In physics, we construct idealized mathematical models in order to explain various phenomena which we observe or create in our laboratories. In this article, I recall how sophisticated mathematical models evolved from the concept of a number created thousands of years ago, and I discuss some challenges and open questions in quantum foundations and in the Standard Model. We liberated nuclear energy, landed on the Moon and built 'quantum computers'. Encouraged by these successes, many believe that when we reconcile general relativity with quantum theory we will have the correct theory of everything. Perhaps we should be much humbler. Our perceptions of reality are biased by our senses and by our brain, bending them to meet our priors and expectations. Our abstract mathematical models describe only in an approximate way different layers of physical reality. To describe the motion of a meteorite, we can use a concept of a material point, but the point-like approximation breaks completely when the meteorite hits the Earth. Similarly, thermodynamic, chemical, molecular, atomic, nuclear and elementary particle layers of physical reality are described using specific abstract mathematical models and approximations. In my opinion, the theory of everything does not exist.
In physics, we construct idealized mathematical models in order to explain various phenomena which we observe or create in our laboratories. In this article, I recall how sophisticated mathematical models evolved from the concept of a number created thousands of years ago, and I discuss some challenges and open questions in quantum foundations and in the Standard Model. We liberated nuclear energy, landed on the Moon and built 'quantum computers'. Encouraged by these successes, many believe that when we reconcile general relativity with quantum theory we will have the correct theory of everything. Perhaps we should be much humbler. Our perceptions of reality are biased by our senses and by our brain, bending them to meet our priors and expectations. Our abstract mathematical models describe only in an approximate way different layers of physical reality. To describe the motion of a meteorite, we can use a concept of a material point, but the point-like approximation breaks completely when the meteorite hits the Earth. Similarly, thermodynamic, chemical, molecular, atomic, nuclear and elementary particle layers of physical reality are described using specific abstract mathematical models and approximations. In my opinion, the theory of everything does not exist.
Abstract Quantum mechanics (QM) has led to spectacular technological developments, including the discovery of new constituents of matter and new materials: however, there is still no consensus regarding its interpretation and limitations. Some scientists and scientific writers promote some exotic interpretations and evoke quantum magic. In this paper we point out that magical explanations mean the end of the science. Magical explanations are misleading and counterproductive. We explain how a simple probabilistic local causal model is able to reproduce quantum correlations in Bell tests. We also discuss the difficulties of mathematical modeling of the physical reality and dangers of incorrect mental images. We examine in detail when and how a probabilistic model may completely describe a random experiment. We give some arguments in favor of the contextual statistical interpretation of QM. We conclude that we still do not know whether quantum theory provides a complete description of physical phenomena and we explain how it may be tested. We also point out, that there remain several open questions and challenges in QM, in quantum field theory and in the Standard Model. Moreover, there is still no consensus about how to reconcile quantum theory with general relativity and cosmology.
Many attempts have been made at the unification of General Relativity (GR) and Quantum Theory (QT), but there is a fundamental error made with these attempts, as we will discuss. What is the point of such theories? Well, obviously to describe the physical world we live in. QT describes what happens on the tiny scale, and GR describes what happens to bodies on a large scale. The fundamental error in unifying the two subjects is that QT doesn’t provide the physical happenings for GR to work, or in other words, QT describes why the world is the way it is, but not how, and this does not philosophically suffice in GR. Must we simply give up, in that the subjects are two different entities? I think the answer is that we mustn't. I think that we should put one theory in terms of the basic mechanics of the other, perhaps by simplifying, or perhaps by taking the physical reality to be our guide. Do I believe QT describes the world? Accurately. Do I believe that QT is the physical truth? Of course not… it is simply a mathematical construct to provide a model that allows for us to predict future outcomes. I will begin very simplistic, but the goal for the first part of the paper is to Classically describe the physical mechanics of QT. I will stick with particles in their ground state, and hence no translational motion.
When we consider and analyze physical events with the purpose of creating corresponding mathematical models we often assume that the mathematical apparatus used in modeling, at least the simplest mathematical apparatus, is infallible. In particular, this relates to the use of infinitely small and infinitely large numbers in arithmetic and the use of Newton's definition of a limit in analysis. We believe that is where the main problem lies in contemporary study of nature (physics, genetics). We have introduced a new concept of “Observer's Mathematics—Mathematics of Relativity” (see references). Observer's mathematics creates new arithmetic, algebra, geometry, topology, analysis and logic which do not contain the concept of continuum, but locally coincide with the standard fields. The concept of a quantum arises automatically from the human thought process, rather than from physics. From this point of view classical mechanics is brought closer to quantum mechanics.
This paper re-opens the debate on the failure of quantum mechanics to provide an understandable view of micro-reality. A critique is offered of the commonly accepted ‘Copenhagen Interpretation’ of a theory that is only a mathematical approach to the level of reality characterized by atoms and electrons. This critique is based on the oldest approach to thinking about nature for over 2500 years, known as Natural Philosophy. Quantum mechanics (QM) was developed over the first quarter of the 20th Century, when scientists were enthralled by a new philosophy known as Positivism, whose foundations were based on the assumption that material objects exist only when measured by humans – this central assumption conflates epistemology (knowledge) with ontology (existence). The present critique rejects this human-centered view of reality by assuming material reality has existed long before (and will persist long after) human beings (“Realism”). The defensive view that the micro-world is too different to understand using regular thinking (and only a mathematical approach is possible) is rejected totally. At least 12 earlier QM interpretations are critically analyzed, indicating the broad interest in “what does QM mean?” The standard theory of quantum mechanics is thus constructed on only how the micro-world appears to macro measurements - as such, it cannot offer any view of how the foundations of the world are acting when humans are not observing it - this has generated almost 100 years of confusion and contradiction at the very heart of physics. Significantly, we live in a world that is not being measured by scientists but is interacting with itself and with us. QM has failed to provide explanations: only recipes (meaningless equations), not insights. Physics has returned to the pre-Newtonian world of Ptolemaic phenomenology: only verifiable numbers without real understanding. The focus needs to be on an explicit linkage between the micro-world, when left to itself, and our mental models of this sphere of material reality, via the mechanism of measurement. This limits the role of measurement to confirming our mental models of reality but never confusing these with a direct image of ‘the thing in itself’. This implies a deep divide between reality and appearances, as Kant suggested. This paper includes an original analysis of several major assumptions that have been implicit in Classical Mechanics (CM) that were acceptable in the macroscopic domain of reality, demonstrated by its proven successes. Unfortunately, only a few of these assumptions were challenged by the developers of QM. We now show that these other assumptions are still generating confusions in the interpretation of QM and blocking further progress in the understanding of the microscopic domain. Several of these flawed assumptions were introduced by Newton to support the use of continuum mathematics as a model of nature. This paper proposes that it is the attempt to preserve continuum mathematics (especially calculus), which drives much of the mystery and confusion behind all attempts at understanding quantum mechanics. The introduction of discrete mathematics is proposed to help analyze the discrete interactions between the quintessential quantum objects: the electrons and their novel properties. A related paper demonstrates that it is possible to create a point-particle theory of electrons that explains all their peculiar (and ‘paradoxical’) behavior using only physical hypotheses and discrete mathematics without introducing the continuum mathematical ideas of fields or waves. Another (related) paper proves that all the known results for the hydrogen atom can also be exactly calculated from this new perspective with the discrete mathematics. * Surrey, B.C. Canada (604) 542-2299 spsi99@telus.net Version 2.015 08-05-2017 Begun 23-06-2008 {pp. 82, 70.2 Kw; 800 KB}
Do we have two kinds of reality: physical and mathematical? What is the role of mathematics in physics? These fundamental questions have intrigued original and brilliant minds since ancient times. A recent article (Aharonov, Cohen and Oaknin, arXiv:1902.08798) offers a viewpoint on the use of abstract mathematics in quantum theory. They argue that, in some cases, it may result into a paradox focusing on an example in quantum mechanics regarding Aharonov-Bergmann-Lebowitz (ABL) rule. In this comment we discuss three issues: theory reduction and approximation, origin of a paradox, and the reality of time. It is pointed out that paradoxes appear even in mathematics; we explain them as the results of the acceptance of pure logical artifacts. In physics too, the impact of the so called quantum and relativity revolutions, have led to the emergence of counter-intuitive and mysterious notion of the physical reality. The most fundamental change has been on rejecting the reality of time. A radically new perspective that physics is the language of mathematics is suggested. The mathematical reality of the natural numbers manifests in the form of physical time.
Quantum theory is the most successful physical theory ever.About one third of the gross national product in the developed countries results from its applications.These applications range from nuclear power to most of the high-tech tools for computing, laser, solar cells and so on.No limit for its range of validity has been found up to now.Quantum theory has a clear mathematical structure, so a physics student can learn it in a short time.However, very often quantum theory is considered as being "crazy" or "not understandable".Such a stance appears reasonable as long as quantum theory is seen primarily as a theory of small particles and the forces between them.However, if quantum theory is understood more deeply, namely as a general theory of structures, not only the range is widely expanded, but it also becomes more comprehensible (T.Görnitz, 1999).Quantum structures can be material, like atoms, electrons and so on.They can also be energetic, like photons, and finally they can be mere structures, such as quantum bits.Keeping this in mind it becomes apprehensible that quantum theory has two not easily reconcilable aspects: on the one hand, it possesses a clear mathematical structure, on the other hand, it accounts for well-known experiences of everyday life: e.g. a whole is often more than the sum of its parts, and not only the facts but also the possibilities can be effective.If henadic and future structures (i.e.structures which are related to unity [Greek "hen"] and to future) become important in scientific analysis, then the viewable facts in real life differ from the calculated results of models of classical physics, which suppose elementary distinctions between matter and motion, material and force, localization and extension, fullness and emptiness and which describe any process as a succession of facts.From quantum theory one can learn two elementary insights:1.Not only facts but also possibilities can influence the way in which material objects behave.2. The elementary distinctions made in classical models are often useful, but not fundamental.Quantum theory shows that there are equivalences between the concepts of matter and motion, material and force, localization and extension, fullness and emptiness, and so on, www.intechopen.com How to referenceIn order to correctly reference this scholarly work, feel free to