Understanding Quantum Mechanics

a reply to: delbertlarson2

That is what Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is. So right now all of physics has the seed of doubt that concerns you.

What I'm talking about is a little different, I think. In a quantum event of any kind, all the initial factors affecting the outcome are known (or assumed to be known, if you prefer) in advance. Nothing is unaccounted for.

Nature imposes on us, through quantum uncertainty, a choice of what we can measure, but isn't throwing us a curveball in the shape of some factor affecting the outcome that we cannot perceive.

I'll take a look at your aether-vs-dark matter suggestion and get back to you.

originally posted by: Astyanax
What I'm talking about is a little different, I think. In a quantum event of any kind, all the initial factors affecting the outcome are known (or assumed to be known, if you prefer) in advance. Nothing is unaccounted for.

Nature imposes on us, through quantum uncertainty, a choice of what we can measure, but isn't throwing us a curveball in the shape of some factor affecting the outcome that we cannot perceive.

I'll take a look at your aether-vs-dark matter suggestion and get back to you.

I believe you are in good company. Your view appears to be similar to Einstein's wherein the subquantum has defined properties (often called hidden variables) which will lead to a deterministic physics, even if we can't observe them.

However this isn't so. Bell showed that the randomness of quantum mechanical results cannot be determined by hidden variables. Aspect, Dalibard and Roger showed Bell's Theorem was validated experimentally. There really is a randomness similar to dice throwing in nature. The quantum wavefunction only gives us probabilities of what will happen.

It has been suggested that there might be many worlds, such that every time a quantum result occurs a new universe is generated and we just follow along with the one universe that we are in. Or, it has been suggested that perhaps reality itself is not a valid concept. Either of these approaches will salvage relativity in light of the Bell/Aspect results.

Or, we can set relativity aside.

My Fundamental Axiom is to assert both that there is a reality (opposing the assertion that denies it) but that we can't completely observe it (due to the quantum limits of our observations). But the essence of quantum mechanics still leads to a fundamental non-determinate nature. God does throw dice. Indeed, for free will to operate a non-determinate nature is a requirement. But many don't want it to be so. Many feel physics should be fully determinate.

a reply to: delbertlarson2

I love this stuff! Thanks for the great post.

Although in the spirit of full disclosure, anything that touches on Quantum Entanglement gets my electrons all excited.

When I first realized that Physics and Metaphysics intersected at the quantum level I changed my minor in college to Philosophy while still majoring in Physics.

I'm happy to say both have served me well.

Both reviewers recommended for publication, and the article "Understanding Quantum Mechanics" is scheduled for publication in the upcoming June Issue of Physics Essays.

You ever go on physics forum, quantum physics, quantum interpretations sub-section? I've read some life long dedicated quantum professors on there, for me, such vast peculiarities of QM feels like it entertains that inner magical thinking in me. I read it in my own way. Maybe the maths is more grounded to experiment than my thoughts... but oh well, it still tickles the brain.