tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post6281594767727639628..comments2023-09-27T07:44:19.769-04:00Comments on Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: This isn’t quantum physics. Wait. Actually it is. Sabine Hossenfelderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-61949724769026224582016-12-18T14:35:24.659-05:002016-12-18T14:35:24.659-05:00" There is some quantum physics, however, whi..." There is some quantum physics, however, which we observe wherever we look: If it wasn’t for Pauli’s exclusion principle, you’d fall right through the ground. "<br /><br /><br />If it weren't for Pauli’s exclusion principle the ground would fall through the ground.<br /><br />This site is great.<br /><br />Thank you <br />David ZOld Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11003041759827683940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-54960605477684007172016-12-08T07:31:12.058-05:002016-12-08T07:31:12.058-05:00"Quantum Theory is an incomplete theory, as i..."Quantum Theory is an incomplete theory, as it stands today."; Whether mathematics (laws of computability) pre-exists to the physics, or that mathematic itself is a consequence of physical existence, this is the question. We are Jedi and will venerate the force or Vulcan and will venerate the logic.Nicolas Pouparthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17722878242014554884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-81386893439603627742016-12-07T13:00:21.709-05:002016-12-07T13:00:21.709-05:00"'This isn’t quantum physics,' is the..."'This isn’t quantum physics,' is the most unfortunate colloquialism ever because really everything is quantum physics. Including Noam Chomsky. "<br /><br />I'm of the personal (and, perhaps, not-so-popular) opinion that it would be better to say everything (that we're currently aware of!) takes on the appearance of quantum physics. <br /><br />Quantum Theory is an Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02260017465845457855noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-81673272511228259252016-12-05T13:44:03.480-05:002016-12-05T13:44:03.480-05:00
Bee,
If one executes a program performing a calcu...<br />Bee,<br />If one executes a program performing a calculation x, the calculator performing this calculation can operate with steam, use biological components, lamps or transistors this is irrelevant; the Turing-calculability emerges independently of the physical laws used to achieve it.<br /><br />If one asks the question where in the universe is the result of the calculation x before the Nicolas Pouparthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17722878242014554884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-6073889638875761672016-11-30T01:08:35.007-05:002016-11-30T01:08:35.007-05:00Don,
The universe would go on whether or not we u...Don,<br /><br />The universe would go on whether or not we understand quantum mechanics. It wouldn't go on without quantum mechanics. Best,<br /><br />B.Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-9591782338226538712016-11-29T21:10:09.133-05:002016-11-29T21:10:09.133-05:00Rob:
Tried to post a comment, but it was too long...Rob: <br />Tried to post a comment, but it was too long. So I've only posted my reply to the second half of your post here, which is probably more interesting than the rest of my reply (I hope!)<br /><br />"The description you gave was on the level of popular science descriptions of the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. When you start to apply these principles to actual language and Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17870692691463403208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-27297822344111273442016-11-29T20:33:07.240-05:002016-11-29T20:33:07.240-05:00Bee,
For sure, our instincts lose a lot of skill ...Bee,<br /><br />For sure, our instincts lose a lot of skill when dealing with billions of people, however connected.<br /><br />I haven't seen any evidence that QM or even statistical mechanics can improve on them though.CapitalistImperialistPighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17523405806602731435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-18759000756074371682016-11-29T20:21:55.976-05:002016-11-29T20:21:55.976-05:00Macroeconomics bloodily illustrates the follies of...Macroeconomics bloodily illustrates the follies of centrally administered national economies. No quantitative analytical tool usefully models positive feedback, corruption, regulatory avoidance (including taxation), and Beltway lobotomite procedural abuse.<br /><br />Quantized gravitation is on no firmer ground for not first questioning its own assumptions that "must" be true for Uncle Alhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05056804084187606211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-57540303892272957832016-11-29T19:35:50.493-05:002016-11-29T19:35:50.493-05:00I understand you are not quite serious here, but t...I understand you are not quite serious here, but there is something that should be clarified. You seem to be putting Quantum Mechanics in the role of causal agent. There is an actual physical universe out there that I expect would manage to carry on without our physics, quantum or otherwise, and perhaps even without Noam Chomsky.Don Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04814669413022486958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-34360010114709634972016-11-29T18:53:55.921-05:002016-11-29T18:53:55.921-05:00Human behaviour is emergent on many levels - parti...Human behaviour is emergent on many levels - particularly the individual and the group. We may well have evolved with all the tools to understand others' actions, but that does not make them any more predictable, especially where large groups are involved. <br /><br />As with QM, we can see the possibilities, perhaps calculate probabilities, but we can't ever say with certainty what'sPfoglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00492537607275147704noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-34362665518059191482016-11-29T15:51:51.368-05:002016-11-29T15:51:51.368-05:00..Trying to digest your and Markus conv... Great b.....Trying to digest your and Markus conv... Great blog! But I would say there is hope for you. :) My take: "..it’s quite remarkable some people believe they can explain the world" This is maybe a "religious"/maybe even.. a conservative belief. It is charming that a physicist says this about physics. I find it amazing that it would NOT apply ...in spades... to the non physicAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12757070442579513378noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-82459500659595110802016-11-29T13:04:23.571-05:002016-11-29T13:04:23.571-05:00CIP,
