What are the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics?: Video

Posted by dbhalling 10 years, 10 months ago to Science
129 comments | Share | Flag

This is an excellent video that discusses four theories on the foundations of quantum mechanics and it is some of the best explanations I have seen and it is not a dry video. I have pointed out that there are a number of problems with the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM, see http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/37.... The video presents four alternatives to the Copenhagen Interpretation. They are the De Broglie–Bohm theory (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%...), the many-worlds theory also known as the Everett interpretation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds...), the spontaneous collapse theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghirardi%E2...), and the QBism theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Bay...). These ideas were presented with respect to the famous double slit experiment. The video mentions that Einstein was unhappy with the CI, but so was Schrodenger. Here are my thoughts on them, what are yours?

1) De Broglie–Bohm theory
I think this is better than the Copenhagen Interpretation (CI). However, it does not appear to provide any significantly different predictions and requires an additional equation, which makes it problematic.

2) Many-Worlds theory
The other panelists point out a number of problems with this interpretation, but my problem is that it violates conservation of matter and energy, because it requires an infinite number of universes and each event requires infinitely more universes.

3) Spontaneous collapse theory
I did not think this was very well explained. It does appear to solve the measurement problem however, but other than that I do not think it is promising.

4) QBism
I think this may actually be worse than the CI.


Other Thoughts:
In the double slit experiment when we are shooting one electron at a time, we do not consider that the detector is made up of atoms that also have a wave function and therefor a probability of interacting with the free electron. I am not exactly sure how this would change the interpretation of the double slit experiment with single electrons at a time, but it would suggest that the position of the electron may not be as localized as the experiment suggests. Another problem with the single electron double slit experiment is how do we know we are shooting a single electron at a time? If we know this for sure, then we must be measuring it in some way which would affect the experiment. If we don’t know this then we don’t know that one of the free electrons does not make two dots on the screen or no dots on the screen. Again going back to the limits of our detector. In order for a dot to occur, the free electron has to cause an electron in an atom to change state. If the free electron is truly a wave then it might cause a single dot, because of the atomic nature of our detector. However, you would also expect that a single electron might cause two, three, or more dots if it were a wave or no dots at all.
Personally I think we will eventually find that all matter is really waves. We will find that the probabilistic side of QM is a result of these waves being spread out. Point particles of charge cause all sorts of problems, including infinitely intense electrical fields.
Feynman did some work on the wave nature of matter. Carver Mead has done some work in this area as have many others and I am not talking about string theory, but as yet there is no comprehensive ideas in this area.


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 5.
  • Posted by pcaswani 10 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Waves do not provide a complete explanation. What are waves if not matter in motion? I take as my starting point that if something exists it must exist as something material. I can live with the mystery of yet unknown facts of reality.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnmahler 10 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I used to believe as you seem to believe. Then I died. Then I was resuscitated. Our brains are not the seat of consciousness. You can't know this until you die and resuscitate to this life. I can't explain it in scientific terms, but one day humans will. The diffraction was my use of a term appropriate to light study which sort of parallels the double slit experiment except for the cause of diffraction being "observation" versus "non-observation". I am no physicist. Perhaps you are. I was amazed viewing "What the Bleep Do We Know. Down the Rabbit Hole" after having my NDE. Everything explained is just the sort of reality I experienced. Good luck to you. Trust in your learning and intellect will eventually fail you as it did me.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 10 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Double slit diffraction has nothing to do with religious claims of animistic "will" and "most present day physicists" do not "admit" such nonsense. "Including some expression in Greek letters to represent the God force" is irrelevant to science. Sticking "Greek" symbols into equations to represent religion is the opposite of science and contradicts it in every way. This emphasis on "Greek" symbols to be added to otherwise established and meaningful equations of physics, as if the appearance of the shapes of symbols has anything to do with meaning of the science, is the laughable "cargo cult science" of primitives.

    There are many unexplained facts in science. There always are at any stage of knowledge. That is not a call for religion to 'fill in the gaps'. There are always puzzles to be solved in the frontiers of science, which is constantly expanding our knowledge and understanding through rational explanation. It does not do so by arbitrarily adding new "Greek" symbols to include faith, the opposite of reason and science.

