Are physicists happy with Quantum Mechanics as it is?

[alxm]

An explination of the problem: Suppose, after Maxwell developed his Law of the Constancy of the Speed of Light (in vacuo), the only way Physicists could reconcile this Law was with the Aether 'theory.' Suppose further that this 'theory' continued unabated, without an Einstein to reconcile Maxwell's Law. The Michleson/Morley experiment is explained away with a modified version of the Aether called the ohr/Sommerfeld Model, in which the Aether moves with the x and y coordinate frames.
There. Aether does not violate the M/M experiment!

Maxwell never claimed the speed of light was constant in different inertial frames.
The Bohr-Sommerfeld Model is a model of the atom, and has nothing whatsoever to do with either the ether or special relativity.

I'd like to point out the forum rules on this kind of stuff. If you want to ressurrect the aether or whatever, you'll have to take it somewhere else.

 

[Fredrik]

Proof that the theoretical community is not happy with quantum mechanics: In Aspect's Experiment, physicists looked for all kinds of 'loopholes' to find out why Alain Aspect's experiment worked. THIS HAS BEEN THE ONLY INSTANCE IN THE HISTORY OF PHYSICS WHERE THE PHYSICIST SET OUT TO LOOK FOR FLAWS IN AN EXPERIMENT THAT VERIFIED THE THEORETICAL RESULT!
Only abject doubt of the theory can inspire the physicist to do this.

Sorry, but this is nonsense. Physicists always look for loopholes, and Aspect got the result that almost everyone expected, so it's not like everyone felt that they needed to "figure out what he did wrong".

 

[Neo_Anderson]

Maxwell never claimed the speed of light was constant in different inertial frames.
The Bohr-Sommerfeld Model is a model of the atom, and has nothing whatsoever to do with either the ether or special relativity.

I'd like to point out the forum rules on this kind of stuff. If you want to ressurrect the aether or whatever, you'll have to take it somewhere else.

I was trying my best metaphor on the issue, alxm. The metaphor was the aether and special relativity, and their relationship to the current state of quantum mechanics, that's all.
Everyone knows the sommerfeld model is the old quantum physics, just as everyone knows Shrodinger and Heisenberg are credited with the new quantum physics. To ilustrate the metaphor, I used Sommerfeld and Schrodinger to give the reader a clear intent of the purpose of my metaphor. And the purpose of my metaphor is just this: that the current state of QM may rest on an "incomplete or unsatasfactory theory" (Einstein), just as my metaphor tried to illustrate QM as being incomplete, just as the aether was.

Now would you please point out the forum rule I violated. You said you would...

 

[Fredrik]

Do you know how either the pilot wave interpretation or ensemble interpetation interprets the Born postulate?

I don't know the Bohm stuff well enough to answer that part of the question, but the ensemble interpretation is very clear on this. The Born rule should be interpreted as nothing more than what it's actually saying. It's part of a set of rules that you can use to calculate probabilities of possible results of experiments, and doesn't tell you anything at all about what "actually happens".

 

[Fra]

This is like the tragedy of my undergrad physics experience. I would like to understand where the formalism comes from every step of the way.

Such an ambition is hard to maintain all along since some steps ad hoc from a physical point of view, and the defense is that it really works and makes a good model. There simply is not magic explanation that the teachers aren't tell you - they really don't know either.

Until someone comes up with something clever, there are two ways. Either the axiomatic way, or the historical way. I always feel the axiomatic way is somewhat of and artifact, and the historical way actually does provide at least a motivation for for QM was developed.

The axiomatic way, was my preferred way up until QM. But then I realized what was wrong with it: sometimes you have to replace the axioms. Thus the problem can not be axiomatized, since the development of the axiom system itself doens't fit in the same framework.

I soon realized that some of these answer I need to find on my own, there is no plain course you take to sort this out. The more advanced courses BUILDS onto this, rather than reconstructs it. But the time to do that seriously, I think isn't in the middle of a regular course even though I think it's good to have a critical mind.

