A little bit about quantum physics

[Ignat]

John Gribbin in his book "Six Impossibilities" made the following conclusions about quantum physics:
The First. The world doesn't exist if you don't look at it.
The Second. The movement of the particles is controlled by an invisible wave, but the particles do not affect the wave.
The third. Everything that could happen, even in principle, happens in one of the many parallel realities.
Fourth. Everything that could have happened, at least in principle, has already happened, and we have noticed only part of it.
Fifth. Everything affects everything else instantly, as if space didn't exist.
Sixth. The future influences the past.
In fact, this is a squeeze from the modern theory of the quantum world. Do you think such a theory can be a science, or is it closer to fiction or even a fairy tale?

 

[Gibsense]

John Gribbin in his book "Six Impossibilities" made the following conclusions about quantum physics:
The First. The world doesn't exist if you don't look at it.
The Second. The movement of the particles is controlled by an invisible wave, but the particles do not affect the wave.
The third. Everything that could happen, even in principle, happens in one of the many parallel realities.
Fourth. Everything that could have happened, at least in principle, has already happened, and we have noticed only part of it.
Fifth. Everything affects everything else instantly, as if space didn't exist.
Sixth. The future influences the past.
In fact, this is a squeeze from the modern theory of the quantum world. Do you think such a theory can be a science, or is it closer to fiction or even a fairy tale?

The First. The world doesn't exist if you don't look at it.
I find this hard to accept because the state of whatever is collapsed by any intervention (including us but also ,say by a photon impact). We are not needed.

The Second. The movement of the particles is controlled by an invisible wave, but the particles do not affect the wave.
Happy with this

The third. Everything that could happen, even in principle, happens in one of the many parallel realities.
If the parallel realities actually exist and are infinite in number this must be true

Fourth. Everything that could have happened, at least in principle, has already happened, and we have noticed only part of it.
I think this is likely

Fifth. Everything affects everything else instantly, as if space didn't exist.
Maybe

Sixth. The future influences the past.
Of course

But then what qualifications do I have to give these answers? Only 1+1=2

 

[Jim Franklin]

The First. The world doesn't exist if you don't look at it.

Yes it does, that is a ridiculous statement because the world clearly existed before you were born and will exist after you are dead and buried. Only an utter moron would make such a statement except perhaps in jest to test the intellect of those they were speaking with/too.

The Second. The movement of the particles is controlled by an invisible wave, but the particles do not affect the wave.

Erm - NO - the ether does not exist, this was proved bull more than 150 years ago and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of quantum mechanics, quantum physics, particle field theory and about 20 laws of physics. Yes, there is much we do not understand and have to learn, but this is a statement akin to ancient people beliving an angry god lives in the volcano because it coughed and spewed lava!!

The third. Everything that could happen, even in principle, happens in one of the many parallel realities.

The Multiverse has yet to be proven to exist, but even if it does, they are likely as different from each other as you are from a rock - in fact, a human will have more in common with a virus that two different universes would.

Fourth. Everything that could have happened, at least in principle, has already happened, and we have noticed only part of it

Only if you are smoking pot, taking Meth or some other halucinogenic. If it has happened, it is history and set in stone so to speak, but if it has not happened, it is only a possible future, external influences can change that and it cannot be predicted.

Fifth. Everything affects everything else instantly, as if space didn't exist.

Rubbish - nothing can propogate faster than the speed of light, even quantum entanglement is limited by this, thus any influence you have on a particle on Earth, can still only propogate that information at the speed of light in a vacuum - anyone who says different is a fool, charleton or moron.

Sixth. The future influences the past.

That is so ridiculous as to not be worthy of comment. Something that does not exist and may not exist cannot influence what has already taken place

 

[Gibsense]

Something that does not exist and may not exist cannot influence what has already taken place

I only replied to this to say I was unable to keep a straight face for laughter.
Too tired right now but I will challenge some of your statements when I get the chance but I did enjoy the read.

 

[Ignat]

So, it can be stated that quantum physics is a fairy tale, not a science. All quantum physics, from photons to entanglements and superpositions, is pure idealism and fiction, which lead physics and cosmology to a dead end. That's what wanted to say. Gribbin, and he's an expert in these fields.

 

[Jim Franklin]

So, it can be stated that quantum physics is a fairy tale, not a science. All quantum physics, from photons to entanglements and superpositions, is pure idealism and fiction, which lead physics and cosmology to a dead end. That's what wanted to say. Gribbin, and he's an expert in these fields.

