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

Journal of Modern Physics

Principles of Constructing a Correct Microscopic Theory

B. V. Vasiliev

Published Jan 1, 2020• 2 citations
Publisher

Abstract

In our time, experimental physicists have obtained data on a very large number of phenomena and objects of the physical world. Very rarely there is a situation when theoretical physicists do not have enough experimental data to understand some known fundamental law of Nature. This situation arose almost a hundred years ago and sparked a discussion between A. Einstein and N. Bohr on the probabilistic nature of microcosm phenomena. From the time, it seemed that most physicists are inclined to believe that the proponents of a quantum explanation of the randomness of the phenomena of radioactive decay are right. Now this problem has been solved experimentally. The results of these measurements [1] show that A. Einstein and other proponents of determinism were right. In most cases, theoretical models are based on some already existing experimental data and are intended to explain them. At the same time, in the twentieth century, among microscopic, well-mathematically based models, there were several that raise doubts about their correctness, since they cannot explain a number of other experimental data that can be attributed to the fundamentally important properties of the studied objects [2] [3]. Therefore, the usual criterion for the correctness of the theory, which consists of its agreement with the measurement data, is ambiguous in this case. An additional criterion for the correctness of a microscopic theory can be formulated if it is assumed that the microscopic theory must be quantum one. The coefficients of quantum equations are world constants. Therefore, the solutions of these equations must be equalities made up of world constants only. For this reason, a correct microscopic model must rely on equalities consisting of world constants only. This criterion is shown to work successfully for models of superfluidity and superconductivity, for models of a number of particles, and models of the star interior.

DOI
10.4236/jmp.2020.116055

Related papers

Two basic criteria for the correctness of microscopic theory

B. V. Vasiliev

The first important criterion for the correctness of the theory, which is commonly called Gilbert’s principle, is its confirmation by experimental data. To date, experimental physicists have studied the properties of a very large number of objects and phenomena of the physical world. Therefore, the lack of experimental data that are important for understanding the fundamental laws of Nature is very rare. Such a lack of measurement data caused the long-term discussion between A. Einstein and N. Bohr. Almost a hundred years ago, they and their colleagues actively discussed the role of chance in the microcosm. Since then, the opinion of the creators of quantum mechanics that radioactive decay is a purely random phenomenon had taken root. However, the majority of the physical community leaned towards this view as a result of some implicit vote without relying on measurement data. Therefore, checking the correctness of the solution to this problem required a focused experimental study. Recent results of the study of the phenomenon of beta-decay [18] have shown its forced nature, i.e., the correctness of the proponents of determinism. However, theoretical models are usually based on existing experimental data and create to explain them. Therefore, they satisfy this data, so to speak, automatically. But among the theories created in the twentieth century, there are some that are well developed mathematically, but can not explain several other properties of the objects under study [9],[14]. In this case, the application of Gilbert’s principle is ambiguous. Therefore, an additional criterion is needed to determine the correctness of the microscopic theory. Since microscopic theories must rely on the equations of quantum mechanics, the coefficients of which are world constants, then the solutions of these equations must be consisting of these constants. Thus, we can formulate an additional criterion for the correctness of the microscopic theory: it should be based on relations consisting only of fundamental constants. The correctness of this criterion is seen in the work of models of superfluidity and superconductivity, models of several particles and models of the interior of stars.

•Dec 31, 2020•0 citations

Conclusion

Vladimir B. Braginsky, Farid Ya Khalili, Kip S. Thorne

The background for this book was a shift of interest among experimental physicists that began approximately 20 years ago. The shift was from quantum measurements on large ensembles of microscopic quantum objects, to experiments of very high precision on single, macroscopic objects. This shift was accompanied by developments in the “culture” of such measurements and the invention and elaboration of new experimental methods. In parallel with these experimental developments, there was a noticeable increase of theoretical interest in the foundations and interpretation of quantum theory, and even in attempts to revise its foundational principles. Although these efforts have not produced any significant changes in the fundamental structure of quantum theory, they have revealed a rather large number of “blank spots” and unsolved problems, to which the founders of quantum physics had paid no attention. A reasonable number of the blank spots have been filled in during the past decade. The reader has probably noticed that this book can be divided into two parts. In the first (chapters I―VII and XI), the authors have tried to present the modern approach to the quantum theory of measurement. This part can be regarded as a tutorial appendix to textbooks for advanced undergraduate or graduate-level courses in quantum mechanics, where little attention is usually paid to measurement theory.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Sep 24, 1992•0 citations

How the Theory of Superconductivity Was Able to Describe the Macroscopic Quantum Phenomena. The Correspondence Principle and Landau's Postulate

А. В. Никулов

•Jan 1, 2023•0 citations

A quantum perspective: an analogy for a GP worldview?

