NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/sci/physics/22310

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-08 | 4.3 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!mtnmath!paul
From: [e-mail] (Paul Budnik)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: A proof that quantum mechanics is an incomplete theory
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Jan 93 17:40:28 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Mountain Math Software, P. O. Box 2124, Saratoga. CA 95070
Lines: 81

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Budnik) writes:
> [...]
> >My result
> >makes it clear that quantum mechanics does not fully describe the
> >experimental results that fit in that range.
>
> If it had, 60 years ago, we'd have been wasting 60 years
> making improvements to it.

The `range' I am referring to is the structure and evolution of the wave
function. We have not been spending 60 years figuring that out although
there has been much effort devoted to figuring out to solve the
differential equations in practical situations. Quantum mechanics
tells us nothing about the initial conditions, properties of
particles etc. All this has been and continues to be a major
preoccupation of physicists. There are also issues of unifying general
relativity and quantum mechanics that might, but do not necessarily,
involve extensions or modification to the theory of how the wave function
evolves.

>
> >There are time delays related to the structure of the wave
> >function itself that quantum mechanics does not predict.
>
> >The ultimate significance lies in the powerful argument it provides against
> >the assumption that the wave function changes instantaneously when an
> >observation is made.
>
> It's not an assumption.  It's a feature.
>
> It reacts to the observation.  Is this not to be expected?

It is not a surprise that wave function changes as a result of an observation.
I think it was a big mistake to assume that it changes *instantaneously* as
Bohr did. There is no other known physical effect that happens instantaneously.
I doubt that Bohr would have made the assumption had Bell's result
been known at the time. Bell's result makes it clear that the assumption
that wave function changes instantaneously has an observable physical
effect.

> >This assumption is too vague to predict some results
> >that can be measured experimentally and thus is probably not simply
> >vague but absolutely false. If this is the case then there is an entirely
> >new class of experimental phenomena that is accessible through tests
> >of Bell's inequality.
>
> Then tests of Bell's inequlity should be conducted to determine
> whether these experimental phenomena are accessible, thus proving
> whether this assumption is false.

There is no question that the phenomena are experimentally accessible
although the experiments may be technically difficult. I think there is
something close to unanimous agreement that these experiments should be
done but there is a big difference in the priority that is assigned to
them. I think these experiments will be far more significant in both
their theoretical and practical implications than anything that is likely
to come out of the SSC and I think they can be done for a pittance in
comparison to cost of that project.
>
> >There is a space-time structure to the nonlinear
> >changes in the wave function that occur when an observation is made.
> >Understanding this structure could ultimately be as important as
> >quantum mechanics itself.
>
> What do you suppose is the form of this structure?

I suspect that space and time are fundamentally discrete. I think there
is a simple rule, in effect a finite difference equation that approximates
the wave equation, that describes how this discrete universe evolves.
When one fully discretizes a difference equation like the wave equation
one introduces nonlinearities. I think this discretized wave equation
approximates the wave equation in some conditions. I think it also undergoes
nonlinear chaotic like changes that come from the nonlinearities introduced
by discretization. I think these nonlinear changes are reversible and happen
continuously. They are in some sense a physical realization of the Feynman
diagrams. I think we only know of these nonlinear changes when they
result in a macroscopic statistically irreversible state. That is the
why they were originally associated with a human observation.

Paul Budnik