Quantum theory, a theory of matter and energy based on the concept of quanta has lead to quantum mechanics, quantum information science, quantum computing, quantum science and several other concepts if I am permitted to say so. There have been lots of theories, postulations, concepts, principles, research done and presented over the years right from the classical to the quantum perspective which makes one to enquire as to whether or not there is:
1. a theory beyond quantum theory?
2. a science beyond quantum science?
3. a mechanics beyond quantum mechanics?
4. a computing beyond quantum computing?
I have been pondering over this for some time now. I stand to be corrected if my question was not presented rightly.
Only a realist believes that there is an absolute "true" theory. Contextualists like me would say that quantum mechanics is a mathematical formalism that works extremely well with current data, and helps make predictions about the outcomes of future experiments. Until new data comes in (if ever) that QM does not fit well, there is no point in speculation. The only thing to do is to keep testing the theory. If QM ever breaks down, then there should be enough data to construct a better theory.
QM does not "explain" many things people unreasonably expect it to, such as consciousness, life, thermodynamics, spacetime, religious beliefs, why some people post on arXives and others on Vixra, and the behaviour of the stock market tomorrow. My best advice: don't be dogmatic.
Very good Question
Obviously there will be a theory that will replace, and most likely be born from Quantum theory itself, but for that our science has to advance to that stage where we can conduct a sophisticated experiment that reveals some observation contradicting prediction of Quantum mechanics, then scientific minds will again have to sit together and come up with answer , and in the process lay foundations to a new theory of our interpretation and understanding of reality.
As long there is no bound set on human creativity and scientific research, there will never be any dearth of good theories being born and replacing each other in succession, and driving forward our wheels of scientific and technological advancement.
I proposed a very simple interpretation of the principles of superposition and reduction of the wave function. Diffraction of electrons on the two slits also received a clear explanation. Please see my little paper `Subquantum Leapfrog` https://vixra.org/abs/1801.0379
Only a realist believes that there is an absolute "true" theory. Contextualists like me would say that quantum mechanics is a mathematical formalism that works extremely well with current data, and helps make predictions about the outcomes of future experiments. Until new data comes in (if ever) that QM does not fit well, there is no point in speculation. The only thing to do is to keep testing the theory. If QM ever breaks down, then there should be enough data to construct a better theory.
QM does not "explain" many things people unreasonably expect it to, such as consciousness, life, thermodynamics, spacetime, religious beliefs, why some people post on arXives and others on Vixra, and the behaviour of the stock market tomorrow. My best advice: don't be dogmatic.
George Jaroszkiewicz
>>>Until new data comes in (if ever) that QM does not fit well, there is no point in speculation.
"Shut up and calculate", yes?
Lev Verkhovsky
"Shut up and calculate", yes? - exactly!
Quantum mechanics emerged, at least partly, from absolute impossibility of explaining black body radiation in classical terms due to the equidistribution theorem. Special relativity emerged, at least partly, from incompatibility of Michelson's experiments with Newtonian space-time. Einstein's general relativity would remain an irrelevant mathematical curiosity if not for the experimental observation of precession of the perihelion of Mercury’s orbit. So, unless you have an experiment to explain or suggest that cannot be explained by QM, keep calculating!
L. I. Plimak
Mathematics develops without any experiments, due to its internal logical structure. Theoretical physics also has its own logical structure, thanks to which it can develop. Experiments play an important role (getting initial information, testing theories).
But to stop looking for a good interpretation of QM in anticipation of some new experiments (to turn this theory into a set of computational algorithms), means to a large extent to stop its development.
Lev Verkhovsky
So far as you are talking interpretation of QM, and not its modification, I'm fully with you. We still do not have a universally accepted measurement theory compatible with relativistic QFT, to think of one example.
Science does not advance by interpretation alone. Science advances by confronting prediction with observation. It's a cheap shot to refer to the latter process as "calculate and shut up". Blah-blah physics never helped anyone except people who want complacent certainty in their belief structures. "Interpretation" = quasi-religion. Science is not afraid to go wrong or revise its current interpretation. That's what makes it strong. Give me empirical evidence any day over philosophical logic.
I believe that, historically, QM is still very much in the state of developing its mathematical structure. Compared to classical mechanics, we are still somewhere in the 18th century.
George Jaroszkiewicz
>>> "Interpretation" = quasi-religion.
A good interpretation has great heuristic capabilities, while a bad one leads to a dead end.
>>>Science is not afraid to go wrong or revise its current interpretation. That's what makes it strong.
I think you`re joking.
Since 1600s to now, we are following old and outdate science. Our assumption is, everything must work mechanically. Even our vision on "Quantum Mechanics" must work mechanically but in a small scale, while atom is not working mechanically. The " QM" should change to " Quantum Physics" where it is the world of atom and smaller.
When we look an atom, it seems, it is a complete entity that is working separately from Classical Physics, therefore world of atom must be investigate through whole entity of an atom, not by part, which it means SPACE in the atom is important as other part of atom. To clarify this remark in layman, when we see a silver coin, we do not see electron or proton/neutron, we see the SPACE of the atom that presenting the color of silver. Just this phenomenon, must have its own class of investigation in science that it is not mechanics.
https://www.academia.edu/39293599/Quantum_Intelligent_Space
regards
Probably!!
We need to reach to the other galaxy to find the alternative answers !!!
After careful reading all answers, there is something possibly important to mention. The latest development of AI -- its unsupervised version -- was capable to learn to play Atari games.
What surprised researchers is the fact that AI found flaws in the game and scored points in really weird ways.
My idea is to release AI on data and develop alternative descriptions of quantum data without human restrictions. We could become surprised by what all we are missing.
Human-made hypotheses are highly restricted to those made by evolutionary AI. We can be missing whole continents of hypotheses.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science
- Computing