Quantum Paradoxes and Physical Reality: Harvey Brown

Harvey Brown is a philosopher of physics with a realist approach developed in his book Quantum Paradoxes and Physical Reality starting with the following basic questions of modern physics:

1. Do the basic entities of atomic physics, such as electrons, photons, and so on, actually exist independently of the observations performed by physicists?
2. If the answer to the previous question is positive, is it possible to comprehend the structure of atomic objects and the evolution of atomic processes, in the sense of forming spacetime images somehow in correspondence with their reality?
3. Should one formulate physical laws in such a way that one or several causes are given for all observed effects?

Harvey maps positive answers to opponents of quantum mechanics:

• Ehrenfest, Planck, Einstein, Schrödinger and de Broglie, 

and negative to defenders of quantum mechanics: 

• Sommerfeld, Born, Bohr, Pauli, Heisenberg, Jordan, and Dirac. 

Basically a split between realists and formalists.

The situation today is that the formalist attitude is completely dominating, and that a realist attitude is shown only by a few realist philosophers of physics such as Tim Maudlin and Harvey Brown himself. 

To the realist camp I can add RealQM with positive answers to 1-3. It may be that positive realist answers tmay help progress better than negative formalist.

Doubling Down in Theoretical Physics and Geopolitics

Physical scales range from $10^{-18}$ to $10^{22}$ meter about 40 orders of magnitude. 

The US Empire is now collapsing in front of our eyes along with the rest of the West, while the East/South is taking over supported by 90% of the world population. Doubling down by printing more dollar does not seem to work any more. No even the entry of Sweden into NATO will help out.

Geopolitical power is exercised through economical and military power resting on technology based on mathematics and physics.  

The rise of West came with the scientific revolution initiated by Galileo, Descartes, Leibniz, Newton, Euler from a new idea of God as mathematician or theoretical physicist creating a Universe governed by natural laws of mathematical form, like the inverse square law of gravitation. This propelled the West to World domination with the power shifting from Europe to US after WW2. 

The development of the atomic bomb by scientists gathered in US from Europe during WW2 boosted the self-confidence of US theoretical physicists of the 1950-70s into exploration of ever smaller atomic scales in search for a Theory of Everything uncovering God's ultimate mathematical trick. But God showed to be too smart and unsurmountable problems had to be met by doubling down. Here is a time line for physics on ever smaller scales in each new step leaving the old problems unsolved: 

• Faced with difficulties of extending classical deterministic physics to the microscopics of atoms,  theoretical physicists doubled down in the 1920s by presenting Quantum Mechanics as a new form of probabilistic physics on scales of size $10^{-10}$ meter.
• Faced with seemingly unsolvable foundational problems of Quantum Mechanics, theoretical physicists doubled down in the 1950s by presenting Quantum Field Theory as a new form of physics on sub-atomic scales of size $10^{-18}$ meter. 
• Faced with seemingly unsolvable foundational problems of Quantum Field Theory,  theoretical physicist doubled down in the 1970s by developing String Theory as a new form of physics on sub-sub-atomic scales of size $10^{-32}$ meter.

Here is corresponding time line for relativity theory on ever larger scales: 

• Faced with an apparent absence of an aether as a physical medium for the propagation of light, Einstein seeking to get an academic position as physicist in 1905,  decided to change the classical Euclidean/Newtonian concepts of space and time into a new concept of space-time in a new Special Theory of Relativity.
• Faced with questions from leading physicists, which he could not answer, Einstein doubled down by extending to a new General Theory of Relativity.  
• Faced with new questions, Einstein doubled down restricting his theories to the whole Universe making experimental falsification impossible.    

Today the doubling down has come to an end in a theoretical physics troubled by seemingly unsolvable problems. It is not possible to double down to smaller scales nor to larger scales. Theoretical physics of the West has come to a dead end. 

Or can AI help by doubling and redoubling human intelligence? See also this post.

Is it possible that this is the true reason that the geopolitical power of the West is now collapsing?

PS Doubling down in mathematics can take the form of higher level of abstraction. The problem that the square root of two is not a rational number, which destroyed the Pythagorean mathematical school, could eventually be handled in the 19th century by introducing a new more abstract concept of real number, which was then repeatedly doubled down into vast Hilbert spaces capable of housing the quantum mechanical wave function for the whole Universe. 

Max Born on Copenhagen Interpretation

Max Born played an important role in forming the new quantum mechanics based on Schrödinger's wave equation presented in 1925, by giving its wave function solution a statistical interpretation as electron configuration probability instead of actuality as in classical deterministic mechanics.

It was the multidimensional form of the wave function with $3N$ space dimensions for a system with $N$ electrons without meaning in classical deterministic mechanics in 3 space dimensions, which required a non-classical interpretation and it was Max Born who in 1926 came up with the idea of letting the multi-dimensional wave function represent an immensely rich world of possibilities rather than a real world of actualities in a step from determinism to new quantum world ruled by games of roulette. 

Schrödinger received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1933 for "the discovery of new productive forms of atomic theory", while it Born had to wait until 1954 to be awarded for "the statistical interpretation of the wave function". 

