Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40 years • Hacker News Board

Re: Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40 years

#311

Post by shpeedy » Tue, Jan 14, 2020, 11:31 AM UTC

Koshkin wrote: post #276

shpeedy wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Field is mathematical abstraction, used in mathematical model, to represent a physical thing. Physical things are real. Mathematical abstractions are not. OpenGL is not real too, but it looks very real and accurately predicts reality. In OpenGL, field is array, e.g. "float[][][] field;".

That’s like saying, “Cat is a word used in a language to represent a physical thing.”

No, it's like saying that nature is built on kind of vertex buffer, because OpenGL accurately predicts reality.

Re: Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40 years

#312

Post by shpeedy » Tue, Jan 14, 2020, 11:50 AM UTC

krastanov wrote: post #287

shuspect wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can keep math, but switch to better theories, with plausible explanations. A kind of Pilot Wave can explain quantum weirdness to layman people with ease. We can ditch theory relativity and calculate speeds relatively to CMB, which is much easier to understand. We can ditch Big Bang theory and, instead, accept that light is not immortal, because it ages with time. IMHO, Dipole Repeller and Shapley Attractor are muc…

All three examples you gave have problems or inconsistencies and this is why they are not used. You are being downvoted because you are suggesting teaching formalisms that are known to be insufficient simply because they fulfill your personal criteria of intuitiveness.

We have no perfect theory to explain everything, so it's just tradeoff, exchange of one set of inconsistencies for another set of inconsistencies, but with better intuition. I'm doing it here, in my country.

The problem with current theories is that I understand them when I reading them. It's like piece of complex code or book with complex but boring text, like phonebook. I can follow it, when I read it, but I cannot reproduce it when book is closed.

Can we teach a phonebook to kids? Yep. Is it useful? Nope.

Recently, I did "quantum physics in one picture" experiment. Results are very good: lots of reposts, comments, interest in topic.

Re: Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40 years

#313

Post by krastanov » Tue, Jan 14, 2020, 12:57 PM UTC

shpeedy wrote: post #312

krastanov wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All three examples you gave have problems or inconsistencies and this is why they are not used. You are being downvoted because you are suggesting teaching formalisms that are known to be insufficient simply because they fulfill your personal criteria of intuitiveness.

We have no perfect theory to explain everything, so it's just tradeoff, exchange of one set of inconsistencies for another set of inconsistencies, but with better intuition. I'm doing it here, in my country. The problem with current theories is that I understand them when I reading them. It's like piece of complex code or book with complex but boring text, like phonebook. I can follow it, when I read it, but I cannot…

But it is not a tradeoff in the cases you picked, rather one set of formalisms has drastically more inconsistencies than the other. E.g. pilot waves: you gain having real numbers (which I personally see little value in) and you gain having a more mechanistic intuitive source of the interference (which is indeed interesting). However describing multiple interacting entangled particles becomes incredibly difficult, describing annihilation and second quantization which is needed for the quantum behavior of fields is not completely done yet, and (what I consider the most substantial problem) you can not work with finite level systems (i.e. anything but a spinless particle in a box is very difficult to describe by pilot wave theory).

In short, pilot waves were a worthwhile avenue of research, but we have seen they are incredibly cumbersome or even insufficient in many quantum mechanics problems.

Re: Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40 years

#314

Post by shpeedy » Tue, Jan 14, 2020, 2:39 PM UTC

krastanov wrote: post #313

shpeedy wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have no perfect theory to explain everything, so it's just tradeoff, exchange of one set of inconsistencies for another set of inconsistencies, but with better intuition. I'm doing it here, in my country. The problem with current theories is that I understand them when I reading them. It's like piece of complex code or book with complex but boring text, like phonebook. I can follow it, when I read it, but I cannot…

But it is not a tradeoff in the cases you picked, rather one set of formalisms has drastically more inconsistencies than the other. E.g. pilot waves: you gain having real numbers (which I personally see little value in) and you gain having a more mechanistic intuitive source of the interference (which is indeed interesting). However describing multiple interacting entangled particles becomes incredibly difficult, des…

Yep. Pilot Wave theory is underdeveloped theory, but it helps to develop intuition. Walking droplets are even better for that. IMHO, it's better to use QM to solve QM problems in science, but use walking droplets and Pilot Wave Theory to develop intuition for others. Walking droplets are easy to demonstrate. Double slit experiment can be reproduced in school lab. This way, quantum physics can be taught in school for children of age 12+, so they will be ready to solve much more complex problems when they will be PhD.

Entanglement is hard problem for PWT. Photos of entangled photons[0] are intriguing, because they look similar to behavior of walking droplets in some experiments (see dotwave.org feed). I hope, someone will be able to reproduce entanglement in macro. Currently, my top priority is to reproduce Stern–Gerlach experiment in macro (I suspect that interference between external field and particle wave creates channel, which guides particle into spot, but it better to see it once). Second priority is creation of "photons" in macro. Entanglement will be third. IMHO, all of them require microgravity to reproduce in 3D.

[0]: https://phys.org/news/2019-07-scientists-unveil-first-ever-i...

Re: Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40 years

#315

Post by cynusx » Tue, Jan 14, 2020, 4:21 PM UTC

XorNot wrote: post #282

cynusx wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The original article as I understood it is breaking a lance for more rigorous selection of experiments based on how much more information the experiments can yield. With increasing costs in experimentation it makes sense to prioritize for impact. In a way it is a meta-science because you need to find a methodology to evaluate which theory, when proven or disproven has the most impact. I would imagine that the current…

Honestly why is popularity not a good mechanism to determine how we allocate experimental investment? If a large cadre of highly educated people find a particular theoretical mechanism sufficiently compelling to dedicate their careers and time to it, then surely that's a good basis on which to develop experiments to try and confirm whether it's right? Because the benefit of proving it wrong means they'll reallocate t…

well, the author argues it is not optimal due to human fallacies such as group-think and institutional incentives

Presumably the economical cost of the experiments are higher at this point then the resource-allocation of that cadre of highly educated people.

