War Irreversibility and Direction of Time

There are physical processes which are reversible, like the clock pendulum swinging back and forth without stop, and there are processes which are irreversible, like starting a war ending in mutual large scale destruction without possibility of return. What is the difference? This connects to the previous post on a proof of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics as the main unresolved question of physics (modulo the resolution/proof suggested in Computational Thermodynamics).

The Clock and the Arrow: A Short Theory of Time seeks the reason why physical processes move forward in time, including all forms of life showing progress from birth to death, thus expressing irreversibility, as a combination of (i) finite precision computation and (ii) increasing tension/difference. 

Time reversal of smashing an egg is impossible because of lack of precision in a restoration/reconstruction process. This is different from the standard explanation based on statistical mechanics claiming that time moving forward is more likely than backward, which is not illuminating.

A basic model combines (i) convection, (ii) diffusion and (iii) reaction = production/destruction, into a system with competing processes of:

• increasing tension/difference: convection + production  
• decreasing tension/difference: diffusion + destruction. 

As an urgent example, a war is the (inevitable) consequence of an arms race a during pre-war phase building tension/difference until so large that any little spark sets (lack of precision) off an avalanche of  destruction. Here displacement of weapons into local accumulation building tension as an anabol process corresponds to convection (assembling Uranium 238 to an atomic bomb), and levelling everything to gravel (pressing the button) corresponds to diffusion/desstruction in a metabol process.

Another example is the transition from laminar fluid flow with diffusion no longer strong enough to control tension/difference created by convection into turbulent flow with small scale motion turned into heat in turbulent diffusion. 

Irreversibility with a direction of time is here expressed by the fact that an anabol process as a construction process requiring precision, is slow (brick by brick building a house or letter by letter writing a book), while a metabol process like burning a book can be quick because coarse precision is enough. The reason unburning of a book is impossible is that the fine precision required cannot be met in finite time. 

The ocurrence of irreversibility is an inevitable consequence of increasing tension from convection + production creating increasingly sharp differences, which ultimately have to be broken down in some form of destructive Reset.  In the Green Reset the Industrial Society built by fossil fuel over a period of 100 years creating increasing inequality will have to be destroyed into a New Fossil-Free Society of equality, according to Agenda 2030.   

  

Destruction of human civilisation in a nuclear power exchange is a matter of minutes, does not require precision bombing and is irreversible. 

Life is irreversible because the anabol process of building a living organism cell by cell with finite precision is slow, while the metabol process required to sustain growth is quick and so cannot be reversed with finite precision. 

Corruption of Modern Physics 10: 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and Energy Crisis

The birth of modern physics is often described as Boltzmann's (attempted and failed) mathematical proof of a 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as the outstanding open problem of late 19th century physics, which introduced a new form of physics as statistical mechanics. This was picked up by Planck in his (attempted) proof of black body radiation, which led into the Born/Bohr Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics based on statistics of atoms playing dice. 

The 2nd Law gives time a direction through the existence of irreversible processes characterised by an inevitable increase of a (mystical) quantity named entropy, which Boltzmann gave a statistical meaning as a tendency of physical processes to move from less probable to more probable states. Boltzmann struggled with the proof through all his life without coming to a resolution. 

In Computational Thermodynamics a New Proof of the 2nd Law is presented, which is not based on statistics but instead on the nature of turbulence as disordered small scale kinetic motion. 

The 2nd Law originally represented an empirical finding expressed by Carnot concerning the maximal efficiency $\eta$ of a heat engine such as a steam engine converting heat to mechanical energy when operating between temperatures $T_h$ and $T_c$ in Kelvin with $T_h>T_c$, of the form 

• $\eta =\frac{T_h-T_c}{T_h}$.  (0)  

This relation can be derived from the thermodynamic relation between change of internal (heat) energy $dE$ and mechanical work $pdV$ with $p$ pressure and $dV$ change of volume, of the form 

• $dE + pdV =0$.   (1)

stating that heat can be transferred to mechanical work only in expansion with $pdV>0$ and then $dE<0$.

We read from (0) that the efficiency $\eta$ of a heat engine increases with temperature difference $T_h-T_c$ (modulo losses).  Conversely, for a heat pump as a heat engine in reverse the efficiency $\frac{1}{\eta}$ decreases with increasing temperature difference. This makes a heat pump, in strong demand to meet the present Energy Crisis, inefficient when delivering hot water from outside air temperature below 0, while rather efficient (modulo losses) when delivering room temperature from ground temperature above 0.

