What Happens When Point-Like Particles Interact?

[glengarry]

The proposition that the world is not mathematical is a metaphysical dogma as well. God, even the statement that empirical science leads us to truth is a dogma.

We have to accept some dogmas first, before we start to make science. The assumption that the world is logical/mathematical is a really good one.

You must really understand the difference between an axiom and a dogma. Axioms are simply propositions that people uncritically accept to be true for one of two reasons:

1) The truth of the proposition is manifest
2) The truth of the proposition must be accepted in order to establish the basic "ground rules" that will allow civil, intellectual discourse to ensue

The reason why axioms exist is so that certain other propositions can be proven to be true by way of deduction. And once one of these "certain other" propositions are proven to be true, then it becomes a dogma. But again, these newly proven propositions are only as true as the axioms from whence they are deduced. That is, if the second reason as outlined above is the only reason why the derived proposition is elevated from the level of hypo-thesis to thesis (i.e. theory), then said deduction can only be understood as a contingent truth rather than a necessary truth (which is indeed the case with theses that are derived using the first reason, per the above list).

So, the problem here can be summed up in the following way. You are using concepts whose definitions can be configured so that they appear to be synonymous (e.g. "axiom" vs. "dogma" and "mathematical reality" vs. "sensible reality"), but this is merely the lazy way out. In my opinion, people who reason in this fashion can be understood simply as SOPHISTS.

 

[glengarry]

Now, I want to talk about the differences between this thread and the thread called, "https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=395509""

The problem with that thread is that it assumes the reality of something called 'local causality,' for which, as I have tried to show, there is not a sensible 'theory' of it in existence.

On the contrary, if we start from the simple assumption that physical bodies, in their most elementary sense, do indeed occupy three-dimensional space, then we can start to put some puzzle pieces in place.

Now, the great thing about quantum theory is that the 'probability wave' concept of QM is not the only one in existence. That is, we have this thing called the 'wave function' and we are allowed, theoretically, to do whatever we damn well want with it, as long as what we happen to do with it is indeed logically warranted.

From where I stand, there is no necessary reason to do as Born did (that is, square the wave function) unless one genuinely wishes to preserve the status quo within mainstream physics, which is to rely upon simplistic algebraic calculations so that one may be able to heroically proclaim: "Look, I have found the answer!"

So, what happens when we do as Schrodinger originally intended, and allow the wave function to persist as a spatially extended, dynamical form? Here's what happens: We have instantly brought sanity into the theoretical discussions of physical reality; those very same discussions which are now concerning themselves with the absolutely inane notion that 'local causality' can possibly have any significance above and beyond how certain naive individuals understand their daily, local existences.

Furthermore, I am not going to be suckered into the thought that the wave function would be just another 'hidden variable,' such as von Neumann and Bell have tried to show cannot possibly exist, because the entire paradigm of Bell-style QM is contingent upon the notion that the squaring of the wave function was the 'correct' thing to do. And if you do not accept this assumption, then all logical argumentation that relies upon the 'astonishing accuracy' of the statistical predictions of QM simply falls flat on its face.

 

[haael]

And once one of these "certain other" propositions are proven to be true, then it becomes a dogma.

What you call a dogma here, I would call a thesis. I have learned of different definition of dogma, that it is more a starting point of deduction rather than a final point. Perhaps my language is quite different to yours.

Dogmas are like axioms, but they are pre-scientific. For example: one of my dogmas is that science is a good way to explore the truth. I also believe (the word "dogma" comes from Greek "believe") that the world actually exists. I believe that world is logical and can be learned from the data around me. I also believe in maths, that it leads me to truths and is not, say, some artifact of my thought process.

Dogmas are by definition not falsifiable and I don't think I ever change them.

When I have established enough dogmas, I can start making science (say physics). Now I postulate axioms, which must be falsifiable (or they would not be science). From axioms I derive theses which I test against reality by making experiments. A set of axioms constitutes a theory. A theory must be constructed with rules of maths and scientific method. When one thesis of my theory turns out to be inconsistent with an experiment, the whole theory is wrong and I must throw out my set of axioms and establish a new one.

That's my definition of dogmas and axioms. They both are starting point of reasoning, but they differ in that the latter are falsifiable. Dogmas are believed, axioms are known up to data provided by experiments.

Now, as we both believe in scientific method: I must say that the physical theory about solid object that have position is inconsistent with experiment. Double-slit experiment excluded possibility that electron might be a tiny ball with coordinates. So, I throw out the concept of "classical" solid localized objects and assume quantum physics. Scientific method in action.

You are using concepts whose definitions can be configured so that they appear to be synonymous (e.g. "axiom" vs. "dogma" and "mathematical reality" vs. "sensible reality"), but this is merely the lazy way out.

