To find the origin of these no go areas, quantum mechanics is the main question, as the rest is often limitations of the mathematical description. For the deep randomness in QM, missing concepts must

Jonathan Kerr

Essay Abstract

With most forms of unpredictability, the limitations are not with the universe, but with the systems we use to describe it. Sometimes mathematics itself is limited, sometimes it's a lack of information, but either way, the description is incomplete. But then there are grey areas. Recent work shows that some chaotic systems, such as in the three-body problem, simply can't be computed, due to limitations set by the Planck length[1]. Is it the universe or the description that creates the limitation there? It can be shown that both are involved. But the main question is whether the universe is ever unpredictable in a way that is entirely unrelated to the description, and that can only be answered via quantum mechanics (QM). Here it is argued that three aspects of QM suggest there are missing concepts: the basic unpredictability, non-locality, and no consensus on how to interpret the theory. Some clues and ways to search for missing concepts are outlined, then a new interpretation for QM, in the hope that it sheds light on the unpredictability.

Author Bio

Jonathan Kerr is an independent researcher, published in peer reviewed journals, who worked mainly on the conceptual foundations of physics for twenty five years. A recent paper, 'An interactions-based interpretation for quantum mechanics', and the book 'The Unsolved Puzzle: Interactions, not measurements' were part of the subject of a 2019 documentary, The Interactions Avenue, in which he discusses the general avenue of thought on interactions, and a new interpretation for quantum mechanics, with some well-known physicists who also lean towards the interactions approach.

Download Essay PDF File

Edwin Klingman

Dear Jonathan Kerr,

You start off with a bang, identifying the assumption that mathematics is synonymous with what it describes. I think this is probably the biggest problem in physics. I refer to it as projecting structure onto physical reality and then believing that the universe has that structure. In the same first paragraph you mention problems with time.

My essay discusses time and concludes that QM time is more appropriate than special relativity time.

You also identify non-locality as part of the puzzle. I believe Bell, in his first equation, projected a qubit structure onto the Stern-Gerlach atom, insisting on A, B = +1 or -1 when that is not what the S-G data showed, but what QM insists on. The result: non-locality. [i have not analyzed the physics of photons, which all the experiments are based on.]

I tend to agree with you that the wave function is real and informational at the same time. I agree with Rovelli that interaction 'entangles' the two particles, and they retain the correlation. This leads [for spins] to Bell correlations without non-locality. I'll need to study your approach more to see if you're saying what I think you are.

I invite you to read my essay and comment: Deciding on the nature of time and space.

I found your essay very interesting and worth rereading.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Jonathan Kerr

Hello Edwin,

Thanks, I'll read your essay. Just to clarify one point, the idea that an interaction entangles two particles didn't come from Rovelli, it came from decoherence. That is known to happen from theory and experiment - decoherence came directly out of QM. One of the things that came from Rovelli, both in the conversation and in notes surrounding RQM, was that without suggesting a cause, he thought that an interaction causes an 'exchange of relational information'. That says more, and led to one part of the DQM interpretation.

Jonathan

David Brown

"Three aspects of quantum mechanics suggest we don't have all the pieces of the puzzle in front of us. The basic unpredictability, non-locality, and no consensus on interpreting the theory: all suggest missing conceptual pieces." Is quantum field theory one theory or infinitely many theories? I say it is infinitely many theories. Precisely how many fundamental quantum fields exist? What precisely is a quantum probability amplitude in terms of mathematical axioms? Is infinity a semi-theological concept? How might quantum field theory fail? How can quantum field theory encompass quantum gravitational theory?

Note that Frauchiger and Renner's article has no mention of Migrom or MOND. I say that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology -- on the basis of overwhelming empirical evidence.

Frauchiger, Daniela; Renner, Renato. "Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself." arXiv preprint arXiv:1604.07422 (2016).

He, Guang Ping. "Quantum theory has no problem consistently describing the use of itself." arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.06858 (2018).

Rizzi, Anthony. "How the Natural Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Avoids the Recent No-go Theorem." arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.10131 (2019).

I conjecture that the Copenhagen Interpretation is philosophically wrong but empirically irrefutable.

Jonathan Kerr

Dear David,

Thank you. I refer to the Frauchiger-Renner paper, and also to a paper from last year showing that it was supported by experimental evidence from a similar setup. The result provided strong evidence for interpretations set in an observer-dependent framework, and that was my reason for mentioning it in passing.

