Why a fully deterministic wave mechanics has not yet replaced the troublesome quantum wave mechanics?

The really important breakthrough in theoretical physics is that the Schrödinger Time Dependent Equation (STDE) is wrong, that it is well understood why is it wrong, and that it should be replaced by the correct Deterministic Time Dependent Equation (DTDE). Unitary theory and its descendants, be they based on unitary representations or on probabilistic electrodynamics, will have to go away. This of course runs against the claims about string and similar theories made in the video. But our claims are a dense, constructive criticism with many consequences. Taken into account if you are concerned about the present and the near future of Theoretical Physics.

Wave mechanics with a fully deterministic behavior of waves is the much needed and sought --sometimes purposely but more often unconsciously-- replacement of Quantism that will allow the reconstruction of atomic and particle physics. A rewind back to 1926 is the unavoidable starting point to participate in the refreshing new future of Physics. Many graphical tools currently exists that allow the direct visualization of three dimensional waves, in particular of orbitals. The same tools will clearly render the precise movement and processes of the waves under the truthful deterministic physical laws. Seeing is believing. Unfortunately there is a large, well financed and well entrenched quantum establishment that stubbornly resists these new developments and possibilities.

When confronted with the news they do not celebrate, nor try to renew themselves overcoming their quantum prejudices. Instead the minds of the quantum establishment refuse to think. They negate themselves the privilege of reasoning and blindly assume denial, or simply panic. The net result is that they block any attempt to spread the results. Accessing funds to recruit and direct fresh talents in the new direction is even harder than spreading information and publishing.

Painfully, this resistance is understandable. For these Quantists are intelligent scientists (yes, they are very intelligent persons) that instinctively perceive as a menace the news that debunk the Wave-Particle duality, the Uncertainty Principle, the Probabilistic Interpretation of wave functions and the other quantum paraphernalia. Their misguided lifelong labor, dedication and efforts --of themselves and of their quantum elders, tutors, and guides-- instantly becomes senseless. I feel sorry for such painful human situation but truth must always prevail. For details on the DTDE see our article

Article Deconstruction of Quantum Wave Mechanics

Hopefully young physicists will soon take the lead and a rational wave mechanics will send the dubious and troublesome Quantism to its crate, since long waiting in the warehouse of the history of science.

With cordial regards,

Daniel Crespin

Quantum Physics

Quantum Mechanics

Foundations of Quantum Mechanics

History Of Physics

History of Science

Philosophy of Physics

Lenses of Perception Press

Daniel-Crespin, It is well known among physicists that the Schrodinger equation (STDE) is incomplete. For example, it is not compatible with relativity. This is why quantum field theory introduces elements that allow for the creation and destruction of quantum states, while the Schrodinger equation does not.

You said above: "The theory claims that electrons preserve their energies while moving. Spectroscopy tells that when electrons move they typically change their energy; otherwise no photons could be radiated nor absorbed, let alone photons for the spectral lines."

What you offered here is a good example of where the Schrodinger equation is incomplete. However, quantum physicists know this. What the Schrodinger equation represents is what happens to quantum states and superposition states when they are not involved in exchanges of energy. Only linear changes are possible to quantum states. Superpositions never collapse to one actuality under these conditions. Whenever measurement is involved, however, there are non-linear effects, such as your example above.

Quantum formalism says that the use of the Schrodinger equation is only valid for states that are not being observed or measured. We can also say that these are only valid for states where there is no exchange of energy or momentum. The STDE is only for showing how "coherent" quantum states evolve over time.

Quantum formalism uses a different step in the process to evaluate the results of measurements, where there is an exchange of energy or momentum.

If you want to challenge the foundations of quantum mechanics, I wouldn't start with challenging the Schrodinger equation. It would be more compelling if you could explain why we see a wave-like interference pattern when electrons or photons are sent, one at a time, through two-slits. And why does the interference pattern disappear when we measure which slit the electrons or photons go through?

Or why is it that we can know for sure what the result of measuring the spin of an electron will be if we measured the electron just before we measure it again? Whatever the result of the first measurement is, it will always be the same with the second measurement as long as the second measurement happens soon enough after the first, and the spin axis being measured is the same for the first and second measurements. However, when the second measurement is made using a different axis, then there is no way to know for sure what the result of an individual electron will be. The results can only be predicted statistically. Why is that?

If you can explain these two issues using only classical physics, then you can start to make the case that perhaps a fully deterministic classical physics could replace quantum mechanics.

Hopefully, this is the kind of feedback you are looking for.

In the spirit of open and respectful dialogue,

Doug Marman

1 Recommendation