Quantum mechanics have many real time applications and passed many tests. even though many scholars, philosophers disagree with quantum mechanics and even Einstein had not accepted it.....
why we have this confusion between us?
welcome with your valuable answers...
thank you.
Dear Hussainsha,
In your question there are different things to define previously to answer you: what you mean by don't accept quantum mechanics or what it means to understand it.
Let me start with Einstein, he has made many important achievements to Quantum Mechanics (QM) and in fact he received his nobel prize for his works in QM (photoelectric effect) and not for others which nowadays are considered to be more genuilly from him. The problem of Einstein was that he had difficulties with the basic knowledge of QM. For instance, particles behave like waves, and phenomena thought to be wave-like also had a corpuscular manifestation . Physicists learned that a correct description of the microscopic world demands accepting that particles can be in multiple places at once, only to materialize at a given location upon measurement (Collapse problem). This is difficult to understand if one only accept our common sense and don't think that Physics is only involved with prediction of new phenomena or repeating a given physical phenomena under certain physical conditions. This is all, but there are many clever physicists that they don't want to limit to use only this instrumental knowledge of QM and worse with respect to QFT where it is enlarged at systems of infinite degrees of freedom gluing it with Relativity.
Until the coming of Quantum Mechanics, Physics strived to be local . What this means is that a given physical system can only affect its immediate surroundings. Special Relativity made the case for locality even stronger, as it introduced the cosmic speed limit, the speed of light c. Nothing can propagate faster than light, be it a particle or information about someone measuring your entangled partner photon. But nowadays there are experiments which contradict this; for example, even if we have entangled photons very far away, measuring one will effect the state of the other. This kind of issues makes QM difficult to understand even for good physicists who want to go deeper than the accepted instrumentalist knowledge that I have said.
Mr. hussainsha,
A large number of people do not understand neither physics nor chemistry, accounting for the fact that the chemistry is in all place around us, In addition the people with education (higher) are at about 10-15 % from the population worldwide...From these 15 % only 3 % understand the science, in general, and from the latter 3% only 2.5 %understand physics.
@Bojidarka B. Ivanova
My dear Bojidarka B. Ivanova, I am worry about 2.5% people who understand physics and don't accept quantum mechanics with 100%...what is the reason?
In those 2.5% people there are so many Neil's Bohr's and Einstein's....why so?
I claim to understand Physics to a sensible level, I disagree with the usual interpretation of QM, and totally with most of the previous comments, which only show the arrogance of the priests who have stall physics for almost a century.
Quantum Physics encompass 3 domains :
Quantum Mechanics proper, with 5 basic "axioms" (Hilbert spaces, operators, eigen values, probability, Heisenberg law). They have absolutely no Physical content (they do not even use a word evocating a physical object) and are actually Theorems, which can be proven, which hold about any model using variables meeting some properties. Of course one can use these theorems in Physics, but they hold also in Economics.
Quantum Electrodynamic : this a physical theory of the EM field, with the introduction of the photon. It uses the previous axioms but the most important part is the physical assumptions which are made.
Quantum Theory of Fields : this is an extension of the previous one, with a similar framework but many additional physical assumptions and variants.
So it is necessary to distinguish the axioms (which are senseless for any scientist when they are taken as physical value), and the physical theories in which they are used. The latter can be controversial, as it is natural in Physics, but they make sense even without QM.
Dear Hussainsha,
In your question there are different things to define previously to answer you: what you mean by don't accept quantum mechanics or what it means to understand it.
Let me start with Einstein, he has made many important achievements to Quantum Mechanics (QM) and in fact he received his nobel prize for his works in QM (photoelectric effect) and not for others which nowadays are considered to be more genuilly from him. The problem of Einstein was that he had difficulties with the basic knowledge of QM. For instance, particles behave like waves, and phenomena thought to be wave-like also had a corpuscular manifestation . Physicists learned that a correct description of the microscopic world demands accepting that particles can be in multiple places at once, only to materialize at a given location upon measurement (Collapse problem). This is difficult to understand if one only accept our common sense and don't think that Physics is only involved with prediction of new phenomena or repeating a given physical phenomena under certain physical conditions. This is all, but there are many clever physicists that they don't want to limit to use only this instrumental knowledge of QM and worse with respect to QFT where it is enlarged at systems of infinite degrees of freedom gluing it with Relativity.
Until the coming of Quantum Mechanics, Physics strived to be local . What this means is that a given physical system can only affect its immediate surroundings. Special Relativity made the case for locality even stronger, as it introduced the cosmic speed limit, the speed of light c. Nothing can propagate faster than light, be it a particle or information about someone measuring your entangled partner photon. But nowadays there are experiments which contradict this; for example, even if we have entangled photons very far away, measuring one will effect the state of the other. This kind of issues makes QM difficult to understand even for good physicists who want to go deeper than the accepted instrumentalist knowledge that I have said.
@Daniel Baldomir
My dear Daniel Baldomir, I agree with your depth analysis. This means; I think we are still lagging with unlocked foundations of quantum mechanics to make sense of it...
