Planck's Faustian Deal: The Quantum

Here is a short excerpt from my book Dr Faustus of Modern Physics giving perspective on the birth in 1900 of Quantum Mechanics with Planck's mathematical analysis of blackbody radiation introducing $E=h\nu$ as a smallest quantum of energy. 

To boost his career and the science of the booming German Empire, Max Planck, professor at the University of Berlin with a background from thermodynamics, took on the main open problem of physics at the end of the 19th century, namely to explain why the ultra-violet catastrophe of blackbody radiation predicted by classical theoretical physics cannot be observed. At stake was the credibility of a science of physics (and the German Empire) predicting very intense high-frequency radiation which simply refused to exist. The stakes were thus very high and Planck with ambition stepped in:

• The whole procedure was an act of despair because a theoretical interpretation had to be found at any price, no matter how high that might be... 

The price was to give up his soul as very serious scientist with deep conviction to classical ideals, which paved the way for new quantum physics giving up classical principles of reality, causality and determinism, now in deep crisis.  

1. Nobel Prize to Planck

 The Nobel Prize in Physics 1918 was awarded (in 1919) to Max Planck:

• in recognition of the services he rendered to the advancement of Physics by his discovery of energy quanta.

It took the Nobel Committee more than 10 years to come to this conclusion, because Planck’s new concept of a smallest quantum of energy was so difficult to swallow, described by the Swedish mathematician Ivar Fredholm as “hardly plausible”. In 1918 the Committee gave in under pressure to give the prize to Bohr and Einstein, which required a prize to Planck first. The presentation speech by Ekstrand stated:

• Planck’s radiation theory is, in truth, the most significant lodestar for modern physical research, and it seems that it will be a long time before the treasures will be exhausted which have been unearthed as a result of Planck’s genius.
• Planck constant, proved, as it turned out, to be of still greater significance: The product $h\nu$, where $\nu$ is the frequency of vibration of a radiation, is actually the smallest amount of heat which can be radiated at the vibration frequency $\nu$. This theoretical conclusion stands in very sharp opposition to our earlier concept of the radiation phenomenon.

Planck was thus viewed as having “discovered” a physical phenomenon of “energy quanta”, which in fact was a “theoretical conclusion”. This contradiction has come to form the ideology of modern physics made possible by breaching the classical holy distinction between reality and mathematical model.

2. Planck's Confession

From Planck's self-biography:

• We shall now derive strange properties of heat radiation described by electromagnetic wave theory.
• ..the whole procedure was an act of despair because a theoretical interpretation had to be found at any price, no matter how high that might be... 
• Either the quantum of action was a fictional quantity, then the whole deduction of the radiation law was essentially an illusion representing only an empty play on formulas of no significance, or the derivation of the radiation law was based on sound physical conception. Mechanically, the task seems impossible, and we will just have to get used to it (quanta). 
• My futile attempts to fit the elementary quantum of action into classical theory continued for a number of years and cost me a great deal of effort. Many of my colleagues saw in this something bordering on a tragedy (Planck shortly before his death).
• I tried immediately to weld the elementary quantum of action somehow in the framework of classical theory. But in the face of all such attempts this constant showed itself to be obdurate...
• My futile attempts to put the elementary quantum of action into the classical theory continued for a number of years and they cost me a great deal of effort.
• The assumption of an absolute determinism is the essential foundation of every scientific inquiry.
• All matter originates and exist only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and hold this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind the existence of this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter...
• In order to find the correct resonator entropy S it must be assume that the energy U of a resonator with frequency ν can only take on discrete energy values, to wit, integer multiples of h times ν, in contrast to classical theory where U can be any multiple, integer or not, of ν. We now say that U is quantised.
• My maxim i always this: consider every step carefully in advance, but then, if you believe you can take the responsibility for it, let nothing stop you.
• For by nature I am peaceful and disinclined to questionable adventures...for unfortunately I have not been given the capacity to react quickly to intellectual stimulation.

3. Planck on Politics

Planck lost his son Karl in combat during 1st World War and his son Erwin was executed after a plot against Hitler at the end of the 2nd World War. Planck signed together with 93 German intellectuals the Appeal to the Cultured Peoples of the World on 4 October 1914:

• We declare the leaders of German art and science to be at one with the German army.

Planck reports as Rector of Berlin University in 1914:

• The German people ha found itself again. One thing only we know, that we members of our university...will stand together as one man and hold fast until - despite the slander of our enemies - the entire world comes to recognise the truth and German honor.
• But we shall also see an feel how, in the fearful seriousness of the situation, everything that a country could call its own in physical and moral power came together with the speed of lightning and ignited a flame of holy wrath blazing to the heavens, while so much that had been considered important and desirable fell to the side, unnoticed, as worthless frippery.

