Quantum mechanics: Myths and facts

[reilly]

Careful -- If you are right, then write a paper for Phys Rev. If you are right, then a revolution in particle physics will certainly take place. By the way, you'll have to show that your notions lead to solid numbers for the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron, the Lamb Shift, and all the other QED computations. And, you will need to bring something new to the table, otherwise why bother to change -- unless your approach leads to simpler ways to compute, or other benefits.

As many have demonstrated, including me in my doctoral thesis, radiative corrections need not be small.

There are many reasons to be wary of QFT, but so far it is still the best game in town. If you can do better, let us see better.
Regards,
Reilly Atkinson

 

[Demystifier]

A common understanding of quantum mechanics (QM) among students and practical users is often plagued by a number of "myths", that is, widely accepted claims on which there is not really a general consensus among experts in foundations of QM. These myths include wave-particle duality, time-energy uncertainty relation, fundamental randomness, the absence of measurement-independent reality, locality of QM, nonlocality of QM, the existence of well-defined relativistic QM, the claims that quantum field theory (QFT) solves the problems of relativistic QM or that QFT is a theory of particles, as well as myths on black-hole entropy. The fact is that the existence of various theoretical and interpretational ambiguities underlying these myths does not yet allow us to accept them as proven facts. In
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0609163
I review the main arguments and counterarguments lying behind these myths and conclude that QM is still a not-yet-completely-understood theory open to further fundamental research.

If someone is interested, now a revised version accepted for publication is also available.

 

[DrChinese]

If someone is interested, now a revised version accepted for publication is also available.

Demystifier,

That is a very cool paper! You are really covering a lot of ground.

Would I be wrong to assume that you lean a bit towards the Bohmian side?

-DrC

 

[DeepQ]

If someone is interested, now a revised version accepted for publication is also available.

I am new to this forum, so thanks for reposting to the topic to put it back on the radar.

I glanced at the body of your paper... and, it is more interesting than I had thought. (So, there is the danger of your abstract summary; as soon as I hit your words "these myths include" and then you list almost everything, it seemed it could not be a serious paper. Just a note, not a criticism.)

But, I'll set aside some time to read it and post any question/comments here.

 

[DeepQ]

Ok, had the chance to look it over, but not read all of it. A few short comments (I'm short on time):

1. In general, nicely done! Your points seem valid.

2. I think this type of broadly conclusive analysis is worthwhile, but

3. You're going to get "beat up", because

4. You are covering too much important territory at once.

I realize that the length of the paper is necessary to prove your point. But, the shorter the paper, the better (the more people who will read it.)

Solutions: Perhaps break it into multiple papers in a related series? Or, expand it into a book?

Good luck. Keep at it.

PS: there are a few typos remaining.

 

[Demystifier]

Demystifier,

That is a very cool paper! You are really covering a lot of ground.

Would I be wrong to assume that you lean a bit towards the Bohmian side?

-DrC

You would not be wrong. In fact, I am a Bohmian.

 

[Demystifier]

4. You are covering too much important territory at once.

I realize that the length of the paper is necessary to prove your point. But, the shorter the paper, the better (the more people who will read it.)

Solutions: Perhaps break it into multiple papers in a related series? Or, expand it into a book?

PS: there are a few typos remaining.

Well, a number of short papers discussing different aspects of QM already exists. I wanted to do something new. Perhaps one day I will write a book, but at the moment it is too early for that. In addition, the number of downloads is already quite big, much bigger than that of related shorter papers. Thus, it seems that the paper is read a lot, despite its length (or maybe just because of its length, which makes it look more serious).

Can you point where these typos are?

 

[Demystifier]

(So, there is the danger of your abstract summary; as soon as I hit your words "these myths include" and then you list almost everything, it seemed it could not be a serious paper. Just a note, not a criticism.)

The paper was aimed to be a sort of supplement to standard textbooks, to cover the points that are usually omitted in them. That is why it includes "almost everything".