Quantum Field Theory: The Woo Stops Here

[The Greater Fool]

If you accept QFT as a reasonable model, we know what forces act at distances relevant to human scales. We also know how those forces behave at human scales, so we can say what kind of information they can convey and how (and if) it could be detected by the brain or some biological sensor.

I pretty much agree with this, but I think you overstate what we know. I don't think the assertion that we know all of the possible forces and/or all of effects of those forces, is supportable.

We know what kind of action and information we are able to currently discern. Since we don't know all of the actual mechanisms, how could we categorically claim we know all of the effects of those mechanisms?

We are apparently missing 'something', perhaps several 'somethings', that prevent us arriving at a grand Unified Field Theory. Until we come up with the grand theory, it doesn't seem rational to say we have a complete understanding of all forces and all of their effects.

Returning to gravity as an example (even as applies to dowsing), we don't know the mechanism, but we know there are aspects of the mechanism that are detectable at human levels. Gravity is (we believe) a quantum level thing that we detect (or at least observe) at human scale.

To go even further off the edge... If String Theory is anywhere near accurate, depending on the specifics, there are multiple dimensions (11-26). If this is accurate, we can't really even conceptualize what the dimensions beyond 4, let alone measure activity, or know the type of information conveyed.

The point of this thread is that QFT rules out anything that could account for Dowsing (and other woo). Something analogous to Gravity could work at human scales, because Gravity works at human scales.

 

[The Man]

I pretty much agree with this, but I think you overstate what we know. I don't think the assertion that we know all of the possible forces and/or all of effects of those forces, is supportable.

OK so what "possible forces and/or all of effects of those forces" are you proposing?

We know what kind of action and information we are able to currently discern. Since we don't know all of the actual mechanisms, how could we categorically claim we know all of the effects of those mechanisms?

OK so what “actual mechanisms” or “effects of those mechanisms” are you proposing?

We are apparently missing 'something', perhaps several 'somethings', that prevent us arriving at a grand Unified Field Theory. Until we come up with the grand theory, it doesn't seem rational to say we have a complete understanding of all forces and all of their effects.

Returning to gravity as an example (even as applies to dowsing), we don't know the mechanism, but we know there are aspects of the mechanism that are detectable at human levels. Gravity is (we believe) a quantum level thing that we detect (or at least observe) at human scale.

The “missing 'something', perhaps several 'somethings'” “apparently missing” only come into play at scales well beyond our human scale. That’s how we know something is missing because our models break down at those extreme scales. Now the Planck force may be very large and the Planck time very brief but the Planck momentum, the product of force and time (something like 6.5 Newton Seconds), is well within the range of our human scale. It is about the momentum of a baseball traveling about 43 meters per second (~96 MPH). So even if there were some effect at the scale our models break down (the Planck force for the Planck time) involved in our everyday lives it would still transfer an amount of momentum well within our normal human detection capabilities, like a baseball hitting you at almost 100 MPH.

To go even further off the edge... If String Theory is anywhere near accurate, depending on the specifics, there are multiple dimensions (11-26). If this is accurate, we can't really even conceptualize what the dimensions beyond 4, let alone measure activity, or know the type of information conveyed.

The point of this thread is that QFT rules out anything that could account for Dowsing (and other woo). Something analogous to Gravity could work at human scales, because Gravity works at human scales.

Again that’s the thing they didn’t just pull those numbers of dimensions out of the ether, it is what those theories predict or require. So at least someone (and probably many) did explicitly conceptualize them in a away compatible with the standard model. So again if you have anything that you would like to propose for these other demissions, by all means please go ahead and we’ll see if your proposals are compatible with current evidence or the models you would like to base them upon. We know an awful lot about what we don’t know so one can’t just propose a square peg to fit in a round hole.

 

[steenkh]

I pretty much agree with this, but I think you overstate what we know. I don't think the assertion that we know all of the possible forces and/or all of effects of those forces, is supportable.

Perhaps you could then tell us what you think is wrong with the strong argument made by Carrol in the film of the OP? Because you did view it, right?

 

[Nakani]

What is a web browser made of?

Your kinda asking the wrong guy about that. It took me about a week to figure out the quote function. I know it was created by Computer Wizards.

I'm gonna say Algorithms and electricity.

 

[PixyMisa]

Your kinda asking the wrong guy about that. It took me about a week to figure out the quote function. I know it was created by Computer Wizards.

I'm gonna say Algorithms and electricity.

Okay. That's not a bad answer.

