What will happen when we have a Theory of Everything?

[Varon]

Before the discussion in the thread "Do particles have well-defined positions at all times?", I thought what Bohr said in that quote was the only possibility. But it seems that QM is neutral on the issue of whether particles have positions. So now I think the right way to think isn't what Bohr said there, but rather "Since QM doesn't say that particles have positions, there's no reason to think that they do".


There's still hope if you want to believe that there's something else. For example, it seems that the assumption that particles do have positions can be added to QM without causing any inconsistencies or changing the theory's predictions. This would have some weird implications about the ways particles move (see the discussion in the positions thread), and we would need something like Bohmian mechanics to provide the details. In my opinion, that's what an interpretation should be: A set of statements that provide ontological details that QM doesn't.

Also, my analysis of the situation is heavily influenced by the specific list of axioms that I think of as the definition of "QM". If someone can come up with a different set of axioms that give us the same predictions about results of experiments, and that set doesn't include any axioms that can be removed without changing the predictions, then we have another theory that has just as much right to be called "QM" as the theory I call QM. For example, suppose that we replace the Born rule with a rule ("the ABL rule") that tells us the probability of each possible result of a measurement at time t, given the state of the system at two times t₁ and t₂, with t₁<t<t₂. This is probably the simplest change we can make to the theory. This version of QM can of course be "just a set of rules" too, but now it looks like the main alternative to the ensemble interpretation would be a version of consistent histories, rather than a version of the MWI.

My point here is that different sets of axioms suggest different ways to interpret QM as a description of what actually happens. Of course, I still have to point out that there's no good reason to think any of them is correct, but there's also no really convincing reason to think that they're all wrong. The best reason I have is just that QM looks so much like a toy theory that someone invented just to show that it's possible to assign non-trivial probabilities to possible results of experiments. It looks like it should be the simplest possible theory of that kind actually.

Do you notice all the interpretations or theories you favor support realism. That is. Many Worlds and Bohmian Mechanics support realism. Ensemble Interpretation is also realism (or more like the surface being exposed but the ontology undefined). But I think the true ontology shouldn't be realism. I think Bohr anti-realism view is more correct. This is because of the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics which makes it appear like there is in some sense a platonic world of pure mathematics. Here ontology is superficial, realism is artificial. Yet Fredrik, you are arguing precisely opposite this.. that is.. you prefer realism.. and the only possibilities seem to be Many worlds, Bohmian mechanics, Ensemble. Can't you think of pure Bohr anti-realism interpretation that is plausible? That is.. Can't you think of one that makes sense? Fra conjectured that instead of the Many worlds, there are many observers interacting. Instead of main classical observer and small isolated system. You have all quantum stuff with different interacting observers and different Collapses interacting with information exchange and update. Model like this makes more sense than your realist stance. Know of any argument that can refute this? Bohr anti-realism model is more elegant. So pls. offer some of these.

 

[Hurkyl]

Can you please elaborate what you meant when you said that "I would think his #1 would be eminently reasonable if we first assumed {|u>, |v>} was some sort of pointer basis and the state would promptly decohere."??

In such a situation, one can say that the pure state |u>+|v> decohered into an equally weighted mixture of the |u> and |v> states.

If one was so inclined, one could describe this as the splitting of a world.

 

[Varon]

In such a situation, one can say that the pure state |u>+|v> decohered into an equally weighted mixture of the |u> and |v> states.

If one was so inclined, one could describe this as the splitting of a world.

What can you say about the following?

http://193.189.74.53/~qubitor/people/david/structure/Documents/Research%20Papers/CommentOnLockwood.html

"The point that theorists tend to miss is that the multiplicity of reality is not only, or even primarily, a consequence of quantum theory. It is quite simply an observed fact. Any interference experiment (such as the two-slit experiment),when performed with individual particles one at a time, has no known interpretation in which the particle we see is the only physical entity passing through the apparatus. We know that the invisible entities passing through obey the same phenomenological equations of motion (e.g. geometrical optics) as the single particle we do see. And we know from Einstein-Podolski-Rosen-type experiments, such as that of Aspect, that these not-directly-perceptible particles are arranged in extended ‘layers’ each of which behaves internally like an approximately classical universe. Admittedly all these observations detect other universes only indirectly. But then, we can detect pterodactyls and quarks only indirectly too. The evidence that other universes exist is at least as strong as the evidence for pterodactyls or quarks."

Hurtle, Pls. comment on the above. Also in a separate paragraph can you give a counterargument that wave function collapse is still possible? What I want to understand now is how to view it not just collapse on paper but a one to one correspondence or mapping between the collapse in paper and what actually happens in the system, presently, how do you see it that is not inconsistently with the math and the system behavior? Remember something is actually interfering in the system so one can't just say it is all a math trick and the particle is either on one side and we just don't know (here the experimental results would differ).