Actually at the beginning of Quantum Physics was an in depth interrogation about the meaning of measures in Physics, such as Dirac's noticing that, at some scale, it is impossible to measure simultaneously the location and the speed of a particle. From these interrogations, attempts have been done by Jauch, Francis and others to justify the axioms of QM by the way the process of measurement is done. One can agree with these attempts or not, at least they are based on rational ground and consistent, but they become more difficult when one introduces relativity and the role of the observer. Anyway they insist, rightly, on the difference between "what we can measure" and "what it is". Tell that an object can be at different locations simultaneously is just pure non sense. Or one need to redefine totally the meaning of the words, and accept that one thing can happen, out of the blue, without justification. This what one used to call magic.
@jean claude Dutailly
My dear jean claude Dutailly, of course it may be no sense to say an object can be at two different locations simultaneously, but there is a strong evidence of having an object at different locations simultaneously. Ya you are right we have to think of it on a basic level to make it sense...
I do not pretend to prove the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, which has nothing to do with Quantum Physics. But I have proven, this is just mathematics, that the 5 usual axioms of QM are theorems which can be deduced from the way mathematical models are built. However one of these theorems show that when we have many similar systems interacting, the total system has a representation which is special : actually some order comes chaos. It can be seen as entropy. But, one more time, there is no physical assumption in these theorems. So they apply at any scale, for instance for star systems.
The big problem with Quantum Physics as it is explained, is that it mingles mathematics with physical assumptions, and you get the usual "this is a mystery...nobody knows...perhaps one day...." Google "interpretations of quantum mechanics" and you have over a million answers, and this has been going on for almost a century. This is very comfortable for physicists and teachers, but they are paid to give answers, not riddle.
Physical objects and physical laws are not first written with mathematics expressions. There are not many First Principles and laws : Principles of causality, relativity, locality, conservation of energy and momentum, 2nd law of thermodynamics. They are expressed with words, which relate properties of physical objects, which are also expressed with words. Their expression is somewhat general and vague, but this is their strength.The main property of a material body is that is occupies a definite location at each time. How you measure location and time depends on the Theory you use. Galilean Geometry and Relativity do not give the same answers. They use assumptions, and mathematical representations (that is assign to each measure of a property some mathematical object), from which you make computations. But the mathematical representation is just that, a representation, it is not reality. This is the difference between measures and the Physical world. But from the way usual models - which are pure mathematical construct - one can also deduce that they have properties of their own. The theorem which says that a system can be represented by a vector in a Hilbert space is clearly a mathematical conclusion which comes from mathematical assumptions. And this is the same for the most bizarre of theorem, about eigen value and probability, or even the Heisenberg' law.
Dirac's noticed that at some scale it was impossible to measure speed and location simultaneously, and, wrongly deduced that they have no meaning for particles. Until 50 years ago it was impossible to measure the location and speed of a shell fired by a gun. Artillery men built models, with all the relevant variables, which could be used quite efficiently to forecast a trajectory. None of them doubted that their was one shell, on one trajectory, as their enemies could check. This is the same in colliders : when they are 27 km long one can hope that the engineers know where are their particles ! and their energy is measured by their speed...
Dear Jean Claude,
The statement "Galilean Geometry and Relativity do not give the same answers." simply is not true. Each representation gives the correct result (relative to that representation) in each representation's domain of applicability. Relativity reduces to the Galilean representation in the limit of low velocity but the Galilean representation does not attain the relatavistic representation because the relativistic domain is beyond the domain of applicability of the Galilean representation. That is, relativity includes the Galilean domain of applicability but the Galilean domain does not include the relativistic domain. One must take care not to try to apply a representation outside of its domain of applicability. Thus one cannot use Galilean physics to solve relativistic problems but, in principle, one can use relatavistic physics to solve Galilean problems.
This is one of the problems which have come with Quantum Physics : words have gotten a flexible meaning. Galilean and Relativist Geometry have not the same assumptions, not the same representation, and in any computation give different formulas. That in some cases the results are close does not mean that they are the same. At least for anybody who is not embedded in "interpretations". This is still the magic thought : the magician has done his trick, and it "seems" that the rabbit has disappeared.
I think that I don't understand, speaking of "words with flexible meanings", what you mean by "Galilean and Relativist Geometry"? We presumably are dealing with a single reality in Nature that we can represent in different ways to different degrees of accuracy but I should think that in the limit all representations should converge to a single consistent representation if indeed Nature is unique. Reality does not depend on how we represent it but rather reality is the given and any representation of that given reality, to be viable, must give a representation of reality consistent with all other viable representations. For example, Galilean and Relativist representations must coincide when both are applied within the Galilean domain of applicability.
I would like to stir it a bit further, by introducing the topic if "WAVE FUNCTION COLLAPSE". Or what in simpler ways is a superposition of several eigenstates to a single one. So in terms of quantum mechanics it would be connection of a wave function to position and momentum. So for me it's quite enchanting that one could forsee the future the way one believes would be the likeliest outcome of an action. Crystal ball gazing if you will, through science. Isn't this a fascinating aspect!! It is, but I do not think we as humans have evolved to that stage yet where we could accept Quantum Physics and its meaningful implications to ours and our children's lives.