I never said that these terms are synonymous, quite the opposite. In particular, I tried to point out, that what you percieve by senses is not the reality. It's an illusion, or if you prefer, approximation. Our senses are good to make experiments for prooving of falsifying theories, but they don't show us the truth directly. "Common sense" is even worse, since people are so tied to it, that they believe that it is an actual truth, not a mere theory that should undergo experimental falsification as every other one.

 

[glengarry]

What you call a dogma here, I would call a thesis. I have learned of different definition of dogma, that it is more a starting point of deduction rather than a final point. Perhaps my language is quite different to yours.

Dogma:
1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.
3. A principle or belief or a group of them: "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present" (Abraham Lincoln).

Axiom:
1. A self-evident or universally recognized truth; a maxim: "It is an economic axiom as old as the hills that goods and services can be paid for only with goods and services" (Albert Jay Nock).
2. An established rule, principle, or law.
3. A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate.

Yes, what I said was that a dogma and a thesis are one and the same thing in that they are only taken to be true, a posteriori. That is, people can only be dogmatic in a religious sense because some authoritative figure has already instructed them to believe something to be true. You can take this version of truth as merely contingent, in the sense outlined in that previous post. An axiom, though, is a proposition whose truth value is determined a priori, that is, before any of the 'real' argumentation has taken place.

Now, as we both believe in scientific method: I must say that the physical theory about solid object that have position is inconsistent with experiment. Double-slit experiment excluded possibility that electron might be a tiny ball with coordinates. So, I throw out the concept of "classical" solid localized objects and assume quantum physics. Scientific method in action.

You are mistaking my meaning entirely. First of all, I absolutely do not believe in the scientific method, if our working definition for this notion is that already proven theories must necessarily pass an additional round of [empirical] testing in order to be 'sanctified.' Furthermore, given everything that I've already said, I don't know how you can possibly get the notion that I have have any sort of stake in the idea that there exist "solid objects that have position," much less the thought that I have any interest whatever in how this notion relates to experimentation.

What I'm trying to get you to understand is that you have no business 'assuming' quantum physics, as this is simply a [fairly nebulous] theoretical posture. In other words, you are not now really 'assuming' anything, and neither are you performing any real logical argumentation. You are simply throwing around certain vague notions like 'quantum field,' and therefore feeling proud about how 'profound' you are to be able to understand things that people who do not agree with you would supposedly not be able to comprehend.

 

[glengarry]

If anyone is interested in whether I have any kind of 'personal agenda' that I am trying to advance here, I would only say that those without agendas tend to be children and other silly-type people who only think about life in the most immediate sense. So yes, there is something that I am 'really' trying to say here, but I also know that there is no sense in me laying my cards on the table all at once, as long the point that I am trying to make is anything other than a mere triviality.

So, I am trying to do my best to get some of the clearest thinkers in this forum to put in their two cents in terms of how they might—deep down inside—like to see the discipline that is known as theoretical physics get out of its, for all practical purposes, 80-year-long rut. And what I mean by this is that our deepest, currently accepted, theoretical interpretation of physical reality is simply that when a particular experiment is conducted an infinite number of times, then the outcome is that a certain 'prediction' has been verified.

In other words, everything that has gone by the name 'accepted physical theory' (in the most elementary sense) since the late 1920's ultimately only reduces to this very simple concept. So we are now stuck with one formalism that guarantees statistical accuracy at the 'very small' scale and another one that predicts the various phenomena on the 'not so small' scale. But I fail to understand how these formulations, in their essences, are really so far apart. That is, on the one hand, we have a wave equation and on the other hand, we have the apparatus with which to 'bend' space. See what I'm driving at here?

wave equation... bending space... wave equation... bending space.. waving... bending... waving... bending...

 

[glengarry]

Instead of this:

"Matter tells space how to bend and space tells matter how to move"

We say something like this:

"A wave function tells the field equations how to bend space and bent space tells other wave functions how to move"

Is that an interesting thought?

 

[billschnieder]

Local causality simply means only local causes and effects are possible. By local we mean in the 3-dimensional vicinity of the event. In other words, non-local causes and effects must propagate no faster than the speed of light. So how is this possible? I would say it part and parcel of our collective experience.

Shouldn't you be asking how non-local causality is possible?

 

[ansgar]

No, mathematics is the reality. What we see with our eyes is not. If maths says something you think is wrong, then you are wrong, not maths.

Quantum physics is connected to real world. Our senses are not, they are just tricks the evolution gave to chimps so they can eat more bananas. Maths is our only way to explore reality, even if it gives us answers an average chimp would not believe.

I would just stick to "math is a better way to describe reality than our senses"... our way to think of math is also just a product of evolution ;)

 

[ansgar]

No, many theoretical physicsts would say that even the term 'description' is too strong. That is, according to the standard, Bohr/Bell notion of QM, the only thing involved is the prediction of the results of a given experimental arrangement over an infinite number of trials.