It's worth thinking about, but not sure if there is a viable alternative methodology to be found

Re: Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40 years

#316

Post by krastanov » Tue, Jan 14, 2020, 5:19 PM UTC

shpeedy wrote: post #314

krastanov wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it is not a tradeoff in the cases you picked, rather one set of formalisms has drastically more inconsistencies than the other. E.g. pilot waves: you gain having real numbers (which I personally see little value in) and you gain having a more mechanistic intuitive source of the interference (which is indeed interesting). However describing multiple interacting entangled particles becomes incredibly difficult, des…

Yep. Pilot Wave theory is underdeveloped theory, but it helps to develop intuition. Walking droplets are even better for that. IMHO, it's better to use QM to solve QM problems in science, but use walking droplets and Pilot Wave Theory to develop intuition for others. Walking droplets are easy to demonstrate. Double slit experiment can be reproduced in school lab. This way, quantum physics can be taught in school for…

With some caveats, I happily agree with the angle from this last comment! I agree PWT is a great way to get people hooked on quantum science, even if I consider it as a dead end for fixing the inconsistencies we have (semi-personal semi-professional opinion).

Re: Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40 years

#317

Post by hhas01 » Tue, Jan 14, 2020, 6:23 PM UTC

brutt wrote: post #309

hhas01 wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Causality’s the pig. Outracing your own light cone presents a problem, to say the least.

Causality is not a problem for physic. For example, electron can move faster than speed of light in a medium without violating of anything. The problem with FTL engine is that Cherenkov radiation alone will convert any FTL object into ball of plasma. The only way for material object to survive FTL speed is to travel in the it own space-time "bubble". The only natural object with properties of such bubble is black hol…

Faster-than-light in a medium, which slows light down. Not faster than c, which I believe is the point Einstein et al were making when fixing the speed limit of the universe.

Although a lighthearted joke about “sciencing hard” being invariant certainly flew off its rails just as fast.:p

Re: Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40 years

#318

Post by XorNot » Tue, Jan 14, 2020, 10:41 PM UTC

DenisM wrote: post #243

cletus wrote: post #164

Does anyone else feel like the abstractions and models in physics have gone passed the point where the casual outsider (even a technically and scientifically minded one) can no longer intuitively understand it? Because that's how I feel. There are so many things I just don't understand now like: 1. I originally thought the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle was a natural consequence of using particles (photos) for meas…

> 2. What does it even mean to create more space? The universe is expanding. Ok, I can accept that. But what does it mean? Consider several droplets of water on the surface of a latex-based birthday balloon. The balloon is inflated, and droplets spread further apart, yet each droplet retains its shape and size. If you measure the distance in droplets it appears that you have created space as more new droplets could n…

Another way to think about it is just that if you had two solid particles, and measured the distance between them, you'd find it had increased over time.

Space everywhere is expanding, it's just all the other forces over short distances ensure that everything pulls itself back together. The Big Rip - if dark energy is increasing in strength - is what happens when at some point the rate of expansion exceeds the forces at various scales that are able to hold things together, till even the strong nuclear force can't sustain it.

Re: Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40 years

#319

Post by goatlover » Tue, Jan 14, 2020, 11:35 PM UTC

lmm wrote: post #298

goatlover wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We're getting further and further away from everyday experience, and so more and more of the fundamentals of reality have to be understood from mathematical first principles rather than everyday intuition. How much of that is an insistence on thinking of things in terms of fundamental particles and definitive properties instead of fields and packets of energy? I guess the question is that what the mathematical mode…

> How much of that is an insistence on thinking of things in terms of fundamental particles and definitive properties instead of fields and packets of energy? I guess the question is that what the mathematical models are really about, and whether we're just having a hard time shrugging off Greek atomism and 19th century materialism when it comes to intuition? I don't think it's "Greek atomism and 19th century materia…

Consider the competing ontological views: everything is made up of water, the five elements, everything is a sphere, the world is a simulation, everything is ideas being perceived by the mind, the world is matter formed by the ideal forms, etc.

Those views were prominent among certain intellectuals at different times which go against the grain of everyday experience. Since physicists are trying to understand the fundamental nature of the world, I take it they're used to not accepting appearance as a guide, and are rather operating under whatever philosophical intuition is dominant at the time. Since 19th century physics confirmed the existence of atoms, and the periodic able of ordinary matter is made up of atomic bonds, then it makes since that physicists have been influenced by that guiding intuition.

Regardless, fields are probably a better building block for intuition than particles.

Re: Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40 years

#320

Post by Iwan-Zotow » Tue, Jan 14, 2020, 11:58 PM UTC

phkahler wrote: post #275

Iwan-Zotow wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm mean I've seen the curves but cant find the math behind them. You often see weak references to Keplers law which doesnt even apply, so that leaves me very skeptical. Huh? This is directly derived from 3rd law

>> This is directly derived from 3rd law Then it's wrong. I will need to see the derivation to find the error. I've seen indications of a couple possible places it may be (based on simplifying assumptions people make incorrectly) but have not seen the actual derivation of the expected curve.

gimme some time, I'm busy till Jan 20, then I'll redo it. Just in case, kick me a message if I'm not heard from...