New Law of Physics Could Explain Quantum Mysteries

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a proposed new law of physics, the Invariant Set Postulate, which aims to provide a geometric framework for understanding quantum phenomena. Participants explore its implications, potential shortcomings, and the need for formal mathematical backing, as well as its relation to existing theories and experimental predictions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express interest in the Invariant Set Postulate as a new approach to quantum theory, highlighting its potential to differentiate between states of physical reality and unreality.
  • One participant critiques the lack of formal mathematical support for the proposed ideas, suggesting that without rigorous formalism, the theory remains a conjecture rather than a robust physical theory.
  • Another participant raises a point regarding the implications of the theory on quantum decoherence, specifically arguing that gravity cannot cause quantum decoherence, although this claim is noted as being subject to further scrutiny and lacking experimental validation.
  • There is a mention of context-dependent hidden variables affecting the application of fair sampling assumptions in EPR experiments, suggesting that the proposed theory may not align with traditional interpretations of entanglement.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus; there are multiple competing views regarding the validity and implications of the Invariant Set Postulate, as well as its relationship to existing theories and experimental evidence.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the absence of mathematical formalism in the proposed theory, which raises questions about its scientific rigor and applicability. Additionally, the discussion highlights unresolved issues regarding the relationship between gravity and quantum decoherence.

Baboon
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
I read interesting article.What do you think about it?

New Law of Physics Could Explain Quantum Mysteries

Tim Palmer, a weather and climate researcher at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts in Reading, UK, has been interested in the idea of a new geometric framework for quantum theory for a long time. Palmer’s doctoral thesis was in general relativity theory at Oxford University in the late 1970s. His studies convinced him that a successful quantum theory of gravity requires some geometric generalization of quantum theory, but at the time he was unsure what specific form this generalization should take. Over the years, Palmer’s professional research moved away from this area of theoretical physics, and he is now one of the world’s experts on the predictability of climate, a subject which has considerable input from nonlinear dynamical systems theory. In a return to his original quest for a realistic geometric quantum theory, Palmer has applied geometric thinking inspired by such dynamical systems theory to propose the new law, called the Invariant Set Postulate, described in a recent issue of the Proceedings of the Royal Society A.

As Palmer explained to PhysOrg.com, the Invariant Set Postulate is proposed as a new geometric framework for understanding the basic foundations of quantum physics. "Crucially, the framework allows a differentiation between states of physical reality and physical 'unreality,'" he said.

The theory suggests the existence of a state space (the set of all possible states of the universe), within which a smaller (fractal) subset of state space is embedded. This subset is dynamically invariant in the sense that states which belong on this subset will always belong to it, and have always belonged to it. States of physical reality are those, and only those, which belong to this invariant subset of state space; all other points in state space are considered “unreal.” Such points of unreality might correspond to states of the universe in which counterfactual measurements are performed in order to answer questions such as “what would the spin of the electron have been, had my measuring apparatus been oriented this way, instead of that way?” Because of the Invariant Set Postulate, such questions have no definite answer, consistent with the earlier and rather mysterious notion of “complementarity” introduced by Niels Bohr.
full here...http://www.physorg.com/news169725980.html
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Ha, it's called positive attitude. Context dependent hidden variables mean that you can not straightforwardly apply fair sampling assumption in EPR experiments because nondetection is exactly the effect of the same thing (context) that is correlated in results.
And you can conclude that Rowe's efficient detection experiment is quite different case exactly for the reason of efficient detection e.g. it excludes possibility of unreal detection. So it is not entanglement or not the same entanglement as in traditional EPR experiments.
 
Baboon -> I read the article, downloaded the paper and quickly browsed through it. Yes, it does indeed sound great. There's one small little problem however. As of now, that is not to be considered as anything but a collection of nice heuristic ideas. What do I mean with that? If you want to take a physical idea seriously, you have to back it up with some kind of formalism. Mathematical formulae, if you want. And that paper has none. And this is the real problem - it's a collection of ideas that sound great, but they're not backed up by any kind of formalism. If you can't do that, than it's nothing but a conjecture. And the author is well aware of this, which just shows his scientific awareness, as he concludes the paper by saying
Future papers will attempt to provide the mathematical detail required to develop this explanatory analysis into a rigorous physical theory.
Let's wait and see what he comes up with. Then it'll be time for some serious investigation of his new theory. But for now, as exciting as it may sound, it's not a "rigorous physical theory", as he says.
 
Baboon said:

Another interpretation...? :smile: Were we short on these before?

This paper actually makes one experimental "prediction" that I actually agree with: that gravity cannot cause quantum decoherence. I put prediction in quotes because I believe that others have questioned this as well - i.e. that if gravity were a quantum force, decoherence would result from gravity itself. And as far as I know, no one has come up with a way to test this.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
528
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 143 ·
5
Replies
143
Views
12K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 75 ·
3
Replies
75
Views
10K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
6K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K