tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post943862070134053317..comments2023-09-27T07:44:19.769-04:00Comments on Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: Book review: "Impossibility" by John D. BarrowSabine Hossenfelderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-43572479900049170862011-11-29T17:12:43.272-05:002011-11-29T17:12:43.272-05:00I find it very interesting that so many of the lat...I find it very interesting that so many of the later approaches to both particle physics and cosmology, and especially the attempts to create a "theory of everything" can be seen as efforts to get around the fundamental abyss opened up by the Copenhagen interpretation.<br /><br />Thus the "many worlds" approach attempts to explain away the measurement problem by proposing thatDocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-46118233584587243132011-11-28T17:13:04.701-05:002011-11-28T17:13:04.701-05:00"With regards to Bohr, maybe this it is inter..."With regards to Bohr, maybe this it is interesting for you."<br /><br />Surely you're joking, Ms. Hossenfelder. Or maybe this is a test? Which I of course must fail. Since I can understand only about 10% of what is written in this article. So I'm forced to admit, I am neither a physicist nor a mathematician nor a logician. <br /><br />But I do fancy myself as a philosopher, andDocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-47206665483678686812011-11-28T11:13:47.880-05:002011-11-28T11:13:47.880-05:00Hi Bee,
One last thing here.
Experimental physic...Hi Bee,<br /><br />One last thing here.<br /><br /><i>Experimental physicists working at the LHC, such as Professor Nash, say the results are forcing their theoretical colleagues to think again.<br /><br />"For the last 20 years or so, theorists have been a step ahead in that they've had ideas and said 'now you need to go and look for it'.<br /><br />"Now we've done thatPlatoHagelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00849253658526056393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-90009340845793888352011-11-28T10:50:35.240-05:002011-11-28T10:50:35.240-05:00Hi Bee,
QFT as it has been explained for me throu...Hi Bee,<br /><br />QFT as it has been explained for me through the readings of Clifford and Matt who have aided in the understanding of what has been meant by "particle expression." This has helped greatly. At the same time, it requires much work for me to see and think in this way.<br /><br />While dealing with theoretical framework the process turns one back too, the description not PlatoHagelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00849253658526056393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-56009566075548213332011-11-28T10:37:21.347-05:002011-11-28T10:37:21.347-05:00Bee:So if you find your theory predicts a multiver...<a href="http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2011/11/book-review-impossibility-by-john-d.html?showComment=1322143944990#c7713115515675330541" title="9-12 AM, November 24, 2011 " rel="nofollow">Bee</a>:<i>So if you find your theory predicts a multiverse, imho what you should be concluding is that the language you're using to describe nature has exhausted its usefulness there and you need to do PlatoHagelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00849253658526056393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-80536530836756493302011-11-28T09:58:20.202-05:002011-11-28T09:58:20.202-05:00Hi DocG,
I'm not sure how long you've fol...Hi DocG,<br /><br />I'm not sure how long you've followed this blog, so just to make that clear I have a great sympathy for those who rethink the foundations of quantum mechanics, so don't misinterpret me. All I'm saying is there is nothing wrong and nothing paradoxical with quantum mechanics as it is, and you don't need any metaphysics either. It is just to some extend Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-24392530381175412242011-11-28T09:32:02.004-05:002011-11-28T09:32:02.004-05:00Hi Bee,
"And yes, I am in fact saying that &...Hi Bee,<br /><br />"And yes, I am in fact saying that "quantum paradoxa" don't exist. Indeed, what makes paradoxa paradox is that they can't exist, so if you believe there is any quantum paradox you've gotten something wrong."<br /><br />Well, this is the crux of the matter, certainly. And what you say makes perfect sense. What Bohr says does NOT make sense, DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-50973967892618934542011-11-28T01:09:07.874-05:002011-11-28T01:09:07.874-05:00Hi DocG,