In his Nobel Lecture Born describes his mixed feeling about quantum mechanics in general and his work in particular: 

• It contains no discovery of a fresh natural phenomenon.
• It contributed to the solution of an intellectual crisis into which our science had fallen as a result of Planck’s discovery of the quantum of action in 1900. 
• Today, physics finds itself in a similar crisis. 
• Planck, himself, belonged to the sceptics until he died. Einstein, De Broglie, and Schrödinger have unceasingly stressed the unsatisfactory features of quantum mechanics and called for a return to the concepts of classical, Newtonian physics while proposing ways in which this could be done without contradicting experimental facts. Such weighty views cannot be ignored. 
• Niels Bohr has gone to a great deal of trouble to refute the objections. I, too, have ruminated upon them and believe I can make some contribution to the clarification of the position. 
• The matter concerns the borderland between physics and philosophy.
• What is the reality which our theory has been invented to describe?
• The answer to this is no longer physics, but philosophy.
• The lesson to be learned from what I have told of the origin of quantum mechanics is that probable refinements of mathematical methods will not suffice to produce a satisfactory theory, but that somewhere in our doctrine is hidden a concept, unjustified by experience, which we must eliminate to open up the road.

In short, Born was not very happy with the state of quantum mechanics 30 years after it was invented. Physics was in a state of crisis in 1900, 1925, 1954 and still is. The cure of statistics has not worked. RealQM presents an alternative without statistics. 

Man-Made Confusions about Identity

In the light of quantum theory these elementary particles are no longer real in the same sense as objects of daily life, trees or stones, but appear as abstractions derived from the real material of observation in the true sense. (Werner Heisenberg)

In the Copenhagen Interpretation CI of quantum mechanics as the present standard of modern physics established 100 years ago, quantum particles like electrons do not carry the physical identity of classical particles, which even of the same kind can be identified by their unique trajectories in space and time without jumps. Electrons in CI lack such physicality and appear rather as abstract possibilities than actualities. 

This makes CI into a non-physical theory impossible to visualise, a theory without Anschaulichkeit in the words of Schrödinger. This is the root of the present crisis of modern physics. 

Recent posts exhibited the complications arising from the lack of identity of the quantum particles of the CI. These are man-made complication, which do not arise in real physics where identity is not compromised. 

Complications arising from confusion of identity also arise in man-made worlds outside physics. The presence of several copies of a picture or text in the memory of the computer may cause confusion if not all copies are updated the same way. The presence of copies of works of art upsets the art market. The same with branded clothes and bags. The presence of doubles in politics adds to confusion. AI brings further confusion since author identity is missing and intellectual property has no owner. 

Quantum mechanics as man-made physics is full of complications from confusion of identity. All the troubles come from denying an electron physical identity in space and time. It is like denying a person to be citizen of a country, to condemn the person to be stateless or homeless without a passport and bank account, to be a no-person. How to handle electrons or persons without identity? 

Classical physics as real natural physics existing independent of human speculation is not man-made in the same sense and there is no lack of identity. 

Quantum Mechanics vs Crisis of Modern Physics

Schrödinger cancelled by Bohr

The roots of the present crisis of modern physics can be traced 100 years back to the discovery of quantum mechanics based on the Schrödinger's equation in 1925, which directly triggered a fierce controversy concerning its physical meaning. Here Schrödinger/Einstein were outmanoeuvred by Bohr/Born/Heisenberg declaring the Copenhagen Interpretation CI to be the belief all physicists had and still have to confess to. But Schrödinger/Einstein never accepted CI and the unresolved trauma is today manifested in particular in a discussion about Identity, Individuality and Indistinguishability in Physics and Mathematics.

In classical mechanics particles follow continuous trajectories in space-time, which do not overlap, and so can be used to identify particles even of the same type in all other respects.  Particles do not jump from place to place and so can be distinguished. 

This is not so in quantum mechanics: A solution to the Schrödinger equations for a system of $N$ particles (electrons) takes the form of a multi-dimensional wave function $\Psi (t, x_1,...,x_n)$ depending on $N$ three-dimensional coordinates $x_1,x_2,...,x_N,$ and a common time coordinate $t$. In CI the square of the wave function is supposed to represent the probability of a realisation of quantum particle configuration at time $t$, with quantum particle $n$ appearing at position $x_n$ for $n=1,...,N$. Wave functions are either symmetric in the variables $x_n$ representing bosons such as photons, or anti-symmetric representing fermions such as electrons. In CI it is not possible to identify particle trajectories and so quantum particle identity is lost. Yet quantum particles are labeled and have identity in the sense that two quantum particles (electrons with the same spin) cannot share position in space-time. Quantum particles appear as possibilities without identity and continuity in time, to be compared with  classical particles as actualities with identity continuous in time. 

CI is not an ontological model of what is, but something very different still without scientific meaning despite 100 years of brooding by the greatest of human minds. A basic difficulty is that there are so many more possibilities than actualities. Interaction of actualities like collision of classical particles has meaning, while interaction of possibilities appears to be meaningless. Documentation of actualities may be possible, while documentation of all possibilities is impossible. CI is uncomputable.

The nightmare of CI is the idea of collapse of the wave function as the step from possibility to actuality or from anonymity to identity believed to take place upon observation. This is the event of an Observer opening Schrödinger's cat box to find the cat either dead or alive, convinced that before the opening the cat is in a state of all possibilities or superposition of both alive and dead. Schrödinger thus demonstrated the absurdity of CI, but was cancelled by Bohr and there we are today. 

All the questions from 1925 remain about the possible meaning of a physics without identity and continuity in time. In particular the possibility of self-destruction by self-interaction in the absence of individuality and identity discussed in recent posts.   

Real Quantum Mechanics presents a new form of quantum mechanics where identity and continuity in time is restored, a form of physics which is computable.  

Suddenly the Wave Function Collapsed into a Rabbit.

    

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! 

