Quantum nothingburger

General Relativity is a classical theory, Planck’s constant being zero within.  Measurements are exact.  Entanglement does not exist.  GR ‘”must” contain a demonstrable flaw, prediction versus observation.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.14529
… Yeah, well,

…1) Physical reality is quantum mechanics (quantum field theory – QM plus special relativity) embedded within a Newtonian deterministic background (“uff da!”), or
…2) There is something very wrong with “wavefunction.” Either way,
…3) 60 years of “quantum gravitation,” millions of small print pages from huge numbers of the very smartest people pushed to their limits, sum to a nothingburger.

Quantum mechanics boldly predicts a real time chemistry output while disregarding its calculated 1036,900/sec rate constant.  That is -36,900 dex (bels, decades, orders of magnitude) saying “no” including 36,899 decimal places to the right.  Somebody should look, because….the entire visible universe reduced to photons, neutrinos, electrons, and quarks only contains about 1097 particles.

3+
avataravataravatar

10 thoughts on “Quantum nothingburger”

  1. Bryan G. Stephenssays:
    #1 2020-10-29 at 15:23 UTC  [Quote]

    I have no idea what this means

    It’s not important that you do, anymore than it is important that I can embed an op amp.  However, I know the differences among bridging it with a resistor or capacitor or nothing at all.  That pleases me – if not explicitly, then by insinuation to irrelevant situations.  It is a poor smith who has a closed toolbox.

    1+
    avatar
  2. Like Brian G.S., this is beyond my Event Horizon.  Yet I confess to having grown more puzzled over time by the whole sub-atomic universe.

    We all know from our boyhood experiences that negative electricity loves positives — violently so!  Yet when the high school science teacher patiently explains that negative electrons happily revolve around a positive nucleus and can only be persuaded to dive into that highly attractive nucleus by the application of very large external forces — we write it down, and carry on looking at the legs of our female class mates.  And why do those positively charged protons which repel each other so forcefully insist on squeezing together in the nucleus?  Let’s postulate a Strong Force!  There you go — problem solved!

    Is it possible that our mathematical model of the atom is an incomplete description of reality?  And let’s not even get into the issue of how electromagnetic “waves” can propagate without the existence of a helpful aether.

    I suspect that some day, parts of our understanding of matter & energy will come to be seen as entertainingly misguided as phlogiston.

    3+
    avataravataravatar
  3. Gavin Longmuir:
    I suspect that some day, parts of our understanding of matter & energy will come to be seen as entertainingly misguided as phlogiston.

    I am becoming increasingly convinced that as decade after decade passes with no real progress in understanding the fundamentals of physics (pick your own date as to when the stagnation started: one could say it was with the completion of the Standard Model of particle physics in the 1970s, but that was really just an elaboration of the “new” quantum mechanics which was worked out in the 1920s), that we’re trying to understand the basics by working on theories of emergent phenomena which are well above the fundamental level (if any exists).

    It’s as if we had developed comprehensive and well-tested theories of elasticity in materials and fluid flow, and were trying to extend them to make it all fit together, but were unaware of the lower level: atoms and the electromagnetic force, upon which they are based.

    All of this differential geometry, group theory, renormalisation, etc. may work just fine for getting answers out to 11 decimal places in the experiments we can do, but that doesn’t mean they have anything more to do with what’s really going on than the Navier-Stokes equations do with the collisions of atoms and molecules mediated by the electromagnetic force which is what fundamentally is behind all of fluid mechanics (but is, of course, the wrong level at which to understand what happens in the onset of turbulence in the transonic regime).

    I think it’s far more probable that we’ll discover that all of these phenomena we’ve thought of as fundamental—space, time, mass, energy, information—are actually emergent from something breathtakingly more simple which would easily fit on a T-shirt when written down in the proper notation.  This is the direction Stephen Wolfram is taking in his Wolfram Physics Project, to which an accessible technical introduction is available.  While I am dubious his graph-like models (which are similar in some ways to the concept of “causal sets” explored by other physicists pursuing quantum gravity) are the correct one, the fact that his models seem to exhibit phenomena such as Lorentz invariance, quantum entanglement, path integrals, and curvature of geodesics due to mass-energy content all emerging from trivially simple rules iterating on an abstract structure is a hint he’s digging in the right place.

    I’ve read his book, A Project to Find the Fundamental Theory of Physics, and recommend it to anybody interested in this approach.

    7+
    avataravataravataravataravataravataravatar
  4. Gavin Longmuirsays:
    #3 2020-10-29 at 16:13 UTC  [Quote]
    We all know from our boyhood experiences that negative electricity loves positives — violently so!  Yet when the high school science teacher patiently explains that negative electrons happily revolve around a positive nucleus and can only be persuaded to dive into that highly attractive nucleus by the application of very large external forces

    Leptons (point particles) and hadrons (composite particles) have different selection rules (weak force and strong force). Nothing orbits – wavefunctions, spherical harmonics.  Hydrogen s- and d-orbitals have antinodes at the nucleus, p- and d-oribitals have nodes.  Is this crap?  No – Lamb shift.

    youtu.be/f8FAJXPBdOg
    … Like this. Everybody, sing!

    QM, born in 1920, generated the entire Periodic Table from four small integers  and +/- 1/2, good.  QM methane was an isosceles right triangle HCH (bad), methane being tetrahedral CH4.  Theory failed until massive parallel computation hosting DFT in 1996, that is tweaked into working.

    I challenge QM on a founding postulate, one day in commercial equipment.  I’ve communicated with the two appropriate academics – process and observation.  It’s a closed shop.

    [caption id="attachment_44524" align="alignnone" width="288"]The Zen of physics Physics’ business model[/caption]

    4+
    avataravataravataravatar
  5. John Walkersays:
    #4 2020-10-29 at 16:50 UTC  [Quote]

    Gavin Longmuir:
    I suspect that some day, parts of our understanding of matter & energy will come to be seen as entertainingly misguided as phlogiston.

    I am becoming increasingly convinced that as decade after decade passes with no real progress in understanding the fundamentals of physics

    Macroeconomics; climatology, pandemics…quantum gravitations, any model with positive feedback is a macro-disaster.  They figuratively fit a sine wave with an odd-power polynomial.  Everything is dry-labbed into Nobel Prizes until an endpoint appears.  The model goes one way, reality goes another (Long-Term Capital Management/Black-Scholes-Merton).  Fit reality to theory?  Karl Marx past, Paul Krugman present, Venezuela future.  Only through economics can wealth impoverish.

    One can easily multiply prove – necessary for number theory – that the sum of all the integers, is -1/12.  Where does it make the U-turn??  Hmph, renormalization!  Hello, QM.

    1+
    avatar
  6. John Walker:    “While I am dubious his graph-like models (which are similar in some ways to the concept of “causal sets” explored by other physicists pursuing quantum gravity) are the correct one, the fact that his models seem to exhibit phenomena such as Lorentz invariance, quantum entanglement, path integrals, and curvature of geodesics due to mass-energy content all emerging from trivially simple rules iterating on an abstract structure is a hint he’s digging in the right place.”

    I thought you said spooky action at a distance (quantum entanglement) was a software bug.

    1+
    avatar

Leave a Reply