Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest


Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

Previous Contests

Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest
December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020
Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Vladimir Fedorov: on 5/18/20 at 10:00am UTC, wrote Dear Ronald, I greatly appreciated your work and discussion. I am very...

Ronald Racicot: on 5/13/20 at 15:50pm UTC, wrote James Lee Hoover, I read your essay, trying to be patient to read...

James Hoover: on 5/12/20 at 6:07am UTC, wrote Ronald, Hope you have time to check mine out before the deadline:...

Michael muteru: on 5/6/20 at 7:48am UTC, wrote hi Ronald. I appreciate your questioning of QM, you have my votes.could QM...

Alan Kadin: on 5/4/20 at 11:59am UTC, wrote Dear Ron, Thank you for your comments. First, I hope that you and your...

Ronald Racicot: on 5/2/20 at 15:55pm UTC, wrote Dear Alan Kadin: Thank you so much for your posts. I’m sorry I...

Alan Kadin: on 4/28/20 at 20:11pm UTC, wrote Dear Ron, Thank you again for asking all the right questions in your...

Edwin Klingman: on 4/9/20 at 3:49am UTC, wrote Dear Ronald Racicot, It’s wonderful to see the awakening spreading. ...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Marcel-Marie LeBel: "Georgina, There is no instantaneity along the rod or within the coffee. It..." in The Nature of Time

Stefan Weckbach: "Hi Lorraine, thanks for your explanations. I think I now better..." in The Present State of...

Georgina Woodward: "Consider ice cream in hot coffee. They stay together, 'in time', as..." in The Nature of Time

Mykel Waggoner: "This is a link to a paper I wrote, as it explains how Quantum Entanglement..." in Alternative Models of...

Lorraine Ford: "Hi Stefan, Replying to your last couple of posts, this is the way I would..." in The Present State of...

Robert McEachern: ""There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in..." in Undecidability,...

Georgina Woodward: "Max? Why?" in Anatomy of spacetime and...

Steve Agnew: "Mueller opens his essay with... "As the argument goes, there are truths..." in Undecidability,...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

The Quantum Clock-Maker Investigating COVID-19, Causality, and the Trouble with AI
Sally Shrapnel, a quantum physicist and medical practitioner, on her experiments into cause-and-effect that could help us understand time’s arrow—and build better healthcare algorithms.

Connect the Quantum Dots for a New Kind of Fuel
'Artificial atoms' allow physicists to manipulate individual electrons—and could help to reduce energy wastage in electronic devices.

Can Choices Curve Spacetime?
Two teams are developing ways to detect quantum-gravitational effects in the lab.

The Quantum Engine That Simultaneously Heats and Cools
Tiny device could help boost quantum electronics.

The Quantum Refrigerator
A tiny cooling device could help rewrite the thermodynamic rule book for quantum machines.


FQXi FORUM
September 21, 2021

CATEGORY: Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest (2019-2020) [back]
TOPIC: Contradictions Between Quantum Mechanics and Conventional Physics Laws of Nature by Ronald Racicot [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Ronald Racicot wrote on Feb. 29, 2020 @ 18:27 GMT
Essay Abstract

All of the actual laws of nature can be considered to be one large system that controls all processes in our universe. Science is a means of discovering what some of these universal laws might be. For each law in this universal system that is posited or discovered, the question arises as to its truthfulness or falsity. One approach would be to compare different posited laws with each other and observe whether or not they contradict each other and under what circumstances. One area where many contradictions exist can be observed when comparing the quantum mechanics and conventional physics laws of nature. This essay briefly examines the possibility that some posited laws in quantum mechanics might be false when comparing to conventional physics with further study of experimental evidence and deeper analyses.

