Weinberg's Novel Calls For An Overhaul Of Quantum Mechanics

Someone sent me a three-day-old video alongside almost 1 i thou one thousand views – Is This What Quantum Mechanics Looks Like? – which claims that some jumping silicone stone oil droplets on a wavy surface is what quantum mechanics fundamentally looks like. Over 99% of those who voted on this pseudoscientific video direct maintain upvoted it. Well, I sure enough didn't. It's despicable when this anti-science is sold as science.

But I direct maintain largely surrendered. It makes no feel to write novel explanations why stone oil droplets are aught similar quantum mechanics because a few thou people read my texts, exclusively a fraction understands it, land millions of stupid people desire to withdraw heed something else than the right physical proofs of the truth. They desire something that confirms their stupid prejudices as well as their cardinal misunderstandings of modern science.

And it's non just this handbasket of i one thou one thousand of morons who direct maintain watched the aforementioned bogus video. As they are getting senile, numerous star physicists are helping to amplify this idiocy as well. Sadly enough, Steven Weinberg has been increasingly plumbing equipment this description inwards recent years. John Preskill recalls that when he was a educatee of Weinberg's, quantum mechanics was fine for Weinberg. It's no longer hence as well as inwards an interview for ScienceNews.org, Steven Weinberg demands an overhaul of quantum mechanics.




Great. So the interview tells us that he's no longer happy almost quantum mechanics as well as he's no longer dismissive of critics of quantum mechanics. You inquire Why. The showtime answer:

One argue Weinberg thinks there’s a demand for a novel chapter inwards the quantum floor is that those who think everything is fine alongside quantum mechanics convey dissimilar sides inwards the debates almost it.

It's just hence painful as well as pathetic. How tin dismiss someone whose achievements direct maintain turned him into a hand twenty twentieth century physicist destination upward alongside this totally mushy, illogical, stupid, sociological, advert hominem argument? Is Weinberg genuinely proverb that something must live on incorrect alongside quantum mechanics because dissimilar people disagree what quantum mechanics genuinely says?




How tin dismiss you lot blame quantum mechanics – or its founders starting alongside Werner Heisenberg – for the stupidity of other people? If I (or Werner Heisenberg) could brand all these cranks nigh up, I would in all probability purpose the opportunity. But I don't direct maintain such tools. Perhaps thankfully so: If I had such tools, they would almost certainly direct maintain the same tools to quiet those who genuinely empathize quantum mechanics, too. ;-) Every complex plenty theory – as well as mayhap every theory – is beingness misunderstood, misinterpreted, misapplied, as well as abused past times someone. String theory's prediction of extra-dimensional infinite is misinterpreted past times the spiritual hacks who say that the dimensions are differently cooked spirits, amid other things.

Climate alarmist nut jobs are misinterpreting thermodynamics as well as climatology past times proverb that it implies that the public volition evaporate past times 2055 or similar things that these crackpots spread everywhere. Does their disagreement alongside other people who purpose thermodynamics imply that something is incorrect alongside thermodynamics? You can't live on serious, Prof Weinberg. I may direct maintain picked to a greater extent than realistic examples but you lot tin dismiss sure enough practise it yourself.



The interview alongside Weinberg almost exactly matches this Oct 30th, 2016 Petrusky lecture. At 17:40, he says that he is no longer fine alongside QM etc. Hat tip: Backreaction.

This is non exclusively almost quantum mechanics. You're basically switching from the scientific way of thinking almost Nature to the brain-dead postmodern philosophers' vogue of thinking – or, to a greater extent than precisely, their struggle against thinking. You direct maintain criticized those people hence crisply – I've loved hence many texts of yours, including Dreams on a Final Theory – as well as forthwith you're doing the same thing. You are degrading yourself into a parrot who repeats the consensus or average sentiment of 50 other people. You used to live on several categories to a higher house virtually everyone else.

The balance of the interview is the commons collection of the unscientific whining almost quantum mechanics. Something must live on incorrect alongside quantum mechanics because the right theory should be

determinist; realist non instrumentalist; direct maintain i history; independent of observers; intuitive; non weird, as well as hence on, as well as hence on.

Well, you lot may attempt to dictate Nature what laws She should obey but Nature replies unambiguously (as the prove has unambiguously showed us): You are total of šit, Prof Weinberg. If you're non satisfied alongside Me (Nature), just motility your aß to a dissimilar world. The right laws of Nature are non deterministic (in the feel of classical physics). They absolutely require the "instrumentalist" mental attitude to meaningful propositions. They absolutely require i to abandon the classical ideas almost a "reality" that is independent of observations. Quantum mechanics is clearly counterintuitive for the laymen – but this doesn't say something almost quantum mechanics itself but exclusively almost the combination "quantum mechanics as well as the lay people" – well, generally almost the lay people.

