In the article linked below, a derivation is done using strictly classical logic and experimental results as the premises. Through logic alone, the processes that mimic superposition, quantum tunneling, black holes, etc are derived implying that quantum mechanics is more very classical... I would be curious if there are any mistakes in the derivations of existence, and time.
Article THE NATURE OF EXISTENCE AND THE STRUCTURE OF THE UNIVERSE
Hello.
Could you clarify what you mean when you talk about “classical logic”?
Bakhodir Khonnazarovich Tursunbaev Absolutely. When someone reasons through scenarios they tend to use a multivalued logic. For example, my kid is not answering their phone because they are either mad at me, out of service, or their phone is broken. Now in this case, it could be a combination of the 3 reasons but that is only because the 3 scenarios are not contradictory. It would not be possible for my kid to not be answering their phone because they are both at Jeffs house and at Mikes cafe. In reality, the cause is always binary... With that said, classical logic deals with formal inferences, truth tables, and prepositions that are compatible with reality, but not necessarily someone's interpretation of reality. Everything, including QM, is binary.
Jonte Deakin
If you read the article, using logic alone, the processes of QM are deduced without the need for physics...
Jonte Deakin
? Maybe you should tell my university so they can take back my degree pertaining to such things...
Jonte Deakin
My focus was fractional order calculus, calculus of variations, and tensor calculus... You tell me....
Jonte Deakin
If you want to point to something you don't like in the article you are welcome to do so... We can go from there...
Let's assume that the space is filled with magnetic monopole tachyonic neutrinos of very small magnetic monopole charge. The fast traveling (36.5 million times the speed of light) magnetic monopole neutrinos create spiraling electric field along their path and this random electric field pervades space and this is the cause of quantum mechanical uncertainty, aether, dark energy, etc.
Eue Jin Jeong If the space is filled with magnetic monopole tachyonic neutrinos, then such neutrinos either exist or they dont... If they do not exist, then what you state is wrong, and if they do exist, then they are subject to the same thing that the elements of E are subject to in my paper...
Jonte Deakin
Classical logic includes deduction and reasoning... This is different than quantum or multivalued logic...
Jonte Deakin
Why would using reasoning imply using classical logic? The term classical logic distinguishes from other forms of logic, establishing that fields such as quantum logic are not necessary for understanding reality...
Jonte Deakin
So as was stated before, point to something that doesn't make sense to you and we can discuss... So far you are just making random statements, and so I do not know what you expect me to do with that information... You can insult things all you want, but the fact that you can't point out an error makes them quite meaningless. So again, if you do see a mistake, point it out very specifically, but don't waste peoples time with such silly notions...
Russell Smith. A hundred years ago, proponents of quantum mechanics came to similar conclusions. Despite the fact that physics is an exact science, the “multi-perspective” theory of quantum mechanics began to develop on the principles of probability theory. An interesting fact is that until today quantum mechanics cannot provide a reasonable (accurate) calculation of the radius (diameter) of a hydrogen atom, an elementary atom.
In 2013, an experiment was carried out using the tunnel method to directly observe the structure of the hydrogen atom.
As a result of the experiment, images of hydrogen were obtained on a scale where the radius of the atom = 1 Angstrom (accordingly, the diameter is 2 Angstrom).
Please explain using your logic:
Which atomic radius is correct: the Bohr radius of 0.53 angstroms or the experimental 1 angstroms?
Or does the geometric size of atoms not matter to the science of physics?
Bakhodir Khonnazarovich Tursunbaev That is a great question... If you consider both an ontological and epistemological ball, the only difference is that one has a property distinguishing it from nothingness... Essentially this means that existence can be defined more or less as a continuum with at least one property (from a specific set). Additionally, since enclosing an existing object in a larger geometry would not entail such larger object exists, every point in the continuum must have a property. Since the atom does not form a continuum, the atom does not exist: it is composed of things that exists, and those interactions produce the properties of the atom. Per the infinite divisibility property, existence is infinitely divisible. What we perceive as being fundamental, is again infinitely divisible. Quantum mechanics models the exchange between the visible and the invisible so to speak.... With that said, the processes that occur in nature can be deduced logically, but the extent to which such processes occur is found through experimentation. Therefore your question does not make sense in relation to the claims but that is probably my fault for not being more clear. The details are in my paper if you care to read. Feel free to ask more questions.