Minds are also made of algorithms and electricity.

 

[Arcade22]

To determine what the mind is made from we have two choices, particles or forces.

No we don't. That is a false dilemma, and a unphysical one at that. For one thing you are completely ignoring the very real possibility that it is a emergent phenomena that cannot be reduced into its constituent parts.

 

[Aridas]

Okay. That's not a bad answer.

Minds are also made of algorithms and electricity.

Chemistry would be more accurate than "algorithms and electricity," though.

 

[The Man]

Chemistry would be more accurate than "algorithms and electricity," though.

And chemistry being made up of primarily Quantum Electro Dynamic interactions. So the QFT that describes the mind (or at least how and why it functions) is QED.

 

[Nakani]

No we don't. That is a false dilemma, and a unphysical one at that. For one thing you are completely ignoring the very real possibility that it is a emergent phenomena that cannot be reduced into its constituent parts.

What do you mean by a unphysical false dilemma?

I think "cannot be reduced" should be repalced by "is difficult to reduce". We can do it, it will just take a bit of logic. Everything that exists is caused by something.

 

[Soapy Sam]

I'm starting to think every question just boils down to whether or not one accepts or rejects the scientific evidence for the paranormal.

Ed- You got this one absolutely right. Studying the evidence is precisely what every question boils down to.

You might be surprised by how many posters at this forum have done just that, over long and tiresome years, looking for a shred of credible, reproducible evidence for many aspects of the "supernatural" - and have failed to find it.
The evidence for QFT by contrast, is orbiting over your head this minute.

It all comes down to evidence - and I respectfully suggest you need to reexamine some of the evidence in which you seem to be placing some faith.
It is very easy to conclude that evidence we want to be true actually must be true. Very easy; and desperately wrong.
It is harder - much harder- to conclude that the evidence we want to be true is profoundly incorrect. Many of us on the forum have had to do that.
Some are still doing it. I learn every week how wrong I am about something. It's humbling and occasionally annoying...but bloody fascinating. There is no magic over here, on the dark side, but we do have some cool toys. The price of entry is merely measured in many man hours of reading. Don't take our word for it. Go dig.

n fact, I think I'll just copy this entry and paste it on everything from now on.

Check out this URL:
http://deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm

If you have objections to that evidence, that's fine, but since I have nothing valuable to add to the work of those people - I'm not even a scientist - there's not much more I can say.

Well, why do you think you have nothing of value to add? Read it, with an open and critical mind and see if you find it credible. Seek repeatability. Research the research. Read the criticisms and peer reviews, where they exist.
I repeat. It is not easy. It takes time and study and may require (hardest of all) abandoning dearly held beliefs.
It is also annoying to feel you are thought ill informed and stupid. I find it mildly less annoying when the folk who think that way about me are smart and well informed. The answer though is not to take PixyMisa's word for it, or Carroll's and assuredly not mine. The answer is to study the evidence on either side and make up your mind. Being wrong is allowed. Being clued up and wrong is more interesting.

 

[Pixel42]

Sadly Mr Glosser appears to have deserted us. He hasn't visited the forum for nearly three weeks.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Ed- You got this one absolutely right. Studying the evidence is precisely what every question boils down to.

You might be surprised by how many posters at this forum have done just that, over long and tiresome years, looking for a shred of credible, reproducible evidence for many aspects of the "supernatural" - and have failed to find it.
The evidence for QFT by contrast, is orbiting over your head this minute.

It all comes down to evidence - and I respectfully suggest you need to reexamine some of the evidence in which you seem to be placing some faith.
It is very easy to conclude that evidence we want to be true actually must be true. Very easy; and desperately wrong.
It is harder - much harder- to conclude that the evidence we want to be true is profoundly incorrect. Many of us on the forum have had to do that.
Some are still doing it. I learn every week how wrong I am about something. It's humbling and occasionally annoying...but bloody fascinating. There is no magic over here, on the dark side, but we do have some cool toys. The price of entry is merely measured in many man hours of reading. Don't take our word for it. Go dig.

Well, why do you think you have nothing of value to add? Read it, with an open and critical mind and see if you find it credible. Seek repeatability. Research the research. Read the criticisms and peer reviews, where they exist.
I repeat. It is not easy. It takes time and study and may require (hardest of all) abandoning dearly held beliefs.
It is also annoying to feel you are thought ill informed and stupid. I find it mildly less annoying when the folk who think that way about me are smart and well informed. The answer though is not to take PixyMisa's word for it, or Carroll's and assuredly not mine. The answer is to study the evidence on either side and make up your mind. Being wrong is allowed. Being clued up and wrong is more interesting.

