Is Bohmian Mechanics or Many Worlds part of Beyond the Standard Model?

[cube137]

Let's say one day experiments can distinguish that it's Bohmian Mechanics (or Many Worlds) that is the true dynamics in the quantum realm... is this stuff considered part of "Beyond the Standard Model?" Or is it just isolated event in quantum mechanics and just part of SM.. maybe stuff "beyond SM" is only treated as such if it involves new particles in the Great Collider and other future accelerators?

I'm asking because in Lee Smolin book "Trouble with Physics".. he seemed to be saying that we must go back to the foundations as we may be thinking about it all wrong way.

Better yet. How do you distinguish when a stuff is considered just Standard Model or Beyond the Standard Model? Any reference or papers concerning this?

 

[mfb]

Interpretations of quantum mechanics are independent of the standard model and similar theories. The SM (or your favorite BSM theory) produces the calculations, the interpretations relate the calculation results to the world we see. Interpretations are not theories - there is no way to distinguish between them because they all predict the same for the same calculation result.

Better yet. How do you distinguish when a stuff is considered just Standard Model or Beyond the Standard Model? Any reference or papers concerning this?

Every quantum field theory that is different from the SM (but still describes the observations so far) is BSM.

 

[Demystifier]

BSM usually refers to models based on standard interpretation of quantum theory.

 

[cube137]

Interpretations of quantum mechanics are independent of the standard model and similar theories. The SM (or your favorite BSM theory) produces the calculations, the interpretations relate the calculation results to the world we see. Interpretations are not theories - there is no way to distinguish between them because they all predict the same for the same calculation result.
Every quantum field theory that is different from the SM (but still describes the observations so far) is BSM.

What does Lee Smolin mean in the following when he stated in Trouble With Physics: "We will not be able to solve the other big problems unless we also find a sensible replacement for quantum mechanics"... if he talking of extra mathematical methods in addition to the orthodox? the paragraph that precedes it mentioned:

"I should admit that I am a realist. I side with Einstein and the others who believe that quantum mechanics is an incomplete description of reality. Where, then, should we look for what is missing in quantum mechanics? It has always seemed to me that the solution will require more than a deeper understanding of quantum physics itself. I believe that if the problem has not been solved after all this time, it is because there is something missing, some link to other problems in physics. The problem of quantum mechanics is unlikely to be solved in isolation; instead, the solution will probably emerge as we make progress on the greater effort to unify physics".

Is there any papers that expound on the above?

 

[tzimie]

BTW does the "end of Naturalness" -> multiverse on "baby universes" level,
somehow favor multiverse on QM level, MWI?

 

[mfb]

What does Lee Smolin mean in the following when he stated in Trouble With Physics: "We will not be able to solve the other big problems unless we also find a sensible replacement for quantum mechanics"... if he talking of extra mathematical methods in addition to the orthodox? the paragraph that precedes it mentioned:

This is purely about interpretations, not about SM/BSM models.

BTW does the "end of Naturalness" -> multiverse on "baby universes" level,
somehow favor multiverse on QM level, MWI?

No.

 

[Demystifier]

BTW does the "end of Naturalness" -> multiverse on "baby universes" level,
somehow favor multiverse on QM level, MWI?

No they don't.

 

[cube137]

This is purely about interpretations, not about SM/BSM models.

So you mean Lee Smolin saying quantum mechanics was wrong was simply talking to laymen and he agrees with you and you agees with him on a deeper level? Remember Smolin mentioned the following in Trouble with Physics:

"So much for questioning relativity. What if quantum theory is wrong? This is the soft underbelly of the whole project of quantum gravity. If quantum theory is wrong, then trying to combine it with gravity will have been a huge waste of time. Does anyone think this is the case?
Yes, and one is Gerald 't Hooft. As a graduate student at the University of Utrech, 't Hooft proved, with an older collaborator, that quantum Yang-Mills theories were sensible, a discovery that made the whole standard model possible, and he has a well-deserved Nobel Prize for these efforst. That's only one of his many fundamental discoveries about the standard model. But for the last decade he has been one of the boldest thinkers on foundational issues. As he formulates it, there is no space. Everything that happens in a region we are used to thinking of as space can be represented as taking place on a surface surrounding that space. Further, the description of the the world that exists on that boundary is not quantum theory but a deterministic theory he believes will replace it."Or maybe when Smolin wrote "wrong", he really meant wrong and not just purely about interpretations?? What do others make of this.

 

[mfb]

QFT might be wrong - but only in the same way Newtonian mechanics is wrong. We still build skyscrapers using Newtonian mechanics, not General Relativity.
We know QFT is a really good approximation, so even if it turns out to be wrong in the future, whatever comes afterwards will reproduce the predictions of QFT.