tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post7147645372299512333..comments2023-09-27T07:44:19.769-04:00Comments on Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: Steven Weinberg doesn’t like Quantum Mechanics. So what?Sabine Hossenfelderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-66316667411432849452018-07-06T18:16:49.802-04:002018-07-06T18:16:49.802-04:00Albert Einstein, Erwin Schrödinger, John Stewart B...Albert Einstein, Erwin Schrödinger, John Stewart Bell.<br />These are the three physicists who, very probably and quite agreeably, mostly contributed to quantum mechanics. Einstein triggered and has hence been responsible of its birth, Schrödinger donated the core processing tool, Bell gave the ultimate and tangible proof of its correctness in its most counter intuitive aspect, entanglement.<br /Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11411636467720087023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-67106430581266677672017-04-05T14:32:28.160-04:002017-04-05T14:32:28.160-04:00I've not followed Backreaction for quite a few...I've not followed Backreaction for quite a few years, but your Nature Physics article that came to me online today, http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v13/n4/full/nphys4079.html, persuades me to return. I hear no cheers. I think I left when the girls were about two, so it came as something of a shock to see them so big.<br /><br />Can I put words in your mouth about <i>this</i> post? Of Peter Morganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06075268176382429701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-28914349832959369702017-01-23T14:47:45.428-05:002017-01-23T14:47:45.428-05:00Superdeterminism is so elegant, I love it too...hu...Superdeterminism is so elegant, I love it too...huge philosophical problem: it rules out Free Will, and thus, Consciousness...no, seriously.<br /><br />So we need something more...let me go wild...maybe Many Superdeterministic Worlds? <br /><br />So consciousness can at least leap between universes in each true counscious decision, with its emergent superpowers of plane-jaunting that make Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01703232347647956693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-48661128195532043112016-11-17T18:58:53.634-05:002016-11-17T18:58:53.634-05:00"It’s become a cliché that physicists in thei..."It’s become a cliché that physicists in their late years develop an obsession with quantum mechanics. On this account, you can file Weinberg together with Mermin and Penrose and Smolin. I’m not sure why that is. Maybe it’s something which has bothered them all along, they just never saw it as important enough."<br /><br />I saw a 1997 KITP public lecture by Murray Gell-Mann where he Kris Kroghhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07340827856086381459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-730091772820590692016-11-10T16:20:57.773-05:002016-11-10T16:20:57.773-05:00Bee, with some trepidation I believe that "W...Bee, with some trepidation I believe that "Whatever Weinberg’s motivation, he doesn’t like neither Copenhagen, nor Many Worlds, nor decoherent or consistent histories, ..."<br /><br />is better read as "... he likes neither Copenhagen, nor Many Worlds, nor decoherent or consistent histories, ..."<br /><br /><br />"Doesn't" linked with "neither" can k-froehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00094359559385410658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-21688947980575348202016-11-10T15:23:55.397-05:002016-11-10T15:23:55.397-05:00Quantum mechanics is exactly what you would expect...Quantum mechanics is exactly what you would expect if you make observations, find that they are numbers, and simple symmetires exist (which of course they do): http://scitation.aip.org/content/aapt/journal/ajp/58/11/10.1119/1.16277Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08363770435343791235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-90741896845641501992016-11-09T13:22:12.292-05:002016-11-09T13:22:12.292-05:00Quantum 'weirdness' is important because i...Quantum 'weirdness' is important because it's how we get to where we are now. It was the weirdness that drove the major debates and differences and schisms even, in the later years of the founding generation (of QM). <br /><br />It was the weirdness plus the product of those debates that caused the...intellectual panic that in turn drove the emergence of the 'interpretations'.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17852247942652368610noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-7917904634789782322016-11-08T15:22:56.599-05:002016-11-08T15:22:56.599-05:00Sabine, I like superdeterminism too and would love...Sabine, I like superdeterminism too and would love to hear a clear explanation about how you would test it. Very interesting!<br /><br />Superdeterminism seems the only clear option to me without real issues within quantum theory.