Problems of Self-Interaction in Standard Quantum Mechanics

Self-interaction in Density Functional Theory

In Newton's theory of gravity gravitational potential $\phi (x)$ and mass distribution $\rho (x)$ with $x$ a spatial coordinate are coupled through the differential equation: 

• $-\Delta\phi (x) = 4\pi\rho (x),$                                                       (1)

or equivalently through the integral equation: 

• $\phi (x)=\int\frac{\rho (y)}{\vert x-y\vert }dy.$                         (2) 

We here assume a setting of a continuum with no smallest scale in space, in which the integration variable $y$ in (2) is never equal to $x$, and we can argue that a mass at an isolated point $x$ does not contribute to the gravitational potential $\phi (x)$ present at $x$ and so that there is no self-interaction on a microscopic scale. 

In the setting of $N$ distinct mass points with location $x_i$ and mass $m_i$ for $i=1,...,N$, (2) takes the form 

• $\phi (x_i) =\sum_{j\neq i}\frac{m_j}{\vert x_i-x_j\vert}$,         (3)

which does not involve self-interaction because $j\neq i$. Choosing $j=i$ would cause break down of (3) into infinity by dividing by 0.  

But on a macroscopic scale there is self-interaction in the sense that Earth's gravitational potential is present everywhere on and inside the Earth. Similarly the Universe interacts with itself by gravitational forces. But that is because the Earth and the Universe are made up of elementary particles (protons and electrons) which must be free of self-interaction as in (3) to avoid break-down into infinity.  

Standard quantum mechanics stdQ for an atom/molecule with $N$ electrons is governed by an electronic wave function $\Psi (x_1,...,x_N)$ depending on $N$ 3d spatial variables $x_1, x_2,...,x_N$ satisfying a Schrödinger equation with an electron-electron repulsion term of the following form connecting to  (2) and (3):

•  $\sum_i\sum_{j<i}\frac{1}{\vert x_i-x_j\vert}\Psi (x_1,...,x_N)$.       (4)

This expression does not carry any infinity since $j\neq i$, but is it free of self-interaction? This is not clear since the coordinates $x_i$ do not represent actual presence of individual electrons which be tracked by index, but only possible presence in a $3N$ dimensional configurations space without electron individuality where a specific coordinate is not tied to a specific electron, thus without Exclusive Occupancy.  The wave function $\Psi (x_1,...,x_N)$ of stdQM is anti-symmetric (assuming for simplicity that all electrons have the same spin) thus asking $\Psi (x_1,...,x_N)$ to vanish if $x_j=x_i$ for some $i$ and $j$, but that is not enough to prevent self-interaction.  

In fact, in density functional theory derived from the standard Schrödinger equation self-interaction is present and has to be handled by some trick. More precisely, the wave function is built from products of overlapping electron orbitals generating a contribution to Coulomb repulsion energy from exchange correlation expressing self-interaction.   

RealQM offers a different version of quantum mechanics keeping electron individuality as non-overlapping charge clouds with Exclusive Occupancy, which does not suffer from self-interaction. 

Leibniz on Quantum Mechanics

Leibniz as the greatest polymath of all times would have had a hard time to swallow the modern physics of the standard version of quantum mechanics here referred to as stdQM, because it violates his Principle of Identity of Indescernibles PII stating that: 

• No two objects have exactly the same properties.

That PII is valid in the macroscopic world is non-disputable: A set of objects even if identical as concerns intrinsic properties maintain descernibility/individuality by occupying different regions of physical space as an expression of Exclusive Occupancy. The stars in the sky, even if they all look alike, are discernible by their position. The red balls of snooker billiard game even if all alike, are descernible by their position. No big deal.

But things are supposed to be different in the microscopic world described by stdQM, where electrons are not supposed to occupy specific regions in a physical space and time and so have a physicality which is fundamentally different from macroscopics. In other words, electrons (modulo spin) are viewed to be indescernible by having all the same properties (modulo spin) including no specific location in space and time. Yet the electrons are not viewed to be identical because in the wave function of stdQM they are assigned different coordinates. 

In other words, stdQM violates PII, which means that stdQM is not physics according to Leibniz. 

On the other hand, in RealQM electrons are discernible by Exclusive Occupancy, and so could be embraced by Leibniz.  

This connects to the question if the microscopic world must be conceptually different from the macroscopic world: stdQM says yes, and RealQM no.

Leibniz expresses his view on the microscopic world in his theory of monads as mind-like simple substances with individuality endowed with perception and appetite from which bodies, motion and everything else is derived. This closely connects to RealQM with protons and electrons as non-overlapping charged clouds interacting by Coulomb forces as expression of perception and appetite.

Individuality is important because it makes a distinction between one specific body/monad/electron and other bodies/monads/electrons, and thus takes care of the problem of self-interaction, which if present can be lethal like an auto-immune reaction.  This is the case in quantum field theory riddled with infinites from self-interaction. 

It is possible that control of self-interaction is a necessary capability in physics as well as in chemistry, biology and sociology. If we as human beings cannot make a distinction between our own mind/body and the minds/bodies of others, then we have a problem as well as society.

Observation Obsession of Modern Physics

Do you believe that what you cannot see or hear does not exist?

Modern physics in the form of quantum mechanics is troubled for several reasons by the fundamental role given to observation including measurement as the expression of an instrumental antirealist view focussing on only what you can see or directly observe/measure, as compared to a wider realist view of what is.  

First, the measurement process is viewed to interfere with the system state being observed/measured, which is the problem of "collapse of the wave function" into a specific result from many possibilities as an effect of the measurement process. This is the observation of a dead or alive Schrödinger cat decided by the process of opening the Schrödinger box. Totally mysterious! 

Second, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that "complementary observables" such as position and velocity/momentum cannot both be measured with precision. Mysterious!

Third, the interpretation of the wave function as a probability is filled with mystery. What is the meaning of making one measurement of a an observable which is a probability? What do you learn by tossing a dice once?

