Quantum Field Theory: The Woo Stops Here

[JoeMorgue]

Gap therefore Woo. Got it.

Again "But we can't know for sure!" and "But you don't know everything" are the twin Gods of anti-intellectualism.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Gap therefore Woo. Got it.

Again "But we can't know for sure!" and "But you don't know everything" are the twin Gods of anti-intellectualism.

Again, correct.

Again, no argument why it's NOT a gap.

Again, why QFT can't rule out much woo.

Again, when the argument is "we know everything", then equally valid is "we don't know everything."

 

[JoeMorgue]

Woo doesn't have to ruled out because it was never ruled in.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Woo doesn't have to ruled out because it was never ruled in.

They why a thread attempting to rule it out?

 

[steenkh]

The flaw is that we, in fact, don't know everything, a few important items I've listed.

Please find the flaw in Carroll's argument, rather than inventing flaws you just "feel" are there. Carroll is not claiming that we know everything, merely that we know enough.

But as I said, you can reject QFT, which is effectively what you are doing when you think that gravity is not handled adequately by modern physics.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Please find the flaw in Carroll's argument, rather than inventing flaws you just "feel" are there. Carroll is not claiming that we know everything, merely that we know enough.

But as I said, you can reject QFT, which is effectively what you are doing when you think that gravity is not handled adequately by modern physics.

Isn't it a simple assertion that we know 'enough'?

As I've said repeatedly, I have no issue with QFT. I have issue with the claim that QFT rules out woo, that it is over reach.

For QFT to rule out anything, the anything must claim to use particles or forces understood / defined in QFT. Most of the time, debunkers claim certain woo 'must' work a certain way, and that way won't work within QFT. Commonly refered to as a 'strawman.' Woosters rarely make claims about how their woo works, only that it does.

I have used gravity as an example of an effect at our scale that the mechasim(s) causing the effect are completely unknown. This has been largely ignored. While it appears to be a single mechanism (and this would be the rational thought), it may in fact be multiple mechanisms working in harmony. There may be unrelated mechanisms that work similarly with no discernable or predictable pattern at our scale, but have effect none the less.

The gaps are there. Woos fill it with woo. Others have put up signs: 'No woo here.' Both seem to be overreach.

 

[steenkh]

For QFT to rule out anything, the anything must claim to use particles or forces understood / defined in QFT.

No, the 'anything' must influence the stuff that our immediate world is made of, which is what QFT has been proven to model so remarkably well that we know that our normal stuff is not influenced by anything else.

The only things that QFT cannot rule out are effects too tiny to influence us, or effects so large that they will destroy us.

Maybe you missed the crux of Carroll's argument at 39:00 in the video? He shows that in QFT every interaction can be shown in a Feynman diagram. If you propose some new particle that QFT does not know about, it will be in the Feynman diagram. But QFT tells us that we can rotate this diagram and get an interaction that can be recreated and found in high-energy collisions. Our particle accelerators have cleaned out the entire range of possible collisions in the interesting energy range, and found no new interactions. So that is how we know there are no new particles.

The central argument takes less than a minute, but you could also start a little earlier, and run for about five minutes to get the full argument.

 

[tsig]

Isn't it a simple assertion that we know 'enough'?

As I've said repeatedly, I have no issue with QFT. I have issue with the claim that QFT rules out woo, that it is over reach.

For QFT to rule out anything, the anything must claim to use particles or forces understood / defined in QFT. Most of the time, debunkers claim certain woo 'must' work a certain way, and that way won't work within QFT. Commonly refered to as a 'strawman.' Woosters rarely make claims about how their woo works, only that it does.

I have used gravity as an example of an effect at our scale that the mechasim(s) causing the effect are completely unknown. This has been largely ignored. While it appears to be a single mechanism (and this would be the rational thought), it may in fact be multiple mechanisms working in harmony. There may be unrelated mechanisms that work similarly with no discernable or predictable pattern at our scale, but have effect none the less.

The gaps are there. Woos fill it with woo. Others have put up signs: 'No woo here.' Both seem to be overreach.

Since you don't understand QT why are you telling those who do understand it how to interpret it?

 

[The Greater Fool]

No, the 'anything' must influence the stuff that our immediate world is made of, which is what QFT has been proven to model so remarkably well that we know that our normal stuff is not influenced by anything else.

The only things that QFT cannot rule out are effects too tiny to influence us, or effects so large that they will destroy us.

Maybe you missed the crux of Carroll's argument at 39:00 in the video? He shows that in QFT every interaction can be shown in a Feynman diagram. If you propose some new particle that QFT does not know about, it will be in the Feynman diagram. But QFT tells us that we can rotate this diagram and get an interaction that can be recreated and found in high-energy collisions. Our particle accelerators have cleaned out the entire range of possible collisions in the interesting energy range, and found no new interactions. So that is how we know there are no new particles.

The central argument takes less than a minute, but you could also start a little earlier, and run for about five minutes to get the full argument.

As you and Carroll say, QFT cannot rule out tiny effects... like or similar to gravity. While we don't perceive the individual field effects, but the massive volume has a huge impact at our scale none the less. Additionally, while we know the pieces and rules, we don't know the combined effect of every combination.

ETA: Perhaps this is why massive amounts of prayer are required for miracles... Massive tiny effects

Since you don't understand QT why are you telling those who do understand it how to interpret it?

I apologize if you interpreted anything I've said as directing you how to do anything. I believed it was understood I was expressing my point of view and why other points of view might be overreaching. If anything, it seems folks are disturbed that I believe gaps in our knowledge, that Carroll acknowledges, exist.

At any rate, you all can believe QFT rules out all woo. I don't see it that way, but I have other varying reasons that rule out woo. Sadly, reality as any of us see it will have zero impact on woo.

Again, I sincerely thank you all for your time.

 

[ferd burfle]

QFT attempts to explain patterns we see. As we delve deeper, we see new patterns. QFT makes amazingly accurate predictions about particles and energies. When it comes to energies, we see the effects and can predict them extremely well. We have yet to see the mechanisms.

Let me start by emphasizing I'm not calling you a crackpot or your ideas crackpotterry. But this statement is almost verbatim from number 17 in John Baez's crackpot index:

10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".
​

http://http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

A theory is not required to explain the "why" of something or provide a mechanism to be valid. We've examined the range of particle energies that could affect humans and found all the bumps on the graph.

With respect,

ferd

 

[The Greater Fool]

Let me start by emphasizing I'm not calling you a crackpot or your ideas crackpotterry. But this statement is almost verbatim from number 17 in John Baez's crackpot index:

10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".
​

http://http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

A theory is not required to explain the "why" of something or provide a mechanism to be valid. We've examined the range of particle energies that could affect humans and found all the bumps on the graph.

With respect,

ferd

Thank you kindly. Oddly, I never accused QFT as not defining the mechanisms, and acknowledged, often, that the predictions were amazingly accurate. I was, however, frequently challenged to provide alternate mechanisms. Go figure.

I need not address the final comment, as I've been adequately thrashed on same.

 

[PixyMisa]

As you and Carroll say, QFT cannot rule out tiny effects... like or similar to gravity.

Actually, it rules out anything even 1000x weaker than gravity. And gravity is really weak; unless you have something the size of a small moon causing the effect, you're not going to even notice.

So such fields cannot account for any sort of woo.

At any rate, you all can believe QFT rules out all woo. I don't see it that way

Your objections are not valid.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Actually, it rules out anything even 1000x weaker than gravity. And gravity is really weak; unless you have something the size of a small moon causing the effect, you're not going to even notice.

So such fields cannot account for any sort of woo.


Your objections are not valid.

I know you feel that was necessary. Sad.

 

[PixyMisa]

I know you feel that was necessary. Sad.

I wasn't passing any moral judgement, just pointing out that there is no scientific basis for your position.

 

[The Greater Fool]

I wasn't passing any moral judgement, just pointing out that there is no scientific basis for your position.

Right. I'm glad you clarified your position (yet again, and again, oh! and again). All this time I'm sure everyone believed you were agreeing with me.

 

[steenkh]

Right. I'm glad you clarified your position (yet again, and again, oh! and again). All this time I'm sure everyone believed you were agreeing with me.

It is not a question of clarifying the position, because that was done long ago, but of presenting arguments explaining why the position is as it is.

PixyMisa put to you that QFT can confidently explain forces that are a thousand times weaker than the weakest force we know. You chose to ignore this and just restate your position.

Can we conclude that your position is more emotional than rational?

 

[The Greater Fool]

It is not a question of clarifying the position, because that was done long ago, but of presenting arguments explaining why the position is as it is.

PixyMisa put to you that QFT can confidently explain forces that are a thousand times weaker than the weakest force we know. You chose to ignore this and just restate your position.

Can we conclude that your position is more emotional than rational?

Give me a break.

Actually, if that's how you read the thread and my participation, fine. I think it might bear fresh examination.

I recognized, perhaps later than other participants, that it came down to "No" vs "Yes" with little exposition on the "No" side. I tried to bow out (with no parting "I am right, na na na"). Sadly, I was not afforded the same courtesy... again and again. But, apparently I am at fault somehow.

It was poor form for me to react to the pettiness. My apologies.

 

[tsig]

Give me a break.

Actually, if that's how you read the thread and my participation, fine. I think it might bear fresh examination.

I recognized, perhaps later than other participants, that it came down to "No" vs "Yes" with little exposition on the "No" side. I tried to bow out (with no parting "I am right, na na na"). Sadly, I was not afforded the same courtesy... again and again. But, apparently I am at fault somehow.

It was poor form for me to react to the pettiness. My apologies.

Look a notpology.

"I'm sorry you all are so petty".

Pro tip, if you don't want people to respond do not hit the 'submit' button.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Look a notpology.

"I'm sorry you all are so petty".

Pro tip, if you don't want people to respond do not hit the 'submit' button.

Thank you for the Pro tip.

Why twist words to find insult?

Where did I indicate I didn't want responses? I took exception to a few that I perceived as immature and petty. I responded in kind (hence MY apology). Otherwise, for PAGES, I was fair, courteous, and responsive to replies. Replies which I appreciated, and said as much.

I called 'everyone' petty? Really? I described a couple posts I responded to poorly as petty, which you interpret as calling 'everyone' petty? Interesting.

Exactly how would you characterize your post? Friendly? Helpful? Courteous? Mature? Tough Love? Do tell.

ETA: I read the 'notpology' again, I probably should have said 'perceived pettiness', though I doubt that would have changed much.

 

[dlorde]

As you and Carroll say, QFT cannot rule out tiny effects... like or similar to gravity. While we don't perceive the individual field effects, but the massive volume has a huge impact at our scale none the less. Additionally, while we know the pieces and rules, we don't know the combined effect of every combination.

But we do. Whatever is going on at the 'tiny' level, and however big the impact of the massive volume at our scale, we measure that impact when we measure how stuff behaves at our scale. The experiments have been done; all that 'tiny' stuff contributes to the measurements we make, and as was made clear, we don't need to explicitly consider those minutiae at macro scales, they're accounted for, summed into macro scale behaviour, and we know how the macro scale behaves.