Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing eBooks

Oblivions and Flaws in Quantum Physics and Some Alternatives

Mirwais Rashid

Published Feb 13, 2018• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

One critic of Quantum Physics was, reportedly, Albert Einstein, to whom this quote is ascribed: “Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the 'old one'. I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice”. In this booklet, criticisms towards some claims of some Nobel Prize Laureates in Physics, such as Max Planck, Louis de Broglie, Erwin Schrodinger, Max Born, Werner Heisenberg, Paul Dirac, Richard Feynman, Gerardus 't Hooft, are explained with detailed math.'s physical descriptions as to where these famous physicists were wrong. In Chapter 1 of this booklet it is shown that Maxwell's equations and Classic Physics, can explain some of the phenomena such as the Photoelectric Effect satisfyingly. In Chapter 2 it is explained that, though well encouraging, still taking the Nobel Prizes' money would be unethical and immoral, since that money was initially earned by the sale of dynamite which was also used, unfortunately, for killings. Justice would have been if that money would have been given to its victims or to their surviving families.

Related papers

Introduction

Sandro Petruccioli

‘Quantum mechanics is very impressive. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory produces a good deal but hardly brings us closer to the secret of the Old One’. These views were contained in a letter written by Albert Einstein to Max Born in December 1926. Though the following year would see the completion of work on the theoretical foundation of the modern physics of atoms and particles, Einstein was never to change his judgement and remained firmly convinced that ‘this business […] contains some unreasonableness’. He was unwilling to sacrifice his own ideas as to the cognitive scope of science even in the face of the important results being achieved by the new theory. To the undeterministic findings of quantum mechanics he opposed his belief in the ‘possibility of giving a model of reality, a theory, that is to say, which shall represent events themselves and not merely the probability of their occurrence’. For this reason he chose to live with the isolation of his scepticism and dissent, ironically accepting the reputation as a obstinate heretic that he had won over the years among his colleagues, and worked to the end on his own research programme to develop a unified field theory of rigorously causal nature. As is generally known, Einstein carried on a strong scientific and philosophical dispute with the defenders of the so-called official interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Nov 18, 1993•0 citations

Quantum jumps

Tony Hey, Patrick Walters

We always have had a great deal of difficulty in understanding the world view that quantum mechanics represents. At least I do, because I'm an old enough man that I haven't got to the point that this stuff is obvious to me … It has not yet become obvious to me that there is no real problem. I cannot define the real problem, therefore I suspect there is no real problem, but I'm not sure there's no real problem. Richard Feynman Max Born and quantum probabilities In this chapter, we will take a short break from our survey of successful applications of quantum mechanics to take a closer look at the foundations of this great edifice of modern physics. In a sense, we are now disobeying Feynman's warning about the results of the double slit experiment of chapter 1. We shall now ask Feynman's ‘forbidden’ question ‘But how can it be like that?’ Nobody disputes that quantum mechanics has been magnificently successful, enabling us to make correct quantitative calculations of atomic and nuclear effects. But there is a great divergence of opinion about the implications of quantum mechanics for the nature of matter, and indeed, of reality itself. To avoid becoming embroiled in a purely philosophical mire, we will focus on two famous paradoxes. The first of these is the ‘Einstein–Podolsky-Rosen’ paradox, named after its originators Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen, and usually abbreviated by the initials ‘EPR’. The second paradox is named after ‘Schrödinger's cat’.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Oct 23, 2003•0 citations

Quantum Theory

Sven Larsson

Toward the end of the nineteenth century, it became clear that some experiments cannot be explained on the basis of known physics, now referred to as classical physics. In 1900, Max Planck was able to correctly describe the distribution of blackbody radiation energy as a function of wavelength λ or frequency ν = c/λ. He had to accept the existence of energy packets (quanta) with energy E = hν. A few years later, Albert Einstein found that this unexpected relation between energy and frequency is also necessary in order to understand photoemission from metallic surfaces. A decade later, Niels Bohr arrived at the correct equation for the electronic spectrum of the hydrogen atom by applying “quantum conditions” on the motion of the electron around the nucleus and the Planck’s relation E = hν on the energy difference between the energy levels (1916). A decade later, Heisenberg, Born, and Jordan introduced “quantum mechanics” and de Broglie and Schrödinger (1925-1926) introduced “wave mechanics.”