Yes, I know the paper you are referring ...Hi DocG,<br /><br />Yes, I know the paper you are referring to. Look, I'm not a historian, so I don't know what Bohr might or might not have meant with particle-wave duality. The way it's commonly used it is supposed to mean the elementary thing is both a particle and a wave. What I am telling you is it's neither a particle nor a wave. It is true that decoherence does not bring Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-83808291009770572552011-11-27T16:47:49.558-05:002011-11-27T16:47:49.558-05:00Hi Phil,
Yes, I was originally fascinated by Bohm...Hi Phil,<br /><br />Yes, I was originally fascinated by Bohm's "Implicate Order" book, but soon became puzzled, as his theory seemed much more far fetched than what it was intended to replace. As with so many other such attempts, the arduous efforts to "square the circle," so to speak, wind up violating Occam's Razor many times over.<br /><br />Bell is expressing an DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-15139498773660492822011-11-27T15:23:29.010-05:002011-11-27T15:23:29.010-05:00Hi DocG,
Decohernce is an action first given atte...Hi DocG,<br /><br />Decohernce is an action first given attention to by David Bohm in his 1952 paper, although not labelled as such. However here too it is not taken as being the solution to the measurement problem yet rather the ontological nature of the pilotwave theory itself serving as being such. Further this theory also cannot be painted as a classical one and yet it serves as a direct Phil Warnellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-28277866581214899022011-11-27T12:36:33.002-05:002011-11-27T12:36:33.002-05:00Sorry, but I need to explain my meaning a little m...Sorry, but I need to explain my meaning a little more clearly. "The collapse of the wave function" is also not to be taken literally. For Bohr, there is nothing that actually collapses, and this phrase is simply an attempt to use classical language to provide a sense of how certain experimental outcomes are to be understood. So if "decoherence" is to be understood as an DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-19192495878570743502011-11-27T12:24:51.403-05:002011-11-27T12:24:51.403-05:00To continue from where I left off (and to apologiz...To continue from where I left off (and to apologize to those who have apparently not yet been offended by anything I've written :-) ), I want to make some points regarding the radicality of Bohr's position and clear up some misunderstandings. And if I am the one who has misunderstood, then I hope to be corrected.<br /><br />First of all, the radicality is so extreme that it could also be DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-46442411869454013892011-11-27T12:02:20.892-05:002011-11-27T12:02:20.892-05:00Hi Goitis,
You said : “Ultimately it will be eval...Hi Goitis,<br /><br />You said : “Ultimately it will be evaluated by the scientific community”<br /><br />What I find Christine to be pointing out is contrary to your understanding, as it will rather be ultimately decided by the theory being found consistent with nature as evaluated by the scientific method; that is scientists don’t decide on the rules of nature, rather they discover them. ThisPhil Warnellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-42772246016910928602011-11-27T10:58:21.835-05:002011-11-27T10:58:21.835-05:00Ideas, speculations, hypotheses, although having d...Ideas, speculations, hypotheses, although having different meanings themselves, are what they are, namely, are not theories. In order to construct a theory, it must be sufficiently developed to be subject to the scientific method. It does not mean it must litterally pass through all steps, although that is what is ultimately aimed. At least, a theory must be in principle subject to the scientificChristine Cordula Dantashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05271747374185459530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-78239307021284974222011-11-27T09:29:34.037-05:002011-11-27T09:29:34.037-05:00I'm not sure how this end up to be a personal ...I'm not sure how this end up to be a personal debate between me and Christine. Maybe it's my fault or maybe she is overreacting to criticism. Anyway my point is that people should feel free to explore new ground without being restricted by boundaries, dogmas and definitions of what is science and what is not. It may happen that their theory (due to the very nature of the questions is Giotishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03594944884584261018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-73302323730221404592011-11-27T06:33:48.674-05:002011-11-27T06:33:48.674-05:00Hi Bee & Christine,