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. 

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....

Why "Nobody Understands Quantum Mechanics"

This is a continuation of recent posts on the present crisis of modern physics. 

The essence of classical physics as a science is that it can be understood as a theory about the real world that makes sense to a human mind asking for logic and rationality. 

In 1900 a shift was initiated by Planck in his study of blackbody radiation followed by Einstein in his 1905 study of the photoelectric effect, which 20 years later was used to motivate a new form of physics named Quantum Mechanics QM, which became the trade mark of modern physics into present time. 

The trouble with QM is that all leading physicists say and have said for 100 years that "nobody understands QM". The result is a crisis of a modern physics based on QM.

But science is about understanding and so the fact that QM is not understandable, asks for an explanation. 

One way of forming a theory qualifying for not being understandable is to take some triviality and in the spirit of Einstein "elevate it to a Postulate" as a very deep truth about the world. The apparent clash between triviality and deep truth will cause confusion coming out as "nobody understands". This is like viewing 1+1=2 to be a deep truth of mathematics (instead of trivial definition), which if believed would express "nobody understands mathematics"? 

Let us see if this is in fact what happened with a QM growing out from Einstein's "heuristic explanation of the photoelectric effect" in 1905. Einstein started with the following observations made long before 1905:

• Light of frequency $\nu$ impinging on a metallic surface generates a current of electrons only if $\nu$ is bigger than a threshold value characteristic of the metal.
• The energy of electrons scales linearly with the frequency above the threshold, with energy identified with a stopping potential.    

It was believed that this could not be explained within the classical understandable wave theory of light by Maxwell, simply because that theory was not viewed to include the interaction between light and matter manifested in the photoelectric effect. 

Something more appeared to be needed and that was what Einstein offered in his "heuristic explanation" of the form "one incoming photon ejects one electron" or "one photon = one electron" or "one person = one vote":

• Energy balance gives "photon energy  = electron energy + electron release energy". 
• Define "photon energy" =$h\nu$ with $h$ a constant. 
• Conclude "$h\nu$ = electron energy + electron release energy" as the Law of Photoelectricity.  

Einstein here introduced the idea of a photon as "quanta of light" with an energy $h\nu$ picked from Planck. The essence was the scaling of energy with frequency $\nu$ and not amplitude of light, which connected to the nature of the threshold as a demand on frequency and not amplitude.

Einstein thus gave a "heuristic explanation" of the already observed Law of Photoelectricity, which gave him the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics "for his discovery of the Law of Photoelectricity" as a misconception from "not understanding".

What Einstein did was to associate the energy $h\nu$ to something named "photon", which could be anything and still is not identified as to physical reality, but with the definite ability to kick out an electron from a metallic surface with the same energy $h\nu$ minus a release energy. For sure this was a "heuristic explanation" where the physics of "kicking out an electron" was hidden. It was thus a triviality made into a deep truth, and as such causing confusion ultimately leading to "nobody understands QM".

Is it then impossible to explain the Law of Photoelectricity in classical terms? If we look at the ingredients of incoming light and outgoing electrical current and stopping potential everything looks classical. Even the threshold on frequency can be accepted as classical as a form wave length precision required to release an electron tied to an atom. The energy of a classical wave of frequency $\nu$ scales with $\nu^2$ thus setting incoming light energy per unit length and time. The observed scaling with $\nu$ can then be obtained by partitioning incoming energy into wave length pieces each with energy scaling with $\nu$ into a totality of $\nu$ incoming pieces per unit of time. 

It is thus possible to give a "heuristic explanation" of the Law of Photoelectricity within classical wave physics, because it only involves classical concepts, which is as good as Einstein's resorting to discrete chunks of energy $h\nu$. 

Einstein did not get the Nobel Prize for explaining the Law of Photoelectricity, because his explanation convinced nobody, only for discovering a law that was already discovered. 

Computational Blackbody Radiation gives an explanation of blackbody radiation and photoelectricity in terms of classical wave mechanics without mystery, which can be understood by a high-school student. 

Altogether a basic reason that "nobody understands QM" is that it starts from a triviality of "quantisation" presented as a deep truth about reality as being discrete chopped up in little "quanta".  See also RealQM as "quantum mechanics without quanta" as understandable physics.

