Field theory approaches to understanding Quantum Theory

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the inadequacy of classical particle models in explaining quantum phenomena, emphasizing the need for a field-based approach that incorporates probability and continuous random fields. Participants argue that any viable theory must be contextual, moving away from realistic hidden variable models, as demonstrated by experimental results like the Weihs experiment. The conversation also critiques the rejection of the proposed paper by major journals, questioning its clarity and the motivation behind adopting a random field model. There is a consensus that while contextuality is essential, the fundamental issues with quantum mechanics may not stem solely from the loss of classical logic. Overall, the dialogue reflects a deep engagement with the complexities of quantum field theory and the challenges of reconciling classical and quantum perspectives.
  • #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
338
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • · Replies 182 ·
7
Replies
182
Views
15K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K