<br />That said, I like collapse models too since they're more phenomelogical and testable, and the general framework doesn't really need a interpretation. Hum Bughttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02045005575382002339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-30484576119809042932016-11-08T14:56:30.878-05:002016-11-08T14:56:30.878-05:00Remember that Monty Hall problem, or Bertrand'...Remember that Monty Hall problem, or Bertrand's pardox? Or the principle of indifference?<br /><br />Nobody really understands probabilities, that's the problem with QM. As usual we try to look elsewhere, hoping that the problem somehow will go away. Probabilities are deeply counter-intuitive and, accordingly, breed paradoxes or even outrageous nonsense e.g. multiverses and the like. емиванов ффhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01450391613339306020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-39864690925744769262016-11-08T13:02:05.497-05:002016-11-08T13:02:05.497-05:00Would quantum computers disprove superdeterminism?...<br />Would quantum computers disprove superdeterminism? I think Gerard ’t Hooft's version would kill quantum computers but would any version kill quantum computers? ppnlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01720719028496317693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-61306438259234412282016-11-08T11:39:33.247-05:002016-11-08T11:39:33.247-05:00i think, for a while, and of course the opinion in...i think, for a while, and of course the opinion in my mind about why people so close minded toward other directions rather than their way.<br /><br />weinberg is an enoughly clever man rather than you and your commentors (except uncle al, he is the one i try to figured out, a different drop in the ocean).<br /><br /><br />so we need more tolerance, more thinking and open society, indeed the arab Hakan Tomaşoğluhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12074936867314955380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-79616650348254878092016-11-08T08:08:06.784-05:002016-11-08T08:08:06.784-05:00Finding a basic postulate for quantum gravity via ...Finding a basic postulate for quantum gravity via phenomenology rather than theory based research(which IMO is becoming biased ) will reveal the origins of Quantum Theory . <br /><br />Galaxy rotation curves & dark energy are phenomena that can point towards QG which in turn will give a general picture of QT. Stuart https://www.blogger.com/profile/12767480095489975264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-56782589552346816582016-11-08T07:53:10.477-05:002016-11-08T07:53:10.477-05:00Gomesha - David Deutsch believes there is no diffe...Gomesha - David Deutsch believes there is no difference between science and philosophy and that predictions and real world measurements can be put aside or relegated in favour of 'criticism'. He says rational people will acknowledge critical refutation and put aside their ideas. <br /><br />But have you ever asked Deutsch how much criticism from independent viewpoints has any of his ideasAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17852247942652368610noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-11211359832788450372016-11-08T07:26:58.348-05:002016-11-08T07:26:58.348-05:00Looks like 't Hooft has done some work on this...Looks like 't Hooft has done some work on this: https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1548<br />(The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics)Qhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10542938146428749817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-77393696099958362672016-11-08T07:11:46.414-05:002016-11-08T07:11:46.414-05:00gemesha
The referense is gomesha J. B. Hartle, Am...gemesha<br /><br />The referense is gomesha J. B. Hartle, American Journal of Physics 36, 704 (1968).<br /><br />PerPer Arvehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00320681832870710523noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-35661280976689156302016-11-08T05:56:05.694-05:002016-11-08T05:56:05.694-05:00Two comments: 1) Per, can you point me to this der...Two comments: 1) Per, can you point me to this derivation by Hartle that you referred to, please? <br />2) Sabine, have you ever read the book The Beginning of Infinity, by David Deutsch? I highly recommend it. In it, he constructs a scathing criticism of "instrumentalism". He, in my view rightly, points out that the point of science is explaining the world, not merely predicting. He Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-53435959804583715432016-11-07T19:16:59.624-05:002016-11-07T19:16:59.624-05:00Sabine,