Fourth, focussing on direct observation/measurement leads to the extreme view that the Sun evaporates to nothing when it settles in the evening, only to reappear every morning. Totally mysterious!

This aspect connects to the previous post on the connection between gravitational potential $\phi (x)$ and mass density $\rho (x)$ through the relation $\rho =\Delta\phi$ where $\Delta$ is the Laplacian differential operator with respect to $x$ as Euclidean space coordinate. 

The standard view is to consider mass density to be primordial because we can directly see the Sun, while we cannot directly see the gravitational potential of the Sun. This view comes with the unresolvable problem of instant action at distance. Very troubling!

But if we give up the antirealist instrumental view, then we may consider the gravitational potential $\phi$ to be primordial from which mass density $\rho$ is obtained by differentiation as an instant local operation, which admittedly has mysterious aspects but does not suffer from the unresolvable troubles of the standard view.

Summing up, we have thus found arguments against a philosophy in the spirit of Niels Bohr focussing on what can be measured rather than a wider ontology of what is.   

Quantum Mechanics as Classical Mechanics can be Understood

Feynman: think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. 

The crown jewel of the modern physics of Quantum Mechanics QM is the Schrödinger equation for the Hydrogen atom. Complete Success. Schrödinger rocketed to Fame in 1925.

It is possible to view this model also in terms of classical continuum mechanics as an electron charge density $\psi (x)$ in a potential field $-\frac{1}{\vert x\vert}$ generated by a proton kernel at $x=0$ with the electron charge density resisting "compression" like an elastic body. In this setting the ground state $\psi (x)$ minimises the total energy

• $E(\psi ) = PE(\psi ) + KE(\psi)$

where

• $PE(\psi ) = -\int\frac{\psi^2(x)}{\vert x\vert}dx$ is potential energy 
• $KE(\psi )=\int\frac{1}{2}\vert\nabla\psi (x)\vert^2dx$ is compression energy

under the normalisation 

• $\int \psi^2(x)dx =1$. 

More generally, states with larger energy emerge as stationary points of $E(\psi )$ with corresponding eigenvalues and form the spectrum of the Hydrogen atom in full agreement with observations. 

The connection to the spectrum is realised by extending the real-valued $\psi (x)$ into a complex-valued function $\Psi (x,t)=\exp(-iEt)\psi (x)$ also depending on a time variable $t$ with $E$ an eigenvalue, satisfying Schrödinger's equation in the form 

• $i\frac{\partial\Psi}{\partial t}=H\Psi =E\Psi$ 

where 

• $H = -\frac{1}{2}\Delta -\frac{1}{\vert x\vert}$

is the Hamiltonian differential operator with eigenvalue $E$. All of this makes perfect sense with the Hydrogen atom modeled by classical continuum mechanics with a static electron distribution around a kernel. In particular, nothing is moving fast and so the Dirac equation with all its complexity from being relativistically correct has no role to play.

The novelty of QM came from viewing the electron compression energy instead as a form of "kinetic energy" arising from a purely formal association of classical Newtonian momentum as mass times velocity, with the differential operator $i\nabla$ with respect to $x$, which generates the Laplacian in the Hamiltonian $H$. 

The terminology "kinetic energy" connects to the Bohr model of the atom with electrons as particles orbiting around a kernel like planets around a Sun. But the Bohr model cannot explain the stability of the ground state since orbiting electrons radiate and loose energy.  The "kinetic energy" attributed to a static electron charge density is the root of the mystery of standard QM obsessed with "electron orbitals". 

A further step away from classical mechanics is taken in stdQM as the standard extension of Schrödinger's equation to atoms with mor than one electron, which is also performed as a formality replacing physical space with configuration space without physical meaning, and as a result resorting to statistics. 

RealQM gives a different extension as classical continuum mechanics in terms of non-overlapping electron charge densities subject to mutual Coulomb repulsion but no self-repulsion.

With the Schrödinger equation for the Hydrogen atom cashed in as a complete success, the main question is how to extend it to atoms with more than one atom while keeping the success. 

In stdQM the extension is made as a formality without real physical rationale into a new form of physics as quantum mechanics conceptually different from classical mechanics, thus creating mystery upon mystery.

RealQM makes the extension within classical continuum physics and thus keeps physical rationale without mystery. 

There is a clear choice: Either the atom can be understood, and then in terms of classical physics, or the atom cannot be understood at all.  

Microscopics of Macroscopic Continuum Physics

Continuum waves even on smallest scale.

Quantum mechanics as the crown jewel of the modern physics of the 20th century is commonly viewed to be fundamentally different from classical physics reaching full bloom towards the end of the 19th century with Maxwell's equations for electromagnetics. Together with Navier's equations for solid mechanics and Navier-Stokes equations for fluid mechanics this offered a complete picture of the World in the form of continuum physics described by partial differential equations in 3 space dimensions and 1 time dimension.

Quantum mechanics is viewed to describe the microscopics of small scale atom physics while classical continuum physics is viewed to describe macroscopics of bigger scales. A consensus developed to view the microscopic world to be fundamentally different from the macroscopic world, the reason being that the quantum mechanics of microscopics could not be understood in classical terms of continuum physics. 

In short, classical continuum physics could be understood and used as a reasonable model of the macroscopic world, while quantum mechanics could not be understood as a resonable model only used. 

The reason quantum mechanics cannot be understood is that it is based on Schrödinger's equation in a multi-dimensional configuration space without reasonable physical interpretation. Quantum mechanics is unreasonable because Schrödinger's equation is unreasonable. Quantum mechanics is viewed to be fundamentally different from classical continuum physics because Schrödinger's equation is fundamentally different from the models of continuum physics, more precisely no agreement has been reached concerning its physical meaning despite 100 years of dispute. 

