The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Can observations contrary to QT now be posted in the physics forum?  (Read 1379 times)

Offline sciconoclast

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 149
    • View Profile
Greetings:
                  In the past experiments and observations that challenge some aspects of Quantum theory were moved to the new theory dungeon. Is this no longer the case now that there have been many challenges by to the Bohr interpretation of quantum theory by prominent physicist?

Aephraim Steinberg's experiment that traces the paths of photons from the slit to the detection screen was Physics World's breakthrough of the year.  "long-neglected questions about the different types of measurements possible in quantum mechanics can finally be addressed in the lab " Aephraim Steinburg.

Nobel holder Frank Wilczek and Alfred Sharere have demonstrated that the concept of remote entanglement does not hold up in multiple time frames. They state "that we can't ignore the absurdity of the situation any longer. Its time to get to the bottom of what is really going on.".

There are many more examples that i am sure everyone is aware of.     


 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Assuming you don't disagree with the mathematics of quantum mechanics (QM), we've never had a policy against discussions of the interpretations of QM on the mainstream fora.  If the discussions get too philosophical, they might get moved to New Theories since we don't have a better place to discuss philosophy on this forum.  This is especially true if they become arguments over which interpretation is correct, since all make the same predictions for measurements and agree with each other experimentally.

If your claims are that the predictions/mathematics of QM are wrong, then it is definitely new theories material.

Steinburg's experiment are in complete agreement with the predictions of QM, no matter whose interpretation you choose to believe.
 

Offline sciconoclast

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 149
    • View Profile
Hello JP:
               Regarding your statement about different quantum theories, "All make the same predictions for measurements and agree with each other experimentally"; where as this is generally true there are still some exceptions.For example the two versions that I mentioned in one of my post this morning, the Bohr interpretation and the Bohm interpretation differ in some situations.

In the Bohr theory the double slit interference pattern can only occur after the quantum field collapses at the point of detection but in the Bohm theory the interference can take place anywhere between the slits and the screen. In the Bohr theory if the photon posses attributes that are associated with only one path (in street slang the path is known) then the interference cannot occur but in the Bohm theory it can.

The Shahriar Afshar experiment tested both of these principles and seems to favor theories of the Bohm type.

I have performed experiments and made observations that test these principles and others where theories differ.

"I don't see why we should take quantum mechanics as sacrosanct", Roger Penrose of Oxford. 
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
The Shahriar Afshar experiment tested both of these principles and seems to favor theories of the Bohm type.
That seems to be a very controversial experiment, and one which has been hard to replicate.  I agree that it's interesting, but it's not remotely close to conclusive.

Quote
"I don't see why we should take quantum mechanics as sacrosanct", Roger Penrose of Oxford. 
Of course we shouldn't, but the purpose of this forum is primarily science Q&A.  It's not meant to be a place to push the boundaries and explore new theories.  We do have a New Theories forum, but it isn't a focus of the site.  There are definitely far better fora out there on the web which would better serve you if your purpose is to explore replacements for the Copenhagen interpretation.
 

Offline sciconoclast

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 149
    • View Profile
Thanks JP:
                  I apologies for not fully understanding the sites scope and mission.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums