# Quantum Issues

This section discusses issues associated with the quantum model and
has to be considered as a prerequisite review of a model that all subsequent
wave models must presumably *‘aspire’* to correct in some way.
In this context,
Website-3 is primarily a review of 5 different wave models and while this
website supports the general idea of a wave model, see
Wave Structure
of Everything, most of the models reviewed appear to have problems
that could not be resolved. However, while this website highlights its
limited authority to be critical of any model, including mainstream
models, it is allowed to raise questions and challenge assumptions within
all
models. In this respect, the reviews of accepted science, i.e.
relativity,
quantum and
cosmology, all raise doubts about the completeness of all these
models, especially quantum theory – see ‘A Flawed Perspective?’ and ‘Quantum Addendum’ by way of
initial summaries. Therefore, this section
discussion might be described as a counterpoint to the wave models reviewed,
where some of the details of the accepted quantum model might also be
questioned.

So, what problems and issues might be raised against the quantum model?

First, it seems that quantum theory has a number of potential issues,
both in terms of its science and philosophy, as it has become increasingly
dependent on mathematical abstraction. As such, many now question quantum
theory on the grounds that it no longer presents a causal model of physical
reality. However, any review of quantum theory needs to consider the
timeline of its developments over the course of the 20^{th}
century. In this context, we might separate developments into two distinct
parts, where
Part-1 starts with a presentation of a paper related to blackbody radiation
by Max Planck in December 1900, while the start of
Part-2 is anchored to the testing of the first atomic bomb in July 1945.
However, over the timeline of the 20^{th} century, many new
ideas and concepts have been forwarded to explain the apparent *‘weirdness’*
being ‘*observed*’ in the quantum domain and, over time, many simply
came to accept that quantum objects only exist materially when observed.
However, this idea created a philosophical schism in science, which
might be described in terms of epistemological knowledge versus ontological
causality. While still debated, often as a matter of philosophical preference,
many have argued that quantum theory has failed to provide adequate
causal mechanisms to explain the true nature of physical reality and
that the quantum model has simply become over reliant on mathematical
assumptions rather than physical understanding.

So, how might we judge quantum theory?

We might start by using the diagram right as a basic guide to reflect
how science should be a cyclic process, which proceeds from observation
to some initial conclusions. While these initial conclusions might well
be representative of the facts, as initially know, this methodology
must continue to question the certainty of any conclusion in subsequent
cycles. Unfortunately, this is one ‘*fact’* that is often forgotten,
such that speculative hypothesis can, over time, become established
theory and eventually be accepted as proven fact. In this respect, the
goal of this review is simply to continue the process of questioning
whether all that we assume to be proven facts are actually true; especially
when facts are not necessarily supported by empirical verification.
Therefore, it is argued that the abstraction of mathematical logic,
in isolation, is not a replacement for a more fundamental understanding
rooted in causal mechanisms.

Note: This review fully accepts mathematical models are a fundamentally important part of the scientific method, but with the caveat that they do not replace empirical verification. Likewise, there is nothing wrong with proceeding to accumulate epistemological knowledge, but again with a caveat that this knowledge has to be complemented with an understanding of ontological causality.

As such, much of this review is only an attempt to summarise some
of the concerns as to when and where facts may simply be assumptions,
at least, in the sense that they have not really been proven or explained.
For quantum theory often appears to be predicated on the assumption
that the predictive power of mathematical probability is sufficient
to establish facts. While, at one level, the accuracy of any probability
calculated cannot be dismissed, as it suggests a link to some form of
quantum causality, doubt must remain if it cannot explain why. For example,
simply knowing that system [A] has some predetermined probability of
transitioning to state [B] only constitutes limited knowledge, if it
cannot explain why. Today, many references to quantum theory appear
to only be discussing epistemological knowledge, primarily based on
mathematical models, predicated on multiple assumptions. In many instances,
these references simply accept epistemological knowledge as fact, while
in reality many of these descriptive models are only supported by limited
empirical evidence with little discussion of any physical causal mechanisms.
In the absence of causal understanding, the foundations of quantum theory
often resorted to philosophical interpretations to explain some of its
‘*quantum weirdness’*.

Note: While not necessarily within the scope of this review, it might be suggested that science like any other collective endeavour has become increasingly susceptible to a prevailing consensus – see the ‘Idea of Consensus’ for wider discussion. However, what might be seen as more controversial is the suggestion that many scientists often recognise the dangers to their careers if they are seen to be challenging the prevailing consensus.

If there is any truth in the note above, it is possible that many
of the assumptions of quantum theory have simply gone unchallenged and,
as a result, these assumptions have been elevated to facts to be passed
onto the next generation without further questioning. Today, the quantum
model represents over 100 years of scientific development, such that
it is now an established mainstream model, which is then assumed to
underpin many other branches of science. Therefore, some understanding
of the history of development is necessary because it may shed some
light on earlier assumptions, now assumed to be fact, which possibly
require further questioning.