PDA

View Full Version : Is Quantum Mechanics Tried, True, Wildly Successful, and Wrong?



ElHombre
06-30-2009, 09:42 AM
a recent article in "Science" magazine.
no cliffs. read it if you give a crap about quantum mechanics (hint: you should...on both accounts)

edit: i've noticed people citing quantum mechanics in many discussions (gee, free will comes to mind). this should rock their boat a bit.


Tim Folger

A skeptical physicist charges that his field has been wandering in a philosophical wilderness for 80 years. The good news: He thinks he knows the way out.

Antony Valentini has never been happy with quantum mechanics. Sure, it's the most powerful and accurate scientific theory ever devised. Yes, its bizarre predictions about the behavior of atoms and all other particles have been confirmed many times over with multi-decimal-place exactitude. True, technologies derived from quantum mechanics may account for 30% of the gross national product of the United States. So what's not to like?

Valentini, a theoretical physicist at Imperial College London (ICL) and the co-author of a forthcoming book on the early history of quantum mechanics, believes that shortly after the theory's birth some 80 years ago, a cadre of influential scientists led quantum physics down a philosophical blind alley. As a result of that wrong turn, Valentini says, the field wound up burdened with paradoxical dualities, inexplicable long-distance connections between particles, and a pragmatic "shut up and calculate" mentality that stifled attempts to probe what it all means. But there is an alternative, Valentini says: a long-abandoned "road not taken" that could get physics back on track. And unlike other proposed remedies to quantum weirdness, he adds, there's a possible experiment to test whether this one is right.

"There isn't a more insightful or knowledgeable critic in the whole field of quantum theory," says Lee Smolin, a theoretical physicist at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Canada. Smolin, who researches a subfield known as quantum gravity, has long held that current quantum theory is incomplete at best.

In a book to be published later this year by Cambridge University Press, Valentini and co-author Guido Bacciagaluppi, a philosopher of physics at the University of Aberdeen in the United Kingdom, reassess a pivotal and contentious meeting at which 29 physics luminaries?including Louis de Broglie, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schr?dinger, and Albert Einstein?butted brains over how to make sense of quantum theory.

The book, Quantum Theory at the Crossroads, includes the first English translation of the proceedings of the historic 1927 Solvay conference. The gathering was the fifth in an ongoing series of invitation-only conferences in Brussels, Belgium, launched in 1911 by the Belgian industrialist Ernest Solvay. At the meeting, blandly titled "Electrons and Photons," attendees grappled with issues that were?and remain?among the most perplexing ever addressed by physicists. Quantum mechanics confounds commonsense notions of reality, and the physicists in Brussels disagreed sharply about the meaning of the theory they had created.

A classic experiment demonstrates the sheer strangeness of the new physics they were struggling to understand. Light?a stream of photons?shines through two parallel slits cut in a barrier and hits a strip of film beyond the slits. If the experiment is run with detectors near each slit so physicists can observe the passing light particles, the result is unsurprising: Every photon goes through either one slit or the other, just as particles should, leaving two distinct clusters of dots where the individual photons strike the film.

Remove the detectors, however, and something exceedingly strange happens: A pattern of alternating light and dark stripes appears on the film. The only explanation is that photons sometimes behave like waves. As light waves emerge from the two slits, bright lines form on the screen where wave crests overlap; dark lines, where a crest and trough cancel each other. As long as no detectors are present, the same pattern appears even if the photons hit the screen one by one. Over the decades, physicists have tried the experiment with photons, electrons, and other particles, always with the same bizarre results.

The experiment highlights two of the conundrums that dominated discussions at the 1927 Solvay conference: How can photons, electrons, and all other bits of matter and energy behave like waves one moment, particles the next? And how does one explain that the mere act of observation seems to affect physical reality?at least on the quantum level?

Unreality rules

Bohr and Heisenberg answered such questions with an austere vision of the theory now called the Copenhagen interpretation. With no observer present, they said, any given particle exists here, there, and everywhere in between, dispersed like a wave. Introduce an observer to measure the wave, however, and the quantum wave "collapses" into a single particle. Before the measurement, the particle could be described only by an equation that specified the probability of finding it in one location rather than another. The act of measurement itself forces a particle to assume a single, definite position. The sharp boundary between an objective world "out there" and subjective observations blurs in this version of quantum theory.

"Bohr believed that it was meaningless to try to describe the quantum world because we have no direct experience of it," says Valentini. "Bohr and Heisenberg thought that quantum mechanics showed we had reached the limits of human understanding. ... Physics no longer told us how things are?it only told us how human beings perceive and measure things."

Some conference participants, most notably Einstein, de Broglie, and Schr?dinger, rejected Bohr's arguments. Physicists today remember Einstein as Bohr's chief antagonist. But their famed disputes over the validity of quantum theory must have taken place off the record, Valentini says; the published conference proceedings don't mention them at all.