I am a theoretical physicsts...

description means in this sense mapping world onto a mathematical formulated theory

 

[ansgar]

You are mistaking my meaning entirely. First of all, I absolutely do not believe in the scientific method, if our working definition for this notion is that already proven theories must necessarily pass an additional round of [empirical] testing in order to be 'sanctified.'

but since physicists DO follow the scientific method, isn't this the very reason for your "objections"?

You should instead firstly argue WHY one should not follow the scientific method more generally THEN discuss your issue with local causality...

 

[inflector]

No, mathematics is the reality. What we see with our eyes is not. If maths says something you think is wrong, then you are wrong, not maths.

IMHO, this is a complete crock of bird excrement.

IF, you had mathematics that was sufficiently developed to describe reality, and IF you had the correct equations, then mathematics would model reality sufficiently to believe the math above all else. Until then, forget it.

There is so much in physics that physicists do not yet understand that there is no way you can say that our current math IS REALITY.

Math is nothing more than condensed logic and analysis notation. It is a very useful way of reusing the brainpower and analytical thinking of other bright people in the past. It is one of humanity's greatest ongoing achievements. If you have the right equations, and that's a BIG IF, you can make lots of inferences from those equations because of the work of thousands of mathematicians before you. But if the equations are wrong, the conclusions will be wrong.

Much of the work of science has been the discovery of better equations and models to represent reality.

For 200 years, science had Newton's equation for gravity. Perhaps you would have thought that the math in Newton's equation represented reality if you had lived 150 years ago. You would have been wrong then as you are undoubtedly wrong now.

Physics does not have a valid theory which combines gravity and quantum mechanics. We know that general relativity and quantum mechanics are not compatible. So which part of the "reality" of the math should we believe when they contradict each other?

The most arrogant and amusing mistake in science, and one that keeps on repeating, is to think that the current theory will never be replaced with a better one in the future.

 

[haael]

IF, you had mathematics that was sufficiently developed to describe reality, and IF you had the correct equations, then mathematics would model reality sufficiently to believe the math above all else. Until then, forget it.

I meant mathematics in general, not our current theories.

 

[zonde]

Now, I want to talk about the differences between this thread and the thread called, "https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=395509""

The problem with that thread is that it assumes the reality of something called 'local causality,' for which, as I have tried to show, there is not a sensible 'theory' of it in existence.

You talked about problems with interacting point particles. How did you jumped from problems with point particles to problems with local causality?
How local causality depend from concept of point particles?

On the contrary, if we start from the simple assumption that physical bodies, in their most elementary sense, do indeed occupy three-dimensional space, then we can start to put some puzzle pieces in place.

Now, the great thing about quantum theory is that the 'probability wave' concept of QM is not the only one in existence. That is, we have this thing called the 'wave function' and we are allowed, theoretically, to do whatever we damn well want with it, as long as what we happen to do with it is indeed logically warranted.

Now you jump from volume of physical bodies to wave function without apparent connection.

Have to say it's very hard to follow your reasoning.

 

[RUTA]

So, I am trying to do my best to get some of the clearest thinkers in this forum to put in their two cents in terms of how they might—deep down inside—like to see the discipline that is known as theoretical physics get out of its, for all practical purposes, 80-year-long rut.

Here is my idea: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0908.4348. This is the revision in the "revise and resubmit" stage at Foundations of Physics. You can just read the intro and conclusion, the mathematical physics in the middle is thick. Keep in mind that it's simply an idea -- it's not accepted for publication yet (and it may not be).

 

[DrChinese]

This statement just shows how "off the mark" you are in terms of how the typical theoretical physicist understands the nature of his/her own profession.

You said this responding to haael. I would say few theoretical physicists believe that QM = = reality. QM is a theory, and theories have utility. So accusing the majority of the field of something based on one person's statement is "off the mark".

 

[glengarry]

Local causality simply means only local causes and effects are possible.

Yes, and as I have tried to show, this kind of phenomenology, is in fact, theoretically impossible, with the result being that the term 'local causality' is meaningless.

By local we mean in the 3-dimensional vicinity of the event.

Wrong. There is no rigorous, mathematical definition for the word 'local,' apart from the concept of the geometric point.

In other words, non-local causes and effects must propagate no faster than the speed of light. So how is this possible? I would say it part and parcel of our collective experience.

If there is no such thing as 'local causality,' and if the word 'local' is the only way that we have heretofore come to understand the word 'cause,' then there is obviously a need to reframe this word in a new context--with the implication being that the word will possibly fall completely out of favor, in the most theoretically fundamental sense.

Shouldn't you be asking how non-local causality is possible?

Given all of the above, I think it stands to reason that this question, quite possibly, is perfectly meaningless. That is, unless we want to redefine the term 'location' to mean...

 

[glengarry]

I am a theoretical physicsts...description means in this sense mapping world onto a mathematical formulated theory

This idea of 'mapping' is indeed one way of thinking about what physical theorization entails. But in the end, all we get with a 'map' is a distorted, scaled down representation of the objects of experience simply so we can perform some task, by way of having the ability to predict an outcome. And in today's intellectual climate, this idea of 'mapping' is the apex of the possibilities in which the majority of employed theoreticians view their occupation. I happen to find this state of affairs distressing.