John Goldie

A DIFFERENT PARADIGM At the beginning of the 20th century many physicists felt there was little left to uncover. 1 It took the genius of Albert Einstein to challenge the prevailing Newtonian laws of motion.Einstein showed that what was thought to be inherent in phenomena was merely a manifestation of how we chose to talk about them.Relativity reveals an integrated and dynamic universe.Time, for example, is not absolute, but part of the fabric of the universe and relative to observer perspective.The faster an observer travels, the slower time passes relative to the perspective of one travelling at slower velocity.Einstein was also pivotal in the development of quantum theory, which successfully predicts the workings of subatomic particles.Quantum theory successfully explains all of chemistry and most of physics, and has enabled the development of important resources such as computers, electron microscopes, and MRI scanners.Many of quantum theory's fundamental features hint at an underlying reality that is probabilistic and not fully knowable.Wave-particle duality, for example, demonstrated that every elementary particle can be described in terms of both a particle and a wave.Another fundamental, first captured in Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, 2 demonstrated that observation of the quantum world alters its qualities.Quantum objects seem to exist in many different states at one time, only being forced to collapse and adopt definite states by the act of measurement, which is encapsulated in Schrödinger's formula.3 Both relativity and quantum theories changed how we look at the world.Both recognise that cause and effect is not always linear and our view of the world is inherently biased.They were built mathematically on thought experiments and partially confirmed by empirical findings.Gödel's incompleteness theorem, which showed that mathematical-based theory will always be incomplete, 4 and the uncertainty principle illustrate fundamental limitations to our abilities to understand and predict the universe.This is perhaps unsurprising as our brains have evolved to observe and rationalise the physical world from the perspective of living on Earth.In addition, our right brain enables us to view the world as dynamic, interconnected, and implicit, and to accept that things may never be fully known.5

British Journal of General Practice•Apr 27, 2017•1 citation

How the Theory of Superconductivity Was Able to Describe the Macroscopic Quantum Phenomena. The Correspondence Principle and Landau's Postulate

