Frequently Asked Questions


Why Quantum Mechanics is Non-sense?

Goto:Next Series of questions 
Go to: Previous series of questions
   Return to list of questions
   Return to list of papers
      Series #8
        Question -
        Why can we say that Quantum Mechanics is Non-sense?
        Why do we disagree with the Establishment in Physics?

        The Fundamental reasons for which we do not accept the interpretation of Modern Physics, as supported by the establishment, is because we believe that it is pure non-sense.  We are convinced that a logical explanation exists to describe Nature.  Let us prove that it is non-sense.

        1 - The Copenhagen Interpretation
        The interpretation of Modern Physics is based on the Copenhagen Interpretation.  The Copenhagen Interpretation (described below) is not compatible with Physical Reality.  Physical Reality is a model in which it is believed that physical phenomena exist independently of any observer.  We deeply believe in Physical Reality.
        In order to be compatible with the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, we have to accept that Matter does not exist until an observer looks at it.  We do not accept that. On the contrary, we firmly believe that all physical phenomena exist independently of any observer.  Consequently, the explanations in Modern Physics are wrong because they rely on the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.  Many physicists are not aware that the interpretation of modern physics implies that matter does not exist independently of the observer. It is taught that it is the observer's knowledge that creates the physical result.  Mathematically, the result is called the Collapse of the Wave Function at the moment the observer makes the observations. For example, the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics implies that, when a tree falls in a forest, there is no noise if there is no observer.

        2 - What Exactly is the Copenhagen Interpretation?
        It is an interpretation given to the formalism of modern physics in order to give a physical meaning of the terms used in the equations.  The Copenhagen interpretation has been written by a few renowned scientists at the beginning of the 20th Century. The main description comes from papers written by Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, M. Pauli and others.  The Copenhagen interpretation leads to the most astonishing set of contradictions that ever existed in science. Those contradictions are usually presented under the devious name of paradoxes, because that expression seems less absurd.

        3 - Causality
        Causality is the belief issued from logic, in which every physical change implies a cause, to generate that change.  Nothing is created from nonexistence.  We firmly believe that a cause is always essential.  The Copenhagen Interpretation claims that Modern Physics does not always require a cause!

        4 - Who proposed the Copenhagen Interpretation of Modern Physics?
        The most renowned physicists of the 20th Century.  Very surprisingly, they support the idea that Matter does not exist until an observer looks at it.

        5 - This seems quite unbelievable.  Is that general compliance a real fact?
        That is unquestionable.  Here are some exact statements expressed by those scientists. The complete references to all the citations below are given at
        Heisenberg wrote [1]:
         "The law of causality is no longer applied in quantum theory."
         We believe that this is non-sense.

        6 - Does the Copenhagen Interpretation solve the problems of Modern Physics?
        Certainly not.  Murray Gell-Mann  writes [2]:
        "Niels Bohr brainwashed the whole generation of theorists into thinking that the job [that is an adequate presentation of quantum mechanics] was done 50 years ago."
        Also, Feynman said [3]:
        "I think it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics."

        7 - Do some scientists recognize that it is some sort of hoax?
        Some scientists recognize it.  However, most of them keep supporting it.
Mermin, one of the most respected physicist wrote [4]:
        "The EPR experiment is as close to magic as any physical phenomenon I know of, and magic should be enjoyed."
        Feynman wrote [5]:
        "The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiments. So I hope you can accept Nature as she is - absurd."
         Popper  mentions [6]:
        "The Copenhagen interpretation - or, more precisely, the view of the status of quantum mechanics which Bohr and Heisenberg defended - was, quite simply, that quantum mechanics was the last, the final, the never-to-be-surpassed revolution in physics. [...] These were claimed to show that physics has reached the end of the road."  . . . "this epistemological claim I regarded, and still regard, as outrageous."
        On page 9 of [6], Popper expressed his deception in the following way:
"It was he [Heisenberg] who led a generation of physicists to accept the absurd view that one can learn from quantum mechanics."

