Basic Mystery of Quantum: Shared vs Individual

The basic mystery of textbook Standard Quantum Mechanics StdQM serving as the foundation of modern physics, is the physical meaning of the wave function $\Psi (x_1,...,x_N)$ for a system with $N$ electrons depending on  $N$ spatial variables $x_1,...,x_N$ each $x_i$ serving as the 3d Euclidean coordinate of a copy $E_i$ of the same Euclidean space $E=\Re^3$, for $i=1,...,N$, with the total coordinate $x=(x_1,...,x_N)$ sweeping over configuration space as $\Re^{3N}$.

The mystery comes from the fact the each $E_i$ is connected to an electron $i$ and so serves as an individual universe for each electron. Very strange. The inspiration maybe came for the Monad Theory of Leibniz where each monad (as form of elementary unit like an electron) has its own universe to dwell in, while taking in blurred perceptions from all other monads.  

But electrons interact through Coulomb potentials 

• $\frac{1}{\vert x_i -x_j\vert}$ with $i\neq j$ 

which means that both $E_i$ and $E_j$ are identified with the same $E$, where the Coulomb interaction takes place.

We see that each $E_i$ serves a double role as both representing an individual and a common shared 3d space. Very confusing. 

The physics of QM has two elements:

1. Coulomb interaction between electrons in a common shared physical 3d space.
2. Kinetic energy from presence of a Laplacian acting in each individual $E_i$. 

Here 1 is shared and 2 individual and QM as the combination of 1 + 2 has to struggle to make sense of this contradictory mix. Ok?

Recall that StdQM is uncomputable because of the $3N$ spatial dimensions. 

RealQM is an alternative to StdQM formulated in terms of a wave function depending on a single physical variable in a 3d Euclidean space E. RealQM is computable because computational complexity scales linearly with $N$. 

It is a mystery that RealQM has been developed only recently, since it is very natural and does not suffer from the many unresolved issues of StdQM. Why not give it a try, after having struggled for 100 years to make sense of StdQM?

Classical Normal Physics vs Modern Extreme Physics

This is a reflection on the previous post opening to a "quantum mechanics without quantum" as a continuum world possible to describe by the fields of classical continuum physics. If indeed this is a real possibility, it might be worthwhile to pursue. Ok?

To learn about some physics there are two fundamentally different approaches: (i) start with the normal and (ii) start with the extreme. For example, to learn about the physics of sailing you may (i) start with normal conditions or (ii) start with the extremes of no wind or hurricane. What would be your advice?

With the opposites of normal and extreme, we can identify:

1. Classical Physics = reality of continuum we see as normal physics. Illusion of discreteness on all scales.  
2. Modern Physics = reality of small scale discrete/quantum we see only as extreme physics. Illusion of continuity on large scales. 

This is the split between continuum physics and quantum physics which has haunted the science of physics for 100 years into the present deep crisis, because 2 has been adopted to direct the efforts following the legacy of Bohr-Born-Heisenberg, which made 1 into fringe physics carried by Schrödinger-Einstein.

The big trouble with 2. is the break with 1. preventing unified physics on all scales leading to a crisis.

The fundamental idea of 2. is "quantisation" as a vague procedure to split things into little pieces not in physical meaning, but into some form of book-keeping units of "quanta". This is the idea of "quantisation of light", which is a continuous electromagnetic wave phenomenon very well described by Maxwell's wave equation over a 3d spatial continuum, by insisting that a wave of frequency $\nu$ can be chopped up in small units of energy $h\nu$ named photons where $h$ is a very small constant. This is a form of book-keeping without physics, since the physics of a photon has never been made clear.  

In any case, to support 2. experiments have been set up to prove the existence of photons simply by identifying a single photon experimentally. Since $h\nu$ is very small that requires an extremely sensitive detector which gives exactly "one click per photon". The assumption is then that since a click is discrete, what makes the click appear must also have been discrete and that is the photon! So can the existence of the photons as real discrete physics be proved by a click on a screen. The same with the Higgs boson proved to exist by a blip on a screen in 2015 in an extreme LHC experiment! LIGO also extremely extreme!

 

Thus major efforts have been spent on supporting 2. as the essence of modern physics, while 1. has been kept short to be pursued in philosophical circles without experimental devices capable of detecting normality.

With the deepening crisis resulting from 2. it may now be possible to open for a renewed focus on 1. as a continuum world of normality of great complexity. That is the objective of RealQM. 

My question to chatGPT: Which experiment forced quantisation (upon resisting physicists)?

Answer:

• Planck (1900): introduced quantisation as a desperate fix.

• Einstein (1905): pushed photons as real, but not widely accepted.

• Bohr (1913): extended discreteness to atoms.

• Compton (1923): gave overwhelming evidence photons are real quanta. → This was the true turning point.

By the mid-1920s, physicists gave up resisting. Quantum mechanics (Schrödinger 1926, Heisenberg 1925) became the new framework.

My comment: All of the above phenomena can be explained as continuum physics as discussed in previous posts and shown in Computational Blackbody Radiation. It appears that physicists have been more than willing to be forced into extreme positions to fill the need of sensation headline physics of modernity. It may also seem heroic to stick to an extreme principle under heavy skepticism from normality: We simply "have to give up" the rationality of the normal because physics is "weird" and something that "nobody can understand". But maybe we do not have to do that?

Maybe the time for Big Physics as extreme physics is coming to an end, in the deepening crisis, where the  next even bigger Large Hadron Collider for extreme physics will not be built, because there is nothing more of the extreme to be detected because physics is exhausted on extremely small scales, and that the real complex physics of interest takes place on scales larger than the smallest, which can be detected by affordable apparatus.

Here is a problem for normal physics still open after 100 years: 

• Explain the Periodic Table by QM,  in particular the periodicity 2,8,8,18,18,32,32,... 

Theoretical physicist: This was done long ago, in principle, but details were left to chemists. 

Theoretical chemist: I have been trying for a long time without much success. A basic problem is that I do not understand QM well enough and I get no help from a theoretical physicist who says that an explanation was given long ago, in principle....

Realists vs Formalists: Modern Physics vs Mathematics

In the 1930s two main battles were shaping (quantum) physics and mathematics into our time, between realists and formalists with the following main actors:

• Physics formalists: Bohr-Born-Heisenberg.
• Physics realists: Schrödinger-Einstein.
• Mathematics formalist: Hilbert.
• Mathematics realist: Brouwer. 