The proceedings do, however, contain 24 pages of discussion of a rival interpretation by de Broglie. Unlike Bohr, who viewed the quantum wave equation describing a particle as a mathematical abstraction, de Broglie thought such waves were real?he called them pilot waves. In de Broglie's picture, particles never exist in more than one place at the same time. All the mysterious properties of quantum theory are explained by pilot waves guiding particles along their trajectories. In the two-slit experiment, for example, each particle passes through only one slit. The pilot wave, however, goes through both slits at once and influences where the particle strikes the screen. There is no inexplicable wave collapse triggered by observation. Instead, Valentini says, "the total pilot wave, for the particle and the detectors considered as a single system, evolves so as to yield an apparent collapse."

Bohr, Heisenberg, and their supporters at the Solvay conference were unimpressed. The details of the particle trajectories were unobservable, and Bohr insisted that physicists shouldn't traffic in hidden, unmeasurable entities. "De Broglie wasn't happy with the Copenhagen interpretation," says Valentini, "but he gave up trying to argue about it."

Bohr and Heisenberg's vision of quantum theory prevailed; de Broglie's languished. David Bohm, a prominent American physicist, rediscovered de Broglie's work in the early 1950s and expanded on it. But Bohm's work, like de Broglie's, failed to attract much support, because it could not be distinguished experimentally from conventional quantum mechanics.

The past decade has seen renewed interest in understanding the foundations of quantum mechanics, and physicists have devised several competing interpretations of the theory (Science, 25 June 2004, p. 1896). Valentini has been in the thick of this quantum renaissance. In the early 1990s, as a graduate student studying with the late Dennis Sciama, a cosmologist who also mentored Stephen Hawking, he learned about the work of de Broglie and Bohm and became convinced that it had the potential to resolve all the mysterious paradoxes of quantum mechanics. He has spent most of his career almost single-handedly building on their work.

His single-mindedness has cost him. Although Valentini's colleagues acknowledge the originality and importance of his research, spadework on the foundations of quantum theory has not been a fast track to tenure. For years, he has survived from grant to grant in a succession of temporary positions; his current one at ICL ends this year.

"I used to do private teaching just to get by," Valentini says. "Things have changed in recent years, but I'm still just living year by year. It is a field where there are these wide-open, in-your-face problems with interpretation that are staggeringly fundamental, with virtually nobody in the world really dedicating the bulk of their time and attention to working on them. So how do you expect there to be much progress?"



Beyond the quantum?

In Valentini's physics, the "laws" of quantum mechanics are not really laws at all but accidents of cosmic history. Particles in the universe today conform to the supposed rules of quantum mechanics, Valentini suggests, because they settled into a sort of quantum equilibrium immediately after the big bang, in a process roughly analogous to the way a mixture of hot and cold gases gradually reaches a uniform temperature. Immediately after the big bang, particles could have existed in states not allowed by the normal rules of quantum mechanics but permitted in pilot-wave theory.

"Quantum physics is not fundamental; it's a theory of a particular equilibrium state and nothing more," says Valentini. "To my mind, pilot-wave theory is crying out to us that quantum physics is a special case of a much wider physics, with many new possible phenomena that are just there waiting to be explored and tested experimentally."

The place to look, Valentini says, is in the cosmic microwave background (CMB), the remnant radiation from the big bang that fills all of space. The radiation is almost perfectly uniform, with only slight variations in temperature. Theorists think those small temperature differences resulted from quantum fluctuations that were magnified as the universe expanded. In a paper Valentini has submitted to Physical Review D, he argues that if his pilot-wave theory is correct, some of those temperature variations will not have the distribution that standard quantum theory predicts. Deviations are more likely to survive at long wavelengths, he says. CMB measurements by the WMAP probe have revealed "intriguing" anomalies in precisely that domain, Valentini says, but pursuing them will take time and effort. "I need to do a lot more work to refine my predictions," says Valentini. "Part of the problem is that I'm the only person working on it. It is a difficult thing."

Confirmation of Valentini's idea would be one of the biggest advances in physics in decades. The Planck spacecraft, launched in May by the European Space Agency (Science, 1 May, p. 584), will take a closer look at CMB and could conceivably find evidence supporting Valentini's predictions.

"One of the most attractive features of Antony's proposals is that they're testable," says David Wallace, a philosopher of physics at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom. "If tomorrow there is some experiment that Antony's theory gets right and quantum mechanics gets wrong, then end of story."

Valentini knows he faces steep odds. "Maybe in 200 years people will look back and say the time wasn't right to reexamine the foundations of quantum mechanics," he says. "Or it might be that they'll say, ?My God, it opened up a whole new world.? We can't tell. One thing is certain: We won't find out if we don't try."

Spetsnazos
06-30-2009, 09:51 AM
brb reading

EDIT: reada bout 50% till I got the point of the whole article. Basically this theoretical physicist doesnt like the idea of wave-particle duality which basically says that electrons, protons, etc act both as WAVES and as PARTICLES. Basically he is just trying to argue philosophically why this cant exist, and he has no good answer himself. All he rambles about is how it doesnt make sense, but experimentation shows that the electrons act as particles in one setting and waves in another.

TheStender
06-30-2009, 09:54 AM
Interesting read.