You can think of me more in the model of Einstein, in the sense that I have constantly been looking for a way in which to 'picture' reality, as it is; that is--what do these things that we call 'atoms' essentially 'look like'? In other words, what is the ultimate form of matter?

But the problem with today's intellectual culture is that the very question is somehow verboten. That is, we aren't even supposed to ask it, for fear of being branded as 'unrealistic Platonists.' My entire point is that it is rather Aristotlean realism itself that is the barrier when it comes to making progress in terms of developing believable, purely ideal models of the physical universe. This is why I am trying to drum up support for a group of unrepentant, unapologetic rationalist-idealists who want to collectively effect a radical overthrow of the sickly, decaying institution that is known as academic theoretical physics. And oh yeah... I might happen to know of the whereabouts of some serious weaponry that will allow this to happen!

 

[glengarry]

but since physicists DO follow the scientific method, isn't this the very reason for your "objections"?

You should instead firstly argue WHY one should not follow the scientific method more generally THEN discuss your issue with local causality...

All I'm trying to say is that the notion of a need to 'empirically prove' a thing (i.e. 'theory'), which in itself is proof is a thoroughly backward way of viewing the entire paradigm of the theoretical project, and it leads to things like vicious circles, contradictions, and other forms of 'logic hell.' I think I've been very clear on why this reasoning is the case, and you might be wise to carefully read the writings of guys like Bohr, Einstein, and Bell, when they are, in so many words, saying precisely the same things that I am saying. The only difference is, in their cases, their professional reputations (i.e. salaries) were contingent on the fact that the public institutions that supported them thought that their works possessed some kind of fairly immediate, productive consequences--for example, the Manhattan project. For this reason, they could not afford to be nearly as blunt as I am being.

 

[glengarry]

Physics does not have a valid theory which combines gravity and quantum mechanics.

Not one that is widely known or 'generally accepted,' but that doesn't mean that there isn't one anywhere in existence!

We know that general relativity and quantum mechanics are not compatible.

Only if you assume that scalar distinctions are 'real' rather than mere prejudices caused by everyday experience. But other than that, like I said in a post above, how about something like...

"A wave function tells the field equations how to bend space and bent space tells other wave functions how to move"

Anyone interested in how this can work, conceptually and mathematically speaking?

 

[glengarry]

You talked about problems with interacting point particles. How did you jumped from problems with point particles to problems with local causality? How local causality depend from concept of point particles?

I just want to know how it can possibly be the case that these two notions are not dependent upon one another. That is, if our only rigorous definition of 'location' is one and the same with the geometric point, then it stands to reason that a logically consistent theory of local causality will have to show how it is possible that there can be a phenomenology of inter-acting geometric points. It seems to me to be patently obvious that even the slightest bit of thought on this matter will show that such a theory is indeed an impossibility.

Furthermore, continuous field theories have nothing whatever to say on this matter because a 'field,' conceptually speaking, is simply a restatement of the fact that the momentum of a body has been, is being, or will be altered at some point in time. And of course, quantized fields have nothing new to offer, because such a thing only represents a subset of all of the possible locations within a continuous field.

Now you jump from volume of physical bodies to wave function without apparent connection.

Have to say it's very hard to follow your reasoning.

Do you even know what the Schrodinger equation, as such, is? It is a dynamical, space-filling object--i.e. a generalized wave equation whose solutions give us things called 'standing waves.' See: The Laplace equation.

 

[glengarry]

You said this responding to haael. I would say few theoretical physicists believe that QM = = reality. QM is a theory, and theories have utility. So accusing the majority of the field of something based on one person's statement is "off the mark".

Yes, that was my exact point. He/She said "Quantum physics describes true reality" and I was saying that theoretical physicists, in general, wouldn't tend to make statements of such an unsophisticated nature. My only accusation, in this instance, was towards haael. My accusation against the mainstream theoretical physics establishment is an altogether different point that I was not making here.

 

[Frame Dragger]

@Glengarry: Ahh, Glengarry, not to get all "Glenross" on you, but you can respond to many things in one or two SINGLE posts, and that makes it much easier to keep a thread... well... tidy.

I also may not know Zonde or even grasp why he holds some of the views he does, but I'm fairly certain that he's familiar with the Schrodinger Equation... as that is pretty much de rigour for knowing ANYTHING about QM. For the rest, I've read 3 pages of you pushing a personal "thesis" (aka your idea of how things are) sans any references or math of note to back it. Given the tone you're now adopting, don't you think that might be wise, when making the level of claim you're trying to assert?

@Haael: I think Inflector has the right of it. You're backpedaling so quickly that it's leaving skidmarks on the pavement. Math is amazing, and QM is marvelously predictive... until the next descriptive theory comes along, or a fusion of QM and GR replaces both. Bottom line, what you mean is being lost in your zeal to tout an absolute mathematical truth, which is something I usually only hear from my old Rabbi as a way to link physics-math-god.