Just because you do not understand it, does not make it a fairy tale, that is no different, as I have said before, to a person believing an angry god lives in a volcano because they do not understand how a volcano works.

Are there aspects of various physics theories that need more information, may be incorrect or simply need to be adapted as new observations come in - of course there are, that is how science works, one step at a time, sometimes a couple backwards, but mostly small steps - it is not often we get bit leaps forward.

Quantum Field Theory / Quantum mechanics are not fairy tales, they just demonstrate we do not understand as much as many think and it is highly complex because of this.

Lets take gravity, we know how it works, we can mathematically account for it and its influences, but we do not actually fully understand what it is and where it comes from, people have tried to match gravity to the other fundamental forces of nature, it behaves like a weaker version of the electromagnetic force, and by weaker, I mean millions of times weaker, but oddly enough, despite this weakness, if has the longest range of any force.

The attempts to unify the funadamental forces has been met by roadblock after roadblock since Einstein attempted to do this in the late 1920's and for the rest of his life, it was worked on by Dirac, Feynman and numerous others and yet, they have drawn a blank. The assumption that the Higgs Boson imparts mass to baryonic matter is accepted as a fact by many, but there are also many who question this and suggest that a "missing particle" has yet to be found that is responsible for Gravity, nicknamed the graviton, but whether this does or does not exist and whether we can detect it is a whole different ball game.

In the image below, you see there is imbalance, there are many who believe that we are missing several bosons, and that the graviton is one of them.

Bosons are fundamental particles that carry forces, such as the photon, gluon, W and Z bosons, and, potentially, the graviton. According to some sources, bosons don't have antiparticles at the elemental particle level. Some say that bosons that have no electrical charge, like the Higgs and Z bosons, are their own antiparticle. However, others say that this is incorrect because bosons operate under different laws and can be created singly.

This is why for people outside the field of quantum mechanics and quantum field theory the picture is very confusing and many do not understand it. We know it is not right, that is has holes in it, but because we do not feel all the funadamental particles of all types, Bosons, leptons, fermions, quarks etc etc, have been found and their charge accounted for, the theory will remain confusing and opaque to many.

 

[Gibsense]

Do you think such a theory can be a science, or is it closer to fiction or even a fairy tale?

Enough said really but I'll put in my 2 cents worth - Quantum physics has played a huge role in the development of a lot of modern tech. Things like semiconductors, which are the backbone of computers and TVs, rely on quantum mechanics. Plus, medical equipment like MRI machines also use principles of quantum physics to work. So, it's the behind-the-scenes science that makes all this kit possible!

 

[Ignat]

Just because you do not understand it, does not make it a fairy tale, that is no different, as I have said before, to a person believing an angry god lives in a volcano because they do not understand how a volcano works.

In his work "The Nature of Physical Laws," Feynman wrote: "I think I can safely say that no one understands quantum mechanics."

 

[Jim Franklin]

In his work "The Nature of Physical Laws," Feynman wrote: "I think I can safely say that no one understands quantum mechanics."

He did say that, but that does not make it true nor does it make it a fairy story. I think, from conversations I have had, a lot of researchers understand the fundamentals, but once you get "into the weeds" is where it becomes more specialised and the knowledge is spread out around the "thinkers and tinkerers" so whilst no one researcher gets the holistic picture, combined, the community does - as much as we all understand at this time, even Roger Penrose will say we likely only fully appreciate about 20%-30% of the of the fulkl picture because we are ignorant of the rest. We had a dinner with him a few months back - he is quite polite but scathing at the state of theorestical physics at this time.

 

[Gibsense]

Ok Lets take each of the six that Ignat posted by checking against the book summary

1. 'The world doesn't exist unless you look at it'

Decoherence provides another layer of insight into superposition. It suggests that the seemingly instantaneous collapse of superposition into a single state is influenced by environmental interactions. As a quantum system interacts with its surroundings, information about its multiple states leaks into the environment, causing the superposition to 'decohere' into a single, classical state. Thus, the act of observation in Schrödinger's cat experiment is more accurately viewed as an interaction with the environment that determines the cat's fate.

Our act of looking involves photons - interference if you like so yes we can change the state but so can many things we are not involved with. It does not need us to make reality. Maybe a misinterpretation Ignat made?