 

[Hurkyl]

What can you say about the foAsllowing?

Honestly, it looks somewhere between heavily biased and flat-out wrong.

What I want to understand now is how to view it not just collapse on paper but a one to one correspondence or mapping between the collapse in paper and what actually happens in the system

Something that answers the question "what actually happens in the system" is quite literally what it means for something to be an interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Your question seems to presume there is some prior notion of stuff happening in systems, and you want to reduce quantum mechanics into it. But that's exactly the opposite of how science works -- we use our theories tell us how reality works, rather than use our assumptions about reality to tell our theories how to work.

 

[SpectraCat]

Your question seems to presume there is some prior notion of stuff happening in systems, and you want to reduce quantum mechanics into it. But that's exactly the opposite of how science works -- we use our theories tell us how reality works, rather than use our assumptions about reality to tell our theories how to work.

I would only add that the way we know that our theories are good ones is that:

a) they can reproduce the results of known experiments

b) they can successfully predict the results of experiments that have yet to be performed.

Basically, anyone can come up with a theory, but unless that theory can be cast in the form of an experimentally falsifiable hypothesis or hypotheses, then it is of limited value to science. Or perhaps it is better to say that such a theory's value is only a fraction of what it would be if it could be experimentally tested. As I have mentioned to Varon before, that is why I am curious about interpretations of QM, but don't lose any sleep over which one is the best. Once they start making experimentally falsifiable predictions that can distinguish between the "internal pictures" posited by BM or CI or MWI or relational blockworld or whatever, then I will become a lot more interested.

 

[Varon]

I would only add that the way we know that our theories are good ones is that:

a) they can reproduce the results of known experiments

b) they can successfully predict the results of experiments that have yet to be performed.

Basically, anyone can come up with a theory, but unless that theory can be cast in the form of an experimentally falsifiable hypothesis or hypotheses, then it is of limited value to science. Or perhaps it is better to say that such a theory's value is only a fraction of what it would be if it could be experimentally tested. As I have mentioned to Varon before, that is why I am curious about interpretations of QM, but don't lose any sleep over which one is the best. Once they start making experimentally falsifiable predictions that can distinguish between the "internal pictures" posited by BM or CI or MWI or relational blockworld or whatever, then I will become a lot more interested.

The right interpretation can produce emergence. And the emergence is qualia or what Demystifier called 'subjective conscious experience". Only interpretations that can explain this would be correct and complete, although Demystifier believes it is more related to Special Relativity. But no. think about it. It doesn't make sense because matter (humans) is part of quantum physics. Hence it's more like a complete theory of Quantum Spacetime or quantum gravity that is needed. But there's a possibility physicists won't even arrive at any quantum gravity if they don't include qualia dynamics which can be put in mathematical form and be part of final theory of Quantum Gravity or Spacetime. This is the reason it's of primary importance to investigate interpretations because the right one can produce emergence that can be successfully combined with SR and GR.

 

[Varon]

Honestly, it looks somewhere between heavily biased and flat-out wrong.



Something that answers the question "what actually happens in the system" is quite literally what it means for something to be an interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Your question seems to presume there is some prior notion of stuff happening in systems, and you want to reduce quantum mechanics into it. But that's exactly the opposite of how science works -- we use our theories tell us how reality works, rather than use our assumptions about reality to tell our theories how to work.

Yes this is also what bothers me. For example in Einstein Spacetime, the theory tells us how reality works, and we have to conform the definition of time and space to the theory, not what really is indepdendent of the theory. But at least in Spacetime. Space and Time can be easily imagined. But with quantum theory, superposition is not in our everyday experience like space and time so it's hard how to understand them and especially what they represent physically. So I think the man on the street have rights to understand interpretations too because it doesn't make sense only the math works without able to have any picture of it. At least again with Spacetime (tm). We know what space and time is.

Another thing. With QM. It's not just the math because we have actual systems. So the more harder it is to avoid any physical picture of it but just focusing on the math.

 

[Hurkyl]

Yes this is also what bothers me. For example in Einstein Spacetime, the theory tells us how reality works, and we have to conform the definition of time and space to the theory, not what really is indepdendent of the theory.

Actually, there are two interpretations -- Einstein's Special Relativity (SR), and the Lorentz Ether Theory (LET) that is equivalent to it. (I'm just continue as if there is only one LET)

No experiment can ever tell us that we should prefer SR over LET, since they make the same predictions. Yet they tell us reality works in different ways. SR talks about simultaneity and how measurements are relative to the measurer. LET talks about how rulers in motion shorten, and how clocks in motion slow down.

