"Even Wikipedia calls the Standard Model 'Particle Physics.' Why is it not just called a 'Quantum Model'?' Has quantum physics made a fundamental error in its very first premise?"~"the Quantum Poker", §7.
2. LANGUAGE GAMES IN QUANTUM MECHANICS:
A WITGENSTEINIAN PERSPECTIVE
"Even the most paradigmatic of sciences, physics, rests on judgments that are not scientific....science, no matter how coherent internally, is an iceberg floating in a sea of uncertainty....Our search for empirical knowledge should focus not on its visible structures rising into the air, but for assumptions in the far greater mass hidden under the water." ~ from notes on Oxford University lecture by Dr. Hilary Putnam
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
2A) MISCONSTRUING THEORIES AS FACTS
Quantum physicists have had problems understanding the difference between an 'observer' of quanta (which has an influence on quantum state), an observation, and a theory. In science, an observation is collecting information about 'states' and 'events' (States and events are defined in Witgensteinian thought by Donald Davidson). For example:
Is an observation. That compares with the statement:Fruits distribute seeds by animals eating them.
Which initially seems to be saying the same thing, and people often interchange the two forms. But in the second statement, one has transformed the observation into a theory, specifically, that plants have a purpose in making fruits. Similarly, quantum physicists could make statements such as:Plants make fruits so that animals will disperse seeds.
Which would be an observation. However, the following statement is not an observation, it is proposing a theory:The upper bound in correlation between quanta properties emitted from the same source is lower than expected.
Theories are speculative, not statements of fact. Asserting a theory as fact creates a language game with other theories that is meaningless in basis, because the debate is based on an unsound premise. Every single criticism I was sent of the following made the above confusion.Entanglement in the Bell test results in a lower upper bound in correlation between quanta than expected.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
2B) THE STANDARD MODEL
The Standard Model in particle physics states that particles 'collapse into wave functions' in certain situations. All proponents of quantum physicists that have written me have stated that to be fact, with the problem described in the previous situation, making it a religious dogma rather than a theory. When I try to say it's a highly artificial description, as there is no necessity for quanta to be regarded as particles in the first place, I am insulted. Subsequent queries as to what full/empty wave theory, Bohmian mechanics, or the Quantum Baker Model have so far receiving nothing but refusals to engage in further conversation with claims I am too stupid to understand what I am being told.
The 2023 Nobel prize laureates claim they have 'disproven' alternative theories by stating that quantum particles do not have 'local hidden properties.' That statement assumes that quanta are particles that therefore have hidden properties. The statement doesn't actually refute alternative hypotheses which neither claim particles have properties, nor that the observations mean any properties are hidden. Particle physicists sometimes refer to that criticism as a 'loophole' caused by 'the measurement problem.'
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
2C) FULL AND EMPTY WAVES
One alternative to entanglement is the 'empty wave theory' from Dr. V. Skrebenev (Russian Academy of Sciences). He compares quanta to ocean waves, in that the waves appear full from below, and empty from above. Dr. Sofia Wesler provided peer corroboration in "What Was in the Apparatus before the Click of the Detector?" (in the Journal of Quantum Information Science, 2021). As stated in the above dream analogy, it's empirically unknowable what actually happens before an observation, so Dr. Wesler carefully states:
"...This paper describes an experiment whence "it seems necessary to admit the existence of full and empty waves...."
As quanta are not actually particles, the difference between 'empty waves' and entanglement' is only semantic. If quanta WERE particles, then entanglement would be provable. But quanta also have wave properties that particles don't.
