Why do people think that quantum physics renders current logic useless?

[nirgrahamUK]

in the classical physics where Force = Mass X Acceleration what is the physical meaning of ‘X’ ? (or ‘=’ for that matter)

Force Mass and Acceleration have physical interpretations… though they are kind of hollow without each other in a sense.. yet we can’t calculate models of them without the mathematical operators which don’t themselves have ‘physical meanings’

(but this is not my forte so I am prepared to be wrong, and educated !)

[nirgrahamUK]

I may have found a scholarly article which directly addresses the OP :

http://www.springerlink.com/content/g5173706126775m4/fulltext.pdf

[ClaytonB]

in the classical physics where Force = Mass X Acceleration what is the physical meaning of ‘X’ ? (or ‘=’ for that matter)

Well, let’s go back to a more arithmetical example. Consider arranging 17 rows of 13 rocks on the ground. You know how to count rocks one by one. However, if you knew how to multiply, you could figure the number of rocks on the ground more quickly. You’d need to count the number of rocks on each side (30 steps), then multiply (a handful of mental steps). You can see how the initial motivation for engaging in mathematics is to reduce the number of steps required to figure some useful result.

Now, as you know from basic geometry, A = L x W. Multiplication, in this context, reflects something fundamental about the nature of solid objects arranged in a plane in the physical world. Now, it is possible to imagine geometries that act in different ways. This is what mathematicians began studying with non-Euclidean geometries back in the 19th century.

The problem gets a little easier to understand if you incorporate the human brain into the picture. The human brain is a computing device (maybe it’s other things too, but it’s at least a computing device). Human brain and rocks on the ground forms a computing system, that is, a “processing unit” and “memory” in the von Neumann model. Taken together, the whole thing is a formal system and behaves the same rules that any formal system must (namely, that it is limited by what is computable).

A deeper question is the Pythagorean question of whether the physical world is, itself, mathematical. As Feynman said, “It always bothers me that according to the laws as we understand them today, it takes a computing machine an infinite number of logical operations to figure out what goes on in no matter how tiny a region of space and no matter how tiny a region of time.” This angst is the result of the mathematical formalisms we use to model the physical world and touches on the problem of why it should be that the physical world should behave in mathematical ways at all.

There are no mathematical laws that describe the patterns of static on a television tuned to an empty channel. It’s just random static. Why isn’t the physical world like this? Is something (someone?) calculating the path that a photon is supposed to travel? You can say “well, the universe doesn’t need numbers, it just follows its own structure” but that doesn’t solve anything. The question remains why the universe has any structure at all. Leibniz asked, “why is there something rather than nothing? For nothing is simpler and easier than something. Furthermore, assuming that things must exist, we must be able to give a Reason for why they must in this way, and not otherwise.”

Force Mass and Acceleration have physical interpretations… though they are kind of hollow without each other in a sense.. yet we can’t calculate models of them without the mathematical operators which don’t themselves have ‘physical meanings’

We can build a physical device that multiplies (a computer). If the universe is a computer, this wouldn’t be surprising, since we know that a computer can simulate any other computer. Of course, even if the universe is a computer, that doesn’t help much… because then we have a regress problem… what is the computer on which the universe is running made of? (I call this the “substrate problem”, don’t know if professional philosophers already have a name for it.)

Clayton -

[Azure]

He started with the “betweenness” of Hilbert’s axioms to characterize space without coordinatizing it, and then added extra relations between points to do the work formerly done by vector fields. Hilbert’s geometry is mathematical, because it talks about abstract points, but in Field’s theory, these points are the concrete points of physical space, so no special mathematical objects at all are needed.

Protip: Numbers, geometries, and sets are the most commonly studied mathematical objects but these are not the only ones that exist. It sounds to me like he just did a categorical transformation to a framework without these common objects and then proceeded to call mathematics a “fake.”

He showed that mathematical physics is a conservative extension of his non-mathematical physics (that is, every physical fact provable in mathematical physics is already provable from Field’s system), so that the mathematics is a reliable process whose physical applications are all true, even though its own statements are false. Thus, when doing mathematics, we can see ourselves as telling a sort of story, talking as if numbers existed. For Field, a statement like “2 + 2 = 4” is just as false as “Sherlock Holmes lived at 221B Baker Street” — but both are true according to the relevant fictions.