Here (1) represents the balance of heat energy and work for an ideal process absent of losses. For a physical system it takes the following classical form used by Boltzmann

• $dE + pdV =TdS$,   (2)

where $T$ is temperature and $dS$ change of entropy $S$, while in the New Proof it takes the form

• $dE + pdV =Q$,   (3)

where $Q>0$ represents losses of turbulent nature. The essence of the 2nd Law in the form (2) is that $dS>0$ as inevitable increase of entropy. On the other hand, in the form (3) $Q>0$ expresses the inevitable appearance of turbulent dissipation as large scale kinetic motion turned into small scale kinetic motion appearing as heat energy which because of finite precision cannot be reversed, as an explanation of the direction of time exposed in The Clock and The Arrow; A Brief Theory of Time.

The basic problem confronting Boltzmann starting from (2) was to motivate why $dS>0$ and to this end he resorted to statistics seeking to connect a physical meaning to entropy $S$ as a measure of order with less ordered systems corresponding to more microstates $W$ being more probable than more ordered systems corresponding to fewer microstates, expressed on his grave stone as $S =\kappa logW$ with $\kappa$ Boltzmann's constant. This brought him into a lifelong struggle which ended in ultimate disorder hanging from a rope. 

The tragic continued with Planck followed by Born also resorting to statistics leading modern physics into a quagmire of roulette games. 

Bottom line: Nobody knows what is entropy based on statistics. Everybody can understand what is turbulent dissipation into heat. Atoms do what they have to do and are not left to decide themselves by playing dice. Compare with Corruption 5.

The main deficiency of classical thermodynamics based on (2), as compared to (3) with its New Proof, is that it considers different possible states with more or less entropy, but not the dynamics between states characterised by more or less entropy production, which is captured computationally in (3) as turbulent dissipation.   

Corruption of Modern Physics 9: Misuse of Chaotic Systems

Waterfall as partially predictable chaotic system

The idea that global climate is a chaotic system and as such cannot be predicted, because of sensitivity to small perturbations, is often presented as an expression of deep insight into mathematical modeling. But it may hide a common misunderstanding of the nature of a chaotic system. The basic example of a chaotic system is turbulent flow. The nature of turbulent flow is to be unpredictable pointwise in space and time (because of sensitivity) while being predictable in a mean-value sense (because of insensitivity). 

This is developed in detail in Computational Turbulent Incompressible Flow and Computational Thermodynamics recommended for download. The combination of mean-value predictability and pointwise unpredictability is expressed by the fact that the drag of a car as total resistance to motion through air, is computable/predictable while the pressure at specific points on the car body cannot be computed/predicted. The reason mean-values are predictable is the fluctuating nature of turbulence with high pressure followed by low pressure forming stable mean-values. This is the reason nature can function as a more ot less ordered system even if being a chaotic system, which can be seen as a form of order in chaos.  

The Earth climate system can be described as a turbulent thermodynamic ocean-atmosphere system which forms weather local in space and time and global climate as mean-values over space and time. Experience shows that local weather acts as a chaotic system which is unpredictable pointwise in time over more than a week. The question is then to what extent climate as mean-value weather is computable/predictable? 

If all the equations (Navier-Stokes equations and more) modeling the Earth system were known, we would be able to compute/predict for example global mean temperature year 2100 or the onset of the next Ice Age, because of the fluctuating nature of turbulent flow. But we do not know all the parameters entering in the equations nor the initial conditions. Therefore such computation/prediction for now is impossible, but not because the system in principle is chaotic, rather because present climate models contains unknowns. 

This means that with better climate models it could be possible to predict e.g. the onset of the next Ice Age, or on shorter time scales the Winther weather over Europe depending on jet streams and La Nina and more. Even without climate model we can predict the global mean temperature 2023 to be about the same as 2022. 

In short, global ocean-atmosphere weather system is a chaotic system which as global climate is computable/predictable to a certain degree. Work on better climate models is not meaningless.

What is remarkable is the stability of Earth climate without runaway global warming yet with global cooling into repeated Ice Ages,   

Corruption of Modern Physics 8: Equivalence Principle

In Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems Galileo lets Salviato explain to Simplicius why different bodies with different masses show the same free fall (in vacuum without air resistance) thus with the same acceleration subject to a gravitational force, in other words that inertial mass scaling with  acceleration is the same as gravitational mass scaling with gravitational force. 