Susskind 2025: Nobody Understands Quantum Mechanics: Crisis

Leading theoretical physicist Leonard Susskind at the end of his career apparently feels an urge to confess some truths about the present state of modern physics (in a state of deep crisis):

• We know how to use Standard Quantum Mechanics StdQM.
• But the basic meaning of StdQM is not understood at all.
• Feynman said: StdQM is so confusing that I cannot even tell if there is a problem about the foundations of StdQM.
• Everybody I know will tell you that the ultimate meaning of the foundations of StdQM is not understood.
• There are always crazy theories like Many-Worlds that does not make a lot of sense to me.
• I really think that we don't understand StdQM at the deepest level.
• I think the problem is that when we think about a quantum mechanical experiment we separate the world into the system we are studying ... and the apparatus of the observer... the apparatus is not part of the system.
• That is why we have the problem of the collapse of the wave function...there is no collapse.
• I do not know what is right, so I cannot say what is wrong, e g super-determinism....  

We hear Susskind repeat the message of all great theoretical physicists of modern physics: 

• We do not understand StdQM. 
• But we know very well how to use it!

This would be like hearing a famous mathematician saying: We do not understand Calculus, but we know very well how to use it. This could be the confession of a high-school student, but not by his teacher and certainly not by a professional mathematician. 

Likewise, to hear a professor of the theory of electro-magnetics described by Maxwell's equation say that the theory is not understood by anybody but anyway has shown to work very well, would be surprising. Only about StdQM is it a virtue to signal no understanding. 

How is it possible that still today exactly 100 years after the birth of the foundation of StdQM in the form of Schrödinger's Equation SE, that very foundation is still not understood not even by leading theoretical physicists? 

There is an answer of this form: 

• SE is a linear equation in $3N$ space dimensions for a system with $N$ electrons, and as such has no direct meaning as physics in 3 space dimensions. 
• SE is an ad hoc purely formal generalisation from one electron to many electrons without physical meaning.
• Since SE has no physical meaning, QM has no physical meaning to be understood.
• SE can be used as a black box to produce numbers, but with unclear or no physical meaning.   

There is an alternative to StdQM in the form of Real Quantum Mechanics QM, which has physical meaning and so can be understood. Why not check it out?

Question connecting to recent post: 

• Can StdQM help to make the Periodic Table understood, if StdQM cannot be understood?

Comment by chatGPT:

• Quantum mechanics is unique in that its very foundation is admitted to be incomprehensible — even by its leading experts. No other science could survive with such a gap at its core, and this is a prime reason for the present crisis of physics.

No Progress on Foundational Problems of QM?!

The foundational problems of Quantum Mechanics QM formulated when QM was born 100 years ago include:

1. Derivation of Schrödinger's Equation SE from physical principles.
2. Physical meaning/interpretation of wave function as solution to SE.
3. Collapse of wave function. Measurement. Role of Observer. 
4. Exponential computational complexity. 

When I ask chatGPT about main advancement as concerns foundations of QM, I get the answer: 

• Bell's theorem + experiments showing that a local hidden variable theory is not possible.

This result says nothing about 1-4. 

When I confront chatGPT with the above, I get the following summary:

• So the honest state of play: after 100 years, the big puzzles are still puzzles. What has changed is that we now have sharper theorems, operational frameworks, and experimental constraints. The problems haven’t been solved — they’ve been better defined.

Try yourself for a more detailed response. We expect chatGPT to tell what physicists say, not hallucinate what physicists do not say.  

What we see is an expression of the crisis of modern physics witnessed by leading physicists: No progress on the foundations of QM. The foundational problems formulated in 1925 are all left without resolution. A physicist will tell you that anyway QM works perfect to predict outcomes of experiments, and that it does not matter that nobody understands why. QM just works fine in its original form and it is meaningless to ask for something else: "Shut up and calculate".  

There are always open problems in a physical theory about reality as a sign that the theory is alive, but if problems concerning the very foundations of a physical theory appear to be unsolvable over a very long time, as is the case with QM, then it becomes more and more urgent to check out if the theory is not well formulated and so needs a reformulation to allow a solid foundation.

This seems to be the case with QM since 1-4 are still without answers. 

So what is the main problem with QM in its standard text book form as StdQM? One aspect directly stands out:

• The wave function $\Psi (x_1,x_2,....,x_N)$ for an atom with $N$ electrons depends on $N$ 3d coordinates $x_1$,$x_2$,...,$x_N$ thus on altogether $3N$ spatial coordinates. 

This means that the wave function $\Psi$ has no direct ontological physical meaning and so has no physical representation showing what is. The meaning given to $\Psi$ is instead epistemological in the sense of what we can know as observers. Max Born gave $\Psi$ such a meaning in terms of statistics of experimental outcomes, which saved the day in 1925, but presented unsolvable problems, which have haunted modern physics into the presents crisis.