Our modern preference for SR over LET is entirely due to pedagogy and Occam's Razor

At least again with Spacetime (tm). We know what space and time is.

That's because people these days spend half of their childhood having Euclidean geometry drilled into their head. And all of their childhood having absolute time drilled into their head. The average man on the street does not have a picture Minkowski space-time of special relativity in their head; if they have a unified picture of spacetime rather than simply individual pictures of space and time, then it's almost certainly the Galilean picture.

The average man on the street has not had quantum mechanics drilled into their head throughout their childhood (except possibly in highly distorted pop science form), and has absolutely no personal experience with the kinds of issues we're discussing in the thread.

 

[Varon]

Actually, there are two interpretations -- Einstein's Special Relativity (SR), and the Lorentz Ether Theory (LET) that is equivalent to it. (I'm just continue as if there is only one LET)

No experiment can ever tell us that we should prefer SR over LET, since they make the same predictions. Yet they tell us reality works in different ways. SR talks about simultaneity and how measurements are relative to the measurer. LET talks about how rulers in motion shorten, and how clocks in motion slow down.

Our modern preference for SR over LET is entirely due to pedagogy and Occam's Razor


That's because people these days spend half of their childhood having Euclidean geometry drilled into their head. And all of their childhood having absolute time drilled into their head. The average man on the street does not have a picture Minkowski space-time of special relativity in their head; if they have a unified picture of spacetime rather than simply individual pictures of space and time, then it's almost certainly the Galilean picture.

The average man on the street has not had quantum mechanics drilled into their head throughout their childhood (except possibly in highly distorted pop science form), and has absolutely no personal experience with the kinds of issues we're discussing in the thread.

But one thing is for certain. Steven Weinberg is wrong when he said the Theory of Everything won't change or affect the average person. It will and very profoundly. And I'll bet a million dollars for it. Some physicists and neuroscientists know that qualia is not yet described by our present physics. When it does. It will produce stunning emergence that will rock the world. And civilizations and humanity will never be the same again. I know because I have seen the emergence as well as selected people spread across the globe (we have the TOE guiding principle that will show the way). When physics can finally explain what we've seen. Then it will be the Golden Age of Physics and all of Mankind.

 

[Fredrik]

But one thing is for certain. Steven Weinberg is wrong when he said the Theory of Everything won't change or affect the average person. It will and very profoundly. And I'll bet a million dollars for it. Some physicists and neuroscientists know that qualia is not yet described by our present physics. When it does. It will produce stunning emergence that will rock the world. And civilizations and humanity will never be the same again. I know because I have seen the emergence as well as selected people spread across the globe (we have the TOE guiding principle that will show the way). When physics can finally explain what we've seen. Then it will be the Golden Age of Physics and all of Mankind.

The kind of TOE that Weinberg is talking about probably wouldn't be at all useful for someone who wants to explain experiences. (Since you seem to define qualia=experiences, I don't see a need to use the fancy word). I don't think it would have a major impact on the rest of the world either. People would obviously talk about it a lot, but they wouldn't have a good reason to change anything they do.

 

[SpectraCat]

But one thing is for certain. Steven Weinberg is wrong when he said the Theory of Everything won't change or affect the average person. It will and very profoundly. And I'll bet a million dollars for it. Some physicists and neuroscientists know that qualia is not yet described by our present physics. When it does. It will produce stunning emergence that will rock the world. And civilizations and humanity will never be the same again. I know because I have seen the emergence as well as selected people spread across the globe (we have the TOE guiding principle that will show the way). When physics can finally explain what we've seen. Then it will be the Golden Age of Physics and all of Mankind.

Why? The average person cares about things like mortgages and job stress and grandma's failing health and their children's performance in the school play. What about any of that would change if scientists could all of a sudden mathematically explain their emotions and intellect, instead of just their physiology? Also, you speak as if this would happen overnight .. it would not. Even if someone gets an initial formulation of the theory that is basically correct, it will probably not be accepted by the mainstream right away. Rather, the experimentalists will start trying to test the falsifiable hypotheses formulated by the new theory, to see if it holds water. The results of those experiments will probabily result in some tweaking of the original theory, but if the core of the theory withstands a few decades of pummeling by critics, and is not falsified by experimental testing, then maybe it will be accepted.

Your talk of "emergence" is just science-fiction style bombast as far as I can tell. I can't see any reason why nailing down the "correct" interpretation of QM, or formulating a TOE that is consistent with experiment would lead to "emergence".