Our answer is YES. This is, however, a frequent question, and the answer has been: no. For context, see the video 2016 Patrusky Lecture by Steven Weinberg, on "What's the matter with quantum mechanics?"
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3nnLbRaxtCE
We take the reasoned position: yes. Thinking otherwise would be to give up on deductive reasoning, on physics, on causality.
What is your qualified opinion?
Steven Weinberg quotes wrongly the Bohr principle, but that misquote is mainstream today. The "Copenhagen interpretation" was neither liked nor endorsed by Bohr. Bohr principle is that "all states are present at once". There is no solipsistic collapse of wavefunction. According to Bohr, quantum mechanics is not what nature is, but quantum mechanics is what we can say about nature. A story.
A PM reaches me, that physics does say "yes", and things have happened exactly for 13.8 billions of years -- but when measured, one is affected by the environment in what is called depolarization, which can only be described probabilistically, so the "yes" turns into "no".
Not believing in Majorana fermions, nor multiple universes branching out, nothing is to prevent the environment to be described chaotically, under a calculation given by deductive reasoning, as a causal effect. Nothing is random. Random numbers do not exist in nature. Any idea to produce a random number is in a "state of sin".
I believe no, and I have my own interpretation of QM, "Guidance Waves" which is a variation of the pilot wave. In this, the wave is perfectly deterministic, but it gives a soliton of energy (if you wish, a quantum potential) and the ability of the particle to have different positions with respect to energy density variations means you end up with the same probabilities from a deterministic wave.
Theoretically, it could, but technically I think it would be very complex to determine those hidden variables
SGC and JRS: See
Ed Gerck. Tri-State+ Communication Symmetry Using the Algebraic Approach. Computational Nanotechnology. 2021. Vol. 8. No. 3. Pp. 29–35. DOI: 10.33693/2313-223X-2021-8-3-29-35
[2] Ed Gerck. On the Physical Representation of Quantum Systems. Computational Nanotechnology. 2021. Vol. 8. No. 3. Pp. 13–18. DOI: 10.33693/2313-223X-2021-8-3-13-18. Change all occurrences of "Eq.(3)" to "Eq.(4)"
and following.
In my Guidance Wave approach, which is similar to the pilot wave in that the wave is real and guides the particle, there are two differences from all other interpretations. The first is, from the requirement that to guide the particle, the phase velocity of the wave must equal the particle velocity, so that, in the two-sliit experiment, say, they are both at the slits at the same time. The second difference is, from Euler, the wave function becomes real at the antinode for a very brief period, and it only then that there is a physical force.applied to the particle. This is why the waves essentially only self interfere - any two particles statistically invariably have different phases in their waves.
Accordingly, the probabilities arise first because the wave, when it becomes real, has to appear as if a soliton with an energy density disrtibution that generates the force, but the particle has a probability of no being at the minimum energy, and secondly, like Bohmian mechanics, the trajectory is squiggly, in this case due to randomly distributed small force bursts from distant particles still within wave range.
IM: First, regarding your statement, "the two-sliit experiment, say, they are both at the slits at the same time" I object that the LEM is broken at the two slits, and have a preprint otherwise. Second, there is no intermittent force experimentally, as we see in photodissociation experiments. Third, Bohmian mechanics seems incomplete in my view, and I don't support a hidden variable approach.
Yes Ed, as a human perception, the ability and the level to understand phenomena.
YPP: Yes. Mathematics and Physics are seen by me and many others as a deductive science. The experimental side was abandoned unfortunately in Mathematics, but that was not so at the time of Archimedes, or of Omar Khayyam.
Omar Khayyam tells us of a bird doing zeroes in the sky, in Rubayat, and that as giving him an idea what to do.
Everything in mathematics and physics must have then a reason, at least an axiom or postulate.
This is different from other systems, in that a small number of "undefined" concepts are chosen first, in advance, as self-evident or naturally occurring (e.g., in Physics) and all other concepts in the system are defined in terms of these.
In addition to the axioms or postulates, all other statements are formally called theorems, and can be logically deduced from them.
We hope that no experiment is needed, just computers (man or machine). That is the future of physics, not failed expermental reports on Majorana fermions, and then retracted papers on Nature by Microsoft and university teams. Lots of work, no result.
Unless we want irreproducibility, in Physics and Mathematics, we have to accept first that random variables do not exist, and second find ways to get probability out of quantum mechanics.
I accept your opinion, but I would note that I perceive mathematics as a language of expression of reality as far as we are aware of it. For me, probability, especially the subjective one, is a real phenomenon with man as part of it.
