How do you guys do the "no contact" thing?

Post Reply New Topic

What we call 'intuition' is the silent, unconscious processing of data -- most of us don't consciously form the words "he's staring at me moving closer reaching for something in his pocket he's a threat i should scream i should run...". Instead, most of us get an uneasy feeling that something isn't right about someone, and we react to that feeling.

Einstein, being exceptionally familiar with classical mechanics, likely dwelt on the feeling that something wasn't right about classical mechanics being unable to explain why different people viewed the same event in the same way no matter where they were or how fast they were moving when the event occurred.

What we call 'intuition' has nothing to do with any alleged supernatural realm or phenomenon.

Yes, definitely, by "intuition" I mean unconcious processing of data based on one's experience (and probably instincts).

Yep....that is what is meant by "intuition."

I don't have a belief in the "supernatural" myself.

The idea of what I do in physics is this. Consider a hypothetical scenario that we live in fully classical world, but somebody dreamed up the laws of quantum field. That person would be able to build a computer that produces quantum field theory on it's screen yet it us ran fully by classical rules. Now, it won't be exact quantum field theory, it would only match it up to coarse graining. For one thing, quantum field theory has infinitely more degrees of freedom then it's classical counterpart, that's why exact correspondence is impossible. But since I can't experimentally prove that quantum field theory is exact, I can speculate that we are living on the screen of that hypothetical computer and this speculation wont be falsifiable.

If you follow me so far, this scenario would be an example of appearance of quantum field theory simulated in classical universe. Now the next step is to say that it doesn't have to be a computer. Since you see at least one example when it can happen (a computer) there should be infinitely many other examples -- that don't involve computer. And my theories fall into that second category. The only aspect of computer that they barrow is that there is some non-trivial way of "encoding" quantum field theory information inside the classical universe, and a classical mechanism of how that encoding works. That encoding only reproduces quantum field theory up to coarse graining but since our experiments all have some degree of precision, the speculation that quantum field theory only holds up to coarse graining isn't falsifiable.

As far as EPR experiment goes, I can address it by proposing superluminal signals. Actually, in some of my papers, I actually said that the speed of propagation of superluminal singnals is c_s rather than c -- and I then assume that the size of the universe is finite, and c_s is large enough for the signal to circle the universe within a time period that is much smaller than the time intervals experiments can detect. That's why c_s appears infinite despite being finite. Even though c_s violates principles of relativity, those principles aren't violated in the lab, since Lagrangians are written in Lorentz invariant form which results in the fact that non relativistic effects get hidden so to speak.

The problem with all this is that we can't figure out what those supposed classical laws are experimentally. To continue with computer analogy, our only data is what the computer shows on the screen (which is quantum field theory). But we can't deduce the inner structure of the computer from looking on it's screen (and its inner structure is what I speculate to be classical). Therefore, we have infinitely many possible "theories" none of which are falsifiable -- and, therefore, none of which are provable either. But, from my perspective, infinitely many theories none if which are provable is "better" than zero theories. I mean, back at the time of Capernicus, people didn't know "which" classical laws run the universe, yet they knew they are "classical". So what I am trying to do is to bring us from the era of quantum mechanics into the era of Capernicus. Even though the era of Capernicus is "worse" than the one of either Newton or Einstein, it is still "better" than the one of Feynmann (I don't say Bohr since I am talking about quantum field theory rather than quantum mechanics) Well, I agree that the era of Feynmann is better than the one of Colernicus in a sense that at the time of Feynmann we can make predictions but at the time of Copernicus we couldn't. But you see, I designed my "classical" theories in such a way as to "force" them to reproduce all the conventional results of quantum field theory at a coarse grained level. So I still have all the predictions people currently make -- I just don't have any *new* predictions -- which goes Hans in hand with my theory being neither provable nor falsifiable.

