Is Quantum Mechanics Incomplete? A Deep Dive
Summary
At FriendZone | Make Friends ⋅ Fun Chill Active Chat ⋅ VC Social Gaming ⋅ Memes ⋅ Nitro Emojis ⋅ Anime, we are diving deep into the flaws of modern physics. This announcement challenges the standard Copenhagen Interpretation and explores whether particles are actually solitons. It is a must-read for science enthusiasts looking to engage in high-level intellectual debate within our active and fun community.
A lot of people may be familiar with the phrase, that no one understands Quantum Mechanics. Many physicists take pride in its absurdity and that they attempt to advance it.
But the truth is that the universe is not as absurd and confused as Q.M. tries to paint, this arises from our failure to truly formulate Q.M. more rigorously and attempt to break away from its too many assumed postulates.
No one knows why the postulates are as they are carved in. You cannot [atleast for now within mainstream physics] prove them without circular arguments or even more assumptions.
I've already criticized the Copenhagen Interpretation and the probability hallucinations they've put into Physics. Wave particle duality is no different. Rather than explore better ways to express particles, like as solitons [which actually allow an explanation of this duality] they decided to merge waves and matter because their experiments resulted in mixed behaviour originating from both classical particles and waves.
What did they do ? Rather than try to look for more complex modelling of particles, they decided to mash up waves and particles together.
While Bohmian mechanics may seem more appealing, even that has unproven assumption, why the pilot wave ? Bohm relied on abstract spaces similar to Hilbert's, with no proof except choice of construction. The only interesting meaningful idea of Bohm's that can be useful for non linear topological theories is the quantum potential.
QFT atleast attempted to remove the duality and turn particles themselves as field excitations, but, they made particles as point excitations [👏] and then vomited out renormalization.
If particles and waves seem to have some similar properties exposed in experiments, maybe they are not strictly either of two, but a single, unique, third fundamental type [solitons maybe ?], why create the frankenstein monster of duality ?
damm..yup i agree✌️
i think it the other way
How so ?
cuz other way is actually good if u think the opposite way
frfr
Not really.
Even if you assume the universe to be the opposite, it does not explain the unproven postulates.
Or if you argue for the universe to be purely unpredictable, then doing physics has no worth.
If it was purely as such, why do fundamental laws exist in the first place ?
Let us assume the universe to be purely probabilistic, in that case, maybe try to explain why ? Why would particles behave as waves and give wave like distributions ? Why is Born's rule the way probabilities are determined ? Why so many unproven postulates and assumptions ?
Until the 1920s, we modelled the universe with rigorous mathematics and no assumptions except fundamental ideas as Newtonian gravity and Maxwell's equations.
Why did the universe start looking probabilistic the moment we decided to shift to unproven assumptions, and use unproven rules relating to topics like measurement and wave functions ? Why does this probabilistic interpretation disappear in models like Skyrme's, which work fine ?
the proven postulates might be unproven if u think the other way and the unproven postulates might be the proven ones? u shld think both the ways , it might help imo
That's. . . not how mathematics works.
Proven are the ones that are rigorously shown to be emergent from first principles. Unproven postulates used in Q.M. are not yet proven from first principles.
Mathematics does not care about which direction you think of it from.
A unified theory framework shall aim to have some basic first principles and have all of physics as emergent. Q.M. uses unproven postulates, that may be emergent under more advanced theories.
i wasnt saying mathematical proofs become false..i was saying physics can replace what it treats as fundamental...a postulate can become a theorem in a deeper framework, even though any mathematical proof within the original framework remains valid , think about it
I was responding primarily to your statement about turning proven into unproven and vice versa. Which is quite different from what you're saying here.
You cannot turn unproven into proven except by rigorous proofs using more fundamental principles.
The only way proven postulates turn into unproven would be when a model breaks down at its base.
What you're talking about is exactly about unifying physics, which is basically about turning multiple theories with different postulates into a single one with much less postulates while turning majority of physics into emergent behaviour. In this sense, you're correct !
Yes, postulates currently thought as fundamental can and eventually will turn into theorems based on more advanced theories.
Sorry for a delayed response, I was quite busy.
