4 ms·

I suspect that quantum theory is like Ptolemaic epicycles: a great way to mathematically describe observed reality, but fundamentally incorrect. What's the cor

by wtbob 12y ago

I suspect that quantum theory is like Ptolemaic epicycles: a great way to mathematically describe observed reality, but fundamentally incorrect. What's the correct (or more correct, anyway) way to mathematically describe reality? Beats me; I'm no physicist.

bsder 12y ago
Then why do you think you have the wherewithal to pronounce that quantum mechanics is fundamentally incorrect? Seriously. The Standard Model has held up in spite of numerous attempts to break it. Physicists would love to break the Standard Model as it would lead to new, cool stuff. Even things like hidden variables have been tested for. There aren't missing variables. Just because something doesn't match your personal experience does not mean it isn't true.
- axilmar 12y ago
  On the other hand, there can be another explanation for the interference pattern that appears in the double slit experiment. One such explanation might be the wavy nature of spacetime itself: any excitation of the medium called 'spacetime' maybe introduces ripples in that medium, causing the behavior of particles to seem as probabilistic, whereas in reality it is not, it is simply chaotic in nature. This makes much more sense than the concept of a particle being a wave until the wave collapses. And this theory ties in perfectly with relativity and gravity: particles create spacetime ripples just like any other body does. With this explanation, there is no need for multiple universes and other strange things. The hidden variables might be the universe itself after all.
  - semi-extrinsic 12y ago
    Michelson and Morley called, they want their interferometer back. (In case this is too much of an in-joke: your theory was experimentally proven to be false more than a century ago.)
    - axilmar 12y ago
      No, what I am saying is different than the Aether theory. The expansion of space time proves there is a medium. Gravity proves there is a medium. Frame dragging proves there is a medium. So, this medium may be the one that causes the ripples and the waves; the particles themselves are not waves in any case.
- snowwrestler 12y ago
  To be fair, it's extremely likely that our conception of quantum mechanics is incomplete. Same with general relativity. One big clue is that we cannot reconcile them with each other; another is that there seem to be vast quantities in the universe--dark energy, dark matter--for which we do not have a solid theory. That said, these problems are probably not going to be resolved by HN posters thinking about things abstractly. They're going to be solved (if they are ever solved) by subject-matter experts working very hard.
- wtbob 12y ago
  > Then why do you think you have the wherewithal to pronounce that quantum mechanics is fundamentally incorrect? I didn't; I wrote that I suspect that it is. As another notes, the inability to merge quantum theory and relativity indicates that there's something we're not accounting for. Given how comprehensive both of those theories are, I suspect that the fix which accounts for all the observed evidence will be something else entirely. Ptolemaic epicycles looked iron-clad for centuries; the successfully predicted observed reality for quite a long time, and (IIRC) even when folks started supposing that they might need tweaking, it looked like still more epicycles might save the day. And then they were replaced with a better theory.
lmm 12y ago
The thing that people forget is that epicycles were right, at the time. Working physicists used them, because they gave accurate predictions, and (unless they were specificly looking at that particular problem) got on with their lives. It was only when new experimental evidence came in (Kepler's observations) that progress was made. People who pontificated about the problem of the epicycles were wasting their time. Also QM (in many-worlds form) is literally the most elegant scientific theory ever. It is a thing of staggering beauty, and to my eyes far more obviously true, far less epicycle-ey, than e.g. relativity.

by wtbob 12y ago

bsder 12y ago

Then why do you think you have the wherewithal to pronounce that quantum mechanics is fundamentally incorrect? Seriously. The Standard Model has held up in spite of numerous attempts to break it. Physicists would love to break the Standard Model as it would lead to new, cool stuff. Even things like hidden variables have been tested for. There aren't missing variables. Just because something doesn't match your personal experience does not mean it isn't true.

axilmar 12y ago
On the other hand, there can be another explanation for the interference pattern that appears in the double slit experiment. One such explanation might be the wavy nature of spacetime itself: any excitation of the medium called 'spacetime' maybe introduces ripples in that medium, causing the behavior of particles to seem as probabilistic, whereas in reality it is not, it is simply chaotic in nature. This makes much more sense than the concept of a particle being a wave until the wave collapses. And this theory ties in perfectly with relativity and gravity: particles create spacetime ripples just like any other body does. With this explanation, there is no need for multiple universes and other strange things. The hidden variables might be the universe itself after all.
- semi-extrinsic 12y ago
  Michelson and Morley called, they want their interferometer back. (In case this is too much of an in-joke: your theory was experimentally proven to be false more than a century ago.)
  - axilmar 12y ago
    No, what I am saying is different than the Aether theory. The expansion of space time proves there is a medium. Gravity proves there is a medium. Frame dragging proves there is a medium. So, this medium may be the one that causes the ripples and the waves; the particles themselves are not waves in any case.
snowwrestler 12y ago
To be fair, it's extremely likely that our conception of quantum mechanics is incomplete. Same with general relativity. One big clue is that we cannot reconcile them with each other; another is that there seem to be vast quantities in the universe--dark energy, dark matter--for which we do not have a solid theory. That said, these problems are probably not going to be resolved by HN posters thinking about things abstractly. They're going to be solved (if they are ever solved) by subject-matter experts working very hard.
wtbob 12y ago
> Then why do you think you have the wherewithal to pronounce that quantum mechanics is fundamentally incorrect? I didn't; I wrote that I suspect that it is. As another notes, the inability to merge quantum theory and relativity indicates that there's something we're not accounting for. Given how comprehensive both of those theories are, I suspect that the fix which accounts for all the observed evidence will be something else entirely. Ptolemaic epicycles looked iron-clad for centuries; the successfully predicted observed reality for quite a long time, and (IIRC) even when folks started supposing that they might need tweaking, it looked like still more epicycles might save the day. And then they were replaced with a better theory.

lmm 12y ago

The thing that people forget is that epicycles were right, at the time. Working physicists used them, because they gave accurate predictions, and (unless they were specificly looking at that particular problem) got on with their lives. It was only when new experimental evidence came in (Kepler's observations) that progress was made. People who pontificated about the problem of the epicycles were wasting their time. Also QM (in many-worlds form) is literally the most elegant scientific theory ever. It is a thing of staggering beauty, and to my eyes far more obviously true, far less epicycle-ey, than e.g. relativity.