@All: Maybe this forum needs a "Philosophy of Science/Semantics" Subforum.

 

[glengarry]

Here is my idea: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0908.4348. This is the revision in the "revise and resubmit" stage at Foundations of Physics. You can just read the intro and conclusion, the mathematical physics in the middle is thick. Keep in mind that it's simply an idea -- it's not accepted for publication yet (and it may not be).

So many things to say and so little time :)

Okay, so far, I have only looked at the thing, and only read a handful of sentences. Here is my initial assessment, in the BIG scheme of things:

I have come up with this general equation as regards theoretical proposals:

"How interesting" = "How good an idea"/(complexity * length)

In other words, Bell had this theme that he constantly brought up in his writings, and it just had to do with whether or not a theoretical question is, in fact, 'interesting.' So, the only thing that caused his own 1964 paper, and the original EPR paper of 1935 that inspired it to be 'interesting,' was that, when the appropriate variables were input into this equation, the result was—relatively speaking, of course—a very high one.

The point here is that there could very easily be very good ideas that are lost within a muddle of—I want put this as politely as possible—'extreme learnedness,' to the point where the 'How interesting' result is approaching zero. But this is the how the machinery that is modern theoretical physics operates.

You see, there is, buried deep down inside all of us, a tiny little Einstein who just wants to imagine great things and then write them down in ways that are undeniably compelling, to even the most 'amateur' of theoreticians.

Just think of it this way. You've just come up with a new whiz-bang microprocessor that is capable of feats of wonder. And you desperately want to inspire people to put its uses to full advantage, so that word will spread as to how great your product is, and so you can sell them by the boatloads. So what do you you? You need to write a manual on how to use the thing, of course. So the question at hand is: Are you going to waste anybody's time with a manual that is unnecessarily long or complex, or are you going to describe how to use its features as plainly and as efficiently as possible? That is, isn't this latter way of doing things the way that is truly beautiful and inspiring? And isn't this going to make your product appear to be all the more 'interesting'?

The problem with today's intellectual culture is that the notions of 'interesting' and 'erudite' are throughly conflated, to the point where the goal in theoretical physics (and other academic fields) is no longer to stimulate and to elevate the reader by way of creating works of sublime beauty; it is rather to give off an appearance of intellectual superiority so that the reader surrenders his or her will-power to the author—who is trying to represent a position of authoritativeness (get it: author<=>authority ?), but who in all reality, is attempting a bluff in order to hide an idea that is probably not altogether 'good.'

The cure to all of this is for theoreticians to start coming up with 'good' ideas, and then to allow the ideas to speak for themselves (just as the microprocessor manufacturer wants the product in question to speak for itself). That is, the best thing that a writer can do is to just 'get the hell out of the way,' because if the idea is indeed 'good,' then it will, of its own nature, expose itself in a way so as to maximize the final result of the 'How interesting' equation.

What I'm trying to say is that I, too, have an idea that I think is pretty darn 'good,' if I do say so myself. And through all of these posts, I have just tried to let this idea do the writing, in hopes that you will find what I have written to be 'interesting'—in the sense that Bell talked about so many times. So, what I am coming to realize, is that the entire process of writing papers for today's journals is set up in order to ensure that the result of the 'How interesting' equation is sure to be minimized. For, it is only in this way that the academic professions can continue in the anonymous, workman-like fashions that they currently enjoy.

So, yeah, whosoever wants to allow the intellectual culture to continue in its current fashion will write in ways so as to appear as 'worldly' and 'learned' as possible while keeping all of their really cool ideas bottled deep inside of themselves. But if not, I mean if you really want to be the next Einstein, you are going to have to learn how to say things like:

"A wave function tells the field equations how to bend space and bent space tells other wave functions how to move"

Isn't that just a little 'interesting'?

 

[haael]

@Haael: I think Inflector has the right of it. You're backpedaling so quickly that it's leaving skidmarks on the pavement. Math is amazing, and QM is marvelously predictive... until the next descriptive theory comes along, or a fusion of QM and GR replaces both. Bottom line, what you mean is being lost in your zeal to tout an absolute mathematical truth, which is something I usually only hear from my old Rabbi as a way to link physics-math-god.

My internal Rabbi tells me so: the reality either is maths or it just doesn't exist. Do you believe in existence of puppies, girls or Moon? I guess so. Then, do you believe in existence of atoms? Electrons? Pi mesons? Wavefunctions? Gauge fields? Symmetries? Where does your experience cease to be "reality" and starts to be a "theory", model, map, description?

I suspect people cannot accept QM as reality, because it is just too odd. If current physics was about solid tiny colliding rocks, no one would complain. Also, I guess when people call QM only a model, deep in their hearts they wait for some true theory, that will hopefully not contain all that probabilities, entanglements and collapses. However, my prophecy is that the next physical theory will be even more strange. You will be missing these days when physics was about something so intuitive as quantum entanglement.