Spetsnazos
06-30-2009, 10:02 AM
Finished reading it, basically he just has his own theory which branches off the Big Bang in that particles settle into a quantum equilibrium(wtf is quantum equilibrium???). I dont see any kind of test that he can do which shows his theory to be correct and quantum mechanics to fail...

HOnestly, nothing new here other than another physicist coming up with a theory with ABSOLUTELY NO backing or experimental data to back up anything, not even calculations.

Rune
06-30-2009, 10:29 AM
Finished reading it, basically he just has his own theory which branches off the Big Bang in that particles settle into a quantum equilibrium(wtf is quantum equilibrium???). I dont see any kind of test that he can do which shows his theory to be correct and quantum mechanics to fail...

HOnestly, nothing new here other than another physicist coming up with a theory with ABSOLUTELY NO backing or experimental data to back up anything, not even calculations.

You fail hard at comprehending the article.

TheStender
06-30-2009, 10:30 AM
Finished reading it, basically he just has his own theory which branches off the Big Bang in that particles settle into a quantum equilibrium(wtf is quantum equilibrium???). I dont see any kind of test that he can do which shows his theory to be correct and quantum mechanics to fail...

HOnestly, nothing new here other than another physicist coming up with a theory with ABSOLUTELY NO backing or experimental data to back up anything, not even calculations.

Did you miss the part where it talked about how this is not his theory, and is not new?

Spetsnazos
06-30-2009, 10:30 AM
You fail hard at comprehending the article.

no not rly, Pls point out where I am wrong.

Rune
06-30-2009, 10:38 AM
no not rly, Pls point out where I am wrong.

"HOnestly, nothing new here other than another physicist coming up with a theory with ABSOLUTELY NO backing or experimental data to back up anything, not even calculations."

This part.

1. It's clearly stated that it can be experimentally verified, one through observation of the CMB (which os being done in much higher resolution in the next few years).

2. He obviously has calculations if the theory makes predictions.

3. The theory is based off of the work of Louis de Broglie.

I also do not think you even come close to understanding the implications of having a true understanding of QM, opposed to simply having a handful of relyable equations that came out of the data with no real understanding of where they came from.

blananana4
06-30-2009, 10:40 AM
no not rly, Pls point out where I am wrong.

1)Not his hypotheses
2)He tells how to falsify it.

You really are some retard brah.

Very interesting article, is some organisation going to organize a test? Assign people to help with working out the predictions?

If this comes off, it would be so revolutionary in so many ways...

Tenure wouldn't be a problem anymore lol

Spetsnazos
06-30-2009, 10:42 AM
2)He tells how to falsify it.


i'll just wait to read his falsification first instead of bull**** theories. Thanks though, not real science yet, just a bunch of theories.

Melkor
06-30-2009, 10:43 AM
Finished reading it, basically he just has his own theory which branches off the Big Bang in that particles settle into a quantum equilibrium(wtf is quantum equilibrium???). I dont see any kind of test that he can do which shows his theory to be correct and quantum mechanics to fail...

HOnestly, nothing new here other than another physicist coming up with a theory with ABSOLUTELY NO backing or experimental data to back up anything, not even calculations.


"Quantum physics is not fundamental; it's a theory of a particular equilibrium state and nothing more," says Valentini. "To my mind, pilot-wave theory is crying out to us that quantum physics is a special case of a much wider physics, with many new possible phenomena that are just there waiting to be explored and tested experimentally."

The place to look, Valentini says, is in the cosmic microwave background (CMB), the remnant radiation from the big bang that fills all of space. The radiation is almost perfectly uniform, with only slight variations in temperature. Theorists think those small temperature differences resulted from quantum fluctuations that were magnified as the universe expanded. In a paper Valentini has submitted to Physical Review D, he argues that if his pilot-wave theory is correct, some of those temperature variations will not have the distribution that standard quantum theory predicts. Deviations are more likely to survive at long wavelengths, he says. CMB measurements by the WMAP probe have revealed "intriguing" anomalies in precisely that domain, Valentini says, but pursuing them will take time and effort. "I need to do a lot more work to refine my predictions," says Valentini. "Part of the problem is that I'm the only person working on it. It is a difficult thing."

Confirmation of Valentini's idea would be one of the biggest advances in physics in decades. The Planck spacecraft, launched in May by the European Space Agency (Science, 1 May, p. 584), will take a closer look at CMB and could conceivably find evidence supporting Valentini's predictions.

If they find areas of space that exhibit these irregularities, it basically proves his theory correct. Very interesting. I love quantum physics. I don't understand all of it, but the stuff I do understand blows my mind.

blananana4
06-30-2009, 10:47 AM
i'll just wait to read his falsification first instead of bull**** theories. Thanks though, not real science yet, just a bunch of theories.

How is a theory not science numnuts?

Rune
06-30-2009, 10:54 AM
i'll just wait to read his falsification first instead of bull**** theories. Thanks though, not real science yet, just a bunch of theories.

Your a dumbass.