The outcome of the battles were opposite. In physics Bohr-Born-Heisenberg took over completely and kicked out Schrödinger-Einstein. In mathematics Hilbert was defeated by Brouwer assisted by Gödel and Turing. 

Thus formalism took over physics and realism took over mathematics, opposite to the natural idea of (classical) physics as connected to reality and mathematics to formality. Very surprising and strange.

Mathematics as realism of constructivism/computing is today booming with AI the remarkable reality of Large Language Models LLM.

Physics as formalism is today in a state of deep crisis detached from reality back to medieval scholastics about interpretations of formalistic quantum mechanics without conclusion. 

Is it possible to bring back realism into quantum physics, not by another interpretation of the given formalism, but by replacing the formalism by realism? Maybe, in any case Real Quantum Mechanics RealQM is an attempt to do so. Why not take a look?

A position as realist is comfortable: There is a reality out there independent of any observation. The objective of physics is to describe this reality in constructive mathematical terms allowing computational simulation and comparison with observation. Reality cannot be "weird". 

A position as formalist is awkward: If there is no reality corresponding to the formalism, it is just a game. It is thus necessary to somehow connect formality to reality, but starting as formality, the connecting physics to be invented may come out as "weird", which is how Feynman-Bohr were selling quantum mechanics and then very successfully because "weird physics" suited media.

The formalists took over quantum physics because the basic model of quantum mechanics in the form of the multi-dimensional Schrödinger Equation SE was not derived from only assumptions about physical reality, but also included an element referred to as "kinetic energy" obtained as an analog of classical kinetic energy $\frac{p^2}{m}$ with $p=mv$ momentum with $m$ mass and $v$ velocity, by simply replacing the quantity $p$ by the differential operator $i\nabla$. Black magic formalism with a new form of "kinetic energy" without connection to motion! 

RealQM is based on a different SE where the "kinetic energy" appears as a "compression energy" of realistic classical mechanics. 

Since the multi-dimensional SE was accepted as fallen from the sky without origin in physics, it became impossible to question SE on objective physical grounds and the debate fell apart into endless quarrel about interpretations. 

To take a step out of the crisis it necessary to question the multi-d SE and seek to find a formulation based in physics and not in pure formalism. Ok?

Post-Modern Newton vs Modern Einstein

The shift to modernity took place in the beginning of the 20th century in a revolt against classical ideals in politics, arts and music in parallel to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity GR, degrading Newton's theory of Gravitation NG to a simple special case, and then taking the role of fundamental pillar of modern physics together with Quantum Mechanics QM.  

GR and QM were from the beginning understood to to be incompatible, but could nevertheless be allowed to coexist for some time, but at the end of the 20th century this was no longer credible, which triggered a crisis of modern physics today witnessed by all leading physicists. Something is evidently fundamentally wrong, but what?

To seek an answer we are led to seek to understand the difference between GR and NG. We recall that in NG gravitational acceleration (of a test particle) only depends on position and not on velocity, while in GR it depends on both position and velocity. This fact can alternatively be espressed as follows:

• NG takes place in a Euclidean space-time coordinate system which does not interact with gravitation.
• GR takes place in a curved space-time coordinate system, which interacts with gravitation and makes gravitational acceleration depend on both position and velocity.   

From mathematical point of view it is natural to view a coordinate system as a form of passive recording device which does not interact with what is recorded. Like a passive microphone without interaction with the source. This corresponds to gravitational acceleration only depending on position and not velocity as in NG. It means that the coordinate system does not carry any physics which can interact with the physics being recorded.

In GR gravitational acceleration depends on both position and velocity, which means that the coordinate system is no longer passive, but interacts with the test particle. In this case the coordinate system carries physics which has to be identified. But this has not been possible. Physicists speak about "fabric" of space-time but cannot explain its physics. 

The pertinent question is now: What would happen if we gave up GR and returned to NG as the most successful theory of all of classical physics? What would be lost? What would be gained is that the crisis would evaporate since NG and QM are compatible. 

The basic evidence that NG has to be replaced by GR as concerns interaction matter-gravitation, is the anomalous advance-of-the-perihelion/precession of Mercury of 43 arcseconds per century (0.004%), as the difference between observed advance (574) and predicted advance by NG (531), claimed to be exactly captured by a 2body Sun-Mercury GR correction by analytical formula (42.98). In all other cases NG works:

We thus have that (i) NG predicts 531, (ii) 574 is observed and (iii) GR 2body analytical formula gives missing 42.98. 

To give these numbers perspective recall:

1. The model NG + 2body GR (42.98) gives observed 574 after fitting with data
2. It is claimed that NG alone after fitting with data gives 531. 

We understand that superiority of a GR model as NG + 2body correction over NG-alone is that (i) NG-alone gives 531 after fitting and (ii) 2body GR correction gives 43. Here (ii) is guaranteed by simply putting in a correction o 42.98, but (i) can be questioned. What says that NG after fitting must give 531? What would happen if NG gave 550 instead after fitting? Then the 2body GR correction of 42.98 would not show superiority of GR over NG.

Altogether, it is possible that NG can come back in post-modern physics of the 21st century. That would put GR into a bin of miscalculated modern reform projects, like the 12-tone music by Schoenberg, or 68-revolution.

It may be time for a post-modern Newton to replace a modern Einstein. 

To get a view how a modern physicist views the world listen when theoretical physicist Sean Carroll explains why (modern) physics is both simple and impossible in terms of all the buzz words, and ask if anything makes sense to you.

A Modest Proposal to Solve the Crisis of Modern Physics

Modern physics is in a state of deep crisis because the two new theories vs classical physics of General Relativity GR and Quantum Mechanics QM, are incompatible and so cannot be combined into a Unified Field Theory UFT of modern physics. Without a UFT the whole project of modern physics as fundamentally different from classical physics is shaky, because in some fundamental way it must be wrong. 

Einstein struggled for 40 years after presenting GR in 1915 into his death in 1955 to form a UFT including GR and electromagnetism/QM, but was never close to anything of value. Nobody was more successful. UFT is still only wishful thinking. 

