Einstein did not hate QM, he had problems with certain parts of it and certain interpretations.
There is tremendous evidence for QM, though not necessarily all interpretations of that evidence. It seems to me rather unlikely that anyone here has the research lab in the garage to present counterevidence. If we are going to disprove some particular portion of QM, it would seem smart to focus on a specific area and likely one of the standard interpretations of the evidence.
There si a lot of QM that is simple directly observed statistical evidence. They screw up only when they venture into trying to claim the "why"s behind what they have witnessed. They once proclaimed that “because we can predict, we must be right”. That is a fallacy. Two wrongs might not make a right, but 3 lefts will. Just because you end up with a right answer doesn’t mean that you understood anything at all.
I can’t tell if they screwed up or not, but yes, I agree in general with what you say. I think the OP is funny because, well 1) disproving is well nigh impossible to do. One can make arguments against, perhaps even strong ones, but disproving is pretty much out of the question, even if a physicist came online here and gave it a shot. Then 2) QM is fairly vast. To disprove QM would require a very large scholarly volume at the least. Many hundreds of pages.
Probably the quintessential argument against QM in general is the well known double slit experiment.
QM’s explanation effort toward that experiment can’t avoid magical or mystical properties such as a particle being in two locations at once.
The Quantum Magi obviously had no comprehension of what it means to exist as is evident throughout their mysticism style speculations such as “quantum superposition”.
That’s not a disproof of anything. The explanation is not that it is in two places at once? Straw man. The explanation is that you cannot know where it is and its momentum.
So what you are saying is the whole sphere of physics is a lie and only you have the truth?
Bullshit.
I’m pretty sure most of those can at least be explained if not from axioms. Why particles haves said masses is explained in a few theories, but it is not widely accepted as known. Proving why an electron has .x times the mass of a proton would win you a Nobel prize, I can only assume the reason you have yet to win that is because you are all mouth and no trousers.
Strong and weak are all the same thing ultimately, a manifestation at certain energy levels of the unified theory of everything. Why do forces exist discretely is basically the same question. Why do forces exist at all is not and of course there is no answer to that atm.
Shut the fuck up and explain something without trying to patronise the hell out of me then. Might help.
You have to understand calculus before you can prove isomorhphics and topology, so what, clearly you don’t understand even calculus well enough to explain it to someone who has studied it.
1+1=2
f’(x)=nx^n-1 [where x is positive integer]
There you go basic arithmetic and the chain rule in two easy lines of prose. It’s not rocket science. 
What I am in fact asking you to do to stretch the analogy is prove that the power rule works, which is also not exactly hard and is learnt at a very basic level of maths study.
Oh and spin is why things have magnetic moments, they are intimately related, if you can prove otherwise then do so without the demeaning arrogant assumptions.
I found the exact place where I knew for a fact that Caldrid was just way out of his element:
viewtopic.php?p=2274384#p2274384
I’ll summarize the posts for you:
Calrid: Bells-Aspect experiment proves that there are no local hidden variables.
Calrid: Bells-Aspect experiment disproves Many Worlds.
Flannel: Many worlds doesn’t depend on hidden variables.
Calrid: No, you’re wrong, it does depend on hidden variables but it doesn’t depend on local hidden variables.
Now, Calrid, if you can’t see the flaw in your case above then not only do you not understand anything about QM, you also don’t understand the most basic rules of logic.
You say Bell disproves local hidden variables, you admit that many worlds doesn’t depend on local hidden variables, and YOU STILL don’t back down on your claim that it disproves Many Worlds. Jesus Christ I haven’t seen somebody’s foot so deep down their throat.
I later did some more research and found that Bell himself believed in a deterministic interpretation of QM, so there’s that. So, you don’t get it. There’s not a chance that you even remotely get it.
You have no fucking idea what you are talking about, so why you presume to judge me is ridiculous. You got shown up on a thread when asked to explain what you linked and you ran off in a huff, only to return to bleat about your humiliation at every opportunity as if somehow that lends you credibility.
Ok you destroy quantum mechanics then, or are you like James all mouth.
Many worlds is a non local hidden variable theory (although it claims of course it isn’t but then what else would you call worlds no one can perceive except hidden?) Einstein hence it is not disproven by that experiment, that experiment merely contends with evidence in our universe not in multiple ones, hence from the perspective of one world the outcomes cannot be explained by a local hidden variable theory, unless a) you assume it is non local, ie some sort of carrier wave like mechanics, or you invent dimensions that no one will ever perceive that are non local by definition. It only proves that MWI is eternally unprovable if it proves anything at all.
“MWI is not even wrong.”
It joins the queue with all the other theories of anything.
At last he backs down from his previous statement that Bell disproves MW. It’s about time. That was some bullshit you tried to pull back there Calrid, luckily one of us was paying attention.