WilyCoder
06-30-2009, 10:57 AM
People that say quantum is wrong and then come up with their own ideas are a dime a dozen. Trust me, I used to work for one.

blananana4
06-30-2009, 11:03 AM
People that say quantum is wrong and then come up with their own ideas are a dime a dozen. Trust me, I used to work for one.

was his hypotheses falsifiable?

Spetsnazos
06-30-2009, 11:07 AM
theres no shortage of people trying to make a name for themselves by disproving verifiable theories.

Calling me an idiot makes you smart! I dont sit around and think about why philosophically quantum mechanics doesnt work, I apply what I learned from quantum mechanics and move on.

in b4 gravity disputers.

blananana4
06-30-2009, 11:08 AM
theres no shortage of people trying to make a name for themselves by disproving verifiable theories.

Calling me an idiot makes you smart! I dont sit around and think about why philosophically quantum mechanics doesnt work, I apply what I learned from quantum mechanics and move on.

in b4 gravity disputers.

So Einstein for you was a crackpot and should have stfu?

WilyCoder
06-30-2009, 11:11 AM
was his hypotheses falsifiable?

a hypothesis that is not falsifiable is not a scientific hypothesis. so yes, his hypothesis was falsifiable.

Spetsnazos
06-30-2009, 11:12 AM
So Einstein for you was a crackpot and should have stfu?

Einstein posted calculations and proved his theory with experiments of solar eclipses/etc. Hardly comparable to the joker in the article.

Melkor
06-30-2009, 11:14 AM
They are performing experiments to test his hypothesis, how does that make him a crackpot? If his theories are wrong, he will have to move on, if they're correct then gjdm to him. Thinking outside of the box is what makes a scientist great, or at the very least allows a person to research new angles and possibilities.

user5145
06-30-2009, 11:15 AM
Interesting read, this part especially:


In Valentini's physics, the "laws" of quantum mechanics are not really laws at all but accidents of cosmic history. Particles in the universe today conform to the supposed rules of quantum mechanics, Valentini suggests, because they settled into a sort of quantum equilibrium immediately after the big bang, in a process roughly analogous to the way a mixture of hot and cold gases gradually reaches a uniform temperature. Immediately after the big bang, particles could have existed in states not allowed by the normal rules of quantum mechanics but permitted in pilot-wave theory.

Apparently this theory aims at interpreting quantum mechanics in a deterministic way. That would change a lot of our ideas about the seemingly random and paradoxical behavior of quantum particles. Interesting stuff.

And Spetsnazos, did you even read the article? Your comprehension fails.

Spetsnazos
06-30-2009, 11:16 AM
They are performing experiments to test his hypothesis, how does that make him a crackpot? If his theories are wrong, he will have to move on, if they're correct then gjdm to him. Thinking outside of the box is what makes a scientist great, or at the very least allows a person to research new angles and possibilities.

until he proves his hypothesis to be right, hes not great...

blananana4
06-30-2009, 11:18 AM
a hypothesis that is not falsifiable is not a scientific hypothesis. so yes, his hypothesis was falsifiable.

Well then good job dave boss for coming up with a hypotheses.

And many so called 'scientists' don't work on falsifiable hypotheses, eg string theory.

blananana4
06-30-2009, 11:19 AM
until he proves his hypothesis to be right, hes not great...

who said he was great brah? We're just interested in seeing how it all turns out.

user5145
06-30-2009, 11:23 AM
Well then good job dave boss for coming up with a hypotheses.

And many so called 'scientists' don't work on falsifiable hypotheses, eg string theory.



All string theory models are quantum mechanical, Lorentz invariant, unitary, and contain Einstein's General Relativity as a low energy limit.[34] So to falsify string theory, it suffices to falsify quantum mechanics, Lorentz invariance, or general relativity. Therefore string theory is falsifiable and meets the definition of scientific theory according to the Popperian criterion. However to constitute a convincing potential verification of string theory, a prediction should be specific to it, not shared by any quantum field theory model or by General Relativity.

One such unique prediction is string harmonics: at sufficiently high energies?probably near the quantum gravity scale?the string-like nature of particles would become obvious. There should be heavier copies of all particles corresponding to higher vibrational states of the string. But it is not clear how high these energies are. In the most likely case, they would be 1015 times higher than those accessible in the newest particle accelerator, the LHC, making this prediction impossible to test with a particle accelerator in the foreseeable future.

Other testability criteria

Many physicists strongly oppose the idea that string theory is not falsifiable, among them Sylvester James Gates: "So, the next time someone tells you that string theory is not testable, remind them of the AdS/CFT connection ..."[37] AdS/CFT relates string theory to gauge theory, and allows contact with low energy experiments in quantum chromodynamics. This type of string theory, which only describes the strong interactions, is much less controversial today than string theories of everything (although two decades ago, it was the other way around).

In addition, Gates points out that the grand unification natural in string theories of everything requires that the coupling constants of the four forces meet at one point under renormalization group rescaling. This is also a falsifiable statement, but it is not restricted to string theory, but is shared by grand unified theories.[38] The LHC will be used both for testing AdS/CFT, and to check if the electroweakstrong unification does happen as predicted.[39



Some interesting info.

blananana4
06-30-2009, 11:32 AM
Some interesting info.