Author Bio

I am currently retired. I received BS degrees in engineering mathematics and chemical engineering from the University of Michigan in 1960 and MS and PhD degrees in engineering mechanics from Case Western Reserve University in 1969. I have worked as a scientist and engineer for over 45 years in the general field of engineering mechanics with emphasis on probability and statistics, stochastic processes, control theory and robotics. Much of my work involved the application of probability and stochastic theory to practical engineering problems.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share


John-Erik Persson wrote on Feb. 29, 2020 @ 21:06 GMT
Ronald

Thank you for this very intersting paper. Itis clear and easy to understand, and also well founded. The wave function for electrons is, as you say, and also like other theories in modern physics, starting with a postulate. Therefore, I ask you why have we not seen serious efforts to explain the wave function in some way as real. For instance: by assuming an ether so the wave function can perhaps represent what the electron is doing to the ether? Like a boat moving in water.

I am an engineer, not a scientist, so this question is perhaps naiv. What do you think?

With best regards from _____________________ John-Erik

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Ronald Racicot replied on Mar. 3, 2020 @ 14:48 GMT
Thanks for your post.

From all of the literature that I have read over the past 15 years, I’ve never seen an explanation of the wave function as something real. Bohr and Born define the wave function as a “probability wave.” I think that what you suggest has already been proven to be not real: the existence of an ether within which waves can propagate.

In one of Einstein’s 1905 papers, he physically demonstrated that photons are physical quantum particles. Electromagnetic waves propagating through space are made up of an ensemble of many many quantum particles interacting with each other to behave as larger waves. There’s no connection here to the quantum mechanics’ “wave function,” I don’t think.

I ask a favor from you: Could you please vote for my paper? I really want to try to get the attention of the quantum mechanics physics community if at all possible.

Bookmark and Share

John-Erik Persson replied on Mar. 16, 2020 @ 19:15 GMT
I think that we should regard the possibility that the wave function is real, and representing what a moving particles is doing to the ether.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 1, 2020 @ 11:52 GMT
Ronald, Great essay. Such heretical thoughts aren't much appreciated by judges with embedded doctrinal beliefs, but at least essayists are freer thinkers. I've identified the same before but been ignored, partly as few even understand QM's assumptions.

You'll see in my own essay we have support from John Bell, but more importantly I've identified an actual error which sent QM off track, and described a mechanistic sequence producing it's data set & Dirac equation. Few can grasp it but you have all the skills to do so, so I'll outline it here;

If we 'split' a sphere, anywhere in relation to its axis, we get North AND South polar rotation to each half. OK? But N 'leads off' one way, S the other. So 'conjugate pairs' are IDENTICAL, just opposite (THAT proves adequate for 'entanglement')! Now A & B's polariser electrons can be rotated 360o. So, when interacting with the incoming state, A & B's FINDING can be reversed by rotating the dial (by simple vector addition). So NO 'spooky action at a distance' or ANY such nonsense is required!

There was just one flaw in your analysis, as Bell showed simple spin alone CAN'T do the job. However. Consider OAM. The polar momenta are 100% rotation 0 linear. But at the equator it's 100% linear 0 rotation! so offset 90o. AND; rotational speed at any tan point changes by the COSINE OF THE LATITUDE!! (inversely with the 'curl').

Lastly; Spheres can rotate on all 3 AXES AT ONCE as this short video.. 2 more parts then gets the magical Cos2Theta. I'll let you find that in my essay. (also last years, with Declan Trail's essay giving the computer plot proof, and other papers).

If anyone is to take note or publish it it need collaboration, which I hope you may agree to join.

Very well done, and look forward to more discussion.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
post approved
Author Ronald Racicot replied on Mar. 3, 2020 @ 14:54 GMT
Thanks for such a great post. I plan on reading your essay soon and hopefully will have more to say later. I appreciate your statement about judges and physicists having doctrinal beliefs.

You did make a statement in your post which I would like to explore further. You said: “There was just one flaw in your analysis, as Bell showed simple spin alone CAN'T do the job.”

...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share

Author Ronald Racicot replied on Mar. 3, 2020 @ 15:04 GMT
Sorry, an equation didn't get printed in my last response to your post: Cos squared(Theta/2).

