Double standards in mainstream physics
Posted Jun12-08 at 06:12 AM by Demystifier
I present two hypothetical (but typical) dialogues, one between a creationist and a mainstream physicist, the other between the same mainstream physicist and a bohmian (an adherent of the Bohmian interpretation of quantum mechanics). It clearly demonstrates that mainstream physics is plagued by double standards, i.e., that epistemological standards used in foundations of quantum mechanics are not compatible with those used in the rest of physics.
DIALOGUE I:
creationist: I think God created the Universe and everything in it.
mainstream physicist: I cannot prove that he hasn't, but it is conceptually much simpler to adopt the physical view according to which all events in the Universe are governed by simple and elegant mathematically formulated physical laws.
creationist: Simpler? I was studying physics as well, and I was even able to understand these physical laws, and I appreciate that they agree with experiments, but still, these laws are far from simple. My view that God simply created the Universe and everything in it is much simpler. Therefore, by Occam razor, I adopt the simpler theory that does not need all these complicated laws of physics.
mainstream physicist: OK, your view is technically simpler, but I don't like it because it's still too mysterious to me. My scientific view is not that mysterious.
creationist: Maybe my view is mysterious, but we who believe that God created the Universe represent the majority. You the scientists who believe that the creation of the Universe is correctly explained by the physical laws represent the minority.
mainstream physicist - to himself: Yes, but the majority does not allways need to be right.
DIALOGUE II:
mainstream physicist: I think the wave function collapses when a measurement is performed.
bohmian: I cannot prove that it doesn't, but it is conceptually much simpler to adopt the Bohmian view according to which all events in the Universe are governed by simple and elegant mathematically formulated Bohmian laws of motion.
mainstream physicist: Simpler? I was studying Bohmian mechanics as well, and I was able to understand it, and I appreciate that it agrees with experiments, but still, it involves one additional guiding equation absent in standard QM, so it is more complicated than standard QM. My view that the wave function simply collapses when the measurement is performed is much simpler. Therefore, by Occam razor, I adopt the simpler theory that does not need this guiding equation.
bohmian: OK, your view is technically simpler, but I don't like it because it's still too mysterious to me. My Bohmian view is not that mysterious.
mainstream physicist: Maybe my view is mysterious, but we who believe that the wave function collapses represent the majority. You the bohmians who believe that the Universe is correctly explained by the guiding equation represent the minority.
bohmian - to himself: Yes, but the majority does not allways need to be right.
DIALOGUE I:
creationist: I think God created the Universe and everything in it.
mainstream physicist: I cannot prove that he hasn't, but it is conceptually much simpler to adopt the physical view according to which all events in the Universe are governed by simple and elegant mathematically formulated physical laws.
creationist: Simpler? I was studying physics as well, and I was even able to understand these physical laws, and I appreciate that they agree with experiments, but still, these laws are far from simple. My view that God simply created the Universe and everything in it is much simpler. Therefore, by Occam razor, I adopt the simpler theory that does not need all these complicated laws of physics.
mainstream physicist: OK, your view is technically simpler, but I don't like it because it's still too mysterious to me. My scientific view is not that mysterious.
creationist: Maybe my view is mysterious, but we who believe that God created the Universe represent the majority. You the scientists who believe that the creation of the Universe is correctly explained by the physical laws represent the minority.
mainstream physicist - to himself: Yes, but the majority does not allways need to be right.
DIALOGUE II:
mainstream physicist: I think the wave function collapses when a measurement is performed.
bohmian: I cannot prove that it doesn't, but it is conceptually much simpler to adopt the Bohmian view according to which all events in the Universe are governed by simple and elegant mathematically formulated Bohmian laws of motion.
mainstream physicist: Simpler? I was studying Bohmian mechanics as well, and I was able to understand it, and I appreciate that it agrees with experiments, but still, it involves one additional guiding equation absent in standard QM, so it is more complicated than standard QM. My view that the wave function simply collapses when the measurement is performed is much simpler. Therefore, by Occam razor, I adopt the simpler theory that does not need this guiding equation.
bohmian: OK, your view is technically simpler, but I don't like it because it's still too mysterious to me. My Bohmian view is not that mysterious.
mainstream physicist: Maybe my view is mysterious, but we who believe that the wave function collapses represent the majority. You the bohmians who believe that the Universe is correctly explained by the guiding equation represent the minority.
bohmian - to himself: Yes, but the majority does not allways need to be right.
Total Comments 11
Comments
-
There are two fallacies of logic here by the mainstream physicist.
First, the claim that the wavefunction collapse assumption of standard QM is mathematically simpler than pilot wave theory with its extra guiding equation. The Bohmian could easily point out that with the guiding equation he has no need for further anthropocentric postulates about this ill-defined process called "measurement". Any time you have reduced the number of postulates needed in a theory, you have simplified it, not complicated it.
Second, the appeal to the majority, as if belief by a majority has any logical bearing on the validity of a claim.
Even in the creationist vs mainstream physicist, the view of the creationist isn't even technically simpler - in fact it is infinitely more complicated than the claim that physical laws explain what we see. More precisely, the mechanism of an infinitely powerful, yet unobservable being creating everything is what is infinitely more complicated by definition.Posted Jul18-08 at 02:30 PM by Maaneli 
-
I guess you are a bohmian, just as I am, which is why I fully agree with you.
The purpose of these two dialogues was to beat the mainstream physicists by their own arguments which they would normally use and accept in a different context.Posted Jul21-08 at 04:52 AM by Demystifier
-
I suppose you could call me a Bohmian, but I would just call myself a rationalist.
Yes, I understood the purpose of the dialogue, and just felt there were additional points you could have made.
I like your work Hrvoje.Posted Jul28-08 at 05:18 PM by Maaneli
-
Thanks, Maaneli!
Posted Jul29-08 at 05:03 AM by Demystifier
-
and what, exactly, causes the waveform to collapse ?
Schrodinger exposed the fallacy in this view by putting a cat in a sealed box.Posted Aug1-08 at 04:58 PM by map19
-
In the Bohmian interpretation the wave function does not collapse. In terms of Schrodinger cats, the cat is not its wave function, but u bunch of continuously moving pointlike particles guided by the wave function. It is allways either dead or alive, depending on the current positions of the relevant particles.
Posted Aug7-08 at 09:02 AM by Demystifier
-
I like QM à la Bohm... but can it deal now with creation and annihilation of particles? A few years back it couldn't...
Posted Apr9-10 at 04:23 AM by jrlaguna
-
Now it can:Quote:Quote by jrlaguna
I like QM à la Bohm... but can it deal now with creation and annihilation of particles? A few years back it couldn't...
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0904.2287 [Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 25 (2010) 1477]Posted Apr19-10 at 06:37 AM by Demystifier
-
I like your illustration. Although "Occam's razor" and appeal to majority ("mainstream") are used in science, they are not really scientific.
[EDIT:] they are mere heuristics to aid our estimation of which explanation is more likely.Posted Sep4-12 at 09:14 AM by harrylin
Updated Sep22-12 at 08:06 AM by harrylin (combine two posts, found editing button! :-)) -
[comment included in preceding post]
Posted Sep4-12 at 09:21 AM by harrylin
Updated Sep22-12 at 08:07 AM by harrylin -
Yes, I absolutely agree with that.Quote:Quote by harrylin
I like your illustration. Although "Occam's razor" and appeal to majority ("mainstream") are used in science, they are not really scientific.
[EDIT:] they are mere heuristics to aid our estimation of which explanation is more likely.Posted Sep27-12 at 04:26 AM by Demystifier