Galileo demonstrated this fact by dropping different objects from the Tower of Pisa. Galileo argued that this must be so because if different parts of a body in free fall would fall differently, bodies would be ripped apart by internal forces and the World could not exist. This is called Galileo's Equivalence Principle and is a cornerstone of Newtonian Mechanics. It says that there is only one type of mass, namely inertial mass, which manifests itself as force resistance to acceleration expressed by Newton's 2nd Law.  If you want to find the mass of a body, measure the force required to put it into motion.  

It is now reported from Institute of Theoretical Physics, University of Paris-Saclay, France, that 
the 

• MICROSCOPE Satellite Experiment has tested the equivalence principle with an unprecedented level of precision.

This is simply Galileo's experiment again now with higher precision. No surprise. So what is the meaning of this apparently ground breaking experiment? Well, it is presented as evidence that Einstein's General Theory of Relativity with a new explanation of gravitation, is correct. 

How can that be when the Equivalence Principle is a cornerstone of Newton's theory of gravitation? How can an experiment confirming Newton's theory be used to show that also General Relativity supposed to be different from Newton's theory, is correct? How can the same evidence be used to support both a basic theory like Newton's and a generalisation thereof like Einstein's supposed to be different? 

Experimentally evidence that Einstein's theory is better than Newton's, would require an experiment which agrees with Einstein's theory but not Newton's. An experiment confirming Newton's theory cannot serve this purpose. Yet the objective of the MICROSCOPE Satellite Experiment is just this! As an example of what modern physicists in the spirit of Einstein do today to advance physics.  

Corruption of Modern Physics 7: Collapse (of the Wave Function)

Niels Bohr brainwashed a whole generation of theorists into thinking that the job (interpreting quantum theory) was done 50 years ago. (Murray Gell-Man Nobel Prize in Physics 1969)

The stated objective of Standard Quantum Mechanics according to Bohr, is to make probabilistic predictions of outcomes of experiments with atomic systems expressed in terms of wave functions satisfying Schrödinger's equation as systems mathematical model, and compare with observations/measurements of actual outcomes. The idea is that a system prior to measurement is in a state of superposition of possible outcomes with different probabilities given by the corresponding wave function, and that in the measurement process one of the possible outcomes becomes real and then is expressed as a collapse of the wave function. 

The mantra is that predictions always agree with observations even if predictions are probabilistic and repeated experiments give the same result as if the wave function can only collapse in one way to the same outcome. The validity of this mantra can be questioned in many ways, in particular because the wave function for a many-electron system is uncomputable and thus cannot offer any prediction at all, but then in particular of course, never any incorrect prediction. This is viewed as evidence that the Schrödinger equation is a complete model without need of any further precision through "hidden variables", in particular cannot be falsified.  

If you feel that this sounds strange, your are not alone, since this has been a source of bitter quarrel between physicists for nearly 100 years without ever any reconciliation.  Questions add up: 

• Is the measurement device included in the system model?
• How does the measurement influence the outcome?
• Does "collapse of the wave function" have a physical meaning? 
• Can a theoretical non-prediction be falsified?  
• Is this a "collapse of QM"? 
• Can it be true that nothing exists until it is measured?
• Does the Moon not exist when it has disappeared behind a cloud? 
• For the young child closing eyes Mom does not exist anymore, but for a physicist?
• Typical measurements can concern atomic spectra and they are deterministic cut in stone.

Corruption of Modern Physics 6: Mathematization

Recent posts recall that the accepted canon/standard of Quantum Mechanics QM as Schrödinger's equation for an atomic system with $N$ electrons, is a linear partial differential equation in terms of a multidimensional complex-valued wave function $\Psi (x1,x2,...,xN,t)$ depending on $N$ three-dimensional space variables $x1, x2,...,xN$ and a time variable $t$. The equation arises as an ad hoc mathematical generalisation of Schrödinger's equation for a Hydrogen atom with one electron ($N=1$), which can be given a direct physical meaning with the wave function representing an electron density. 

