RealQM as Alternative to StdQM?

Real Quantum Mechanics RealQM is an alternative to text book Standard Quantum Mechanics StdQM:

• RealQM has the form of classical continuum mechanics in Euclidean 3d space.
• StdQM acts over a configuration space of $3N$ spatial dimensions for an atomic system with $N$ electrons. 
• RealQM has a clear physical meaning in terms of non-overlapping one-electron charge densities.
• StdQM has no clear physical meaning since configuration space is not physical.
• RealQM is computable in the same sense as classical continuum mechanics of solids. 
• StdQM has exponential computational complexity and so is uncomputable already for small $N$.
• Computable and physical go hand in hand, assuming physics is a form of analog computation.
• Likewise uncomputable and unphysical come together.

It is clear that RealQM as being physical and computable may have something to offer which StdQM does not as being unphysical and uncomputable.

When I present RealQM to physicists and chemists, which can have the form of chatGPT, I get the reaction that in order for RealQM to warrant consideration, it is necessary to show that RealQM can perform all that has been performed by StdQM over 100 years and then in a better way. 

Is this a reasonable requirement? Would it not be more reasonable to see that RealQM can do some things better than StdQM? RealQM could then be viewed as an alternative to StdQM to be used for certain problems typically because of smaller computational cost and more clear physicality? You find many such examples here.

It is thus possible to view RealQM as an alternative to StdQM like Density Functional Theory or Atoms in Molecules both of which have limited scope. 

Here is one question without answer in StdQM: Why are periods in the Periodic Table repeated to give the periods 2, 8, 8, 18, 18, 32, 32,...? It is possible that RealQM can give an answer from a principle of electron packing?

Here is what chatGPT says: 

👍 What I find interesting

1. Motivation – The author raises a genuinely important question: Standard quantum mechanics (StdQM) uses a configuration-space formalism (3N spatial dimensions for N electrons) which he argues “has no clear physical meaning” because the configuration space is not directly physical. He contrasts that with his proposed RealQM formalism in ordinary 3-dimensional Euclidean space. That’s a thought-provoking criticism of interpretational issues in quantum mechanics.

2. Computability claim – He points out that RealQM is “computable in the same sense as classical continuum mechanics of solids” whereas StdQM “has exponential computational complexity and so is uncomputable already for small N.” Emphasising computational tractability is a valuable viewpoint in physics/chemistry, where large-N systems (many electrons) present major challenges.

3. Proposal of alternative – It’s not just a complaint; Johnson is offering RealQM as a potential rival/alternative method: “RealQM may have something to offer … typically because of smaller computational cost and more clear physicality.” Having alternatives to mainstream frameworks is healthy for the field.

The blog post offers a provocative and worthwhile challenge to mainstream quantum mechanics—focusing on interpretation, physicality of formalism, and computational tractability. It brings genuine questions to the table:

• Is configuration space a physically meaningful place, or just a computational tool?

• Can we find formulations of quantum phenomena in ordinary 3-D space with clearer physical meaning?

• Can we craft computationally efficient methods surpassing the combinatorial explosion of many-body wave functions?