From my research on Quantum Gravity, I have found out that there was many attempts to write the best theory by changing our interpretation of Quantum Physics. This change in interpretation has impact on our mathematics too, which is interpretation free.
In the history of physics, we had lots of interpretations those now we consider them wrong. In my view PMI is constructed on those kind of interpretations.
Is not the time to abandon interpretations of Quantum Physics for good?
Transactional Quantum Microphysics, Principles and Applications.
http://www.lulu.com/shop/http://www.lulu.com/shop/jacques-lavau/transactional-quantum-microphysics-principles-and-applications/paperback/product-23656620.html
I would say that interpretations may aid understanding once the maths is correct, and they may suggest new avenues to study and test, but ultimately they must always follow from getting the maths to be accurate based on all known experiments and observations. If the maths gets the predictions wrong, IMHO interpreting it is pointless.
Is the Schrödinger equation, modernized Pauli, next modernized Dirac, correct?
On the contrary, the ideations, the boundary conditions, and the acception of time as taught by the hegemonic Copenhaguists are as uncorrect as possible.
Theory needs reformulation when it is not able to interpret and explain the observed behavior of the objects that would be subjected to such theory.
For example the Rutherford atomic theory that was not able to interpret the spectrum emission of the atoms when they excited.
This may be a very simple view of the raised issue.
People changes the theoretical formations when they fail to interpret their observations using such formulations. On the other hand the strength of a theoretical is that can correctly interpret the observed behavior of the intended objects. As a human language formulation and due to limited time and space of the observations the theoretical formulations have their limitations in the application domain of time and space.
Best wishes
@ Abdelhalim Zekry .
The hegemonically taught theory is unable to explain the properties of any spectral absorption.
Whichever the vergence defects of our eyes, we still perceive the same colors and the same illumination.
And how the tiny CO molecule can capture the infrared photons of the right frequency, 65.05 THz ? How can work at all the spectral absorption CO detectors?
Dear Jacques,
I would like to thank you for your interaction with my post about the validation of theoretical instructs formulated by scientists to interpret observed behavior of the objects. As an engineer i try to express my ideas and opinions in the simplest possible form. I get out from your comment that existing theories are not able to interpret any spectral absorption.
Because i did not study this subject in detail i am not able to judge how far the existing theories can interpret this phenomenon. However, i have to believe you. In case of not available, one may rely on empirical formulas till the correct theory is found.
Best wishes
I pretend that the transactional theory of the microphysics answers well.
The translation of the handbook in english is finished for June.
Transactional Quantum Microphysics, Principles and Applications
http://www.lulu.com/shop/http://www.lulu.com/shop/jacques-lavau/transactional-quantum-microphysics-principles-and-applications/paperback/product-23668513.html
And as the translator is a mercyless proof-reader, the french version also underwent revisions.
Seemingly all theories require interpretation for understanding. Yes, the mathematics of theory does not require interpretation, but all such mathematics of physics requires underlying interpretation. Interpretations can be the different interpretations of theory, or they can be interpretations of observations which can overthrow any theory if validated.
The official wisdom is that interpretations are not only very important but also indispensable. The right question is how much do you want do dispense with the interpretations? Perhaps one can dispense with some folk interpretations of scientific theories, but getting rid of interpretations too radically leaves us at the level us with merely syntactical notations. This are not enough for understanding theories, nor for explicating their references (relations to reality/phenomenal models).
"How much is the importance of theories interpretations?"
Since there are ambiguities concerning both theory and observations, interpretations must be made. Interpretations can widely differ, one from another. Prevailing interpretations are one of the foundation pillars of theory.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Quantum Physics