YPP: Yes. But probability remains as a measure of uncertainty, there is no probability 0 nor 1, it is always 0 < p < 1. The solution to avoid probability is equivalent to look for zeroes or ones. That is what I mean by getting probabilities out of quatum mechanics.
Mathematically we have done it. In FFT (Fast Fourier Transform) , we use e^(-i×pi) = -1 to calculate a FT of any signal, using integers (quantum), only. And we do it much faster on computers, rather than simulate what does not exist. Also easier to use it to see that a product to two negatives is a positive.
EG. What I meant by both at the same time is that if the particle goes through the slits when the wave has yet to reach it (Heisenberg) or the wave has long gone (superluminal wave), how can it influence the particle? QM always has a dead rat to swallow. You say you don't like hidden variables. On the other hand you say there is an interference pattern caused by nothing at all except your mathematics. Why is that better?
EG, the wave aspect has to be that of a soliton, with restricted broadening and constant maximum amplitude. This win the two slit experiment, as you increase the distance between slits, the interference wanes and you end up with two single slit blobs. A simple linear wave cannot reproduce this behaviour.
IM: This is contradicted by experiments, using the double-slit experiment. See the publication:
Ed Gerck. On the Physical Representation of Quantum Systems. Computational Nanotechnology. 2021. Vol. 8. No. 3. Pp. 13–18. DOI: 10.33693/2313-223X-2021-8-3-13-18. Change all references to Eq.(3) to Eq.(4).
ED Sorry, I don't have access to that journal, but the effect I have mentioned about the double slit is reasonably well known
IM: A wave brings in the amplitude paradigm, important as we see in a simple beach. A particle is a localized vibration. For particles, what is important is the frequency, like in the photoelectric effect..
Experimentally, this and other particle properties of photons win, the wave properties lose. The Maxwell Equations (ME) represent the wave properties, only. Photon spin is the particle description of light polarization, where spin +1 and spin −1 represent two opposite directions of circular polarization. Thus, light of a defined circular polarization consists of photons with the same spin, either all +1 or all −1.
Stimulated emission, and its coherence, are the foundations of the laser, and are not represented in the ME, even when represented by relativistic equations for the field strength tensor, with B and E using the same units. There are other examples, like diamagnetism
IM, JRS, and all: Here, finding the right balance between encouraging discussions and respect for other people’s opinions can be challenging.
We need to make difficult decisions and weigh concerns about free expression, personal, and community respect.
Reasonable minds can differ on whether particular content is objectionable or otherwise violates physics, math, or RG policies.
RG offers PM and immediate preprints that are very valuable for users. Considering that, and that all are aware of it, I have chosen to use disengagement as a resource here, when facing what I feel as systematic opposition.
Disengagement can take various forms. I may not answer except by PM, not answer at all, or answer later.
I am still here, read all posts, and the history of responses is available. Any reasonable question should already have been answered, and does not have to be reaffirmed. The cache principle applies. Everything helps, and the noise helps highlight the signal. Thank you for your participation!
Anyone who considers "spontaneous absorption" or "spontaneous emission" is in a state of sin, in physics. It means giving up on causality, and accept an effect without cause.
Thus, nothing is random. Nothing happens without cause -- in 13.8 billion years, the age of the universe.There is always a cause, albeit unexpected.
Instead, we take random events and causelless probability out of quantum mechanics and consider all cases of matter-photon interaction as stimulated emission:
Thus, there is always a cause. Energy is conserved.
There is no random value, or imprecision, just chaos (they are different!). Nothing exists without stimulation, without cause. There is no spontaneous effect.
All results must also be exact, or the universe would have halted or self-destroyed in 13.8 billion years. There is no room for error.
Quantum Mechanics (QM) is then, exact!
Just unknown, not imprecise. We should be able to use this to take probability out of QM. It is the wrong model.
Yes. QM can use certainty, while probabilities measure approximation. A measure can be certain, albeit unknowable.
Support comes from the preprint
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366124503/ ,
the article published in Mathematica in 2023 at
https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/11/1/68/pdf
the free PDF book
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365130122 ,
the paper-based books at
https://a.co/d/20K6HLx
and other references, including on the new field "quantum circuits".
QM can have values unknown, but not uncertain. Opinions do not matter, every opinion is right and should be, therefore, not discussed.
But, facts? Mass is defined (not a choice or opinion) as the ratio of two absolutes: E/c^2. Then, mass is rest mass. There is no other mass. This is consistent, which is the most that physicists aspire. Not agreement, which depends on opinion. Science is not done by voting.
Everyone can, in our planet, reach consistency -- and the common basis is experiment, a fact. We know of other planets, and there consistency may be uncertain -- or ambivalent, and even obscure. A particle, there, may be defined both, as the minimum amount of matter of a type, or the most amount of quantum particles of a type.