CRC Press eBooks•Jan 26, 2012•0 citations

Baccy and quanta

Walter B. Gratzer

Abstract Although quantum theory had its origins in Albert Einstein’s work on the photoelectric effect (for which, and not for relativity, he received the Nobel Prize), its indeterminacy was something Einstein could never accept. This was the origin of his famous assertion that the Lord does not play dice. If the Universe was ruled by chance, he said, he would rather be a croupier in a gambling casino than a physicist. Einstein [161] was not alone in his epistemological distaste. In 1913, two future winners of the Nobel Prize, Einstein’s then assistant, Otto Stern [6| and Max von Laue [112], while on a walk up the Utliberg near Zurich, shook hands on an oath, contemptuously dubbed by Wolfgang Pauli [25] the Utlischwur (an allusion to William Tell’s Rutlischwur—the oath that led to the union of the Swiss cantons): ‘If this nonsense of Bohr’s should in the end prove right we will leave physics.’ (They of course reneged.)

•Sep 26, 2002•0 citations

Matter and Field

Ana Marı́a Cetto, Luis de la Peña

Chapter 2 explains how in constructing quantum mechanics, old ideas had to be discarded and well-established principles had to be modified or even abandoned. First it was necessary to be convinced of the physical reality of the atomic structure of matter; then to show that Newtonian mechanics is not directly applicable to the study of the atom; later to show that Maxwell’s electrodynamics alone does not describe all the elementary processes of interaction between an atom and other quantum particles. The chapter takes us from Planck’s energy quantum to Einstein’s quantization as a universal phenomenon, from Bohr’s quantum atom model, and the early quantization rules, to de Broglie’s waves associated with corpuscles in motion. It ends with a corollary on the electrodynamic nature of quantum mechanics.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Dec 18, 2025•0 citations

A Survivor’s Guide to Quantum Physics

Jean Louis Van Belle

As a pointer, and a service to other amateur physicists, I thought it would be useful to sum up the main pitfalls and discoveries I stumbled upon while working my way through Feynman’s Lectures. I call it a Survivor’s Guide to Quantum Physics because – at times – it did feel like going through a jungle, or wading through deep water, or climbing a mountain for which there is no map. Indeed, while there is a tendency to present quantum physics as a coherent set of principles and theory, it is not. At best, it is a toolbox with some novel mathematical techniques, approaches and models. At worst, it tries to present itself as an alternative to classical physics, which it is not. Quantum physics is, in essence, a combination of Maxwell’s equations and the Planck-Einstein relation. That is it. Nothing more. Nothing less. In the QED sector, at least. The one and only quantum is Planck’s quantum of (physical) action, and its physical dimension – a force times a distance times a period (cycle time) – is, unfortunately, not always well understood by those who are supposed to understand it – which is why there is a lot of nonsense around. In short, we hope this short paper might help you to avoid the mistakes I made, and that is to waste time on things you should not waste time on: stuff that is not useful, or plain wrong even. And then I will also try to highlight the little shortcuts or visualizations that may help you to get a much more intuitive grasp of things.

