Sources of Unpredictability in Quantum Mechanics by Alireza Jamali

Presenting your position with formulas are scientific metaphysical dogmatism equal to the layman's religion without some physics and this essay lacks a conclusion.

Dear Alireza Jamali, you have done a good analysis of the possible and impossible in modern physics. At the very beginning of the essay you concluded: "Therefore physical reality is ontologically, existent but epistemologically inaccessible." You then state the following: "I venture to conclude that theorems like Gödel Incompleteness have no implication for physics!"

I want to assure you that not everything is so bad. It is only necessary to assimilate the identity of Descartes, who states that space is matter, and matter is space. When I believed in this, I began to make discovery after discovery. I invite you to discuss some of my achievements in the neo-Cartesian generalization of modern physics, which I set out in my essay: "The transformation of uncertainty into certainty. The relationship of the Lorentz factor with the probability density of states. And more from a new Cartesian generalization of modern physics. by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

Dear Alireza Jamali, a neocartesian generalization of modern physics excludes from it a probabilistic description of physical processes. As a result of applying the identity of Descartes' space and matter, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle takes on the opposite meaning, i.e. becomes the principle of definiteness of points of physical space, which is matter.

聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽 Boris Dzhechko

Dear Alireza Jamali, your Reflections on the theory of quanta are highly appreciated. I wish you success in the competition.

Sincerely, Dzhechko Boris Semyonovich

Dear Aliriza,

An interesting take on ontological limits, having focused my work in that area I'm not sure I agree, but agreement isn't a scoring criteria!

More interesting to me are any views on QM and I like that you look for the source of orthogonal inverse uncertainty, a search I started long ago. You may be interested in my last years essay which showed that a classical physical mechanism could mirror that source. Poincare's twin orthogonal surface momenta set pairs on a sphere also change inversely by the cosine of the angle of latitude from 1

Aliriza,

That post seems to have been cut off! ...The two momentum pairs in OAM (rotation and linear) both become UNCERTAIN at 90o to their and - maxima, and their inverse ('superposed) change rate is Cos Theta Lat!! In the measurement set-up Malus' Law and QM's data set emerge.

I've just read your paper again as I was very impressed by your rare understanding of QM, all correct. However consider that computer only needs one tiny input flaw for all it's output to be meaningless. I identify an error by Bohr, is NOT checking that the 2nd Poincare (and indeed Maxwell ;curl') OAM momentum state may apply to conjugate pair particles.

THEN we just need anti parallel axes (so 'entangled'), to each pair, and vector addition at interactions, and A.B can flip their OWN finding! So circumventing Bells Theorem to give the Inequalities (as he anticipated).

Let me know if you understand all that and it's implications. You my be one of very few! (You also may be able to help).

I think your essay is undervalued and the score I have it noted down for should give it a big boost.

I hope you'll spot that derivation in my essay, and also read my last years fuller analysis and Declan Trails independent computer verification; (Other papers are archived on Academia & Researchgate)

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3012

Trail computer verification

Well done. Very Best

Peter

Dear Mr. Jamali:

Your essay includes some very deep insights into the nature of quantum mechanics. You are asking the right questions.

For example, you ask about the quantum frequency, and suggest a relativistic theory associated with a rotating field. You further suggest a classical background theory with a filtering processing for quantization, and point out that a complex wave cannot be a real physical field.

You might be interested in my alternative quantum theory, which would seem to fit your criteria. This was addressed in my previous FQXi essay, "Fundamental Waves and the Reunification of Physics", and again in my new FQXi essay, "The Uncertain Future of Physics and Computing".

I have referred to this as a neoclassical synthesis, with a real quantum wave which is a rotating vector field, such as one would have with a circularly polarized EM wave. This follows the vector Klein-Gordon equation, with the additional ansatz that the only acceptable solutions correspond to rotation about a fixed axis with a quantized spin. Suppressing the "carrier wave" rotating at mc^2/h, leads directly to the complex Schrodinger equation, where the complex phase is a relative phase angle of the real vector field. This is not statistical, and there are no point particles.

I argue that quantization cannot be achieved in a linear equation, but rather requires a soliton-like solution of a nonlinear equation, which reduces to the linear KG equation for spin-quantized solutions. The complete nonlinear equation has not yet been identified.

This picture has no microscopic indeterminacy, no superposition, no entanglement, and indeed, no Hilbert space. It also makes accessible experimental predictions that contrast sharply with orthodox QM. It also says that quantum computing is impossible. This is currently a hot field of technology - my prediction is that it will fail completely.

Alan Kadin

Dear Alireza Jamali,

You're quite right about how scientists exercise aesthetic judgement. It reminds of a quote in my own essay which I invite you to read. Von Neumann wrote to Carnap, a logician just after Godel had announced his discovery saying:

"Thus today I am of the opinion that 1. Gödel has shown the unrealizability of Hilbert's program. 2. There is no more reason to reject intuitionism (if one disregards the aesthetic issue, which in practice will also for me be the decisive factor). Therefore I consider the state of the foundational discussion in Königsberg to be outdated, for Gödel's fundamental discoveries have brought the question to a completely different level."

Of course one might think what he means by 'aesthetics' here is just ease of use: Intuitionistic/constructive mathematics is quite a bit more involved than the classical mathematics that we've all grown up with. Still, I think that although this helps understanding what von Neumann was driving at, it nevertheless drops an important dimension in what he was saying.

(I actually elided the part on aesthetics in my essay as I was close to the character limit for the essay, but I would have dearly loved to have kept it in and explained it. But we cannot always get what we want - especially when competition rules apply!)

Best of luck with the contest on a well thought out essay.

Warm wishes

Mozibur Ullah

great dear jamali voted for you.before quantum mechanics,could human instinct have layed the foundational framework for science. for dogs can't learn and make out much out of shroedinger cat scenarios.please read/rate how Human observation gives rise to quantum mechanics here-https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3525.thanks