Qm is physics, not math.

Nature just is, you dont prove it.

Juan Weisz When you use math to describe the universe, you accept the axioms of classical logic as true. You therefore have to interpret nature in accordence with those axioms.

I would agree with Juan Weisz.

Physics studies the Reality, mathematics studies the Truth. Reality has no property to be true or false, consistent or inconsistent, but has the property to exist. The Truth has no property to exist or not exist (in mathematics, the existence is a different notion than in Reality), but has the property of provability / non-provability, consistence / inconsistence.

There are different and inconsistent mathematical theories (e.g. different set theories, standard and non-standard analysis, Euclidean and no-Euclidean geometry etc). All them are real depending on what interpretation you give to them. More than that, all them can co-exist side-by-side in Reality (consider a manifold whose some parts are positively curved and other are negatively curved).

The attempt to "prove" anything about Reality is faulty, because "to prove" is a logical operation of deduction, and each deduction starts with axioms. Reality has no axioms and does not track any deduction path. We can speak about physical principles as axioms and perform some logic with them, but this is already not a Reality, it is some mathematical model of it, which can be more or less adequate (e.g. Galilean vs Minkowskii geometries as models of physical space-time). Likewise, any attempt to find "inconsistence" in Reality is faulty, because inconsistence is the result of logical operations on mathematical structures.

In mathematics, as soon as some construction is proved to be inconsistent, it is considered "non-existent". The physical phenomena do not cease to exist even if the theories explaining them are proved to be inconsistent. This simply means the mathematical model of this physical phenomenon is not adequate with respect to features we are interested in. This is the fail of human understanding of Reality, not of Reality itself.

Alexandru Popa In mathematics, Zermelo-Fraenkel Set Theory with the Axiom of Choice (ZFC) provides the formal framework for defining sets (such as ℝ, ℤ, ℂ…), and classical logic governs how these sets interact and are manipulated. You have the sets provided by ZFC, and you have the Logic that you are going to use to analyze the sets that is provided by classical logic. When you choose to use math to describe the universe you inherit the assumption that you are going to use classical logic to analyze everything. If you then take the set B or all scientific observations, you have to apply classical logic to it in order to have any form of consistency. Would you agree?

Dear Russell Smith, I cannot agree with you.

1. Zermelo-Fraenkel Set Theory with the Axiom of Choice (ZFC) is one of many (I really mean "many", perhaps more than the number of fingers on both hands) alternative set theories. There is absolutely no physical or mathematical reason to prefer ZFC over any other.

2. On the other hand, in physical Universe there is no such object as "set", it is abstract mathematical construction. There is no such objects as "truth", "axiom", "proof", "consistence" and anything else, which belongs to logic. There is absolutely no physical equipment to observe or measure any of these. There is impossible to perform some experiment with any of these notions.

3. I also put you a question. Euclidean and hyperbolic geometries use incompatible axiom of parallel (again, there is a large variety of non-Euclidean geometries). If it is true for Euclidean geometry, it is false for hyperbolic one and vice-versa. I ask you: Which geometry is Real: Euclidean or hyperbolic?

Alexandru Popa

1. While logics such as intuitionistic, or quantum can be used to develop certain theorems in mathematics and shed unique perspectives in various derivations, constructing the entirety of mathematics used in modern physics ultimately requires assuming the axioms of classical logic. This is true regardless of if you use ZFC, NF, or anything else. So I do not care what set is chosen, as the point is that classical logic must be assumed.

2. When you choose to use math, you inherit the assumption that classical logic is true, from the mathematics. Therefore, you either need to interpret reality in accordence with classical logic, or stop using math to describe it.

3. It is provable that if mathematics is assumed true (by using it), then space itself is isomorphic the Eucledian space, not hyperbolic.

OK. I will not argue that your assumptions on all 3 pints are based on nothing. Instead, I will do one logical step starting from point 3.

So, you agree that Euclidean geometry is real and hyperbolic geometry is not real. Or, by your reasoning, Euclidean geometry is true and hyperbolic geometry is false. You probably know that in Euclidean geometry we can construct a model of hyperbolic geometry. This means that as soon as hyperbolic geometry is inconsistent we can extend this inconsistence to modelling Euclidean geometry. And if you connect Euclidean geometry with Reality, and claim hyperbolic geometry is not real, this immediately leads to conclusion that neither Euclidean geometry is real.

Alexandru Popa When you construct a hyperbolic geometry in Eucledian geometry, each point in the hyperbolic geometry is already embedded into the Eucledian space. You therefore couldn't use this to contradict Eucledian space. However, you can construct hyperbolic space independent of Eucledian space, and this doesn't necessitate that there is a relationship between them. Thus no contradiction.

Russell Smith, when you construct hyperbolic geometry in Euclidean one, you prove it to be (in)consistent to the same extent as Euclidean. It does not matter if hyperbolic geometry can also be constructed independently. The idea is: There is no way to determine the "True" / "Real" / "Original" geometry with the aim of mathematics. And if you connect math with Reality, you quickly conclude there is no physical way to determine which geometry has our space. And this claim is wrong. It plainly means, mathematics and physics study different objects of different nature and with different properties.

Alexandru Popa I would disagree. Like I said, when you choose to use math, you inherit classical logic from it. This doesn't change reality, it just determines how you are going to analyze it. As a logical consequence, you must also accept anything that can be proven with classical logic. I therefore define Z to exist if and only if Z has a property, and then I apply classical logic to this definition to produce what I call the Laws of Existence. Since everything in physics has a property, these Laws of Existence apply to all of physics. These Laws of Existence establish that space is isomorphic to some Eucledian space.

Russell Smith, what is the reason to prefer classical logic over any other 1st or 2nd order logic? Why do you prefer ZFC set theory over others? Can you prove they are more "Real" than their alternatives? How can you prove your claim that "when you choose to use math, you inherit classical logic from it"? Which exactly mathematics / logic do you use (which set theory, which number theory, which geometry, etc, etc, etc)? And I emphasize that each alternative theory in math is inconsistent with all others. Self-consistence of any theory cannot be proven in principle (Gödel's 2nd incompleteness theorems). What is your mechanism to prefer one alternative theory over other? How is it linked with Reality.

@ You should consider reading the article in the link...

Peter Breuer You cannot reconstruct all of the mathematics used in physics with those logics, and thus classical logic must be assumed.

The thing is QM actally has a prior

extensive empirical basis under the cover

"Modern Physics", but the books labeled "QM"

Usually just gloss over.

You have to be in the profession to know this.

There is "axiomatic QM" but its minority stuff.

Juan Weisz Can you elaborate? Check this out. https://youtu.be/e_91THWdtuM

Before getting straight into QM

You need to understand all the backgroun experiments.

(Plus some fancy math).

Ie the full story of black body radiation

Electron diffraction, the old QM of Bohr and de Broglie

Functional analisis, operators, special functions.

The modern interference experiments.

Etc

A mixture of empiricism and math.

Read Beiser, Feyman series etc

Juan Weisz ? That is all just basic graduate level QM...

Maybe, so nothing wrong?

Are you self taught?

Juan Weisz Are you self taught? If I could find something wrong I wouldn't post it now would I?

However its just sophomore level for physics candidates.

Juan Weisz You speak very metaphorically... Speak what is on your mind.

Well, from your profile, you would be better off

In a learner role.

Juan Weisz I am always in a learner role. You are welcome to point out mistakes in my work as it would be appreciated. Thank you

As to your thesis i mostly agree because

Physical facts more than axioms are at play.

Peter Breuer You are not correct that "Most if not all the mathematical universes we can think of, such as Intuitionist of constructivist, can model each of the others". For example, in constructive proofs, you cannot assume the Law of Excluded Middle; you have to actually construct the argument in each case from more general logics. So mathematics in which you are not able to do this cannot be developed with constructive logic. You cannot use other logics to "fill in the gaps" regarding areas of math that you can't develop with constructuve logic because then the entirety of math would be based on two different logics. You have to develop all math used in physics on the same logic, and that requires classical logic. So yes, my statement is very clear if yo understand how math is derived.

Your second paragraph is not even in the same multiverese as sensical, as you assume that binary and multivalued is the only distinction between logics.

Juan Weisz Thank you for the honest feedback. Do you see anything in the article that should be clarified? Does this provide a mechanism for using formal logic to derive physics? Your feedback is appreciated.

Peter Breuer Suppose that I have a non-classical logic with an axiom of (A!=A). How are you going to use this to map to (0 or 1) of classical logic. So no.

Peter Breuer If you do not assume the Law of Excluded middle, then you could map [0,0.5] -> 0, and (0.5, 1]->1, but this is not the case in all non-classical logics.

What I believe you are saying is that it is possible to constrct both a model of our universe that explains all scientific observations, and in which all of the mathematics is developed on a non-classical logic. This simply is not correct.

Peter Breuer The idea would be to find a logic in which all physics, and all of the math used to develop it, all use the same logic. At that point, math, logic, and physics all share the same set of principles ensuring that they are all consistent with everything that we use to analyze reality. My work provides a method to transform physics from a structure u like spacetime with an unknown logic, to a derivable structure with a known logic. Thus formal logic can be used to derive physics.

The math just has to be of an applicable kind

To work in QM

Nature ignors logic.

Juan Weisz If you read my article it transforms physics from a structure u with an arbitrary logic Lu, to a structure called the FE with a known logic L. Therefore, all though nature ignores logic on u, it abides by logic in the FE. Therefore formal logic can be used to derive physics. Let me know if I am mistaken.

Peter Breuer The purpose of a transformation is that the original logic is not cared about... Thusm the transformation to the new structure means that you can ignore quantum logic.

Has anyone actually claimed the $500 reward yet? And after taxes, how much does that leave for disproving the foundations of modern physics? Just wondering if it's worth the effort!

If disproving the foundations of physics is worth $500, why hasn’t an oligarch jumped in to increase the stakes? Surely, rewriting the universe should at least be a billion-dollar endeavor, right?

"So I can prove that the above mentioned theories are mathematical nonsense, and I produce a theory that makes the same predictions without the logical mistakes."

So your theory makes the same predictions as the current ones? Congratulations, you’ve just reinvented the same 'mathematical nonsense' but now in your own version!

Carmen Wrede How does that make any sense to you to say? Going from a situation where physics doesn't conform to formal logic, to one where it does is potentially the largest step in physics ever made...

Russell Smith How does it make sense to you to replace physical theories with one that produces identical predictions, but is supposedly more logical? Physics isn’t bound by human formal logic. It follows the rules of nature, which often defy intuition. Where’s the progress if the predictions remain the same?

Carmen Wrede ? There are many many answers to this, such as actually knowing what the structure of our universe is when all of the axioms of math and physics are aligned under the same logic. This process unites math, physics and logic into one set of principles, ensuring that this model is consistent with everything that we use to analyze reality. By doing this, it opens up a whole new avenue for physics in which the tools of formal logic can now derive physics making it possible to predict completely different things never modeled before. This is exactly what Leonard Susskind is looking for from all of the podcasts that he has been doing, I just don't have a connection to him yet.

Russell Smith Let's see if you land on the "nice" or "naughty" list this year:

Your claim that time is not an independent element (dimension) but an "attribute of existence" clearly contradicts established concepts of relativity theory, where time is fundamentally intertwined with space.

Christmas Rating: Naughty! This sounds like a step back into pre-relativistic physics.

You describe nice, theoretical concepts like space being reduced to R3, but no new experiments that would show testable differences to existing theories.

Christmas Rating: Naughty! Physics without testability is like a gift without content.

Your criticism of string theory (“1D entities do not exist”) and general relativity seems unfounded. It does not provide alternatives that better describe physical phenomena.

Christmas Rating: Naughty! Criticism is good, but without better alternatives it seems hollow.

You are trying to create a simpler model that unifies everything. This approach is commendable in itself, as many scientists pursue similar goals. Unfortunately, the claims remain ambitious here.

Christmas Rating: Nice! The attempt counts, even if it lacks substance.

Santa would place you this year on the 'Naughty' list of physics for now, until you provide clearer evidence or results.

Carmen Wrede Keep in mind that this model is consistent with all scientific observations, and thus it does not need to be consistent with scientific theories.

Russell Smith It’s quite bold to claim that your model matches all observations but doesn’t need to align with the theories explaining those observations. Isn’t that like saying you know the recipe for a cake because you ate a slice, but you don't care how it was baked?

If your model is consistent with all observations but ignores scientific theories, what exactly makes it better? A good model doesn’t dismiss previous knowledge, it builds on it or surpasses it.

So here we go: You critizise string theory, but what do you propose as an alternative? String theory attempts to explain phenomena that no other model currently can, such as unifying quantum mechanics and general relativity. Simply saying '1D entities don’t exist' doesn’t disprove the theory, it’s a philosophical objection, not a scientific argument.

If you cannot explain string theory, where is your model "consistent with all scientific observations"? This is precisely what exposes the discrepancy between your criticism and the claim to be “consistent with all observations”.