I was going to ask 'what about the tr...Sabine,<br /><br />I was going to ask 'what about the transactional interpretation' - but I see you have looked at that. :) My view on the transactional interpretation is that it might help explain the mystery of Bell's theorem - something along the lines of advanced solutions can make some underlying quantum substrate able to be causally local but still have the instant connection Tom Andersenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17562906116020498110noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-6052995866398332292016-11-07T18:34:15.956-05:002016-11-07T18:34:15.956-05:00sabine:
this seems relevant
when Dirac was asked...sabine:<br /><br />this seems relevant<br /><br />when Dirac was asked, “What’s the answer to the measurement problem?” his response was, “Quantum mechanics is a provisional theory. Why should I look for an answer in quantum mechanics?” <br /><br />richardnaivetheoristhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00425164894020381981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-11137128716696830362016-11-07T17:13:28.199-05:002016-11-07T17:13:28.199-05:00My highlights here: "quantum mechanics … need...My highlights here: "quantum mechanics … needs to be superseded by a better, underlying explanation", and "…finding some more satisfactory other theory, to which quantum mechanics is merely a good approximation."<br /><br />Theorists shouldn't be hungry to destructively eliminate ideas that work, like QM/QFT. Instead, they should be looking at general ideas that allow the JSVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06918509400932667094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-54176776692509539762016-11-07T16:04:42.545-05:002016-11-07T16:04:42.545-05:00If you believe the wave-function only encodes info...<br /><br /><i>If you believe the wave-function only encodes information (psi-epistemic) and the update merely means we’ve learned something new, then you have to explain who learns and how they learn.</i><br /><br />IMO, this is in some sense simpler than the psi-ontic position, because it is of a similar nature as asking "how does entropy increase in a system governed by time-reversible Arunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03451666670728177970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-70744512023069092302016-11-07T15:36:41.933-05:002016-11-07T15:36:41.933-05:00Sabine, can you tell us why you think quantum mech...Sabine, can you tell us why you think quantum mechanics should be replaced by a better underlying theory? Is it "just" that it's incompatible with general relatvity or do you have other issues with quantum mechanics?Pascalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14201150679841329835noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-79175981155597136282016-11-07T14:49:32.933-05:002016-11-07T14:49:32.933-05:00I'm not even trying to make them less weird. A...I'm not even trying to make them less weird. After all, weirdness is just as much an aesthetic concept as ugliness. I'd be happy if they were logically consistent, empirically valid, and generally obeyed Occam's razor (and thus explained the most with the least). It's that last point that people too often miss. I think we sometimes overcomplicate things. That's not to say thatQuantum Moxiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299376366027872094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-43143356082560934712016-11-07T13:11:42.178-05:002016-11-07T13:11:42.178-05:00Science is often mucked up by scientists and there...Science is often mucked up by scientists and there is no way to avoid it. You’ve discussed the reason in many of your blogs and it is human behavior. Support will always be very thin for re-writing the currently accepted standards. I think Max Planck’s correspondence to Einstein regarding the latter’s intention to re-write gravity sums up why, he wrote, “As an older friend, I must advise against Louis Tagliaferrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16698865662162457632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-77570669913506688642016-11-07T12:48:24.182-05:002016-11-07T12:48:24.182-05:00All the interpretations of quantum field theory ha...All the interpretations of quantum field theory have to do with phenomenological physics (empiricism). However, I am afraid that it isn’t so difficult to prove mathematically that physicists can never understand the underlying reality of the quantum fields with the help of phenomenological physics. Unfortunately, without a general concept of the structure of the quantum fields it is impossible toSydney Ernest Grimmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00290346316355388367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-81921281888943347742016-11-07T12:36:45.981-05:002016-11-07T12:36:45.981-05:00akidbelle,
I don't know what I mean, sorry. T...akidbelle,<br /><br />I don't know what I mean, sorry. That's the thing with intuitions I guess. I tried to make sense of it and I just couldn't. That doesn't mean it's wrong, just that I couldn't see how it would work. Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.com