I stand. I cheer. I nom.

I will be stealing paraphrasing this for my classes this fall.

 

[The Greater Fool]

OK so what "possible forces and/or all of effects of those forces" are you proposing?

OK so what “actual mechanisms” or “effects of those mechanisms” are you proposing?

If you care to read the posts your responding to, I addressed these questions.

Remember, I am addressing the claim that QFT rules out dowsing, not that dowsing is real. Thus, I need not propose specific mechanisms, I need only demonstrate there are human scale effects of QFT forces that approximate what might be necessary for dowsing.

One such (known) force is gravity. The actual mechanism of gravity is unknown, so declaring that we know all the effects of that mechanism is unsupportable.

Again that’s the thing they didn’t just pull those numbers of dimensions out of the ether, it is what those theories predict or require. So at least someone (and probably many) did explicitly conceptualize them in a away compatible with the standard model. So again if you have anything that you would like to propose for these other dimensions, by all means please go ahead and we’ll see if your proposals are compatible with current evidence or the models you would like to base them upon. We know an awful lot about what we don’t know so one can’t just propose a square peg to fit in a round hole.

I neither said nor implied the dimensions beyond four were pulled out of the ether. Mathematically, it is easy to work with dimensions beyond four (I do it almost weekly). My statement is that we can't conceive the physical, spatial attributes and relationships. Go ahead, if you can, at explain the physical relationship of those dimensions beyond four. Everything I've read (not extensive) can't.

So, again: QFT describes the measurable effects in four (of 11-26) dimensions of forces (such as gravity) at human scales caused by mechanisms we have yet to see. The flip side, what we don't know, is much larger: There are force(s) that we have yet to identify, and 7-22 dimensions that we can't see, physically conceptualize, and that we can't measure. We don't know if any of this works at or affects human scale.

How about a thought experiment... In an otherwise vastly empty area, if in one opaque container was a liter (or billion) of lead, in another a liter (or billion) of Styrofoam and between the two containers you had a gravimeter (or a person). Would you be able to determine which container contained what, based on the gravity? (Yes). If the test was granite and water? (Yes). Is this not analogous to human scale forces that approximate dowsing? (Yes) The problem isn't that there are no forces at human scale (demonstrably false), but that humans aren't that finely tuned.

Again, dowsing is nonsense. Not because QFT says so.

 

[steenkh]

Remember, I am addressing the claim that QFT rules out dowsing, not that dowsing is real. Thus, I need not propose specific mechanisms, I need only demonstrate there are human scale effects of QFT forces that approximate what might be necessary for dowsing.

One such (known) force is gravity. The actual mechanism of gravity is unknown, so declaring that we know all the effects of that mechanism is unsupportable.

How come that in this of all threads, when people make this argument, they never refer to, or criticise the very argument made in the OP?

Could you please refer to Carroll's presentation and explain why your argument still holds that there are unexplained human scale forces?

 

[Arcade22]

What do you mean by a unphysical false dilemma?

It is unphysical because there's no good theoretical reason to suppose that everything has to be composed by "particles or forces". Such a restriction is completely unwarranted.

I think "cannot be reduced" should be repalced by "is difficult to reduce". We can do it, it will just take a bit of logic. Everything that exists is caused by something.

And emergent phenomena are caused by the way things interact together. A great example is quantum entanglement where you cannot, for example, separate two particles into two separate pure states, but rather have to treat both particles as being in a pure state together.

 

[The Greater Fool]

I'd like to introduce people to this talk titled The Higgs Boson and the Fundamental Nature of Reality by physicist and skeptic Sean Carroll.



In it, Dr Carroll explains that while there is still much left to discover about the Universe, the fundamental physics of everyday life is now fully understood, and he explains how we know that we know this.

The result of this is that any claimed effect that happens in our everyday world (and not just in a particle accelerator or a supernova) and that also requires new laws of physics is automatically known to be false.

So homeopathy, for example, is ruled out by the normal laws of chemistry and physics. The result Dr Carroll discusses means that that is the end of the debate; there are no undiscovered laws of physics that can save the hypothesis. (If you were suggesting that homeopathy worked only on colliding neutron stars, that might be different, but here on Earth, it's dead and buried.)