Now, once we are satisfied that quantum field theory can be modelled classically, we can then go back to working with quantum field theoey equations as we know them: after all, this is the only testable information. But it's important to satisfy ourselves that it can be modelled classically at least in principle so that others wouldn't get stuck the way I did. I mean, if quantum field theory textbooks were to present few chapters on different ways of modeling it classically -- and then concluded that none of it is provable and so let's go back to quantum field theory equations -- then I wouldn't have been stuck, and I would have learned the quantum field theory I had to learn in a timely manner. But since the books didn't do it, that's why I was stuck trying to do it myself and that is part of why here I am at 40 without a job. So since I threw away all those years, I want to at least publish those things so that it's not for nothing and my publications might help future students in my situation.

In any case, even though, admittedly, there are infinitely many theories, I came up with few specific ones, just as examples. So I have a *few* papers, with few *specific* possibilities. And yes, those possibilities gave lots of formulas there -- and those formulas are neitger provable nor falsifiable -- and I am trying to publish those.

Last edited by QFT on 12 Dec 2019, 11:44 am, edited 2 times in total.

Love isn't like that....Love isn't quantum physics. Or classical physics. Or any physics, really.

As far as love, I was using physics as an analogy. Classical physics is analogous to laws of love that agree with my intuition and quantum physics is analogous to laws of love that contradict my intuition. For example, "nice guys finish last" is analogous to quantum physics since it's counter intuitive. But an explanation that "nice guys aren't nice because they have ulterior motives" is analogous to classical modeling of quantum physics since that says that women favor good guys over bad ones (classical physics) with a twist that guys that appear nice really aren't (a simulation of quantum physics within a classical framework)

It's an imperfect analogy.

It really doesn't work in the "real world."

Nope.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

Proof by inducing headache in your readers is not scientifically valid.

Well, I can argue that I obey Ocams razor within a constraint: the constraint is that the theory should have classical ontology. The way Ocams razor is satisfied is that the theory that I propose is simplest out of those that obey that constraint. Note that Ocams razor doesn't say the theory should be simple (certainly string theory isn't simple). It says it should be the simplest possible. So my theory -- even though not simple -- is as simple as I can think of, if I try to satisfy that classicality constraint.

Now, any theory has constraints. Even conventional quantum field theory has constraints too: such as 1+1=2. So the question is which constraints are you willing to let go of and which constraints you aren't. So, for any such choice there should be a theory that satisfies that choice to make everyone happy. So I made a theory that would satisfy the choice of those that want to have classicality as one of the constraints. Once I satisfied myself with that, then I can go back and work on theories without such constraint.

I’m not seeing a lot of logic going on here - within the bounds of science or otherwise.

But why? There is nothing fundamentally scientific about classical ontology. Is second quantisation such a deal for you?

Quantum mechanics has a lot of constriants, the most important one is: with minimal assumptions, correctly predict experimental results.

Love is from God according to the Bible Belt except when LGBT people and non-Christians love each other. Then it’s either lust or “Satanic”.

I still shake my head at my aunt telling me God is still writing my love story. After 31 years, certainly it would’ve been completed by now unless she thinks I will be an old man when it finally happens. I don’t want to live past my 30’s if things don’t change for me and it feels like no one wants me to have a girlfriend.

What is the criteria for "scientific" versus "unscientific"? I guess a lot of it has to do with a motivation of why someone does science. The motivation of people that do applied science is, obviously, something that can make predictions. So, from their point of view, it is unscientific. But the motivation of a theorist is to try to understand for the sake of understanding. And what does it mean to understand? I mean, any understanding is based on axioms. And axioms are based on intuition. So trying to allign something with my intuition is one of the key aspects of understanding. And, from this point of view, it "is" scientific.

Now, its true that if you look at todays scientific community then theorists aren't interested in this either. But that is what puzzles me. How come theorists do string theory, even though string theory can't make any predictions either? And what about the fact that there are some theorists -- as few as they are -- that still work on Bohmian mechanics (like Struyve and Westmann are a couple of examples) even though it doesn't have predictive power either. So in which way is my quest on understanding ontology "worse" than their quest on writing Pilot Wave equations?

