Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Usurping quantum theory + 3 body problem breakthrough + Doubt the "new physics"

#1
C C Offline
Why you should doubt ‘new physics’ from the latest muon g-2 results
https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/wh...a1ffc159e6

The mismatch between theory and experiment is anything but certain.


Newton's three body problem - A flux-based approach to avoid infinite probabilities
https://www.science20.com/news_staff/new...ies-253952

EXCERPTS: The three-body problem was easy to define, yet difficult to solve. There is extreme sensitivity to the bodies’ initial positions and velocities - chaos. And chaos is hard to predict. After Newton, Euler, Lagrange, Jacobi and Poincare tried and found that there is no deterministic solution in closed-form to the three-body problem.

Enter the computer era. In the 20th century, simulations showed that under some general assumptions, a three-body system experiences periods of chaotic, or random, motion alternating with periods of regular motion, until finally the system disintegrates into a pair of bodies orbiting their common center of mass and a third one moving away, or escaping, from them.

Newton was right to be stumped. Its chaotic nature implies that not only is a closed-form solution impossible, but also computer simulations cannot provide specific and reliable long-term predictions.

Yet no one is giving up. Over time, there existed large sets of simulations which led to the idea of seeking a statistical prediction of the system, and in particular, predicting the escape probability of each of the three bodies. In this sense, the original goal, to find a deterministic solution, was found to be wrong, and it was recognized that the right goal is to find a statistical solution.

Determining the statistical solution has proven to be no easy task either, due to three features of this problem: (1) the system presents chaotic motion that alternates with regular motion; (2) it is unbounded; (3) it is susceptible to disintegration.

A year ago, Racah’s Dr. Nicholas Stone and his colleagues used a new method of calculation and, for the first time, say they have achieved a closed mathematical expression for the statistical solution. However, this method, like all its predecessor statistical approaches, rests on certain assumptions... (MORE - details)


Usurping quantum theory
https://fqxi.org/community/articles/display/229

EXCERPT: The arena that Miguel Navascués is exploring is that of quantum correlations, something he explains using two oft-used characters, Alice and Bob. Each has a quantum lab for measuring particle properties, such as its speed, or whether it moves left or right. A correlation manifests as Alice and Bob’s results being linked. Perhaps every time Alice’s particle moves to the right so does Bob’s. "Ultimately, there must have been some connection between Alice and Bob before they conducted the experiment," Navascués says. "Otherwise there shouldn’t be any correlation between the labs."

These correlations don’t necessarily have to be quantum. Say Alice and Bob choose which result to announce based on dice that you had rolled before hand. By distributing the result of your roll to both parties, you correlate their results, and there’s nothing particularly mysterious about that. But the quantum world is different and a bit stranger. Imagine creating two quantum particles in the same place and passing one to Alice and the other to Bob to experiment on and produce a measurement. Those particles might exhibit the properties of entanglement: change the quantum state of Alice’s particle and Bob’s instantly changes too. Some of those correlations cannot be explained using everyday "classical" physics.

The set of quantum correlations is actually greater than the set of classical correlations, with the latter being a particular sub-set of the former. And just as quantum theory usurped classical theory, Navascués hopes to topple quantum theory by finding an alternative that, in turn, has a greater set of correlations, but that still contains those of quantum theory within it. Three years ago he made a breakthrough. "We call it the ’almost quantum’ set," he says. "It contains correlations and outcomes not possible within quantum theory." They cannot be explained as the equivalent of creating two quantum particles in the same place and passing one to each experimenter, which is how entanglement is usually understood to be created. In recent work, Navascués and colleagues have identified a way to distinguish conventional quantum correlations from almost-quantum correlations (Belén Sainz et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 200402 (2018).)

Eventually, an experiment might be performed that catches such an almost-quantum violation in action. Then quantum theory will fall just like all its predecessors. "Alice and Bob would conclude that quantum mechanics is false," Navascués says. The way in which it breaks could point the way to the much-sought-after ’Theory of Everything,’ a model of quantum gravity that combines the microscopic world of sub-atomic particles with the macroscopic universe full of stars, planets and black holes.

But quantum theory has been around for over a century, so, if Navascués is right, why haven’t we seen a trace of behaviour beyond it yet? "Perhaps we don’t know how to make the proper measurements or we don’t know how to prepare the particles in the right way," he says. Most of the experiments people have done in this area rely on photons—particles of light. "Quantum mechanics is a theory that was built for photons," notes Navascués. "Perhaps if you start conducting weird measurements, with more exotic particles, you might get results beyond what quantum theory predicts."

"I find his work very intriguing, and I have been fascinated by it since hearing it for the first time a few years ago," says Gerardo Adesso, a mathematical physicist at the University of Nottingham, UK. It "leaves room for a little more beyond quantum theory. This little more is still far from being formalised and understood, both mathematically and physically, but some surprising connections with certain approaches to quantum gravity make Miguel’s approach even more plausible." Adesso adds that what’s needed is an experiment that might falsify or validate Navascués’s ideas, but that might take fifty years... (MORE - details)
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Sean Carroll and the many worlds interpretation of quantum theory Magical Realist 3 72 Mar 24, 2024 05:03 PM
Last Post: C C
  Mimicking nature’s mastery of chemistry + Chaos theory & the end of physics C C 0 47 Jan 11, 2024 01:54 AM
Last Post: C C
  Article Might there be no quantum gravity after all? + Problem yields numbers too big for our C C 0 97 Dec 6, 2023 12:48 AM
Last Post: C C
  Article Why the "empty atom, empty space" picture misunderstands quantum theory C C 1 117 Aug 26, 2023 01:15 AM
Last Post: Magical Realist
  Article Doubt cast on leading theory of the nucleus + Invariant subspace problem solved? C C 0 72 Jun 13, 2023 03:22 PM
Last Post: C C
  Article Counterportation: breakthrough paves way for world-1st experimental wormhole? C C 1 70 Mar 24, 2023 04:41 PM
Last Post: C C
  ChatGPT answers physics questions like a confused C student + String theory is dead C C 5 202 Feb 25, 2023 06:51 AM
Last Post: Kornee
  String theory is wrecking physics + Attempt to solve quantum problem deepens mystery C C 0 69 Feb 17, 2023 07:36 PM
Last Post: C C
  Could a hidden variable explain the weirdness of quantum physics? C C 0 69 Feb 2, 2023 06:50 PM
Last Post: C C
  What quantum theory says about the state of unobserved reality Magical Realist 20 610 Jan 11, 2023 03:16 AM
Last Post: confused2



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)