plays some role in it), which is another way of saying that.
 
My thoughts on space-time coincide with the quantum, in that I always had a gut feel that the "moment" does not really exist. There is a fluid collection of events we perceive as a moment, but an exact instant of time? It ain't there, say I.

I think of it this way. Is there an exact instant of death or even one for the onset of new life? I say no.

IMO, there are only a series of steps that result in new life or its termination. Break it down to the Planck time, and I am sure we need several of them to achieve the end or beginning of life. Ditto pretty much anything. Events happen in jerky bits of discreet events run through as if in slow motion. The universe is not analog, it's digital.

So many possibilities rest in quantum mechanics for endless speculative solutions to life's mysteries.
 
If memory serves, part of the idea behind the search for what they call "quantum loop gravity" is that space-time is quantized (or at least, quantization of space plays some role in it), which is another way of saying that.

Can't understand gravity? Propose some answers to perplexing questions in quantum mechanics where endless contradictions to known physics are possible.
 
Back
Top Bottom