Field theory approaches to understanding Quantum Theory

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the exploration of field theory approaches to understanding quantum theory, particularly the limitations of classical particle models and the potential of continuous random fields in modeling quantum phenomena. Participants engage with theoretical implications, contextuality, and the relationship between quantum mechanics and field theories.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that classical particle models are inadequate for explaining quantum phenomena and advocate for a shift towards continuous random fields.
  • One participant suggests that any viable theory must be contextual, challenging the notion of hidden variables and referencing the Weihs experiment as a critical point.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of contextuality in continuous random fields versus classical particle properties, with some noting that contextuality appears more natural in field theories.
  • Participants express uncertainty about the criticisms of quantum mechanics and whether it can remain neutral indefinitely regarding its underlying mechanics.
  • One participant highlights the potential for a random field approach to describe correlations without necessarily establishing causal relationships, raising questions about the nature of causality in quantum theory.
  • Another participant expresses a need for clearer motivation for adopting random field models, indicating a desire for stronger justification to engage with the proposed ideas.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the inadequacies of classical particle models and the need for contextual approaches, but there are multiple competing views regarding the implications of these ideas and the effectiveness of random field theories. The discussion remains unresolved on several theoretical points.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the need for clearer definitions of contextuality and the implications of adopting random field models. There are unresolved questions regarding the relationship between correlations and causality in quantum theory.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in theoretical physics, quantum mechanics, and the philosophical implications of field theories may find this discussion relevant.

  • #31
Peter Morgan said:
You're absolutely right that I have eschewed Hamiltonian and Lagrangian methods as a starting point,

Quantum theory regards all elementary particles as 'point-like' objects without providing a clear definition for the term. Composite fermions and their decay products are referred to as 'two dimensional' objects. As far as the structure of the particles are concerned the theory is not transferable to a three dimensional frame (See chapter 5 of 'Composite Fermions' by Jainendra K Jain). Hence, in order to describe particles in their natural (three dimensional) state; it is, of course; necessary to abandon the starting points of two dimensional theories (i.e. Hamiltonian and Lagrangian).
The cross over between two and three dimensional theories occurs on the radius that is common to both two and three dimensional structures in the form of a 'linear vacuum force'. Three dimensional theory is classical physics, Quantum theory is mathematical prediction.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
I agree that we need to make contact with the world.

With prove itself I meant to "prove it's predictive power" not just some type of consistency proofs.

Since I envision a fundamentally new construction of interactions, at minimum I would need to able to reproduce the body of existing phenomenology, this includes the reproductions of the standard particle model as far as they are tested, and general relativity as far as tested. If I can do that, from other first principles, then I think it would be a fair motivation to provide to others to look at this, and take it to the next step and invest in testing some of the NEW predictions, which would be the real test of course. But since testing theories sometimes cost money I think even a physicist needs to be a bit of a salesman.

But other than that I see ways of testing some of these ideas without expensive particle labs. After all physics isn't just about particle physics. It's also about complex phenomena, and they are all around us. Artificial intelligence and evolutionary learning is also a field where I see a strong possibilitiy for testing the ideas. This can attract others than merely physicists.

/Fredrik
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
816
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 182 ·
7
Replies
182
Views
15K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K