- #1
- 24,775
- 792
Gerard 't Hooft at Kitp25
Here is the audio etc for 't Hooft's Kavli25 talk, but it takes a few minutes to do the audio, so I am going to exerpt a few slides to give an idea of the general message.
The title of the talk was The Future of Quantum Mechanics
http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/kitp25/thooft/
http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/kitp25/thooft/oh/02.html
http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/kitp25/thooft/oh/03.html
http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/kitp25/thooft/oh/04.html
http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/kitp25/thooft/oh/06.html
http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/kitp25/thooft/oh/07.html
http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/kitp25/thooft/oh/13.html
http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/kitp25/thooft/oh/16.html
http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/kitp25/thooft/oh/18.html
slides 2,3,4 say:
---exerpts from 't Hooft slides---
From a pragmatic point of view there is nothing wrong with quantum mechanics...[But] the standard Hilbert space procedure for QM does not go well with gravitation, curved space-time, and cosmology.
Attempting to reconcile General Relativity with QM leads to apparently insurmountable problems...
(for anyone not happy with string theory: even with AdS/CFT, there can be
no locality in 3+1 space-time.)
Why should these problems NOT be related to the question of the foundation of quantum mechanics?
this is a minority's view point, because:
Theorem:"Hidden variables cannot be reconciled with locality and causality."
...
Perhaps Quantum Gravity can be handled by thoroughly reconsidering Quantum Mechanics itself!
---end quotes from slides 2,3,4---
Slides 6 and 7 depict two scientists who personify our expectations of Causality and Locality.
---exerpts from slides 13, 16, 18---
Quantum Mechanics is NOT a theory that describes what is really going on, not an ONTOLOGICAL theory
A key ingredient for an ontological theory: Information loss
A Quantum state is defined to be an equivalence class of states which all have the same distant future...
an apparently non-local, acausal definition!
What we call vacuum state may actually be a quantum superposition of many equivalence classes of ontological states.
---end quotes from 't Hooft---
after the talk there was a panel, including Roger Penrose and James Hartle. this has their slides and audio of their commentary
http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/kitp25/zee/
Here is the audio etc for 't Hooft's Kavli25 talk, but it takes a few minutes to do the audio, so I am going to exerpt a few slides to give an idea of the general message.
The title of the talk was The Future of Quantum Mechanics
http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/kitp25/thooft/
http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/kitp25/thooft/oh/02.html
http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/kitp25/thooft/oh/03.html
http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/kitp25/thooft/oh/04.html
http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/kitp25/thooft/oh/06.html
http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/kitp25/thooft/oh/07.html
http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/kitp25/thooft/oh/13.html
http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/kitp25/thooft/oh/16.html
http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/kitp25/thooft/oh/18.html
slides 2,3,4 say:
---exerpts from 't Hooft slides---
From a pragmatic point of view there is nothing wrong with quantum mechanics...[But] the standard Hilbert space procedure for QM does not go well with gravitation, curved space-time, and cosmology.
Attempting to reconcile General Relativity with QM leads to apparently insurmountable problems...
(for anyone not happy with string theory: even with AdS/CFT, there can be
no locality in 3+1 space-time.)
Why should these problems NOT be related to the question of the foundation of quantum mechanics?
this is a minority's view point, because:
Theorem:"Hidden variables cannot be reconciled with locality and causality."
...
Perhaps Quantum Gravity can be handled by thoroughly reconsidering Quantum Mechanics itself!
---end quotes from slides 2,3,4---
Slides 6 and 7 depict two scientists who personify our expectations of Causality and Locality.
---exerpts from slides 13, 16, 18---
Quantum Mechanics is NOT a theory that describes what is really going on, not an ONTOLOGICAL theory
A key ingredient for an ontological theory: Information loss
A Quantum state is defined to be an equivalence class of states which all have the same distant future...
an apparently non-local, acausal definition!
What we call vacuum state may actually be a quantum superposition of many equivalence classes of ontological states.
---end quotes from 't Hooft---
after the talk there was a panel, including Roger Penrose and James Hartle. this has their slides and audio of their commentary
http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/kitp25/zee/
Last edited: