Quantum physics: Definitions and Reality

AI Abstract

Quantum mechanics lacks a universally accepted definition, relying instead on mathematical principles and experimental boundaries. While considered a successful framework for understanding the microscopic realm, it faces criticism for not addressing gravity, a crucial aspect of reality. This limitation raises concerns about its applicability, as most instances in the universe involve gravitational effects. Despite physicists’ belief in a quantum reality, there remains significant disagreement on its implications. Furthermore, ‘reductionism’, the idea that complex systems can be understood by analysing their parts, is challenged by evidence of top-down organisation in nature, complicating quantum mechanics’ role in explaining reality comprehensively.

No single definition of quantum mechanics exists

I asked an AI engine: “Is there an internationally agreed definition of quantum mechanics?”

No, there is no single, official definition of quantum mechanics stamped by an international governing body, but there is a universal consensus on its mathematical rules and physical boundaries.

Instead of an official dictionary definition, the scientific community relies on universally agreed-upon mathematical equations, physical constants, and experimental boundaries.

Where is the list of these experimental boundaries?

There is no single document or master registry called “The List of Experimental Boundaries.”

I asked if quantum physics really was the best way of describing reality but the engine confines its success to the microscopic world only:

Quantum physics is the most precisely tested and mathematically successful framework for describing the microscopic world, but physicists deeply disagree on what it actually says about physical reality. – AI summary

What is the point of having a theory of reality whose major weakness is that we can’t agree upon what it says about reality?

What physicists think

Do some physicists say that reality is quantum in nature?

Yes, most modern physicists believe that reality is fundamental and quantum in nature, though they disagree on what that means for our everyday experience. – AI engine

Obviously ‘everyday experience’ and ‘reality’ are regarded as two different things in the world of physics.

Physicists completely agree on the mathematical framework and predictive rules of quantum mechanics, but they strongly disagree on what the math actually means for reality.

What does it mean to “agree on the mathematical framework” if it has no agreed relationship to reality? What is it they are agreeing upon?

Surveys show roughly 36% of researchers believe the quantum wave function represents a real, physical object, while 47% view it strictly as a tool for calculation. – Scientific American

The idea of a quantum wave function is essential to the theory but here there is great disagreement as to its fundamental nature and relationship to reality.

There is no common definition for this theory and scientists disagree on the fundamentals, unless they are now claiming that the relationship between theory and reality is not actually fundamental.

This is not a well-defined theory of physics.

AI responses

The AI responses are very reliable summaries in my view. They seem crazy and contradictory, but they really do reflect the views of the human-written texts on quantum physics.

Handling of gravity

Standard quantum physics does not describe a gravitational field.

This is clearly problematic if quantum physics is to be put forth as a Theory of Reality as, for many, it is gravity which is regarded as the major formative force in the universe.

We therefore have a theory of reality which fails to describe most of reality.

So where is quantum physics appropriate?

Quantum physics is said to be valid in all situations where the effects of gravity are negligible. So, given that there is no place in the universe without a gravitational field, then where is this exactly?

How do we determine whether we have such a situation suitable for description via quantum mechanics? What theory do we use?

We can look to the theory of quantum mechanics itself to determine whether a situation is unaffected by gravity but this can never give a result because quantum mechanics itself does not define gravity and is hence is unable to describe, measure or assess the effects of gravity to even the smallest degree.

We can look to theories of gravity from either Newton or Einstein but neither of these describes quantum mechanics and cannot therefore assess the degree to which its predictions will be affected by gravity.

We therefore have no formal way of determining whether or not a particular phenomenon is even amenable to description via quantum theory or not.

In all likelihood, this information resides within the intuitions of individual scientists. However:

  • They need to write down their knowledge for the rest of us
  • They will surely disagree with each other

Where are quantum physical experiments performed?

Experiments to investigate quantum physics are performed at the surface of the Earth in the strongest gravitational field available to humanity for such activity. The theory has been developed to explain results from precisely these experiments and none other.

If we were to perform experiments in space or under the surface of the Earth then the theories of Newton give a weaker value for the gravitational field in these places.

What does it mean, then, to say that quantum physics only works when gravity is not important? This is meaningless.

An argument against reductionism

Reductionism is the philosophical idea that complex things can be understood by breaking them down into their simplest parts.

In physics, this means explaining the entire universe by studying its smallest building blocks, like atoms and subatomic particles. It is the driving logic behind why many physicists believe reality is fundamentally quantum in nature.

Note that reductionism is a ‘philosophical idea’ and therefore not science.