@ Waqas Hassan Tanveer
my dear Waqas Hassan Tanveer , hope time heals everything....
To Dwight,
To forecast the motion of planets there was a method, the Ptolemaic system, which was quite efficient with respect with the precision of the measures at the time, and of course close to what could give Newtonian Mechanics. Would you say that they are the same, because some computations give the same results ?
One more time, there are different things in Physics, as in any science : the concepts, first laws or principles, quite general and accepted , some basic assumptions upon which one builds a theory, a formalism (which is not necessarily mathematical see Chemistry), which enables to define a format in which one collects data from experiments. The same experiment can give similar data with different theories. And the same physical objects can be represented by different mathematical objects in different theories. There is one reality, but we do not know what it is. The only thing that we can do is to provide representations, which are the base upon which one makes measures (you do not collect data in the same way for a point or a vector). We shall not confuse measures with reality.
The problem with the common interpretation of Quantum Physics is that it confuses the physical object with their mathematical representation (or the measures which can be done in some definite representation). And you get strange things such that "superposition of eigen states", "wave functions", "virtual particles", "collapse of the wave functions".... which are expressed in a "mathematical bubble" whose nobody can give any explanation. But for Kralj there are tangible and physical objects....
What I have done is just to look at these objects for what they are : mathematical objects (independently of any physical interpretation) and as such they can be studied with mathematics, and one can prove (we are in the domain of mathematics) the usual axioms of QM, which are theorems valid whatever the model meeting some precise conditions. One can guess that a model based on vectors can lead to Hilbert spaces. And that the estimator of a variable can lead to operators, eigen values and probability.
Of course, in any physical domain, the theorems apply, whatever the scale, whenever the mathematical conditions (fixed by the physicist) are met. So one can proceed to the usual computations safely, but it is useless to try to find a physical interpretation. Any vectorial function which belongs to an infinite dimensional space would require an infinite number of data to be estimated precisely, which is impossible. So we use an estimator, a simplified version of the function, depending on a finite number of parameters, and this is no surprise that these estimators have some common properties, which come from the way they are defined, and not from what they are supposed to represent.
Where did you get your statistics that the majority of people don't accept quantum mechanics? I've never heard that!
@Amir W. Al-Khafaji
My dear Amir W. Al-Khafaji, one old statistic is: Neil's Bohr and Einstein and some new statistics is; read above answers ....
if you still need a still statistics you to try it....
Thank you my dear for your valuable answer...
I welcome you for further valuable statistical answer like a scholar...
@Igael. Kindly enlighten us with your knowledge in this field. Dissemination of your findings will open eyes of us mere mortals.
Thanks
Because they know they'll get more attention by declaring they don't accept it, rather than that they do, and it's the attention they're after.
@Stam Nicolis
My dear Stam Nicolis, does Einstein got more attention by saying; God does not play dice or he got more attention from sr and gr?
To Stam,
What an argument for a Scientist ! You do not argue, you qualify the intentions of people with whom you disagree.... This is typical of the "politically correct" academics, media people and politicians. Nowadays if you disagree with the "scientifically correct" thought, that is the common interpretation of Quantum Physics, you cannot publish in the "respected publications", you cannot even post in arXiv, and probably cannot get a coveted post in the CERN or an American University. This is the kind of "attention" that Galileo got, when he refused the Ptolemaic system. Stam, you should propose to set up a police force, in charge of pursuing all the incorrect scientific thoughts on the internet (you would call them of course "fake news" to stay in line with the fashion that you praise). One is never too much careful. We could loose our fat perks, going after the discovery of the Higgs boson, dark matter and other virtual objects. It has been going for so long, that it would be a pity to loose such a lucrative job : the more we search, more are new mysteries !
Dear Jean Claude,
I think that you are exaggerating the possibility of publishing alternative theories to Quantum Mechanics. What Quantum Mechanics presents is a system of equations that accurately predicts physical observable results, and these are unambiguously representing nature. What they can mean is another question, and there are a variety of alternative interpretations (look at the literature). There are two quite accepted nowaday: the updated Copehagen standard interpretation and the de Broglie-Bohm Pilot Wave. Look at the link for seeing some interpretations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics
Another think is if you want to present a new theory which tries to explain well stablished experiments or phenomenology. In Physics the new theories must contain the previous ones under the same conditions. For instance, Newton gravitation is an special case of General Relativity or Classical Mechanics (under Galileo's transformations) another of Special Relativity. I have found 287 papers in the Arxiv
https://arxiv.org/search/?query=Alternative+quantum+mechanics+models&searchtype=all&source=header
which present different aspects of alternative quantum mechanics applied in many fields of Physics.
It suffices to check how many people have heard of Einstein's statement about God and dice and how many have learned special and general relativity. So, yes, Einstein does get more attention for the first statement than about relativity.
