Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lost Causes of Theoretical Physics (2003)

web.archive.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 55 posts

Re: Lost Causes of Theoretical Physics (2003)

#11

Post by Retra »

IntronExon wrote: post #5
sgillen wrote: post #2

The many worlds interpretation is just that, and INTERPRETATION, not a predictive theory. The article seems really upset by that, but is it any reason to label it a lost cause? I guess you can’t really study it or preform experiments on it but that shouldn’t be any suprise for any interpretation of quantum mechanics. I might be missing something here...

From other sections it seems clear that the author is a devout adherent of The Copenhagen Interpretation, aka objective wavefunction collapse; this is a close relative of the baseline non-Interpretation “Shut Up And Calculate.” People like that are generally utterly unmoved by anything short of a rigorous mathematical formulation, which works for them in QM where “rigorous mathematical formulation” is pretty much all…

I would argue that expecting QM to satisfy a human need for ontology is about as useful as expecting general relativity to satisfy a human need for sexual gratification.

It's easy to find a way to be dissatisfied: just want more out of things. But it doesn't make sense to always expect to get what you want. Some things simply won't provide. As long as QM is providing a means to achieve accurate predictions and precise language, it is doing its job perfectly. It is not responsible for satisfying a (potentially irrational) need for ontological interpretation.

Re: Lost Causes of Theoretical Physics (2003)

#12

Post by balfirevic »

IntronExon wrote: post #5
sgillen wrote: post #2

The many worlds interpretation is just that, and INTERPRETATION, not a predictive theory. The article seems really upset by that, but is it any reason to label it a lost cause? I guess you can’t really study it or preform experiments on it but that shouldn’t be any suprise for any interpretation of quantum mechanics. I might be missing something here...

From other sections it seems clear that the author is a devout adherent of The Copenhagen Interpretation, aka objective wavefunction collapse; this is a close relative of the baseline non-Interpretation “Shut Up And Calculate.” People like that are generally utterly unmoved by anything short of a rigorous mathematical formulation, which works for them in QM where “rigorous mathematical formulation” is pretty much all…

I am not a physicist, but this seems backwards to me. If anything, it is the Copenhagen interpretation that comes with the largest amount of extra-mathematical baggage while many-worlds interpretation came out of effort to add the least amount of additional assumptions on top of the math.

Re: Lost Causes of Theoretical Physics (2003)

#13

Post by IntronExon »

Retra wrote: post #11
IntronExon wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From other sections it seems clear that the author is a devout adherent of The Copenhagen Interpretation, aka objective wavefunction collapse; this is a close relative of the baseline non-Interpretation “Shut Up And Calculate.” People like that are generally utterly unmoved by anything short of a rigorous mathematical formulation, which works for them in QM where “rigorous mathematical formulation” is pretty much all…

I would argue that expecting QM to satisfy a human need for ontology is about as useful as expecting general relativity to satisfy a human need for sexual gratification. It's easy to find a way to be dissatisfied: just want more out of things. But it doesn't make sense to always expect to get what you want. Some things simply won't provide. As long as QM is providing a means to achieve accurate predictions and precis…

And if QM and GTR agreed in their predictions I’d be right there with you, telling people to suck it up. I’m a bit there with you anyway, because nature has no obligation to us, and the predictive power of QM is just incredible.

But... in the absence of a complete theory including gravity, there are huge gaps. It’s just human nature to try and fill those gaps, for better or worse. For worse when people stuff those gaps with god, but for better when they’re uncomfortable with overly pat explanations like objective collapse.

Re: Lost Causes of Theoretical Physics (2003)

#14

Post by evanb »

zakk wrote: post #6

> Rigorous Feynman Path Integrals It depends on how rigorous you want the treatment to be. The whole machinery of Feynman diagrams is derived from Path Integrals and Wick's Theorem, so they are rigorous, at least as rigorous as standard perturbation theory using operatorial quantum mechanics. A mathematical physicist won't be amused, though, that's correct. But I wouldn't say that Path Integrals are less rigorous tha…

There's been a lot of progress nonperturbatively defining quantum mechanics and quantum field theory using resurgence lately. See, for example, the very recent https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.10441

Re: Lost Causes of Theoretical Physics (2003)

#15

Post by whatshisface »

ajkjk wrote: post #3
sgillen wrote: post #2

The many worlds interpretation is just that, and INTERPRETATION, not a predictive theory. The article seems really upset by that, but is it any reason to label it a lost cause? I guess you can’t really study it or preform experiments on it but that shouldn’t be any suprise for any interpretation of quantum mechanics. I might be missing something here...