Quantum mechanics doesn't allow whatsoever objectively unique unmarried history. Feynman's path integral formulation is i way to come across why. It explicitly tells you lot to amount over all histories, as Hillary described inwards her Breakthrough video. All intermediate histories inwards betwixt 2 observations are as existent or as unreal. The finally nation of the trajectories nosotros amount over may live on taken to live on fixed – because the calculation is answering a specific question, namely what's the probability alongside the corresponding finally state. The initial nation of the trajectories nosotros amount over is taken to live on fixed because the observer has learned something (e.g. the set of a particle) almost the initial state.



As a Pilsen patriot, I am convinced that the beauty of those places of Pilsen is rather objective. ;-) Compare alongside 2,400 historical pix of Pilsen inwards a collection of mine.

But the observations are the exclusively way to know something almost the nation of Nature. Quantum mechanics absolutely prohibits i to say anything almost the physical organisation that is non derived from observations – i.e. that claims to live on independent of observers or that is claimed to be earlier an observation. There is ever some dependence on the selection of the observer inwards the noesis as well as predictions. The observation ever influences the observed organisation as well as there's no way to cut this touching to zero.

And hence on, as well as hence on. All these claims are absolutely crucial, cardinal postulates of quantum mechanics. Nothing has changed almost them since the mid 1920s when quantum mechanics was discovered. And everyone who fails to empathize a unmarried postulate inwards the listing is just misunderstanding or misinterpreting the theory – the theory known as quantum mechanics. It doesn't hateful that in that location won't live on people who are proverb other things. It just way that these people don't direct maintain a clue what they're talking about.

And it doesn't hateful whether these people say that "they are fine alongside quantum mechanics". What genuinely matters is whether they correctly empathize it. The people who "have a problem" alongside quantum mechanics belong to the same basic category as those who say that they are "fine" alongside quantum mechanics but who misinterpret what it means: They just don't empathize quantum mechanics as well as that's the key occupation here. It's absolutely light-headed to conflate the people who empathize quantum mechanics alongside those who don't (but who also say that they are "fine" alongside it).

None of these basic principles of quantum mechanics is optional. None of them may live on left to your mood or a vote amid the laymen or a vote amid the pseudointellectuals. None of them depends on the weather. None of them may live on selected or refuted past times sociologists or philosophers or politicians. They are defining axioms of the theory. If your ideas deal alongside all the axioms, you lot are using the theory; if your ideas don't deal alongside the axioms, you lot are rejecting quantum mechanics. To disagree alongside whatsoever declaration I direct maintain made to a higher house way to deny the basics of modern physics inwards the rattling analogous feel as when i denies the roundness of the Earth, the longevity of life on Earth, or gradual changes of the species as the life forms evolve.

You may also discovery people who "interpret" Darwin's theory past times proverb that in that location was a creator who placed couples from all forty species on public to Noah's Ark as well as through incest, those produced all animals as well as humans nosotros come across today. But this "interpretation" of Darwin's theory is just rubbish. It's non genuinely an "interpretation" of Darwin's theory. It's a denial of Darwin's theory. Exactly inwards the same sense, when someone says that in that location should live on an objectively unique (classical) history of the Universe, or the facts almost the Universe should live on independent of the observer, or... anything inwards Weinberg's list... as well as then he is only denying quantum mechanics. He's non "interpreting" anything. He's denying quantum mechanics.

For him to purpose the give-and-take "interpretation" is just a fraudulent sleight-of-hand. It's a prevarication designed to obfuscate that the someone who denies quantum mechanics is exactly as unscientific as the someone who prefers creationism over evolution. The term "interpretation of quantum mechanics" was (unfortunately) introduced past times Werner Heisenberg himself but he agreed that in that location was exclusively i right "interpretation".

There are hence many irritating things inwards the interview as well as I direct maintain touched some of them. But what almost this curt paragraph?

In whatsoever case, Weinberg observed, there’s a danger inwards evaluating whatsoever theory inwards price of contemporary philosophical prejudices. Newtonian gravity, Weinberg noted, was itself regarded as unacceptable past times many scientists of his era.

It's ever risky to evaluate whatsoever scientific theory inwards price of any philosophical prejudices. But it's fifty-fifty to a greater extent than hopeless to evaluate a 20th century physical theory inwards price of 17th, 18th, or 19th century philosophical prejudices – which is exactly what Weinberg is doing. Your philosophical prejudices direct maintain aught to practise alongside the mass of the 20th century. They've been known to live on incorrect since 1925. Fifty years ago, you lot knew that but due to some saddening process, you lot ceased to know that. Now you lot tin dismiss rattling good sentry the video proverb "quantum mechanics is stone oil droplets" as well as upvote it.