I'm saying that QM is real, in the sense: all quantum phenomena really do exist and this is not just a computational trick. Further theories will replace QM, but quanta themselves won't go away.

So, either you accept QM as reality or you will never accept any physical theory as reality. But in the latter case you will have problems to postulate real existence of even such innocent objects as puppies, girls and Moon.
I know I'm crazy saying that QM is real, but you are even more crazy saying it is not.

 

[Frame Dragger]

So many things to say and so little time :)

Okay, so far, I have only looked at the thing, and only read a handful of sentences. Here is my initial assessment, in the BIG scheme of things:

I have come up with this general equation as regards theoretical proposals:

"How interesting" = "How good an idea"/(complexity * length)

In other words, Bell had this theme that he constantly brought up in his writings, and it just had to do with whether or not a theoretical question is, in fact, 'interesting.' So, the only thing that caused his own 1964 paper, and the original EPR paper of 1935 that inspired it to be 'interesting,' was that, when the appropriate variables were input into this equation, the result was—relatively speaking, of course—a very high one.

The point here is that there could very easily be very good ideas that are lost within a muddle of—I want put this as politely as possible—'extreme learnedness,' to the point where the 'How interesting' result is approaching zero. But this is the how the machinery that is modern theoretical physics operates.

You see, there is, buried deep down inside all of us, a tiny little Einstein who just wants to imagine great things and then write them down in ways that are undeniably compelling, to even the most 'amateur' of theoreticians.

Just think of it this way. You've just come up with a new whiz-bang microprocessor that is capable of feats of wonder. And you desperately want to inspire people to put its uses to full advantage, so that word will spread as to how great your product is, and so you can sell them by the boatloads. So what do you you? You need to write a manual on how to use the thing, of course. So the question at hand is: Are you going to waste anybody's time with a manual that is unnecessarily long or complex, or are you going to describe how to use its features as plainly and as efficiently as possible? That is, isn't this latter way of doing things the way that is truly beautiful and inspiring? And isn't this going to make your product appear to be all the more 'interesting'?

The problem with today's intellectual culture is that the notions of 'interesting' and 'erudite' are throughly conflated, to the point where the goal in theoretical physics (and other academic fields) is no longer to stimulate and to elevate the reader by way of creating works of sublime beauty; it is rather to give off an appearance of intellectual superiority so that the reader surrenders his or her will-power to the author—who is trying to represent a position of authoritativeness (get it: author<=>authority ?), but who in all reality, is attempting a bluff in order to hide an idea that is probably not altogether 'good.'

The cure to all of this is for theoreticians to start coming up with 'good' ideas, and then to allow the ideas to speak for themselves (just as the microprocessor manufacturer wants the product in question to speak for itself). That is, the best thing that a writer can do is to just 'get the hell out of the way,' because if the idea is indeed 'good,' then it will, of its own nature, expose itself in a way so as to maximize the final result of the 'How interesting' equation.

What I'm trying to say is that I, too, have an idea that I think is pretty darn 'good,' if I do say so myself. And through all of these posts, I have just tried to let this idea do the writing, in hopes that you will find what I have written to be 'interesting'—in the sense that Bell talked about so many times. So, what I am coming to realize, is that the entire process of writing papers for today's journals is set up in order to ensure that the result of the 'How interesting' equation is sure to be minimized. For, it is only in this way that the academic professions can continue in the anonymous, workman-like fashions that they currently enjoy.

So, yeah, whosoever wants to allow the intellectual culture to continue in its current fashion will write in ways so as to appear as 'worldly' and 'learned' as possible while keeping all of their really cool ideas bottled deep inside of themselves. But if not, I mean if you really want to be the next Einstein, you are going to have to learn how to say things like:



Isn't that just a little 'interesting'?

You know, I eschew Interpretations of QM, and granted that's what RUTA does, but your dismissal is groundless, based on rhetoric and frankly using your thesis of "length". You're not being polite, you're being rude in company of those who can fully appreciate it. More importantly, you're adding nothing to the thread you started (rudely).

@Haael: QM is the best theory we have now, but that doesn't mean that I or anyone should accept it on face value. Neither QM or GR are fully explanatory, and I don't believe that QM is the "end of the road". I don't see why I should base an ontology on what happens to be RECENT. I believe that QM is amazingly useful, and clearly in need of unification with the concepts of GR, which are ALSO predictive and useful.

You say that quanta won't go away, you may be right, but I think it's time for you to stop prosthelytizing and start citing. This isn't the philosophy sub-forum.

 

[SpectraCat]

"A wave function tells the field equations how to bend space and bent space tells other wave functions how to move"

Isn't that just a little 'interesting'?

I would say that it is striking ... in order to be interesting it would need a shred of an argument, or an equation to begin the process of explaining/backing it up. I have been waiting for such to materialize before commenting.

On the surface, it looks like any such theory would have to encompass quantum gravity, so it may well be interesting if you can support it. Would you like to try, or do you just want to keep ripping academic theoretical physicists to shreds instead?

A word of advice: on this forum you need to restrict yourself to theories that are supported in the literature. The moderators will generally tolerate a bit of "stretching" to incorporate new ideas, but if you really want to branch out into new territory, then you need to use the "Independent Research" sub-forum of the General Physics section (which has its own set of rules). If you choose to do that, please cross post here .. I would like to at least have a look at what you have thunk up.

 

[DrChinese]

The point here is that there could very easily be very good ideas that are lost within a muddle of—I want put this as politely as possible—'extreme learnedness,' to the point where the 'How interesting' result is approaching zero. But this is the how the machinery that is modern theoretical physics operates.

First, this forum is not really intended as a place to debate the value or the approach for theoretical physics.

Second, I am sure that anyone who takes a good look at the papers being written will notice that in between a lot of papers of marginal value exist papers of import. Most of those important papers will not be immediately obvious, some will. The Bell paper took a while to take off, for example, and someone might have judged it useless at the time.

So my last point is that criticizing someone else's approach is like criticizing one's choice of spouse. We all have our own sense of what will work for us. So I would rather see your idea, than see your idea of how *I* should come up with an idea. I.e. if you have something "interesting" to share, I am sure you will find a ready audience. We don't need to be prepped or qualified first. There are some outstanding people reading these forums, trust me.

 

[jtbell]

"A wave function tells the field equations how to bend space and bent space tells other wave functions how to move"

Anyone interested in how this can work, conceptually and mathematically speaking?

It is PF policy that in order for a theory to be discussed here, it must already be "out there" in the professional community and literature. We do not cater for the development and promotion of personal theories. Follow the "Rules" link at the top of every page here, and read the section Overly Speculative Posts.

The one exception is our Independent Research forum, which you may want to investigate.

 

[RUTA]

What I'm trying to say is that I, too, have an idea that I think is pretty darn 'good,' if I do say so myself. And through all of these posts, I have just tried to let this idea do the writing, in hopes that you will find what I have written to be 'interesting'—in the sense that Bell talked about so many times. So, what I am coming to realize, is that the entire process of writing papers for today's journals is set up in order to ensure that the result of the 'How interesting' equation is sure to be minimized. For, it is only in this way that the academic professions can continue in the anonymous, workman-like fashions that they currently enjoy.

So, yeah, whosoever wants to allow the intellectual culture to continue in its current fashion will write in ways so as to appear as 'worldly' and 'learned' as possible while keeping all of their really cool ideas bottled deep inside of themselves. But if not, I mean if you really want to be the next Einstein, you are going to have to learn how to say things like:

Isn't that just a little 'interesting'?

As you point out, we (theoretical physicists) value the opposite approach -- develop the formalism, show how it works, check it, then find a succinct summarizing statement. Wheeler's summary of GR is "The boundary of a boundary equals zero;" theoretical physicists don't find this compelling in and of itself (it's a mathematical tautology, actually), but when shown formally how it relates to Einstein's eqns, we find it very interesting.

So, you ask me if I find your idea interesting. Of course, my response is "Show me the corresponding formalism, explain how it works, and provide empirical tests." After you've done that, your statement will be pithy. In and of itself, it could be a witticism.

 

[glengarry]

@Glengarry: Ahh, Glengarry, not to get all "Glenross" on you, but you can respond to many things in one or two SINGLE posts, and that makes it much easier to keep a thread... well... tidy.

Yes, thanks for the advice. I wasn't sure if it would be better responding singly or all at once.

I also may not know Zonde or even grasp why he holds some of the views he does, but I'm fairly certain that he's familiar with the Schrodinger Equation... as that is pretty much de rigour for knowing ANYTHING about QM. For the rest, I've read 3 pages of you pushing a personal "thesis" (aka your idea of how things are) sans any references or math of note to back it. Given the tone you're now adopting, don't you think that might be wise, when making the level of claim you're trying to assert?

I need to make an admission about myself. I have a form of autism that is called Asperger's syndrome. This basically means that I do not socialize very well with people and I tend to get excited by the topics of conversation in which I am engaged. Please understand that whenever I am involved in writing a response, I very quickly forget about 'who' I was responding to, and I just let the topic at hand guide me where it may.

As regards the Schrodinger equation, I simply take it for granted that people understand it to be a dynamic, space-filling form, and not just as a kind of probability field. But I can definitely see that people who do not have familiarity with the de Broglie-Schrodinger version of quantum theory would take it to simply in the way that Max Born understood it.

And as regards my 'personal thesis,' I have only merely hinted at it in a highly generalized way. That is, my strategy was to see if I could get people to start 'vibing' with be, in the conceptual sense. For, if I can't do this, then none of the math would make all that much sense. Besides, I am only now learning how to do all of that LaTeX stuff that will allow me to make the math presentable.