After skimming the whole thing, I was relieved to see that the argument against Many Worlds was the only one I considered invalid. It took the form of "It's not even a testable theory", rather than "it has mathematical deficiencies". Well, of course, no one's saying it's testable necessarily, but for various aesthetic and intuitive reasons it still seems valid. Just don't expect predictions from it and you'll be fine…

Valid and true are two very different things - and we've seen from history that the human brain can be lead into believing that essentially anything is intuitive or aesthetic.

Re: Lost Causes of Theoretical Physics (2003)

#16

Post by zombieprocesses »

sgillen wrote: post #2

The many worlds interpretation is just that, and INTERPRETATION, not a predictive theory. The article seems really upset by that, but is it any reason to label it a lost cause? I guess you can’t really study it or preform experiments on it but that shouldn’t be any suprise for any interpretation of quantum mechanics. I might be missing something here...

If a theory isn't predictive, it isn't falsifiable. If it isn't falsifiable, then the theory isn't truly scientific.

This is a major issue/concern in advanced theoretical physics. Is it really physics if you can't experiment or is it just mathematics?

The foundation of science is falsiability within the scientific method. It's the core tenet.

Re: Lost Causes of Theoretical Physics (2003)

#17

Post by sgillen »

zombieprocesses wrote: post #16
sgillen wrote: post #2

The many worlds interpretation is just that, and INTERPRETATION, not a predictive theory. The article seems really upset by that, but is it any reason to label it a lost cause? I guess you can’t really study it or preform experiments on it but that shouldn’t be any suprise for any interpretation of quantum mechanics. I might be missing something here...

If a theory isn't predictive, it isn't falsifiable. If it isn't falsifiable, then the theory isn't truly scientific. This is a major issue/concern in advanced theoretical physics. Is it really physics if you can't experiment or is it just mathematics? The foundation of science is falsiability within the scientific method. It's the core tenet.

For sure, I’m by trying to say it’s a real theory, it’s just a way to interpret the quantum mechanics that we can test in a way that provide us with some sort of intuition when working with the physics.

Re: Lost Causes of Theoretical Physics (2003)

#18

Post by Koshkin »

IntronExon wrote: post #13
Retra wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue that expecting QM to satisfy a human need for ontology is about as useful as expecting general relativity to satisfy a human need for sexual gratification. It's easy to find a way to be dissatisfied: just want more out of things. But it doesn't make sense to always expect to get what you want. Some things simply won't provide. As long as QM is providing a means to achieve accurate predictions and precis…

And if QM and GTR agreed in their predictions I’d be right there with you, telling people to suck it up. I’m a bit there with you anyway, because nature has no obligation to us, and the predictive power of QM is just incredible. But... in the absence of a complete theory including gravity, there are huge gaps. It’s just human nature to try and fill those gaps, for better or worse. For worse when people stuff those ga…

> nature has no obligation to us

This is an excellent point indeed, but what if it also applies to the disagreement between QM and GR? That is, does Nature have an obligation that QM and GR, both being mere reflections, in the human mind, of its particular aspects, should ever become in agreement with each other? What if mathematics (the human logic) can in principle only provide models that are local approximations of reality?

Re: Lost Causes of Theoretical Physics (2003)

#19

Post by IntronExon »

Koshkin wrote: post #18
IntronExon wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if QM and GTR agreed in their predictions I’d be right there with you, telling people to suck it up. I’m a bit there with you anyway, because nature has no obligation to us, and the predictive power of QM is just incredible. But... in the absence of a complete theory including gravity, there are huge gaps. It’s just human nature to try and fill those gaps, for better or worse. For worse when people stuff those ga…

> nature has no obligation to us This is an excellent point indeed, but what if it also applies to the disagreement between QM and GR? That is, does Nature have an obligation that QM and GR, both being mere reflections, in the human mind, of its particular aspects, should ever become in agreement with each other? What if mathematics (the human logic) can in principle only provide models that are local approximations…

It’s possible, but maybe not likely. I’ll tell you though, if reality is that unpredictable, thst unfriendly to rules, expect a rash of suicides in the physics community the day it’s confirmed.
Post reply on HN