Xinhang Shen 18 January 2022

Quantum computers and quantum communications are hoaxes.

Illicit Ostgaard 16 January 2022

How do quantum computers work if quantum entanglement hasn't been proven?

Darryl McMahon 16 January 2022

Quantum mechanics has overthrown the classical concept of a particle as an object. Now a particle is a quantum event (see Rovelli for instance) which exhibits weird nonclassical effects of superposition and entanglement. Wavefunctions seem like a promising step towards merging physical reality with all its constraints (cosmic speed limit, conservation laws of energy, momentum etc) with quantum reality. Think of quantum events as where energy etc is transferred between interacting wavefunctions. Each event is like one frame in a movie but random and in vast numbers giving the impression of a continuum approximating a classical particle (such as tracks in a bubble chamber). What exists between events? If wavefunctions are real they would provide continuity between events. Interesting unsolved questions might be solved if wavefunctions are real. How do wavefunctions affect space-time hence gravity, and vice-versa? Do wavefunctions have mass additional to the masses of quantum particles they create? Considering that 95% of the energy in the universe remains unexplained the reality of wavefunctions should not be dismissed!

Bud Rapanault 15 January 2022

The wavefunction is a mathematical formalism that only predicts aggregate statistical outcomes of certain unknown processes. The attempt to reify that formalism into a physical "thing" is doomed to failure because a wavefunction is not an observable, physical "thing", it is only a mathematical formalism.

Metaphysics and mathematics are not science, they study by-products of the human imagination. The human imagination has never been a reliable guide to the nature of physical reality. Science is the study of those things that can be observed and measured; it has succeeded where metaphysics, philosophy, and mathematics have failed - by understanding the nature of physical reality in terms of the things that comprise physical reality.

Entanglement - a volatile condition for which there is scant evidence beyond some highly constrained laboratory experiments - can be readily understood in terms of known physics and established theory. Matter - objects having a rest mass - are three dimensionally localized and time-bound. Electromagnetic energy is four dimensionally non-local and timeless - that is what is meant by the description of light as traveling a null geodesic.

Along a null geodesic there is no time differential. So two photons correlated by a common origin are always (from a 4D perspective) in "instantaneous" contact despite any spatial separation. We don't need to contemplate higher (meaning unobservable) dimensions. We need only properly account for the two distinct dimensional frames of the physical reality we actually observe, the 3D realm of matter and the 4D realm of radiant electromagnetic energy. Physical reality is woven of those two distinct but interrelated realms and each must be treated with a different dimensional frame, 3D for matter and 4D for electromagnetic radiation.

Xinhang Shen 14 January 2022

I don't believe that experiments have proved the existence of the phenomena of quantum entanglement. Quantum entanglement should not exist in nature because the wave of probability is the result of misinterpretation of the wave of aether, the existence of which is denied by special relativity. Now special relativity has been disproved. The fatal error of special relativity is that it uses Lorentz Transformation to have redefined time (called relativistic time) which is no longer the physical time defined by physical clocks. We can use special relativity to prove clock time is still absolute in the framework of special relativity. Lorentz Transformation tells us that the relativistic time of the moving frame becomes shorter than that of the stationary frame. As period is relativistic time in special relativity, the period of the moving clock should become shorter too. As the number of periods equals to relativistic time divided by period, the recorded number of periods of the moving clock remains the same as that of the stationary clock because the relativistic effects of the relativistic time and period in the division cancel each other. Since clock time equals to the recorded number of periods multiplied by a calibration constant, the clock time of the moving clock always equals to that of the stationary clock, i.e., clock time is independent of the reference frame, absolute, completely different from relativistic time. Therefore, special relativity is wrong.

The existence of aether is a direct result of the disproof of special relativity. As the speed of light is fully determined by the properties of the medium rather than its initial speed and light can propagate in all spaces including those between galaxies, stars, planets, human beings, molecules, atoms, electrons and nuclei, light should be waves of the medium existing in all these spaces. This medium is called aether. As there is no such a magic speed in nature that can be the same relative to all reference frames, the speed of light is constant only relative to the aether just as the speed of sound is constant only relative to the air. Michelson-Morley experiment proves aether can't be rigid. Therefore, aether must be a fluid filling up all spaces in the visible part of the universe, delivers all electromagnetic forces, and plays critical roles in particles physics.

spyroe theory 14 January 2022

wave function interpretation is mans way not the universes way.
We will never know the truth only our version of the truth.
The universe is unwinding from the inside out. High heat trying to escape from the centre to the outer edge in a torus shape.
All energy has a backside.

Krzysztof Ciuba 14 January 2022

The real or realist are: data of experiments, formula of wave function, and (DULL) interpretation of all above because QM Is a statistical theory and not on "object"! WHAT HELL with the present ....Academia?