You know, I eschew Interpretations of QM, and granted that's what RUTA does, but your dismissal is groundless, based on rhetoric and frankly using your thesis of "length". You're not being polite, you're being rude in company of those who can fully appreciate it. More importantly, you're adding nothing to the thread you started (rudely).

I wasn't trying to dismiss RUTA--I said that I only read a couple of sentences. I was only trying to make a general point about the state of today's papers, given that the most 'ground breaking' papers in the past have tended to have a number of pages that could easily be counted on two hands.

But after I did read some of the paper, I saw that there were some interesting concepts that I could definitely agree with. I just don't want to give a full critique of it quite yet.

Again, I don't intend to be rude. If you could just see me while I type, then you would see that I just get excitable about theory. It's an Asperger's thing.

And I fail to grasp how you could say that I've "added nothing." Rude, maybe. But I've "added" a heck of a lot!

I would say that it is striking ... in order to be interesting it would need a shred of an argument, or an equation to begin the process of explaining/backing it up. I have been waiting for such to materialize before commenting.

Yes, you are completely correct sir! Anyway, here is how the basic math would work (just to whet your appetite as I learn LaTex).

We start with a 3-sphere, which we'll denote with U (the Universe). This exists in E4-space.

Then we have a 2-sphere, which is the boundary for a 3-ball which we will denote with E (an Element), which is defined in E3-space.

We then discover an arbitrary solution to the original Schrodinger equation, which just means that were are trying to construct an actual, harmonically oscillating body. (We are not squaring anything here, which would only give us a Born probability field.)

Then, we perform an inverse azimuthal equidistant projection so that E is given the form of U. This just means that we are essentially contorting a "flat [3-dimensional] map" so that we can recover the actual 3-spherical "landscape." (I realize that these geometric ideas might need more fleshing out for people who mainly stick with analytical techniques.)

Now, we let time start elapsing so that the U manifold will start behaving in a dynamic, oscillatory fashion.

We can repeat the above procedure as many times as we want, so that each new E can be any solution to the wave equation and that the "point of connection" of the 2-spherical boundary of every E can exist at any arbitrary location on U.

This is our universe: you can think of it as a "unity," such that all of the waves are super-added into a completely Fourier summed waveform, or you can think of it as a sheer multiplicity, such that each E is a separate entity, or you can think in terms of ensemble's of E's "playing against one another."

Now, this is only the beginning. Up to here, we have only constructed a "bare mathematical object" that as of yet has no rhyme or reason. That will come later... stay tuned!

On the surface, it looks like any such theory would have to encompass quantum gravity, so it may well be interesting if you can support it. Would you like to try, or do you just want to keep ripping academic theoretical physicists to shreds instead?

I hope to be able to show you that the above model (after I've added all the details) will indeed include a compelling account of the gravitational as well as the inter-atomic phenomena. Also, I really do not like being so negative. I'd much rather be constructive, like I am being right now!

A word of advice: on this forum you need to restrict yourself to theories that are supported in the literature. The moderators will generally tolerate a bit of "stretching" to incorporate new ideas, but if you really want to branch out into new territory, then you need to use the "Independent Research" sub-forum of the General Physics section (which has its own set of rules). If you choose to do that, please cross post here .. I would like to at least have a look at what you have thunk up.

Well, the good thing about what I'm doing is that it uses no other math than the tools that are already given to us by QM (the wavefunction) and GR (the field equations). Since I am not going off on a mathematical "free for all" like those crazy string theorist, loop quantumists and company, I hope to be able to keep it within the "warm confines" of the "already established" milieu. I mean, in many ways, I am only doing things, mathematically speaking, that are an arm's reach away from de Broglie's and Schrodinger's "original" plans.

First, this forum is not really intended as a place to debate the value or the approach for theoretical physics.

I understand your point. However, I just think that I fit more into that "old school mode" where the "big ideas" (philosophy), the logical techniques (math), and the dynamic interpretations (physics) were pretty darn indistinguishable. I mean, those guys who were doing their thing in Europe in the early part of the last century were very worldly (e.g. performing renditions of Faust for their own amusement).

Second, I am sure that anyone who takes a good look at the papers being written will notice that in between a lot of papers of marginal value exist papers of import. Most of those important papers will not be immediately obvious, some will. The Bell paper took a while to take off, for example, and someone might have judged it useless at the time.

You are quite right... for every generalization, there are a likely to be very many exceptions. I'm just speaking from an extremely biased perspective, in that I think that I've found something that will turn out to be really interesting!

So my last point is that criticizing someone else's approach is like criticizing one's choice of spouse. We all have our own sense of what will work for us. So I would rather see your idea, than see your idea of how *I* should come up with an idea. I.e. if you have something "interesting" to share, I am sure you will find a ready audience. We don't need to be prepped or qualified first. There are some outstanding people reading these forums, trust me.

Thanks for those sage, calming words!