The state of quantum mechanics....

There are a few on this board who will dive straight into quantum mechanics as soon as the idea of a cool object further warming a warm object is called into question.....and they speak of quantum mechanics as if it, like climate science is "settled" science.

A recent survey was done and it seems that insofar as quantum mechanics goes, there is little that the "experts" agree on. This belief that any science is settled and not subject to question seems to be one of the more serious symptoms of postmodern science.

This poll was given to the participants of a quantum foundations confrence. Here are some of the results...

Randomness of quantum processes (e.g. decay of nuclei) is:

•64%: fundamental
•48%: irreducible
•9%: only apparent
•0%: masking a hidden determinism

Do objects have well-defined properties before measurements?

•52%: yes, in some cases
•48%: no
•9%: undecided
•3%: always

Einstein's view on quantum mechanics is:

•64%: wrong
•12%: will be shown wrong
•12%: we don't know
•6%: will be shown right
•0%: is right

Bohr's view on quantum mechanics is:

•30%: we have to wait
•27%: wrong
•21%: correct
•9%: will be shown right
•3%: will be shown wrong


A similar split appears when it comes to the measurement problem:

•39%: solved (now or later) in a different way
•27%: a pseudoproblem
•27%: none of the above
•24%: a severe difficulty threatening QM
•15%: solved by decoherence

What is the message of the violation of Bell's inequalities?

•64%: local realism is untenable
•52%: unperformed experiments have no results
•36%: some notion of nonlocality
•12%: action at a distance in the physical world
•6%: let's not jump the gun, take loopholes seriously

Quantum information is:

•76%: fresh air in quantum foundations
•27%: we need to wait
•6%: useful for applications but of no relevance to foundations
•6%: neither useful nor relevant

When will we have a working and useful quantum computer?

•9%: within 10 years
•42%: 10-25 years
•30%: 25-50 years
•0%: 50-100 years
•15%: never

Right interpretation of state vectors:

•27%: epistemic/informational
•24%: ontic
•33%: a mix of epistemic and ontic
•3%: purely statistical as in ensemble interpretation
•12%: other

The observer is:

•39%: a complex quantum system
•21%: should play no fundamental role whatsoever
•55%: plays a fundamental role in the application of the formalism but plays no distinguished physical role
•6%: plays a distinct physical role (soul collapses wave function...)

Reconstruction of quantum theory:

•15%: gives useful insights and has/will supersede the interpretation program
•45%: gives useful insights but we still need an interpretation
•30%: cannot solve the quantum foundations
•27%: will lead to a deeper theory than QM
•12%: don't know

Favorite interpretation:

•0%: consistent histories
•42%: Copenhagen
•0%: de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave
•18%: Everett many worlds/minds
•24%: information-based
•0%: modal
•9%: objective collapse, GRW or Penrose
•6%: quantum Bayesianism
•6%: relational quantum mechanics
•0%: ensemble interpretation
•0%: transactional interpretation
•12%: other
•12%: no preferred one

How often have you switched interpretation?

•33%: never
•21%: once
•21%: several times
•21%: no preferred interpretation

Does the choice of interpretation depend on philosophical prejudices?

•58%: a lot
•27%: a little
•15%: not at all

Superpositions of macro- different states are:

•67%: possible in principle
•36%: will eventually be realized
•12%: in principle impossible
•6%: impossible because of collapse theory

In 50 years, conferences on quantum foundations:

•48%: will still be organized
•15%: probably no
•24%: who knows
•12%: I organize one no matter what

So the next time you (and you know who you are) feel like making statements regarding QM as if it were settled science, remember that even the "experts" are in disagreement on damned near everything.



I have sat down a few times to try and figure out what you are trying to say, and how I should respond.

Planck was the first to theorize that the universe had a graininess to it and that you couldnt just keep making things smaller and smaller. that solved the ultraviolet disaster in blackbody radiation equations, and the word 'quantum' entered the physics lexicon.

physics history is littered with people making discoveries via experiments with no theory of why or how things happen, that understanding usually happens later if at all.

when I developed my worldview of physics as a teenager 'aces' and 'quarks' and 'helium superfluidity' were a big deal. today's teenager is trying to get his head around 'string theory' and 'cooper pairs' and the 'Higg's boson mass field'.

we will always be going after the next big thing. but in the meantime mundane objects of study still give the same experimental results even if the explanation at the subatomic scale changes.

the laws of thermodynamics were formulated by observation and experiment long before quantum mechanics, quantum chromodynamics, string theory, and whatever else is in the queue, came along to explain them.