GR is today viewed as a more fundamental theory of gravitation than the classical theory of Newtonian Mechanics NM, but for all practical purposes NM is still the theory being used and so with an amazing success. GR is reserved for certain imagined extreme cases such as merger of black holes believed to be outside NM. And NM is fully compatible with QM, which suggest the following resolution of the crisis of modern physics:

• Form a UFT = NM + QM which covers all cases of practical interest. 
• Keep GR as an esoteric variant of NM as a model of some very extreme cases.

This would mean a step back from the novelty brought by modern physics, as only a fashion with little lasting value. This would be a relief for both physicists, students of physics, users of physics, and laymen confused by GR. Moreover GR could be kept as a fetish of modernity as a source for imagination. 

A step back into classical physics can be made also for QM in the form of RealQM as a model of atomic physics formulated within classical physics. 

It is thus possible to form a UFT as NM + RealQM as a fully compatible model of both macro and micro-physics within a setting of classical continuum mechanics/physics. This would be an expansion of classical macroscopic physics into the microscopics of atoms using the mathematics of classical continuum mechanics in the form of partial differential equations of the same form for macro- and micro-physics in terms of fields as functions of 3d Euclidean space variables plus a time variable. 

The conceptual form of such UFT would be the same on all scales, which would open to an understanding of micro-physics in terms familiar from macro-physics. It would be a post-modern physics as a renaissance of classical continuum physics with now the continuum covering all scales for which purpose it is ideally suited. This form of UFT would be computable since the scaling would be polynomial in resolution in space and time, and not exponential as standard QM. 

It would be interesting to hear what a professional modern physicist could have to say about the possibility of a UFT = NM + QM or more precisely UFT = NM + RealQM. Here is what chatGPT has to say:

• NM + QM covers all practical cases, so it functions like a UFT for the real-world problems most people deal with.

We know that there can be many different mathematical models of physical phenomena, like NM and GR for gravitation, and the usefulness may be what determines the choice of one model as the more fundamental. For example, it is possible to choose the Earth to be the center of the Universe around which everything evolves in circles upon circles like in a very complicated Aristotle model, but it has not shown to be very useful and so has been replaced by non-geocentric NM as being more fundamental because it has shown to be more useful. 

Thus fundamental can connect to usefulness. It is thus possible to view NM as a fundamental model covering everything which is not extreme, with GR as an extension into the extreme. Modern physics has concentrated on the extreme to single out from classical physics of the non-extreme. Modern physics thus  offers to make the extreme into new normality (GR for black holes), while post-modern physics could offer to capture new normality (QM) into classical normality.   

The Tragedy of Modern Physics 1

Modern physics is in a state of crisis with its two basic novelties vs classical physics, General Relativity GR (1915) as macro-physics and Quantum Mechanics (1925) as micro-physics, impossible to reconcile into one unified theory, despite major efforts by all leading physicists over now more than 100 years. The Standard Model of QM does not include gravitation as the essence of GR. No way out of the crisis is visible. It is a veritable tragedy compared to the tremendous success of classical Newtonian Mechanics NM as description of all of macro-physics.  

The logical conclusion is that at least one of the theories will have to be given up in order to find a way out of the crisis. GR or QM? 

GR has to compete with NM as concerns macro-physics including astronomy and cosmology, while QM has no classical physics to compete with. We are thus led to focus on GR and ask what would be the price of giving up GR as failed project and so go forward with a unified theory of NM + QM? 

Yes, NM+QM fits very well together and so let us consider why modern physicists are taught to view GR as a necessary replacement of NM. 

The basic mathematical model of GR is Einstein's Equations EE and that of NM is Newton's Equations NE. A modern physicist or text-book of today will tell you:

1. EE is a more fundamental model of gravitation than NE. 
2. In all cases except some very extreme cases including things like black holes, NE is the model used in practice since NE is readily computable in any thinkable geometric complexity, while GE is impossible to compute except in very simple geometry allowing analytic solutions.
3. EE have a very complicated mathematical form understood be few, while the structure of NE is clear and simple understandable by everybody. 
4. NE requires instant-action-at-distance, which cannot happen and is not part of EE. Therefore NE has to be replaced by EE.

Here 4. is the key argument to give up NE as fundamental model and replace it by EE. In many posts on New View on Gravitation, I show that it is possible to get around the apparent requirement of instant-action-at-distance in NE. This is to view the connection between mass density $\rho$ and gravitational potential $\phi$ captured in the Poisson Equation PE $\Delta\phi =\rho$ in a new way, not the old way with mass density primordial and gravitational potential formed by apparent instant-action-at-distance, but viewing instead $\phi$ as primordial from which $\rho$ is formed by the action of the differential operator $\Delta$ which acts locally and so can be instant. 

With this change of view the trouble with instant-action-at-distance does not appear and NE can be kept as the greatest success of all of physics to do all its wonders, and there would be no reason to replace it with anything, and in particular not by EE. 

The supremacy of EE over NE was not adopted as a fundamental principle of modern physics until the 1960s because the mathematics was difficult and the physics was strange. Few physicists claim to understand EE in any detail, and even fewer to be able to compute solutions to EE.  

Here are the alternatives at hand:

1. Keep EE and live with the facts that GR and QM are incompatible, and that EE is uncomputable and so use NE for all practical purposes. Claim that EE does not require instant-action-at-distance.
2. Keep NE and welcome that NM and QM offers a unified theory. View gravitational potential in PE as primordial before mas density and so circumvent formal requirement of instant-action-at-distance. Use EE for some very extreme cases which are beyond experimental verification 

The slow acceptance of GR signifies that it came with many doubts and questions, which however over time have faded away and so have allowed to make GR into a dogma of modern physics to be accepted even if impossible to make sense of for a fresh young rational mind. Since GR is replaced by NM in all cases of practical significance, genuine GR results are lacking which makes it impossible to show that they are incorrect. 

Which of the above alternatives 1 or 2 would you choose, if you had a free choice as a rational being? Which price, 1 or 2, would you prefer to pay?

Modern Physics as Extreme Physics in Simple Geometry

Modern physics can be described as the physics of the extreme, while classical physics concerns the normal non-extreme. The atomic bomb is an ultimate expression the extreme. Powerful particle accelerators force subatomic particles such as protons, electrons and heavy nuclei to smash into each other at extremely high speeds creating a spray of other particles collected in detectors, with the objective of discovering the inner structure of the particles which are smashing. It is similar to seeking to discover the inner structure of a Swiss clock or human cell by smashing it with a powerful hammer.

