Quantum mechanics is nonsense. Yet Physicists seems to be in love with it. Why?

[Lumia925]

Consider this,
How can Physics, at a fundamental level, be probabilistic?
How can the mere act of observing an experiment, interfere with the progression of the experiment?
Science, should make EXACT predictions. A theory, which can only predict the probability on an event, is fundamentally flawed.

Just because the apparent results match some predictions, doesn't make the theory a proper scientific theory.

A great philosopher once said- moving objects eventually get tired, and stop. The prediction made by this theory, is that an object moving on our planet, without an external source of propulsion tethered to it, will eventually slow down and stop. The basic theory, however, is still highly incorrect.
The fact that some observed results don't deviate from predicted results, doesn't conclusively prove that the theory is correct.

Why has modern science abandoned Einstein's last quest?
Why won't modern Physicists try to continue Einstein's work, and pursue a higher theory that doesn't involve quantum nonsense, yet explains the observed random nature of the quantum world?

 

[Supahos]

You do realize there are likely more than a billion variables in any outcome of anything.... Hell rolling a perfectly spheical ball on a perfectly flat table still has hundreds to determine how far it will roll. It is nearly impossible to look at a set of variables that large and make an exact guess at what something a billionth the size of a human hair will do when you can't even actually observe the event. I think it's come a long way, there is a ways to go, but not 100% of enisteins work is accurate either. As in things dont lose mass as they speed up as e=mc^2 would suggest...

 

[fluffa]

Relativity gives nonsensical answers when you try to scale it down to quantum size, eventually descending to infinite values in its description of gravity. Likewise, quantum mechanics runs into serious trouble when you blow it up to cosmic dimensions

 

[drkatz42]

Your opinion and you're entitled to it! I personally would like to know why a particle can seemingly act as either a particle or wave depending on whether or not it's observed. I would also like to know what is behind quantum entanglement!

 

[Lumia925]

Neat, however there's a lurking problem with your explanation.
If everything is known about the initial state of a non-quantum object, the future of the object can be predicted till eternity.
Everything in the non-quantum world, is 100% predictable. Even the outcome of the roll of a dice is 100% predictable, given that everything about the initial state (such as mass, angle at throw, initial velocity, gravity, air resistance, friction on the table where it lands, etc) is known. This involves use of a large number of variables (but not infinite), but events in the non-quantum world can be predicted.
The problem with quantum level objects (quantum particles in the standard model), is that they seem to follow Heisenberg's uncertainty principle- even if EVERYTHING is known about a quantum particle, the future state of the particle cannot be predicted. The universe appears to be schizophrenic. There appears to be two discrete laws at work, and these two laws are in utter disagreement with one another. This doesn't make much sense. There needs to be ONE law that explains everything. And the Einstenian approach seems to me more scientific. Pauli's approach makes usable predictions, but is counter-intuitive and looks odd. There should be an extension of Einstein's theory which explains the quantum world. Einstein's theory is not wrong, it's just incomplete. The clock ran out on him before he could complete his work, and it's strange everyone is focusing on Quantum mechanics ever since he left the stage. Science is being driven by Engineering - quantum theory makes predictions which engineers can use to design transistors and give us ever more powerful computers. But this isn't the proper approach. Engineering should be driven by science, science should not be driven by engineering

 

[13thmonkey]

Consider this,
How can Physics, at a fundamental level, be probabilistic?
How can the mere act of observing an experiment, interfere with the progression of the experiment?
Science, should make EXACT predictions. A theory, which can only predict the probability on an event, is fundamentally flawed.

Just because the apparent results match some predictions, doesn't make the theory a proper scientific theory.

A great philosopher once said- moving objects eventually get tired, and stop. The prediction made by this theory, is that an object moving on our planet, without an external source of propulsion tethered to it, will eventually slow down and stop. The basic theory, however, is still highly incorrect.
The fact that some observed results don't deviate from predicted results, doesn't conclusively prove that the theory is correct.

Why has modern science abandoned Einstein's last quest?
Why won't modern Physicists try to continue Einstein's work, and pursue a higher theory that doesn't involve quantum nonsense, yet explains the observed random nature of the quantum world?

because experiments have proven that wave particle duality exists. investigate the two slit experiment.

 

[Lumia925]

Consider this,
How can Physics, at a fundamental level, be probabilistic?
How can the mere act of observing an experiment, interfere with the progression of the experiment?
Science, should make EXACT predictions. A theory, which can only predict the probability on an event, is fundamentally flawed.