That's a fair point - if you are dealing...CIP,<br /><br />That's a fair point - if you are dealing with a group of 100 people whose main long-distance communication channel is smoke signals. Evolution has not even remotely equipped us to understand what happens in systems of billions of people tightly connected in social networks. Best,<br /><br />B.Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-84931048483451573612016-11-29T12:55:48.618-05:002016-11-29T12:55:48.618-05:00Thank you,mathematics seems to point to deeper ide...Thank you,mathematics seems to point to deeper ideas, antimatter, neutrinos,and the Multiverse. But maybe that does not apply to singularity's.driod33https://www.blogger.com/profile/06261803009438337363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-80409567575649714002016-11-29T11:42:35.652-05:002016-11-29T11:42:35.652-05:00Let's not forget Chomsky's actual point. ...Let's not forget Chomsky's actual point. Evolution has equipped most of us with mental tools that allow us to (albeit imperfectly) analyze the motives and intent of other people's behavior. Unlike quantum physics, which requires years of study and exceptional talent to master, we almost all develop these human talents in our natural environment. <br /><br />Not only that, but the CapitalistImperialistPighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17523405806602731435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-56114875186732832622016-11-29T10:34:04.796-05:002016-11-29T10:34:04.796-05:00The universe is purely mental: http://www.nature....The universe is purely mental: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7047/full/436029a.htmlUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08363770435343791235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-30892250073717144662016-11-29T10:26:55.282-05:002016-11-29T10:26:55.282-05:00@Joe Perry
"Full arguments for *why* you'...@Joe Perry<br />"Full arguments for *why* you'd want to have these parallel structures relies on quite subtle empirical arguments about grammaticality in English. "<br /><br />Except, X-bar theory was a theory of HUMAN language, not just English. Also, Chomsky did not do empirical research (that was functional linguistics). <br /><br />The description you gave was on the level of Rob van Son (Not a physicist, just an amateur)https://www.blogger.com/profile/12611755507524401026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-88058543410445614512016-11-29T10:04:23.970-05:002016-11-29T10:04:23.970-05:00Markus,
We're talking past each other. I'...Markus,<br /><br />We're talking past each other. I'm telling you that there's no known way to consistently AVOID that systems made of many small things are also described by what the small things do. It is, for all we presently know, not possible. There's no theory that does away with reductionism. If there's no consistent theory, it's not possible, regardless of whether Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-23857264443109836742016-11-29T09:14:21.516-05:002016-11-29T09:14:21.516-05:00Saying we don't understand humans is very diff...Saying we don't understand humans is very different to saying that work that goes into trying to understand humans is useless, or indeed easy to grasp. And you'll note the parenthesis after that bit too ('how they act and why') - he's talking about human beings' everyday behaviour. I really don't think it's unreasonable to characterise this as poorly understood (soAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17870692691463403208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-19644781959129189602016-11-29T08:20:30.507-05:002016-11-29T08:20:30.507-05:00"I hope we agree that there's plenty of e...<i>"I hope we agree that there's plenty of evidence that quantum mechanics and quantum field theory is correct."</i> - Sure, but it's right exactly for those situations where it has been tested and these are many, indeed. But when gravity is involved or in the case of living systems the evidence is less clear, at least to me. (Actually nobody seems to know what life is in the MarkusMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03431499396962852389noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-37636493455077131012016-11-29T08:15:27.893-05:002016-11-29T08:15:27.893-05:00driod,
You are right, the singularities are an is...driod,<br /><br />You are right, the singularities are an issue which is often mentioned, but they are not strictly speaking inconsistencies. Singularities are believed to be nonsense, but mathematically they're perfectly fine. The problem is how to combine GR with the standard model consistently. If you have any theory that does that, you're in the game. It is widely believed however Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-83495477632223928762016-11-29T08:01:34.476-05:002016-11-29T08:01:34.476-05:00I have read the article, but it doesn't yet cl...I have read the article, but it doesn't yet click in my mind.(sorry a bit slow)When you say "Physicists therefore interpret the singularities in general relativity as signs that the theory is no longer applicable and must be corrected."<br />Maybe there is something else that they have not thought of that doesn't preclude infinities?driod33https://www.blogger.com/profile/06261803009438337363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-90836118505672391232016-11-29T07:55:24.841-05:002016-11-29T07:55:24.841-05:00Sabine, Noam Chomsky is the last to use the phrase...Sabine, Noam Chomsky is the last to use the phrase "it's not quantum physics". His linguistic theories are more complicated that quantum physics (try to get a good explanation of X bar theory). Contrary to Quantum Physics, his theories have little support in reality. His theories have been described as being little more than interesting mathematics.<br /><br />(I might not be a Rob van Son (Not a physicist, just an amateur)https://www.blogger.com/profile/12611755507524401026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-48804337179805119392016-11-29T07:33:05.393-05:002016-11-29T07:33:05.393-05:00akidbelle,
QFT is *for all we presently know* fun...akidbelle,<br /><br />QFT is *for all we presently know* fundamental. But that it might eventually be replaced by something more fundamental doesn't mean it'll become wrong. It will just no longer apply to everything. If so, then you could say there are things that are not quantum physics. I don't know what predictions it would lead to if QFT wasn't fundamental. To make Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-4554449861232476232016-11-29T06:44:04.422-05:002016-11-29T06:44:04.422-05:00Hi Sabine,
I think the assumption in your respons...Hi Sabine,<br /><br />I think the assumption in your response to Marcus is that QFT is fundamental law (or maybe I don't read properly). Meanwhile the previous sentence state that it is "correct". This is a huge difference; 19th century chemistry is "correct" but not fundamental. But at the time there was an unbreakable atom which was fundamental... <br /><br />Of course akidbellehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12292741599925116131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-79694061219357867402016-11-29T05:17:06.078-05:002016-11-29T05:17:06.078-05:00Markus,
I hope we agree that there's plenty o...Markus,<br /><br />I hope we agree that there's plenty of evidence that quantum mechanics and quantum field theory is correct. Everything else follows from that. That it's possible to come up with a law of nature that does not follow from the fundamental laws but is still mathematically consistent is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. The problem is that the Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.com