SSDD- your biggest hurdle in getting a handle on thermodynamics is understanding that it is a description of energy flow in a system built up of large numbers of things. the arrow of time is a murky process that only becomes clear as you move to larger systems with more degrees of freedom.

I am not a physicist, my concept of fields and photons is rudimentary at best. if you prefer the eccentric view of Johnson, or someone else, then that is your own business. if their views match reality as closely as the more standard explanations then they are at least possibly on to something. good luck to them, and I hope you experience the thrill of backing a longshot to victory.
 
SSDD- your biggest hurdle in getting a handle on thermodynamics is understanding that it is a description of energy flow in a system built up of large numbers of things. the arrow of time is a murky process that only becomes clear as you move to larger systems with more degrees of freedom.

I believe your biggest hurdle in getting a handle on theromdynamics is your belief that anyone who disagrees with you has failed to get a handle on thermodynamics and your second biggest problem is your willingness to disregard the laws of thermodynamics in favor of untestable, unproven, mathematical models....and then state those models as if they were fact rather than hypothesis still awaiting any real world experiment to test them.

I am not a physicist, my concept of fields and photons is rudimentary at best. if you prefer the eccentric view of Johnson, or someone else, then that is your own business. if their views match reality as closely as the more standard explanations then they are at least possibly on to something. good luck to them, and I hope you experience the thrill of backing a longshot to victory.

Look at the history of science...the percentages suggest that backing the longshot who can actually do the math to prove his position is a far better bet than backing the status quo who does little more than call him a heritic and point to their own untestable, unproven dogma as proof that he is wrong.
 
Last edited:
SSDD- your biggest hurdle in getting a handle on thermodynamics is understanding that it is a description of energy flow in a system built up of large numbers of things. the arrow of time is a murky process that only becomes clear as you move to larger systems with more degrees of freedom.

I believe your biggest hurdle in getting a handle on theromdynamics is your belief that anyone who disagrees with you has failed to get a handle on thermodynamics and your second biggest problem is your willingness to disregard the laws of thermodynamics in favor of untestable, unproven, mathematical models....and then state those models as if they were fact rather than hypothesis still awaiting any real world experiment to test them.

I am not a physicist, my concept of fields and photons is rudimentary at best. if you prefer the eccentric view of Johnson, or someone else, then that is your own business. if their views match reality as closely as the more standard explanations then they are at least possibly on to something. good luck to them, and I hope you experience the thrill of backing a longshot to victory.

Look at the history of science...the percentages suggest that backing the longshot who can actually do the math to prove his position is a far better bet than backing the status quo who does little more than call him a heritic and point to their own untestable, unproven dogma as proof that he is wrong.



hahahaha, as you wish. there have been thousands upon thousands of physicists who were sure they were right, only they weren't. no one remembers their names.

to parphrase Heisenberg, "you're not even wrong".
 
hahahaha, as you wish. there have been thousands upon thousands of physicists who were sure they were right, only they weren't. no one remembers their names.

And mostly, they have belonged solidly in the status quo. No offense, but that is just the way it is. Every time a new leap forward happens, it is the consensus that find themselves catching up. History tells us it is the few who weren't wrong whose names are remembered.
 
Last edited:
Look at the history of science...the percentages suggest that backing the longshot who can actually do the math to prove his position is a far better bet than backing the status quo who does little more than call him a heritic and point to their own untestable, unproven dogma as proof that he is wrong.

Is this meant to be the theme of the thread? The survey results you posted are from attendees at a quantum foundations conference--quantum foundations is occupied with attempting to understand the correct interpretation of the mathematical formalism underpinning QM, not questioning whether it produces empirically correct predictions (it does). Their interest is implicitly philosophical, which is reflected in the nature of the questions asked.

