Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 15 May 2008 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2008.829
News
Written in the skies: why quantum mechanics might be wrong
Observations of the cosmic microwave background might deal blow to theory.
The question of whether quantum mechanics is correct could soon be settled by observing the sky — and there are already tantalizing hints that the theory could be wrong.
Antony Valentini, a physicist at Imperial College, London, wanted to devise a test that could separate quantum mechanics from one of its closest rivals — a theory called bohmian mechanics.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email webadmin@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
I am an italian researcher in the field of physical semeiotics, and founder of Quantum Biophysical Semeioptics, who recently - last November, thanks to a friend of mine, Prof. Paolo Manzelli's theories - has discovered the presence in biological systems of non local realm, beside the local realm. Subsequently, I have described in a paper the fascinating data of an experiment, Lory's Experiment, which demonstrates that David Bohm's implicit and explicit were exact. Here some References: Stagnaro Sergio e Paolo Manzelli. 03 Gennaio 2008, Limiti della Medicina Ufficiale. L’Esperimento di Lory http://www.ilpungolo.com/leggi-tutto.asp?IDS=13 &NWS=NWS5267. Stagnaro Sergio. Esperimento di Lory e Crisi dei Fondamenti della Medicina Occidentale. www.ilpungolo.com. 17 Febbraio 2008 http://www.ilpungolo.com/leggi-tutto.asp?NWS=NWS5387&IDS=13 Stagnaro Sergio e Paolo Manzelli. L’Esperimento di Lory. Scienza e Conoscenza, N° 23, 13 Marzo 2008. http://www.scienzaeconoscenza.it//articolo.php?id=17775 Stagnaro Sergio. Non Local Realm. Response to Selection for Social Signalling Drives the Evolution of Chameleon Colour Change. (01 February 2008). www.plos.com, http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request= read-response&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0060025 Stagnaro Sergio. Semiotica Biofisica Quantistica: Diagnosi di Cuore sano in un Secondo in paziente distante 200 KM! www.fce.it, 07-05-2008 http://www.fcenews.it/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1316&Itemid=47 I should appreciate critical comment of Valentini and other Authors.
Sergio Stagnerio...no critique but appreciation for above post. I did some of article reference in biology.plosjournals sometime back. However plos website ends up with giant print on my computers. Some may also wish to peruse spaceandmotion.com for WSM theory. Yet I do not believe we can completely throw the quantum mechanics baby out with the Dirac Sea bathwater just yet. I do think that one key to reconciling what we "observe" at all scales is in the photon.(no pun intended)
Hi, The question of whether quantum mechanics is correct could soon be settled by observing the sky? Quantum mechanics is descriptive of the molecular level special and general relativity attempts to describe whets going on with the things out there, which also is incorrect. The ultimate truth is leie. Regards Dr. Terence Hale
While I appreciated the article itself, I felt that the title was somewhat sensationalist and not a little misleading. If it turns out to be the case that Bohmian mechanics (also known as the Bohm or ontological interpretation) is verified, then we could certainly make the case for throwing out the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. But to say that "quantum mechanics might be wrong" is like saying that "Schroedinger's equation might be invalid", which, I think it's safe to say, is getting into the realm of the ridiculous. To be sure, the Bohm interpretation discards the vigorously defended concept of locality, but this is only a problem if you disallow CFD as well. Bohm clearly upholds CFD. While the title of the article is safely qualified with a "might", I would like to think that nature.com is above hysterical hyperbole more befitting a supermarket tabloid.
The claim of absence of the S-Z effect in ~ half of all galaxy clusters observed can be taken to mean that microwave radiation is foreground, not background. While this is not the currently favored cosmological view, it is held (I believe) by more scientists—among those familiar with the data--than commonly acknowledged. Arp, Van Flandern and others contend (I think) with sound reason that microwave background radiation is a better candidate for the limiting temperature of space, as a domain heated by starlight rather than as the remnant of a Big Bang fireball. Ergo, in the light (pun intended) of a very real controversy/uncertainty as to the actual nature of extra-galactic space, seeking a better understanding of quantum mechanics (or deficiencies in its theory) by “analyzing the cosmic microwave background� seems akin to studying the WTC 9-11 conflagration to determine who watched the crashes on television.
Isn't all this assuming that the big bang theory is correct in the first place? It is my understanding the big bang violates several laws of physics.
Bohmian mechanics is not an alternative theory to QM, but rather a particular heterodox INTERPRETATION of QM. It is an interpretation radically different from and antithetical to the dominant family of interpretations known collectively as 'the Copenhagen interpretation'. Failure to distinguish clearly between interpretations of QM and QM per se--even among specialists--has contributed greatly to confusion about just what QM is. You ought to fix this error in the article.