The Spell of Quantisation = Crisis of Modern Physics

The fundamental difference between modern physics in the form of Quantum Mechanics QM and classical physics in the form of Continuum Mechanics, is something named 

• Quantisation. 

After a long discussion with chatGPT the following conclusion as "Honest Summary" is reached:

• Quantisation means: interactions are granular, in units of Planck's constant $h$.
• It is detected physically through indivisible events (photoelectrons, Compton recoils, detector clicks).
• It is explained mathematically by replacing classical observables with operators whose spectra are discrete.
• But the mechanical reason why nature enforces this is not known. 
• It is a foundational mystery.

On the way we have learned that what Quantisation is not:

• Not simply probabilistic interpretation of wave function. 
• Not simply discrete spectrum of a continuous vibrating string/atom.
• Not simply discreteness of electron unit charge.
• Not discrete "light particles/photons".
• Not discrete "lumps of energy".  
• Not really QM but rather Quantum Field Theory for continuous fields with discrete excitations. 

But not really anything concrete beyond formalism mystery of what Quantisation is. 

The trouble with Quantisation is that it forces a split between classical continuum physics and modern quantised physics which prevents a unification of macroscopic physics of gravitation with microscopic physics of atoms including electromagnetics. 

Without knowing what Quantisation is, it is very difficult to check if the split with continuum physics is really necessary. 

The fact that modern physics has not been able to form a Unified Field Theory UFT represents a monumental failure, which is now causing a deep credibility crisis of theoretical physics. 

Modern physics is thus confronted with the following spell:

1. Quantisation is necessary.
2. Quantisation prevents a UFT.
3. Lack of UFT is the root cause to the present deep crisis of theoretical physics.
4. Quantisation is a mystery.

But based on 4. it is natural to ask if 1. is true? 

To question 1. requires a QM without Quantisation and there is a candidate for such a thing in the form of Real Quantum Mechanics RealQM which has the form of classical continuum mechanics and so allows unification. 

With RealQM the spell of Quantisation evaporates and a UFT appears as a real possibility to explore. Want to try it? 

Recall that the 1. is the leading idea today of professional physicists: The only way forward towards unification is quantising gravitation, and the only hope went to String Theory emerging 50 years ago, but this hope is now quickly eroding. No hope any more for quantising gravity. 

The only way forward is to dequantise QM. This is what RealQM offers. 

Quantum Mechanics Without Quantisation

Schrödinger's Equation SE for the Hydrogen atom with one electron has the form of a classical continuum mechanical wave equation in a complex-valued wave function $\psi (x,t)$ depending on a 3d space coordinate $x$ and a time coordinate $t$ with $\vert\psi (x,t)\vert^2$ assigned the clear physical meaning of electron charge density at $(x,t)$ with total charge of one unit. The model captures the observed spectrum of Hydrogen as a discrete set of eigenvalues of normalised eigenfunctions in fully classical continuum mechanical form. 

Yet this model has been taken as starting point for a fundamental reformation of classical physics into a fundamentally new form of physics named quantum mechanics resulting from a process of quantisation. In the case of the Hydrogen atom this radical step reduces to a reinterpretation of $\vert\psi (x,t)\vert^2$ as a probability density thus replacing charge density (with physical meaning) with probability (without physical meaning). In this case the reformation makes no sense: The Emperor's New Clothes. Smallest quantum of energy has no physical meaning. 

The reason for the reformation appeared along with the generalisation of SE to atoms with more than one electron, which was the problem facing Schrödinger in 1926 after formulating SE for the Hydrogen atom with one electron, which propelled him to fame. But it was not evident how to proceed and so Schrödinger gave in to a purely formal generalisation introducing a new set of 3d spatial variables for each new electron forming a multi-d SE with only probabilistic interpretation possible and as such aggressively promoted by Bohr-Born-Heisenberg overpowering Schrödinger's request for real physics as ontology instead of unphysical probability as epistemology.