The thread question
“Is it possible to derive quantum mechanics with classical logic?”
- looks as is rather strange. Every real scientific theory is developed basing on its postulates/axioms, and the theory as a set of theorems, etc., is derived by using, first of all and principally obligatorily, “classical logics”.
In physics the [principally non-provable using some more general principles, as that, say, axioms in mathematics are] postulates are formulated basing on experimental data at the data interpretations; all postulates must be quite classically logically mutually consistent, etc.
But in the quantum mechanics case there exist even more general principle – why on QM scale QM objects/events/effects/processes are random and uncertain
– which rigorously follows from just classical logics: “completely logically there cannot be continuous changes” at all. That changes cannot be continuous at least in space was rigorously classically logically proven more 2500years ago by Zeno, who really predicted QM…
Cheers
Рассел Смитдо Based on the conclusion of your article, I would like some clarification. According to your logic, earlier the founders of quantum mechanics used this theory to solve problems related to the physical properties of the atom. However, is quantum mechanics no longer concerned with the physical properties of the atom? If that's the case, what is the current focus or object of quantum mechanics?
Bakhodir Khonnazarovich Tursunbaev Quantum mechanics models the exchange between detectable and undetectable particles (as defined in the article). Within this framework, superposition is represented as vibrations through a compressible ether, rather than as a particle existing in multiple states simultaneously. Quantum tunneling is explained as the dissociation of a particle, such as an electron, whose constituent components are not bound by our physical laws and can thus bypass barriers through the compressible ether. Entanglement is communicated via the compressible ether by a constituent particle that is not limited by the speed of light (c). It should be clarified that these statements are justified because existence is infinitely divisible, and only the set of detectible configuration are testable meaning that detectible particles are the only elements that need to abide by the physical laws.
Thus, quantum mechanics has often been considered confusing or illogical, but this is due to applying observations to the wrong framework. Within the framework presented in the article, quantum mechanics appears very "classical" despite its probabilistic nature. It is analogous to not knowing which of my two hands contains an item—this uncertainty does not mean the item is in a superposition of being in both hands. Instead, it is definitively in one hand or the other.
To answer your question, quantum mechanics (and RQM) is a very solid theory overall but it needs to be interpreted in terms of this framework (or similar) in order to make sense logically. Since quantum mechanics models the exchange between detectible and undetectable particles, when interpreted in light of this theory, QM models physical reality at the very small in such a way as to be compatible with the very large. I am refining this theory to make it more clear and detailed, but so far I am convinced that it is a done deal that this is accurate (of course I am willing to change that opinion if presented with evidence) because it models reality in a manner that is consistent with all fields of physics, it resolves the paradoxes in physics (i think), it logically makes sense, and it is very simple... Of course if you find any errors please do not hesitate to point them out.
However, you have not answered the question: Is quantum mechanics no longer concerned with the physical properties of the atom? Consequently, have the fundamental concepts introduced by the founders lost their meaning and essence?
Bakhodir Khonnazarovich Tursunbaev Quantum mechanics has everything to do with the properties of the atom.
Wave-Particle Duality Is Literally a contradiction. In the context of formal logic P and not P cannot be true. Thus, yes... the fundimental concepts by the founders of QM would not be valid (at least logically)...
Superposition is a contradiction: Let the preposition P: Particle A is in state 1. It follows that P and not P cannot both be true...
Essentially many things in QM are contradictions, but with this framework that issue goes away.
Рассел Смит. Could you explain what you mean when you say, "But with this structure, that problem disappears"? What specific structure are you referring to?
Also, do all proponents of quantum mechanics consider wave-particle duality to be a literal contradiction? Didn't one of the founders of Quantum Mechanics win the Nobel Prize for the concept of duality? It seems like you've turned quantum mechanics upside down now, haven't you?