         8 - Wave-Particle Duality
        One of the most important and disastrous consequences of the Copenhagen interpretation is revealed in the case of the dualist wave-particle interpretation of light.  It is believed that light is simultaneously a wave and a particle.  The dualistic interpretation of light is a consequence of the belief that Matter does not exist until an observer looks at it.  The dualistic model claims that if the observer looks at light as a particle, he finds a particle.  If the observer looks at light as a wave, he finds a wave.  Things are created by the observer's knowledge.  We believe that this does not make sense.
         This idea is reported by Messiah when he writes [7]:
        "Microscopic objects have a very general property: they appear under two apparently irreconcilable aspects, the wave aspect on the one hand, exhibiting the superposition property characteristic of waves, and the corpuscular aspect on the other hand, namely localized grains of energy and momentum."
        Heisenberg writes [8]:
        "The paradoxes of the dualism between wave picture and particle picture were not solved; they were hidden somehow in the mathematical scheme."

        9 - Philosophical Support
        Following Descartes, Bishop Berkeley believed that observations are merely mental constructions.
        Berkeley wrote [9]:
        "It is indeed an opinion strangely prevailing amongst men, that houses, mountains, rivers, and in word all sensible objects have an existence natural or real, distinct from their being perceived by the understanding."
         Berkeley also writes [10]:
        "Some truths there are so near and obvious to the mind, that a man need only open his eyes to see them. Such I take this important one to be, to wit, that all the choir of heaven and furniture of the earth, in a word all those bodies which compose the mighty frame of the world have not any subsistence without a mind, that their being is to be perceived or known."
        Heisenberg writes clearly that he agrees with Berkeley's philosophy. Let us recall Heisenberg's own words [11]:
        "The next step was taken by Berkeley. If actually all our knowledge is derived from perception, there is no meaning in the statement that the things really exist; because if the perception is given it cannot possibly make any difference whether the things exist or do not exist. Therefore, to be perceived is identical with existence."
        Berkeley's absurd ideas are so respected in the 20th Century that they named the famous university of Berkeley in California in his honor.  Also, the city of Berkeley in California is also named after him.  This is reported in [12]:

        10 - Schrödinger's Cat
        Schrödinger's cat experiment illustrates the problem of realism and non-causality in quantum mechanics. This experiment can be described in the following way. An ideally isolated system is prepared so that it contains a Geiger counter placed near a radioactive source emitting g rays. The intensity of the source of g rays is adjusted so that, in a period of one hour, it has exactly 50% probability of causing the Geiger counter to record one count. The counter mechanism is connected to a device which, if a count occurs, will shatter a flask of deadly poison that will then fill the box where the cat is located.  There is a 50% probability that no count will occur leaving the flask intact.
        The experimenter seals the box and leaves the system undisturbed for one hour. At the end of the hour, Schrödinger's question is:
        "What is the quantum-mechanical state of the system immediately before the box is opened and the observation is made?"

        John J. Cramer writes [13] that the result of the experiment is not decided and does not exist
        "until such time as the observer collapses the state vector into one or the other of these states by making an observation, since it is the change in the observer's knowledge that precipitates the state vector collapse."

        Of course, such a description does not make sense. Without an observer, there is no collapse of the wave function.  Davies writes [14]:
        "Its (cat) fate is only determined when the experimenter opens the box and peers in to check on the cat's health."
        Davies [14] adds:
        "The cat must continue to endure its suspended animation, until either finally dispatched from its purgatory, or resurrected to a full life."

        Heisenberg suggested a third possibility in which it is neither true nor false that the cat is alive. He [15] writes :
        "In classical logic it is assumed that, if a statement has any meaning at all, either the statement or the negation of the statement must be correct. Of "here is a table" or "here is not a table", either the first or the second statement must be correct. "Tertium non datur", a third possibility does not exist. It may be that we do not know whether the statement or its negation is correct; but in "reality" one of the two is correct".
     In quantum theory this law "tertium non datur" is to be modified."
        Heisenberg insists even more. He writes [15]:
        "Let us consider an atom moving in a closed box which is divided by a wall into two equal parts. The wall may have a very small hole so that the atom can go through. Then the atom can, according to classical logic, be either in the left half of the box or in the right half. There is no third possibility: "tertium non datur". In quantum theory, however, we have to admit - if we use the word "atom" and "box" at all - that there is other possibilities which are in a strange way mixtures of the two former possibilities. This is necessary for explaining the results of our experiments."
        Heisenberg's paradox has been substituted by a human by Wigner.  Davies writes [16]:
        "According to Wigner's theory before there was intelligent life, the universe did not really exist."
        Arthur Fine reports [17].
        "The usual way is to say nothing about the actual experimental situation. In the tranquilizing philosophy of the schools - to use Einstein's lovely phrase - we are simply told, Don't ask!"

