wei guo

These ideas yield technologies only because these ideas are valid in mathematically but in the logical view, it is in chaos.

Trust those that fits both logic and result of experiment. Either cannot be missing. For quantum mechanics, it only fit part of the latter (lack gravity and cannot make sense logically).

The phenomena observed in experiment can only be served as the starting point to cognize reality but not our ultimate standard to judge whether our cognition is right or not because between what we observe and what we want to describe may have some underlying artificial-defined things inside.

no matter how far we learn, we all need to trace back to the original point. Indeed, math is a good tool but we cannot completely rely on it to lead us to explore the law of nature. Without the guide of philosophy, mathematics will precisely lead physics to a wrong path.

Although some explanation is not comprehensively accepted by physics community today, it is currently accepted by at least a group of scientists and also this 'throwing rubbish into reality' trend is more and more popular in the future development of science. If this behavior is not corrected, the whole reality would be interpreted as a rubbish can and the rubbish inside is full of various magic physical properties. So why dark matter is the exception. The principle of methodology behind either adding extra dimension in the string theory (not mainstream but partially accepted) or adding non-inertia system into reality (quite mainstream) is the same in nature. alternate reality refers to the many-worlds interpretation (MWI), which is the second mainstream viewpoint to explain the wave function. The first mainstream viewpoint is Copenhagen interpretation.

Mathematics is just abstracted by a group of observers from reality for measurement and express the law of nature. Please note Reality exist first and then math as a tool exist afterwards. You can not treat mathematics as the starting point of this discussion. If you drop in the hole of mathematics, you cannot see the whole picture but are misled that there is no condition for the equivalence between the law of mathematics and law of nature. The opinion of 'universe’s expansion is accelerating' is completely caused by the limited application range of the Doppler effect. See page: 60-61 on https://vixra.org/abs/2306.0071 Observation is the starting point. If you are one of a group of other species with the sensor that can certainly observe the micro phenomena, why you rely on creating the concept of 'Superstate' or mathematics to cognize it?

Using statistic or probability to describe something is just a mathematical way that we have to treat the reality as that because we cannot precisely trace the phenomenon currently. This is how we describe reality not because reality can only be operated in probability. You can not equal the description method with how reality operates. Exaggerate the function of mathematics by ignoring its limited application is no different from 'treating the earth as the centre of solar system'. Now, every paper that talking about this issue is trying to find this particle or that particle that can serve as the basic element to form dark matter and dark energy. However, today there is no finding in experiment or observation but just many more guesses to create more and more 'artificially-made' particles that is given some surprising and magic physical properties and tell us over 90% of universe is full of such a thing.

The core question that we talk about is whether we add something unverifiable(e.g. dark matter, dark energy) into reality is due to ' this is the instinct of reality ' or due to the principle behind how a group of observers(e.g. human beings) express and describe the reality. So you also agree the observation in phenomena is prior to the explanation in whatever kind of explanation method. What I say is that Heisenberg uncertainty principle is nothing but just a mathematical explanation for a measurement issue in micro phenomena.

No matter the equation or the explanation of probability, all these abstract products are based on the previous experiments that shows there is some abnormal performance on micro phenomena. Without the experiments to support, it is unnecessary to create those abstract products. Thus, the starting point is the measurement in experiment rather than either any mathematical equation or the concept, which are created afterwards to fit the perception in experiment.

'A state is a probability function' is obviously not the starting point. The real beginning is from the experiment, we found the uncertainty of simultaneous measurement for micro particle exists. To better explain the reason, describing state by probability is an option that seems make sense temporarily under the current physics frame.

If you think what I think the Heisenburg uncertainty principle is erroneous, you can state the nature of it here. Please note: we talk about the nature so do not take on any coat of mathematics. Strictly speaking, what I mean is some essential mathematical equivalence summarized in the past for expressing the law of nature has applied limitation but not all.

This is not from article. From childhood, you are taught that math is the best tool to express the law of nature. So it is natural that the viewpoint of 'math has the applied limitation' cannot be acceptable.

The Heisenberg uncertainty relation is more original than superposition or superstate and MWI, which are just two mainstream explanations for why the Heisenberg uncertainty relation exists. But the Heisenberg uncertainty relation is not the very beginning point, which is just an explanation for a measuring difficulty when we try to measure the micro phenomenon at the same time. The key is this very beginning measuring issue, which is not caused by the nature of reality but by the principle about how the observers measure the world. The aim is to notice the rigorous application range of describing the law of nature by any mathematical equivalence. In this way, we can continue keep the old physics building stand without inserting anything extra into reality. The aim is to notice the rigorous application range of describing the law of nature by any mathematical equivalence. In this way, we can continue keep the old physics building stand without inserting anything extra into reality.

Because this forum rules one day can only send 5 replies. before I provide evidence, it is transferred to here position and momentum is the first pair of conjugate properties that show the uncertainty when we try to measure them at the same time. You can say that is either superstate or superposition. That does not matter.

Because the real mainstream forum permits another voice to make science to develop healthier rather than block itself to a wrong path

mainstream explanation is controlled by describing reality by treating 'mathematical equivalence' as the principle for expressing the law of nature for hundreds years but ignore a more fundamental principle behind why mathematics can describe the law of nature. Evidence and sound reasoning is stated in the paper. Not permitting a way that is different from mainstream explanation is no different from excluding any viewpoint regarding the earth is not the centre of the solar system in the 16th century

If you do not try to cover some 'mathematical' coat on the superposition but discuss its real nature, it is indeed trying to add 'extra position' to explain the uncertain measurement of micro phenomenon.

definitely, after you read the paper, you know the reason why the current scientist define dark matter as something that cannot interact with electromagnetic radiation is due to the logical need to keep some old theory to stand rather than reality has 'that thing'.

A recent paper states the real pseudoscience is exactly those unperceivable things named with 'dark'. Throwing something into the unknown part of reality for solving the theoretical problem is not the real rigorous science. This study argues that It is time, from a much more general view, to consider the common defects in the principle behind all the previous measure methods or physical laws summarized by the predecessors rather than keep adding new theories or new phenomena for amending the old cracks. Otherwise, the development of science will become bogged down in mud and also lead all people not to the real nature of reality but to a totally strange magic one. Wei Guo, "Uncovering the rigorous application range of any mathematical equivalence between different physical properties to avoid adding extra unverifiable things into reality for explaining inherent discrepancy in phenomena measure" https://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.23299703 (June 5, 2023).