Quantum Physics

   

Why Does Quantum Mechanics not Scale Up?

Authors: Dirk J. Pons, Arion D. Pons, Ariel M. Pons, Aiden J. Pons

Quantum mechanics (QM) has the problem of lacking a coherent conceptual foundation, even if its quantitative algorithms are functionally adequate. This paper appraises the conceptual logic beneath quantum mechanics, using as the point of reference a novel alternative conceptual framework called the cordus conjecture. If the cordus conjecture is correct then the comparison suggests that quantum mechanics is conceptually fallacious in several areas: (1) Particles need not be zero-dimensional points after all. (2) Bell's theorem is refuted as being not universally applicable, and the principle of locality also fails. (3) The wavefunction is a mathematical approximation of a deeper reality, and superposition is not a physical state. (4) Superposition confounds positional and causal (temporal) variability, and this causes the weirdness of the QM interpretations. (5) Cordus identifies the factors that cause decoherence and (6) explains why quantum mechanics does not scale up to macroscopic objects. (7) It is fallacious to consider fields and particles as independent phenomena. Instead they are closely coupled in the cordus, and this explains the measurement context. Several core principles of QM are thereby refuted. The paradox of Schrödinger's Cat is explained as an artefact of these flawed premises. The paper also explains why the mathematical machinery of quantum mechanics is a reasonable approximation to reality, even if the concepts are not. The mathematics works, at least within a certain scale-range where: (a) things look like particles and the proposed cordus structure is not evident (i.e. not too small) and (b) where body-coherence is attainable (i.e. not too large). Outside of that range quantum mechanics seems neither conceptually nor mathematically relevant. The same analysis predicts QM is unlikely to scale down to the next deeper level of physics. The implications are that QM is profoundly deficient in its conceptual foundations, and is only an approximation of a deeper and more logically consistent mechanics.

Comments: 18 pages

Download: PDF

Submission history

[v1] 11 Jul 2011

Unique-IP document downloads: 253 times

Add your own feedback and questions here:
You are equally welcome to be positive or negative about any paper but please be polite. If you are being critical you must mention at least one specific error, otherwise your comment will be deleted as unhelpful.

comments powered by Disqus