It’s been long clear to m...Hi Bee & Christine,<br /><br />It’s been long clear to me that the first premise (axiom) of science, that is regardless of the rest of the details specific of the method is doubt, which is in effect cynicism. This therefore requires scientists to be professional cynics. Thus from what I’ve become to understand the maintenance of doubt above all else is the essential difference between gardenPhil Warnellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-76755753357004401632011-11-27T06:26:59.119-05:002011-11-27T06:26:59.119-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Phil Warnellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-43037722183519199112011-11-27T05:50:34.796-05:002011-11-27T05:50:34.796-05:00Hi Christine,
Well, if nothing else, we all learn...Hi Christine,<br /><br />Well, if nothing else, we all learn how difficult it is to understand each other by the written word only (esp since I figure English is not a native language to either of us three). In any case, you wrote for example "But, the fact is, many people no longer care, that is, if they ever did anyway." One of the first definitions of <a href="http://Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-67250182723033120692011-11-27T05:37:57.365-05:002011-11-27T05:37:57.365-05:00Cynical? :(Cynical? :(Christine Cordula Dantashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05271747374185459530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-56196612329807701202011-11-27T02:17:36.869-05:002011-11-27T02:17:36.869-05:00Hi Giotis,
In the hope to spread some peace, I se...Hi Giotis,<br /><br />In the hope to spread some peace, I see your point, but I believe you are reading Christine wrong. Cynical is more like it than arrogant. It is btw an interesting topic, we should have a post about this at some point. Best,<br /><br />B.Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-53692163360447911802011-11-26T16:07:37.628-05:002011-11-26T16:07:37.628-05:00Giotis,
You are interpreting me completely wrong...Giotis, <br /><br />You are interpreting me completely wrong. Really, if my writing is that arrogant, then, whoa!! <br /><br />In any case, you really know *nothing* about me at all. It is you who are making personal judgements, and there is nothing I can do about it. <br /><br />Best<br /><br />ChristineChristine Cordula Dantashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05271747374185459530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-34503540504755609622011-11-26T14:27:31.774-05:002011-11-26T14:27:31.774-05:00Hi Giotis,
“I'm not at all angry at you and d...Hi Giotis,<br /><br />“I'm not at all angry at you and don't get defensive......... You give the impression that you hold the absolute measure of scientific integrity and thus you are in a position to characterize people's hard work as unscientific.”<br /><br />Perhaps I need some instruction regarding the meaning of words, as yours sound pretty emotionally provocative to me. To be Phil Warnellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-7004589076924172132011-11-26T14:01:07.850-05:002011-11-26T14:01:07.850-05:00I'm not at all angry at you and don't get ...I'm not at all angry at you and don't get defensive.<br /><br />It just bothers me that your posts have this pedantic character. You give the impression that you hold the absolute measure of scientific integrity and thus you are in a position to characterize people's hard work as unscientific. You are lecturing the subordinates with an attitude and that simply bothers me; nothing moreGiotishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03594944884584261018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-15672668849984719092011-11-26T13:14:36.102-05:002011-11-26T13:14:36.102-05:00Giotis,
Really, I do not see why you seem so angr...Giotis,<br /><br />Really, I do not see why you seem so angry at me. All I am saying, and yes, I keep on saying this, is that people should take care and be more precise in their terminology. Any scientist should observe that. That is all! I am certain that you have read at some point about the scientific method. When I say that nowadays many people decided to disregard the scientific method thenChristine Cordula Dantashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05271747374185459530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-92196062977881745542011-11-26T12:10:12.521-05:002011-11-26T12:10:12.521-05:00Hi Christine,
Well if you ever form a scientific ...Hi Christine,<br /><br />Well if you ever form a scientific monster’s club you can count on me to join. Now I haven’t read Barrow’s book yet from the one I did I’m inclined to think he might sign up as well. That is Christine I too think physics has fallen off the rails, yet more so by attempting to skip steps in the process, as for instance failing in attempting to approach foundational Phil Warnellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.com