In any case, after I struggled with it for several years, someone shown me an article with quotations from few decades ago where physicists were puzzled about the same questions I am puzzling about http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=554543 So apparently what makes them so "deaf" to this is that nobody is thinking of it now. As in, humans are social creatures, so they only regard something as scientific if everyone else does. I guess I operate differently. To me, if I see that everyone else takes something for granted yet it makes no sense, it draws my attention a lot more than it would if others were puzzled by it as well. Case in point: I wasn't stuck by first quantization because when I took quantum mechanics course they actually told us in the beginning of the course that others were puzzled by those questions too. But when I studied second quantization then no, they didn't tell us about the scientists quoted above that were puzzled by it; they just acted as if its something everyone takes for granted -- and thats what made me feel like I was missing something and kept me stuck on it.



You hit the nail on the head! In fact, it was the second quantization that had me stuck. The other thing that I was stuck on is the concept of Grassmann numbers and superspace. And I was also stuck on infinitely many currents on a bosonic string. I actually ended up writing arXiv papers which got me un-stuck from the second quantization and grassmann variables thing (I will PM them to you as well as to anyone else who wants to know, I just don't want to be publically identified by my full name). I guess once I am no longer stuck on those two questions the rest I can live with, but I am trying to publish them since it took me all those years to get un-stuck and I don't want to throw them for nothing.



Well, I know that "their" constraints contradict "mine". But thats why we have many separate papers: some papers adopt to some constraints, other papers adopt to others. I needed to satisfy myself that "my" version of constraints (classical ontology) can be satisfied. Once I have done that -- now I feel ready to work with other people's constraints and not care about classical ontology. But I needed to first make sure I "could" present classical ontology "if I want to" -- before I feel ready to work on the theories without it.

For those who would like some explanations:

In first quantisation, Shroedinger's cat is simultanously dead and alive.
In second quantisation, Shroedinger's cat simultanously does and does not exist at all.

In my case, about the end of fourth semester, Hilbert spaces became intuitive.

I simply accepted that reality is different in different scales and the ontological concepts useful in everyday life become less and less useful when we go away from our everyday experience.
But there is my strong epistemological opinion: all we know about the reality are only models and simplifications and their validity is measured by their usefulness. I don't believe in direct intellectual contact with thing-in-itself in physical world. It always happens via conceptual models based on experiences.
You may disagree with it but it's philosophy, not physics we discuss.

I guess if you put it in those general terms, they are similar. But if you look specifically at particles they are different.

If you look at first quantization of a *single* particle, then you can reduce it to wave function in regular space. I have no problem visualizing a wave: in classical electrodynamics there are waves too. I don't have a problem with the statement "electron is both a particle and a wave" either, because it's not. Rather it was a wave *before* it collapsed, then it *became* a particle during the collapse, but then it continued acting like a wave *after* the collapse. So if you put a *time* sequence to it, everything makes sense. Yes, there is that question of what triggers that collapse, but it's a "classical" question: it's similar to Copernicus asking what makes stars move so its "not as bad" as quantum mechanics.

With second quantization it's far more difficult since in this case you can't present a visual explanation like the above. Well, I guess this objection also applies to first quantization involving more than one particles. But the way the quantum mechanics course that I took was organized is that more than half of it was focused on single particle and then we had one or two chapters involving many particles towards the end of a semester. So since I already used Schrodinger equation for single particle I had no trouble using it for many particles -- and it was the end of a semester so with all the exams coming I couldn't afford to get stuck.

But with second quantization -- which was a course on it's own -- the concept of many particles wasn't just an extrapolation of single particle. It was like the main topic all on it's own. Thus, plus also in case of multiparticle quantum mechanics, what you are extrapolating is wave function -- which is visual -- while in case of second quantization what you are extrapolating is either commutation relations or path integral. Even though both of them are mathematically equivalent to Schrodinger's equation, neither of them make as much sense. In a single particle case I can start with Schrodinger's equation -- which makes visual sense since it's analogous to classical wave equation -- and then say the other two approaches are equivalent, and thus use all three. But in case of second quantization I can't do it, since they can't write wave equation in infinite dimensional space. So in case of second quantization I have to just believe the other two formalisms in their own right -- without wave equation to back them up -- and that's what made it so much more difficult.

You should find a woman who likes to discuss these sorts of things.

But this “stuff” shouldn’t be incorporated into discussions about love relationships. It’s a different realm altogether.

Magz is happily married—so she’s not the one.

Maybe someone similar to Magz in some respects.