We see organisation at all scales of reality and this organisation invariably takes the form of some vortex pattern: Vortices in cosmology and biology

These formations are easily explained by a global organisation which is top-down in nature with the formation of an inwardly spiralling energy cascade from the large to smaller scales. The laws of vortex physics apply at all levels and are largely scale invariant.

The reductionists want us to believe that all this organisation arises bottom-up as opposed to top-down. They think that all that matters is the nature of an atom and that once this is described, then the structure of rest of the universe naturally follows, in other words, the spiralling of giant galaxies is a function, not of a formative field structure, but of the quantum properties of fundamental particles.

Even in biological systems, organisation is seen from the scale of the organism down to that of a cell. This implies some organisational principle existing at all scales: A nested electromagnetic toroid structure for the organisation of biological systems

Maybe naively, the best way to explain order at all scales is to assume some sort of organisational field or principle existing at all scales of reality, with the laws of physics operating to organise matter at all scales of reality.

A global field structure is the opposite of traditional reductionism.

A global quantum field structure

Physicists getting this far will complain that quantum fields are not local and do in fact fill the entire universe.

Yes, but the dominant field behaviour in the cosmos is not quantum-like but gravity-like, and quantum mechanics doesn’t ‘do’ gravity!

Ergo: Quantum fields do not and cannot explain most of the activity in the cosmos.

The only possible way that physicists can make the claim that “reality is quantum” is to show accurate experimental results at the microscopic level and then claim “reductionism did it” for the rest of the cosmos. However, reductionism is refuted (above).

Another possibility is to suggest that something called ’emergence’ is responsible for the laws of physics at larger scales. This is very obviously a desperate attempt to cling on to reductionism by claiming that the small effects are ‘fundamental’ and that “emergence did it” for the rest of the cosmos. If no mechanism is described for emergent effects then the claim is equivalent to a belief in magic; things just seem to happen in a convenient manner.

Cherry-picked results lauded as ‘fundamental’

One of the reasons that quantum physics has been accepted so readily is the purported existence of repeatable experiments whose results have been predicted to a large degree of accuracy. Such sample experiments are then declared to reveal something ‘fundamental’ concerning reality.

A theory is formulated based upon these results and again claimed to be ‘fundamental’, thereby justifying a claim that both theory and results must therefore be representative of the whole of reality.

A collection of such results seems to confirm the theory and anyone opposing it is simply wrong because: “We have the results!”

If quantum physics only works at the quantum level then it cannot be said to be representative of the whole of reality.

A large degree of accuracy

It is commonly held that the greater the degree of accuracy of a theoretical prediction, the greater weight this gives to the proposition that a theory is true.

This is a philosophical idea and not science.

Consider the idea that light, for example, does not form precise sine waves but is of a slightly different nature and only takes upon a sinusoidal form when coerced into it via a suitable measuring instrument. Some instruments then give more precise results than others and it is these which are chosen as a basis for a theory.

This is fine so far and the observations certainly need some explanation. However, soon the phenomenon will be labelled as arising from ‘fundamental’ principles and we are stuck with a theory arising from a very specific measurement set up with which we are expected to explain the whole of reality.

We obtained very precise results because the specific instruments we used pretty much necessitated such outcomes. We did not measure, so much as create.

Giving undue weight to repeatable cherry-picked laboratory results with precise outcomes leads to a physics which uses such results as an immutable basis, declares them to be fundamental and results in expressions of general surprise when they prove inapplicable to the rest of the cosmos.

An example: Chladni physics

Imagine we put some sand on a vibrating metal plate and observe the emergent patterns. After a while certain rules become obvious and predictions can be made which become increasingly accurate.

The accuracy and reliability of the results leads us to declare that we have discovered the fundamental principles of Reality.

Somewhat inexplicably, these principles are only measurable via a Chladni plate, but we continue unabashed, form a club, give out some prizes and start making well produced documentaries with impressive animations.

A new science has been born which describes almost nothing but is fiercely defended by its adherents who claim that the rest of the population simply need educating properly in order to perceive the true beauty of the equations.

Note that the precision of our predictions in no way proves that our discovered principles are fundamental in any way and nor do they prove the more general proposition that these principles are descriptive of the whole of reality.

It was us who created the very specific conditions of the experiment and it was us who created the very specific conditions for precise measurements and predictions. We have made some pretty patterns in the sand and become somewhat overly pleased with ourselves. We have created our own definition of reality in accordance with our own preconceptions of what it should look like and have created the system of measurements to ‘prove’ it.

A counter example: radioactive decay

The rate of decay of radioactive elements is said to be ‘random’ and in accordance with the principle of quantum indeterminism.