It sounds like you're conflating two different issues here. If the question is whether QM has some final, definitive ontological point about the nature of the universe to make, then certainly there's excellent reason to be skeptical. But if you're suggesting "the math," not just the ontological content, is going to be upended and completely replaced in some successor theory, then I'd have to disagree, as that possibility is more or less ruled out at this point. Any successor theory has to at least incorporate the structure of QM because it's proven itself via the test of experience to be stunningly accurate. So I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the math behind QM to go away.
 
And yet pseudo experts claim everyday on this message board that they and only they know truth and that science itself is less a reliable source of knowledge than intuition, faith or the proof provided by charlatans who profess to be all knowing. Let's take climate change for an example:

Self proclaimed conservatives claim, either:

1. There is no climate change, only anomalies, or
2. Climate change is episodic, has nothing to do with human activity, or
3. It snowed, proving there is no global warming.

And all parrot some arcane statistic as proof of some absolute truth; the non parrots make no such absolute claim. For the most part the non parrots recognize that SMOG and ACID Rain were a product of human activity and that each was mitigated by the application of scientific inquiry and government action; understand that something is happening but as of yet cannot pinpoint the causes but believe there may be many reasons for the effects (climate extremes).

It is not the non parrots who hold as absolute that human activity has no major, world-wide impact on our environment; it is the deniers who do, and in that I'm 99.9% sure.

Considering the fact that neither you, nor any other warmist, including all climate scientist can present a single bit of hard evidence proving that mankind is altering the global climate, it is you and yours who profess to be all knowing in spite of evidence to the contrary. I can be convinced, but it will require proof. I don't base such things as positions on scientific issues on my political leanings. Show me some hard proof that we are causing the global climate to change, or show me some hard proof that the climate today is unprecedented in the history of the earth and then you have an argument. Till you can do that, all you have is an untestable, unfalsifiable hypothesis.

And what if the 'warmers' are correct and you are wrong? That's the point, doing nothing can be cataclysmic, doing some things (being green) has a number of benefits besides the potential to protect the earth.
 
And what if the 'warmers' are correct and you are wrong? That's the point, doing nothing can be cataclysmic, doing some things (being green) has a number of benefits besides the potential to protect the earth.
[/quote]

History tells us that there will be no cataclysm due to CO2. Atmospheric CO2 levels have been in excess of 7000 ppm with no runaway effect.

There isn't enough carbon on the planet to cause a runaway effect because there is no greenhouse effect in the first place.
 
Quantum physics - it's all around us...
:confused:
Quantum biology: Do weird physics effects abound in nature?
27 January 2013 - The multi-billion-dollar fragrance industry might just benefit from the ideas in quantum biology
Disappearing in one place and reappearing in another. Being in two places at once. Communicating information seemingly faster than the speed of light. This kind of weird behaviour is commonplace in dark, still laboratories studying the branch of physics called quantum mechanics, but what might it have to do with fresh flowers, migrating birds, and the smell of rotten eggs?

Welcome to the frontier of what is called quantum biology. It is still a tentative, even speculative discipline, but what scientists are learning from it might just spark revolutions in the development of new drugs, computers and perfumes - or even help in the fight against cancer. Until recently, the delicate states of matter predicted by quantum mechanics have only been accessed with the most careful experiments: isolated particles at blisteringly low temperatures or pressures approaching that of deep space.

_65539553_c0134837-chloroplast,_sem-spl.jpg

Deep within plants' energy-harvesting machinery lie distinctly quantum tricks

The idea that biology - impossibly warm, wet and messy to your average physicist - should play host to these states was almost heretical. But a few strands of evidence were bringing the idea into the mainstream, said Luca Turin of the Fleming Institute in Greece. "There are definitely three areas that have turned out to be manifestly quantum," Dr Turin told the BBC. "These three things... have dispelled the idea that quantum mechanics had nothing to say about biology."

The most established of the three is photosynthesis - the staggeringly efficient process by which plants and some bacteria build the molecules they need, using energy from sunlight. It seems to use what is called "superposition" - being seemingly in more than one place at one time. Watch the process closely enough and it appears there are little packets of energy simultaneously "trying" all of the possible paths to get where they need to go, and then settling on the most efficient. "Biology seems to have been able to use these subtle effects in a warm, wet environment and still maintain the [superposition]. How it does that we don't understand," Richard Cogdell of the University of Glasgow told the BBC.

More BBC News - Quantum biology: Do weird physics effects abound in nature?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top