Einstein's Equations EE are presented as a more accurate/fundamental model of gravitation than Newton's Equations NE, and the evidence is picked from cases of very strong gravitation such as mergers of black holes, which can be described as extreme cases with simple geometry allowing solutions to EE equations to be determined, more or less. 

However, evidence that EE is a more accurate model of gravitation than NE for normal cases of classical physics such as planetary systems, which can be described as normal cases with complex geometry for which NE works fine, is missing because in such cases EE are uncomputable and thus cannot be inspected and compared with NE/observation. 

The argument appears to be that if a model works in an extreme case, it should work also in a non-extreme case, but it is not really valid here because the extreme case has simple geometry allowing solutions of EE to be constructed, more or less, while the normal case has complex geometry, which can be handled by NE. 

EE is presented as one of the two major achievements of modern physics as a more accurate/fundamental model of gravitation than NE, but this cannot be demonstrated in the vast majority of normal cases, because EE is uncomputable in complex geometry. 

The other major achievement of modern physics is quantum mechanics based on Schrödinger's equation SE with extensions as QED and QCD underlying the Standard Model of fundamental particles of spatial scale down to $10^{-18}$ m. But SE is uncomputable for normal systems with complex geometry just as EE, which has led physicists to shift focus to string theory of scale $10^{-32}$ m as an expression of ultimate extreme physics in simple geometry. 

Modern physics thus has come to concentrate on extreme physics in simple geometry, in an attempt to distance itself from classical physics of the normal in complex geometry, which covers the majority of cases. No wonder that modern physics is in a state of crisis.  

Extreme physics in simple geometry

  

Human Protein Atlas: Normal physics in complex geometry

Politics vs Modern Physics

A common tactic in politics practiced by parties and governments is to construct or frame a problem and then position themselves as the best (or only) solution to the problem as agenda-setting, problem-framing and solution-ownership. The problem typically a fictitious invented problem that does not need to be resolved as a no-problem. 

The problem could be imminent invasion of a NATO country by Russia, like Sweden, which can be prevented/solved by boosting Swedish defense industry with tax payer money. 

The same tactic has been used to gain tax payer support to modern Big Physics in the form of particle accelerators and massive support to departments of theoretical/fundamental physics. 

It was Boltzmann who took the first step along this profitable road at the end of the 19th century by inventing statistical mechanics as a new form different from classical mechanics, to solve the constructed problem of explaining why time is moving only forward, which is a no-problem in physics following its own dynamics.  

Planck took the next step in 1900 coming up with a concept of quanta as small chunks of energy to solve the problem of ultra-violet catastrophe of black-body radiation giving all bodies the capacity of radiating an infinity of energy, as a no-problem in real physics.  

In 1905 Einstein followed by inventing the Special Theory of Relativity SR starting from a proclaimed difficulty for two (human) observers separated in space to decide if two events are simultaneous in time. This is a constructed purely observer dependent problem, which does not come up in real physics without observers. Physics happens here and now and simultaneity of events (widely) separated in space is a no-problem. 

In the 1920s modern physics took a big leap inventing quantum mechanics with inspiration from Planck to solve the problem of the Bohr model of the Hydrogen atom. The solution introduced a whole catalog of new problems asking for resolution including wave-particle duality, collapse of the wave function, Heisenberg Uncertainty, Pauli Exclusion, anti-symmetry, interpretation of the wave function...The next big leap took place in the 1960s inventing the Standard Model to solve the problem of stability of atomic nuclei and then coming with another catalog new problems including strong force and weak force as different from familiar Coulomb force, and nuclear force as residual of strong force.  

In the 1970s String Theory was invented to solve perceived problems of the Standard Model. Today it is clear it did not work.

We see a consistent development of modern physics since 1900 as ad hoc inventions to solve perceived problems of classical physics by going outside classical physics, which were either no-problems or problems which could have been solved within classical physics (see books listed on this blog),  but then produced a host of new problems asking for more tax money. 

This machine has served very well for 100 years, boosted by the triumph of nuclear bombs, but it seems that public support is now failing as an expression of a crisis of modern physics. 

From Classical to Modern to Post-Modern Physics

Classical physics in the form Newtonian mechanics emerged during the scientific revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries from an Enlightenment of rational logic/mathematics combined with observation of reality in a fundamental shift away from religion scholastics. The basic idea was rational mechanics as physics, which was (more or less) understandable and not only magical.  

In the late 19th century classical physics incorporated electro-magnetics made understandable through Maxwell's equations.  

But the modern physics of relativity theory and quantum mechanics emerging in the beginning of the 20th century signified a return to magical thinking. 

All the great physicists of the 20th century Einstein, Bohr, Schrödinger, Dirac, Feynman, Gell Mann, Weinberg admitted that quantum mechanics cannot be understood, while suggesting that this only adds to its beauty as the prime achievement of human intellect. 

To teachers of quantum mechanics this created a problem: How to teach a subject that is not understood by even the sharpest minds? The only way out for the average teacher was to pretend to understand and refer to the admissions of the top physicists of non understanding, as only a sort of teasing: Of course quantum mechanics is well understood and so can be presented in text books to students expected to come to understanding by diligent study. 

The computer is often presented as an off-spring of quantum mechanics thus showing its power, but the first realisations of the idea of a computer was made in rational mechanical terms as the Analytical Engine by Babbage with all its wheels and gears. A realisation in terms of quantum mechanics would be a quantum computer but the question is if there will ever be such a thing. 

Is it possible to imaging a form of post-modern physics with a return to the rationality of classical physics. My answer in all modesty is RealQM.  

The Fundamental Belief of a Modern Physicist

Profession of Faith

According to the conversation with chatGPT linked below, a modern physicist will have to confess to the following fundamental faith (F): 

• True solution of Schrödinger's equation of quantum mechanics (S) always match experimental observation.   

The confession includes the following qualifications:

1. There is no experiment contradicting (F).
2. (F) is to be viewed true until proven wrong. 
3. True solutions to (S) are uncomputable. 