There's no argument that can address metaphysical issues, which is what ``accepting'' or ``rejecting'' quantum mechanics (or any technical issue) means. The reasons, in particular, that are put forward, for ``rejecting'' quantum mechanics don't have anything to do with, either mathematical consistency, or experiment, they have to do with personal taste.
Similar reasons for ``accepting'' quantum mechanics are, of course, equally meaningless. However an explanation for why there seems to be a majority of people ``rejecting'' quantum mechanics is that it's easier to get attention that way, than by learning the subject and contributing the ``usual'' way. What they do with that attention is another matter.
So it is a theory, that does fit experiment.
Why should the answer to either question matter for deciding whether quantum mechanics is mathematically consistent, or agrees/disagrees with experiment?
Whatever the ``intentions'' of anyone are is irrelevant.
To Daniel and Stam,
I know all these "interpretations" of Quantum Mechanics, you omit one, from Jauch and von Neumann, which is the only one which does not assume anything about the physical world and is more consistent with the discussions at the beginning of the story, about the meaning of "measure" in Physics. The problem with your arguments is that you state that Quantum Physics is right because it provides forecasts which are in agreement with the experiments. But, in order to give a meaning to this assertion, you need to relate what you measure, with some physical phenomenon. So we are again looking for a physical interpretation of Quantum Physics.
I do not say that the computations are invalid, what I tell is why they are legitimate, and this has nothing to do with any physical interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, but has to do with the way you express mathematically the model. Another example : the first Maxwell's law says that the field is a closed 2 form. But, in any consistent EM relativist theory, the field is defined as the differential of a one form, so the first law is tautologic. It would be meaningless to check the first law. As it would be a bit awkward to check that the operator representing a measure is self adjoint...
To Stam,
"Whatever the ``intentions'' of anyone are is irrelevant."
Read again YOUR previous post :
"Because they know they'll get more attention by declaring they don't accept it, rather than that they do, and it's the attention they're after."
I can tell you that I do not give a damn about your attention.
@Stam Nicolis
My dear Stam Nicolis, we are unique scholars , we are not here to get attention, we are here for the development and understanding of physics. Let us accept and give chance of expressing flaws and truths...I am 100% sure that no scholar seeks attention because we love physics....
I hope you give solution for this problem rather than attention word...
@Aleš Kralj
My dear Aleš Kralj, I am not getting your questions. Shall you please elaborate us your intention behind your questions ...
Dear Jean,
Another example : the first Maxwell's law says that the field is a closed 2 form.
This is not true: the fields are always 1-forms (E or H) what are 2-forms are B and D or the electromagnetic field F or its dual, within the 4-D spacetime. This is not due to Gauss law (if this is your first law) but to the constitutive equations employing the polarizability P and the magnetization M.
f rom Jauch and von Neumann, which is the only one which does not assume anything about the physical world
In all that I know this is not an alternative to the Quantum Mechanics of Copenhagen school, actually it is its mathematical formalism. There are several different mathematical formalisms of QM starting by the matricial and wave first equivalence. The importance of QM is that it is the most phenomenological theory very close to the experimental results. When Planck introduced the quantization of the energy or Bohr his atomic model they were always behind the experiment.
Dear Daniel,
The main discovery of Maxwell is the unification of the electric and magnetic fields, which goes through a 4 dimensional 2 form, F, which is the differential of the potential. This is obvious in its matrix form (see my book p.227 for the computation in GR). And fully consistent with the association of the EM field with the group U(1).
"phenomenological laws" are simple models where 2 quantities, corresponding to identified physical phenomena, represented by variables which can be measured, are related. For instance the law for the deformation of a solid. What are the "phenomena" related to the eigen vectors, the self adjoint operators, or the wave function ??? This has been the main purpose, and error, of all scientists who have striven to find a physical interpretation to QM. It has never been found, because there is no physical interpretation to be found.
@jean claude Dutailly
My dear jean claude Dutailly, yes you are correct regarding Maxwell....
But whatever might be the phenomena related to the eigen vectors, the self adjoint operators, or the wave function regarding the law for the deformation of a solid, there is evidence of 'zero point energy'.
Therefore, we must accept QM based on this evidence though there are foudational defects in QM...
Dear Jean,
Maxwell equations were originally 20 equations because this great physicist didn't know and use the vectorial calculus. This was introduced by Heaviside and reduced them to 4 vectorial equations, where fields (E,H) are very different objects than inductions (D,B). In differential equations you can write also the 4 equations as in the vectorial formalism ( in fact instead of working in the tangent space you do it in the cotangent one). It is true that when you represent them as covariant Lorentz equations you can reduce them to only 2
∂βFαβ=Jα
∂β*Fαβ=0
and in differential forms
d F=0
d *F=J
F a 2-form electromagnetic field, *F a dual 2-form using the Hodge * star operator and J the 3-form density of the electromagnetic sources. In any case the there are not a first Maxwell law as you said and less the 2-form electromagnetic field is deduced from it. If you want to see a book where it is fully developed the exterior algebra of differential forms of electromagnetism I would like to recommend you
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/geometry-of-electromagnetic-systems-9780198591870?cc=es&lang=en&
Maxwell's equations describe classical effects, so it doesn't make sense bringing them up in a discussion about quantum mechanics.