Carmen Wrede It is pretty straight forward. You can see it for yourself in the link.

Russell Smith There is nothing "straight forward" here. It only seems logical to you, when in fact you are making mistakes and your logic is flawed.

Let's take a deeper look at your 1-D-Theorem, shall we?

"Flux is the measure of how much of a property of an entity passes through a boundary. It indicates the flow, transfer, or influence of the property across or through the specified area or region, regardless of whether the property physically moves or not.". This is your own definition given by your paper.

What you ignore: This typically refers to surfaces or regions in higher dimensions, such as the flow of a vector field through a surface in R3. A line has no surface through which anything can "pass". Flux is often defined mathematically as the integral of a vector field over a surface. However, in 1D there is no surface (A=0), so this definition is not applicable. In 1D you can measure flux along the line (e.g. current in a wire), but not through points on the line. Your definition seems to ignore that flux in 1D simply acts along the axis without the need for an additional dimension.

Also: In your definition, the point x denotes a “boundary”. Points in 1D divide a line mathematically, but do not form a boundary that could block physical flow.

Even if you divide a line, each part still remains on the same line without introducing any additional dimensions. Everything stays along the one-dimensional axis. There is nothing “below” or “above” to block flow.

To explain it more simple: A line is by definition one-dimensional, and it stays that way even after it is divided. Dividing by a point simply means that the line is broken into two segments that continue to be along the same axis. There is no interruption to the “flow” along the axis. The point x that divides the line is not a physical blocker. It is just a reference to define the two segments.

What evidence supports your claim that a point on a line blocks flux, given that physical systems like current in a wire or heat transfer in a rod demonstrate continuous flux in 1D?

Carmen Wrede I don't know how to help you... Take it or leave it...

Russell Smith Neither do I... But as a matter of fact: If the universe worked like your theory, the ferret would stop running every time we mathematically divide the wheel into segments. But as you can see, nature doesn’t care about segmentation, it just keeps spinning!

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Wv5FxC_HYhM

There is currently no proof that quantum mechanics cannot be explained within its own mathematical framework, nor has any inconsistency been demonstrated between the mathematical axioms of quantum mechanics and the physical phenomena it describes. The mathematical structure of quantum mechanics, including Hilbert spaces and unitary operators, is consistent and successful in predicting experimental outcomes.

If there are future developments that involve deeper issues (for example, through the unification of quantum mechanics with gravity), those may involve new insights, but for now, quantum mechanics remains a highly consistent and well-established theory within the mathematical structure it uses.

Anoop Kr. Verma I would argue that the 7 page article linked below, proves that mathematics and QM cannot both be true, meaning that QM violates the axioms of the math used to describe it. It works great, but as is it is entirely contradictory.

https://theframeworkofeverything.com/

Its impossible to deduce qm from other

Physics principles, let alone math.

There are only some physics arguments.

Juan Weisz This is not true. QM is based on mathematic formulations done by Newton, Bernoulli and Euler regarding behavior of light. That those three are immortal and later work was done by others doesn't mean their impact was not necessary. So one can deduce for example Schrödinger's equation to Euler's formula. Also concepts of Newton like impuls and energy still play an important role in QM.

Juan Weisz It is actually quite easy to predict the events of QM from formal logic....

QM mechanics roughly follows the structure

Of rational mechanics, but is Not deducible by it.

You have to make the well known translation into

Operators, which is not obvious, and encounter

The cases when they dont commute.

Carmen

The mathematics you cite is good for Classical or rational mechanics, not QM

QM mechanics starts with Max Planck around the year 1900, much later than the

Names you gave.

If you guys are really interested

In something relevant to QM i

Suggest the eigenvalues of operators or

Matrices with eigenfunctions.

Juan Weisz 🙄 How about no? If you want to look at matrix and eigenfunctions go for it. But I decided to rather stay 2D. Because 2D is just enough for all the fun without unnecessary complexity.

Juan Weisz All that matters is the scientific results, and then you transform those results to a structure in which everything can be explained with the logic used to develop math. Therefore, the rules used to analyze math and physics are the same. The weirdness of QM is entirely irrelevent as it gets weeded out in the transformation.

Hm, i detect very little technical knowledge here.

Kelvin, "physics is the science of measurent"

Sounds like math?

First dirty hands in labs.

Carmen, some qm is done in 1 dimension

Juan Weisz Ah yes, Kelvin...