In the conversation I bring up the following questions:

• What is the meaning of 1 if true solutions cannot be computed and compared to experiments?
• What is the scientific meaning of 2?
• How can one computed approximate solution to (S) be viewed to be closer to the true solution than another, when convergence to a true solution is not computable?

I get no convincing arguments. In view of Ockham's razor it seems to me that (F) serves no role in evaluating an approximate solution to (S) for some specific experiment. 

In fact, in practice an approximate solution with better match to experiment is viewed to be better, but it cannot be determined if it is also gives better match with the true solution, since this is uncomputable. It could well be that some approximate solution gives better match with experiment than the true solution.

(F) thus emerges as a self full-filling prophecy without scientific substance. What do you think? Do you confess to (F), and if so why? If not, RealQM may be of interest to you.

The above considerations in particular apply to quantum chemistry postulated to reduce to (S) while relying on a veritable zoo of approximate solutions and the true solution safely hidden.  

Is there any possible negative aspect of adopting (F) as a fundamental belief, or is it a luxury/safety guard that we can safely enjoy? Yes, there is. If (F) is viewed as the ultimate truth of e g quantum chemistry, then a search for some alternative to (S) can be dismissed without even trying and that has been the case all along since 1926. RealQM presents (S) in new computable form.  

The reason that (S) is uncomputable is that it involves 3N spatial dimensions for a system with N electrons, which makes it an unphysical model. The generalisation of (S) for N=1 to N>1 was made by formally adding new spatial dimension for each additional electron as a purely formal mathematical generalisation without physics. RealQM offers a different generalisation staying within physical 3 spatial dimensions with physical meaning. 

The idea that formal mathematics can reveal deep insights into physics is a working hypothesis of a physicist. It was fruitful in Newtonian mechanics but seems to have led astray in modern physics with (S) a too easy catch. 

 

chatGPT conversation.

Physics is Dying

Theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder is angry. Sabine is finished with modern physics: This is why physics is dying: 20 years without progress:

• We are endlessly arguing about irrelevant questions.
• This is why physics is dying.
• Loop Quantum Gravity and String Theory cannot be tested.
• Same thing with Supersymmetry and Inflation and Dark Sectors. 
• I do not understand why people get paid for this. 
• Research bubbles of mathematical fiction without connection to reality.
• I cannot believe that this is still going on.
• We are seeing the beginning of a collapse of the foundations of physics.
• These people sit on cosy tax paid positions with no other task than producing useless papers.

This is also my impression.

But what do you do when you understand the theory, which is the very foundation of your academic position, does not work? If you do not see a new theory that you could jump to? Is this what is frustrating Sabine so very much?

A scientific theory is like an Empire and Empires do not fall without much fight and anger. 

Normal Physics from Extreme Physics?

Modern physics is largely based on an idea to find the truth about some physics by subjecting it to extreme tests as if that will bring out the essence. This idea was introduced by Einstein in his famous "thought experiments" of his Special Theory of Relativity SR, with trains being accelerated to speeds comparable to the speed of light, and from such speculations finding revolutionary new truths about space and time today viewed as fundamentals of modern physics. 

To accelerate a 100 ton train to a speed comparable to the speed of light requires more than $10^{20}$ Joule to be compared with the energy of the total yearly production of coal of less than $10^{18}$ Joule. 

This is the idea of of finding the true physics of light by sending single photons (whatever that is) to go through a double split and finding that a photon gets confused about what slit to pass, as the basic experiment of quantum mechanics.

This is the idea in experiments at the LHC at Cern colliding protons at close the speed of light to find out the nature of protons as fundamental building stones of an atoms/molecules together with electrons and neutrons.  

The new ESS in Lund Sweden will smash high speed neutrons into different molecules to find out their essential functioning in a normal environment.. 

This idea is also present in Einstein's General Relativity as a Theory of Gravitation supposed to replace Newton's Theory of Gravitation in extreme conditions like the collision of black holes or the Universe as a whole. 

The idea of finding normal physics from extreme physics may appear strange from classic physics point of view with generality and simplicity as leading principle and not extreme particularity of extreme complication. But it has taken a prominent role in modern physics, maybe because it is now possible to perform extremely complicated experiments concerning extreme physics and finding extremely small effects. 

An example is the proclaimed detecting of exceedingly weak gravitational waves from a collision of two black holes as an event of maximal strength, awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2017. 

Experts of modern physics with (i) relativity theory + (ii) quantum mechanics the essential advancements of classical physics, are eager to reveal the fact that both (i) and (ii) are very difficult to understand. An effect is that there are many conflicting efforts to simplify with little agreement since the formation of the theories 100 years ago, now manifesting itself as a crisis of modern physics.

This is to be compared with classical theories of physics formed to be maximally clear and understandable and so also being supported by a common agreement.

You find on this blog efforts to make atom physics understandable as Real Quantum Mechanics, and macroscopic mechanics as Many-Minds Relativity.

The Role of the Lorentz Transformation in Modern Physics

The trade mark of modern physics as relativistic physics is the Lorentz Transformation LT connecting observations in two Euclidean coordinate systems moving with constant velocity $v$ with respect to each other (inertial systems), to be compared with the Galilean transformation of classical Newtonian physics, with difference scaling with $\vert v\vert ^2$, assuming normalisation of the speed of light to 1. 

In most cases $\vert v\vert <<1$ and then the relativistic effects are very very small, yet they serve as prime evidence of major advancement brought by modern physics in the sense that the effects are of an entirely new kind including time dilation and space contraction resulting from the fact that LT mixes space and time, which is not seen in classical physics. 

The relativistic effects of modern physics are thus presented as being very very small, except possibly in very very extreme cases like "colliding black holes", yet very very important by opening to a whole new world of strange relativistic effects all based on LT.

Recent posts have pointed to the following facts: 

1. LT was introduced by Lorentz to accommodate observations indicating that the speed of light is the same in all inertial Euclidean coordinate systems.
2. The meter length  scale in each Euclidean coordinate system is according to the 2019 SI Standard  to be determined in terms of travel time of light with the speed of light specified to be exactly 299792458 meter/second, with second defined by standard caesium clock.  

We understand that with the 2019 SI Standard the speed of light is the same in all Euclidean coordinate systems by definition/standard: The length scale in each Euclidean coordinate system is determined so that the speed of light is exactly 299792458 meter/second.

