quick clarification of HOW quantum mechanics needs to be corrected

I am grateful to the folks asking simple questions, helping me explain just how simple and obvious the changes are which are needed to today's versions of quantum mechanics.

What we need, before anything else, is to fix Quantum Electrodynamics (QED), the type of quantum mechanics which is actually used to explain and design the huge mass of real-world experiments and designs used in quantum electronics, photonics and so on. Because I built up a new version of QED incrementally, scattered across many papers in two serious journals, arxiv.org and even this blog, I decided to collect it in a new paper, defining exactly what I mean by MQED, my proposed new version of QED. I posted it at vixra, just to get it out quickly.

In a discussion list, I was asked today:

Is MQED modification of MWI (Many Worlds Interpretation) or Born rule?

Hi..!

Lately I wonder whether I need to try to figure out how to rewrite http://vixra.org/abs/1707.0343, which I THOUGHT was explicit enough. 

But I do understand the limits of my ability to be clear, especially after my wife had to rewrite my paper in QIP.

Your question has a clear answer. MQED is a modification to the Born rule, not to MWI.

MORE PRECISELY... 

MQED is a modification to what I call KQED, the canonical version of QED. 

"MWI" is a term I have never used, but I assume it's OK to interpret it as what I remember from the PhD 

thesis of Hugh Everett (reprinted in the classic collection of DeWitt), namely as:

  (1) Use of the canonical "Schrodinger equation" to describe the evolution of the wave function over time;

  (2) Interpretation of that wave function at each time as a specification of the state of objective reality at that time

  (3) Use of the Copenhagen  measurement formalism (including Born rule, collapse of the waved function, whatever) to derive the 

       probabilities of actual measurements we might make at the end.

Everett tried hard for his PhD thesis work to show that the Copenhagen measurement predictions could be DEDUCED from the "Schrodinger equation", such that the entire system of prediction could be justified as the emergent consequence of the "Schrodinger equation" as a dynamical model of reality. But it really was just hand waving. 

I believe I was the first to really demonstrate that Copenhagen measurement does NOT follow from those dynamics,

in my 2008 paper in International Journal of Theoretical Physics https://arxiv.org/abs/0801.1234. More precisely, I showed that A DIFFERENT TYPE OF MEASUREMENT FORMALISM follows from those dynamics. MQED is essentially just what Everett HOPED the MWI would be: the combination of Schrodinger equation dynamics, PLUS a measurement formalism which can be deduced from those dynamics. 

But -- the modern versions of QED all contain a SPECIFIC model of how collapse of the wave function occurs in polarizers (no metaphysical observers needed).

In fact, people actually using QED have a whole library or zoo of models for all kinds of measurement devices. To TEST MQED against the old version, I did need to develop specific new models of collapse of the wave function in polarizers, COMPLIANT WITH the new measurement rules in the IJTP paper. Only in later years did I develop those specific new models, and show that they do result in the same correct predictions of the "Bell Theorem" experiments. The new vixra paper reviews the papers containing those models (including our paper in Quantum Information Processing), proposes a second new experiment, and describes a compliant new model of black body radiation sources ( a new creature for my own zoo). 

======================================

========================================

Please forgive a few "footnote" comments, not changing, but explaining just a LITTLE more.

I keep putting "Schrodinger equation" is quotes here because it isn't the actual equation which Schrodinger developed! People generally use the term "Schrodinger equation" these days to refer to 

(d psi/dt)=ihH psi , where H is some Hamiltonian operator. In KQED and MQED, H is the normal product form of the Maxwell-Dirac Hamiltonian. Some folks assume the raw product form, and assume it couldn't make any difference; "what me worry." Close enough for those who do not have to get dirty with actual experiments. 

 I also put "Bell expeirments" in quotes because the critical seminal theorem was in the paper by CHSH (not B), and one of the H's was my classmate who actually performed the first experiment. I remember the expression on his face when the very first results came through.

I was grateful to have a chance to discuss these issues with Everett himself in the late 1970s, over lunch in the DC area, but probably I was overresponsive; my first paper in Nuovo Cimento in the early 1970's was a great start, but I basically wish I had not written the two in the later 1970's. We all have a lot to learn in this incredibly complex area.  Still, in after good friendly correspondence with De Broglie back then (still in my files, and scanned), I learned that there were two types of "Bohmian" model then out there: 

(1) classical type models, really De Broglie's early attempts, which never solved the statistical problems involving the spectrum of helium, etc; and (2) models which reinvented MWI through a tricky cokmplic ated back door, by making Q a function of Fock space. I did alert people to this second point in my late 1970's paper,  but probably those guys would cite later sources, for understandable but dishonest esthetic reasons.