Essay Abstract

Empirical reality is empirical. Undecidability, uncomputability, and unpredictability are demonstrably valid but empirically falsifiable as contextual straw men . "Accepted theory" carefully avoids looking in therapeutic places. LOOK

Author Bio

Alan M. Schwartz is an industrial organic chemist, material and process. Engineer, "They SELL it!" Schwartz, "They throw it away." European patent EP0438043, "Intraocular Lens with High Strength Haptics" (1996)" from Swedlow Inc.'s dumpster.

Download Essay PDF File

Hi Alan, I enjoyed reading your short essay. Good title. I did not know of Hund's paradox. Chiral isomers, it seems to me, are as you say, are of one or the other form. It does not matter hoe they are looked at or measured. I don't think, unlike the cat, that they can flip from one isomer to the opposite chirality isomer. There seems to be a problem in physics with trying to fit everything in the same QM mould. Thank you for highlighting the paradox. It was educational for me. Kind regards G.

    Re. "I don't think, unlike the cat, that they can flip from one isomer to the opposite chirality isomer." I meant by that going from one outcocme state to the other. With the cat there is uncertainty , it may have died and it may not have died. G.

    Thank you for enjoying my modest counterpoint to 60 years of horror.

    HTML as such is herein disallowed

    Surf acumentateDOTblogspotDOTcom for

    ... 1) The technical proposal

    ... 2) Hund's paradox, footnote [4]

    ... 3) the chemistry

    ... 4) the thermodynamics

    ... 5) the kinetics

    ... 6) the absence of any result that leaves 60 years of desperate physics untarnished.

    Posting that here would be ponderous and baffling to the target audience. How many physicists can look into a stereodiagram and see a molecule in 3D? The fish.

    17 days later

    As a physicist, I think that chemists are closest to the truth with regard to the true nature of QM (see section 3 in https://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.5281.pdf).

    Hund's `paradox' is just an artifact of ignoring the time scales introduced by the dynamics of the ontology underlying the statistical description of QM. Such dogmatic reading of Schrodinger's equation eludes physicists into believing that quantum computers are scaleable. It further leads to a misrepresentation of matter - hence the alleged missing (dark-) matter problem.

    The minimum activation energy for inverting one enantiomer of 2-trifluoromethyl-D3-trishomocubane cannot be less than four simultaneous C-C bond cleavages of its pentacyclic skeleton, 1414 kJ/mole.

    Given a 2 kelvin rotational temperature supersonic vacuum expansion molecular beam, the calculated Arrhenius equation racemization rate constant is 10-36,900/sec. A mole is 6ﾃ--1023 molecules. It Will Not Happen, not even a single molecule. I don't mind being proven wrong. Or, quantum mechanics would fail, then all its string theory, supersymmetry, and standard model pontifications. What could be more exciting? Look. I have attached stereograms of the two enantiomers, plus opposite chirality superpositions. QM cannot squirm out of contingent empirical falsification. They do not interconvert, falsfying Hund's paradox and QM.Attachment #1: D3Flip02a.png

    So, are you saying that there is no `paradox'; that large chiral molecules do change their chirality on laboratory time-scales, and that this has been experimentally demonstrated? Ref's?

    You have it 100% backwards. I propose that matter-wave interference - a 2 kelvin single enantiomer molecular beam passed through a multi-slit material or photonic nano-grating (re Arndt) absent dissipation, will NOT racemize as required by Hund's paradox. QM will be demonstrated to be incomplete. Somebody should look

    1) Molecular beam generation - DOI:10.1002/anie.201704221

    2) Matter wave interference pattern - DOI:10.1038/s41567-019-0663-9, DOI:10.1039/c3cp51500a, arXiv:1703.02129 and DOI:10.1002/prop.201600025; DOI:10.1038/nnano.2015.179, arXiv:1602.07578

    3) Real time measurement of enantiomer ratios at picogram scales - DOI:10.1021/acs.jpclett.5b02443, DOI:10.1016/j.jms.2019.01.002

    Then you should write:

    "...will NOT racemize as required by QM"

    rather than

    "...will NOT racemize as required by Hund's paradox".

    The `paradox' is that, indeed, they do not racemize.

    A recent, alleged resolution of this paradox is that the environment must be incorporated into the QM calculation but:

    1) Even without the environment, the tunneling time between the two chiral eigenstates can only be estimated - I personally don't trust it.

    2) According to my interpretation of QM, even without the environment, the equal superposition of the two (the eigevector of the parity operator) only represents the time-averaged joint distribution of a definite ontology, comprising localized, charged bodies (albeit not rigid). The `classical configuration' of the molecule is almost always in one definite chirality (plus fluctuations around it) or the other - just as a chemist has in mind.

    All the best

    2 months later

    Well that's a perfect 10 Alan! The most tightly packed box of jewels and gold nuggets I've come across. Your directness is impressive, clear and appreciated. You'll certainly like mine (and my last few) agreeing with all your points but rather building steadily from more solid empirical foundations.

    For such a short essay the highlights are endless! 'Aristotle nonsense' (see mine!) 'incapable of self correction', 'knowingly fraudulent', reality NOT 'superposition.stats/magic', '..empirical theory free of Hunds paradox.' (I suggest a solution for that in the Majorana dipole fermion, i.e. Coming from space we can only arrive at Earth at one point, EITHER rotating clockwise OR anticlockwise!). Last year I showed how that can resolve 'superposition' giving classic QM!

    Scoring it now. I hope you'll do the same for mine and look forward to discussing it.

    Peter

    P.S. Do please see my past essays and papers (arXiv, Academia, Research Gate etc. all doing as you suggest) I've recently come across a brilliant paper and project I'm sure you'll also love & support; Peter Sujak Call to repel 20th Century Theories.

      Sixty years of QFT/QM validation then derivation does not unite with GR. I offer a QFT/QM falsifying experiment given Hund's paradox versus calculated 10^(-36,900)/sec rate for single enantiomer exemplar molecules' racemization .

      ... 0) Synthesize and optically resolve 2-trifluoromethyl-D3-trishomocubane, 214.227 daltons, six contingent homochiral centers in eleven skeletal atoms. -CF3 imparts a dipole moment and microwave spectrum therefrom. (-CN promotes vacuum dimerization.)

      ... 1) Vacuum supersonic expansion (micro de Laval nozzle) into a 2 kelvin rotational temperature molecular beam.

      ... 2) Matter wave diffraction, physical or optical multi-slit grating. QM interference is Schrödinger's box for chirality, Hund's paradox.

      ... 3) In-line three-wave mixing microwave determination of enantiomer ratio. Commercial apparatus.

      One day. "This violates accepted theory!" This ends it. Look.

      Alan,

      "'The most recent sixty years of physics are curve fittings incapable of self-correction. Physics as business model is knowingly fraudulent as funding to do so, theory and experiment. Undecidability, uncomputability, and unpredictability are derivative protective diversions. Empirical reality is not a superposition of states, a statistical extrapolation...or magical . Empirical reality is empirical." Amen.

      My own drumbeat is that physicists project math structures on the world and come to believe that these structures represent physical reality. [I certainly agree that chemists have a much better understanding of atomic reality than physicists or mathematicians.]

      Most physicists believe that 'qubits' are real; Bell demands qubits in his first equation: (A,B = +1, -1). For spins in magnetic domains this is a good statistical model, and reasonable. Unfortunately, for the Stern-Gerlach model upon which Bell based his reasoning, it is not. The SG data shown on the "Bohr postcard' is anything but +1 and -1, whereas a 3-vector spin model In an inhomogeneous field produces almost exactly the SG-data.

      As for entanglement, If one assumes that the deBroglie-like gravitomagnetic wave circulation is induced by the mass flow density of the particle [momentum-density], then the equivalent mass density of the field energy induces more circulation. This means that the wave field is self-interacting. For 'one free particle' a stable soliton-like particle plus induced circulation/wave is essentially deterministic. But for many interacting particles, all of whose fields are also self-interacting, then 'determinism' absolutely vanishes, in the sense of calculations or predictions, and the statistical approach becomes necessary. This clearly supports 'local' entanglement, as the waves interact and self-interact, while rejecting Bell's 'qubit'-based projection: A, B = +1, -1 consistent with the Stern-Gerlach data (see Bohr postcard). For Bell experiments based on 'real' spin (3-vector) vs 'qubit' spin (good for spins in magnetic domains) the physics easily obtains the correlation which Bell claims is impossible, hence 'long distance' entanglement is not needed and local realism is preserved.

      John Schultz's essay suggests that the algorithmic limitations of knowability do not apply to non-algorithmic patterns, of the self-interacting type I just described. If so, this is not a matter of math; it is a matter of ontology. I believe ontology is the issue for the number of authors who also seem to support more 'intuition' in physics. My current essay, Deciding on the nature of time and space treats intuition and ontology in a new analysis of special relativity, and I invite you to read it and comment.

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

        very nice cartoon caption.revolutionary thought essay.is human bias a cause That will force a change in physics?pls read/rate my take https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3525.thanks all the best. muteruw05@gmail.com

          Edwin, theoretical physics now promotes universal fractional 26.5% dark matter, 4.9% baryonic matter. New and improved dark matter is superconducting axions. Call it "[B]math[/B]amphetamine."

          I propose a one day experiment that quantum mechanics, given its own rules, would fail to the left of the decimal point. This would not contradict any other observation in any venue at any scale. Look.

          I do not claim revelation in validation. I demand observation of falsification. To criticize is to volunteer. I state an unremarkable experiment that is 100% "yes" or "no." Look. If an assistant professor then seeks to add 10[SUP]-43[/SUP] trim either way, more's the pity.

          10 days later

          A few points of agreement, at least...

          It's always enjoyable and mind-expanding to read your papers Al. I agree QM is incomplete. It would be nice to catch a molecule in the act, having a macroscopic superposition. Anton Zeilinger did some experiments to test that, but he was working with Buckyballs, not with chiral molecules. The experiment you propose looks easy enough, for a well-equipped College lab.

          I've been exploring a model where the morphology of space changes over time. There can be continuous topological evolution where trapped spin manifests as torsion in the fabric of spacetime. In the recent work of Christian and Diether; they assert that early universe torsion is what gave rise to the chiral particles of today.

          I see that the questions you raise do relate to the subject of decoherence theory, and I had interesting correspondence with Dieter Zeh, some years before his demise. I like that construction. But I don't claim to be a decoherence theory evangelist. I too would like to see more empirical tests and validation, and I think Chemistry offers many overlooked possibilities as an experimental arena for Physics.

          All the Best,

          Jonathan

            Hello,

            A very good essay, short, concise, precise I must say and I agree that this QM is not complete and that a crisis exists inside the theoretical sciences Community, maybe it is just due to prisons of thoughts simply focusing only on this GR relativity like main piece of puzzle.

            Regards

              Physics trivially fails to the left of the decimal point. Physics is a knowing poltroon if it dismisses my one-day experiment...or it succeeds and thermodynamics fails. Too much fun!

              Matter wave diffraction (also Arndt and students) worked for 25,000 dalton molecules (DOI:10.1038/s41567-019-0663-9, DOI:10.1039/c3cp51500a). Doing it with C12H13CF3, 214 da, is beneath trivial. C60 is 721 da. Front and rear ends are hugely validated commercial equipment from BrightSpec.

              A (diffracted)(interfered) single optical isomer molecular beam exits racemized or unchanged. Physics fails or thermodynamics fails. Each C11 cage has EIGHT contingent chiral centers. Its microwave spectrum post-grating leaves science nowhere to to remain intact, quantum mechanics versus thermodynamics.

              I have no issue with other essays' rigor. They are before-the-decimal empirically falsifiable, being math not science LOOK.

              Thanks for the follow up Al,

              I agree it's better to do the (tough or otherwise) experiments rather than wondering what is real and just trusting the Math. I was a tinkerer and experimentalist before the theory bug bit me. My Physics mentor thought chiral Physics was often missed or botched, rotating magnetic field mishandled, and so on. I know I have only scratched the surface. Thank you for making me think.

              Have Fun!

              Jonathan