So was the modern physics of quantum mechanics born from a formal process of quantisation, which boiled down to replacing classical deterministic continuum physics by probabilistic physics without determinism and physical meaning. Schrödinger deeply regretted ever to be involved in this project forming 20th century physics. 

Could history have taken a different route by a different generalisation staying within classical continuum physics if Schrödinger had just resisted the onslaught from Bohr-Born-Heisenberg at bit longer? Yes, this would have been possible if only Schrödinger had tried the idea of Real  Quantum Mechanics RealQM of forming a SE in terms of non-overlapping charge densities with direct physical meaning and without any need of reformation by quantisation into probabilities. 

RealQM offers a model of atomic physics in the form of classical continuum physics without any need of quantisation and probabilities. RealQM combines seamlessly with classical electro-magnetics and Newtonian mechanics and so opens to the formation of a Unified Field Theory UFT, which both Schrödinger and Einstein struggled to find throughout the later halfs of their scientific lives, but couldn't do.....Schrödinger died in Vienna in 1961 73 years old... 

Schrödinger in his Nobel Lecture 1933 showing his resistance to Bohr-Born-Heisenberg:

• We cannot, however, manage to make do with such old, familiar, and seemingly indispensible terms as "real" or "only possible"; we are never in a position to say what really is or what really happens, but we can only say what will be observed in any concrete individual case. 
• Will we have to be permanently satisfied with this. . . ? On principle, yes. On principle, there is nothing new in the postulate that in the end exact science should aim at nothing more than the description of what can really be observed. 
• The question is only whether from now on we shall have to refrain from tying description to a clear hypothesis about the real nature of the world. 
• There are many who wish to pronounce such abdication even today. But I believe that this means making things a little too easy for oneself.

ChatGPT about Schrödinger's struggle find a UFT:

• After inventing wave mechanics, Schrödinger spent decades searching for a unified continuum field theory of matter and forces, resisting the idea that nature is fundamentally quantised — but his attempts never succeeded against the empirical dominance of quantum field theory.

• Goal: Matter = continuous wave fields, not particles.

• Method:

  • Original 1926 wave mechanics: electrons as standing waves.

  • Later: attempts to merge wave mechanics with Einstein’s relativity → affine field theory, complex scalar fields.

• Belief: Quantisation is not fundamental, but an artifact of wave modes and stability conditions.

• Outcome: His “unified field theory” never matched experiments; the community rejected it once QED and QFT succeeded.

• Spirit: Continuity is real, discreteness is emergent.

  
  

The World is Continuous Not Discrete

Calculus was invented to solve a problem of "quadrature" of computation of the total distance $D$ covered when walking with varying step size in space $dx=v(t)\times dt$ with $v(t)$ representing velocity at time $t$ and $dt$ the time required for each step, starting from $t =0$ and ending at $t=T$. The total distance appears as the sum over all steps which takes the form of an integral : 

• $D(T)=\int_0^T v(t)dt$

The "trick" was to find a primitive function $x(t)$ satisfying $\dot x(t) =v(t)$ with $\dot x=\frac{dx}{dt}$ the derivative or $dx=v(t)dt$ to find 

• $D(T)=\int dx = \sum dx = x(T)-x(0)$

allowing $D$ to be computed from knowing a primitive function thus avoiding laborious summation.  For example, if $v(t)=2t$ as increasing velocity with time, then $D(T)=T^2$.

Calculus allowed tedious summation to be replaced be smart analytical mathematics: A tremendous success initiating the scientific revolution in the late 17th century also named the dot-age referring to $\dot x =\frac{dx}{dt}$.

Calculus showed to be more than "quadrature" by allowing a description the world in terms of differential equations depending on continuous space and time variables varying over a continuum of real numbers formalised in the late 19th century. So was continuum physics including electromagnetics formed allowing a description of the world we could fathom with our senses. 