Just because the apparent results match some predictions, doesn't make the theory a proper scientific theory.

A great philosopher once said- moving objects eventually get tired, and stop. The prediction made by this theory, is that an object moving on our planet, without an external source of propulsion tethered to it, will eventually slow down and stop. The basic theory, however, is still highly incorrect.
The fact that some observed results don't deviate from predicted results, doesn't conclusively prove that the theory is correct.

Why has modern science abandoned Einstein's last quest?
Why won't modern Physicists try to continue Einstein's work, and pursue a higher theory that doesn't involve quantum nonsense, yet explains the observed random nature of the quantum world?

because experiments have proven that wave particle duality exists. investigate the two slit experiment.

I'm familiar with the double slit experiment, it's a standard experiment taught in secondary schools all over the world. But everyone here, and everyone in the scientific community, seems to be missing the point. At the heart of quantum mechanics, lies quantum unpredictability. And this is extremely odd.
It'd be more aesthetically pleasing if someone could complete Einstein's work and explain quantum observations in terms of relativity- instead to trying to explain relativity in terms of quantum mechanics...

 

[13thmonkey]

It might be more aesthetically pleasing, but with quantum dynamics we have proven many things that have been measurable and the predictions of theory are, to use your phrase 'exact'.
Just because you don't like a theory doesn't make it untrue. That's science, develop a conjecture, make measurements that prove the conjecture, and you have a theory that can predict other measurements within the range that the conjecture was valid.

 

[Lumia925]

It might be more aesthetically pleasing, but with quantum dynamics we have proven many things that have been measurable and the predictions of theory are, to use your phrase 'exact'.
....

Isn't the same true for Relativity as well?
Relativity has made some fantastic predictions too (time dilation, gravitational lensing, mass-energy equivalence, just to name a few),
I agree, the fact that I find a theory unappealing and ugly, doesn't mean the theory is wrong.
But the "exact" predictions made by quantum laws, are not really exact.
Quantum==Probability.
The best that quantum mechanics can tell you is "If event A has occurred, event B is HIGHLY probable", and this has indeed been verified experimentally. However, quantum laws cannot make definite predictions like "If event A has occurred, Event B will DEFINITELY follow".
One conclusion of quantum mechanics, extrapolated to encompass non-quantum objects is you start crossing a road, but instead of reaching the other side of the road, you end up in a mountain on a planet orbiting a neutron star in the Andromeda galaxy. This doesn't really happen because the probability of this happening is extremely low, but nevertheless, there's a finite, calculable probability, and if you keep crossing a road repeatedly for trillions of years, you will eventually end up on the Andromeda planet.
In that event iteration, event A is you starting at one side of this road in front of your home, event B is you find yourself on the Andromeda planet.

Consider a simple 'for' loop in C. Say the loop executes one trillion iterations. In one of these iterations, the body of the loop makes such a calculation which defies common sense and causes an absurd result to show up. This would mean either the logic of the code segment is flawed, or the hardware it's running on has malfunctioned. If doesn't matter the loop has performed well in billions of previous iterations. If the code fails under stress test, there's something wrong somewhere.

Don't you think this is extremely odd?


PS: Relativity makes absurd predictions too, 'r' becomes zero, resulting in a division by zero error at the center of a black hole. But if there are two theories, one that cannot explain the center of a black hole, and another that predicts the above street-crossing and landing in Andromeda result, wouldn't it make more sense to pursue the first theory?

 

[13thmonkey]

No, quantum mechanics has predicted the results of some constants to a very large number of decimal places. Just like other non-quantum theories. Just because an element of quantum mechanics is probability based does not mean that there no fixed predictions.

 

[Lumia925]

No, quantum mechanics has predicted the results of some constants to a very large number of decimal places. Just like other non-quantum theories. Just because an element of quantum mechanics is probability based does not mean that there no fixed predictions.

But those fixed predictions are based on earlier probabilistic calculations. The whole premise is based on the assumption that quantum particles can only be explained in probability space!

It's very much possible that I've not read a paper. In that case I would request you to give me a link which makes a quantum prediction without factoring in the probability, in any previous calculations (ie, if x is determined using probability, and later used in a calculation to compute the value of y, it doesn't matter that probability wasn't used in the second calculation, it's based on the assumption that x is true.) It's highly unlikely such a paper has been produced as per my current understanding of quantum physics, but my current understanding of quantum physics is in no way absolute, Thanks.