Since you guys seem to know something about axioms

Of QM try this one

Close to:

The result of measurement on some physical

Variable is one of the eigenvalues of the corresponding operator.

Complemented by

If the system is not measured

, its state is in a superposition of all states

(Eigenstats).

Juan Weisz It is a very common understanding that a particle is in a superposition of states. As you exit your house, you are in a superposition of being both in and out: nothing mysterious about this. The article explains all of thise quite nicely.

Nothing mysterious?

Consider that normal size objects have well

Defined physical parameters, measured or not.

Particles dont, till you measure.

Juan Weisz The beauty about transforming physics to the new structure is there is a mechanism for everything. This means that even QM is very simple to understand, with absolutely nothing being confusing or mysterious about it.

Juan Weisz Now, wait a second minute hour! You mean that the behavior of those particles is different from daily objects????? DEAR LORD KELVIN! MY UNDERSTANDING OF PHYSICS HAS TRANSFORMED FOREVER \o/ THE PARTICLES ARE NOT PARTICLES BEFORE MEASURED \o/ WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT... beside everybody born in the 20th century...

Carmen,you have not read very much,

Even stranger things around.

Russel, if you would work actual problems, the discovery is

Its not easy at all.

Juan Weisz Sounds like you are holding back the secrets of the universe on purpose. The secret services won't like reading that! It's best if you say it voluntarily. Be cooperative and tell us in more detail everything you know about these particles, even if it is difficult for you! You will definitely feel better afterwards. Maybe then these strange things will stop too!

If you shoot cannon ball it has a trajectory and well defined

Speed at each position.

For particle such as electron you dont.

If you know position, you dont know speed or vice versa.

No trajectory in qm

Juan Weisz Heisenberg's uncertainty principle has often been criticized for its limitations in describing classical intuitions like well-defined trajectories. However, this is a direct consequence of the mathematical framework established for quantum mechanics, not a fundamental flaw of nature itself. It’s worth reflecting why, after decades of research, no alternative formalism has been successfully established to address this issue without compromising the predictive power of quantum theory. The inability to observe both position and momentum simultaneously is more a reflection of the tools we use than a universal truth.

I'm genuinely curious why you make demands on others to address issues that, despite decades of research, have not been solved even within your own field or career. Dismissing others as 'unread' while failing to offer substantial solutions to these fundamental challenges comes across as counterproductive rather than constructive.

If you are not familiar with a solution yourself, there is no need to present a mini-lecture as if you're assuming we lack this knowledge, while positioning yourself as if you're introducing groundbreaking insights.

Its also an experimental conclusion.

So its solid.

You heard of a moving arrow having no position?

Same thing.

This is such a naiv discussion.

Zenon’s Paradoxon has little relevance to modern physics. In quantum mechanics, position and momentum are probabilistic, not deterministic, so the analogy doesn’t really hold.

The position of a moving arrow can always be determined along the t-axis as a function of time. The argument doesn’t hold up in classical physics, let alone in modern physics, where movement is a continuous concepts.

Not at all the same thing. There is no uncertainty in x(t)=vt+x0.

It hold. If you know the speed (or momentum p=mv), you know nothing about

The position x. (v=dx/dt)

[x, p]=i hbar is the math expression.

Juan Weisz You don't know that speed that I was driving today, but that doesn't mean that I didn't have a well-defined speed. Physics tends to focus on what is measurable, rather than what is happening in reality.

Only talking about electrons say, not about

your daily life.

As operator

p=-i hbar d/dx

Juan Weisz That doesn't change anything... In my opinion, physacists know just enough about logic to produce rediculious interpretations of things. For example, when you choose to use math in physics, you are choosing the set of logical axioms that are going to use to analyze the data, as this gets inhereited from the mathematics. So if math is developed on say constructive logic, and you use math to analyze phenomena using quantum logic, your work is based on two contradcitory sets of axioms and is thus nonsense. Physacists ignore logic resulting in rediculious interpretations.

Russell Smith "Physacists ignore logic resulting in rediculious interpretations."

Your life. Literally.

Even in math logicism plays only a very small part.

Nature is not obligated to be logical.

Juan Weisz Of course nature isn't required to be logical. This has nothing to do with anything....

Ha, but you demand people who study it to apply logic.?

Juan Weisz Read the article or don't. You are wrong either way...

No, and we don't need more philosophical nonsense when it comes to QM.

Colin Naturman

We don't stand on math; as a physical society, we apply the appropriate math (including axioms).