This means that the original mission of LT has been taken over by the 2019 SI Standard, and the real question is now to what extent observations in different inertial systems can be made to agree. There is full agreement on the speed of light by definition/standard but not on velocities and distances in general. This is the objective of Many-Minds Relativity.

Summary: LT has no longer any role to play under the 2019 SI Standard. The speed of light is the same in all inertial systems by definition/standard. There are no effects of time dilation since a caesium clock cannot be affected by inertial motion. Physics without LT may open to a unified theory viewed to be impossible with LT.

 

New 2019 SI Standard requires Restart of Modern Physics

This is a clarification of the latest posts on Einstein's influence on modern physics.

The SI Standard since 2019 defines length scale (meter) in terms of travel time of light assuming that the speed of light is exactly 299792458 meter per second, while time scale (second) is set by a caesium clock.  

This means that different observers using different spatial Euclidean coordinate systems traveling with different constant speeds with respect to each other, using different inertial systems, will have to adjust their meter scale to an agreed speed of light of 299792458 meter per second according to the 2019 SI Standard.  

This means that the basic postulate of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity SR stating that the speed of light is the same in all inertial systems, is no longer a statement about physics, which can be true or false, but simply a definition or standard or agreement or convention and as such stating nothing about physical reality. 

This means that SR since 2019 has nothing to say about real physics and so has no longer any meaning as a physical theory. 

This means that modern physics has to make a fresh restart since modern physics is based on SR which no longer is a physical theory. 

The real question confronting physicists after 2019 is to what extent observations in different inertial systems will agree. This is the theme of Many-Minds Relativity MMR, which is a physical theory of relativity conforming to the 2019 SI Standard. 

Next question to be addressed: What will modern physics look like with SR replaced by MMR?

Of course some physicists will claim that SR is a theory about physics even after 2019, since it is a physical fact that the speed of light is the same for all observers independent of length scale adopted, even if that of course is absurd, and this is the reason it can be used as a meter standard. We may compare with time standard set by the same caesium clock for all observers with clock rate independent of inertial motion as a physical fact.  

 

  

Basic Difference Between Classical and Modern Physics

This is the first in a sequence of posts starting from the previous post asking if Newtonian Mechanics NM + Maxwellian Electromagnetics EM as classical physics describing all of the macroscopic world, can also explain the world of modern physics including General Relativity GR describing the macro-macroscopic world and Quantum Mechanics QM/Standard Model describing the microscopic world? 

Let us thus ask if NM+EM can also describe the microscopic world, leaving for now out the question if NM really needs an extension to GR for macro-macroscopics. 

We then add RealQM to the picture as a new form of quantum mechanics formulated within classical physics. RealQM then emerges as a part of classical physics describing microscopics of molecules, atoms, nuclei and electrons in classical continuum mechanical terms. This not modern physics as classical physics, but modern physics as an extension of classical physics to microscopics.

In RealQM individuality therefore plays the same role in microscopics as in macroscopics, where occupancy of a certain region in space and time identifies different components in classical continuum mechanical terms. This is a minimal unique signature, which is complemented by mass and charge.

In QM individuality is lost. Electrons do not occupy different regions in space and time because they do not have any space-filling quality, only appear as abstract probabilities without individuality and real physical presence. 

RealQM has an interpretation as physics in the same sense as Maxwell's equations for electromagnetics or Navier-Stokes equations for fluids.

No satisfactory interpretation of QM has been found, despite hard work by an army of sharp physicist minds for 100 years. The logical conclusion can only be that QM is not physics. 

Despite the lack of individuality in QM, modern physicists speak about electrons orbiting nuclei or filling orbitals in space as if they have individuality, causing much confusion for students and the general public. 

In the Standard Model electrons are interacting by exchanging (virtual) photons depicted as Feynman diagrams such as:

It is hard to not see that here electrons can be identified by left-right, but that is not what you are supposed to see. There is no left electron and no right electron, just two interacting electrons jumping around with presence nowhere and everywhere. The big trouble with the Standard Model is that without individuality self-interaction is possible, which creates infinities requiring renormalisation to be eliminated however without physics, adding to confusion for students and the general public. 

If politicians allocating tax money to Particle Colliders supposed to verify the Standard Model, can understand the meaning of the Standard Model, more or less, they can decide to cut financing because the model does not make sense to them. If they or the general public cannot understand, cutting funding can be more difficult.    

    

Modern Physics vs Classical Physics

After at chat with ChatGPT I have learned that the essential difference between modern and classical physics is that the postulates of modern physics, the postulates of relativity theory and quantum mechanics, are not directly testable experimentally, while this is a key requirement of classical mechanics. 

It seems to be more constructive to discuss physics with GPT than with a living modern physicist typically taking a very defensive position admitting nothing. 

Now, a physical theory based on postulates about facts of physics, which cannot be directly tested experimentally, and thus cannot be directly falsified, runs the risk of being a self-fulfilling prophecy without real value. This may well be the case concerning relativity theory based on postulates of (i) general principle of equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass and (ii) general covariance of physical laws, which cannot be tested experimentally. 

Laws or Postulates of classical mechanics, such as Hooke's Law, Coulomb's Law, Fourier''s Law  and Newton's Law of Gravitation, can all be tested and verified experimentally. A theory based on postulates of basic laws of physics express logical consequences of these laws. If the postulates can be verified, then the theory is valid. If not, the theory lacks factual basis and has no value.

In modern physics the fundamental principle of testability of basic postulates, has been given up and so may reduce to free speculation. A return to classical physics with testable postulates is necessary. There is no reason to start with postulates which cannot be directly tested. Unless you want to invent a new theory based on speculations possibly without factual basis, and so become a modern physicist of reputation.  Your choice! 

Weird and Strange Modern Physics based on E=mc2 and E=hf

There is no sufficient reason for the Universe to not be Eternal without beginning and end.

Modern physics is built on the following two postulates formulated by Planck (1900) and Einstein (1905) as essence of quantum mechanics and theory of relativity:

• $E=hf$ where $E$ is energy and $f$ light frequency mediated by Planck's constant $h$.
• $E=mc^2$ expressing equivalence of energy $E$ with mass $m$ mediated by $c^2$ with $c$ the speed of light in vacuum.