While the intentions of people that claim not to accept quantum mechanics is, essentially, to get attention (assuming they've studied it; if they haven't, then it's just, because it is fashionable to profess ignorance about quantum mechanics), the intentions of Einstein are irrelevant to the question of whether quantum mechanics should or shouldn't be ``accepted'' by someone else.
The reason is simple: it doesn't make sense to appeal to any authority about the technical content of any physical theory. The only things that matter are mathematical consistency and experimental relevance. And the opinion of Einstein isn't relevant for deciding these issues.
So the only meaningful objections one can have is, either a mathematical inconsistency or an experimental contradiction.
As long as neither of these issues is addressed, the discussion is meaningless. And neither has been presented in the discussion so far.
To come back to the question of this post, we have several answers which are consistent : if some people say that they do not understand quantum mechanics, this is either because they are stupid (Bojdarka; Ales), or they want only to attract attention to themselves (Stam). That, for a century, many bright scientists - or simply students - have striven to give a meaning to computations that are bizarre, does not matter. Quantum Mechanics is a matter of faith : you are a believer or not. We do not know what is a wave function, a virtual particle, entanglement, collapse of the wave function, what eigen values have to do with measures,...all this paraphernalia has to be accepted at face value. As in any faith. Who would dare doubt the gospel ? Only people who are stupid, or malevolent and wanting just to attract attention to themselves. Thanks Bohr ! The true believers, who keep fiercely the high positions in Science will make sure that the students will stay in line, and that any heretic thought are for ever banished from the righteous publications. The Dark Ages are not over.
Just one question. It is assumed by all physicists, including myself, that atoms comprise a nucleus. This nucleus is extraordinarily resilient : it stays the same in almost all physical processes. Indeed matter would not exist without this resilience. Nuclei are composed of elementary particles. Quantum Mechanics should - because its predictions are always incredibly precise and right - provide a strong, consistent, answer to this simple, obvious, fact : the resilience of nucleus. Unfortunately there is none. We have a Standard Model which, with extreme complications, tells what happens when elementary particles are launched against each other at high speed. We have some models, not so precise, to tell what happens when a nucleus breaks down. But we have almost nothing to explain why the modest, ordinary matter exists, why the "quantum fluctuations of the vacuum", the constant valz of virtual particles, the merry round of bosons and the collapse of the wave function brings such a consistent, stable, reliable, state of a simple, banal, system.
Wulf Rehder
Where does this issue, and the present question, does come from ? From the fact that Quantum Physics is seen as a Gospel. How often have we read the ultimate statement : "All the experiments done have proven that it is right. Its predictions are checked with an incredible accuracy. " but, what ever the priests and the PR Department of the Cern proclaim, the doubt subsists. One solution, actually chosen by many physicists, is to see all these doubts as the product of discussions between theologians. After all, if Copenhagen may claim to be the new Rome, Physics can enjoy some Reformation, the "interpretation" of Quantum Mechanics is a matter of personal belief. The only thing which matters is that one keeps our faith in God, and the only, true enemies, are the people who say that there is no God, and that the purpose of Science is to understand, to find answers and not riddles, to be able to base its theories on sound grounds, which, with some efforts, can be easily learned. Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Electromagnetism, Celestial Mechanics, have reached this state. Why not Quantum Physics ?
Dear Wulf,
Thanks for your appreciation. After being called "stupid", "childish", having "created a self-contained mathematical bubble world (completely detached from physical realities)" for myself, "looking only to attract attention on myself", and more, it looks like the forgiveness of my sins.
But I am only a modest Physicist who is looking for answers... I have found mine, without God, it would be better to be able to post on arXiv, of course, but at least I have avoided the stake. I am still awaiting for the other answers...
Dear Hussainsha,
I think because three points:
1- The absence of causality.
2- The presence of nonlocality.
3- The absence of trajectory of the particle.
and all of them contradict our common sense.
With best regards
Mazen.
@ Mazen Khoder
my dear Mazen Khoder , thank you...and i agree with your answer absolutely...
@ Wulf Rehder
my dear Wulf Rehder , it is true what you are saying and QM is no doubt acceptable theory....but common sense is also a good arbiter for the development of science...the biggest drawback of QM is; it contradict our common sense ....
everyone knows that Newtonian gravity is correct but it contradicts common sense that why two heavenly bodies communicate instantaneously due to gravity.
based on common sense and Special Relativity, Einstein discovered General Relativity.
don't we know common sense is also a foundation of General relativity?
we have to accept this draw back for the development of Quantum physics....i hope you accept with your common sense for the development of Quantum physics...
"No serious scientist uses common sense as a qualifier for good science."