Ronald

Bookmark and Share

Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 26, 2020 @ 17:12 GMT
Ronald. Not 'rambling' at all, perceptive and sensible, ..but not *quite* right yet;

It was BOHR who had to 'throw out simple spin' and introduce 'quantum "spin" alongside OAM rotation as the orthogonal 2nd state in conjugate pair particles to try to resolve his analytical problem.

Bell's 'theorem' correctly showed some ERROR in Bohr assumptions, writing he thought; "the founding fathers were wrong". I've identified that if Bohr had used Maxwells orthogonal state PAIRS (Linear AND 'curl') as Poincare showed as sphere surface vectors, then he wouldn't have needed ANY weird nonsense! But you're right, Bell didn't identify where/what Bohrs error was.

So if pairs have antiparallel axes, (there will emerge our entanglement!) but random angles for each pair, the polariser electrons rotate, and we use simple vector addition at the interaction tangent point, we get output; Cos2 Theta!! A couple more steps give us the full QM data set, with NO 'action at a distance' etc! I show the full sequence in last years essay; https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3012

But of course very few have your understanding of the problem, and most that do firmly believe nature is weird!! (My previous essay showed the rotating sphere figure, and 2015 top peer scored 'Red/Green socks' essay set the basics).

By the way; Last years Trail essay verified the model with computer code and plot). https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3014

Yes of course I'll score yours, I have it down for a top score in fact, but usually read most to moderate before applying. I'm pretty sure you may think mine worth the same! I'm interested in your comments, questions, and discussing with you anyway.

Very best

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John C Hodge wrote on Mar. 1, 2020 @ 13:48 GMT
Agree:

"All of the actual laws of nature can be considered to be one large system that controls all processes in our universe. Science is a means of discovering what some of these universal laws might be. "

"My thesis in this essay is to suggest that all experimental test results that supposedly support quantum mechanics can actually be explained using conventional...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Ronald Racicot replied on Mar. 4, 2020 @ 14:08 GMT
John,

Thank you very much for your post. I appreciate your remarks.

I haven’t yet read your essay but it sounds interesting. I must admit that I’m not familiar with the different terms used in your post. And so I’m not understanding what exactly your propositions and theories are. I’ve mostly read APS papers and publications as well as most of the standard textbooks. I do sense your enthusiasm for what you call “STOE.”

In any case, since you’ve read some of my essay, I’d appreciated your casting your vote and expressing more of your opinions. Thank you very much.

Racicot

Bookmark and Share


David Brown wrote on Mar. 2, 2020 @ 12:15 GMT
"Prior to any measurement, the particle's position would just not exist!" Consider 3 questions: What is measurement? What is a particle? What is position? Does the Copenhagen Interpretation give precise answers to the 3 preceding questions? Does quantum information reduce to Fredkin-Wolfram information? Is Milgrom the Kepler of contemporary cosmology? Please google "kroupa milgrom", "mcgaugh milgrom", "sanders milgrom", "scarpa milgrom", and "witten milgrom".

According to Steven Weinberg, "It is a bad sign that those physicists today who are most comfortable with quantum mechanics do not agree with one another about what it all means."

"The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics" by Steven Weinberg, January 2017

Bookmark and Share
post approved
Author Ronald Racicot replied on Mar. 4, 2020 @ 14:10 GMT
David,

Thank you very much for your post.

I haven’t yet read your essay but it does sound interesting. I must admit that I don’t fully understand some of your terms and references. I can sense your enthusiasm though.

In any case, since you’ve read some of my essay, I’d appreciate your casting your vote and expressing more of your opinions. Thanks.

Racicot

Bookmark and Share


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Mar. 4, 2020 @ 10:14 GMT
Prof Ronald Racicot

Wonderful essay please. Simple and easy language and well written essay.

Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability are very much undesirable properties and out-comes of any theory. That theory might have developed by a very reputed person or by a group of well-educated and knowledgeable persons. There is no point of poring resources, money and highly educated man power into that theory when that theory is failing on above three points.

From your essay, I can see, that the above paragraph is applicable to quantum mechanics also!!!

