Test
$$E = mc^2$$
\begin{equation}
\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}x_n\int_a^bf(x)\mathrm{d}x
\end{equation}
Mysterious Quantum
If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics.
— Richard Feynman
Quantum theory has been a conversation piece of physicists for more than a century. Quantum world is among one of the most well-renown inexplicable thing human beings have ever confronted. Howbeit, more than a hundred years passed. Is quantum phenomena still that kind of enigmatic viewed from today’s modern ideas?
Our new proposal, New Quantum Interpretation, offers quite a different picture for quantum theory. It is suspected that the baffling uncertainties the quantum particle shows may come from the instrument that is used to measure it. Therefore, a complete description of the quantum observation should include both the test particles and the instrument particles.
Why Keep Independent
The extend of independence is the very thing that all scholars have to handle. A lack of independence can cause parroting and too much of it will lead to a break-away from academic society. Yet science needs an academic society to recognize the works, and thus most scientists choose being more docile for academic safety. This functions, but it brings about another problem. If all scientists conduct that way, the progress can be quite slow, since everybody has to step little enough.
Therefore, some scholars choose to be more independent. But this takes risks. It is not so hard to propose breaking views. Nonetheless, a large portion of them can not be supported by scientific facts and society. Halfhearted denial of previous scientific works is a disrespect of science. We have seen lots and lots of failures in the way towards independence, so much that it is now even claimed to be dangerous. However, we also believe that this kind of danger can be avoided by certain means.
More is NOT Different
44 years ago, More is Different enlightened the world of condensed matter physicists. This article “cajoled” a number of young physicists to step into condensed matter Physics, and has been widely used to counterattack the superiority of fundamental theory. Moreover, a so-called unified theory in condensed matter Physics was proposed recently to overtake the status of fundamental laws of Physics, within which one can only find something ambiguous, not even similar.
We offer the opposition of More is Different. This article
Fundamental Theorists & Condensed Matter Physicists — Matter and Laws
reveals several fallacies induced by reusing the name of several concepts in fundamental theory and deriving seemingly strong but actually weak conclusions. As an instance, spontaneous symmetry breaking has been widely used to attack the applicability of fundamental theory. However, this in fact brings no threats to any fundamental laws at all.
Maybe half a century ago, we reacquainted condensed matter and complex system. And now, let’s rediscover fundamental theory as well.
On Symmetry and Conservation
Recently I came across several elucidations about symmetry and conservation laws, within which numerous errors occur. So I write this post to make some clarifications.
Before proceeding this, we need to retrospect the famous Noether’s Theorem:
Every continuous symmetry of theory corresponds to a conservation law.
We hope you can recite every word carefully before reading the following content, since this is a mathematical theorem and no mathematical statements contain redundant words.
Symmetry of Matter and Conservation Law
There are no direct links between symmetry of matter field and conservation laws
The relationship between matter field and conservation law is one of the leading fallacies in Physics. The correspondence of symmetry and conservation laws has been introduced widely in physical courses. However, Continue reading