/Fredrik

 

[Neo_Anderson]

Sorry, but this is nonsense. Physicists always look for loopholes, and Aspect got the result that almost everyone expected, so it's not like everyone felt that they needed to "figure out what he did wrong".

Alain Aspect did get the resulthat was expected of theory. So why does the physics community go out looking for loopholes in his experiment's sucess?

If I test my guitar's amplifier and found it to be working, why should I go out and figure out why the amplifier is working?!

 

[alxm]

I was trying my best metaphor on the issue, alxm. The metaphor was the aether and special relativity, and their relationship to the current state of quantum mechanics, that's all.

You stated:

The Michleson/Morley experiment is explained away with a modified version of the Aether called the ohr/Sommerfeld Model, in which the Aether moves with the x and y coordinate frames.

Which looks more like a load of nonsense than a metaphor. And metaphor or no, it's simply wrong to bring Maxwell into it the theory of the ether, and an omission to leave Lorentz out.

And the purpose of my metaphor is just this: that the current state of QM may rest on an "incomplete or unsatasfactory theory" (Einstein), just as my metaphor tried to illustrate QM as being incomplete, just as the aether was.

The theory of the ether wasn't an 'incomplete' theory in the sense that Einstein defined it in the EPR paper. It was just wrong.

Now would you please point out the forum rule I violated. You said you would...

I didn't say I would. But nevertheless: No overly speculative posts and no 'alternate theories' in this forum.

 

[alxm]

Alain Aspect did get the resulthat was expected of theory. So why does the physics community go out looking for loopholes in his experiment's sucess?

Because that's how science is done.

It's bad scientific practice not to look for alternative explanations and reasons to doubt your results, even if they were the expected results. Have you ever submitted a peer-reviewed paper? Or at least seen the process?

The #1 thing reviewers are going to criticize you on is "Did you consider this? Did you try that?". Simply put, it's never been about proving you're right: It's about proving you're not wrong. More people trying to find fault with an experiment only means it's an important experiment, not that it is in doubt. Many of the most important verifications in the history of science came from people trying to prove the opposite.

 

[Fredrik]

Alain Aspect did get the resulthat was expected of theory. So why does the physics community go out looking for loopholes in his experiment's sucess?

Because physics is a science. You need to read up on the scientific method.

If I test my guitar's amplifier and found it to be working, why should I go out and figure out why the amplifier is working?!

Suppose someone has claimed that your amplifier isn't working. Your test appears to have disproved that theory. If you want to be even more sure that this guy is in fact wrong, it makes perfect sense to try as hard as you can to find something wrong with the test you did. If you try and you find nothing wrong with it, you're even more sure than before. It's not about trying to find out why your amplifier is working. It's about e.g. proving that the sound you heard during the test couldn't possibly have come from another source.

Aspect's results disproved certain claims. Anyone who wanted to be even more sure that those claims were in fact false was of course right to look for flaws in Aspect's experiment.

 

[Demystifier]

Do you know how either the pilot wave interpretation or ensemble interpetation interprets the Born postulate?

As Fredrik answered for the ensemble interpretation, let me answer for the pilot wave case. In pilot wave theory, the Born rule emerges from ignorance (lack of knowledge) of the initial particle positions.

 

[Demystifier]

Proof that the theoretical community is not happy with quantum mechanics: In Aspect's Experiment, physicists looked for all kinds of 'loopholes' to find out why Alain Aspect's experiment worked. THIS HAS BEEN THE ONLY INSTANCE IN THE HISTORY OF PHYSICS WHERE THE PHYSICIST SET OUT TO LOOK FOR FLAWS IN AN EXPERIMENT THAT VERIFIED THE THEORETICAL RESULT!
Only abject doubt of the theory can inspire the physicist to do this.

Unlike Fredrik, I think it is an excellent point!
Of course, Fredrik is right that in science, all results should be tested over and over again.
However, the point is that most other results in physics are NOT tested SO frequently, and that repeated tests of most other results in physics are not considered SO important.

For example, if I make a new test of the principle of conservation of energy, most journals will reject my paper by saying that it is not interesting. But if I make a new test of quantum nonlocality, I will not have problems to publish it in Nature or at least in Physical Review Letters.