The basic question QM concerns the physical meaning of the wave function for $N>1$. The accepted answer coined as the Copenhagen Interpretation CI imprinted into the canon by Born followed by Bohr, is that $\vert\Psi (x1,....,xN,t)\vert^2$ represents a probability density for an electron configuration described by the coordinates $(x1,...,xN,t)$. But a probability density does not describe any state of physics and QM still after 100 years remains a mystery as acknowledged by all prominent physicists. 

To a mathematical mind the ad hoc generalisation is direct, and so physicists impressed by mathematics have been forced to accept it as true physics, although mysterious. So instead of searching for a generalisation with physical meaning (see Real Quantum Mechanics), all efforts have gone into loading the multi-dimensional wave function $\Psi (x1,x2,...,xN,t)$ with (some) physical meaning. 

To this end physicists have come up with the idea to distinguish between wave functions which are symmetric in the variables $(x1,...,xN)$ (augmented by a two-valued spin variable) supposed to represent boson (photon) and anti-symmetric supposed to represent fermion (such as electron and proton), with any particle being either a boson or fermion. Anti-symmetry was crafted so as to prevent two electrons with the same spin to be at the same place in space-time, expressed as Pauli’s Exclusion Principle.

With this perspective a God creating the world of physics must have been mathematician and not physicist. First He created multidimensional wave functions, which is a very rich Universe, and then He decided that only symmetric or anti-symmetric wave functions would represent actual physics, asking systems of particles to keep track of symmetry or antisymmetry. But a mathematician cannot create physics, only at best model physics in terms of mathematics and computation. God must have been also physicist with richer tools for creation than mathematical symbols on a paper. And then He would not have been satisfied with a purely mathematical Universe designed by mathematicians like the CI of QM...

To sum up: Standard QM for a many-electron system is based on a linear wave equation for a multi-dimensional complex-valued wave function arising from a generalisation of Schrödinger's equation for a Hydrogen atom according to purely mathematical principles. The following questions present themselves as the fundamental conundrums of modern physics: 

• Why is the wave equation for a system scalar-valued and not vector-valued?
• Why is the equation linear and thus allowing superposition? Physics is rarely linear.
• What physics is captured by the multi-dimensional wave function?  Do electrons play dice? 

Read what famous physicists have to say about Standard QM. 

Listen to this revelation by Roger Penrose.

      

Corruption of Modern Physics 5: Microscopic Statistics

The number of births, deaths or murders in say Sweden do not vary much from year to year and so are more or less predictable, while it is impossible to predict exactly which person will die from a natural cause or get murdered. This does not say that deaths/murders are completely random as if decided by throwing a dice. In all cases there are very specific conditions which predictably lead to a particular outcome as predictable microscopics of a macroscopic event such as death/murder. If the predictable microscopics was known in full detail, then the macroscopic event would also be predictable. A killed B because of a specific reason.

But with unknown microscopics as hidden variables, macroscopics appear random. This is how a roulette table works.   

This connects to the basic unsolved problem of modern atom physics as the statistical/random nature of the Copenhagen Interpretation CI of quantum mechanics, which Bohr imprinted into the minds of all modern physicists with strong support from Born and Heisenberg, except a few like Schrödinger (inventor of quantum mechanics) and Einstein protesting with his famous God Does Not Play Dice.  

CI postulates that quantum mechanics can only make microscopic predictions of statistical nature such as the probability that an electron as a particle will be at a specific point is space and time. In other words, in CI there can be no hidden variables allowing prediction of microscopics.  In CI an electron really plays dice, something Einstein never accepted. 

Bohr supported CI by the observation that in the decay of radioactive atoms the half-life, as the time after which half of the atoms have decayed, is predictable, while it is impossible to predict precisely which atoms will decay and when. The basic CI conviction is that atoms play roulette to decide to decay or not. There can be no hidden variables, to be compared with the deaths/murders in a population containing hidden variables. 

But random microscopics is is an awkward idea from scientific point of view. Conceptually macroscopics can be complex as an agglomeration of microscopics, while the very idea of microscopics is that it is something simple. Complex microscopics must build on microscopics of microscopics and so on in an endless regression. Thus microscopics as an elementary piece of something bigger must be simple, and simple in general means predictable. When Bohr speaks about an electron playing roulette as random microscopics, it appears self contradictory or at least confusing and mystical as the signum of quantum mechanics: 

• How does single electron play roulette? 
• What is the origin of this strange idea?