 

[Solandri]

Your opinion and you're entitled to it! I personally would like to know why a particle can seemingly act as either a particle or wave depending on whether or not it's observed. I would also like to know what is behind quantum entanglement!

Here's a somewhat disturbing possibility: Our universe is not real. We live in a simulation.

In order to save CPU cycles, the simulation reverts to a statistical model when no complex interactions (i.e. "observations") are going on. A lot of the weirdness and uncertainty associated with quantum phenomena occur when "random data" has to be generated to revert back from the statistical model to the precise model.

e.g. You precisely measure the position of every atom in a tiny block. Then you stop observing it, thus allowing the simulation to revert to a statistical model of those atoms. Then you measure every atom's position again. The simulation has to generate new atom positions which are statistically identical to before, but not precisely the same since the original positions were not "saved". The atoms which are no longer in the same position appear to have "moved" and we call the phenomenon "tunneling". Same deal with entanglement. Entangled particles are represented by the same statistical model, so when one is observed and reverts back to the precise model, both entangled particles revert back to the same state.

Before you completely poo-poo the idea, consider that our universe seems to be a lot simpler than the number of dimensions it seems to contain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

Anyways, to address the original question:

Just because the apparent results match some predictions, doesn't make the theory a proper scientific theory.

You're assuming everything can be explained by proper scientific theory. It can't. Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem establishes that for any complete logical system, there will always exist logical constructs within that system which are indeterminate within the rules of that system. You have to go outside the logic of the system in order to explain it. A simplified example would be, "This sentence is false." A valid construct if your logical system consists of just true and false. But if the sentence is true then it must be false. And if the sentence is false, then it must be true. The sentence exists within the true/false logic system (you're simply defining something as false), yet cannot be explained within it. It is indeterminate - neither true nor false.

That's why the "universe is a simulation" theory I gave for quantum phenomena works as an explanation. It transcends the constraints of our universe to explain phenomena which are occurring in our universe. Unfortunately, this means it cannot be proven via the scientific method, since that strictly adheres to the logic of the system (only repeatable observations within our universe are allowed as evidence).

A physical analogue to "This sentence is false" and the scientific method would be, what happens inside a black hole? Whether stuff being pulled into it ever arrives is an open question, since relativity breaks apart and predicts the flow of time effectively stops at the event horizon. But that's irrelevant to our discussion. We *know* stuff is inside a black hole because it was inside before it became a black hole. Yet by the rules of this universe, nothing can escape from inside a black hole, therefore we can never observe what's going on inside. So the scientific method cannot conclude anything about the inside of a black hole, even though we know there's something there. We can use it to make predictions and theories, but as long as we're limited to observations within the rules of our universe, we can never use it to conclusively prove what's going on inside.

If you wish to limit your hypotheses to a strict interpretation of the scientific method (e.g. Nobody should bother predicting what goes on inside a black hole, because it can never be proven), that is your prerogative. But that doesn't mean other people shouldn't be free to speculate, even if it can never be "scientifically" proven. Who knows, their theories might be useful. Need I point out that the Laws of Thermodynamics have never been "proven" either.

 

[ComputerSecurityGuy]

The problem is that the standard Scientific method cannot prove anything. It can disprove a lot of things. For example:
Hypothesis: In ten seconds the Earth will explode.
Data: Ten seconds after writing hypothesis, I am still here.
Conclusion: Ten seconds after writing hypothesis, the Earth did not explode. Thus the hypothesis is untrue.
There. I just disproved something with the scientific method.
Now try to prove something, absolutely, with the scientific method. Try it.
You can't. There is always a chance that you are wrong. It might be very, very, very small, but it could happen.

 

[Lumia925]

Your opinion and you're entitled to it! I personally would like to know why a particle can seemingly act as either a particle or wave depending on whether or not it's observed. I would also like to know what is behind quantum entanglement!

Here's a somewhat disturbing possibility: Our universe is not real. We live in a simulation.

In order to save CPU cycles, the simulation reverts to a statistical model when no complex interactions (i.e. "observations") are going on. A lot of the weirdness and uncertainty associated with quantum phenomena occur when "random data" has to be generated to revert back from the statistical model to the precise model.

e.g. You precisely measure the position of every atom in a tiny block. Then you stop observing it, thus allowing the simulation to revert to a statistical model of those atoms. Then you measure every atom's position again. The simulation has to generate new atom positions which are statistically identical to before, but not precisely the same since the original positions were not "saved". The atoms which are no longer in the same position appear to have "moved" and we call the phenomenon "tunneling". Same deal with entanglement. Entangled particles are represented by the same statistical model, so when one is observed and reverts back to the precise model, both entangled particles revert back to the same state.

Before you completely poo-poo the idea, consider that our universe seems to be a lot simpler than the number of dimensions it seems to contain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

Anyways, to address the original question:

Just because the apparent results match some predictions, doesn't make the theory a proper scientific theory.

You're assuming everything can be explained by proper scientific theory. It can't. Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem establishes that for any complete logical system, there will always exist logical constructs within that system which are indeterminate within the rules of that system. You have to go outside the logic of the system in order to explain it. A simplified example would be, "This sentence is false." A valid construct if your logical system consists of just true and false. But if the sentence is true then it must be false. And if the sentence is false, then it must be true. The sentence exists within the true/false logic system (you're simply defining something as false), yet cannot be explained within it. It is indeterminate - neither true nor false.

That's why the "universe is a simulation" theory I gave for quantum phenomena works as an explanation. It transcends the constraints of our universe to explain phenomena which are occurring in our universe. Unfortunately, this means it cannot be proven via the scientific method, since that strictly adheres to the logic of the system (only repeatable observations within our universe are allowed as evidence).

A physical analogue to "This sentence is false" and the scientific method would be, what happens inside a black hole? Whether stuff being pulled into it ever arrives is an open question, since relativity breaks apart and predicts the flow of time effectively stops at the event horizon. But that's irrelevant to our discussion. We *know* stuff is inside a black hole because it was inside before it became a black hole. Yet by the rules of this universe, nothing can escape from inside a black hole, therefore we can never observe what's going on inside. So the scientific method cannot conclude anything about the inside of a black hole, even though we know there's something there. We can use it to make predictions and theories, but as long as we're limited to observations within the rules of our universe, we can never use it to conclusively prove what's going on inside.

If you wish to limit your hypotheses to a strict interpretation of the scientific method (e.g. Nobody should bother predicting what goes on inside a black hole, because it can never be proven), that is your prerogative. But that doesn't mean other people shouldn't be free to speculate, even if it can never be "scientifically" proven. Who knows, their theories might be useful. Need I point out that the Laws of Thermodynamics have never been "proven" either.

Intriguing!

 

[ComputerSecurityGuy]

Yep, even though the laws of thermodynamics seem to work, it takes an infinite amount of testing to prove any theory completely. We just have a bunch of rules that work most of the time or in all situations we have put them in.

 

[Ralston18]

1)

http://wn.com/quantum_relativity

2)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeNLBPUrzGQ

 

[drkatz42]

Whether or not my supposed existence is within an actual universe or a simulation of a universe, I still(choose) must go to work today! ;-)

 

[borisof007]

Love the thread so far. The problem with our analysis here is that we're basing our quantum mechanics and relativity arguments on a system we think is 100% complete. We're obviously wrong, as there's more at play than we understand. It's why we are pursuing a grand unified theory of everything (M theory). Relativity has been around a lot longer than quantum mechanics, and as such it's getting a lot more focus.

I remember reading Brian Greene's book "The Elegant Universe". When I was first introduced to the idea of 11 or 12 dimensions (depends on whether you count a 2nd time dimension), it blew me away. How could I physically or even possibly imagine something that's not grounded in our own perceived 4 dimensional reality?

This could be why our systems don't make sense when we try to use Quantum mechanics laws on a large scale or relativity on a small scale. It's probably why we can only measure location or momentum but not both, and that the act of observing an experiment can change the outcome (double slit experiment). There's more to the laws of nature than we currently know and it's why our math goes wonky in certain situations. Like a bug that's in our Physics "code". We haven't figured it out yet.

 

[Kewlx25]

Neat, however there's a lurking problem with your explanation.
If everything is known about the initial state of a non-quantum object, the future of the object can be predicted till eternity.
Everything in the non-quantum world, is 100% predictable.

You can't know everything from within the system. Since you can't, everything becomes probabilistic. What you're talking about is simulating a computer in side of a computer and trying to make the internal computer be aware of everything the external computer knows about. That is logically impossible.

Quantum physics is actually required for many modern things like cellphones and CPUs. There is no known deterministic model that can predict what is required. Until a better theory comes along, this is the best we have.

 

[ComputerSecurityGuy]

In fact a lot of quantum physics makes much more sense in n or infinite dimensions than it does in four.

 

[ComputerSecurityGuy]

Oh, and bad news for holographic universe fans: Fermilab came up empty, according to Slashdot. Although I don't even know why I am still posting on this thread.