А. В. Никулов

•Jan 1, 2023•0 citations

Physical laws for small particles

Yuval Ne’eman, Yoram Kirsh

Along with the exciting experiments that changed the face of physics in the twentieth century, work proceeded feverishly on the theoretical side to rebuild the conceptual world that had been severely shaken. Sometimes the theorists lagged behind the experimentalists, and certain experimental results waited for several years to be explained. And sometimes experiment lagged behind theory, and a new theoretical model waited for years to be verified experimentally. Two great theories left their mark on physics in this century: the theory of relativity, and quantum mechanics. In this chapter we shall briefly review the main ideas of these theories which are vital for the understanding of the atomic world. The theory of relativity The theory of relativity was formulated by the great physicist Albert Einstein. The first part of it (and the important one for us) — the special theory of relativity — was published in 1905, and sprang from the need to explain a puzzling question that exercised the physicists of the nineteenth century: why was it impossible to alter the speed of light, which remained constant (299 792.5 kilometres per second) even when the detector was moving relative to the source of light? In contrast to other physicists, Einstein did not try to explain this phenomenon.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Apr 4, 1996•0 citations
In our time, experimental physicists have obtained data on a very large number of phenomena and objects of the physical world. Very rarely there is a situation when theoretical physicists do not have enough experimental data to understand some known fundamental law of Nature. This situation arose almost a hundred years ago and sparked a discussion between A. Einstein and N. Bohr on the probabilistic nature of microcosm phenomena. From the time, it seemed that most physicists are inclined to believe that the proponents of a quantum explanation of the randomness of the phenomena of radioactive decay are right. Now this problem has been solved experimentally. The results of these measurements [1] show that A. Einstein and other proponents of determinism were right. In most cases, theoretical models are based on some already existing experimental data and are intended to explain them. At the same time, in the twentieth century, among microscopic, well-mathematically based models, there were several that raise doubts about their correctness, since they cannot explain a number of other experimental data that can be attributed to the fundamentally important properties of the studied objects [2] [3]. Therefore, the usual criterion for the correctness of the theory, which consists of its agreement with the measurement data, is ambiguous in this case. An additional criterion for the correctness of a microscopic theory can be formulated if it is assumed that the microscopic theory must be quantum one. The coefficients of quantum equations are world constants. Therefore, the solutions of these equations must be equalities made up of world constants only. For this reason, a correct microscopic model must rely on equalities consisting of world constants only. This criterion is shown to work successfully for models of superfluidity and superconductivity, for models of a number of particles, and models of the star interior.
The first important criterion for the correctness of the theory, which is commonly called Gilbert’s principle, is its confirmation by experimental data. To date, experimental physicists have studied the properties of a very large number of objects and phenomena of the physical world. Therefore, the lack of experimental data that are important for understanding the fundamental laws of Nature is very rare. Such a lack of measurement data caused the long-term discussion between A. Einstein and N. Bohr. Almost a hundred years ago, they and their colleagues actively discussed the role of chance in the microcosm. Since then, the opinion of the creators of quantum mechanics that radioactive decay is a purely random phenomenon had taken root. However, the majority of the physical community leaned towards this view as a result of some implicit vote without relying on measurement data. Therefore, checking the correctness of the solution to this problem required a focused experimental study. Recent results of the study of the phenomenon of beta-decay [18] have shown its forced nature, i.e., the correctness of the proponents of determinism. However, theoretical models are usually based on existing experimental data and create to explain them. Therefore, they satisfy this data, so to speak, automatically. But among the theories created in the twentieth century, there are some that are well developed mathematically, but can not explain several other properties of the objects under study [9],[14]. In this case, the application of Gilbert’s principle is ambiguous. Therefore, an additional criterion is needed to determine the correctness of the microscopic theory. Since microscopic theories must rely on the equations of quantum mechanics, the coefficients of which are world constants, then the solutions of these equations must be consisting of these constants. Thus, we can formulate an additional criterion for the correctness of the microscopic theory: it should be based on relations consisting only of fundamental constants. The correctness of this criterion is seen in the work of models of superfluidity and superconductivity, models of several particles and models of the interior of stars.
The background for this book was a shift of interest among experimental physicists that began approximately 20 years ago. The shift was from quantum measurements on large ensembles of microscopic quantum objects, to experiments of very high precision on single, macroscopic objects. This shift was accompanied by developments in the “culture” of such measurements and the invention and elaboration of new experimental methods. In parallel with these experimental developments, there was a noticeable increase of theoretical interest in the foundations and interpretation of quantum theory, and even in attempts to revise its foundational principles. Although these efforts have not produced any significant changes in the fundamental structure of quantum theory, they have revealed a rather large number of “blank spots” and unsolved problems, to which the founders of quantum physics had paid no attention. A reasonable number of the blank spots have been filled in during the past decade. The reader has probably noticed that this book can be divided into two parts. In the first (chapters I―VII and XI), the authors have tried to present the modern approach to the quantum theory of measurement. This part can be regarded as a tutorial appendix to textbooks for advanced undergraduate or graduate-level courses in quantum mechanics, where little attention is usually paid to measurement theory.
A DIFFERENT PARADIGM At the beginning of the 20th century many physicists felt there was little left to uncover. 1 It took the genius of Albert Einstein to challenge the prevailing Newtonian laws of motion.Einstein showed that what was thought to be inherent in phenomena was merely a manifestation of how we chose to talk about them.Relativity reveals an integrated and dynamic universe.Time, for example, is not absolute, but part of the fabric of the universe and relative to observer perspective.The faster an observer travels, the slower time passes relative to the perspective of one travelling at slower velocity.Einstein was also pivotal in the development of quantum theory, which successfully predicts the workings of subatomic particles.Quantum theory successfully explains all of chemistry and most of physics, and has enabled the development of important resources such as computers, electron microscopes, and MRI scanners.Many of quantum theory's fundamental features hint at an underlying reality that is probabilistic and not fully knowable.Wave-particle duality, for example, demonstrated that every elementary particle can be described in terms of both a particle and a wave.Another fundamental, first captured in Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, 2 demonstrated that observation of the quantum world alters its qualities.Quantum objects seem to exist in many different states at one time, only being forced to collapse and adopt definite states by the act of measurement, which is encapsulated in Schrödinger's formula.3 Both relativity and quantum theories changed how we look at the world.Both recognise that cause and effect is not always linear and our view of the world is inherently biased.They were built mathematically on thought experiments and partially confirmed by empirical findings.Gödel's incompleteness theorem, which showed that mathematical-based theory will always be incomplete, 4 and the uncertainty principle illustrate fundamental limitations to our abilities to understand and predict the universe.This is perhaps unsurprising as our brains have evolved to observe and rationalise the physical world from the perspective of living on Earth.In addition, our right brain enables us to view the world as dynamic, interconnected, and implicit, and to accept that things may never be fully known.5
Along with the exciting experiments that changed the face of physics in the twentieth century, work proceeded feverishly on the theoretical side to rebuild the conceptual world that had been severely shaken. Sometimes the theorists lagged behind the experimentalists, and certain experimental results waited for several years to be explained. And sometimes experiment lagged behind theory, and a new theoretical model waited for years to be verified experimentally. Two great theories left their mark on physics in this century: the theory of relativity, and quantum mechanics. In this chapter we shall briefly review the main ideas of these theories which are vital for the understanding of the atomic world. The theory of relativity The theory of relativity was formulated by the great physicist Albert Einstein. The first part of it (and the important one for us) — the special theory of relativity — was published in 1905, and sprang from the need to explain a puzzling question that exercised the physicists of the nineteenth century: why was it impossible to alter the speed of light, which remained constant (299 792.5 kilometres per second) even when the detector was moving relative to the source of light? In contrast to other physicists, Einstein did not try to explain this phenomenon.