•Oct 1, 2020•0 citations
One critic of Quantum Physics was, reportedly, Albert Einstein, to whom this quote is ascribed: “Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the 'old one'. I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice”. In this booklet, criticisms towards some claims of some Nobel Prize Laureates in Physics, such as Max Planck, Louis de Broglie, Erwin Schrodinger, Max Born, Werner Heisenberg, Paul Dirac, Richard Feynman, Gerardus 't Hooft, are explained with detailed math.'s physical descriptions as to where these famous physicists were wrong. In Chapter 1 of this booklet it is shown that Maxwell's equations and Classic Physics, can explain some of the phenomena such as the Photoelectric Effect satisfyingly. In Chapter 2 it is explained that, though well encouraging, still taking the Nobel Prizes' money would be unethical and immoral, since that money was initially earned by the sale of dynamite which was also used, unfortunately, for killings. Justice would have been if that money would have been given to its victims or to their surviving families.
‘Quantum mechanics is very impressive. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory produces a good deal but hardly brings us closer to the secret of the Old One’. These views were contained in a letter written by Albert Einstein to Max Born in December 1926. Though the following year would see the completion of work on the theoretical foundation of the modern physics of atoms and particles, Einstein was never to change his judgement and remained firmly convinced that ‘this business […] contains some unreasonableness’. He was unwilling to sacrifice his own ideas as to the cognitive scope of science even in the face of the important results being achieved by the new theory. To the undeterministic findings of quantum mechanics he opposed his belief in the ‘possibility of giving a model of reality, a theory, that is to say, which shall represent events themselves and not merely the probability of their occurrence’. For this reason he chose to live with the isolation of his scepticism and dissent, ironically accepting the reputation as a obstinate heretic that he had won over the years among his colleagues, and worked to the end on his own research programme to develop a unified field theory of rigorously causal nature. As is generally known, Einstein carried on a strong scientific and philosophical dispute with the defenders of the so-called official interpretation of quantum mechanics.
We always have had a great deal of difficulty in understanding the world view that quantum mechanics represents. At least I do, because I'm an old enough man that I haven't got to the point that this stuff is obvious to me … It has not yet become obvious to me that there is no real problem. I cannot define the real problem, therefore I suspect there is no real problem, but I'm not sure there's no real problem. Richard Feynman Max Born and quantum probabilities In this chapter, we will take a short break from our survey of successful applications of quantum mechanics to take a closer look at the foundations of this great edifice of modern physics. In a sense, we are now disobeying Feynman's warning about the results of the double slit experiment of chapter 1. We shall now ask Feynman's ‘forbidden’ question ‘But how can it be like that?’ Nobody disputes that quantum mechanics has been magnificently successful, enabling us to make correct quantitative calculations of atomic and nuclear effects. But there is a great divergence of opinion about the implications of quantum mechanics for the nature of matter, and indeed, of reality itself. To avoid becoming embroiled in a purely philosophical mire, we will focus on two famous paradoxes. The first of these is the ‘Einstein–Podolsky-Rosen’ paradox, named after its originators Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen, and usually abbreviated by the initials ‘EPR’. The second paradox is named after ‘Schrödinger's cat’.
Toward the end of the nineteenth century, it became clear that some experiments cannot be explained on the basis of known physics, now referred to as classical physics. In 1900, Max Planck was able to correctly describe the distribution of blackbody radiation energy as a function of wavelength λ or frequency ν = c/λ. He had to accept the existence of energy packets (quanta) with energy E = hν. A few years later, Albert Einstein found that this unexpected relation between energy and frequency is also necessary in order to understand photoemission from metallic surfaces. A decade later, Niels Bohr arrived at the correct equation for the electronic spectrum of the hydrogen atom by applying “quantum conditions” on the motion of the electron around the nucleus and the Planck’s relation E = hν on the energy difference between the energy levels (1916). A decade later, Heisenberg, Born, and Jordan introduced “quantum mechanics” and de Broglie and Schrödinger (1925-1926) introduced “wave mechanics.”
Abstract Although quantum theory had its origins in Albert Einstein’s work on the photoelectric effect (for which, and not for relativity, he received the Nobel Prize), its indeterminacy was something Einstein could never accept. This was the origin of his famous assertion that the Lord does not play dice. If the Universe was ruled by chance, he said, he would rather be a croupier in a gambling casino than a physicist. Einstein [161] was not alone in his epistemological distaste. In 1913, two future winners of the Nobel Prize, Einstein’s then assistant, Otto Stern [6| and Max von Laue [112], while on a walk up the Utliberg near Zurich, shook hands on an oath, contemptuously dubbed by Wolfgang Pauli [25] the Utlischwur (an allusion to William Tell’s Rutlischwur—the oath that led to the union of the Swiss cantons): ‘If this nonsense of Bohr’s should in the end prove right we will leave physics.’ (They of course reneged.)
Chapter 2 explains how in constructing quantum mechanics, old ideas had to be discarded and well-established principles had to be modified or even abandoned. First it was necessary to be convinced of the physical reality of the atomic structure of matter; then to show that Newtonian mechanics is not directly applicable to the study of the atom; later to show that Maxwell’s electrodynamics alone does not describe all the elementary processes of interaction between an atom and other quantum particles. The chapter takes us from Planck’s energy quantum to Einstein’s quantization as a universal phenomenon, from Bohr’s quantum atom model, and the early quantization rules, to de Broglie’s waves associated with corpuscles in motion. It ends with a corollary on the electrodynamic nature of quantum mechanics.
As a pointer, and a service to other amateur physicists, I thought it would be useful to sum up the main pitfalls and discoveries I stumbled upon while working my way through Feynman’s Lectures. I call it a Survivor’s Guide to Quantum Physics because – at times – it did feel like going through a jungle, or wading through deep water, or climbing a mountain for which there is no map. Indeed, while there is a tendency to present quantum physics as a coherent set of principles and theory, it is not. At best, it is a toolbox with some novel mathematical techniques, approaches and models. At worst, it tries to present itself as an alternative to classical physics, which it is not. Quantum physics is, in essence, a combination of Maxwell’s equations and the Planck-Einstein relation. That is it. Nothing more. Nothing less. In the QED sector, at least. The one and only quantum is Planck’s quantum of (physical) action, and its physical dimension – a force times a distance times a period (cycle time) – is, unfortunately, not always well understood by those who are supposed to understand it – which is why there is a lot of nonsense around. In short, we hope this short paper might help you to avoid the mistakes I made, and that is to waste time on things you should not waste time on: stuff that is not useful, or plain wrong even. And then I will also try to highlight the little shortcuts or visualizations that may help you to get a much more intuitive grasp of things.