In my essay just elaborated what should be the freedom available to an author when the “ real open thinking” is supported. Have a look at my essay please.

“A properly deciding, Computing and Predicting new theory’s Philosophy”

=snp.gupta

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Ronald Racicot replied on Mar. 4, 2020 @ 16:01 GMT
Dr. Gupta,

Thank you very much for your post.

I plan on looking at your essay. It’s clear to me that you have understanding of quantum mechanics. I don’t know how much we agree concerning the subject matter but we do agree that there are unresolved problems which should be looked at.

In any case, since you’ve read some of my essay, I’d appreciate your casting your vote and expressing more of your opinions. Thanks.

Ronald Racicot

Bookmark and Share

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Mar. 4, 2020 @ 21:07 GMT
Hi Sir,

Thank you for your reply.

I know a bit of quantum mechanics.

Thank you for casting vote suggestion, I will reciprocate your appriciation in voting....can you please give me your mail ID?

If you are replying any of comments I posted on your essay, I request you to post a copy or intimation that you posted reply, on my essay

“A properly deciding, Computing and Predicting new theory’s Philosophy”

also, they will intimate me,so that I can continue discussion….

Best Regards

=snp.gupta

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Mar. 4, 2020 @ 18:54 GMT
Ronald,

I agree that a rather stiff adherence to the Copenhagen interpretation seems to affect the direction of too many studies in physics and that further studies should be more open to other interpretations. I do wonder if you have a preference for a particular group explaining quantum decoherence of the other four: pilot-wave, objective collapse, many-world, or modal. I don’t think enough investigative resources have been utilized to fully analyze difference approaches. I for one have difficulty accepting all the precepts of the Copenhagen interpretation and have seen elements of some of the others I like. I realize there seems to be a certain confirmation bias for the generally accepted Copenhagen interpretation since it seems to fit observations of other macro-world theories. Are you saying that this adherence to Copenhagen is the main reason for the three “Us” we are addressing in our essays? When you make your recommendation at the end of the essay, do you have a favorite approach to a quantum mechanics study, for example, pilot-wave theory argues that particles don’t also exist as probabilistic waves, but that there are both real particles and real waves influencing how the particles move? Or do you have another version? I found you essay thought-provoking. Please check out mine.

Jim Hoover

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Ronald Racicot replied on Mar. 7, 2020 @ 14:36 GMT
Jim Hoover,

Thank you for reading my essay and for the interesting post. I plan on reading your essay soon.

You covered a lot of stuff in your post and you summarized a number of current new theories on the nature of quantum particles. To be honest, I don’t personally cater much with far out suggestions such as ‘many-worlds' where experimentation is not possible.

I spent much of my R & D career in the area of probability and stochastic processes. I became interested in quantum mechanics some 15 years or more ago when I read about the Copenhagen interpretation and Einstein’s (EPR) paper on the incompleteness of the so-called wave function. It seems like the superposition-of-probabilities was being posited to be a real object in both time and space. I couldn’t grasp the concept that a ‘probability’ could be a real object. To me, probabilities can only predict possible outcomes or events of future ‘experiments’ or ‘measurements.’ Future events aren’t real, I don’t think.

My favorite approach to QM is to consider all objects, no matter how small, to be real. To me, it’s the internal physical characteristics of a particle that leads to its point-like and wave-like behavior as it interacts with other like particles or with other forces and objects.

I’m sorry for rambling.

I’m hoping that you cast a vot

Bookmark and Share

James Lee Hoover replied on Mar. 27, 2020 @ 18:30 GMT
Ronald,

I did nicely rate yours on the 20th of March soon after I was able to see the community ratings and they extended the deadline. I am updating mine and will replace the current version soon, something I haven't done before but was told I could just once. Hope you can read it then.

Jim Hoover

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan M. Kadin wrote on Mar. 17, 2020 @ 21:59 GMT
Dear Dr. Racicot:

I read your essay with great interest.

You clearly take a realist view regarding quantum mechanics. I agree.