The multi-dimensionality of the wave function is involved in all the problems 1-4, and so it is not far-fetched to suspect that it is the origin to all the foundational problems. 

This leads to asking: Is there an alternative wave function which only depends on the 3 spatial dimensions of real physical space?  Yes there is: Real Quantum Mechanics RealQM offering:

1. A New Schrödinger Equation NSE based on physical principles .
2. Clear physical meaning of wave function as solution to NSE.
3. Observer independent.   
4. Linear computational complexity. 

Compare with what leading physicists over the years have said about the lack of answers to the foundational questions:

• Niels Bohr
  "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it."

• Werner Heisenberg
  "The atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts."

• Albert Einstein (skeptical)
  "God does not play dice with the universe."

• Wolfgang Pauli
  "One should no more rack one’s brain about the problem of whether something one cannot know anything about exists, than about the ancient question of how many angels are able to sit on the point of a needle."

• Richard Feynman
  "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."

• John Archibald Wheeler
  "No phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon."

• J. Robert Oppenheimer
  "If we ask, for instance, whether the position of the electron remains the same, we must say 'no'; if we ask whether the electron’s position changes with time, we must say 'no'; if we ask whether the electron is at rest, we must say 'no'; if we ask whether it is in motion, we must say 'no'."

• Stephen Hawking
  "When we cannot predict, we cannot say we understand."

• Steven Weinberg
  "In the Copenhagen interpretation, there is no reality until observation. The more we study quantum mechanics, the less clear it becomes what reality is."

• Roger Penrose
  "Quantum mechanics makes absolutely no sense." (in the sense that it works perfectly but defies ordinary logic).

Einstein: Both Maxwell and Newton are Wrong!

In recent posts I have been searching for an explanation of the current crisis of modern physics, which is deep and sadly acknowledged by all prominent physicists and philosophers of physics. 

One striking aspect of modern physics is that it is presented as "strange", "weird", "counter-intuitive", "paradoxical" with unsettled "foundational problems" since 100 years without progress. To be compared with classical physics, which is rational and understandable and not strange at all although it can exhibit very complex dynamics showing surprising emergence.

The new aspect of strangeness into physics was introduced by Einstein in 1905 in his Special Theory of Relativity SR to be the academic work opening an academic career from his position as patent clerk in Bern with little training in mathematics and physics. Einstein gambled high: Derive new physics from  very few very general principles or Postulates with this Grand Plan:

• Show "Maxwell is wrong" because he assumes a "unique aether" for propagation of electromagnetic waves/light.
• Show "Newton is wrong" because he assumes "absolute space" and "absolute time".
• In particular: Show "no-aether" and "relative space-time."

Einstein then decided to start from the following Postulates:

1. Laws of physics take the same form in all inertial systems.
2. The speed of light is the same in all inertial systems 

Here inertial systems = standard Euclidean space-time coordinate systems moving with constant velocity with respect to each other.

To facilitate showing "Maxwell is wrong" Einstein attributed "unique aether" to Maxwell, which is not correct since Maxwell works well with any inertial system, and so Maxwell is a "many-aether" theory,  as many aethers as inertial systems. Maxwell without any aether/inertial system does not make sense because without, Maxwell's equations cannot even be formulated.

To facilitate showing "Newton is wrong" Einstein attributed "absolute space" to Newton, which is not correct since already Galileo understood that Newton's equations read the same in all inertial systems connected by a Galilean transformation, and so Newton is also a "many-aether" theory.  

We observe that Maxwell satisfies Postulate 1+2 and so cannot be wrong within SR as being based on these two Postulates. Einstein's attempt to prove "Maxwell wrong" thus failed and so he ended up with "Maxwell is right" which was what everybody said then and still says. SR said nothing not already very well known about Maxwell/light.

As concerns if "Newton is wrong" follows from the Postulates, we observe that Newton satisfies Postulate 1 under Galilean transformation and Postulate 2 about speed of light does not concern Newton because Newton does not speak about light but about matter. Einstein's attempt to prove "Newton is wrong" from Postulate 1+2 thus failed.

We conclude that Einstein's Grand Plan of proving "Maxwell is wrong" and "Newton is wrong" from SR based on Postulate 1+2,  thus failed. Compare Summary below!

We may now ask if anyway SR contains some physics of interest as derived by Einstein from Postulates 1+2? 

This was addressed in this post concerning Einstein's "derivation" of the Lorentz transformation by identifying two different light signals to be the same by disrespecting physics. 

In any case, after having derived the Lorentz transformation on loose grounds, Einstein concluded that "Newton is wrong" by not being Lorentz invariant, which did not make sense since Lorentz invariance is born out of Maxwell's equations for light and so does not connect to Newton's material mechanics. 

We conclude that SR does not prove either Maxwell nor Newton to be wrong. This should be welcomed by modern physicists trained to believe the opposite and then having to accept that "physics is strange". Maxwell and Newton are not strange, only Einstein!

If you want to dig more into Maxwell as a "many-aether" theory, take a look at Many-Minds Relativity.

In particular it would be a big relief if "Newton is right" could be reinstalled into physics. This would open to a Unified Field Theory since Newton and Maxwell are fully compatible as mass-based Newtonian gravitation and light without mass leaving possible interaction open to some new additional physics. 

Unfortunately modern physics has given in to adopt Einstein's "Newton is wrong because of SR" taken to represent stunning progress beyond classical physics. But experimental evidence must then be presented and that has shown to be very difficult to collect, to be honest. This is what usually is presented by modern physicists as best evidence that "Newton is wrong":

• Perihelion Precession of Mercury (1859)
• Michelson–Morley Experiment (1887)
• Deflection of Light (1919 eclipse expedition)
• Time Dilation of Muons (1949).
• Gravitational Time Dilation of photons (1959)

We understand that only the Perihelion Precession of Mercury concerns Newton's mechanics, the other concern essentially light, and we have in this post inspected the evidence and seen that it is weak, in particular because it is not SR which is claimed to show "Newton is wrong", but General Relativity GR.

We thus see that modern physics has to struggle very hard to show that "Newton is wrong". Of course this is expected when remembering that Newton's law of gravitation follows from conservation of energy and force in a gravitating material system, as the message of many posts. 

We conclude that Einstein's research plan to show "Newton is wrong" was based on ignorance combined with great ambition, and so did not work as science, but miraculously it worked politically to make Einstein the greatest physicist all times, securely displacing Newton to a second place. It is here much of the crisis of modern physics is rooted.  

You can always find a reason to dismiss a scientific theory by finding some irrelevant aspect which "is wrong". You may e g dismiss Newton's law of gravitation because it does not say anything about gravitational bending of light, because it says nothing about light at all, only about matter. But that lacks scientific reason and so could have only political reason. What is most important with a theory is that it is correct in a certain sense under certain circumstances, not that it does not apply to everything and does not tell everything.

If it so happens that light is affected by matter-based Newtonian gravitation by some physical mechanism yet to be discovered, then that could be added to Newton. But it would not mean that "Newton is wrong" as concerns matter. Yes, there are claims of "relativistic effects" appearing when matter reaches velocities near the speed of light, but that can only be achieved experimentally in supercolliders stretching physics to the extreme.  

Although the above arguments are logical and simple, they will meet opposition from a modern physics community carefully trained to believe that "Newton is simple+wrong" and "Einstein is strange+right".  Physics becomes much more manageable under a banner of "Newton is simple+right" rather than the opposite.  

Summary of SR agreed with chatGPT:

• SR does not add anything to Maxwell as theory of light.
• SR claims "Newton is wrong" because "Newton is not Lorentz invariant". But the nature of Newton/matter/mechanics is to be Galilean invariant and so the claim lacks logic.

What apparently happened is that Einstein became so taken away by "elevating" the Lorentz invariance of Maxwell's equations to a "general principle of relativity" demanding "all physical laws to be Lorentz invariant" as if playing God. What happens if you "elevate" a special case to a General Principle?

Another thing is that the Lorentz invariance of Maxwell's equations has to be handled with care since the Lorentz transformation mixes time into space in an unphysical way. This is was what Lorentz said when inspecting his transformation carefully pointing out that the "transformed time was not physical time", which Einstein failed to understand and so went on to form SR relativistic mechanics without physics. But Einstein succeeded with his Grand Plan to become the greatest physicist all times! Now Einstein is gone since 70 years and maybe it is time to move on without him and leave "strange physics" to the history of  failed attempts from "elevating" some special case to General 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?

Crisis of Modern Physics: Split Realism vs Formalism

The crisis of modern physics witnessed by many manifests itself in a split between academic departments:

• Physics: Instrumentalism/formalism/epistemology (what we can say).
• Philosophy: Realism (what is).

A realist philosopher is not welcome at a physics department, and what would an instrumentalist physicist do at a philosophy department?

A split between physics and philosophy of physics indicates that something is fundamentally wrong, and that comes out as a crisis. What is then fundamentally wrong?

Let us search the root of trouble in the formation of modern physics in the beginning of the 20th century in the new fields of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity SR and Quantum Mechanics QM. 

Both SR and QM express instrumentalism and formalism as being focussed on measurement assuming a certain formal structure (Lorentz invariance and Hilbert space structure) where the real nature of physics is left open because it is believed to be hidden to inspection. The focus is thus on epistemology as what a physicist can measure and report (to motivate public funding). This is the physics performed at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN in Geneva. Very expensive with real physics hidden in a blip on a screen. 

But the question of what physics is as ontology of reality remains, and paradoxically that is what philosophers of physics outside physics departments focus on (Reichenbach, Bell, Maudlin, Brown).  

So is there any hope to get out of the crisis by joining departments of physics and philosophy of physics into one?

Can SR and QM be reformulated into theories about reality, which start from real physics instead of formalism? 

Any theory about reality must start from some fundamental reality expressed in Postulates of the theory. If the Postulates carry no physics, a theory based on the Postulates using logic cannot carry any physics. 

The Postulates of SR are 

1. Physical laws are Lorentz invariant.
2. Speed of light is to be measured by physicists according to SI standard to give exactly the value 299,792,458 metres per second.
   

We see that the Postulates of SR are like commands to be followed by physicists but say nothing precise about any physics. Therefore SR does not say anything about physics, unless physics somehow is added to the Postulates. And that is what Einstein did by using a "thought experiment" to conclude that two light signals viewed by two observers in fact are the same and so must connect by a Lorentz transformation. But the conclusion of the same had no physical basis and so was picked from the sky suddenly adding physics to the Postulates, but then physics without reality. 

The Postulates of QM were formalised by the mathematician von Neumann into a set of abstract axioms:

1. State space: A system corresponds to a Hilbert space. States are rays (or density operators) in it.
2. Observables: Physical quantities are self-adjoint operators on the Hilbert space.
3. Measurements: Outcomes are eigenvalues; probabilities are given by the Born rule.
4. Dynamics: Time evolution is unitary, governed by the Schrödinger equation.

We see that 1-3 are like commands to quantum physicists, without concern to real physics. Von Neumann did this during the heydays of Hilbert's formalism in the 1930s, which however soon died because of Gödel.

Altogether, we see that SR and QM are not realist theories starting from what is as ontology, but have clear qualities of formalism/epistemology as what we can say. The trouble with formalism is that there is no reality to decide and so the discussion can continue forever like in medieval scholastics. 

My contributions to a realist restart are: 

• Many-Minds Relativity MMR 
• Real Quantum Mechanics RealQM

MMR starts from a reality where different observers use different coordinate systems and seeks what agreement can reached. 

RealQM starts from a classical realist continuum model of systems of charge densities in shared 3d Euclidean space interacting by Coulomb potentials as a new type of Schrödinger equation. 

Both MMR and RealQM represent realism as what is and so express unification of physics and philosophy of physics.  

Here are three steps to formalism away from realism:

• Planck introduces smallest quanta $h\nu$ in 1900.
• Einstein introduces photon as quanta of light $h\nu$ in 1905.
• Heisenberg introduces QM as matrix mechanics in 1925.

In 1927 Schrödinger left QM because realism or "Anschaulichkeit" was lacking. Schrödinger's equation for the Hydrogen atom is a realist model, but for atoms with more than one electron it is a formalist model without physics. 

The development in mathematics was the opposite with constructive computational mathematics taking over when Hilbert's formalism collapsed in the 1930s. RealQM and MMR follows the constructive path.

 

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.

Credibility Crisis of Western Politics and Modern Physics as Miracles

The Untergang des Abendlandes (Decline of the West) predicted by Oswald Spengler in two volumes 1918-22 can now be seen as an erosion of credibility of not only political leadership but also of science and then in particular of modern physics based on Einstein's Equation EE and Schrödinger's Equations SE extending classical physics based on Newton's Equation NE and Maxwell's Equations into new physics. 

The erosion of credibility of modern physics is the essence of the crisis of modern physics of today as a basic expression of Decline of the West from a position of total success of modern physics with the atomic bomb. The crisis is rooted in an incompatibility of EE and SE, which means that modern physics in some fundamental way is "wrong" in the sense of not describing real physics, and the credibility of a physical theory which does not describe real physics cannot be maintained. 

The official picture, which is now loosing credibility, is:

• Einstein's theory of gravitation based on EE (General Relativity GR) is superior to Newton's theory based on NE and so represents an enormous advance of science. 
• NE is simply a simplified version of EE, which is the correct complete theory far superior to simple NE. 

