Hi, all

This post is mainly issued in this speculation forum, from the idea of mine, and maybe from some others, because ...

.. To my understanding "Any statistic or other manner of measurements are the limit where QM physics must reach, and not any further."

Hence in an all day phrase one often in physics say: "Shut up and calculate." Heard that before, yes, of course.

/chron44

1 hour ago, chron44 said:

Hi, all

This post is mainly issued in this speculation forum, from the idea of mine, and maybe from some others, because ...

.. To my understanding "Any statistic or other manner of measurements are the limit where QM physics must reach, and not any further."

Hence in an all day phrase one often in physics say: "Shut up and calculate." Heard that before, yes, of course.

/chron44

Your post is rather garbled but your reference to the 1927 Solvay Conference indicates you have in mind the formulation of Quantum Theory, which was being crystallised around that time and was discussed at the conference.

All the evidence is that quantum theory is an excellent model in physics. There has been no observation, in any relevant experiment, that has been found inconsistent with it. It may be that, like many theories in science, quantum theory is eventually in future overtaken by a better theory. But it has served physics and chemistry extremely well for a century now, with no sign of failure. Its explanatory and predictive power has been enormous. So the answer to your question is a firm "no". The conference did not lead physics astray.

If you think otherwise you need to explain why you think so.

So, just to be clear, you have no problem with Solvay , just QM interpretations.

I, on the other hand, have worked for Solvay ( SYENSQO division ) for about 15 years ( retired earlier this year ), since they acquired the previous company I worked for, Cytec. It was mostly to gain our composite manufacturing products/processes for aircraft structures, but they also gained the Phosphine business/tech of our little Cytec Canada plant.

The issue I have is that, not once in the last 15 years, have I been invited to the still on-going Solvay Conferences.
( I would have liked to be in a B/W photo with a bunch of old men with beards and funny mustaches 😀 )

Edited October 29Oct 29 by MigL

13 hours ago, chron44 said:

Hi, all

This post is mainly issued in this speculation forum, from the idea of mine, and maybe from some others, because ...

.. To my understanding "Any statistic or other manner of measurements are the limit where QM physics must reach, and not any further."

Hence in an all day phrase one often in physics say: "Shut up and calculate." Heard that before, yes, of course.

/chron44

Can you be less cryptic, please?

On 10/29/2026 at 11:17 PM, swansont said:

Can you be less cryptic, please?

Of course, I shall try so.
Since the Solvay conference in 1927 had a title like "Electrons and photons" with are basic particles in QM:
I can try to say this: The QM math regarding these particles, among others, are astonishing accurate with formulas crafted by very talented physicians.
-In their own particle microcosm existence. This is OK and obviously not "wrong" in this way.

However the faulty/wrong physics, that I can notice, are such particles "existence" without any connection to their surrounding. -Not necessary to wide universal condition, but such particles' "existence" very near outside their "existence". (I'm aware of that my use of the word "existence" - may also sound cryptic. -I say so because it surely will come continuing arguments about local/ non local aspects of the particles mentioned. Which I'm not that familiar with. I'm "merely" a system oriented engineer much interested in physics.)

A "hard argument" of this thread's legacy (physics led wrong or lost existence), which I in www.scienceforums.net often have used, is the CC problem (the CCP), when now asking or inquiring about QM being wrong. Observe my understanding of that QM is not wrong in it self - it lacks - "existential" conditions. This is not wrong in a closed QM discipline, it's "wrong" in a physics total discipline aspect.

/chron44

2 hours ago, chron44 said:

can try to say this: The QM math regarding these particles, among others, are astonishing accurate with formulas crafted by very talented physicians.

Physician to patient, a tritium atom: I'm sorry, due to weak force, you are going to have beta decay. You will lose an electron and a neutrino from your nucleus.

Tritium: You mean, I'll become...helium?

Physician: I'm afraid so. I can heal some conditions but I can't helium all.

3 hours ago, chron44 said:

Of course, I shall try so.
Since the Solvay conference in 1927 had a title like "Electrons and photons" with are basic particles in QM:
I can try to say this: The QM math regarding these particles, among others, are astonishing accurate with formulas crafted by very talented physicians.
-In their own particle microcosm existence. This is OK and obviously not "wrong" in this way.

However the faulty/wrong physics, that I can notice, are such particles "existence" without any connection to their surrounding. -Not necessary to wide universal condition, but such particles' "existence" very near outside their "existence". (I'm aware of that my use of the word "existence" - may also sound cryptic. -I say so because it surely will come continuing arguments about local/ non local aspects of the particles mentioned. Which I'm not that familiar with. I'm "merely" a system oriented engineer much interested in physics.)

A "hard argument" of this thread's legacy (physics led wrong or lost existence), which I in www.scienceforums.net often have used, is the CC problem (the CCP), when now asking or inquiring about QM being wrong. Observe my understanding of that QM is not wrong in it self - it lacks - "existential" conditions. This is not wrong in a closed QM discipline, it's "wrong" in a physics total discipline aspect.

/chron44

So QM’s issue is that it’s not philosophy. Well, yeah, it’s not.

It’s like complaining that a hammer’s failing is that it’s not a screwdriver.

3 hours ago, chron44 said:

However the faulty/wrong physics, that I can notice, are such particles "existence" without any connection to their surrounding. -Not necessary to wide universal condition, but such particles' "existence" very near outside their "existence".

Not sure what this means, exactly.
Either you're not a native English speaker, or you are using abstract, undefined terms to obfuscate/handwave.

Along the way QM has evolved to QED, where particles 'exist' as manifestations of their respective fields: I would say its development has followed the proper trajectory.
You may want to investigate Quantum Electrodynamics before making any further assertions regarding the 'existence' of quantum particles, and the relevance of the concepts of 'no local reality' versus 'non-locality'.

18 hours ago, chron44 said:

However the faulty/wrong physics, that I can notice, are such particles "existence" without any connection to their surrounding.

What do you mean by this, exactly?

On 11/1/2026 at 7:49 AM, Markus Hanke said:

On 10/31/2026 at 1:06 PM, chron44 said:

However the faulty/wrong physics, that I can notice, are such particles "existence" without any connection to their surrounding.

What do you mean by this, exactly?

I have a very strong point in - not only a philosophical belief - still though a stress tested idea or even some physics formulas which indicate something more than an empty space in which fields and their corresponding particles manifests both as virtual as real particles. If one think, speculate and run about such an idea into some different physics formulas, one may hint a third type of physics beside the QM and GR base disciplines. -A "vacuum" physics may merge and unite the QM and GR trades, which still for the moment not are "bridged".

Such formulas gives a rational answer on the CCP discrepancy, and even, if one use a "pre vacuum" formula, and trace its space/vacuum development it can give preliminary and reasonable explanation on the Horizon problem, for instances. -Although, only the CC problem - is a most embarrassing physics present condition.

The vacuum isn't what the physics mainstream believe it is. It's the "uniter" of QM and GR. There seems to be a bridge with fair math involved in vacuum physics, with UNCHANGED QM and GR mathematics. The vacuum formulas found makes the QM and GR even better understood and, as mentioned, unchanged in their manifestations and formulas. It's not a "game" changer, it's a "game" explainer.

/chron44

Edited Tuesday at 08:27 PM3 days by chron44
spelling

1 hour ago, chron44 said:

some physics formulas which indicate something more than an empty space in which fields and their corresponding particles manifests both as virtual as real particles

1 hour ago, chron44 said:

Such formulas gives a rational answer on the CCP discrepancy, and even, if one use a "pre vacuum" formula, and trace its space/vacuum development

1 hour ago, chron44 said:

There seems to be a bridge with fair math involved in vacuum physics, with UNCHANGED QM and GR mathematics. The vacuum formulas found makes the QM and GR even better understood and, as mentioned, unchanged in their manifestations and formulas. It's not a "game" changer, it's a "game" explainer.

What formulas ????
How about actually presenting some, rather than making unsupported assertions.

4 hours ago, chron44 said:

one may hint a third type of physics

A "vacuum" physics may merge and unite the QM and GR trades,

There seems to be a bridge with fair math involved in vacuum physics,

Quite nebulous. Do you have anything of substance to offer?

4 hours ago, chron44 said:

Such formulas gives a rational answer on the CCP discrepancy, and even, if one use a "pre vacuum" formula, and trace its space/vacuum development it can give preliminary and reasonable explanation on the Horizon problem, for instances. -Although, only the CC problem - is a most embarrassing physics present condition.

I’m not embarrassed by this, or the fact that there are still unsolved areas of physics.

Such a description is suggestive of someone ignoring (or ignorant of) the mountain of physics that works.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Such a description is suggestive of someone ignoring (or ignorant of) the mountain of physics that works.