In the 2019 SI standard of units the following values of $h$ and $c$ are set by definition:

• $h=1.054571817\times 10^{–34}$ Joule per Herz.   (small)
• $c=299 792 458$ meter per second.     (big)

Einstein's $E=mc^2$ is then used to define kilo as the unit of mass in terms of $h$ and $c$ with details in this post. 

Modern physicists all express that modern physics is strange or more precisely that nature is weird. 

It is strange to insist that energy has to be counted as integer multiples of a smallest chunk or quantum of energy $h$ of light. It is weird that light of frequency $f$ consists of streams of light particles named photons of size $hf$, when it is known that light is an electromagnetic wave phenomenon without smallest scale. 

It is strange to insist that energy as potential to do work can be equivalent to mass as gravitational/inertial mass as resistance to force/motion. It is like insisting that you eat energy/calories and not food. 

The most weird outcome of modern physics is the atomic bomb viewed as the ultimate demonstration of the correctness of Einstein's equivalence of energy and mass. The enormous energy released in the explosion of an atomic bomb from the enormous factor $c^2$ in Einstein's $E=mc^2$, has been exploited by physicists to show the weird power of modern physics thus suppressing any criticism or doubt that modern physics makes sense. But atomic bombs do not make sense...

A consequence of the equivalence of energy and mass, is that mass is lost in exothermic chemical reactions when molecules recombine to release energy, which however can be dismissed as something of no real importance because the loss of mass is so incredibly small, like the mass of the angels on a knives edge of the Scholastics.

But the release of energy in nuclear reactions is so big that a corresponding loss of mass must be made in the best case into an observable fact, when insisting on $E=mc^2$. To start with the loss of mass is referred to as a mass defect indicating something strange, which is computed according to $E=mc^2$ and then cleverly is used as evidence that mass defect is real even if strange, although only computed. Another thing is to measure the mass defect in nuclear reactions, which is not easy because nuclear reactions are delicate to handle and to weigh on a scale to determine gravitational mass. But of course the SI definition of mass in terms of energy can help to show that mass and energy are equivalent, then by definition. 

We have now identified why modern physics is viewed to be both strange and weird: Planck and Einstein.

But is it necessarily so that Nature is weird and modern physics is strange. What if Nature is not really weird, because something that is weird cannot exist over time, and then modern physics would not have to be strange.

The classical view is that both energy and mass is conserved. The number of protons of the Universe is then constant, which means that the Universe has no beginning and no end. This is a simple reasonable cosmological theory, which is hard to dispute, and in addition may be true. A reasonable Universe has a bigger chance of existing than a weird Universe, and also to be more understandable as not being strange. 

     

If you ask a contemporary physicist about the physics of $E=mc^2$ and $E=hf$, you will only get the answer that this is all "in the books" combined with a poodle : Sure,  it is strange and weird, but that is the way it is and everyone asking for some rationality is a crackpot. 

This was not the attitude of Planck, who was very unhappy with his breach from classical continuum physics introducing $h$ as smallest possible chunk of energy. It was Einstein who opened the door to strange and weird modern physics in his quest to trump Newton by opening the door to modernity. Einstein masterfully played the double game of confusing ontology and epistemology allowing strange ideas of human conception to be the same as reality.    

Modern Physics in Free Fall Crisis

Modern physicists in joint free fall under quantum supergravity.

There are many witnesses of a modern physics in serious crisis. The process started at the turn to 20th century modernity with Einstein's special theory of relativity and Planck's derivation of the law of blackbody radiation based on statistics of energy quanta opening to quantum mechanics.

Evidence of the crisis can be seen in the 2019 Special Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics to a 1970 speculation about supergravity, which has resisted 50 years of experimental verification, see also Where are we now?. The Breakthrough website motivates the Prize to supergravity as follows:

• In the four decades since its development, supergravity has had a powerful influence on theoretical physics. It showed that supersymmetry was capable of accounting for all the phenomena we see in the real world, including gravity. It represented a completion of the current understanding of particle physics – a rigorous mathematical answer to the question, “What theories of nature are compatible with the principles of both quantum mechanics and special relativity?” And it provided a foundation for the attempt – still ongoing – to build a full theory of quantum gravity that describes space and time at a fundamental level.

We see that the 2019 Breakthrough Prize concerns precisely the question discussed in this sequence of posts: How to reconcile the principles of quantum mechanics and special relativity? But the 1970 answer in the form of supersymmetry appears to have few proponents today outside the Prize committee as a (failed) "attempt". It is not impossible that the 2020 Fundamental Physics Prize will go to the discovery that special relativity is not fundamental physics, and thus that there is no contradiction with quantum mechanics.   

The shift to modernity was a break-off from classical physics as science of "what is" (ontology) into a modern physics as science of "what we can say" (epistemology) as expressed by Niels Bohr, in which a material world going around even without any (human) observer was replaced by a mist of statistics of (human) observation.

In the new view of modern physics causality/determinism was given up, under much agony because that had been the basic principle of physics since Aristotle, while the monumentality of the sacrifice added to its thrill.  But a sacrifice carries a cost and the cost is now showing up in the form of a modern physics in free fall without any thinkable connection to experiments as string theory in 11 dimensions and multiversa statistics of all possibilities.

What is then the effect of a physics in free fall? Is it helpful to humanity? What was the basic reason that forced Einstein and Bohr followed by generations of modern physicists, to give up causality and rationality?

Einstein was led to special relativity in an effort to handle the lack of physicality of a vacuum or "aether" as a medium for propagation of electromagnetic waves/light. It appeared in experiments like that by Michelson-Morley as if there was not just one single "aether", but many different as if each source/receiver system in motion would "drag" its own aether along. Einstein however could not handle the diversity of many aethers (put forward by e.g. Ebenezer Cunningham) and so took the radical step of declaring that there is no aether at all, in particular not many aethers causing confusing. In modern psycho-physiological terms it could be described as a syndrome of not being able to handle the many sometimes conflicting perspectives of life.

In any case the "no-aether" idea led Einstein into the his special relativity where all observers are compelled to share the same mathematical formulas under a banner of Lorentz invariance, however  without being able to agree on anything else of importance such as simultaneity, time and space. The scientific world met Einstein's special relativity with a yawn as epistemology without physics, which made Einstein turn to his general theory of relativity, which as a consequence of efforts to reconcile England and Germany after World War I in the hands of Eddington, took off in the media and then was turned into a pillar of modern physics.

