[meccano (OP)]

I read recently that one of Neils Bohr's basic principles of quantum phisics has possibly been over turned [I believe it is the complementary [?] principle]. I am very much a layperson in the quantum world but if this is true what are the broader ramifications of this? Has quantum science really collapsed?

[MooseHole]

meccano, I'm very interested in this.  Can you tell me where you saw this information?

In response to your question, it really depends on what was disproven.

[tweener]

I read some of that also, and basically think it's a bunch of bunk.  It sounded to me like someone who had studied QM a LITTLE bit did some sort of experiment and really wanted to find something wrong with QM.  If you do an experiment expecting to find a certain result, it becomes much easier to find that result.  So, I'll wait for some verification from other "reputable" sources.

----
John - The Eternal Pessimist.

[MooseHole]

One of the problems I have with the scientific community is that people only take into consideration what is given by scientists with good reputations.  Unfortunately, these scientists have a stake in keeping the theories (especially the ones they came up with or those they base their research on ) unchanged in their particular field, which is also the field they generally have the most influence in.  Therefore, it's tough to publicize new theories if you're an unknown scientist, especially in fields like QM where it's tough for people to understand what's going on in the first place.

[tweener]

I don't agree with you.  I have worked with several highly respected scientists that were very much interested in exploring new theories and new ways of looking at the old theories.  However, they did not take the results of one experiment and start crowing that they could "overturn" something like quantum mechanics.  They had enough experience and common sense to know that most likely there was something wrong with the experiment.  But they would try again and see what happened.

I have a problem with people who have had one or two semesters of physics going into their basement and doodling for a while and then putting up a website on geocities or angelfire or yahoo etc. claiming that they have proven that Neils Bohr is wrong.  They haven't proven anything.  Maybe they have hit upon a new idea that could better express the subatomic world.  Most likely they've just gotten some good practice on the internet.  It is difficult to publish a new theory when you are an unknown scientist, but graduate students get published all the time.  It just takes self-discipline and hard work.


I have always held that Quantum Mechanics is a poor theory.  I believe that it predicts statistically what the particles may do, but it does not explain anything.  I'm still waiting on the next big idea that will improve on QM.  

A good example is Relativity theory compared to Newtonian motion.  Relativity did not prove Newton "wrong", it is just a better model at high velocities and high masses.  Newtonian physics works very well for everything we can see (and we can't see particles in an accelerator!)

----
John - The Eternal Pessimist.

[MooseHole]

All I'm saying is that whoever came up with this should be taken seriously enough that someone should check the results with "real" experiments.  I agree with you that whoever published this needs to doubt their own work more than they probably have, but their work should cause at least some doubt to the existing theories that it claims to overturn.  Good science is based on good ideas and driven by doubt.

[Peter_Boos]

Hi,

I believe i just solved why entangled photons do react the same instantly. Read my text about how it simply can be explained here:
And it realy is beatiful simple, but perhaps a bit strange to us.
newbielink:http://www.freewebs.com/boosp/4Dlight.htm [nonactive]

As a result (if you have read the text above)
I do now believe that light can do more tricks then we currently are aware of. And it would not even suprise me that it might even switsch instantly between particle and wave because as light is not a single 3D geometric or wave. And It might handle our world also diffently

This would also have impact on our understanding of QM i believe.
But i do not understand much of QM.

We are the flatlanders in a 4D-Light universe

[qpan]

I'm afraid to say that a good understanding of QM is crucial in trying to unravel the mysteries of light!

"I have great faith in fools; self-confidence my friends call it."
-Edgar Allan Poe