You might be interested in reading my essay, ”The Uncertain Future of Physics and Computing”.

My essay focuses on the central role of mathematician John von Neumann on the foundations of both quantum mechanics and computing. Most people do not realize that the entire “Hilbert space” mathematical formalism is due to von Neumann. The classic computer architecture is also due to von Neumann, even if he got much of that from Turing. During his lifetime, von Neumann’s reputation was so strong that no one ever criticized him, not even Einstein, who spent 20 years down the hall from him at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton.

I also point out that Quantum Computing is the first significant technological application that depends critically on quantum entanglement. With the billions of dollars being poured into R&D by governments, corporations, and VCs, it should become clear within a few years if this is possible. I predict that the entire field will fail completely, creating a major scandal. Only then will the physics community be willing to reconsider the foundations of QM.

Alan Kadin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Ronald Racicot wrote on Mar. 18, 2020 @ 15:28 GMT
Alan Kadin,

I was more than happy to read your post. I couldn't agree with you more. The first thing I want to do is read your essay and then write to you again.

Ron Racicot

Bookmark and Share


James Lee Hoover wrote on Mar. 28, 2020 @ 22:38 GMT
Ronald,

Wanted to let you know that I updated my essay and uploaded it a few minutes ago. Personally I feel that it is greatly improved. I did rate yours on 3/20, giving it a good rating, feeling it was one of the better ones.

Please check mine out if you have time. Such honest, No BS, reviews are needed by all of us.

Jim Hoover

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Apr. 9, 2020 @ 03:49 GMT
Dear Ronald Racicot,

It’s wonderful to see the awakening spreading. Without FQXi it would be hard to gain any traction at all, since academia locks out all mention of fundamental problems.

Physicists, as so many essays here hint at, have projected mathematical structure onto the universe and then come to believe that the physical world actually has that structure. You mention ’qubits’ for example. This offshoot of the Stern-Gerlach experiment does not fit the SG data shown on the famous Bohr-postcard, but it does fit the Pauli spin matrix structure, put into the Schrödinger equation by Pauli, and put into the Dirac equation twice! There are certainly domains in physics where the qubit is a reasonable approximation: spins in magnetic domains in solids tend to line up in one direction or the opposite, and it’s probably simpler to compute with sigmas than with 3D vectors, to obtain reasonable statistics. But when Bell erroneously projected qubits and his first equation projected A,B = +1, -1 for SG atoms, he ends up with entanglement, whereas classical spins end up with the correlation he claims is impossible.

Dirac projected space-time ‘symmetry’ [believing special relativity required it] and wound up with superluminal free particles traveling at 1.7c.

In my (well-researched) opinion, almost all of the false premises of physics boil down to structural projections that have become matters of faith.

My current essay looks at the 4D structure that Einstein/Minkowski imposed on the universe, and compares it to the (3+1)D-ontology that is the basis of energy-time theory. I hope you will read my essay Deciding on the nature of time and space and I welcome your comments.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan M. Kadin wrote on Apr. 28, 2020 @ 20:11 GMT
Dear Ron,

Thank you again for asking all the right questions in your essay.

Regarding the nature of the quantum wave, here are some other key questions:

Does quantum diffraction really prove the presence of quantum waves for all “particles”? Are all particles the same?

I argue that quantum diffraction is not classical wave diffraction at all, but rather a discrete transition that changes the momentum of the “particle” by transferring quantized momentum from the lattice or slits.

So a neutron can be a small particle on the 1-fm scale, but it can show quantum diffraction effects from a crystal lattice that would appear to require a coherent wave on the 1-nm scale. No such wave exists.

On the other hand, the electron is a true de Broglie wave packet, as shown by obeying the Schrodinger wave equation. But it, too, can produce quantum diffraction effects, even without long range wave coherence.

Similarly, the energy of a vibrating molecule is quantized, and this is usually taken to prove that the component atoms are waves. But in fact, atoms are real quasi-spherical objects undergoing classical oscillations. The energy is quantized only because transitions are mediated by photons, which themselves are quantized wave packets. Only certain classical trajectories are accessible.