To back this official picture some sparse evidence has been presented supposedly showing that EE describes physics better than NE, and a key such piece of evidence is the anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury:

• The orientation of the elliptical orbit of Mercury around the Sun is observed to turn 5574 arcseconds per century, which is 0.0043 of a full turn (small).
• 5000 out of 5574 are explained as an effect using an Earth-based reference system for  Sun+Mercury.
• Effects from the other planets according to NE gives 531.
• Analytical solution of EE for Sun+Mercury explains the missing 43 to give the observed 574.    

The message is that NE without EE including all planets is wrong (531), but when corrected by EE for Sun-Mercury (43) becomes right (574), and miraculously so since no full solution of EE with the other planets is performed, because this is computationally impossible due to the complexity of EE.

This miracle, which Einstein performed in 1915, is thus to present a solution of EE with all planets (and other effects) included which exactly fits with the observed 5574, without solving EE computationally because that was (and is) infeasible. 

The miracle is repeated today, which is evident from the fact that the EE correction to NE is still taken from the same analytical solution of Sun+Mercury used by Einstein (42.98). 

But what makes science different from black magic is that in science there are no miracles. To present science as miracle erodes credibility of science, which is what we are watching. 

Credibilty could be maintained if full solutions to EE gave 5574 in accordance with observation, but this is not what physicists deliver. Instead they offer a small EE correction to NE as the main computable model and work horse. To give EE the leading role over NE is like claiming the tail wags the dog.

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. 

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.

Science or Magic?

What is the difference between science and magic? Is there less magic and more science in our modern technological society ultimately geared by Human Intelligence HI? Let' see, with connection to recents posts. 

This years Nobel Prizes in Physics and Chemistry were given to Artificial Intelligence AI and not HI as all previous years, which can be seen as an expression of the crisis of modern theoretical physics witnessed by leading physicists in popular science media/web. 

Modern theoretical physics was born 100 years ago in the form of Quantum Mechanics QM for atomic microscopics without gravitation and Einstein's General Theory of Relativity GR for macroscopic gravitation, still today serving as foundation, although incompatible.  

Both QM and GR introduced new elements of magic into theoretical physics, in classical form carried by logic and clarity in the spirit of Leibniz and Euler, as expressed by Nobel Laureates: 

• If quantum theory is correct, it signifies the end of physics as a science. (Einstein 1921)
• If you can fathom QM without getting dizzy, you don't get it. (Bohr 1922)
• It seems clear that the present quantum mechanics is not in its final form. Some day a new quantum mechanics will be discovered ....determinism in the way that Einstein wanted. (Dirac 1933) 
• I don't like QM, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it. (Schrödinger 1933)
• 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. (Born 1954)

• It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness. (Wigner 1963)
  

• Nobody understands QM. (Feynman 1965) 
• Many people probably felt relieved when told that the world could not be understood except by Einstein and a few other geniuses who were able to think in four dimensions. (Alfven 1970)
• QM is wrong. QM makes absolutely no sense.(Penrose 2020). 

Nevertheless QM is viewed to have, then apparently by magic, delivered wonders like the atomic bomb and the computer and all physicists confess to GR even if its "four dimensional curved space time" is pure magic.  

We are led to conclude that modern science ultimate based on QM + GR has very strong elements of magic. To this picture we can now add AI as something magical beyond understanding, because the computational optimisation process behind AI is too complex to be inspected and understood. 

The essence of science in a classical sense is to be understandable by HI, while magic is not understandable by HI. Understanding is important because that opens for constructive improvement/advancement, while shear magic does not.  

The crisis of modern theoretical physics can thus be seen as an expression of the difficulty of advancing science based on magic. QM and GR has not evolved since birth 100 years ago and science without advancement is dead science. 

Origin of the mystery of QM.   

QM is based on Schrödinger's Equation SE presented in 1925 for the hydrogen atom with one electron, and then formally extended to atomic systems with $N>1$ electrons, with solutions named wave functions  denoted by $\Psi$ depending on $N$ three-dimensional spatial coordinates altogether $3N$ coordinates and a time coordinate. Theoretical physicists like to speak about $\Psi$ as offering a full description of the World, unfortunately maybe way beyond the imagination of a general public. 

The mystery of QM introduced by Born, is that the wave function $\Psi$ has a meaning only as probability and not as actuality, and since physics concerns actuality the wave function lacks physical meaning. In addition it is uncomputable because computational work scales exponentially with $N$. The effect is that QM describes  physics in terms of wave functions without direct physical meaning, which in addition are uncomputable. The wave function carries information about all possibilities but no single actuality and as such is an uncomputable monster which cannot be used constructively.

In this hopeless situation, physicists compute solutions to simplified SE and adjust computations until fit with experiments. The mantra then reads that QM always gives exact agreement with observation as evidence that QM is a complete success (and as such truly magical). 

The probability interpretation of QM appeared as a necessity from a trivial formal mathematical generalisation of SE for one electron with physical meaning, into a canonical SE for many electrons without physical meaning. Non-physical formality thus dictated resort to probability instead of physical actuality, and the result was mystery beyond HI.

Is there then no hope? Yes, there is a different generalisation from one to many electrons based on physics into a deterministic model in the form of classical continuum mechanics, which we refer to as Real Quantum Mechanics RealQM. This model is understandable and computable and as such can open to advancement of fundamental science. Take a look.  

PS Note that science as magic is not the same as science fiction, which is based on physics albeit fictional.

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. 

Chaitin on Fundamental Physics/Science

Famous mathematician and computer scientist Gregory Chaitin gives a harsh evaluation of fundamental physics/science:

• We live in an era of stagnation of scientific innovation.
• I am disappointed. Too much bureaucracy. The dean can count but not read.
• The system is deeply flawed.
• I hope there will be a renaissance with new fundamental ideas some day.
• Tremendous pressure to conform. We need more creative chaos.
• Universities are basically conservative institutions with tremendous inertia.
• It is better to be wrong with the majority, than to be right on your own.
• Maybe AI will give people more time to be curious...?
• and more...listen yourself... 

I can add my own experience to Chaitin's story...

Concepts of Space and Time over Two Millennia

The concepts of three-dimensional space and one-dimensional time are in modern physics viewed as elements of a deeply mysterious concept of combined four-dimensional space-time where space is time-like and time is space-like.

In classical physics 3d space of Euclidean geometry formed by Euclide as the great geometer of Greek mathematics 300 BC, is represented in Euclidean coordinate systems introduced by Descartes in the 17th century. 

Everybody can understand how Euclidean coordinates can be used to represent collections of points in space as spatial configurations in mathematical models of the world. No mystery!

In classical physics going back to Heraclitus, time is viewed as a change of configuration including change of spatial configuration. Leibniz viewed spatial configurations as cases of coexistence as spatial presence at a given time of bodies extended in space. 

The basic mathematical models of classical physics take the form of an initial value problem (IVP) for a quantity $u(x,t)$ depending on a 3d Euclidean space coordinate $x$ and a 1d time coordinate $t$ of the form envisioned by Heraclitus as expressed above:

• $\dot u(x,t) = f(u(x,t),x,t)$  for all $x$ and $t>0$
• $u(x,0)=u_0(x)$ for all $x$, 

where the dot signifies differentiation with respect to $t$, $f(u,x,t)$ is a given function depending on $(u,x,t)$ and $u_0(x)$ is a given initial value, which typically is extended in space. An (IVP) can be solved by time-stepping, starting at $t=0$ and computing $u(x,dt)$ after one small time step $dt>0$ for $t=dt$ by the update formula

• $u(x,dt)=u(x,0)+dt*f(u(x,0),x,0),$ for all $x$,

and so on for $t=2*dt$, $t=3*dt$ et cet. We note that in an (IVP) the space coordinates $x$ are clearly separated from the time coordinate $t$ as expressed by the initial value $u(x,0)=u_0(x)$ and update formula for all $x$ as coexistence. 

We can view $u(x,\bar t)$ for any given time $\bar t$ with $x$ variable as coexistence, while the variation of $u(\bar x,t)$ for any given $\bar x$ with $t$ variable as change. This is something everybody can understand. No mystery!

The central concepts are: 

• coexistence at given time (space),
• change of coexistence (time). 

We note that theses classical concepts of time, which are easy to understand, have essentially been the same over more than two millennia. 

But all this was thrown overboard when Einstein formed his Special Theory of Relativity SR in 1905 where no longer space and time are separate, but are mixed together into space-time without clear separation. This is the effect of the Lorentz transformation underlying SR where $x$ appears as time and $t$ as space formalised in 4d Minkowski coordinates, which has become the trade mark of modern physics.

Two millennia of solid understanding of the basic physics of space and time, was suddenly replaced by a concept of space-time without physics in an unfortunate misunderstanding by an unknown patent clerk in Bern in 1905, as exposed in the previous post. This ended the age of scientific understanding going back to the Greeks with perfection during the Enlightenment into 1905. After now soon 120 years the confusion from 1905 is now so solidly built into physics that escape to understanding is virtually impossible. See  yourself by asking a physicist of today anything about SR to get the response that everything is settled since long and so no discussion is needed nor any understanding of SR...