Therefore it is only a language game to claim the waves have 'full' or 'empty' properties, instead of being entangled particles. It can only remain a matter of opinion whether a 'full' or 'empty' wave property is 'hidden,' just as it remains a matter of opinion if the baker is hidden, or even exists, in the below 'baker model.' Bell's theorem claims that any hidden variables must be non-local, that is, violate physical laws' such as the upper limit on the speed of light. It is a matter of interpretation, and no more than a matter of interpretation, whether quantum entanglement is non-local or not. Qualifications, loophole definitions, and theory extensions make it impossible to test whether such abstractions of explanation are different from each other. In the end, all explanations that describe observed events, in whatever manner they do, end up being empirically equivalent. All explanations rest on assumptions. Scientists are excessively testing hypotheses without stating the assumptions, then claiming test results 'prove a theory' rather than corroborate a model.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
2D) BOHMIAN MECHANICS
Technically, the different behaviors of quanta as particles, fields, and waves in different situations have derived from a dispute between particle physicists with Bohmian models. Non-particle Bohmian models can describe phenomena that particle physics cannot. So why are they not more accepted?
"Bohmian mechanics has never been widely accepted in the mainstream of the physics community. Since it is not part of the standard physics curriculum, many physicists—probably the majority—are simply unfamiliar with the theory and how it works. Sometimes the theory is rejected without explicit discussion of reasons for rejection. One also finds objections that are based on simple misunderstandings; among these are claims that some no-go theorem, such as von Neumann’s theorem, the Kochen-Specker theorem, or Bell’s theorem, shows that {Bohmian} theory cannot work...the reply to them will be obvious to those who understand {Bohmian} theory." ~ "Bohmian Mechanics, §17: Objections and Responses," Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy.
Historically, the debate reduces again to which model is right and which model is wrong. But in science, models just explain observations. Some work for some observations, and some for others. Bohmian theory doesn't even introduce issues such as entanglement, superpositioning, or single-quantum interference at all, essentially because it is based on quanta behaving as waves. On the other hand, the Bohmian model is not currently thought capable of explaining quantum creation and destruction.
Physicists have therefore put an enormous amount of time and effort into arguing that either particles, fields, or waves should be the basis of a quantum model. As I find myself repeating, from Wittgenstein's skeptical position, there is no actual reason why any of the models need to extend into each other, because the actual nature of quanta is unknowable. Therefore, there is no necessity that any single direct description should extend to cover all observed cases. That is an artificial expectation created by the false premise that any particular model, such as the Standard Model's particle-based one, should be able to explain all observations any better than others, such as field or wave models. In exactly the same way, there is no reason to expect that field or wave models should be able to replace all explanations of a particle-based model.
The reason I raise the issue at this time is that the particle-based model has become the de facto accepted explanation, and others are no longer even being taught. That results in a form of 'scientism,' where theories are stated as 'fact,' and moreover, the propagation of even more 'post-truth narrative' and 'vigilante truth,' as described in later sections.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
2E) THE QUANTUM BAKER MODEL
There are more valid alternatives. Dr. Gene Douglass described his 'Quantum Baker Model' as follows:
"Imagine a baker uses the same ingredients to make two cookies, then puts chocolate chips on only one of them. The baker randomly mails one cookie to California and another cookie to New York. The customer in California opens up the box and sees a cookie with chocolate chips. We then know the customer in New York has the cookie with no chocolate chips. No information was exchanged to determine that. We can think of the baker as a 'hidden' variable if we want, but maybe the Baker isn't hidden, or doesn't exist. Unlike the cookies that were always how the baker made them, the entangled particles literally aren’t one or the other until someone opens the box."
So that is an alternative perspective on quantum entanglement. Some would say therefore quantum entanglement is 'wrong.' But from a scientific perspective, one is meant to construct an experiment that can differentiate between alternative explanations. But it's impossible. Neither theory is testable against the other. Both the baker model and superpositioning theory are speculations. Due to the limits on observation at the quantum level introduced above, an experiment can differentiate between the speculations, and so neither speculation will ever be scientifically known as provably true.
The conflict in opinions is arising because of the conventional presumption that quantum phenomena can be described in terms of gross matter, then seeking inconsistencies with Newtonian physics. However, Heisenberg observed that a quantum phenomenon's location and energy state cannot be known simultaneously. Then Schrodinger observed that descriptions of quantum phenomena can only be probabilistic. Neither Heisenberg's nor Schrodinger's observations are true for Newtonian particles. Thus basing quantum mechanics on notions of 'minuscule particles' is nonsense. By stating that quantum phenomena are particles at all, physicists have added their own preconceptions of what a particle should do to the description. The flawed premise simply results in irresolvable questions. Whether quantum phenomena behave like baker's cookies is a meaningless question scientifically, because its speculation is untestable.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
2F) ZONES OF SPACETIME
There is no necessity for science to consider quantum phenomena as anything more than equations describing the probabilistic distributions of properties, such as mass and density, during their propagation through spacetime. There is no need to introduce the concept of spacetime zones containing particles, waves, or fields at all. The act of adding inductions, such as quantum phenomena being 'particles,' simply creates new questions that are not only impossible to answer scientifically but also meaningless, because they arise from the presumption that quantum phenomena should behave like either.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
2G) THE IMMORAL PHOTON THEORY
In response to my prior posts in this series, many did not consider the bounds on knowable fact that the analogy with dreams drew. Similarly, many 'quoted book' at me without considering the underlying assumptions that I was trying to point out. So here is a simpler approach: a thought experiment on an "immoral photon theory."
Suppose we propose God gave all photons a book and said 'this is what you should do.' When photons reach a diffractor, they look in the book to figure out what to do. Some decide to be bad and not do what God says.Here is the resulting experiment. One defines a sparse data test to show photons are occasionally bad. If people find something else that appears not to fit with the model, it's because the definition of 'bad' needs to be changed.
If one uses the same experimental method currently in favor in quantum mechanics, you could gleefully claim the 'hypothesis is proven.' That is exactly how explanations are currently being made in current quantum physics. I'm not saying that photons are conscious. I'm trying to explain the difference between observation and explanation. People assume observations 'prove' explanations. As explained in the next section, even according to the philosophy of science, they don't. But due to academic indoctrination on existing ideas, the public thinks of the proposed explanations as 'fact.'
I don't understand is how the word 'particle' made it into the standard model at all. I can't think of a better explanation than to create media attention when it doesn't.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
2H) SINGLE-PHOTON INTERFERENCE
There are also widely divergent opinions on how a photon is diffracted when only one photon passes through dual slits, referred to as 'single photon interference.' All the explanations read like science fiction. All say they solved the problem without saying why they are better than alternatives. China says it's interaction with the media. The USA says the photon momentarily becomes a wave function when it hits the two slits, then 'turns back' into a particle. And there are more. All of them say the diffraction pattern builds up from single dots over time probabilistically, and that temporal quantum entanglement is not happening, but none of them say why not, besides the claim that their explanation is somehow obviously right. They all say a single photon passes through the slots in some way and hits the receptor as a dot consistent with the standard model, then writes some arbitrary nonsense saying it's in different places due to the Standard Model with some inane description why.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
2I) SUPERPOSITIONING
Schrödinger's cat would certainly like superpositioning, so it could be inside a door and outside at the same time. For physicists, though, such speculations can never be more than speculations, like Maxwell's demon, an amusing fiction, with a utility at the order of Ptolemy's geocentrism.
Note, the currently popular view that "Ptolemy was wrong because the earth is not the center of the solar system" is no indication of the comparison I am making. As Galileo himself observed, any point can be regarded as a center. Different reference frames simplify mathematics. Satellite orbits are usually considered with the earth at their center. It is not helpful to consider the sun at the center of the galaxy either. Ptolemy was not wrong, he simply had a premise that led to very complicated results which don't integrate with the gravity of Newtonian physics.
The Quality of Ptolemy
In fact, Ptolemy made a very impressive mathematical model of the sky we observe. Its epicycles (defining secondary orbits around eccentric centers on primary orbits) only deviate from the heliocentric elliptical orbits derived from the current theory, Kepler's Laws, by 2%. It's been mathematically shown that further epicycles could be added to Ptolemy's model such that its predictions would be identical to current science. The problem is that 64-bit floating-point precision would require a huge number of epicycles around epicycles, and exact equivalence to an ellipse would require an infinite number of them.
Thus for quantum mechanics, the real issue is not that the model is impossible, but that miscomprehensions have the same conceptual shortfall.