I hope everyone will watch the video, because it's fascinating and entertaining and the result is truly remarkable. I don't expect that it will actually stop many arguments, but what it does mean is that we can say at precisely which point any given argument became, um, pointless.

You'll need to watch this lecture by physicist and skeptic Sean Carroll. It's a better explanation than I can provide.



Very briefly, quantum field theory allows us to model the interactions between matter and energy, and its predictions have been consistently confirmed and capped off recently with the discovery of the Higgs boson. While we certainly don't know everything (exactly what dark matter is, for example, or how general relativity integrates with quantum mechanics), we do have a very exact map of what we do and don't know.

Our understanding of the physics at the scales and energy levels we deal with in everyday life is complete and dowsing is flatly impossible.

Remember, I am addressing the claim that QFT rules out dowsing, not that dowsing is real. Thus, I need not propose specific mechanisms, I need only demonstrate there are human scale effects of QFT forces that approximate what might be necessary for dowsing.

... for the reasons in the rest of the post that was unquoted.

How come that in this of all threads, when people make this argument, they never refer to, or criticise the very argument made in the OP?

Could you please refer to Carroll's presentation and explain why your argument still holds that there are unexplained human scale forces?

The OP first linked the video in the Dowsing thread, making the highlighted statements, then broadened the argument to start this thread. My responses are in that context and address why the claim is wrong.

I don't disagree with any of the facts of QFT, just the claimed conclusion that it rules out all woo. I am not claiming "new laws or forces" are necessary, particularly in the case of dowsing.

I agree that in our four dimensions, we understand human scale things pretty well. In the additional dimensions beyond the four, we have no concept of what they are, if they are, what scale they are at, or how they might affect our four dimensions. The affects in our four dimensions may appear random or infrequent, but clearly predictable if we understood the other dimensions.

We've tested woo claims again and again, and there is not the slightest evidence they are in any sense real. This is why woo is woo. That this is consistent with what we understand of QFT is reassuring, for sure, but not proof QFT rules out all woo.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

How come that in this of all threads, when people make this argument, they never refer to, or criticise the very argument made in the OP?

Could you please refer to Carroll's presentation and explain why your argument still holds that there are unexplained human scale forces?

For argument's sake, one can find a gap in Carroll's presentation, only not as easily in the version presented at Skepticon. This version of essentially the same presentation has a slide at minute 30 based on Wilson that illustrates this gap graphically. The chart clearly marks out the inaccessible areas of potential particles or forces mentioned in both presentations.

That is, there remains a logical gap in which a very short range force, or much larger particles, might interact with baryonic matter, yet beyond our current ability to detect or measure. (Not that I wish to insert any woo in the gap; only admit to its existence.) That such interactions have no measurable importance in everyday existence or current experiment is one thing, but to declare them entirely nonexistent or of no effect in absolute terms is another.

Also, Carroll presents current knowledge as the sum of the Standard Model and General Relativity, yet clearly these remain in contradiction. Would resolving that incompatibility introduce new fields or particles? I don't know, but it is misleading to present the state of affairs as complete, even at the human scale, as a unified theory may introduce some effect or new understanding of the same.

So, while I agree with the science as far as it goes, the absolute claims made at the end of each presentation do not seem fully warranted. My concern is with the proper limits of claims, not one of finding a spot to attach my favorite woo.

 

[steenkh]

I don't disagree with any of the facts of QFT, just the claimed conclusion that it rules out all woo. I am not claiming "new laws or forces" are necessary, particularly in the case of dowsing.

I agree that in our four dimensions, we understand human scale things pretty well. In the additional dimensions beyond the four, we have no concept of what they are, if they are, what scale they are at, or how they might affect our four dimensions. The affects in our four dimensions may appear random or infrequent, but clearly predictable if we understood the other dimensions.

I thank you for making the effort and showing that you have reviewed the OP, but the actual argument by Carroll has strangely not been mentioned. The argument goes that if QFT is true - and there is a strong case to be made for this after the confirmation of Higg's boson - then we can use a special mathematical transformation to rule out new forces and fields from our everyday life. Homoeopaths may be able to claim that their remedies use everyday forces, but we know that normal physics cannot explain memory of water, nor how the body is supposed to read and act on it, so homoeopathy is ruled out just like everything involving souls and spirits.

We've tested woo claims again and again, and there is not the slightest evidence they are in any sense real. This is why woo is woo. That this is consistent with what we understand of QFT is reassuring, for sure, but not proof QFT rules out all woo.

We largely agree, but my understanding of Carroll is that QFT actually rules out all woo because woo would result in particles that we would have seen in the particle experiments in the energy range that have been exhaustively researched.

 

[steenkh]

For argument's sake, one can find a gap in Carroll's presentation, only not as easily in the version presented at Skepticon. This version of essentially the same presentation has a slide at minute 30 based on Wilson that illustrates this gap graphically. The chart clearly marks out the inaccessible areas of potential particles or forces mentioned in both presentations.

That is, there remains a logical gap in which a very short range force, or much larger particles, might interact with baryonic matter, yet beyond our current ability to detect or measure. (Not that I wish to insert any woo in the gap; only admit to its existence.) That such interactions have no measurable importance in everyday existence or current experiment is one thing, but to declare them entirely nonexistent or of no effect in absolute terms is another.

Also, Carroll presents current knowledge as the sum of the Standard Model and General Relativity, yet clearly these remain in contradiction. Would resolving that incompatibility introduce new fields or particles? I don't know, but it is misleading to present the state of affairs as complete, even at the human scale, as a unified theory may introduce some effect or new understanding of the same.

So, while I agree with the science as far as it goes, the absolute claims made at the end of each presentation do not seem fully warranted. My concern is with the proper limits of claims, not one of finding a spot to attach my favorite woo.

That is interesting. Yours is the first post taking on the argument rather than ignoring it. I have not the competence to form an opinion here; I rely Carroll's authority and people such as you to keep him straight.

 

[The Man]

If you care to read the posts your responding to, I addressed these questions.

No you didn't, you proposed no mechanisms.

Remember, I am addressing the claim that QFT rules out dowsing, not that dowsing is real. Thus, I need not propose specific mechanisms, I need only demonstrate there are human scale effects of QFT forces that approximate what might be necessary for dowsing.

If you would care to read the post you are responding to, perhaps again, you will see that I addressed such an assertion.

Saying that you addressed the questions asked about specific mechanisms then purporting that you "need not propose specific mechanisms" doesn't indicate that you did in fact address such questions.

One such (known) force is gravity. The actual mechanism of gravity is unknown, so declaring that we know all the effects of that mechanism is unsupportable.

"The actual mechanism of" electrical charge is also unknown, however its effects as well as those of gravity are well known and well modeled. Particularly within the human scale.

I neither said nor implied the dimensions beyond four were pulled out of the ether. Mathematically, it is easy to work with dimensions beyond four (I do it almost weekly). My statement is that we can't conceive the physical, spatial attributes and relationships. Go ahead, if you can, at explain the physical relationship of those dimensions beyond four. Everything I've read (not extensive) can't.

Perhaps you need better weekly reading material.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension_(mathematics_and_physics)#Additional_dimensions

Not sure what you are doing every week, but just what the heck do you think others are doing if not conceiving of "the physical, spatial attributes and relationships." of such higher dimensions? Now, certainly some of those concepts are wrong (Supersymmetry springs to mind, at least for me) but that don't mean people aien't or can't do it.

So, again: QFT describes the measurable effects in four (of 11-26) dimensions of forces (such as gravity) at human scales caused by mechanisms we have yet to see. The flip side, what we don't know, is much larger: There are force(s) that we have yet to identify, and 7-22 dimensions that we can't see, physically conceptualize, and that we can't measure. We don't know if any of this works at or affects human scale.

"can't see, physically conceptualize, and that we can't measure."?!?! Your own assertion stipulates that you do know none of it "works at or affects human scale". You can't have it both ways.

How about a thought experiment... In an otherwise vastly empty area, if in one opaque container was a liter (or billion) of lead, in another a liter (or billion) of Styrofoam and between the two containers you had a gravimeter (or a person). Would you be able to determine which container contained what, based on the gravity? (Yes). If the test was granite and water? (Yes). Is this not analogous to human scale forces that approximate dowsing? (Yes) The problem isn't that there are no forces at human scale (demonstrably false), but that humans aren't that finely tuned.

See, that wasn't so hard, you proposed a mechanism then refuted it yourself. Heck, you could just pick up a liter of lead or Styrofoam if you want to use human scale forces and gravity. Again you can't have it both ways questioning that their might be "human scale forces that approximate dowsing" then asserting "humans aren't that finely tuned" to identify such forces.

Again, dowsing is nonsense. Not because QFT says so.

Dowsing is nonsense because the evidence doesn't support it, it is the proposed mechanisms for dowsing that aren't there because "QFT says so" Clutch at the gaps all you want but they have scale as well.