The foundation was a model of space and time as a continuum of real numbers without a smallest scale. It was a world described by fields $\psi (x,t)$ depending on continuous space-time variables $(x,t)$ without smallest scale. 

Such field-models could be discretised  by introducing a smallest scale to allow finitary computation with finite number of digits connecting to "quadrature" performed simply as massive summation. The smallest scale could be refined to resolve increasingly fine details. 

Today this technique in the form of Computational Continuum Physics has been perfected into simulation of increasingly complex phenomena of the macroscopic world. Continuum models allow compact formulation and discretisation makes them computable. This is a world of classical physics made alive by computation. Classical physics as continuum physics.

But it is not the world of modern physics where Quantum Mechanics QM has replaced the continuum of no smallest scale, with a world of quanta of smallest scale $h\nu$ with $h$ Planck's constant and $\nu$ a frequency supposed to be the nature of the microscopics of atoms and molecules. 

This presents a world split into continuous macroscopics and discrete microscopics which comes with many difficulties now manifested in a crisis of modern physics. 

Let us follow the emergence of the split according to this time line:

1. In 1900 Planck introduced quanta of energy $h\nu$ to theoretically explain blackbody radiation. It gave him fame.
2. In 1905 Einstein introduced quanta of light energy $h\nu$ in a heuristic explanation of the photoelectric effect. It gave him the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921. 
3. In 1915 Bohr introduced quantised discrete energy levels of a Hydrogen atom.
4. In 1925 Schrödinger formulated a model of a Hydrogen atom in the form of classical continuum mechanics.
5. In 1925 Heisenberg introduced a discrete matrix model. 
6. In 1926 Schrödinger's model was extended to atoms with more than one electron as  anew form of multi-d model beyond classical continuum mechanics, which was forcefully sold by Bohr-Heisenberg as Standard Quantum Mechanics StdQM according to the Copenhagen Interpretation. 
7. In 1928 Schrödinger left QM because it did not have the form of classical continuum mechanics.
8. Today the non-classical multi-d model as StdQM dominates completely. 
9. RealQM is a new model in the form of classical continuum mechanics. 

Today physicists speak about "quantisation" as the magic element separating modern physics from classical physics, which has brought so many wonders to the modern world. The idea goes back to the atomists of the Democritus school as smallest building elements of the world today carried in all sorts of particle physics. It appeared in Newton's corpuscular view of light, replaced by Maxwell's wave mechanics in the 19th century to return with Einstein's photons in 1905.  

Is then the split between continuous macro-physics and discrete micro-physics really necessary? Is it impossible to explain blackbody radiation and the photoelectric effect within classical continuum physics? 

No, it is in fact possible as shown in Computational Blackbody Radiation. This was also the message of Willis Lamb Nobel Laureate in Physics in 1955:  

• It should be apparent from the title of this article that the author does not like the use of the word "photon", which dates from 1926. In his view, there is no such thing as a photon. Only a comedy of errors and historical accidents led to its popularity among physicists and optical scientists.

The split has led to many difficulties. If the split can be avoided keeping both macro and micro within a continuum model, it may help out of the present crisis. Why not give continuum physics a new try to cover also microphysics without "quantisation".

The enigma of modern physics is presented as: How to quantise gravitation into a unified quantised theory? No answer in sight. Wrong question. 

A better idea is to de-quantise atom physics into a unified continuum model with gravitation. 

The late Einstein: These days, every Tom, Dick and Harry, thinks he knows what a photon is, but he is wrong. But nobody listened. 

I am pretty sure that Schrödinger would have welcomed RealQM since it follows his basic idea, which was overpowered by Bohr.

Mathematics: Calculus replaced discrete quadrature by understandable analysis, which returned in the form of digital computation giving power to understandable analysis.  

Physics: Calculus allowed classical physics to describe the world as a continuum open to understanding. Modern physics returned to Democritus atomism as a discrete world beyond understanding.