The trouble was that this pillar was incompatible with the other pillar of modern physics, namely quantum mechanics founded on Schrödinger's equation, which resisted to Lorentz invariance. Modern physics has carried this incompatibility for 100 years as a basic trauma on which much of the present crisis can be blamed, with supergravity as failed attempt to reconcile quantum mechanics with gravitation. The rest of the blame can go to the use of statistics as a collapse of causality/determinism, which was forced from the multi-dimensional form of Schrödinger's equation.

Modern physicists bear witness of the crisis, but I have met little interest in possible ways to take off instead of falling down, by questioning Lorentz invariance and the necessity of a statistical approach to the physics of an atom. But the crisis goes on and maybe some day, discussion will be possible.

The similarity with a climate science dominated by one gospel of alarm is obvious. More precisely, the corruption of climate science today is made possible by the fact that modern physicists have retreated from the world.

The last sequence of posts give arguments that Lorentz invariance has no role to play in physics.
In Real Quantum Mechanics a variant of Schrödinger's equation free of statistics as a system in 3 space dimensions, is presented.

Comments from physicists are welcome. Is any form of discussion possible? Or is the crisis permanent?

PS In many respects modern physics appears as a game of poker, where the physicist player all the time can raise the bet and avoid being called by the public/tax payer. This is what Einstein did, when confronted with questioning of the special theory of relativity, by turning to general relativity, which when questioned was further raised to cosmology. Or when Schrödinger's equations for atoms was confronted with Lorentz invariance and the bet was lifted to Dirac's equation, not for atoms but only for one free electron, and then further to quantum field theory with a universe of infinities, which was handled by "renormalisation" and so on to string theory in 11 dimensions, which cannot be called because it is very far beyond both experimental conformation and refutation.

Does Sabine Hossenfelder Exist?

Sabine Hossenfelder on BackReaction claims herself to be a modern physicist expressing truths about the state of modern physics:

• I do not know what it means for something to be “real” or “true.” You will have to consult a philosopher on that.
• If you want to claim that the Higgs-boson does not exist, you have to demonstrate that the theory which contains the mathematical structure called “Higgs-boson” does not fit the data. Whether or not Higgs-bosons ever arrive in a detector is totally irrelevant.
• Here is a homework assignment: Do you think that I exist? And what do you even mean by that?
• From November on, I will be unemployed, at least that is what it presently looks like: If you don't exist, can you be employed?

If this is the truth, no wonder that modern physics is in a state of crisis.

But Sabine's criticism of modern physics appears well founded and thus admirable. At the price of making employment difficult, which is even more admirable.  But she is not alone saying that modern  physics in a state of stalemate crisis without progress, as evidenced in the new book
The Universe Speaks in Numbers by Graham Farmelo summing up:

• ...the slow rate of progress of the string framework may presage a more sedate pace in fundamental physics that may persist for centuries to come.

Of course the pessimism of deep crisis can be turned around into its opposite, as expressed by the leading star of modern physics Arkani-Hamed: 

• There has never been a better, more exciting time to be a theoretical physicist.

Concerning the crisis of modern physics it is commonly accepted that one reason is that the two basic building blocks, relativity theory and quantum mechanics, are contradictory/incompatile . If you dig a little deeper you will find that the underlying reason is that both theories are unphysical as exposed in detail as Many-Minds Relativity and Real Quantum Mechanics and also here.

Two theories which are physical cannot be contradictory, because physics which exists cannot be contradictory. But unphysical theories may well be contradictory, as ghosts can have contradictory qualities.

The Special Theory of Relativity of Einstein is unphysical because the Lorentz transformation is not a transformation between physical coordinates, as strongly underlined by its inventor Lorentz, but misunderstood by the patent clerk Einstein believing that the transformed time is real and thus that time is relative. Quantum Mechanics is unphysical because its interpretation is statistical which makes it non-physical, because physics is not an insurance company. Here Einstein was right understanding that God does not play dice.

Concerning the crisis of modern physics, listen to

• Alexander Unzicker 
• Bill Gaede (with Quora comments)
• Hartwig Thim on Einstein's relativity

It is comforting to see that I am not alone in my criticism of relativity theory and quantum mechanics.

It is impossible to discuss these things with main stream physicists, since their common wisdom is that neither relativity theory nor quantum mechanics can be understood as rational science.

An example of the confusion is the hype about quantum computing with the sound criticism by Dyakonov in The Case Against Quantum Computing of course being dismissed by main stream physicist Lubos.

The confusion is exposed in an exhibition combining arts and science about quantum mechanics at Center for Contemporary Culture in Barcelona commented on at BackReaction. Here is an artistic expression of the quantum leap of an electron which infuriated Schrödinger:

In this context you are invited to a previous post on the true meaning of Planck's constant $h$ shows The text book view is that $h$ is a fundamental quantum of action connecting the energy
$E=h\nu$ to a particle/photon of light of frequency $\nu$ according the Planck-Einstein relation with light viewed as a stream of discrete particles/photons.

But it is not at all necessary to view light this way to understand the true meaning of Planck's constant, which is revealed through the way it is measured, that is through the photoelectric effect which simply connects light frequency to the energy unit of electronVolt.

Einstein gave a heuristic explanation of the photoelectric effect from an idea of light as a stream of particles. By the common Aristotle logical fallacy of confirming the assumption by observing the consequence, this has convinced modern physicists that light indeed consists of a stream of particles, which however is against all scientific rationale and a basic reason for the crisis of modern (particle) physics. Schrödinger understood that there are no particles. See posts on the photoelectric effect showing that it does not require Einstein's particle heuristics to be understood; wave mechanics serves much better!     

Physics Needs Help

Eric Weinstein delivers as a Big Think the message that

• Physics needs a new lone genius.
• Do we need a radical rethinking?
• Is there something wrong with the fundamentals?
• Is Einstein in fact wrong to slip in space-time?
• But the question is, why are they (the physics community) stumped?
• Is it (the help) going to come from some completely strange source, maybe somebody who is a self-teacher off the grid (like Einstein or Weinstein)?

Is there any reason to listen to (W)einstein, as an outsider? Yes, why not? The scene is open. In particular, Einstein's space-time mix appears to be a stumbling block and may well be ready for revision...compare with Many-Minds Relativity...