| While your post borders on trolling and doesn't change my point, I'll bite this time. > Does this integral diverge? What does "measurement" used in the Born rule mean? Is this algorithm used in quantum theory internally consistent? Does this result of computation violate relativity theory? 1) What integral?
2) Unless you're trying to play the philosopher, the current consensus on the word "measurement" is "whatever registers in your measurement device".
3) There is no "algorithm" used in "quantum theory".
4) I don't know what computation you're are talking about. Anyway, I think everybody understands what a falsifiable prediction is. > Superconductivity was first discovered in 1911, before quantum theory was even formulated, and it was not predicted. The first theory to explain superconductivity was the Ginzburg-Landau phenomenological theory and it was published in 1950.
> Superfluidity was discovered in 1937 by Pyotr Kapitza, again not predicted. The first theories of it were Tisza's and Landau's two-fluid models, published in 1940 and 1941. Gosh, if you're going to nitpick, read it as "explained". Superconductivity, superfluidity, energy quantization, constancy of speed of light, gravity, viscosity have experimentally been known before. No one had any clue whatsoever about what's going on. Realizing the honey in your jar spills differently than your coffee and coming up with a general law that yields Navier-Stokes equation aren't the same thing. If you're saying that the person who fell down first discovered gravity and hence Newton's law of gravity doesn't predict anything, then sure, go ahead and say that quantum mechanics doesn't predict superconductivity because there was a guy who measured that the resistance of some material is mysteriously 0 at certain conditions. Gravity is more than us falling down, and superconductivity is more than just having 0 resistance. What is your point anyway? That QM doesn't predict anything? Or if one aspect of a physical phenomena has been observed before, nothing is allowed to predict it? Quantum field theory does predict all of these and more. And if you're looking for fresh phenomena (that no one has ever dreamt of) first predicted by a theory, then it narrows down the list (time dilation, antimatter, entanglement, worm holes etc.), but it still doesn't change the point I made above. "Ginzburg-Landau phenomenological theory"
Dear Wikipedia reader; it doesn't really matter anyway, but do you know what that is? GL theory is a general framework for critical phenomena --you expand your free-energy in terms of an order parameter, something that is finite but suddenly vanishes beyond phase transition (yes, it was first invented for type-I superconductors). Do you understand what a phenomenological theory is? It means they didn't know what actually was going on inside a superconductor.
The theory that actually explains superconductivity and mentions Cooper pairs is the BCS theory. > It is generally agreed upon that neither quantum theory nor measured correlations of light prove any action at distance. If there was such an action, we could use it for super-luminal communication. "Spooky action at a distance" means entanglement (in Einstein's words, which is what the OP is talking about). And no, it's not really action at a distance; entanglement does not violate causality. |