Field theory approaches to understanding Quantum Theory

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion centers on the limitations of classical particle models in quantum theory and advocates for a continuous random field approach as a viable alternative. The participants emphasize the necessity of contextuality in any theoretical framework, arguing that traditional models fail to account for the complexities of quantum phenomena. The conversation references the rejection of a paper proposing this approach by major journals, highlighting the ongoing debate about the foundational principles of quantum mechanics. Key concepts include the need for probability in modeling experiments and the inadequacy of classical fields in the presence of quantum fluctuations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics principles
  • Familiarity with quantum field theory (QFT)
  • Knowledge of continuous random fields in mathematics
  • Awareness of contextuality and its implications in physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of contextuality in quantum mechanics
  • Study the mathematics of continuous random fields
  • Examine the de Broglie-Bohm (dBB) theory and its critiques
  • Explore the concept of superdeterminism in quantum field theory
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, quantum theorists, and researchers interested in the foundational aspects of quantum mechanics and alternative modeling approaches to classical particle theories.

  • #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
691
  • · 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