Jonathan

Edwin Klingman

Jonathan, I gave you a score to get rid of that stupid one someone hands out so freely. It also brought my average down. Please rate me also. I'll respond to your comment on my page. Thanks for reading my essay and commenting.

I don't know why you have so little traffic but I suspect it's tied to your title, which is not inviting.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Jonathan Kerr

Thanks Edwin,

I appreciate the high score you gave my essay. I think you're right that the title was a mistake - I tried to make a point in the title, but titles aren't for that!

We've had a very interesting conversation on your page, which I won't go into here, but thanks again, and for your kind comments.

Best wishes, and here's wishing you good luck,

Jonathan

Vladimir Fedorov

Dear Jonathan

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

"In DQM, the structure of the dimensions is the bedrock from which everything arises, aseverything consists of vibrations in its fabric. The ether that was falsified by experiment130 years ago was seen as a different kind of medium, behaving like matter".

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

Sue Lingo

Hello Jonathan...

Thank you for your astute observation of "the structure of the dimensions as the bedrock from which everything arises", and for recognizing its relevance to my work with the UQs GEOMETRY MODEL.

If a distinction can be made between GEOMETRY MODEL... i.e. "structure"... as a configuration of graphic elements... e.g. nodes, lines, planes, volumes... and mathematically derived CONCEPTUAL 'ENTITIES" associated with the "structure"... e.g. "dimensions"... the mathematical operatives facilitated by the specified GEOMETRY MODEL can be used to verify conceptual validity, within the model.

In that a "dimension", as a conceptual "entity" will have properties that are geometry element configuration specific, a GEOMETRY MODEL, preferably as a 3D CAD environment, that facilitates an unbroken kinematic logic chain from observation to a single dimensionless point source of Fundamental Potential for Motion, must be derived prior to "dimensional" analysis of quantum mechanisms... i.e. a digitally quantized spatial environment that is not purturbative, facilitates a logic framework to visually confine conceptual "entities" to mathematical analysis that is not puturbative.

Properties of quantum systems... i.e. unperdictability, non-locality, randomness, and superposition... as perceived utilizing purtrabative observation and/or purtrabative mathematical analysis, may not survive analysis with a GEOMETRY MODEL that is not purtrabative.

The UQS 3D Geometry environment inherently facilitates several of the DQM extensions to QM.

For example, UQS Geometry facilitates function integration of two spatially independent channels... i.e. Inertia Channel and Radiation Channel... each comprised of contiguous 2D planar minimum/indivisible quanta of spatial occupancy (QI), which encapsulate channel function specific recursive volumes.

Within a UQS quantized 3D CAD environment, Inertia channel QI and Radiation channel QI, facilitate UQS Emission SIMulation of Causal Energy pulsed Fundamental Potential for Motion, from a single dimensionless point source... i.e. QI facilitate unique (x,y,z) addressing for emission and subsequent distribution of minimum/indivisible quanta of spatially defined Energy (QE).

A 3D node/spline Network channel... i.e.(a)"ether"?... as the quantization geometry of the UQS GEOMETRY MODEL, facilitates QE distribution intelligence.

Sir Roger Penrose, 2020 Nobel Physics Prize Recipient, is publically endorsing the notion that "Quantum Mechanics Needs a New Theory" but if "Quantum Mechanics", is to be associated with fundamental mechanisms of QE emission and distribution, then prior to a "New Theory", "Quantum Mechanics" needs a GEOMETRY MODEL that is not purtrabative.

Without an association to a specified GEOMETRY MODEL, conceptual and/or mathematical assessments tend be temporal, and due to the corruptible nature... i.e. dynamic instability... of semantics, symbolic and/or linguistic, an academic necessity for interpretation classification has generated unresolvable terminology issues that are inhibiting an "Emergent Quantum Theory". REF: Klaas Landsman FQXi 2019-2020 Essay

If (a)"ether" as "the fabric of the dimensions provides a very different transmitting medium", then perhaps the term (a)"ether" is synonymous with the "root architecture of cosmic intelligence"`~ sl?

"All matter originates and exist only by virtue of a force... and we must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. The (that) mind is the matrix of all matter." ~ Max Planck, Quanta Author and Physicist

Thanks again Jonathan, for introducing me to DQM, and for your patience with my slow acknowledgement of its significance, and similarities with UQS.

Sue Lingo