That's like saying intelligent design is falsifiable because if you falsify evolution you falsify intelligent design. Quantum mechanics is falsifiable, String theory, which depends on quantum mechanics being true to not be impossible, is unfalsifiable. It's string theory which is unfalsfiable. Geddit?

Rune
06-30-2009, 11:40 AM
Any ways, other stuff aside I found the article to be rather intrequing. I've heard a lot of other physists (Micho Kaku is a big fan of it) talk about similar ideas for the development of our physical 'laws' - they tend to think of it more in a symmetry breaking manner (where this goes about describing some kind of equilibrium process). I think both are good ideas in theory, they go beyond are current level of understanding and try to posit reasons for why the laws are the way they are(kind of like general relativity goes beyond newtonian mechanics to explain gravity), in the end only leads to more discovery.

What I enjoy about this particular approach is that it has predictions that can be tested for (unlike our understanding of symmetry breaking), I think that at least makes it an avenue worth exploring, even if in the end the theory is falsified.

Rune
06-30-2009, 11:41 AM
Einstein posted calculations and proved his theory with experiments of solar eclipses/etc. Hardly comparable to the joker in the article.

Many people said the exact same of Einstein when he first came out with his geometry based arguments. The only thing that gave him credibility was the later testing and verification of his hypothesis. His theory in its infancy was in the exact same position as the one in the article.


People that say quantum is wrong and then come up with their own ideas are a dime a dozen. Trust me, I used to work for one.

At no point in the article is it claimed that quantum is wrong, simply that is could be a subset of a much broader class of rules/laws.

Spetsnazos
06-30-2009, 11:50 AM
I dont know enough about String Theory(if anything) to comment...unlike some people here who just take random articles from the net, read them, and make conclusions without any prior knowledge.

WilyCoder
06-30-2009, 11:51 AM
At no point in the article is it claimed that quantum is wrong, simply that is could be a subset of a much broader class of rules/laws.

Yes, it does. Its saying the copenhagen interpretation is wrong.

Pilot wave QM is deterministic, copenhagen QM is not.

Do you realize how significant those differences are?

Spetsnazos
06-30-2009, 11:53 AM
At no point in the article is it claimed that quantum is wrong, simply that is could be a subset of a much broader class of rules/laws.


thread title says Qauntum Mechanics is wrong...

Rune
06-30-2009, 11:54 AM
Yes, it does. Its saying the copenhagen interpretation is wrong.

Pilot wave QM is deterministic, copenhagen QM is not.

Do you realize how significant those differences are?

Since when was the copenhagen interpretation deemed to be correct and infallible?

It's simply the generally accepted viewpoint. None of them (Cophenhagen, Many worlds, etc) have been prooven to be the correct way to view the theory.

Rune
06-30-2009, 11:58 AM
thread title says Qauntum Mechanics is wrong...

*facepalm*

Titles are suppose to grab your attention, or are you unaware of media practices too?

WilyCoder
06-30-2009, 11:58 AM
Since when was the copenhagen interpretation deemed to be correct and infallible?


It has predicted a lot of things. Infallible? Nothing is infallible.



It's simply the generally accepted viewpoint. None of them (Cophenhagen, Many worlds, etc) have been prooven to be the correct way to view the theory.

Generally accepted, with good reason.

Also, Pilot wave is nothing new. Some guy is interested in it now, but its not new.

ElHombre
06-30-2009, 12:01 PM
thread title says Qauntum Mechanics is wrong...

thread title is the copy&pasted article title.

just to make to this clear.

Rune
06-30-2009, 12:02 PM
It has predicted a lot of things. Infallible? Nothing is infallible.

So did Newtonian understanding of motion, gravity, etc... didn't mean there wasn't more to the picture.


Also, Pilot wave is nothing new. Some guy is interested in it now, but its not new.

Yes, I know. But from the sounds of the article the guy has expanded on the work that was done previously, I don't personally see why it's not something worth exploring.

WilyCoder
06-30-2009, 12:05 PM
So did Newtonian understanding of motion, gravity, etc... didn't mean there wasn't more to the picture.


I'm not sure why you are so optimistic about this article. Are you new to physics? :D

Also, I'm glad you mentioned gravity. Its not in the Bohm interpretation at all. This is not the Grand Unified Theory.

THAT will be the news to get excited about.

blananana4
06-30-2009, 12:08 PM
I'm not sure why you are so optimistic about this article. Are you new to physics? :D

Also, I'm glad you mentioned gravity. Its not in the Bohm interpretation at all. This is not the Grand Unified Theory.

THAT will be the news to get excited about.

why are you being such a douche about this brah?

WilyCoder
06-30-2009, 12:08 PM
why are you being such a douche about this brah?

I take it you've never worked with physicists and been involved with their professional community.

leafs43
06-30-2009, 12:10 PM
The problem with quantum mechanics is that some things are so seemingly random, that a lot of it is statistical probabilities. And despite our knowledge thus far, there is a lot that we actually don't know. That's the reason why there are lots of crazy "wilderness" ideas floating out there.

