Why quantum mechanics might need an overhaul

Science News ^ | November 4, 2016 | Tom Siegfried

[al baby]

I read somewhere that there is so much fudge factor in some of these theories they are meaningless ?

[TexasFreeper2009]

Apparently the only “settled” science is climate science.

[FreedomStar3028]

They don’t even know if quantum mechanics is feasible, or can be utilized. But they are talking about an overhaul?

[Billthedrill]

... those who think everything is fine with quantum mechanics take different sides in the debates about it.

There's a lovely irony in that statement...

[exDemMom]

Hmm. I could say that this is why I chose to study biochemistry, and not physics.

Except that biochemistry is also heavily governed by the laws of probability. And when you get down to it, every science is an application of physics. You just can’t get away from it.

Maybe some physicists don’t like it, but probability seems to be one of the fundamental mechanisms of how reality works.

[odawg]

“...the need to accept counterintuitive weirdness about reality...”

Yeah, such as the notion that an electron can be in two places at the same time.

[Ezekiel]

These folks are trying way too hard. All this to say that the properties of quantum mechanics itself is dependent upon its being observed. There, now wasn’t that simple? ;-)

[TigerLikesRooster]

When a science is generating never-ending stream of extremely complicated theories to explain certain observed phenomena, it could be an indication that the whole approach is flawed. It may be more than their theory being probabilistic.

It happened once in Astronomy. Astronomers had the notion that planets have circular orbits. If that failed to explain their observed motion, they revised their theory to address the issue: a planet is moving along a circular orbit which is also moving along a larger circular orbit. In time they have to create endless number of various nested circular orbits to make their theory fit observed data.

Took a while to realize that the obsession with circle is holding them back.

[redgolum]

Correct.

Or rather, the math is not reflecting reality. Of course, at this level, that isn’t a surprise.

The theories give a decent working of many situations, but not all. Sort of like the idea of the Ideal Gas led to a lot more discoveries relating to physical chemistry.

[UCANSEE2]

Yeah, such as the notion that an electron can be in two places at the same time.

I think that has more to do with our limited ability to detect exactly 'where' an electron is at any given time.

In QM, if you measure where an electron is, it will not be there, it will be somewhere else. Therefore it is where you detected it and somewhere else because the act of detecting it caused it to instantly be elsewhere.

And now I will pull a rabbit out of my hat.

[UCANSEE2]

I read somewhere that there is so much fudge factor in some of these theories they are meaningless ?

Speaking of fudge factors, I always liked the Universal Constant, which was a variable.

[I want the USA back]

Very nice. But when they say things like “the cat is both alive and dead” and “the universe pops in and out of existence “ you know they have lost their minds.

[UCANSEE2]

Even though the answer had been provided to us by GOD and was under our nose from the beginning of life on the Earth.

[Nuc 1.1]

How does an observed particle know it is being observed? Why does it care?

[BipolarBob]

They lost me when they couldn't keep their electrons corralled in one spot, time and space has a crease fold in it and what they done to Schrodinger's cat should be illegal. Don't get me started on wave-particle duality or tell me exactly why I can't time travel in precise mathematical terms (yes on the blackboard will do fine). Show all of the work. No shortcuts.

[Moonman62]

They don’t even know if quantum mechanics is feasible, or can be utilized.

...

Really? In terms of precision QM is the most successful theory there is.

[BipolarBob]

How does an observed particle know it is being observed?

OR how does an unstable atomic nuclei decay into a stable one in a precise time frame. Anyhow you want to measure it anywhere in the universe something decays at the exact same rate. What's up with that?

[Moonman62]

QM is weird because the experimental results that are the basis of QM are weird.

[Marylander]

B for later