        11 -  Freedom of Speech and Censorship.
        Let us give a citation by Lovelock about the freedom of expression in research. He wrote [18]:
"To cap it all, in recent years, the "purity" of science has been ever more closely guarded by a self-imposed inquisition called the peer review. [...] Like the inquisition of the medieval church, it has teeth and can wreck a career by refusing funds for research or by censoring publications."

    There is no hope for new scientists to write new papers to rationalize physics, unless they accept to end up their career.  This is what you have to pay now.   Some centuries ago, they burned Bruno and imprisoned Galileo.

    Paul Marmet


[1] Heisenberg, Werner, Physics and Philosophy, the Revolution in Modern Science, New York, Harmer and Row, 1966, P. 88.
[2] Gell-Mann, M., in Douglas Huff and Omer Prewett, The Nature of the Physical Universe, 1976 Nobel Conference, New York, 1979, p. 29, also cited by Popper, Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics, 1982, p. 10.
[3] Feynman, R. P. The Character of Physical Law, 1967, p. 129.  Also cited by Cramer, Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 58, No. 3, 1986, p. 647.
[4] Mermin, N. David, "Is the Moon There when Nobody Looks? In: Physics Today, April 1885, p. 47.
[5] Feynman, Richard P., The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, New Jersey, Princeton, University Press, 1988, p. 10.
[6] Popper, Karl R., Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics, Totowa, New Jersey, Rowman and Littlefield, 1982, p. 6.
[7] Messiah  Albert, Quantum Mechanics, Vol. 1. Amsterdam, North-Holland Publishing Company, 1961, P. 59.
[8] Heisenberg, Werner, Physics and Philosophy, the Revolution in Modern Science, New York, Harmer and Row, 1966, P. 40.
[9] Berkeley, George, A New Theory of Vision and Other Writings, New York, Everyman's library, 1963, P. 114
[10] Berkeley, George, A New Theory of Vision and Other Writings, New York, Everyman's library, 1963, P. 115-116
[11] Heisenberg, Werner, Physics and Philosophy, the Revolution in Modern Science, New York, Harmer and Row, 1966, P. 84.
[12] The Story of Philosophy, Bryan Magee, The Reader's Digest Association (Canada) Ltd. ISBN 0-88850-663-5, Montreal, 1998,  p. 110
[13] Cramer, John G., The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics", in Review of Modern Physics, Vol. 58, No. 3, 1986, P. 673.
[14] Davies, Paul, Other Worlds: A Portrait of Nature in Rebellion Space, Superspace and the Quantum Universe, New York, Simon and Schuster, 1980, p. 131.
[15] Heisenberg, Werner, Physics and Philosophy, the Revolution in Modern Science, New York, Harmer and Row, 1966, P. 181-182.
[16] Davies, Paul, Other Worlds: A Portrait of Nature in Rebellion Space, Superspace and the Quantum Universe, New York, Simon and Schuster, 1980, p. 133.
[17] 2.9 Fine, Arthur, "On the Completeness of Quantum Theory" in "Logic and Probability in Quantum Mechanics" Boston, D. Reidel, 1976, p. 251
[18] Lovelock, James E., "Small Science" in "Doing Science, the Reality Club" Toronto, Prentice Hall Press, 1991, p. 178.


New Choice of Questions



- --



Return to top of page
Goto: Next Series of Questions
Go to: Previous Series of Questions
 Return to list of questions
 Return to list of papers

 Series #8       Quantum Mechanics         November 2000