An answer is given in Corruption of Physics 3. There we recall that quantum mechanics was created in 1920s when Schrödinger formulated a new model for the Hydrogen atom as a negatively charged electron cloud attracted by a positively charged kernel. The model takes the the form of a partial differential equation named Schrödinger's equation in terms of a wave function $\Psi (x,t)$ depending on a three-dimensional space variable $x$ and a time variable $t$ with $\vert\Psi (x,t)\vert^2$ representing electron density at $(x,t)$. 

This model is fully predicatble/computable and produces an atomic spectrum in direct correspondence with observation as the first model of predictable microscopics of atom physics in parity with Newton's predictable model of the motion of celestial objects. 

That was a wonderful achievement of rational thinking, but what would a Schrödinger equation look like for an atom with more than one electron? It was far from obvious how to generalise from one to many. and Schrödinger hesitated. Of course, a direct formal generalisation could be made with a pen stroke into a wave function $\Psi (x1,x2,....,xN,t)$ depending on $N$ three-dimensional space variables $x1, x2,...,xN$ for an atom with $N$ electrons, thus into a wave function depending on $3N$ space variables, however without direct physical meaning for $N>1$. The only way out was to give this multi-dimensional wave-function a statistical meaning as a probability. That was what Born did followed by Bohr, while Schrödinger protested, and that ended the search for a generalisation of Schrödinger's equation with direct physical meaning. Modern physics was stuck with multi-dimensional Schrödinger equation without physical meaning, which in addition was uncomputable for a multi-electron atom as pointed out by Nobel Laureate Walter Kohn when receiving the Prize. 

There modern physics stands today. Electrons play roulette. Atom microscopics is random with self-contradictory microscopics upon microscopics. Hidden variables are forbidden like the fruits of Knowledge in Paradise. Bohr dictates that physics is not what is, but what we can say. The multi-dimensional Schrödinger equations without hidden variables contains everything that can be said, which however is not much since it is uncomputable. 

A way out of this dead end is opened by Real Quantum Mechanics presenting a different generalisation of Schrödinger's one-electron equation into a computable many-electron wave equation in three space dimensions with physical meaning. With such a model it would in principle be possible to predict which atom would decay because of specific conditions of its nucleus and surrounding electron configuration, although in practice they would appear like hidden variables. 

One thing is to say like Bohr that there can be no hidden variables, only microscopic roulettes without physics, another to say that they may exist and may be revealed into deterministic physics. 

Corruption of Modern Physics 4: Nobel Prize to Spooky Action at Distance

The Nobel Prize in Physics 2022 was awarded to Alain Aspect, John F. Clauser and Anton Zeilinger for

• Experiments with entangled photons, establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science.

In other words, the Prize was awarded for showing that Einstein was wrong when questioning the idea of entangled photons with spooky action at distance, as if two photons/particles could be in instant contact/communication even if widely separated in space (thus seemingly violating Einstein's basic relativity postulate of the speed of light as maximal speed of propagation of physical effects).  

Einstein never accepted the canon of the Copenhagen Interpretation CI of the new quantum mechanics dictated by Bohr and Born in the 1920s and still dominating, and so was expelled from the physics community along with Schrödinger as the inventor of the Schrödinger equation for the Hydrogen atom. 

Einstein could not accept spooky action at distance nor the statistical interpretation in CI expressed with his famous God does not play dice. Schrödinger could not give up local reality or Anschaulichkeit as a reality existing in three space dimensions even if not observed by a human being or instrument. 

The controversy between Bohr/Born and Einstein/Schrödinger, that has never be reconciled, has had catastrofical consequences for the development of modern physics through the 20th century into our days.  The 2022 Prize is an expression of the resulting collapse of reality behind string theory, extra dimensions, multiversa, dark matter/energy and black holes occupying the minds of physicists today with lofty promises of quantum computers from superposition and entanglement always far from realisation. 

Quantum mechanics started in 1925 with Schrödinger's equation for the Hydrogen atom as a real physics continuum wave equation for a negatively charged one electron cloud under Coulomb attraction from a positively charged pointwise kernel/proton, expressed in a wave function $\Psi (x,t)$ depending on a three dimensional space variable $x$ and a time variable $t$, with the square of the wave function expressing charge density. This model showed precise agreement with the spectrum of Hydrogen as a formidable stunning success of theoretical physics and Schrödinger instantly rocketed to fame.

