måndag 9 september 2019

Quantum Mechanics Not Understood by Physicists

Sean Carroll promotes his upcoming new book Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of Spacetime by an article i NYT with the catching title:
  • Even Physicists Don’t Understand Quantum Mechanics.
  • Worse, they don’t seem to want to understand it.
and conclusion
  • What’s surprising is that physicists seem to be O.K. with not understanding the most important theory they have.
  • Physicists don’t understand their own theory any better than a typical smartphone user understands what’s going on inside the device.
The article exposes the crisis of modern physics resulting from the acknowledged accepted intrinsic incomprehensibility of its pillars in the form of quantum mechanics (and relativity theory). 

Shocking! But of course modern physics led by Lubos on The Reference Frame counters by assuring that:
  • Actual physicists do understand quantum mechanics rather well – it has really been understood for over 90 years – and they are using it as rock-solid foundations to discover increasingly amazing things about the physical world.
while those who do not understand "rather well" are simply crackpots, including all the big names in physics except Lubos.

If you think that a new approach is needed take a look at Real Quantum Mechanics.

1 kommentar:

  1. How it is possible to understand something which is not true.
    Here the example: very first formula of quantum physics is the formula of black body radiation or Planck's formula. There are two variants of the formula: intensity vs. frequency and intensity vs. wavelength. The experimental verification most likely was done using wavelength formula, because any instruments at high frequency measure wavelength. But wavelength formula not good for integration, so for mathematical exercises frequency variant of Planck's law is used.

    The problem is that two formulas produce two different results. The frequency of maximum intensity differ about 1.6 times.


    How could some science be true if very first formula in its foundation does not holds?