2, 3, 4,5,6

I cannot find a reference in the summary that I can link these to. Ignat might elucidate. I guess you have extracted these from the text and further explanation will make sense of it

 

[Classical Motion]

I have always argued against spacetime and QM. And the standard model too. Until about 10 years ago.

Today, I do believe that I understand a physical quantum effect, not a math one. And I still argue against spacetime, QM and standard model.

The quantum effect comes from a ratio of length to acceleration. Not length to velocity.

This is kinda hard to understand, because of your present education, but both matter and light, have a constant speed, PLUS a relative velocity.

And that’s not a word game.

This is done with the structure of charge, and the physical dynamic of emission/absorption.

And no one knows this.

And at present, never will.

The act of emission is instant. The act of absorption takes one full wavelength.

This is why redshift has everyone spooked. It’s an inverted duty cycle shift, not a Doppler shift.

Sound propagation has a one wavelength duration of emission, one wavelength duration of propagation and one wavelength duration of detection.

Light has an instant emission duration, a one half wavelength propagation duration and a one full wavelength of absorption duration.

Sound is symmetric, light is asymmetric.

Hayseed physics. Real science.

Do you want to hear more? Apply at Starship command. Eliminate spacetime bugs.

 

[Jim Franklin]

 

[Gibsense]

We had a dinner with him a few months back - he is quite polite but scathing at the state of theorestical physics at this time.

Roger Penrose and Kip Thorne used to knock about ideas with Hawking. Hawking, rightly so IMO, seemed obsessed with Time. All of them.
Roger treated us to a TV broadcast discussion including his opinion at the cutting edge.

I guess he was 'holding back' because frankly, he didn't have much to offer and that he did confide was a bit 'old hat'. Apart from the efforts of mathematicians, it seems to me that our experts are reluctant to venture far from what they can see and feel. Maybe they are reluctant to address any multidimensional aspect (with the exception of String theorists who seem to have headed up a blind alley). But then what do I know, I do not move in those circles- it's just an impression

Relativity is obviously a bloody good description of the real world. It works. But, like many things in the universe, it is more than just equations. Interpretation is needed and at present, I think it is limited, at least Minkowski had a crack at it but do we really believe that's all there is to it; I don't. 'Spacetime' the concept, has fixed us like a rabbit in the headlights.

Look, I remember in my youth the days when Hi-Fi was all the rage. We used to save our cash to get the smoothest turntables and the latest, most expensive heads, amplifiers and especially mega-size speakers if we could afford them, really big base speakers and nice tweeters plus a couple of mid-range speakers all sealed in a large wooden box 4ft high. 4 of them for surround sound. All were arranged to optimise the focal point where a chair was specially positioned.

The sound quality was impressive! Even those who were nearly stone-deaf had a blast fiddling with the technical features. Everyone was excited about the latest gadgets, like "Hey Fred, come check out these frequencies! I’ve got a fantastic bass down to x hertz and the treble is perfectly balanced at y."
But sometimes, Fred would say, "Sure, but what about the music?"

It is ok and necessary to be competent with the tools but we need to remember to interpret as best we can. It is ok to get off with the beauty of mathematics but we also need to listen to the music. Some of us seem to be tone-deaf and a bit resentful of the singer. Join the choir.

You know, in business I found that most people were political. They would jockey for positions in the boardroom, and make presentations usually promoting their own interests. Despite knowing that Silos were a problem cooperation was limited in case the others stole an advantage. I was very simple in my approach (some would say I had no alternative) I just did and said what was best for the company. A hazardous strategy but in the end, it bore fruit. We need to explore and be honest and risk reputation if necessary. We will not always win but maybe with luck, someone will.

 

[Jim Franklin]

Roger Penrose and Kip Thorne used to knock about ideas with Hawking. Hawking, rightly so IMO, seemed obsessed with Time. All of them.
Roger treated us to a TV broadcast discussion including his opinion at the cutting edge.

I guess he was 'holding back' because frankly, he didn't have much to offer and that he did confide was a bit 'old hat'. Apart from the efforts of mathematicians, it seems to me that our experts are reluctant to venture far from what they can see and feel. Maybe they are reluctant to address any multidimensional aspect (with the exception of String theorists who seem to have headed up a blind alley). But then what do I know, I do not move in those circles- it's just an impression

Relativity is obviously a bloody good description of the real world. It works. But, like many things in the universe, it is more than just equations. Interpretation is needed and at present, I think it is limited, at least Minkowski had a crack at it but do we really believe that's all there is to it; I don't. 'Spacetime' the concept, has fixed us like a rabbit in the headlights.

Look, I remember in my youth the days when Hi-Fi was all the rage. We used to save our cash to get the smoothest turntables and the latest, most expensive heads, amplifiers and especially mega-size speakers if we could afford them, really big base speakers and nice tweeters plus a couple of mid-range speakers all sealed in a large wooden box 4ft high. 4 of them for surround sound. All were arranged to optimise the focal point where a chair was specially positioned.

The sound quality was impressive! Even those who were nearly stone-deaf had a blast fiddling with the technical features. Everyone was excited about the latest gadgets, like "Hey Fred, come check out these frequencies! I’ve got a fantastic bass down to x hertz and the treble is perfectly balanced at y."
But sometimes, Fred would say, "Sure, but what about the music?"

It is ok and necessary to be competent with the tools but we need to remember to interpret as best we can. It is ok to get off with the beauty of mathematics but we also need to listen to the music. Some of us seem to be tone-deaf and a bit resentful of the singer. Join the choir.

You know, in business I found that most people were political. They would jockey for positions in the boardroom, and make presentations usually promoting their own interests. Despite knowing that Silos were a problem cooperation was limited in case the others stole an advantage. I was very simple in my approach (some would say I had no alternative) I just did and said what was best for the company. A hazardous strategy but in the end, it bore fruit. We need to explore and be honest and risk reputation if necessary. We will not always win but maybe with luck, someone will.

Roger is certianly "old school" but he is still on the cutting edge - as is Kip, although I have nver managed to have a chat with them together - that would be epic, especially if we could discuss the latest Timescape research etc.

You will find that science is far more political that many realise, science is very much on th left of the political spectrum, and if you demonstrate anything other than left leaning tendancies, you can serious damage your career, I have known very competent and talented scientists have their funding "disapear" because they showed a political flavour not in keeping with the institution, Government funding body (which tend to be very left wing) or even just some of their colleagues who have power.

I am very much in the centre, but I lean both ways politically depending on the subject and circumstances, but I do not see eye to eye with a lot of "left wingers" or "right wingers" because they have too narrow a focus and definition - you either agree with them, or you are wrong - and the left is the worst for this. I have been called a racist, a biggot and even a Nazi because I am about as woke as a corpse. The fact that these morons, and they are morons who resort to personal attacks because they may not be winning a discussion, do not know me, my family history or that fact that technically, I am Jewish (I hate religion) so calling me a Nazi I find extremely offensive, not least because most people today have no flipping idea what a Nazi actually was other than in the basic description.

The science community is a microcosm and window on society, it suffers the same failings and quirks as an other group. There are researchers who are far more right of centre than their colleagues are aware of, they simply have the diplomatic skills to navigate the shark filled waters, or they keep their mouth shut.

 

[Gibsense]

I am about as woke as a corpse.

As usual, I find your writing very amusing and quite direct! It is quite an eye-opener; it sounds difficult, to say the least. I would not fare well even though I regard myself as 'easygoing' my diplomacy would not be adequate.

 

[Jim Franklin]

As usual, I find your writing very amusing and quite direct! It is quite an eye-opener; it sounds difficult, to say the least. I would not fare well even though I regard myself as 'easygoing' my diplomacy would not be adequate.

Well, I try not be be too serious unless it is necessary, and one should never take oneself too seriously. I work in Engineering (Electrical), although semi-retired now (not bad at 58!), but I spent 19 years in the Parachute Regiment with numerous tours on active service - you do not have time to be polite when the brown stuff hits that rotating machine in the wall, and your humour becomes very personal and dark. I never set out to offend people, that is simply rude and ignorant, but I am a straight talking, call it as I see it kind of person - which is rare in the world today as most succum to the "wokism" that permeates society - although personally I hate the term because it is so nodescript and has no real meaning, it means different things to different people.

I always say, "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck - its not a bloody Chihuahua - so stop treating it like one"

I get myself in trouble a lot with my directness and humour - which is not appreciated by anyone below about 50 and rarely by women!

 

[Ignat]

We had a dinner with him a few months back - he is quite polite but scathing at the state of theorestical physics at this time.

I understand him and agree with him.