Anyway, even though you finally backed down (while still trying to maintain the image that you didn’t actually make a mistake, weirdly enough – just admit it), you still don’t have a clue about QM. So, this is my message to anybody who’s gonna come in here and take up Calrid on his challenge: he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, don’t bother. Any argument he will try to make against you will not be from the POV of the “status quo” as he says, because he doesn’t understand the status quo as it is. It’ll be arguments mostly based on his own biases, and it won’t accurately represent what real physicists think.
That is all.
I never said what you say I did, probably because you haven’t the first idea what non local or hidden variables means.
MWI can claim to be local and non hidden all it wants but that doesn’t mean it is. It certainly isn’t local in any sense that can be verified by Bell’s Aspect was my point then and now. Stop strawmanning.
That is quite enough. I would like to add insult to your injury but frankly you have already humiliated yourself enough so that calling you an idiot or whatever is entirely superfluous.
No need to put your foot deeper in your throat. Just stop posting in this thread, it will die and your shame will abate. Your logical fallacies will eventually be forgotten in history, don’t let it ruin your mood too much.
Take your size nines out of your mouth and stop posting before you humiliate yourself further.
Non sequitur:
Strawman means he was wrong then and will be wrong about everything hence forth.
I wasn’t wrong then about MWI being fanciful horse shit and I am not wrong now, live with it. Or put your money where your mouth is and prove something for a change, like how MWI distinguishes itself empirically from Copenhagen in a valid experiment such as oh I don’t know, the two slit or Bells.
You were wrong then and now.
And the ultimate irony of the situation: Bell, the very scientist whose work you were using to try to debunk deterministic QM, was himself a proponent of a deterministic interpretation of QM!!! I love it!
So, you certainly don’t understand the ideas and experiments of Bell’s that you brought up, you probably don’t understand Copenhagen, you definitely don’t understand Many Worlds, and you talk about all of them like you’re an expert. The ironies produced by your so-called understanding show otherwise, though. You may be an expert in the future, you may one day pull up your britches and do some real thinking and research, but for now you’re just an arrogant guy who likes to read his own biases into other peoples work.
If there were, in fact, a guy defending the actual status quo of QM in a thread on ILP, I would undoubtedly root for him. You’re not that guy though. You don’t get it.
Can you quote the exact contention I made that is wrong?
No, shut up then.
I claimed many worlds is horse shit and to prove it I used an experiment where it cannot ever distinguish itself in any empirical form hence it is not even wrong. You need to STFU I think.
I contend that no local hidden variable theory can explain the experimental results of quantum mechanics, that is still true whether you like it or not.
No, I don’t think I’ll shut up. I think you’re getting a bit flustered because I’m showing you up. Your recourse is to just tell me to shut up, lol. Oh boy, you little weenie.
I think you have started flaming me because you are flustered and can’t admit your straw man.
So how about you prove that many worlds explains the Bells-Aspect and hence is not just philosophical twaddle with the entire intention of messing about with silly abstractions no one can ever measure or ever will.
You have two choices prove it or STFU.
Dude, the way you talk about this stuff is just even more proof that you don’t know what it means.
I don’t have to prove Many Worlds any more than you have to prove Copenhagen. You’re the one claiming Bell proved it wrong, and then backing down on that, so I’ve already won. That makes you (tee hee) the LOSER.
Just gotta love that atmosphere of free intellectual exchange.
Calm down, gentlemen.
This little gem deserves getting pounded on as well:
So, Calrid expects MW to distinguish itself in the two slits or Bells experiments. Very, very interesting Calrid. You see, that’s absolutely nonsense. Because, quite simply, these experiments HAVE ALREADY BEEN DONE!
They’ve already been done. We know what happens in those experiments. Any theory that pertains to those experiments has to make THE SAME prediction about them, because they’ve already been done and we already know the results. A theory which makes a different prediction, like you strangely expect of MW, is incorrect. If it predicts something different from WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW HAPPENS, it’s wrong. So no, it’s not supposed to distinguish itself in experiments that we’ve already done. That would make it immediately wrong, don’t you get it?
It’s like, we already know approximately how things fall on earth: discounting air resistance and some other factors, things fall towards earth at approximately 9.81 m/s/s. So, any theory of gravity and physics which makes predictions about how things fall HAS TO NOT DIFFERENTIATE ITSELF in regards to that. They all have to produce approximately the same result. If the experiment has already been done, any differentiation IS WRONG! A theory of gravity that predicts that things fall towards earth at 20 m/s/s is WRONG. We know it’s wrong.
Likewise, any theory about QM which makes different predictions about double slit or any other experiment that’s already been done is WRONG. So, to say that Many Worlds doesn’t differentiate itself in how it predicts results of experiments that have already been done…that’s not a bad thing. It shouldn’t differentiate itself. Don’t you get it? Any difference from what actually happens is wrong, little buddy. So no, MW doesn’t differentiate itself in those experiments that have already happened, and it would be wrong if it did.
The fact that you think it should differentiate itself in experiments that have already been done tells me you don’t understand even the most basic principles of science. There wasn’t a single shred of thought that went into that post of yours.