This section discusses issues associated with the quantum model and has to be considered as a prerequisite review of a model that all subsequent wave models must presumably ‘aspire’ to correct in some way. In this context, Website-3 is primarily a review of 5 different wave models and while this website supports the general idea of a wave model, see Wave Structure of Everything, most of the models reviewed appear to have problems that could not be resolved. However, while this website highlights its limited authority to be critical of any model, including mainstream models, it is allowed to raise questions and challenge assumptions within all models. In this respect, the reviews of accepted science, i.e. relativity, quantum and cosmology, all raise doubts about the completeness of all these models, especially quantum theory – see ‘A Flawed Perspective?’ and ‘Quantum Addendum’ by way of initial summaries. Therefore, this section discussion might be described as a counterpoint to the wave models reviewed, where some of the details of the accepted quantum model might also be questioned.
So, what problems and issues might be raised against the quantum model?
First, it seems that quantum theory has a number of potential issues, both in terms of its science and philosophy, as it has become increasingly dependent on mathematical abstraction. As such, many now question quantum theory on the grounds that it no longer presents a causal model of physical reality. However, any review of quantum theory needs to consider the timeline of its developments over the course of the 20th century. In this context, we might separate developments into two distinct parts, where Part-1 starts with a presentation of a paper related to blackbody radiation by Max Planck in December 1900, while the start of Part-2 is anchored to the testing of the first atomic bomb in July 1945. However, over the timeline of the 20th century, many new ideas and concepts have been forwarded to explain the apparent ‘weirdness’ being ‘observed’ in the quantum domain and, over time, many simply came to accept that quantum objects only exist materially when observed. However, this idea created a philosophical schism in science, which might be described in terms of epistemological knowledge versus ontological causality. While still debated, often as a matter of philosophical preference, many have argued that quantum theory has failed to provide adequate causal mechanisms to explain the true nature of physical reality and that the quantum model has simply become over reliant on mathematical assumptions rather than physical understanding.
So, how might we judge quantum theory?
We might start by using the diagram right as a basic guide to reflect how science should be a cyclic process, which proceeds from observation to some initial conclusions. While these initial conclusions might well be representative of the facts, as initially know, this methodology must continue to question the certainty of any conclusion in subsequent cycles. Unfortunately, this is one ‘fact’ that is often forgotten, such that speculative hypothesis can, over time, become established theory and eventually be accepted as proven fact. In this respect, the goal of this review is simply to continue the process of questioning whether all that we assume to be proven facts are actually true; especially when facts are not necessarily supported by empirical verification. Therefore, it is argued that the abstraction of mathematical logic, in isolation, is not a replacement for a more fundamental understanding rooted in causal mechanisms.
Note: This review fully accepts mathematical models are a fundamentally important part of the scientific method, but with the caveat that they do not replace empirical verification. Likewise, there is nothing wrong with proceeding to accumulate epistemological knowledge, but again with a caveat that this knowledge has to be complemented with an understanding of ontological causality.
As such, much of this review is only an attempt to summarise some of the concerns as to when and where facts may simply be assumptions, at least, in the sense that they have not really been proven or explained. For quantum theory often appears to be predicated on the assumption that the predictive power of mathematical probability is sufficient to establish facts. While, at one level, the accuracy of any probability calculated cannot be dismissed, as it suggests a link to some form of quantum causality, doubt must remain if it cannot explain why. For example, simply knowing that system [A] has some predetermined probability of transitioning to state [B] only constitutes limited knowledge, if it cannot explain why. Today, many references to quantum theory appear to only be discussing epistemological knowledge, primarily based on mathematical models, predicated on multiple assumptions. In many instances, these references simply accept epistemological knowledge as fact, while in reality many of these descriptive models are only supported by limited empirical evidence with little discussion of any physical causal mechanisms. In the absence of causal understanding, the foundations of quantum theory often resorted to philosophical interpretations to explain some of its ‘quantum weirdness’.
Note: While not necessarily within the scope of this review, it might be suggested that science like any other collective endeavour has become increasingly susceptible to a prevailing consensus – see the ‘Idea of Consensus’ for wider discussion. However, what might be seen as more controversial is the suggestion that many scientists often recognise the dangers to their careers if they are seen to be challenging the prevailing consensus.
If there is any truth in the note above, it is possible that many
of the assumptions of quantum theory have simply gone unchallenged and,
as a result, these assumptions have been elevated to facts to be passed
onto the next generation without further questioning. Today, the quantum
model represents over 100 years of scientific development, such that
it is now an established mainstream model, which is then assumed to
underpin many other branches of science. Therefore, some understanding
of the history of development is necessary because it may shed some
light on earlier assumptions, now assumed to be fact, which possibly
require further questioning.