Rune
06-30-2009, 12:12 PM
I'm not sure why you are so optimistic about this article. Are you new to physics? :D

Also, I'm glad you mentioned gravity. Its not in the Bohm interpretation at all. This is not the Grand Unified Theory.

THAT will be the news to get excited about.

Not new at all, I have a degree in physics.

I wouldn't say I'm particularly optimistic either, simply responding to the people who jump on the "it's BS" bandwagon without a clear understanding of what the guy is proposing (which is not really covered that in depth in the article)

blananana4
06-30-2009, 12:12 PM
I take it you've never worked with physicists and been involved with their professional community.

Why is it so important to you to stress this brah? The op is just interested and it's a minor point you were disagreeing with him over, but you were a huge ahole about it, you just wnt to jump in whenever someone makes a mistake and berate them for not being as educated as you. My question is: why?

WilyCoder
06-30-2009, 12:16 PM
Just remember no one took Einstein seriously until the experiment.

Notice the guy is having trouble with funding...objective reporting hmmmm?

WilyCoder
06-30-2009, 12:19 PM
Why is it so important to you to stress this brah? The op is just interested and it's a minor point you were disagreeing with him over, but you were a huge ahole about it, you just wnt to jump in whenever someone makes a mistake and berate them for not being as educated as you. My question is: why?

Its important because if you pay attention to the physics circle, you will eventually hear just about everything you can imagine.

The real news is when the experiment confirms what this guy is saying. Until he is proven correct via experiment, everything he says is suspect...

Keep on calling me a douche and an a-hole, because that's relevant to the discussion.

blananana4
06-30-2009, 12:19 PM
Just remember no one took Einstein seriously until the experiment.

Notice the guy is having trouble with funding...objective reporting hmmmm?

The article is obviously to drum up money for and interest in testing the hypotheses. He made no claims that it was true, he just gave a facsimile of what it was all about and that it was falsifiable what's the problem there?

leafs43
06-30-2009, 12:23 PM
Just remember no one took Einstein seriously until the experiment.

Notice the guy is having trouble with funding...objective reporting hmmmm?

The problem with quantum physics is a result can have a trillion different outcomes. So if his experiment defines one outcome, and the math of an ordinary outcome in the classical quantum mechanic sense don;t match up, both could be right and both could be wrong.


That is the huge problem with quantum mechanics.

Anathemas
06-30-2009, 12:48 PM
The problem with quantum physics is a result can have a trillion different outcomes. So if his experiment defines one outcome, and the math of an ordinary outcome in the classical quantum mechanic sense don;t match up, both could be right and both could be wrong.


That is the huge problem with quantum mechanics.

That was one of the issues I struggled with when I studied QM. It just didn't make sense to me that the most successful scientific model couldn't explain 3 particle systems for example. Everything we studied was based on Hydrogen atoms and "hydrogen-like" systems. Furthermore, the Standard Model has so many subatomic particles that it just seems like a big mess, even though it works.

Granted I only scratched the surface of quantum physics, it's applications to chemistry I deal with almost everyday.

I think it's simple an incomplete theory, and to assume otherwise is almost paramount to commiting the same mistake 19th century physicists made.

leafs43
06-30-2009, 01:16 PM
That was one of the issues I struggled with when I studied QM. It just didn't make sense to me that the most successful scientific model couldn't explain 3 particle systems for example. Everything we studied was based on Hydrogen atoms and "hydrogen-like" systems. Furthermore, the Standard Model has so many subatomic particles that it just seems like a big mess, even though it works.

Granted I only scratched the surface of quantum physics, it's applications to chemistry I deal with almost everyday.

I think it's simple an incomplete theory, and to assume otherwise is almost paramount to commiting the same mistake 19th century physicists made.

Well one of the problems is, particles show up sometimes and sometimes they don't. It is almost seemingly random.


When particles should have mathematically shown up and don't, then the question is....where did they go? That right now is the great question in quantum mechanics. Some of the more bleeding edge physicists hypothesize particles transcend our dimension. So where did they go? A paralleled dimension where you don't see them. Now try and prove that theoretically is the hardest part of all.

Spetsnazos
06-30-2009, 01:43 PM
thread title is the copy&pasted article title.

just to make to this clear.

Hey I never claimed to be a physicist, but at least I have taken the classes and understand the fundamentals in some of what the author is talking about...cant say the same for the rest of you trying to turn this into philosophy class...

MISTERDUDE
06-30-2009, 01:51 PM
Having taken basic physics in HS and college, I understand some but not all of the article. But I think it is pretty obvious why he is the only guy seriously looking into this: he is working to prove the Quantum theory wrong, when countless experiments seem to verify it.

But his ideas have some testability (according to the article), so maybe he'll find something. Thing is: If he finds out he is wrong, what will he do then? Admit it and walk away? Or continue to look for things that *could* prove him right, even if the means/technology don't exist yet? Who knows. You'd have to be pretty conceded to think you're right when other PhD physicists are wrong :D

blananana4
06-30-2009, 01:53 PM
Hey I never claimed to be a physicist, but at least I have taken the classes and understand the fundamentals in some of what the author is talking about...cant say the same for the rest of you trying to turn this into philosophy class...

What are you talking about? Who turned this into a philosophy class brah?

Spetsnazos
06-30-2009, 01:55 PM
Its important because if you pay attention to the physics circle, you will eventually hear just about everything you can imagine.

The real news is when the experiment confirms what this guy is saying. Until he is proven correct via experiment, everything he says is suspect...

Keep on calling me a douche and an a-hole, because that's relevant to the discussion.

its ok they call me a retard when I constantly show them why they are wrong in other threads, its a sign that they lost an argument and have to fall back on insults to try and save some face. Another thing you'll find on the forums is that most of these people have either philosophy, economics, or psychology degree who know absolutely jack **** about math or science.

I'm not here to pretend I know everything, but I've read similar articles thats why I said what I said in the beginning, nothing fantastic until the guy actually does some experiments to prove it.

Spetsnazos
06-30-2009, 02:00 PM
Here is a forum I frequent very often, www.physicsforums.com. I typically post in regards to doing problems, etc but I do read other sections of the forum.


See this link they talk about this physicist in detail(much more intelligent replies than BB.com).

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=235671

Throwback
06-30-2009, 07:16 PM
When Einstein quoted "Imagination is more important than knowledge" he was addressing the very mindset that some have in this thread. Why do you attack someone for thinking theoretically? Solid theory is imagination combined with logic... not necessarily a bad thing.

I think this is a problem with much of the academic world... wanting to only accept and learn what has already been proven through "empirical" evidence. That way of thinking would never lead to new ideas/discoveries.

blananana4
06-30-2009, 08:06 PM
Here is a forum I frequent very often, www.physicsforums.com. I typically post in regards to doing problems, etc but I do read other sections of the forum.


See this link they talk about this physicist in detail(much more intelligent replies than BB.com).

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=235671

they say nothing bad, ??

Spetsnazos
06-30-2009, 10:34 PM
they say nothing bad, ??

never said they did, just saying that their discussion is more intelligent and based on science instead of the discussion here which is based on philosophy

US_Ranger
06-30-2009, 11:05 PM
For ****s sake, why are there so many retards on this damn forum? I can't even read an intelligent discussion because of morons that spout off CONSTANTLY about **** they don't understand. Since when does thinking outside the box make a scientist a crackpot?

It's time for the mods to take the ban hammer and start getting rid of people in here.

Duckenheimer
06-30-2009, 11:22 PM
I dont see any kind of test that he can do which shows his theory to be correct and quantum mechanics to fail...
.

Srsly?

hittman
07-01-2009, 12:27 AM
brb reading

EDIT: reada bout 50% till I got the point of the whole article. Basically this theoretical physicist doesnt like the idea of wave-particle duality which basically says that electrons, protons, etc act both as WAVES and as PARTICLES. Basically he is just trying to argue philosophically why this cant exist, and he has no good answer himself. All he rambles about is how it doesnt make sense, but experimentation shows that the electrons act as particles in one setting and waves in another.

didn't einstein argue this and ultimately lost?

Rune
07-01-2009, 09:17 AM
never said they did, just saying that their discussion is more intelligent and based on science instead of the discussion here which is based on philosophy

That's because that forum is geared towards physicists... I could just as easily ramble on about technical stuff here, but it doesn't do any good since nobody understands it. You choose the language you speak in based on the audience your are speaking with.

Spetsnazos
07-01-2009, 09:34 AM
That's because that forum is geared towards physicists... I could just as easily ramble on about technical stuff here, but it doesn't do any good since nobody understands it. You choose the language you speak in based on the audience your are speaking with.

the people on this forum seem to be experts at physics once they read an article or two about a new hypothesis. Hence why most debates on subjects like this end in stupidity.

Duckenheimer
07-01-2009, 10:11 AM
the people on this forum seem to be experts at physics once they read an article or two about a new hypothesis. Hence why most debates on subjects like this end in stupidity.

You're the stupidest person in this thread, and that includes me with an IQ of 69.

So the irony of all the disdain you, the faux soviet, is expressing ITT is fairly amusing, to say the least. :D

Spetsnazos
07-01-2009, 10:20 AM
You're the stupidest person in this thread, and that includes me with an IQ of 69.

So the irony of all the disdain you, the faux soviet, is expressing ITT is fairly amusing, to say the least. :D

I see you are upset...

Duckenheimer
07-01-2009, 10:23 AM
I see you are upset...

Another bad call, you've actually greatly improved my mood.

mumrah
07-01-2009, 10:39 AM
i didnt read thread but a quantum application is in your cellphone, extremely high frequency transistor which uses a "quantum well", binding a single or a plane of electrons in one dimension






edit: realised the thread is not about practical applications :D

WilyCoder
07-01-2009, 10:43 AM
i didnt read thread but a quantum application is in your cellphone, extremely high frequency transistor which uses a "quantum well", binding a single or a plane of electrons in one dimension






edit: realised the thread is not about practical applications :D

the thread is about one guy saying his version of quantum is the "more true" version of quantum.

i've heard that so many times its only natural to be highly skeptical when someone makes those claims.

Spetsnazos
07-01-2009, 11:14 AM
You're the stupidest person in this thread, and that includes me with an IQ of 69.


Right, pat yourself on the back buddy with your poli sci degree.

Rune
07-01-2009, 11:41 AM
the thread is about one guy saying his version of quantum is the "more true" version of quantum.

i've heard that so many times its only natural to be highly skeptical when someone makes those claims.

NO, he's saying there may be other underlying physics, of which QM would be a subset (when in equilibrium state).. yes it's been said before, nobody has ever proposed ways to test for this though, this guy has(based on another analysis of current CMB data)... all he's saying is that with the new mapping of the CMB he should be able to test his hypothesis.

Nothing about more true or anything like that.. simply alternative thinking that goes against what the majority accepts. Kind of like evolution, and relativity when both of them were first proposed. Let the guy propose whatever he wants, especially if he's also proposing experimental ways of testing that proposal.

WilyCoder
07-01-2009, 11:58 AM
NO, he's saying there may be other underlying physics, of which QM would be a subset (when in equilibrium state)..

wow, sounds like string theory!

oh, wait...



Let the guy propose whatever he wants, especially if he's also proposing experimental ways of testing that proposal.

The issue is not to silence the man, the issue is to not report theories until they've been experimentally proven. What makes this guy so worthy of an article compared to all the other physicist's out there who need money?

There's politics in physics man, and it ain't pretty.

Rune
07-01-2009, 12:15 PM
wow, sounds like string theory!

oh, wait...

Are you convinced QM is the end all and be all of the laws of matter? That there is nothing more left?


The issue is not to silence the man, the issue is to not report theories until they've been experimentally proven. What makes this guy so worthy of an article compared to all the other physicist's out there who need money?

There's politics in physics man, and it ain't pretty.

What makes him so unworthy of an article? There's lots of pages in a magazine.. this took up what? 1.. 2 at the most, it's not like this was front page news or anything... how the editor picks what will be in the issue is not something that I really care about.

I'm well aware of the politics of academia, it's half of the reason I quit my masters studies.

WilyCoder
07-01-2009, 12:24 PM
Are you convinced QM is the end all and be all of the laws of matter? That there is nothing more left?



Of course not. But I don't think the answer is pilot wave. It would be awesome if pilot wave was the answer so we could throw out all the statistics. But I don't think its the answer.



What makes him so unworthy of an article? There's lots of pages in a magazine.. this took up what? 1.. 2 at the most, it's not like this was front page news or anything... how the editor picks what will be in the issue is not something that I really care about.

I'm well aware of the politics of academia, it's half of the reason I quit my masters studies.

I'm not singling out the guy, I'd be just as pessimistic if it was (yet another) article about string theory.

Duckenheimer
07-01-2009, 02:11 PM
Right, pat yourself on the back buddy with your poli sci degree.

You replied to the same quote twice? Oh, I've nothing to pat myself on the back about. But you provide plenty of lulz.

As a cowardly little liar even on an online forum, you definitely don't have the courage of your convictions to call yourself a "true" Soviet. You might have the blood, but you are no real Russian. You're a parody, a joke. A deluded little caricature who mocks Soviets and Russians daily here.

Keep it up. :D

Spetsnazos
07-01-2009, 02:24 PM
You replied to the same quote twice? Oh, I've nothing to pat myself on the back about. But you provide plenty of lulz.

As a cowardly little liar even on an online forum, you definitely don't have the courage of your convictions to call yourself a "true" Soviet. You might have the blood, but you are no real Russian. You're a parody, a joke. A deluded little caricature who mocks Soviets and Russians daily here.

Keep it up. :D

get off my cock brah

Duckenheimer
07-01-2009, 02:34 PM
get off my cock brah

http://llamabutchers.mu.nu/archives/deliverance%20mighty%20purty%20mouth.jpeg

wildphucker
07-01-2009, 02:37 PM
Our dimensions move with respect to one another. If you're after a theory which is experimentally verified and predicts most of our phenomena, including those predicted by quantum physics, then this is it. Forget string theory. It's garbage.

Quantum entanglement and relativistic time-dilation derive from the same underlying physical reality-there is a fourth dimension which moves at a speed relative to our first three. Light and energy are matter rotated into the fourth dimension-where photons propogate as a wavefront surfing the fourth. This explains time-it is the emission and propagation of photons into our first three dimensions.

This predicts wave-particle duality, quantum entanglement, mass energy equivalence, and why time is different at lightspeed.

blananana4
07-02-2009, 10:57 AM
I'm well aware of the politics of academia, it's half of the reason I quit my masters studies.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_HhquV0B1tsc/SJ5A1-meoSI/AAAAAAAAADI/RSrDNNjFwno/s320/proceed+cat.jpg