Bill Todd wrote:
> There are others here in comp.arch likely far better able to list QM's
> successful predictions than I, but I believe quite a few of them relate to
> prediction of new particles (based on the behavior of known particles) whose
> existence was subsequently verified.
The new particle theory is called QED (Quantum Electro Dynamics) and
it's sister QCD (Quantum Chromo Dynamics). They are extensions to QM in
so far as they specify the interactions much more detailed (and better)
as raw QM, which doesn't deal with interactions, but just with classical
QM successfully describes all but a few phenomenons in the molecular
range (the most prominent of the few ones is lamb shift), but fails
horribly in the sub-atomic range (that's why QED and later QCD were
All these Q* theories don't predict single events, but formulate
bounding conditions for statistics of these events. Since these
statistics are amazingly accurate (those of QED, QCD deals too much with
trash cans full of stuff), nothing is wrong with that. The only
aesthetical problem with Q*D is that they are renormalized theories,
thus some magic has been used to eliminate infinite numbers where they
don't belong to.
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"