Any experiment to falsify quantum mechanics?

In summary: That's a hell of a long sentence.In summary, people are trying to find ways to falsify quantum mechanics, but so far no problems have been found. The only known limitation of quantum mechanics is to do with Plank Scale and disagreements with General Relativity.
  • #1
cooleggyh
5
0
It seems almost everyone agrees Q.M. is right nowadays. I wonder whether there are still people doing experiments/ observations that aim to falsify quantum mechanics.

How can one design such an experiment?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
  • #3
Mostly people are looking at various Bell Inequalities to see if QM really holds water. So far, no problems have been found. The only serious known limitations of QM are to do with Plank Scale and disagreements with General Relativity. Neither can be probed experimentally with existing technology and techniques.
 
  • #4
There are many experiments designed to falsify QM in principle: electron interference experiments (Möllenstedt et al.), all Bell- and Aspect-like experiments, the 2012 Nobel-prize experiments regarding decoherence, and many more.

But instead of falsifying QM they confirm QM.

K^2 said:
The only serious known limitations of QM are to do with Plank Scale and disagreements with General Relativity. Neither can be probed experimentally with existing technology and techniques.
That's slightly misleading. Disagreement with General Relativity is disagreement with General Relativity, but not necessarily a limitation of quantum theory; it could mean that General Relativity has to be replaced by some theory of quantum gravity, but that quantum theory (quantization rules, etc.) itself is not affected (in the same sense as quantum electrodynamics does by no means affect the basic principles of quantum theory but classical electrodynamics); this would be the case for approaches like string theory, loop quantum gravity, asymptotic safety, ...
 
Last edited:
  • #5
Yes, but not yet experimentally possible:
The Ghirardi–Rimini–Weber (GRW) theory of spontaneous wave function collapse is known to provide a quantum theory without observers, in fact two different ones by using either the matter density ontology (GRWm) or the flash ontology (GRWf). Both theories are known to make predictions different from those of quantum mechanics, but the difference is so small that no decisive experiment can as yet be performed.
The Quantum Formalism and the GRW Formalism
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0710.0885v5.pdf
 
  • #6
tom.stoer said:
That's slightly misleading. Disagreement with General Relativity is disagreement with General Relativity, but not necessarily a limitation of quantum theory; it could mean that General Relativity has to be replaced by some theory of quantum gravity, but that quantum theory (quantization rules, etc.) itself is not affected (in the same sense as quantum electrodynamics does by no means affect the basic principles of quantum theory but classical electrodynamics); this would be the case for approaches like string theory, loop quantum gravity, asymptotic safety, ...
That's a hell of a long sentence.

But entirely fair, yes. I shouldn't say that it's certainly a limitation of QM. Just a potential one. A place where it would be nice to check it experimentally. Alas, no such experiments are possible at this time, so best we can say is that at least one of these two theories will need to be fundamentally modified.
 
  • #7
K^2 said:
I shouldn't say that it's certainly a limitation of QM. Just a potential one. A place where it would be nice to check it experimentally. Alas, no such experiments are possible at this time, so best we can say is that at least one of these two theories will need to be fundamentally modified.
I fully agree ;-)
 
  • #8
cooleggyh said:
I wonder whether there are still people doing experiments/ observations that aim to falsify quantum mechanics.
Maybe this:
Testing Born's Rule in Quantum Mechanics with a Triple Slit Experiment

cooleggyh said:
How can one design such an experiment?
You have to have statement of the theory that something is not possible under particular conditions. Then you create these particular conditions and try to observe something that shouldn't be observable.

If you take that into account than Bell tests are not very convenient as QM tests as suggested in this thread. That's because they aim at observing something that shouldn't be observable if LHV (local hidden variable) type theories are possible i.e. they aim at falsifying LHV not QM.
 
  • #9
Here is an experiment I've proposed that could "disprove" some interpretations of QM:

In a typical EPR/CHSH experiment, in front of each detector place synchronized rapidly rotating opaque disks with a "wedge" slit such that the path from the emitter to the detectors is obscured for a significant portion of photon flight.

Although the coincident detection rate should go down in proportion to the size of the wedge slit, the CHSH result should not diminish except if the wedge slit is close to the wavelength of the light. If, however, the CHSH result does decrease, certain interpretations of QT come into question.

Why? I posted yesterday a paper in which I show a deterministic Einstein-local model of quantum spin interactions capable of achieving in CHSH experiments correlations consistent with QT with only speed-of-light interactions. The proposed experiment would confirm or rule out the type of interactions on which the deterministic model depends:

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BxBGJRkQXyjweXR2R3ExTlEyNm8
 
Last edited:

1. What is quantum mechanics?

Quantum mechanics is a branch of physics that explains the behavior of matter and energy at a very small scale, such as atoms and subatomic particles. It is a fundamental theory that has been extensively tested and is widely accepted by the scientific community.

2. How is quantum mechanics different from classical physics?

Quantum mechanics differs from classical physics in that it describes the behavior of particles in terms of probabilities rather than definite outcomes. It also includes concepts such as superposition and entanglement, which have no classical counterparts.

3. Why would someone want to falsify quantum mechanics?

Falsifying quantum mechanics would be a significant scientific breakthrough and could potentially lead to a better understanding of the universe. It could also challenge our current understanding of physics and potentially lead to new and groundbreaking theories.

4. What are some proposed experiments to falsify quantum mechanics?

One proposed experiment is the Leggett-Garg inequality, which tests for non-classical behavior in macroscopic systems. Another is the Bell test, which aims to prove or disprove the concept of local realism. Other proposed experiments involve testing the limits of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle or attempting to observe quantum superposition in larger objects.

5. Has quantum mechanics ever been falsified?

No, quantum mechanics has not been falsified. It has been extensively tested and has consistently been found to accurately describe the behavior of matter and energy at the quantum level. However, there are ongoing efforts to find ways to falsify or improve upon quantum mechanics in order to further our understanding of the universe.

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
722
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
2
Replies
36
Views
1K
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
7
Views
985
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
1
Views
665
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
44
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
865
Back
Top