    Primitive appeals to the supernatural in ethics and politics are just as irrelevant to understanding in those fields and only contradict and undermine the kind of rational philosophy needed to save the country.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by pcaswani 10 years, 9 months ago
    Imagine there's an aether with particles matter at a level we are or have not yet been able to detect or perceive, but subject to interference by sub atomic particles that we have been able to detect, measure or control. Compare that with the interference effects of pellets on water surface and a cannon ball shot into the same body of water.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes, I've found some of the EM field discussions interesting. I'm just not comfortable that much of what's being talked about is experimentally provable, at least today. But the search could very well and probably will lead to new avenues of physics study. It is, at least, a great time in physics.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I agree completely. What I intended in the comment about adding something, is a new or different approach to (which may very well be a conceptual insight) the study of QM. Although using Schoedenger's Probability gives an (not necessarily the) explanation for the observed, it's a tool-not the answer, IMO. It's obvious that there's something, at a deeper or different level, going on which conceptually hasn't been recognized yet.

    So much of sub-atomic and particle physics (as well as cosmology) is math and model driven today, that I'm not sure it really helps the thinkers, and so much of the money is controlled today by the math and model crowd. It's kind of like losing sight of the forest through total concentration on a tree.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Adding something more has been the problem of theoretical physics. They run into a problem and come up with dark matter, or dark energy, or renormalizing fields - they make the math work, but provide no understanding. What is needed according to Carver Mead and I agree is physicists who think conceptually, not just mathematically.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You are right I find that strange. There are a lot of problems in theoretical physics right now and a number of proposed solutions or partial solutions. In cosmology a number of people are arguing that EM fields might explain a number of things that gravity does not explain well. These people argue that most of the Universe is made up of plasma mainly (like 90% of all matter), but I don't know if that is true.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    As one of the commentors said in the video, the truly serious discussions of QM have really only happened in the last 20 years. As you say, the problems with really understanding QM and it's implications on our understanding of the universe and our total reality have piled up. I think it's probable that we're going to have to add something more or look at a deeper level.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 10 months ago
    An interesting presentation by physicist that look also at the philosophical implications of the understandings reachable from a study of Quantum Mechanics. It may sound strange from an objectivist, but I'm strongly drawn to the Qbism approach, particularly to the point that reality and experience of the observer are tied together. The feeling that life and consciousness, in a universe of inanimate objects, interacting fields, and huge space that all interact in a deterministic manner has always troubled me. I find it extremely interesting that some of the largest questions in cosmology and in sub-atomics bring that interaction of reality and agents (acting consciousness) into question and study.

    Thanks for the posting.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Most definitely that physicist is correct. Quantum mechanics is far from understood, but it does explain some things in my field that otherwise would have no reasonable explanation.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    What's interesting is the physicist on the panel supporting this said in 100 years he thinks QM will be replaced with a deeper understanding. I think he is right.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by barwick11 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I'll send Dr. Prins an invite to this link, and see if I can't get him to register and post on here. You all would love having him around.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by barwick11 10 years, 10 months ago
    I've come to believe that Copenhagen was the turning point in modern science where it stopped being science.

    Look for a book coming out (not sure when) by Dr. Johan Prins on this very subject. I have a copy of the manuscript in my eMail, but am not allowed to distribute. Suffice it to say, it will be a very interesting read along the lines of this subject.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years, 10 months ago
    Scanning tunneling microscopy, arguably the greatest invention based on quantum mechanics, is based on the DeBroglie interpretation. That is the version I teach in my nanotechnology classes, which are predicated on the idea that when an electron is confined in a finite box that the resulting material's properties start to be dominated by the surface area of that box.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • -1
    Posted by johnmahler 10 years, 10 months ago
    Two facts can't be explained. Why is the Universe continuing to expand with no new matter? What is the Universe expanding into? Every equation leaves out the force religious people call God. Most present day physicists admit, based on the double slit experiment, that "will" had to be present at the big bang. I am not a mathematician or physicist. I am a believer in God as a force in nature like electric potential as well as a personality of my faith's teachings. I believe the Universe will continue to expand eternally as it will also create new matter out of nothing; just as at the big bang. I have no science to support my belief or faith this is so. When physicists and mathematicians include some expression in Greek letters to represent the God force (probably related to dark matter and gravity) they finally will write the Unified Field Theory. I realize Science doesn't fool around with imprecision and the only urgency solving this before one dies, the unsatisfactory death of Albert Einstein who died with a notepad and pencil in hand, died never having written the Holy Grail equation known as the Grand Unified Field Theory. Who knows, that may be the name such persons use to quantify God. Maybe GUFT is actually the equation for God. The God particle has been discovered. (ironic sarcasm)
    OK to all that, but I am a lot more centered on discovering how America can be saved and survive the worst president in history since WWII before the elections in 2016. What really has me anxious is wondering what largesse redistributing candidate the Democrats will tender in that election cycle. I only pray it is NOT Hillary Clinton.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo