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

            Axial vectors? Something is fundamentally omitted or there exist unexplored unwelcomed depths. Debate or pontificate? No, Dr. Hossenfelder's Lost in Math. Seek empirical falsification outside your postulates. That is my experiment. Look.

            You might be surprised that I agree...

            I believe as Feynman taught that one should try vigorously to falsify one's work or to disprove it, before pushing your ideas on others. I tried for some 20 years and found more evidence to affirm than disprove. But I still imagined I must be fooling myself and worked harder to find flaws. I felt like I was lost in Math at times, it is true.

            My journey is somewhat like what Haldane described Al, where you come to some insight almost by accident, and then spend years trying to grapple with its significance. I got tired of being scooped too often by scientists with big names, for one thing after another that I had discerned years ago. Then like Sherlock Holmes I said 'with the disproof falsified; my premise however unlikely must be true.'

            Maybe there are some unwelcome depths for you to plumb. Someone should look. But enough pontificating for now.

            All the Best,

            Jonathan

            ... 1) 1964. WA Little: organic exciton-coupled superconductor. Calculated Tc is 23,000 K. Unreasonable molecule. DOI:10.1103/PhysRev.134.A1416

            ... 2) 1976 WA Little: exciton coaxial cable polymer. OK, but impossible to synthesize. DOI:10.1103/PhysRevB.13.4766

            ... 3) 2015 ADMET (olefin metathesis) synthesize via 2,3-diaryl-1,3-butadienes. Should we?

            Software affords 3D structure and assembly energy (positive, for atoms bump and bonds are strained). For a polyacetylene core 22-mer hanging 44 9-anthracenyl groups: +752.6 kcal/mole. Explosive decomposition.

            The structure below, stereogram, as a 22-mer solves to MINUS 771.0 kcal/mole. Is it a Little exciton really high temperature supercon polymer? "Little was a crackpot." Physics is a theoretic scoundrel. LOOK, then decide.

            proposed exciton coaxial polymerAttachment #1: PaveS03.png

            Dear Alan,

            I greatly appreciated your work and discussion. I am very glad that you are not thinking in abstract patterns.

            "Do not complain about the problem or erect altars to it, do not ignore it or embrace it for being irresolvable. Uncreate the probl em external to its postulates. Hund's paradox is validated or falsified in one day of analytical chemistry. Challenge the obvious QM flaw. Chain three classes of published experiments: 1)Supersonic vacuum-expanded 2 kelvin rotational temperature homochiral molecular beam;2)Matter diffraction; 3)Microwave three-wave mixing enantiomer ratio detection of the interference pattern. Observing one carefully, hugely insubordinate molecule. Given Hund's paradox falsification, write empirically fertile theory that does not contain it. After all...it has never empirically failed".

            While the discussion lasted, I wrote an article: "Practical guidance on calculating resonant frequencies at four levels of diagnosis and inactivation of COVID-19 coronavirus", due to the high relevance of this topic. The work is based on the practical solution of problems in quantum mechanics, presented in the essay FQXi 2019-2020 "Universal quantum laws of the universe to solve the problems of unsolvability, computability and unpredictability".

            I hope that my modest results of work will provide you with information for thought.

            Warm Regards, `

            Vladimir

            A chiral center is a cloud of coordinates whose inversion (inside-out and upside-down) is not superposable upon the original solely by translation and rotation (and improper rotation, a footnote). Hund's paradox demands that Shrödinger's box summation of the original wavefunction (absent dissipation) cancels to exactly zero. A stream of incoming left shoes must be outgoing random pairs of shoes, for the intermediate state has zero chiral bias.

            I present a molecule whose energy cost of GLOBAL recemization is immense, allowing no kinetics. Tunneling! Now, the death blow. EACH of said molecules EIGHT chiral centers must so racemize, 28 = 256 different output molecules by spatial configuration. Only two of those structures are chemically possible.

            Quantum mechanics is dead on arrival. One need not look.