No, it isn't. For some reason many people still have trouble imagining carrying out calculations for systems in equilibrium with quantum fluctuations. Though they don't seem to have any similar issues with systems in equilibrium with thermal fluctuations. The only difference between systems in equilibrium with thermal fluctuations and quantum fluctuations is the space of states. However there's no ambiguity in defining it; just that the space of states of a quantum system is different from the space of states of its classical limit-more precisely, a quantum system has many more states than its classical limit.This doesn't mean that it can't be consistently defined, however. For example, a bit is a system of two states, 0 or 1; a qubit is a system of infinitely many states, all the points of the unit sphere. A bit is subject to gates: a qubit to unitary evolution operators. A coin has two states, ``head'' or ``tail''; a quantum coin would have infinitely many states, the points of the unit sphere.

Regarding determinism, in the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century it was believed that classical physics was necessarily deterministic. Poincaré realized that this was wrong, when he realized that the three body problem wasn't deterministic, but his insight was forgotten-apart from Einstein who, in 1917, noted that the known approach towards understanding quantum systems only worked if the classical limit was integrable and asked the question about what are the properties of quantum systems, whose classical limit is not integrable; a question, that has remained open to this day. It wasn't addressed by the formulations of quantum mechanics proposed in the 1920s by Heisenberg, Dirac, Schrödinger, or in the 1940s by Feynman. Poincaré's insight that classical systems can be defined by deterministic equations, but, nevertheless, need not have deterministic evolution, was rediscovered in the 1960s and has given rise to the field of deterministically chaotic physical systems. Which are to be distinguished from the ``molecularly chaotic'' systems of Boltzmann.

In conclusion, quantum systems, that do have an integrable classical limit, can be consistently described as systems in equilibrium with a bath of quantum fluctuations, just like classical thermal systems can be consistently described as systems in equilibrium with thermal fluctuations; the only difference is the space of states.

There's nothing mysterious about the ``collapse of the wavefunction'', more than what happens with what's known as a priori and a posteriori probability, that are known for many years now as ``Bayes' theorem'' in probability theory. Once more, the only difference between quantum systems and classical-integrable!-systems lies in the space of states and how probabilities are assigned, not how to deal with the probabilities, once they have been calculated.

People seem to worry a lot about quantum systems and not at all about deterministically chaotic classical systems, despite the fact that the latter are much less understood than the former, even though they present the typical case of classical systems, relevant for applications; integrable systems are the exception, not the rule.

"Does the observer effect indicate a deeper, yet undiscovered deterministic mechanism?"

Already this pseudo-question should be a red flag...

"If quantum mechanics is truly the fundamental theory of the universe..."

Who even said that? Nobody ever said that...

"Is quantum mechanics incomplete?"

Can a microscope explain the global structure? If I have a globe does it make a microscope unnecessary?

Carmen Wrede

Quantum mechanics is incomplete and so is Classical physics. To be true, both the physics has fundamental flaws but quantum physics is a blunder if we treat classical physics as error prone. What the world is really running out of is just 10% max knowledge as the rest of the knowledge is out of the reach and will be unless we re-evaluate the core fundamental definition of physics itself...and this is true for any science humans have endeavoured to learn, be it law sciences, cooking sciences, medical sciences, hotel management science and etc etc etc. And to answer your question the microscope can really not only explain the global structure but the universe and the multiple universes beyond that and so is the global structure that can explain what microscope can and any world beyond that. Human have so far discovered only the visible universe and that too not seen really with their eyes but derived by what? partial knowledge of the sciences and the same goes for the smallest particle called quarks and leptons but there is world beyond that too, the entire universe I would say. So the question is to answer your question and tell you that there is something beyond the sciences that humans know and I can tell you more if you are interested. You might outright reject these statements made by me but this is the truth that we cannot be blinded by...

Sandeep Jaiswal So, it’s incomplete. And?

Let’s think a little deeper: For the past 100 years, everyone was kind of fine with that. Sure, people knew physics wasn’t the final answer, but there was no urgent need to change it. And now, suddenly, we’re hearing louder and louder voices shouting that QM, GR, SRT, and even classical physics are “incomplete”, as if this were some great revelation.

What changed?

Oh, right. We’re on the brink of yet another war. The demand for better weapons, stronger armor, faster jets is growing. And now, conveniently, the narrative shifts: “Your physics is incomplete, your science is flawed, you’re all blind.”.

Not for the sake of progress. No. That would be noble. But just to justify the next power play.

And the cherry on top? Those same voices, the ones who sat comfortably while the world was divided, exploited, and bled dry, now have the audacity to call others ignorant. Not to push humanity forward, but to justify pushing more people out of the way. It’s giving Biff from Back to the Future energy.

But hey, since you call yourself a "Consultant of the World", surely you must have a solution? Or is your grand contribution just... calling people stupid? That's all you've got?

The truth is, the table is turning. And there’s nothing you can do about it. Because as long as you don't evolve your character and grow inwardly from egoism you will clearly get shit. Nobody is interested in handing you the sword with which you will cut off many heads. Go and use your atom bombs and see how it goes for you. You will die with us. Maybe not at once... but in time you will.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooXmNGjxIQU

Dear Stam,

I deeply appreciate your engagement in this discussion, and I respect the depth of thought in your response. However, I must be forthright—while quantum mechanics has undeniably been a revolutionary framework, it is far from the final truth. It is an approximation of reality, not reality itself. In fact, both quantum mechanics and classical physics are fundamentally flawed, and treating quantum mechanics as the superior truth while dismissing classical determinism is an intellectual misstep.

Physics Is Running on Less than 10% Knowledge

Modern science, as vast as it appears, is still operating on a fraction of the knowledge that truly exists. Quantum mechanics, for all its predictive successes, is still probabilistic—a mathematical convenience rather than an ultimate reality. It attempts to describe the universe with limited tools and unquestioned assumptions rather than exploring what truly lies beneath.

This is not just about physics—this applies to all sciences. Medicine, law, engineering, psychology, and even cooking sciences are partial—derived from limited, human-centric observations rather than from a truly universal, all-encompassing framework. The visible universe itself is a derived construct, not something we have directly seen but something inferred from partial data. The same is true for the microscopic realm—quarks and leptons are not the end; they are merely the last rung of the ladder we have reached so far. There is a reality beyond this—beyond quantum mechanics, beyond current physics, beyond even what we assume is observable.

The Flaws in Quantum Mechanics Are Not Minor—They Are Foundational

You argue that the collapse of the wave function is not mysterious, likening it to Bayesian inference. This interpretation, while appealing, does not address the deeper ontological issue:

• If wave function collapse is merely an update of our knowledge, does the wave function itself represent reality or just our perception of it?
• If it is merely a computational tool, then quantum mechanics is not a fundamental science, just a statistical method.
• If it does represent reality, then why is nature fundamentally probabilistic?
• More importantly, why does human observation influence physical reality, defying all logic of an objective universe?

Quantum mechanics is, at best, an incomplete projection of a deeper deterministic structure that we are yet to uncover. If classical chaotic systems can be described by deterministic equations, then what stops us from considering that quantum mechanics is simply a probabilistic shadow of a fully deterministic underlying reality?

God, Metaphysics, and Science—Where Do They Intersect?

Throughout history, science has dismissed metaphysical concepts as irrelevant or unscientific. However, the deeper we probe into the mysteries of quantum mechanics, space-time, and consciousness, the more it becomes evident that science and metaphysics are not separate—they are interconnected.

Your argument suggests that people concern themselves too much with the "mysteries" of quantum mechanics while ignoring classical chaos theory. But this is not a mere academic debate—it is a profound existential question: Does reality function deterministically, or is it built upon randomness?

If everything is probabilistic, then nothing has meaning, direction, or ultimate truth. But if determinism exists, then the universe follows a deeper purpose, one that transcends current physics.

This is where the intersection of science, metaphysics, and even the concept of God emerges. If the universe truly operates on an unbreakable, deterministic principle, then we must ask:

• What is the nature of that principle?
• Is it purely mechanical, or does it have an inherent intelligence?
• Does the universe, at its deepest level, operate as a conscious entity, as ancient spiritual traditions suggest?

These are not philosophical distractions—they are the very questions that physics has evaded for over a century.

A Call for a Paradigm Shift

Stam, the truth is that quantum mechanics and classical physics have reached their limits. They are tools that have taken us far, but not far enough. If we are to make true progress, we must dismantle the very foundation of physics as we know it and reconstruct it with an understanding that:

Stam, I deeply appreciate your intellect and your argument, but I challenge you to go beyond defending existing paradigms and embrace the possibility that we are on the brink of something far greater than quantum mechanics—a new physics, a new understanding, a new reality.

Let’s not defend what we know. Let’s seek what we don’t.

Are you ready to explore that frontier with me?

Best regards, Sandeep Jaiswal

Stam Nicolis

Carmen Wrede

Please see my detailed reply above as this should answer all your questions and as a matter of fact anybody's question on anything about science that is raised by anybody.

Cheers,

Sandeep

Any physical theory is incomplete; but that's different from it being flawed. Classical mechanics and classical electrodynamics are incomplete; they're not flawed, because they do provide a mathematically consistent dedcription of a class of natural phenomena. They are completed by relativistic quantum field theory, which provides the consistent framework for describing all natural phenomena, through the particular relativistic quantum field theory, known as the ``Standard Model'' (though a more appropriate term is the ``Standard Theory'') that don't involve quantum fluctuations of spacetime; how to describe these is an open problem. But its solution won't imply that relativistic quantum field theory is flawed, but that it's incomplete.

Similarly, though the Standard Theory of particle physics doesn't describe dark matter, for example, since the particle content of dark matter is unknown, this, simply, means that the Standard Theory is incomplete, not that it's flawed, i.e. inconsistent. Same remark applies for the property that neutrinos are massive; the mechanism, that will describe how neutrinos acquire their mass will, further, complete the Standard Theory, it won't show that it's inconsistent.

The statement that a mathematically consistent description must be deterministic is, simply, wrong: It is possible to provide a mathematically consistent description of probability. And it is this possibility that allows to pose the question of whether all consistent descriptions of natural phenomena are determined by their initial conditions exclusively, or not. The answer, before Poincaré, was that initial conditions were necessary and sufficient for determining everything; since Poincaré, it is known that this isn't true. This simply means that the quantities of interest are not the initial conditions, but the evolution laws of the probability distributions, that do depend on more than just a measure in the space of initial conditions. And this holds for classical as well as for quantum physics.

Natural phenomena do exist independently of any observer; but what matters to any observer is what is the mathematically consistent description of perceived natural phenomena.