The Quantum Confusion: What to teach? by Sonali Mohapatra

Dear Ms. Mohepatra,

I hope your excellently written essay does well in the competition. Please forgive me. Reality is unique. Quantum theory is not unique.

INERT LIGHT THEORY

Based on my observation, I have concluded that all of the stars, all of the planets, all of the asteroids, all of the comets, all of the meteors, all of the specks of astral dust and all real things have one and only one thing in common. Each real thing has a material surface and an attached material sub-surface. A surface can be interior or exterior. All material surfaces must travel at a constant speed. All material sub-surfaces must travel at an inconsistent speed that has to be less than the constant speed the surface travels at. While a surface can travel in any direction, a sub-surface can only travel either inwardly or outwardly. A sub-surface can expand or contract. Surfaces and sub-surfaces can be exchanged by the application of natural or fabricated force. The surfaces of the sub-sub-microscopic can never be altered. This is why matter cannot be destroyed. This is why anti-matter can never be created. It would be physically impossible for light to move as it does not have a surface or a sub-surface. Although scientists insist that light can be absorbed, or reflected, or refracted, this is additional proof that light cannot have a surface. It would be physically impossible for a surface to absorb another surface, or reflect another surface, or refract another surface.

Abstract theory cannot ever have unification because it is perfect.. Only reality is unified because there is only one unique reality.

Light is the only stationary substance in the real Universe. The proof of this is easy to establish. When one looks at an active electrical light, one must notice that all of the light remains inside of the bulb. What does move from the bulb is some form of radiant. The radiant must move at a rate of speed that is less than the "speed" of light, however, when the radiant strikes a surface it achieves the "speed" of light because all surfaces can only travel at the constant "speed" of light. When a light radiant strikes a surface, the radiant resumes being a light, albeit of a lesser magnitude. While it is true that searchlights, spotlights and car headlights seem to cast a beam of light, this might be because the beams strike naturally formed mingled sub-sub and sub-atomic particles prevalent in the atmosphere that collectively, actually form a surface.

In the Thomas Young Double Slit Experiment, it was not direct sunlight that passed through the slits. Light from the sun is stationary and it cannot move because light does not have a surface. Radiants emitted from the sun went through the slits and behaved like wave radiants.

Einstein was completely wrong. His abstract theory about how abstract observers "see" abstract events differently is wrong. This is what every real observer sees when they look at a real light. They see that all of the light remains near the source. The reason for that is because light does not have a surface, therefore it cannot move. This happens to real observers whether they are looking at real fabricated lights such as neon, incandescent or LED. This also happens when real observers observe real natural light such as from the real sun or reflected from the real moon, or from a real lightning bolt, or from a real fire, a real candle, or light from out of a real lightning bug's bottom.

Hi Sonali,

Great essay! I totally agree with you; teaching quantum mechanics as early as possible is very important. I think school curricula should include QM at the level of popular science books, and universities should teach QM to first year students. This will motivate more people to study science. I got interested in physics after reading about relativity and quantum mechanics.

In my essay, I discuss how to improve the way we do science, which includes the necessity of improving education. I would like to take you opinion.

Best regards,

Mohammed

Sonali,

That was short but very very sweet, right in line with my own arguments that we should teach a far better way to use the on-board quantum computers in our heads, and that itself will make quantum mechanics comprehensible. I commend you top marks for;

"The creamy layer and the common mass has never been so distanced as it is now and the distance is nowhere so vast as it is in physics."

No more important truth may exist for the advancement of mankind. But I have a greater shock for you. I have proved you are correct experimentally and the experiment has been successfully repeated. The protocol description and results are in the end notes of my essay. Even more shocking, by reinterpreting the unproven 'hidden assumption' of 'collapse to singlet spin states' to invoke QAM and read; "we can on measure direction of one hemisphere at a time" I derive QM predictions from comprehensible classical dynamics, geometrically.

My young nephew at junior school understands the dynamics; As 'latitude' of a sphere changes so does rotational speed, so OAM, by the cosine of the angle from the equatorial plane, producing the 'measurement at any interaction point. Add in electron spin flip etc. to create joined-up-physics and the spooky superluminal nonsense evaporates.

The kids have completed an experiment to prove it, simply using a spectral coloured disc. The experiment should be repeated in all school classrooms. QM and SR are then allowed to converge, with absolute time but the postulates intact. My nephew is now also a master of logical SR, he asks;

"If electrons don't re-emit at the 'c' of their own rest frame, how would they know what speed to emit at?" The king is naked.