Is then Schrödinger's multi-dimensional equation the only thinkable model of the microscopics of atoms? Maybe, but anyway I test as Real Quantum Mechanics RealQM a different model, which has the form of classical continuum physics and as such can be understood in physical terms. 

With RealQM there is no fundamental difference between microscopics and macroscopics since all physics is described as continuum physics. This is not unreasonable since in continuum physics there is no smallest scale, as this is the nature of the continuum like the continuum of real numbers where more decimals always can be added if needed. 

The beauty of continuum physics is that it can handle all scales from microscopics to macroscopics in a unified way. In continuum physics there are no (elementary) particles of zero spatial extension. Everything is waves and matter with spatial extension, which can be captured in the partial differential equations of continuum physics. This is physics without the mysteries of standard QM.

The Value of Incorrect Theories of Physics?

Incorrect (or correct?) Theory of the World

This is a return to a previous post on the book 

• Foundations of Quantum Mechanics An Exploration of the Physical Meaning of Quantum Theory  

after a lengthy discussion with its author Travis Norsen. The book presents the three basic problems of  Foundations of Quantum Mechanics QM:

1. Measurement Problem 
2. Locality Problem
3. Ontology Problem 

along with the following attempted “solutions” 70-90 years old: 

• Copenhagen Interpretation 
• Pilot Wave Theory
• Many Worlds Theory
• Collapse Theory

none of which is considered to be satisfactory. Travis favours the Pilot Wave Theory, which apparently does not solve the problem, since the other "solutions" are also given wide attention.

When confronted with RealQM as my attempted solution to all three problems, Travis says that this appears to be a new solution, while stressing that something like that cannot possibly be true!

Fair enough. It is not to be expected that yet another "solution" will be welcomed into the circle of physicists still working on the Foundations of QM despite so little progress over so many years. But I welcome the information that RealQM seems to offer new ideas.  

What can be the scientific value of theories which are incorrect and so cannot be really useful or at least are risky to use? 

Well, you can apparently fill text books and give courses with such material. For the student to learn many incorrect theories may serve to protect from believing in them. But there are infinitely many incorrect theories, so the curriculum will be vast. If there was at least one correct theory, then the curriculum could be shortened to the satisfaction of the student. RealQM may offer something in that direction.

The situation is the same in the classical area of aerodynamics where NASA presents three incorrect Theories of Flight, but no theory claimed to be correct. Also here is there a new theory, which has many signs of being correct as presented on Secret of Flight.

The role of a scientist (and politician) is to have answers to questions and solutions to problems. To not be able to deliver is a sign of weakness resulting in lack of funding or votes, and then a resort to incorrect theories may be the quick "solution" (like printing money or referring to dark energy), even if over time it does not work. 

I have asked Travis about a comment.

The Real Essence of Quantum Mechanics

Essential Real Elements of Schrödinger's Life as a Scientist.

1. Theory 

Quantum Mechanics QM grew out a need to explain observations that (i) an atom has a stable ground state without interaction with the environment and (ii) an atom can interact with light to exhibit an absorption/emission line spectrum. Next step was to explain molecules formed by atoms. There was no need to explain light since that was already done by Maxwell’s wave equations.

Since light is known to consist of electromagnetic waves of different frequencies $\nu$ and an atom is seen to interact with light, it is natural to seek an atomic wave equation for a function $\Psi (x,t)$ depending on a space variable $x$ and a time variable $t$ of the form of a harmonic oscillator (in non-dimensional form): 

• $i\frac{\partial\Psi}{\partial t} = H\Psi$   (S)

where $H$ is a Hamiltonian operator with a set of real-valued eigenfunctions $\psi_j(x)$ with eigenvalues $E_j$ satisfying $H\psi_j=E_j\psi$ where $E_1<E_2<E_3...$, forming the following representation:

• $\Psi (x,t) =\sum_{j\ge 1}\exp(-iE_jt)c_j\psi_j(x)$, 

with certain coefficients $c_j$. It is natural to associate $\vert\Psi (x,t)\vert^2$ with electronic charge density and $E_j$ with atomic energy. 

The charge density of the pure eigenstates $\exp(-iE_jt)\psi_j (x)$ including the ground state with $j=1$ is independent of time and so naturally can be seen as non-radiating states. 

Consider now a superposition of two eigenstates such as 

• $\exp(-iE_t)\psi_1(x)+\exp(-iE_2t)\psi_2(x)$
• $=\exp(-iE_1t)(\psi_1(x) + \exp( -i(E_2-E_1)t)\psi_2(x))$

for which the charge density is varying in time with the "beat frequency" $\Delta E=E_2-E_1$ as the difference of atomic energy between two eigenstates.  We thus see that superposition of two eigenstates generates a time varying charge density with frequency $\Delta E$ as difference in atomic energies. 

We know that an electric charge oscillating in space generates radiation/electromagnetic waves and it is natural to expect the same from oscillation in time with the frequency of the radiation set by the frequency of the oscillation. 

We can thus naturally connect the above superposition to radiation of frequency $\Delta E$ in interaction with light of the same frequency thus with  $\nu =\Delta E$, or $h\nu =\Delta E$ with $h$ Planck's constant defining space and time dimensions. 