However, Simon Shnoll (The Shnoll Effect) found these rates to vary on a daily, monthly and seasonal basis and are therefore somehow affected by planetary, solar and even lunar influences.

Quantum physics claims that statistical effects are ‘inherently random’ and therefore not affected by any physical process.

Shnoll’s experiments seem to refute one of the core principles of quantum theory.

Indeterminism and causality

Texts on quantum mechanics seem confused as regards causality in that they can’t seem to decide whether it exists or not, what the mechanism may be or whether non-physical processes are able to partake in physical reality or not.

The definition of indeterminism from Wikipedia:

Indeterminism is the idea that events (or certain events, or events of certain types) are not caused, or are not caused deterministically. – Wikipedia

And from an AI engine:

Quantum indeterminism is the idea that nature at the microscopic level is not strictly predictable, meaning certain events happen purely by chance rather than following a fixed cause-and-effect rule.

Also:

According to the standard and most widely accepted framework of physics, reality is fundamentally governed by probability at the quantum level.

In the phrase “reality is fundamentally governed by probability”, the word ‘governed’ is surely a synonym for ’caused’. They are trying to avoid the literal claim that ‘probability causes things to happen‘, but are still drawn to the language of causality.

Similarly, to say that “certain events happen purely by chance” is meaningless unless they are claiming something called ‘chance’ exists in reality and is causing things to happen.

“Certain events are not caused, or are not caused deterministically“. Wow! They are saying that certain events are either:

  • Not caused, i.e. they ‘just happen’. Just give up being a physicist is best here.
  • Events are ’caused’ but in a non-deterministic fashion. This contradicts any sensible definition of ‘causality’ and can just be ignored.

On probability and causality

Probability is a mathematical theory and cannot ’cause’ anything.

If I throw two dice I cannot predict the result but I am still certain that it was caused by the actual laws of physics. The outcome ‘obeys’ the laws of probability but was not ’caused’ by them. ‘Randomness’ is a statistical output pattern and not a causal mechanism.

The theory of probability has nothing to do with indeterminism or the predictability of individual events (Wikipedia) It is a purely mathematical theory consisting of equations which give the same result each time they are calculated. The link to reality is only via the outcomes of a large number of events: Law of large numbers

There is no sense, in mathematics, that one thing might have happened or things could have been different. In physical reality, we only ever see one chain of events unfold and never alternative possibilities. There is therefore no chance of either proving or refuting the idea of indeterminism.

There is no ‘indeterminism’ operator in mathematics.

If we have no mathematical description of indeterminism then how are we to integrate it into a scientific framework? How are we to prove or disprove its existence without a formal definition?

The inclusion of ideas such as this into a theory of physics is just a way of avoiding doing any physics. Without even a decent linguistic definition, the idea of indeterminism doesn’t even qualify as an ‘idea’. If philosophers have no consistent definition of a word then how do they even know if they are talking about the same thing?

Indeterminism is neither a philosophical concept nor is it science.

Intrinsic indeterminism

It may be imagined that the probability and indeterminism in quantum theory originate from some physical process which always produces a random outcome; something akin to throwing quantum dice. However, this is not what the physicists describe. They are insistent that the indeterminacy is ‘intrinsic’ – which means what, exactly?

Again, they want to suggest that physical causality lies within something which is not part of the physical ream and yet somehow seems to affect events within the physical realm.

Intrinsic indeterminism is not physical and is not mathematical in nature and so if it is to be introduced into a theory of physics then we had better have a very good definition for it and some decent experiments proving its ‘existence’. Neither is to be found anywhere.

This part of the theory is just a bluff. A hoax.

Everyday observations

To the best of my knowledge, quantum physics cannot explain:

Summary

  • There is no agreed definition of the theory of quantum physics
  • Scientists agree on the core principles but these are not well-defined
  • Without clear definitions we cannot verify or falsify key assertions
  • Experiments proving the core principles are sparse to non existent
  • Quantum theory cannot explain everyday phenomena
  • Much of the basic terminology is undefined and derived from philosophical musings rather than experimental evidence
  • Descriptions of causality and indeterminism are deceptive
  • All quantum experiments are performed within a rather strong gravitational field but we have no way of determining what effect this might have on the results
  • Physicists claim that quantum theory describes reality and yet the relationship between theory and reality seems to be the area of greatest disagreement
  • Counter examples exist
  • Reductionist ideas are unsuitable in general to describe the multi-layered organisation we see in the cosmos and it follows that the specific case of quantum theory is ruled out by this observation alone