I can only repeat what ppl here obviously miss or not will accept in my writing:

7 hours ago, chron44 said:

The vacuum isn't what the physics mainstream believe it is. It's the "uniter" of QM and GR. There seems to be a bridge with fair math involved in vacuum physics, with UNCHANGED QM and GR mathematics. The vacuum formulas found makes the QM and GR even better understood and, as mentioned, unchanged in their manifestations and formulas. It's not a "game" changer, it's a "game" explainer.

Further:

A such vacuum physics "add" with formulas have been presented here at about March/April this year. -These were both mocked or just ignored and at the same time confirmed to be Okay in dimensional analyses and in an all over physics non-violating manner. Ppl or even experienced physicists and good mathematicians here have physics trade reasons for not to accept that such formula really do what they are supposed to do. And, the vacuum formulas doesn't change QM or GR physics at all. -These mountains remains. Still a third "mountain" is to be attached for to reveal the QM's and GR's seemingly, but not really existing, discrepancy. -The third "vacuum" mountain reveals how QM and GR are connected.

I think that this following line, earlier written in this thread, IS the identifier of what ppls', physicists' and mathematicians' objections are about. -And this line hints the present scientific position in physics. Which, also besides the very big CCP discrepancy and maybe also the "mystic" inflation add i the BB idea, are most embarrassing for physics as a genuine discipline in science

On 10/29/2026 at 10:13 AM, chron44 said:

.. To my understanding "Any statistic or other manner of measurements are the limit where QM physics must reach, and not any further."

These "vacuum" formulas, as said, are presented here in Science Forums for about a half year ago, just search by my nick name here. These formulas hint a true QM and GR connection.

/chron44

Edited Wednesday at 04:46 AM3 days by chron44
spelling

2 hours ago, chron44 said:

These "vacuum" formulas, as said, are presented here in Science Forums for about a half year ago, just search by my nick name here.

Can you please just repost them here on this thread, I for one am not inclined to spend my time wading through old posts of yours.

Hi,

Here are the three vacuum formulas:

The Quantum Energy Balance, the QEB.
(A pre- universal vacuum/energy assembling physics "rule".)

QEB

And the two physics measurement (wave & particle) variants of our universal vacuum developed from the QEB "evolution".
The Universal Background Driver, the two UBD I&II

UBD I

And UBD II

Hopefully these physics "rule" and vacuum "results" are accepted, becoming the third vacuum physics "mountain" bridging the former not connected QM and GR "mountains".

/chron44

Edited Wednesday at 07:31 AM3 days by chron44
graphics layout

They look very nice and 'Physicky formulaic'-like.
But they are totally useless unless you define the non-standard terms, and provide some evidence for these relational structures.
Anyone can write down equations which satisfy dimensional analysis; that doesn't mean they represent actual Physical relations or are able to make predictions of any sort.

4 minutes ago, MigL said:

They look very nice and 'Physicky formulaic'-like.
But they are totally useless unless you define the non-standard terms, and provide some evidence for these relational structures.
Anyone can write down equations which satisfy dimensional analysis; that doesn't mean they represent actual Physical relations or are able to make predictions of any sort.

Hi, everybody

Almost everyone can test or stress test these (or similar adjacent) formulas against any physics well updated AI service. And find them "astonishing" or adequate functioning.

I understand that AI services are almost banned in this physics section in scienceforums.net. This I find rather "awkward" and old-fashioned. I can't see the disadvantage in using such potent mind tools since self being a non-physicist, though a fair system oriented data/hardware engineer. I do notice that some ppl here being professional physicists and mathematicians, which I have a sincere respect for. Still, potent AI mind tools are the future in many scientific branches, as well as in developing and testing of many types of works of any sorts. And, as mentioned I also do respect the unique human mind without AI help.

I really can, for this type of unfamiliar and novel physics- speculating efforts, recommend any well defined physics AI service.

I have many times here in this forum section emphasized that I am a fair data/hardware engineer, not a physicist or a mathematician.

I had looked forward to be accepted for the one who I am, a very physics interested engineer, with fair ideas to reconcile the stall from, modern, post 1927 Solvay conference dogma.

Maybe harsh words for ppl who spent entire careers on physics without a firm and reasonable total physics ground to work from. I understand this. I, myself, have spent about 25 years with this vacuum idea, crafting a relevant and coherent astrophysical ontology and a BB challenger. I'm worth the credit for merely the time spent even if the formulas found may be faulty.

/chron44

Moderator Note

You were unable or unwilling to adequately explain your equations in the previous thread so it was closed. You were told not to bring the topic up again. You had your chance.