If you are interested, I can give you some citations that discuss these issues.

Alan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Ronald Racicot replied on May. 2, 2020 @ 15:55 GMT
Dear Alan Kadin:

Thank you so much for your posts. I’m sorry I didn’t respond sooner but I honestly thought that the essay contest was over. I’ve been so busy with family matters during the current pandemic that I’ve just ignored FQXi stuff.

I believe that you’ve done brilliant research on studying non-magical solutions and approaches in the fields of quantum mechanics and physics in general. I would love to dig deeper into some of your approaches in the future. I support your realistic concepts of how our particular universe works without the need to introduce unexplainable magical theories such as the quantum entanglement phenomenon and the instantaneous communication of information between twin or entangled particles. I believe that quantum computing and teleportation will both flop in the future. There are purely physical explanations of all test data, so I believe.

I would just like to express a general opinion about the current state of modern physics. I think that the general physics community simply does not understand applied probability theory. This includes APS and IOP. Most physicists believe that probabilities and probability functions can exist in reality and in real time when they can only predict possible future outcomes. The Schrodinger, Bohr, Born, Heisenberg wave equation is essentially a probability function. It simply cannot exist or be attached to a real particle. There simply cannot be an infinite number of paths that an electron takes in going from one point to another in space. All quantum diffraction patterns and all field theories are based on the physical interactions of particles with each particle existing as a real object.

Thanks for listening to the rantings of an 82 year old man who loves science and the people in my life.

Good luck on all of your research,

Ron Racicot

Bookmark and Share

Alan M. Kadin replied on May. 4, 2020 @ 11:59 GMT
Dear Ron,

Thank you for your comments.

First, I hope that you and your family are doing okay during the pandemic. I am also in the midst of an active zone (New Jersey), but I am doing fine.

Second, the FQXi contest is still going on – ratings of essays will continue through May 18.

Third, what you are saying is not ranting, and your call for non-magical solutions is exactly what is needed.

That reminds me – Arthur C. Clarke once said that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. But quantum mechanics is magic even to the experts, which indicates a major problem.

My view is that quantum mechanics is overripe for a scientific revolution, and I hope to be around when that occurs (I’m 67). Future historians of science will look back and wonder how such fundamental misconceptions could have been maintained for so long, almost 100 years.

Good luck on the remainder of the contest.

Alan Kadin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Michael muteru wrote on May. 6, 2020 @ 07:48 GMT
hi Ronald. I appreciate your questioning of QM, you have my votes.could QM Copenhagen interpretation be a product of cognitive bias ?pls read here https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3525.all the best in the contest

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on May. 12, 2020 @ 06:07 GMT
Ronald,

Hope you have time to check mine out before the deadline: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3396

Jim Hoover.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Ronald Racicot replied on May. 13, 2020 @ 15:50 GMT
James Lee Hoover,

I read your essay, trying to be patient to read all of it slowly and really trying to understand its meaning. A lot of it seemed like poetry. I have to admit that I thought your writing skills were excellent but some of the writing was beyond my ability to understand what you were personally trying to show and what was your overall thesis.

I did give your essay a good rating.

Ron Racicot

Bookmark and Share


Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on May. 18, 2020 @ 10:00 GMT
Dear Ronald,

I greatly appreciated your work and discussion. I am very glad that you are not thinking in abstract patterns.

"This essay briefly examines the possibility that some posited laws in quantum mechanics might be false when comparing to conventional physics with further study of experimental evidence and deeper analyses".

While the discussion lasted, I wrote an article: “Practical guidance on calculating resonant frequencies at four levels of diagnosis and inactivation of COVID-19 coronavirus”, due to the high relevance of this topic. The work is based on the practical solution of problems in quantum mechanics, presented in the essay FQXi 2019-2020 “Universal quantum laws of the universe to solve the problems of unsolvability, computability and unpredictability”.

I hope that my modest results of work will provide you with information for thought.

Warm Regards, `

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.