A Physicist Trying to Fix Quantum Mechanics
I disagree that quantum mechanics needs fixing.  What it requires is understanding.  Many people even ones with PhDs don&#x27;t really have a deep understanding of QM.<p>Ask a grad student or even a professor of physics what is essentially different about QM verses classical mechanics.<p>I almost always get one of two answers.<p>QM has operators acting on a Hilbert space (rigged HS).  It&#x27;s so mysterious because we have to replace everything with operators.  well...<p>Have they heard of the Koopman–von Neumann formulations of classical mechanics?  It&#x27;s CM formulated using HS and ops.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Koopman–von_Neumann_classical_mechanics" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Koopman–von_Neumann_cl...</a><p>Another answer is uncertainty.  QM has uncertainty.  Well...  so does classical mechanics!<p>So what is different?  That&#x27;s a very long answer but one thing is the Exclusion principle.<p>Besides the KvN formulation is it possible to do QM using the equations of CM in the same form?<p>yes, it is.  The Wigner Moyal Weyl formulations of QM.  Look it up or Moyal star products.<p>Lastly, the collapse of the wave function.<p>Already done long, long ago by John von Neumann in his book on Quantum Mechanics.  The correct formulation involves the subtle concept of decoherence.  Von Neumann&#x27;s trace operators are used in extreme cases where standard calculations (which involve a tiny bit of cheating) won&#x27;t work, e.g. black hole entropy.<p>What&#x27;s wrong with QM?  So far nothing!  It&#x27;s possible someone might find a flaw but it hasn&#x27;t happened.<p>The problem is mostly US.  We don&#x27;t understand all the implications of what we already possess. The enormous amount of myth making and lack of understanding surrounding QM obfuscates what the true problems are which in 99% of cases is the most physicists simply haven&#x27;t studied von Neumann carefully enough.