Abstract
Considered by Einstein as “the fundamental dice-game”, the quantum-mechanical description of microscopic objects is controversial. The controversy mainly concerns the notion of “quantum superposition” in current quantum theory. According to Einstein’s understanding of the physical world, the quantum-mechanical description is incomplete; nevertheless, rendering quantum mechanics complete might be possible. Derived by resorting to a hidden-variable theory, Bell inequalities attempted to complete quantum mechanics, but the attempts all failed. According to Bell’s theorem, at least one of two fundamental hypotheses for scientific research, namely, realism and locality, must be abandoned, which opened the door to so-called quantum information technologies. Consequently, such technologies all stem from “the fundamental dice-game”. This paper shows that, Bell’s theorem is false, while Einstein’s understanding of the physical world is correct; based on “quantum superposition”, quantum information technologies are all fictitious results in “the fundamental dice-game” and hence physically unrealizable. A very regrettable conclusion then follows inevitably: An extremely huge amount of time, effort, funding, and investment in realizing physically unrealizable quantum information technologies has been wasted because of “the fundamental dice-game”, which has seriously damaged not only physics but also all other sciences!
Reference24 articles.
1. A. Einstein, B. Podolsky and N. Rosen, Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered completed? Physical Review, 47(1935), 777–80, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRev.47.777.
2. N. Bohr, Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Physical Review, 48(1935), 696–702, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRev.48.696.
3. N. Bohr, Discussion with Einstein on epistemological problems in atomic physics, in Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, 1949, ed. P. A. Schilpp, The Library of Living Philosophers, Evanston, Illinois.
4. The Born-Einstein Letters, Translated by Irene Born, MACMILLAN, 1971, p.149.
5. J. S. Bell, On Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox, Physics, 1(1964), 195-200, DOI: 10.1103/PhysicsPhysiqueFizika.1.195.