But of course most quantum physicists may commit suicide before giving up their beliefs. I do hope you'll check and comment (and score) my essay for yourself. It also has a touch of romance.

I apologise for mainly discussing my own but I know you'll be interested. Very well done for flagging it up. Thank you. Do hold on tight for a moment.

Very best wishes.

Peter

Dear Sonali,

I like that you ask the small questions. You say: "Small questions are ignored and we talk in Jargon making sure that the world feels even more alienated."

But I think the main problem is that as far as science itself has no clear answer it develops cold feet about teaching same to children. Just for instance quantum mechanics has more than five different interpretations. And what do we mean by interpretation? Its SIMPLE questions like, "what is a wave function"?

As a child what I disliked most about mathematics was that my teachers didn't border about explaining: why formulas? Why long division? My mathematics teachers favored rote learning, until I got one who didn't. He'll break down concepts like "pi" saying "its the picture in your mind that matters, you might as well call it "ordurwa". Ordurwa was a kind of local snack.

Am definitely going to rate this essay highly but please can you give me your critique of my own approach to these fundamental questions.

Regards,

Chidi

Sonali,

Let me also add that you make great sense about teaching matrix to children.

Chidi

Sonali,

Thank you for a very interesting essay. I agree with you that we should re-think the school syllabus to, as you say, "change the overall outlook of the general public motivating them to follow and participate in scientific discussions all around the world". You certainly make a bold proposal in saying that we should teach non commutative algebra and the basic ideas of quantum mechanics early on. I wonder if it has ever been tried?

In my essay, I propose that we should try to put forward a worldwide futurocentric education initiative, aimed at raising the knowledge and awareness of the citizens of the world about the issues that are the most important for the future of humanity. A side goal of the initiative would be to make what is taught in school more relevant to students, hence more motivating. I wonder if the prospect of learning "edgy" modern physics, as opposed to good old classical physics, would make the students more responsive, and encourage them to become scientists themselves...

I hope you do well in this contest, and I've given you a little boost to raise the visibility of your essay. If you have time to read my essay, rate it and comment on it, it would be quite appreciated. I am also interested in finding out the opinion of others concerning which are the most important topics that should be part of a futurocentric curriculum --- besides, of course, quantum mechanics!!! :)

Marc

Dear Mrs Sonali Mohapatra

You write similar things and ideas as I if you look into my essay. I gave also Zeilinger's idea to make computer games, where the world is quantum. In truth, such games already exist. Here is one good paper, which better introduce quantum mechanics (QM). One good book for understanding of quantum physics is also Feynmann's one [1]. A good approach to QM is also of Brukner and Zeilinger. In my recent essay there are also some other examples of simplified explanation of physics.

Of course, a big reserve is also in mathematics of QM itself, for instance, what is the purpose of imaginary numbers. Every equation of quantum physics can be better visualized. It is a lot of in visualization of quantum physics for adults, before we go to kids. Otherwise, I also claim that QM can be taught before all classical physics is understood.

I claim also that QM is not yet ultimately explained. One reason is that quantum gravity is also not yet explained. For instance, general relativity (GR) and QM help to make physics dimensionless. Dimensionless physics is a condition to have a chance to calculate with it. This is where QM and GR and interweaved, Section 5 of this paper The second unexplained thing is consciousness, which is probably connected with QM. These unexplained things also disturb at explanation of QM.

When I was young, I did not believe in QM. Thus I was not very interested in studying it. Later I saw connection of it with consciousness. This gave me stimulation for further research.

I have also one paper, which more clearly introduce special theory of relativity (SR). I need still to add illustrations and it will be an parallel example how to better visualize QM and GR. All of them, QM, GR and SR, are connected.

Baez gave an example, how to more clearly introduce General relativity, so he also gives one parallel example how to explain QM and that there is a lot of reserves for better explanation.

References

[1] Feynman R P 1985 QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press)

Sonali,

I also believe that quantum mechanics can be taught in upper elementary and high school, but the macro and subatomic can be united like so (my reference in my essay): "It took a high-energy collision of the LHC, for example, to disengage three quarks in a proton. On a comparative larger scale, imagine your body hovering less than one nanometer above your chair's cushion, averaging out the quantum effects of 7 octillion atoms."

The unimaginable in the macro world of the body can speak to the great vacate areas of the atom.

I would like to see your reaction to my essay.

Jim

Sonali,

A good essay. I certainly agree and myself discuss that we need to teach how to use our brains in a very different way, and from an early age. You should also see Peter Jackson excellent essay rationalising QM to accord with relativity if you haven't yet.

Judy