Now, a prediction of atomic spectrum can thus be made from the eigenvalues of $H$ which can be compared with observation. For the Hydrogen atom with one electron Schrödinger formed by the Hamiltonian in non-dimensional form: 

• $H =-\frac{1}{2}\Delta - \frac{1}{\vert x\vert}$       (1)

with $\Delta$ the Laplacian, which gave very close agreement with observations. Schrödinger very happily concluded that he had created a mathematical model of the Hydrogen atom in a wave function representing charge density, and he was rocketed to fame. Notice that in this wave model there is no need to speak about energy quanta $h\nu$, only frequencies which can be observed, as macroscopic spectral lines.

What then about atoms with more than one electron? The standard procedure is to make a formal extension into multi-dimensional configuration space with a probabilistic non-physical interpretation of the wave function named Copenhagen Interpretation CI made into a canon by Bohr/Hesienberg/Born but never accepted by Schrödinger arguing that the CI interpretation of the wave function as a probability to find an electron as particle at a particular spot was void of meaning.

A different generalisation in physical terms is presented as Real Quantum Mechanics RealQM.  

Recall that Planck introduced energy quanta $h\nu$ to derive his law of black body radiation, which was then picked up by Einstein to (heuristically) explain the photoelectric effect, which lacking anything better gave him the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921. 

RealQM and Computational Black Body Radiation show that energy quanta are not needed to explain these phenomena, and so loose their role and can be removed from the discussion, which brings a relief since nobody knows what an energy quanta is. In particular, the idea of explaining light as a stream of energy quanta or “photons” lacks physical basis.

CI comes with many problems which have never been resolved (see shocking review). RealQM offers a new start in the spirit of Schrödinger. 

The beauty of (S) for the Hydrogen atom is that it has clear physical meaning as an electronic cloud subject to Coulomb attraction from the kernel with spectrum in agreement with observation. Observe that electron cloud density itself is not observable, only the atomic spectrum as this is what reflects interaction with the environment, recalling that observation/measurement requires interaction.

Compare with the state of affairs as expressed by John Bell:

• Nobody knows what quantum mechanics says exactly about any situation, for nobody knows where the boundary really is between wavy quantum systems and the world of particular events.

But the boundary is clear as concerns atomic spectra.  Maybe RealQM opens to a resolution of the basic open question: The Measurement Problem. 

2. Theory vs Observation 

Let is now confront the eigenstates of (S) with observation of line spectrum for Hydrogen.

We observe a frequency of $2.469\times 10^{15}$ Hz corresponding to the ground state vs 1st excited state as lowest frequency in the Lyman (ultra-violet) series.   

We compute from (S) the energy level eigenvalues $-\frac{1}{2n^2}$ for $n=1,2,3,..$ with smallest $\Delta E = 3/8$ in Hartree or $10.2$ electronVolts eV. 

From the equation $\Delta E =h\nu$ with $\Delta E$ computed and $\nu$ observed, we can now compute Planck's constant $h$ to find the value given in physics books $h=4.136\times 10^{-15}$ eV.

We see that Planck's constant can be seen as a constant determined to make the model (S) fit with observation of the Hydrogen spectrum, thus as a form of model calibration (setting the relation between kinetic and potential energy) in (S). The wavelength of the lowest frequency in the Lyman series is $121.56701x10^{-9}$ meter which gives a connection to dimensional reality. 

Note the idea of energy quanta or photons $h\nu$ with some kind of physical realisation connects to the idea of phlogiston ("fire of the Earth") as carrier of energy in chemical reactions. The phlogiston theory was found to lack physical reality and so was abandoned before the end of the 18th century, while energy quanta has survived. Energy is a measure of the state of a system but is not a physical substance. 

(S) as a model of atoms and molecules does not need energy quanta, just continuum physics, which can help to demystify QM. It is the application of QM to light as a stream of photons which has brought the main mystery. It is time to let photons meet the same fate as phlogistons. 

Interaction between matter (atoms) and light can be modeled by QM for atoms and Maxwell's equations for light, and there seems to be no need to extend QM to light with all its complications. Yet this has become the objective of foundational quantum mechanics occupying the minds of philosophers of quantum mechanics or explorers of quantum computing.

3. Formality without physics  

Note that in the standard formulation of Schrödinger's equation in dimensional form the Laplacian $\Delta$ is multiplied with the factor $\frac{{\bar h}^2}{2m}$ with $\bar h =\frac{h}{2\pi}$ Planck's reduced constant and $m$ the mass of the electron. 

The appearance of the mass of electron here is strange, since it plays no role in the electro-magnetics of the Hydrogen atom captured by Schrödingers equation. It comes from a formal similarity to the kinetic energy $\frac{p^2}{2m}$ with $p=mv$ and $v$ velocity of classical mechanics, formally replacing $p$ by ${\bar h}^2\frac{\partial}{\partial x}$ without physics rationale. 

The energy associated with the Laplacian $\Delta$ is given by 

• $\int\frac{{\bar h}^2}{2m}\vert\nabla\psi\vert^2dx$, 

which motivated by the above formality is referred to as "kinetic energy". But this is a misnomer since kinetic refers to motion and here nothing is moving. Better would to refer this energy to a form of "elastic energy" or "compression energy" since it measures $\vert\nabla\psi\vert$.  

4. Physical size of Hydrogen atom ground state 

If we change the non-dimensional spatial coordinates $x$ in (1) into physical coordinates $\bar x=a_0x$, where $a_0=5.3\times 10^{-11}$ meter is the Bohr radius, then the Hamiltonian $H$ takes the following standard form in physical dimensions: 

• $\bar H = -\frac{{\bar h}^2}{2m}\bar\Delta - \frac{e^2}{4\pi\epsilon_0}\frac{1}{\vert\bar x\vert}$,

where $m$ here is (reduced) electron mass, $e$ electron charge and $\epsilon_0$ dielectric constant with $a_0=\frac{4\pi\epsilon_0h^2}{me^2}$. The Bohr radius gives the size of the electron cloud of the Hydrogen ground state in the range of 0.05 nanometers.   