But the trouble started already with the Helium atom with two electrons. A quick solution directly presented itself as a direct mathematical generalisation to an atom with $N>1$ electrons simply by formulating a linear multi-dimensional wave equation in a wave function $\Psi (x1,x2,..xN,t)$ depending on $N$ three-dimensional space variables $x1,x2,...,xN,$ as if each electron occupies its own three-dimensional space. A mathematician could make such a generalisation with a stroke of a pen, just like extending the real line into a space of any dimension in linear algebra. With such a wave function electrons are entangled unless the multi-dimensional wave function is a product of one-dimensional wave functions, which is too simple to work. Electron entanglement is thus directly ingrained ad hoc by definition through a truly multi-dimensional wave function, as well as superposition by linearity.  

The direct question confronting Schrödinger was if such an ad hoc formal mathematical generalisation could have any physical meaning? Schrödinger concluded that a wave depending on $3N$ space variables cannot be Anschaulich or represent any reality, and he could not accept Born's resort to a statistical interpretation, and so Schrödinger left quantum mechanics already at its start, or rather like Einstein was kicked out. It is the statistical interpretation of the wave function forced upon science from a multi-dimensional wave function, which is the root of all the unresolved troubles. 

There we stand today: The holy grail of quantum mechanics is a linear multi-dimensional wave equation/function without local reality but with entanglement and spooky action at distance ingrained by construction, claimed to always be in exact agreement with observation, although uncomputable by multi-dimensionality. This is not something, whether you are physicist or not, which you can question, and it is then ironic that the 2022 Prize is given to experimental work initiated in the 1970s supposedly showing that Einstein was wrong, that is showing something which was a truth already 90 years ago. It is as if Einstein's ghost is still haunting physics, by asking questions which again and again have to be dismissed as being silly, without ever being answered satisfactorily.

The state of quantum mechanics today as witnessed by all prominent physicists is that quantum mechanics is weird, with weirdness increasing with prominence. As an example let us just listen to what 2022 Nobel Laureate Anton Zeilinger, named the Quantum Pope, has to say in the concluding words of his book Dance of the Photons with title What Does It All Mean?: 

• We have learned that the idea that the world exists in all its properties independent of us, independent of the kinds of observations we perform, is in trouble.
• It now becomes clear why Einstein had to criticize quantum mechanics, why he called entanglement “spooky.” His picture of the real, factual reality that exists in its essential properties independent of us, this picture of a separation of reality and information, does not seem to be tenable in quantum physics.
• We also learned that a specific philosophical view has been definitely ruled out by the experiment. This is the concept of local realism. Local realism is the point of view that whatever we observe is defined in some way by a real physical property of the observed systems, a property that exists before and independently of our observation. 
• We also learned that the quantum world is governed by a qualitatively new kind of randomness. The individual measurement result is purely random, without any possibility of detailed causal explanation. It is not just that we do not know what the cause is. This is probably the most fascinating consequence in quantum physics. Just imagine: centuries of scientific research, centuries of the search for causes, and attempts to explain why things happen just the way they happen lead us to a final wall. 

What Zeilinger says is that the idea of factual reality is in trouble and does not seem tenable and attempts to explain why things happen the way they happen has led to a final wall, all based on a very tricky photon experiment saying very little about the real world. For this he is awarded the Nobel Prize. The hype is huge: Quantum Manifesto and The Universe Is Not Locally Real, and the Physics Nobel Prize Winners Proved It

To be more precise, the Prize is awarded to experimental work showing that model predictions by solving a multi-dimensional linear Schrödinger equation, although uncomputable, exactly agree with certain very specific very tricky experiments with photons without physical reality, from which it is concluded that any search for a model describing physical reality in the spirit of Einstein is fruitless. In other words, modern physics is settled and the Nobel Prize in Physics has no more role to play.       

If you do not think that science is ever settled, you may be interested in a realist approach to the atomic world: Real Quantum Mechanics. 

Corruption of Modern Physics 3: Quantum Mechanics

I don't like it (standard quantum mechanics) and I am sorry I ever had anything to do with it. 

