Why the Quantum Theories are flawed

[Mac01]

Simply stated the Quantum Theories are flawed, how can the Quantum particles or particles be misbehaving if they're not being observed, but when we observe them they start doing what they were intended to do? I believe the particles aren't misbehaving at all, the particles were all ways doing as intended.

 

[mfb]

If you want to learn something about a theory, stating "everything is wrong" is not a good start. If you don't understand a theory, you shouldn't make statements like this.

Your questions are unclear:

how can the Quantum particles or particles be misbehaving if they're not being observed

What do you mean by "misbehaving"?

but when we observe them they start doing what they were intended to do?

What does that mean?

I believe the particles aren't misbehaving at all, the particles were all ways doing as intended.

Particles do not have an intention.

Quantum mechanics provides predictions for our measurements, and it does so with an excellent precision. It cannot be that wrong, otherwise you would have to explain why a wrong theory can make hundreds of thousands of precise predictions (sometimes with a 1 part in a trillion accuracy).

 

[DrChinese]

And ditto for what mfb says. Quantum theory was not randomly dreamed up on a whim. There are sound reasons for this theory. Any introductory text should be able to answer your initial questions. You should start there first.

Rest assured that others have started out with initial puzzlement too, only to quickly learn that experiment and theory match quite nicely. That's the test for a useful theory.

 

[ZapperZ]

Simply stated the Quantum Theories are flawed, how can the Quantum particles or particles be misbehaving if they're not being observed, but when we observe them they start doing what they were intended to do? I believe the particles aren't misbehaving at all, the particles were all ways doing as intended.

Here's the problem with your "objection". You are objecting something based on a matter of tastes! You are not offering empirical evidence to show that quantum theory is wrong. All you offered is that it doesn't sit well with you because you think QM says that the particle are "misbehaving".

Science can only be changed, or be proven to be wrong, when experimental evidence and observations contradict it. It cannot be changed simply because someone doesn't like it. Mother Nature doesn't give a hoot whether you like it or not.

"I have proven that special relativity/quantum mechanics/... is wrong."
You mean you did an experiment whose results disagree with the predictions of that theory? I didn't think so. You mean you proved it is self-contradictory? Not possible: Mathematically it's an elementary system, whose consistency is easy to check. You might as well claim that you can prove 2+2=5. (If you think you can do that, I'm willing to give you $2+$2 change for a $5 bill.) If you think you have found an inconsistency, you have probably made an assumption that is not implied by the theory. The fact is that these theories are not only well confirmed by experiment, but practical use is made of them every single day.

http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html

Zz.

 

[bhobba]

Simply stated the Quantum Theories are flawed

You have marked this as an I thread so we can assume you know a few things.

What you may not be aware of is:

1. The theory is silent about what going on when not observed - it does not say its misbehaving or whatever - its simply silent.
2. At its formal level there is nothing that mysterious going on - see:
http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec9.html

The REAL issue is why do we get any outcomes at all - not misbehaves - technically its how an improper mixed state becomes a proper one. But to understand that you need to study a textbook. THE textbook on this is:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/3540357734/?tag=pfamazon01-20

It also needs to be emphasized every scientific theory, every single one, has some assumptions. Its perfectly OK just to accept that as an assumption. Its called the ignorance ensemble interpretation, and there are others that are pretty much the same except for a different view on probability. In fact John Baez thinks many interpretations are just arguments on what probability is:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bayes.html

But others don't like it at that level and try to explain that isssue. They are part of the myriad of interpretation about eg:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

Since they can't be experimentally distinguished all are equally valid - take you choice or come up with your own - it doesn't matter. Its just a matter of taste like preferring red to green.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Vanadium 50]

As the OP said in his introduction:

Ive joined to share my theories on Quantum Physics Theories

As pointed out there, sharing personal theories is not allowed at the PF. One reason for this is people get upset when it's pointed out that these so-called theories are worthless - utterly and completely devoid of any value to the scientific community.

Can we close this thread?

 

[Doc Al]

Can we close this thread?

Yes.