The only reason it’s possible to make observations at all is because we can use a theory which allows us to interpret events. “The rock fell to the ground” is just as much of a “fiction” as anything “math” has to say.

[ClaytonB]

“The rock fell to the ground” is just as much of a “fiction” as anything “math” has to say.

I agree with you.

Clayton -

[scineram]

I have no idea how Nonfederal proposes to do any science.

[czelaya]

“Have you observed a Hermitian operator?”-Nonfederal Nonreserve

Yes, I have. Everyday. As already explained, a Hermitian operator is mathematical method that helps construct the proper assingnment to equations (“operators”) that aid in understanding the dynamics of particles and molecules.

There exist countless programs and devices that are used to observe atomic, sub-atomic, and molecular behavior that rely on Hermitian operators and much, much more.

You want evidence. Here you go.

http://journals.iucr.org/c/issues/2010/10/00/ku3027/ku3027bdy.html

This was a paper I published earlier this year on the absolute structure of a drug I’m researching for my doctoral studies. It was reviewed by a number of scientist (chemist, physicist, molecular biologist) . Basically, it entails using x-rays to probe into a molecule. The x-rays scatter from the complicated electronic wave behaviour within the molecule, and hit a detector. Then using inverse laws of physics (primarily, quantum theory) we are able to reconstruct the molecule. In addition, we have to construct a quantum mechanical model first, out of pure theory, before the experiment. As always, the quantum mechanical model is correct and agrees with experiments. Within the empirical evidence there exist the Hilbert Space formulation, convolution theorem, wave propagation, electron tunneling, probability distribution, and much more.

Again, all the properties of the electronic structure within the molecule have a theoretical framework that is verified with incredible precision of experimentation.

IF ONE SINGLE ANOMALY EXIST WITHIN OUR EXPERIMENT THAT IS NOT ABLE TO BE DESCRIBED BY QUANTUM THEORY THAN THE ENTIRE EXPERIMENT IS DISCARDED, AND THE ENTIRE EXPERIMENT IS REPEATED. IN THE LAST 90 YEARS NOT ONE EXPERIMENT HAS GIVEN ONE ANOMALY. That’s all it takes for quantum thoery to be proven wrong is one reproducible anomaly within a experiment. Would I welcome such an observation. Absolutely! As a scientist, I must be opened to any factors that state that common theory may be wrong. That is the strongest component of science: a greater understanding of nature. This is the primary objective of science.

However, like I’ve said before, quantum mechanics is central to a great deal of technology that proves its construction is correct. You’re incorporating technology based on quantum theory right now. The circuit boards that make up your computer were created by solid state physicist using a technology called p-n junction nodes that are entirely based on quantum mechanical principles. The understanding of plastics, computers, synthesized material, lasers, maser, microwave ovens, … and countless other technologies rely on equations derivived from quantum theory.

[czelaya]

Nonfederal Nonreserve, the Youtube channel with the rope theory dismisses an incredible about observation. Matter of fact, the individual responsible for the channel, jumps from one observation and attempts to correlate it with another observation that is completely wrong. If you look at discussion aspects of his channel many scientist state this, and try to present information that prove him wrong. He doesn’t debate. He either gives an obnoxious answer or deletes the question all together.

For instance, he states that the Schrodinger’s wave model that the electron propagates through the nucleus. He’s wrong for two reasons that any physicist or chemist dealing with atomic behavior is aware of:

1.) Obviously, he doesn’t understand the full breathe of quantum dynamics. The Schrodinger equation at the nucleus is not defined. It goes to infinity. When an equation goes to infinity that’s a direct way of concluding the equation is breaking down within that realm. Infinities don’t exist in nature. Meaning the equation is no longer able to describe what is being studied. The mathematics doesn’t agree with the physics (or what is observed).

2.) Quantum Chronodynamics states that can’t happen. The nucleus is governed by a different set of equations all together. The Schrodinger equation only applies to a sub set of particles that are defined as fermions.