Sabine Hossenfelder with her blog BackReAction is in trouble from expressing her opinion as physicist about particle physics as the central subject for contemporary physicists:

• They don’t like to hear that their field urgently needs to change direction, so they attack me as the bearer of bad news. 
• Everyone can see that nothing useful is coming out of particle physics, it’s just a sink of money. Lots of money. 
• And soon enough governments are going to realize that particle physics is a good place to save money that they need for more urgent things. 

This is a tough message. No wonder that Sabine is in trouble and that particle physicists are angry. But does Sabine have something important to say? Let's see. 

In recent posts I have been seeking the origin of the present crisis of physics witnessed by (not only) Sabine, in the work of Einstein on particle nature of light (origin of particle physics) and special/general relativity as a cornerstone of modern physics (filled with never resolved mysteries/contradictions).  

Let us now turn to quantum mechanics as the other cornerstone, with the crisis in full bloom from incompatibility with general relativity, which Einstein spent the last 30 years of his life to resolve in a fruitless search for a general field theory including both gravitation and electromagnetics/quantum mechanics.

Quantum mechanics is based on the (linear) Schrödinger equation for a (scalar complex-valued) wave function $\Psi (x1, x2, ..., xN,t)$ for an $N$-electron system/atom depending on $N$ three-dimensional space coordinates $x1$ to $xN$ and a time coordinate $t$, thus depending on $3N$ space coordinates and one time coordinate. Since physical reality has at most three space dimensions, the wave function can be given a direct physical meaning only for a system with one electron, that is for the Hydrogen atom. To Schrödinger as the creator of the Schrödinger equation this created deep frustration, since he required the wave function to be Anschaulich or possible to visualise (in three space dimensions). Moreover, as pointed out by Nobel Laureate Walter Kohn, already for a system with $10$ electrons the wave function is impossible to compute because its high dimensionality. This makes it possible to claim that the wave function can never be wrong.

In short, (standard) quantum mechanics as based on the (standard linear scalar) Schrödinger equation presents severe difficulties, which have never been overcome despite intense struggle by the sharpest minds over 100 years. The way out became to give up physicality/reality and give the wave function a statistical meaning as suggested by Born. In short, the (standard) wave function has no direct physical meaning and in addition is uncomputable, which physicists rationalise by saying (following Bohr) that since the wave function contains everything that can be said and correctly predicts the outcome of any experiment, it is not necessary to understand its real meaning. A physicist can handle this by confessing that he/she does not understand quantum mechanics (and nobody else either).

To sum up, modern physics is based on two theories (relativity and quantum mechanics) both loaded with unresolvable difficulties/mysteries, which together are incompatible/contradictory. No wonder a crisis has developed with ever more fanciful ingredients of multi-versa, string theory and dark matter/energy.  

 

An understandable alternative to the standard linear multi-dimensional scalar Schrödinger equation is given in Real Quantum Mechanics in the form of a non-linear system of three-dimensional scalar real wave functions. Take a look and see that you can understand!

Bohr claimed that the objective of the theory of quantum mechanics (Schrödinger equation) is to (i) predict the outcome of experiments, not to (ii) explain the outcome of experiments as the real scientific objective. This is odd and adds to the mystery of quantum mechanics. The only role prediction of an experiment can serve is to support theory (if the prediction is correct) or falsify theory (if the prediction is incorrect). Since the wave function is uncomputable and thus unknown it cannot be used to make predictions. What can be done is, knowing the outcome of an experiment, to compute/design an approximate simplified wave function by reducing dimensionality, which always (miraculously) agrees with the experiment and so shows that modern physics is in perfect shape.  For more, see 72 posts on Quantum Contradictions.

Corruption of Modern Physics 2: Special Theory of Relativity

•  I neglected mathematics...because my intuition was not strong enough to differentiate the fundamentally important from the dispensable erudition. (Einstein 1900)
• The question whether the Lorentz contraction does or does not exist is confusing. It does not really exist in so far as it does not exist for an observer who moves (with the rod); it really exists, however, in the sense that it can as a matter of principle be demonstrated by a resting observer. (Einstein 1911).

Continuing the recent posts on Einstein's mistaken idea of light of frequency $\nu$ as a stream of particles named photons, each photon carrying an energy of $h\nu$ with $h$ Plank's constant, let us recall the analysis of Einstein's 1905 Special Theory of Relativity SR  presented in the book Many-Minds Relativity and blog posts on special theory of relativity, showing that SR is not a theory about physics. This was admitted by Einstein, who quickly gave up SR to turn to General Theory of Relativity in an even deeper state of confusion, see above quote. With Einstein's theories of relativity modern physics was misled away from the reality of Enlightenment into the fiction of Modernity, from real to fake.       

Einstein describes the set up of SR as two observers $O$ and $O^\prime$ moving with constant velocity with respect to each other, each observer being equipped with a measuring rod to measure distance in space and a clock to measure time, with sticks and clocks of the same fabrication. 

The essence of SR is a coordinate transformation between an Euclidean space-time coordinate system $(x,t)$ used by $O$ and a $(x^\prime ,t^\prime)$-system used by $O^\prime$ connected by the Lorentz (simple linear coordinate) transformation with $x$ and $x^\prime$ one dimensional space coordinates and $t$ and $t^\prime$ time coordinates, taking the form

• $x^\prime =\gamma (x-vt)$, $t^\prime = \gamma (t-vx)$, $\gamma =\frac{1}{\sqrt(1-v^2)}$,
• $x =\gamma (x^\prime+vt^\prime )$, $t = \gamma (t^\prime+vx^\prime )$.

where $\vert v\vert <1$ is viewed to be express that the two systems are moving with respect to each other with constant speed $\vert v\vert <1$. The Lorentz transformation has the property that a $x = t$ is transformed into $x^\prime  = t^\prime$,  which Einstein viewed to express the same speed of light = 1 in both systems, as the basic postulate of SR. 

In particular, a light signal emitted at $(0,0)$ from a stationary source in the $(x,t)$-system is supposed to follow the trajectory $x=t$ for $t>0$ in the $(x,t)$-system, and similarly a light signal emitted at $(0,0)$ by a stationary source in the $(x^\prime,t^\prime )$-system is supposed to follow the trajectory $x^\prime =t^\prime $ for $t^\prime>0$ in the $(x^\prime ,t^\prime )$-system. 

Lorentz had introduced his transformation well before Einstein took it up, but Lorentz had been careful to note that his transformation was not to be interpreted as a transformation between physical coordinates. 

Unfortunately this was not understood by the young Einstein (with little training in physics), who instead came to believe that both systems must represent physical coordinates, because no system seemed to have any preference before the other as an expression of relativity. 

This led Einstein to consider the light signals emitted at $(0,0)$ in the two systems described above to be the same light signal, and then described by coordinates in the two systems connected by the Lorentz transformation, thus subject to strange effects of space contraction and time dilation. But a light signal emitted at $(0,0)$ in the $(x,t)$ system, is not the same as a light signal emitted at $(0,0)$ in the $(x^\prime ,t^\prime )$-system, because the light sources are moving with respect to each other. 

More precisely, a light source consists of a collection of atoms extended in space emitting electromagnetic waves over some period of time, and the physics of two such light sources moving with respect to each other is different even if overlapping at $(0,0)$. Einstein missed this completely crucial aspect by considering space time events supposedly identified by specific isolated space-time coordinates, but then events without physics.

The only reasonable set up from physical point of view is to require the observer/observational equipment to be stationary in the space coordinate system used, as explored in Many-Minds Relativity. A light source can be moving (then generating a Doppler effect), but the observer/observational equipment cannot be allowed to move in the coordinate system being used. To insist that this restriction must be broken, asking $O$ to make observations in the $(x^\prime ,t^\prime )$-system and vice versa, as Einstein did in his confused state, is to ask for mysteries/paradoxes, which cannot be resolved. Asking the speed of light to be independent of both source and observer is the same as introducing an ether medium common to all observers, which has never been found.  

The unavoidable conclusion is that SR does not describe any real physics and so the strange effects of space contraction and time dilation of SR are not real but only fiction. This should come as a relief for all students of modern physics struggling without success to understand what is only confusion, while teachers of modern physics are expected to claim that they understand that SR for sure is a correct physical theory always agreeing perfectly with observation.    

To take home:

• The rate of a clock whether mechanical or atomic cannot be influenced by inertial motion. 
• With light second as new (1983) SI unit of space or measuring rod, the speed of light by definition is constant = 1 to all observers, and so Einstein's basic postulate is an agreement (matter of principle) without real physics. A theory based on postulates without real physics cannot say anything about real physics. The Lorentz coordinate transformation as the essence of SR, does not describe any real physics, because its basic postulate is rather an agreement than physical necessity.