Comment by jiggawatts

2 years ago

Quantum mechanics is a religion with mathematics instead of just holy texts.

Several studies have been done into whether practicing theoretical physicists using QM in their everyday work agree on the most basic tenets of the field.

Spoiler: they disagree on every aspect while simultaneously assuming that their opinions are correct and that everyone else agrees with them.

That’s how religions work, not how science does. Factions instead of consensus. Branches splitting off all the time and never supplanting the majority. Orthodoxy (Copenhagen). Shunning anyone that steps out of line (Everett). Refusing to question the holy texts, etc…

Another key symptom is requiring members to prove their devotion by saying and doing things that are obvious nonsense. Bending their common sense to the will of the group. In Christianity this is the trinity: one God that is three. In QM it’s the wave-particle duality, which is just nonsense. You can’t have a point with a kilometre long wavelength!! Yet, we are to believe (on faith!) that radio waves are made of photons.

Turns out that magical thinking and religiosity is the essential nature of humans, especially in large groups.

Whenever there is insufficient evidence to bring everyone into line, the line splinters into warring factions where the best argument each tribe has is: “my tribal leader said so!”

All of the disagreements in QM are metaphysical: what is measurement, how does a wavefunction collapse, what is reality, etc. Everyone agrees on the math that leads to predictions (which have been matched by observation to an almost perfect degree). And I'd imagine that just about everyone also agrees that it's incredibly unintuitive. But the math works.

  • That’s not really true, there may be ways to experimentally distinguish between those disagreements

I mean semiconductor engineers have to deal with quantum effects when designing chips. Its not like it doesn't effect the real world, we do interact with parts of it when things get really small.

  • An actual semiconductor engineer that works at ASML has uploaded a whole series of videos that debunk the existence of photons in free space[1]. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/V6G8ZZmeJzc

    Quantum Mechanics is a set of mathematical tricks, shortcuts for numerical computation, that is all. People have become so enamored with the results of those computations that they've blithely ignored the limited scope of these shortcuts. You've found a nailgun, it's better than a hammer. That doesn't mean everything is a nail now.

    [1] Essentially, "particles" like photons are a short-hand terminology and a matching set of mathematical shortcuts for the behaviour of waves in a potential well (or any cavity). It doesn't make any sense outside of that scenario, such as light traversing empty space. All of that behaviour is perfectly predictable with ordinary wave mechanics. No quantum woodoo is required.

    • How do you explain double-slit experiment results under this view?

      - The screen accumulates dots corresponding to photons.

      - Any measurement that would let you determine which slit a photon went through destroys the wavelike interference pattern at the screen.

[flagged]

  • [flagged]

    • I’m really confused here as a quantum physicist myself. Yes there is huge disagreement and yes it’s a problem, but also what is the alternative? It’s not like we can just give up on quantum mechanics because you personally have philosophical problems with it. My task is to reduce the fundamental quantum noise that we see in gravitational wave detectors after removing all the classical noise. How would it be constructive to just say “let’s pretend there is no quantum noise?”

      To me it’s exciting that there is no clear interpretation for quantum mechanics, and it also nicely retroactively casts doubt on our interpretation for all previous theories: did classical mechanics just coincidentally present as deterministic? Etc. maybe you think questions about determinism are woo but I think that would be quite extreme

      Honestly, I don’t see why it’s a problem that there are different interpretations of quantum mechanics

      1 reply →