We can entertain such worlds in our minds, more or less formed by bodies of matter, and have fun with the consequences using physics. But, and there is my opinion (not lacking but not imposing objectivity) we all -- one day -- will be lead to abandon matter. What will we find? That life goes on. The continuity of life seems certain.
Some comments (now, deleted) above show how following the RG ToS is necessary for a scientific conversation.
But the legal responsibility of enforcing the RG ToS falls only on RG, per EU law.
Meawhile, it is suggested to read the question text, with the latest references. Also, private messaging is available.
Our observation that discontinuous functions are differentiable and integrable, opens new vistas. We do not need fictions anymore in order to calculate.
What seemed like a dark room filled with monsters (infinitesimals, Cauchy epsilon-deltas, hyper-reals, etc.), producing the catastrophism of Velikovsky and "Worlds in Collision", or Elon Musk's fear of AI, are denied.
Illuminated by the clarity of rational numbers and the observation that discontinuity is digital, what seemed like a dark room filled with monsters, becomes simple and empty.
Nothing is from a causeless no-source, a happenstance, everything is (somehow) stimulated, consequential.
This discards a probability model in quantum mechanics, as things can be uncertain to an observer, but are not inexact to a participant.
A simple 3-body problem cannot be solved by a human observer, e.g., as well-known, but the Solar system has an exact orbit for the least of its million bodies!
Perfection exists, we just don't yet understand it, nor have tools to describe it.
We are not saying the last word, but the first -- mathematics needs to change, then physics, biology, engineering, computing, and so on.
Numbers become simple and empty, ready for quantum computing and AI.
In support of the NO answer, some consider that numbers are arbitrary. So, QM is a mess, and only probability can hope to make sense of it.
Frege did not consider quantum computing (QC), and no one understood numbers in physical terms until Peter Schor in 1994 (cf. DOI /2227-7390/11/1/68 ). That changed the view of numbers, to now -- the digital age.
Discontinuous functions could not be differentiated -- but that can now be calculated exactly. Numbers are digital now, and FFT is common in the digital age.
The Schrödinger equation never described a continuous or imaginary function (cf. Schrödinger's own declaration to this effect, in 1926), but such functions can now be seen. Numbers are digital now, and the laser exists in the digital age.
These 2 views mean that mathematics is by nature exact -- for +4 quantum reasons in the digital age.
These +4 quantum reasons in the digital age support Frege's semiotic view of numbers and Peter Shor's algorithm in mathematics. The 4+ quantum reasons are reviewed in [1].
QC becomes physical in the digital age. This supports the YES answer. Numbers can no longer be viewed as arbitary.
[1] Preprint The quantum set Q*
Opposing or even paraphrasing Einstein is difficult.
However, I venture to say that God holds all the dices at all the times. Nothing is random, or science itself would not exist. One needs causality in science and life.
Everything is stimulated, not just stimulated emission.
Neutrinos and cosmic rays can stimulate the mutations behind the variants of COVID, not crowded or dirty living conditions -- that would be alchemy.
There is a distinction between "not measurable" and "not knowable".
Quantum phenomena may be exact, obeying precise relationships, or the universe could have halted in 13.8 billion years.
The universe may also be uncountably older, with multiple Big-Bangs (if one happened, why not more?). Is such an unimaginably old universe in danger of ever halting? Not with error 0, as provided by rational numbers.
So, Quantum Mechanics has no reason to be imprecise and all reasons to be rigorous, as rigorous as rational numbers.
We are learning that in Quantum Computing.
Qubits only support random data. But, there are no random data, this would break causality. Everything is stimulated emission, in different energy ranges. Everything is connected, therefore.
According to quantum theory, the outcomes obtained by measuring an entangled state necessarily exhibit some randomness if they violate a Bell inequality.
In particular, a maximal violation of the CHSH inequality guarantees that 1.23 bits of randomness are generated by the measurements. See arXiv:1107.2754 (quant-ph).
There are, though, no random data (see first sentence above).
Non-abelian anyons use imaginary numbers. However, imaginary numbers do not exist in QM, nor stochastic methods. This is another hype infesting current quantum computing. Don't look up!
Read the Australian group’s proposal in arXiv:
"Square markers with error bars are the results obtained stochastically from the Hadamard test. Real and imaginary components are evaluated separately."
and, for example:
"Quantum circuit diagram for the Hadamard test for evaluating the imaginary component of a matrix element."
and:
"The imaginary part can be obtained by applying a −π/2 phase gate to the first qubit between the Hadamard gates; that is, an operation which induces a −π/2 phase shift between the |0⟩ and |1⟩ states."
Fiction, gallore.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Esthetics
- Interpretation