- 9,861
- 2,862
Any Lorentz-violating theory with higher derivatives in the effective action.What are framework besides condensed matter framework where it can be true?
Any Lorentz-violating theory with higher derivatives in the effective action.What are framework besides condensed matter framework where it can be true?
What models have you encountered where there is another layer below QM where deBroglie wavelength and HUP don't apply anymore?1. can be true even without the condensed matter framework.
If QM is fundamental (which in my approach I assume it is), then De Broglie wavelength and HUP are fundamental.
The 't Hooft's theory of local superdeterministic hidden variables.What models have you encountered where there is another layer below QM where deBroglie wavelength and HUP don't apply anymore?
I was googling about this and encountered this for instance https://arxiv.org/abs/1105.4326The 't Hooft's theory of local superdeterministic hidden variables.
Yes, in the 't Hooft's theory there is no wave function. The fundamental thing there is the cellular automaton. For a review see http://de.arxiv.org/abs/1405.1548It has no wave function anymore?
It is dense reading. So the cellular automaton QM theory can describe strings in the planck scale that doesn't necessarily involve huge energy, and turtles (representing complex objects) can even occur inside the planck scale?Yes, in the 't Hooft's theory there is no wave function. The fundamental thing there is the cellular automaton. For a review see http://de.arxiv.org/abs/1405.1548
Essentially, because I don't like superdeterminism. Superdeterminism says that correlations are not due to laws of physics, but are contingent properties of special initial conditions. In this way, superdeterminism can nominally explain anything but actually explains nothing.Why don't you like it?
Can't you have HUP without superdeterminism? HUP is simply when x is so small, momentum is so large. So in the planck scale where x is so tiny, momentum or energy so big. What is the relationship of superdeterminism and HUP?Essentially, because I don't like superdeterminism. Superdeterminism says that correlations are not due to laws of physics, but are contingent properties of special initial conditions. In this way, superdeterminism can nominally explain anything but actually explains nothing.
Perhaps, but I am not aware of any.Are there other interpretative formalisms without superdeterminism that has no HUP too?
By the way, what does "free" mean above? Do you have references for this free vs non-free case?E=p^2/2m is the free non-relativistic dispersion relation. For a non-free case, non-relativistic dispersion can be different.
Free means that the Hamiltonian is justBy the way, what does "free" mean above? Do you have references for this free vs non-free case?
I thought "free" meant condense matter stuff was involved. But even without it, Lorentz invariance could still be violated at small scale. So what does "free" exactly man?
Hold on.Perhaps, but I am not aware of any.
No, HUP says that when uncertainty of x is very small, then the uncertainty of momentum is very large. It says nothing about energy.HUP says that when x is very small, momentum is large and energy is large.
I think you have heard about the mass paradox in preons, quoting:No, HUP says that when uncertainty of x is very small, then the uncertainty of momentum is very large. It says nothing about energy.
In the preon model they assumed that relativity is valid at the level of preons. But that assumption does not necessarily need to be taken for granted in other models.So HUP has to do with high energy. Why don't you believe it?
Yes. That's why I said that in condense matter model where Lorentz invariance didn't hold in small scale. HUP having large momentum and energy won't hold too and this means small scale could have many particles like preons with much less mass?In the preon model they assumed that relativity is valid at the level of preons. But that assumption does not necessarily need to be taken for granted in other models.
This is very important. If relativity was not valid at small scale where preons existed, then it didn't have to have 200 GeV?In the preon model they assumed that relativity is valid at the level of preons. But that assumption does not necessarily need to be taken for granted in other models.
Yes.This is very important. If relativity was not valid at small scale where preons existed, then it didn't have to have 200 GeV?
This will not change the Hossenfelder's opinion, because she will tell that we do not have a strong reason to think that relativity is violated at 100 TeV (and beyond).This is my justification to vote for 100 TeV (and beyond) particle accelarators to see if relativity was valid at very small scale. And strong counterarguments to Hossenfelder taking negative stand against newer particle accelarators. So kindly emphasize if HUP and particles that supposedly require higher energy particles didn't have to exist if relativity not there at very small scale. Thank you!
Ok. Back to phonons and fundamental particles. Since the wave function underlying the fundamental particles are what causes the interaction in the atoms, then a helium or oxygen atom in the fundamental particle version would still look like helium or oxygen atoms? Only with trajectories?Yes.
This will not change the Hossenfelder's opinion, because she will tell that we do not have a strong reason to think that relativity is violated at 100 TeV (and beyond).
In essence. I don't want the fundamental particles to look like helium, oxygen or flowers. They really look natural objects like flowers? (Kindly confirm). But when we look at flowers. We are looking at the quasiparticles and not the fundamental particles. Do they look the same? I want another layer. So is the following possible?Ok. Back to phonons and fundamental particles. Since the wave function underlying the fundamental particles are what causes the interaction in the atoms, then a helium or oxygen atom in the fundamental particle version would still look like helium or oxygen atoms? Only with trajectories?
Can't you make a version where the quasiparticles like electrons, quarks are still described by the wave function, only there is another layer deeper where there are trajectories yet not describable by any wave function, like a turtle or strings that don't look like the helium or oxygen?
Kindly elaborate on the two cases above so we become more familiar to the distinctions.
Demystifier. There seems to be some conflicts in the model. Reviewing your paper in page 13 "The phonon trajectory is certainly not a beable because we know that one phonon is a collective motion of many atoms".In essence. I don't want the fundamental particles to look like helium, oxygen or flowers. They really look natural objects like flowers? (Kindly confirm). But when we look at flowers. We are looking at the quasiparticles and not the fundamental particles. Do they look the same? I want another layer. So is the following possible?
strings -> fundamental particles with beables (no Lorentz invariance) -> quasiparticles like electrons, photons
or better yet, since strings have Lorentz invariance built in, then something like
Newton -> fundamental particles with beables (no Lorentz invariance) -> quasiparticles like electrons, photons?
But Newton shouldn't able to produce wave function. Or can it? What non-relativistic thing can create the initial wave function?
That's not true. See Eqs. (32) and (34) in my paper. Eq. (32) describes a collective excitations of atoms, Eq. (34) describes a wave function of a single phonon, and yet those two wave functions represent the same physical state.But these collective excitations can't be described by wave functions. Because if they do, they would mess up the behavior of atoms
Ok.That's not true. See Eqs. (32) and (34) in my paper. Eq. (32) describes a collective excitations of atoms, Eq. (34) describes a wave function of a single phonon, and yet those two wave functions represent the same physical state.
Ok. Let's not use the word beables then. I just want to know what is volovik version of atoms to produce the phonons in his subquantum realm (where QM is more fundamental than QFT)?You need atoms for phonons, but it's not necessary to say that atom is a beable. The concept of beable is needed if you insist on saying that something (atom, phonon, or whatever) exists even when it is not observed. If you (or Volovik) only care about observations, then you don't need beables.