Mendel Sachs 
Posted in 
Tags: 
There has recently been published a multitude of books that attempt to defend the underlying truth of quantum mehanics – its conceptual basis and philosophy. It is righfully said that the formal expression of (nonrelativistic) quantum mechanics correctly predicts all sorts of experimental facts, not predicted by the classical Newtonian theory, such as applications to solid state devices, lasers and masers, atomic and molecular spectra, etc.
But this was also true of Newton's theory of gravity. Yet, it failed in yielding an acceptable conceptual base. Newton himself complained that he did not understand his theory of gravity beyond its description of gravitational phenomena. Three hundred years later, Einstein provided an explanation of gravitational phenomena with a field theory, totally different than that of Newton, conceptually and mathematically. This theory then gave back the formal expression of Newton's theory of gravity, as a particular mathematical approximation! But it rejected the conceptual basis of Newton's theory of universal gravitation.
Just as was the case with Newton's theory of universal gravitation, the quantum theory fails as a conceptual understanding of atomic phenomena, though its formal expression can be a mathematical approximation for a closed field theory, such as general relativity, in expressing an underlying explanation of the atomic domain of matter.
Recall R.P. Feynman's statement about the basis of quantum mechanics (as proposed by Bohr and Heisenberg):
"What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students. And you think I am going to explain it to you so you can understand it? No, you're not going to be able to understand it. It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see, my physics students don't understand it either. It is because I don't undersand it. Nobody does". (R. P. Feynman, QED (Princeton, 1985, p. 9).
I disagree with Feynman. It is my view that it is our goal, as scientists, to understand a physical phenomenon, not only to describe it! We cannot be satisfied, as Feynman pleads, to only describe a quantum phenomenon. As scientists, we must seek to understand it. The alleged basis of quantum mechanics does not provide this understanding, as Feynman confesses. It has been my assertion that Einstein, Schrodinger and Dirac were correct in searching for an explanation of quantum phenomena, not only their description.
Well stated! Einstein once said "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it's comprehensible". We cannot be satisfied with a description.
Someone I work with visits your site frequently and recommended it to me to read as well. The writing style is superior and the content is interesting. Thanks for the insight you provide the readers!
The classical physics realm has limited speed of communications c (as in the speed of light). This limited speed of communication does not apply at the quantum level (entanglement is an example of faster than c communication). What we, observing of quantum from our classical physics vantage point see, is not the full picture. If we did see the full picture it would violate Time and therefore Time/Space. The partial picture is what gives the confusing results we know as Quantum Mechanics.
Even if the theory above is incorrect, it at least makes logical sense and is easily more understandable than the so called Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and leads to exactly the same results. The only concern is that then Quantum Mechanics cannot be integrated with General Relativity, but since that cannot be done with current theories either.
You are right that QM is incompatible with GR. I have written on this in several of my publications, e.g. 'Einstein versus Bohr' (Open Court, 1988).
What I have shown in my research is that one can derive the formal expression of QM as a linear approximation for a nonlinear field theory of the inertia of matter in GR. Thus QM derives from GR. I have shown this derivation in my books, 'GR and Matter' (Reidel, 1982), Chapter 4, and 'QM and Gravity' (Springer, 2004), Chapter 4.
Hi buddy, your blogs model is simple and clean and i like it. Your blog content articles are superb. Please keep them coming. Greets!!!
Hi, professor. What do you think about EPR, which ruled out Einstein's hidden variable theory and also Bell's experiment in vindicating the mathematical necessity of non-locality of QM. Do all these point to the direction of understanding contrary to yours, which is the lack of "conceptual basis" of QM may eventually turn out that there will be a basis, it is just not the sort of basis that pre-QM physics often resort to?
"All of these" may indeed point to a faulty interpretation of the formalism of Quantum Mechanics! It has happened over and over again in the history of science that faulty interpretations of phenomena gave in to new and more correct interpretations! In my research I find that the formalism of Quantum Mechanics is a linear approximation for a nonlinear, generally covariant theory of the inertia of matter.
To Mr. Hao: As it stands, in the Copenhagen view, there is no basis of QM. It is a statistical description of the measurments of the properties of micromatter. The basis I have shown for the formalism of QM is that it is a linear approximation for a nonlinear, generally covariant field theory in general relativity, of the inertia of matter.