It can be read in two different meanings : scientists who care for common sense are not serious, or common sense has nothing to do with science, at least as the "true scientists'' see it. Of course if the layman know that we have spent 12.5 b$ of their tax money to prove the existence of the Higgs boson, the "particle which gives mass" (as many posts claimed at the time) he would be a bit concerned, so it is better to tell that all this is far beyond his common sense.
But you are right, and I was wrong with my comparisons with religion. Religion has nothing to do in the matter. As Wulf said, what we think about music is a matter of taste. This is not about religion, this is about entertainment. The Bohm's interpretation, with his physical wave guiding the wave function is a good one. Personally I prefer Star Wars. At least it does not cost to the tax payer that I am. Go in peace and the Force be with you !
@ Aleš Kralj , Wulf Rehder , jean claude Dutailly
my dear unique scholars my age is not more than your experiences.
i learned about Einstein that, Einstein discovered GR based on common sense "nothing travel faster than speed of light" he drawn this common sense from special relativity........ later he framed thought experiments like Principle of Equivalance
@ Aleš Kralj.....my dear Aleš Kralj
how can a invention become discovered later by Eddington and others? i want to learn from you shall you please explain me so that i become good scholar like you...
@Aleš Kralj , Wulf Rehder , jean claude Dutailly ....
what i know is common sense or logic is the fundamental pillar of science..... shall you scholars please elaborate your claim "science defies common sense "...so that i also become scholar like you....
Dear Wulf Rehder,
I didn't say that "common sense is a good arbiter in science".
My last comment is to show why many people didn't accept quantum mechanics.
For me, I accept quantum mechanics but based on a new interpretation that I put it in a new theory, which in my opinion quantum mechanics becomes logical and convincing.
With best regards
Mazen.
@Aleš Kralj
My dear Aleš Kralj, if gravity is one of the four fundamental forces of nature, how can a general relativity be a invention? Does Einstein created gravity or general relativity?
About Relativity and Common sense
Actually it does not matter how a theory has been expressed at the beginning. Read any scientific book older than a century and they look quite strange. In what is called commonly "Relativity" there are 2 theories : a theory about the Geometry of the Universe, which deals with how we measure the location and motion and material bodies, and a theory of gravitation. The most important is the first one, and it is fully consistent with the common sense. Let us see this in 3 steps.
1. The first one is "how do we locate an event ?" We need 4 parameters, 3 for the spatial location, and one for the time. It does not matter how we do it : a chart is nothing more than a procedure which, when it is followed, enables an observer to locate an event. You can use the coordinates on your mobile or use stars, the key point is that the procedures are consistent. This is exactly the mathematical definition of a 4 dimensional manifold.
2. The second is that time is special. Take the Principle of causality. 2 events A,B can be related, A is the cause of B, or not related. But when they are related they always come in the same order, for all observers. From this one can say that the curves in the 4 dimensional manifold can be oriented, and that this orientation does not depend on the observer. A bit of mathematics leads to the conclusion that there is a metric on the manifold, which has the signature (3,1) or (1,3) : it gives the orientation towards the future.
3. Observers, as well as material bodies, travel on a curve, they can measure their location on the curve by a clock : it gives their proper time. The basic assumption, consistent with the common sense, is that they age at the same rate. This is equivalent to say that for all observers their 4 dimensional velocity has the same Lorentz length, which has the dimension of a speed, and is a universal constant c. From this one can easily deduce the classic formula giving the ratio between the proper time of an observer and the time at which he sees another observer (this is similar to the ratio between a relative speed and an absolute speed).
All these deductions can be made from ordinary experiments, without any complicated apparatus, and they are fully in line with the common sense. They need a bit of mathematics, which is not complicated but goes above the level of high school. One can go further, and study the motion, which requires the study of rotations, and we get the usual formulas, and a simple explanation for the spin, which has nothing to do with Quantum Mechanics. Einstein, in his 1905 article, used the Maxwell's laws to get the same result, but there is no need to call for the electromagnetic field or the speed of light, which, anyway require additional and subtle assumptions (what is the "speed of light" ?). The problems came with the physicists, who, forgetting all common sense, muddle the explanations with, notably, "inertial frames". Have you seen anybody use an orthonormal frame to locate an event ? Ask the pilot of a plane, or the captain of a ship. And inertia (which is a concept of Mechanics, not geometry) has nothing to do with the problem.
From my personal experience, in any domain, when some reasoning is contrary to the common sense, I become cautious, and I feel that it would be good to check. This is still valid in Science, all the more so that we deal with more subtle or complicated issues.
@jean claude Dutailly
My dear jean claude Dutailly, thank you for your valuable answer ...
@ Aleš Kralj
my dear Aleš Kralj , shall you please elaborate how General Relativity can be an invention?
i am requesting you to answer this question.
@ Aleš Kralj
my dear Aleš Kralj ,
1) do you mean their is no bending of light due to curvature of space-time until GR?
2)do you mean their is no gravitational red-shift until GR?
3) do you mean their is no gravitational time delay until GR?
4) do you mean Einstein created universe according to his GR?
how can you justify as a PhD scholar by saying GR is invention?
i am requesting you to justify it as you are a PhD scholar so that you will be a my inspiration...
@ Aleš Kralj
my dear Aleš Kralj ,
1) do you mean mathematics is invention? if so, QM is also a invention of human beings...do you mean before QM maths there is no Quantum Universe?
2)do you mean after invention of GR equations universe is created?
my dear Aleš Kralj please explain me you are my teacher ...how can you neglect your student by saying I can't dumb it down any further? so please clarify my doubts...
thank you..
Hussainsha Syed
if we care only about people close to physics, almost everybody accepts quantum mechanics as a theory of physics. In particular, Einstein did accept it.
The disagreement is about something different, namely about the interpretation. And in particular Einstein's disagreement was only about a particular claim of the Copenhagen interpretation, namely that it is complete. He believed that quantum theory cannot be the most fundamental theory, there has to be some yet unknown more fundamental theory which describes some yet hidden reality. This is certainly very different from not accepting quantum theory as a valid approximation of this yet unknown theory.
There are certainly good reasons not to accept the existing interpretations of quantum theory. But they have nothing to do with a rejection of quantum theory as far as it predicts the outcome of experiments in the quantum domain.
@Ilja Schmelzer
My dear Ilja Schmelzer, thank you for the acceptable answer...
Hussainsha Syed
you asked "if gravity is one of the four fundamental forces of nature, how can a general relativity be a invention?"
Of course, inventions are the physical theories. They aim to explain something which we observe, like gravity, but, of course, nobody can tell from the observations what gravity is, what causes it and so on. This is nothing one could derive, all what one can do is to guess it.
And, after this, we can try to test the different inventions, and compare them. First, they have to be able to predict something we can test, theories like "the aims of the Almighty are unexplainable" are useless as empirical theories, they are nice inventions but give us nothing one could prove. Then, if they make testable predictions, we can compare these predictions with reality. Some theories fail miserably and are therefore forgotten completely. Some are successful. Even this does not prove them. Tomorrow, with better measurement devices, we may find that even if close, the prediction is nonetheless wrong. So, theories which are proven to be true do not exist at all. In this sense, they remain free inventions of the human mind.
But a theory which successfully predicted a lot will remain useful as an approximation even if it will be later replaced by some better theory. This is what happened with Newtonian gravity. And what will happen with general relativity too (it contains too much things, like singularities and the failure of its quantization, which are known to be wrong, thus certainly has to be replaced by a better theory), and probably of quantum theory too.
@Ilja Schmelzer
My dear Ilja Schmelzer, I am unable to convince with your answer ...
Because, invention means it must be unique. Universe must governed by unique theory. Though imaginative and creative theories are inventions I don't accept until it is unique because do you build universe with that thoery or you the one who build universe with that theory?
@Aleš Kralj
My dear Aleš Kralj, I correct my mistakes thank you for your suggestion...
To me it make sense to say transistor is the invention of human beings...
But to me it looks foolishness to say theory which explains approximately about universe is invention. Because universe already exist before our theories....
If you are a scholar try to convince me rather than escaping by insulting me...
So I'm requesting you to convince .... because you are a scholar with human values...
Dear @s h s hussainsha
are Keplerian elliptic orbits of the planets a human invention? Certainly, given that the real trajectories of the planets are not really ellipses, only approximately. To think that the real trajectories in some sense already existed before is something one can understand. But some approximations of them like the ellipses? Who has approximated them in nature? Instead, the human who has invented them is well-known, Kepler.
@ Ilja Schmelzer
my dear Ilja Schmelzer , do you mean approximations are not there in nature before Kepler?
according to my intuition; a theory neither invented nor discovered. They are proposed from certain ideas and expressions. We test mathematically and some thought experiments and try to implement it into different scenarios. Sometimes leading to great conclusions.
in a similar way Kepler laws proposed from certain ideas and expressions which are approximations and those approximations are already exist.
then how can i accept a theory as a invention?
a theory cannot be an invention until it must not exist before like Transistor...here approximation is not a big issue.....
@s h s hussainsha, you can, of course, follow Platon and believe into some real existence of mathematical truths or so in some mathematical universe. I do not follow this line, and use "existence" in a more restricted sense of material existence in our universe.
To Ilja,
This is an interesting point : what is the status of Mathematics in Science ? It has been the focus of many mathematicians at the end of the XIX° century. Mathematics started with Euclide and his Geometry, and was developed in many different ways, a bit chaotic, and the paradoxes of the set theory and the existence of non Euclidean geometries lead mathematicians to try to rebuilt Mathematics from the beginning, in a consistent and "clean" way. And they discovered a strange thing, proven by Goedel : if you want to build arithmetic this way, there are theorems which are true but cannot be proven. Actually the paradox can be understood if one makes the distinction between Logic, that is the set of rules to build a rational narrative, and Mathematics. Logic can be formalized, and Goedel has proven that it is fully consistent. But in Mathematics, and more precisely in its different formal systems such as Set theory or Arithmetic, we invent our objects : they are defined by their properties, which are then axioms. And the theory is just the development of these axioms following the rules of Logic. But these objects have no other meaning than what we have postulated. We could invent new objects, with different properties, and we would have another theory. The objects that have been retained (such as "sets" in the Zermelo-Frankel system) are those which are convenient for the traditional Mathematics, as it has been developed in the past, but there is no logical or material justification to their definition. And there are some extensions, using other properties, which have been proposed, notably for computing Sciences.
From this point of view Mathematics is a Science, with the privilege that it invents its own objects.
Dear s h s,
It is not true that Einstein did not accept Quantum Mechanics. He simply disagreed with the Copenhagen interpretation, which is quite different:
Here is what he wrote about Quantum Mechanics:
" Ich zweifle gar nicht daran, dass die gegenwärtige Quanten-Theorie (genauer " Quanten-Mechanik ") die vollkommenste mit der Erfahrung vereinbare Theorie ist, solange man der Beschreibung die Begriffe materieller Punkt und potentielle Energie als elementare Begriffe zugrunde legt. Was ich aber an der Theorie unbefriedigend finde, stellt sich verschieden dar je nach der Interpretation, welche man der " ψ-Funktion " gibt. Jedenfalls aber steht am Anfang meiner Auffassung eine These, die von den meisten gegenwärtigen Theoretikern entschieden abgelehnt wird:
Es gibt so etwas wie den " realen Zustand " eines physikalischen Systems, was unabhängig von jeder Beobachtung oder Messung objektiv existiert und mit den Ausdrucksmitteln der Physik im Prinzip beschrieben werden kann.
Nun ist es kein Zweifel, dass die ψ-Funktion eine Art Beschreibung eines "realen Zustandes" ist. Die Frage ist aber, ob diese Beschreibung den realen Zustand vollständig oder unvollständig charakterisiert."
Translation:
" I have no doubt that quantum theory (more precisely "Quantum Mechanics") is the most perfect theory compatible with experience, inasmuch as its description is made to rest on the concept of the material point and potential energy as being elementary concepts. But what I find unsatisfactory in the theory resides elsewhere, in the interpretation that is given to the "ψ-function ". In any case, this is at the origin of my conception of a thesis which is categorically rejected by most current theoreticians:
There is something like "the real state" of a physical system, that exists objectively, independently of any observation or measure, and that can in principle be described by physics description means.
Now, there is no doubt that the ψ-function is a manner of description of a "real state". The question is then to determine if this description of a real state is complete or incomplete."
Source: Einstein A., Schrödinger E., Pauli W., Rosenfeld L., Born M., Joliot-Curie I. & F., Heisenberg W., Yukawa H., et al. (1953). Louis de Broglie, physicien et penseur. A Tribute to Louis de Broglie for his 60th birthday, each colleague providing one chapter, Einstein even collaborating to 2 distinct chapters, the complete text drafting a detailed overview of the state of knowledge in fundamental physics in 1952. Éditions Albin Michel, Paris.
The disagreement is that many think that the proponents of the Copenhagen interpretation are deluded into confusing the physically existing electrons captive in resonance states in atoms with the actual mathematical equation that Schrödinger used to mathematically represent this volume.
Like all reasonable persons, Einstein thought that the electron physically exists, since we have proof on record that electrons can be scattered against each other, and that the wave function is only a useful mathematical representation.
Best Regards
André
Dear s h s,
In my case it is that the principles of quantum physics are totally against the most basic logic.
Keep in mind that: "it works for me" is also the basis of homeopathy.
Although I do not want to start this discussion again, because I already try it once and I do not have the necessary knowledge to maintain it, I only give you my opinion that I think will be similar to the other people who also question it.
Sergio, there exists now an interpretation which is completely compatible with common sense. It is named "entropic dynamics" and has been proposed by Caticha.
The quantum system is, clearly, a subsystem of the universe. We know something about the rest of the universe, and how it is related with the system itself, namely the preparation procedure. This knowledge defines an entropy S(q) for each possible configuration of the quantum system itself. Moreover, our incomplete knowledge from the preparation procedure gives also some probability distribution rho(q). These two functions define the wave function. Then, there is some independent Brownian motion of the configuration itself. In combination with the movement toward higher entropy, this already defines a continuity equation with the Bohmian velocity as defining the probability flow, or one half of the Schroedinger equation.
The remaining equation is how the entropy changes once the configuration q changes, this gives the other part of the Schroedinger equation.
Dear Ilja,
I do not know the theory you address. I seems, at first, coming from the thoughts of the "founding fathers" of QM : the distinction between 'measure" and "variable" (as it can appear in a model). Jauch and Whitehead have followed this path, with at least a consistent theory. The problem is that it is difficult to be consistent with General Relativity : the observer matters.
The closest to common sense interpretation that I know of seems to be the initial interpretation that Schrödinger himself made of the axial resonance state that de Broglie concluded that the electron was captive into when stabilized into the least action ground state orbital of the hydrogen atom, which is why he introduced the wave equation to represent this resonance volume in the first place:
http://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP_2018042716061246.pdf
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Quantum Physics
- Quantum Mechanics