5. Electron Mass?

The appearance of the electron mass in the coefficient $\frac{{\bar h}^2}{2m}$ of the Laplacian is strange since the electron mass $m$ is not part of the quantum physics of the Hydrogen atom building on electrostatic Coulomb attraction on the electron cloud balanced by the "compression force" from the Laplacian term. As said above the presence of the mass comes from a formal similarity to the kinetic energy $\frac{p^2}{2m}$ of classical mechanics. The value assigned to $m$ is $0.511$ MeV  based Einstein's formula $m=\frac{E}{c^2}$ translating energy to mass, to be compared with $10.2$ eV corresponding to the lowest frequency in the Lyman spectral sequence. The presence of the electron mass in the standard formulation of Schrödinger's equations (apparently) lacks rationale and the assigned large value of millions of eV appears to be ad hoc. 

In the 2019 redefinition the unit of mass 1 kg $\approx 8.98\times 10^{16}$ Joule as the energy of a collection of photons with frequencies summing to $1.356\times 10^{50}$, that is mass is defined in terms of energy, as a tribute to $E=mc^2$ showing Einstein's influence on modern physics. 

But mass is according to Newton's 2nd Law $m=\frac{F}{a}$ or $a=\frac{F}{m}$ a measure of resistance to motion with $F$ force and $a$ acceleration. This is inertial mass which is equal to gravitational mass. You discover the mass of your body by weighing it on a scale without any connection to energy. 

The $E=mc^2$ equivalence of energy is maybe Einstein's biggest mistake, and that is huge! 

   

The Quantum Kabbalah

Kabbalah picture of the noble gas Oganesson with 118 electrons structured into shells.

The foundation of the quantum mechanics of atom physics is the Schrödinger equation 

• $i\frac{\partial\Psi}{\partial t} =H\Psi$   (S) 

in a wave function $\Psi$, with $H$ a Hamiltonian linear operator. (S) can be seen as the sign of a Kabbalah, which is a school of thought of Jewish mysticism or more generally an esoteric method within Western mystery tradition. For a system with $N$ electrons the wave function $\Psi$ depends on $3N$ space variables and evolves over time $t$ from one time instant to the next. 

The Kabbalah connection is natural because physicists have made it very clear that (S) is a true mystery, which cannot be understood as physics, but nevertheless has to be accepted as a perfect model of physics with predictions always in exact agreement with observed reality. 

In a conversation/dispute you can always bring in the wave function $\Psi$ as a complete description of the subject at hand, ultimately "the wave function of the World" which will give you an advantage in the discussion. 

The reason that (S) cannot be understood as physics, is that it is derived by a purely formal mathematical generalisation without physical basis of a model for the Hydrogen atom with $N=1$ with physical basis, to all the atoms in the periodic table with $N=2, 3,...,118$. The $3N$-dimensionality of $\Psi$ asks for $100^{3N}$ mesh points in computational resolution, which makes $\Psi$ uncomputable already for $N=4$. 

This makes (S) into a symbol carrying a secret which cannot be revealed, thus into a modern physics version the Ein Sof (Endless One) of Kabbalah with connection in the above picture.

The fact that $\Psi$ cannot be computed has split the physics community into chemical physicists at chemistry departments using electronic "orbitals" to reduce dimensions in practical computations filling supercomputers, and philosophers at philosophy departments seeking to understand the mystery of (S) as foundational quantum mechanics without computation, while physicists at physics departments since long have left (S) for deeper theories of quantum field theory and string theory deeper into a mystery far beyond any form of computability. This is the crisis of modern physics witnessed by many.                

PS Erwin Schrödinger formulated the Schrödinger equation for Hydrogen (with physical basis) in 1925, but could not accept the generalisation to $N>1$ because it was not physical, and sought for help in Indian Philosophy from his standpoint expressed in the opening of The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (Dublin Seminars 1949-1955):

• Let me say at the outset, that in this discourse, I am opposing not a few special statements of quantum mechanics held today, I am opposing as it were the whole of it, I am opposing its basic views that have been shaped 25 years ago, when Max Born put forward his probability interpretation, which was accepted by almost everybody.
• The view I am opposing is so widely accepted, without ever being questioned, that I would have some difficulties in making you believe that I really, really consider it inadequate and wish to abandon it. 
• It is, as I said, the probability view of quantum mechanics. You know how it pervades the whole system. It is always implied in every thing a quantum theorist tells you. Nearly every result he pronounces is about the probability of this or that or that ... happening with usually a great many alternatives. 
• The idea that they be not alternatives but all really happen simultaneously seems lunatic to him, just impossible (Many Worlds Theory)
• He thinks that if the laws of nature took this form for, let me say, a quarter of an hour, we should find our surroundings rapidly turning into a quagmire, or sort of a featureless jelly or plasma, all contours becoming blurred, we ourselves probably becoming jelly fish. 

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.

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.

Why Does a Modern Physicist Buy the CO2 Global Warming Hysteria?

Sabine Hossenfelder on BackReaction claims herself to be a physicist, yet it seems as if she without
thinking buys the CO2 Global Warming Hysteria:

• Climate Change: There are no simple solutions.
• The Earth is warming. Human carbon-dioxide emissions are one of the major culprits. We have known this for a long time. But in the past two decades, evidence for global warming has become more noticeable on local levels, as with seasonal shifts, extreme weather events, declines in biodiversity and, depending on where you live, droughts. And it will get worse.

She does not acknowledge that there are many knowledgeable physicists who do not buy this story, because it has no support in known laws of physics, including Dyson, Happer, Singer and many more. 

So how can it be that she jumps on the climate alarmist wagon? I have asked her, but she does want not to communicate with me, so I have to guess: Is it because of a monumental confusion concerning quantum mechanics, which makes it impossible for a modern physicist to grasp even basic physics of the climate system of the Earth, and what does that then say about modern physics?

PS To get perspective listen to Hearing of the House Committee on Natural Resources May 22.

Yes, Quantum Mechanics Is Wrong

Sabine Hossenfelder on BackReaction has become a truth-teller about the state of modern physics, and now she tells the truth about quantum mechanics: It is wrong:

• Yes, I am sorry. But I have a message for you from the depth of abstract math: We know that quantum mechanics is wrong. 

The same idea has been expressed by almost every notable physicist, including Roger Penrose:

• Physics Is Wrong, From String Theory to Quantum Mechanics.

This is a funny situation, unprecedented in the history of science, and it has been like that for now

more than 100 years. 

A restart is obviously needed and my contribution is Real Quantum Mechanics. Take a look! And think! See also recent posts.

But Sabine Hossenfelder is a physicist and thus must seek to rescue the hopeless situation in one way or the other:

• And whatever your misgivings are about quantum mechanics, there is no denying that it is useful.

So quantum mechanics is wrong, but it is nevertheless useful? That does not make sense. A theory which is wrong cannot be truly useful, because from something which is wrong cannot come something which is right. Only if the theory is right in some sense, can it be useful. But no physicist has any clue to what is right about quantum mechanics, only what is wrong!

Sabine Hossenfelder resorts to the common trick of referring to yet a more incomprehensible theory in the form of Quantum Field Theory, when basic Quantum Theory is questioned. This was used by
Einstein when he increased the bet to general relativity when his special theory of relativity was questioned on most rational grounds. This 

Quantum Mechanics Still a Complete Mystery 2

Tim Maudlin introduces his new book Philosophy of Physics: Quantum Theory with the following credo:

• A physical theory should clearly and forthrightly address two fundamental questions: what there is, and what it does. 
• The answer to the first question is provided by the ontology of the theory, and the answer to the second by its dynamics. 
• The ontology should have a sharp mathematical description, and the dynamics should be implemented by precise equations describing how the ontology will, or might, evolve.
• The Copenhagen Interpretation, in contrast, does not. There is little agreement about just what this approach to quantum theory postulates to actually exist or how the dynamics can be unam- biguously formulated. Nowadays, the term is often used as short-hand for a general instrumentalism that treats the mathematical apparatus of the theory as merely a predictive device, uncommitted to any ontology or dynamics at all.
•  Sometimes, accepting the Copenhagen Interpretation is understood as the decision simply to use the quantum recipe without further question: Shut up and calculate. Such an attitude rejects the aspiration to provide a physical theory, as defined above, at all. 
• Hence it is not even in the running for a description of the physical world and what it does. More specific criticisms could be raised against this legacy of Bohr, but our time is better spent presenting what is clear than decrying what is obscure.

The Copenhagen Interpretation is the text book interpretation of quantum mechanics, which Maudlin thus refutes as meaningless. I agree totally. 

What does then Maudlin offer in the book instead of the Copenhagen Interpretation? Very little: pilot wave theory and many worlds theory, both failed attempts to give meaning to Schrödinger's wave function. The book thus gives yet another account of the mystery of quantum mechanics 100 years after its creation. 

The whole problem comes from the multi-dimensionality of Schrödinger's equation asking for a statistical unphysical interpretation. How many new books will be written on the theme that physicists do not understand the quantum mechanics they preach?

But there is light in the tunnel: Real Quantum Mechanics.

Quantum Mechanics Still a Complete Mystery 1

Lee Smolins new book Einstein’s Unfinished Revolution (lecture here) repeats yet another time what every physicist already knows:

• I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. (R. Feynman)
• Quantum mechanics is magic. (Daniel Greenberger) 
• Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real. (Niels Bohr) 
• Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it. (Niels Bohr) 
• If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics, you do not understand it. (John Wheeler)
• If [quantum theory] is correct, it signifies the end of physics as a science. (Albert Einstein) 
• I do not like [quantum mechanics], and I am sorry I ever had anything to do with it. (Erwin Schrödinger) 
• Quantum mechanics makes absolutely no sense. (Roger Penrose)

To come to grips with this monumental mess Lee Smolin takes on the role of bringing physics back  to realism and rationality:

• So I have no better answer than to face the blank notebook. 
• Start by writing down what you are confident we know for sure. 
• Ask yourself which of the fundamental principles of the present canon must survive the coming revolution. 
• That’s the first page. Then turn again to a blank page and start thinking.
• It is not just that to try to invent a whole new physics is risky for my career and damaging to my emotional stability. 
• I don’t even know how to begin.

This is not a promising start and the book offers little hope for progress. So there we are today 100 years after the birth of modern physics in the form of quantum mechanics (and relativity theory) which nobody can understand. No wonder that modern physics is in a deep crisis.

My input to a rational realistic quantum mechanics is Real Quantum Mechanics. Take a look and see if it opens a door...

Recall that the whole mystery of quantum mechanics arises from the standard text book formal generalisation of Schrödinger's equation for Hydrogen to atoms with N > 1 electrons resulting in a linear equation in 3N space dimensions, which has no interpretation as a model of any reality only as a form of  statistics in the mind of an observer.  Real Quantum Mechanics explores a different generalisation into a system of non-linear equations in 3 space dimensions which describes a possible reality.