Quantum Field Theory: The Woo Stops Here

Soapy Sam said:
You mean Windows 8?
Click to expand...
Windows 8 actually works quite well, it's just ugly. I'm talking Therac-25 here.

Same place it's held now, I suppose.
Click to expand...
There is no such place.

There must be a time lapse, unless the cause and effect are simultaneous.
Click to expand...
Effect follows cause at the speed of the particle carrying the field involved in the interaction - commonly at the speed of light, but not instantaneous.

If you want to propose some other delay, you are talking about a local hidden variable theory, and as far as we know, those cannot be true.

Actually, I feel "information" is not a helpful concept in this context.
Click to expand...
It might help to take a read of this: Physical informationWP. Information is a key concept in QM.

Whack a nail with a hammer and the nail doesn't need to be told to go down.
Click to expand...
Actually, whacking a nail with a hammer is telling it to go down. In physics, that impact is information.

I have to admit that I find that a rather shocking statement, particularly the way Carroll pulls it out of the hat in the vid. It's far from obvious where he's going and then wham!

It takes getting used to, even for a lifelong atheist and non-woo like myself. I doubt it is going to be accepted readily by anyone emotionally invested the other way.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
Soapy Sam said:
Emotions are part of reality. I'm not sure what you mean. Could you clarify?
Click to expand...

“The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.”
 
This thread is extremely interesting - I just wish I could memorise the main things so that I could trot them out whenever I have the opportunity!
 
tsig said:
“The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.”
Click to expand...

Interesting example of your point to choose. The realities of what Khayyam wrote and the translation Fitzgerald wrote are often very different- more a mapping than a translation in some places. (A Fitzgerald contraction?)
I agree emotion can't change reality after the event, but then, nor can anything else. Changing reality before the event may be simple, but how would we ever know?

I do take your meaning, about reality and desire, though I think Kipling said it better- http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poems_copybook.htm :)
 
I have never claimed any such thing.
Click to expand...

steenkh claimed this. I even quoted him in my reply. Can you not pretend every single reply is directed at you?

The point is that people are trying to do an end run around the laws by asserting that something might exist that does not interact. Something that does not interact, by definition, does not exist.
Click to expand...

No, the point is that some people are claiming that if something interacts with the brain then the particle which is involved in the interaction can be detected (you would probably say "by definition" or something else equally wrong). i.e. if something interacts via particles with the brain, it will show up in basic particle physics experiments. This is not correct, as I have shown. A particle can interact weakly enough or on a short enough time scale as to be undetectable, yet have a real physical effect.

Edit: Ah, I see where you're coming from. You're conflating two completely separate points.
Click to expand...

Huh? Are you just saying this to try to save face?

First, we have, as Sean Carroll explains, definitive evidence that there are no new laws of physics that both act at everyday scales and are strong enough to account for any form of woo.
Click to expand...

What does this even mean? (Please explain it in your own words)

The statement, as it is written, is nonsensical. We don't know if QFT (i.e. the current best approximation we have at the energy scales it explains) is the best and more accurate physical law of reality that can be written down. It almost certainly isn't, because it isn't compatible with a bunch of other stuff that we have equal reason to believe is true. Therefore, there is probably a better law of physics out there that is waiting to be discovered that is better and will replace QFT.

I don't even know what you mean by "strong enough to account for any form of woo", or how that has any bearing on this discussion.

Second, we have the definition that something that does not interact does not exist.
Click to expand...

Here, you clearly need some help with this, so I'll walk you through it:

existence -- the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence.

This is from merriam-webster. Probably the most pertinent definition to the discussion. Do you see how the word "interact" does not appear in the definition? This means that "interaction" is not a necessary logical property of existence according to the definition. i.e. if you want to claim that something which does not interact does not exist, you need to show a logical argument why this is necessarily so.

If you want to look at various other sources discussing existence in a physical or philosophical sense, you will see that none of them discuss interaction as a necessary property for existence.

The lesson to take home from this is that just because you use the words "by definition" does not make it a definition, and it certainly does not make it true.

As I've said several times before, a system containing particle X which does not interact is identical to a system not containing particle X. So a particle that does not interact is a particle that does not exist, and the hypotheticals raised in this thread that do not interact likewise do not exist.
Click to expand...

This is so wrong it is laughable. If you have two quantum systems each consisting of one particle that do not interact with each other, this is physically different than having one quantum system, by any set of non-idiot definitions of "exist", "interact", and "system". And both particles exist, again by any reasonable definition of "exist". I honestly have no idea what the hell you are thinking or trying to say.

Any other incorrect physics-sounding statements that you want to arbitrarily make up and be wrong about? Just say "by definition", I am sure you will fool some people about your lack of understanding.
 
Last edited:
NotEvenWrong said:
steenkh claimed this. I even quoted him in my reply. Can you not pretend every single reply is directed at you?

No, the point is that some people are claiming that if something interacts with the brain then the particle which is involved in the interaction can be detected (you would probably say "by definition" or something else equally wrong). i.e. if something interacts via particles with the brain, it will show up in basic particle physics experiments. This is not correct, as I have shown. A particle can interact weakly enough or on a short enough time scale as to be undetectable, yet have a real physical effect.

Huh? Are you just saying this to try to save face?

What does this even mean? (Please explain it in your own words)

The statement, as it is written, is nonsensical. We don't know if QFT (i.e. the current best approximation we have at the energy scales it explains) is the best and more accurate physical law of reality that can be written down. It almost certainly isn't, because it isn't compatible with a bunch of other stuff that we have equal reason to believe is true. Therefore, there is probably a better law of physics out there that is waiting to be discovered that is better and will replace QFT.

I don't even know what you mean by "strong enough to account for any form of woo", or how that has any bearing on this discussion.

Here, you clearly need some help with this, so I'll walk you through it:

existence -- the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence.

This is from merriam-webster. Probably the most pertinent definition to the discussion. Do you see how the word "interact" does not appear in the definition? This means that "interaction" is not a necessary logical property of existence according to the definition. i.e. if you want to claim that something which does not interact does not exist, you need to show a logical argument why this is necessarily so.

If you want to look at various other sources discussing existence in a physical or philosophical sense, you will see that none of them discuss interaction as a necessary property for existence.

The lesson to take home from this is that just because you use the words "by definition" does not make it a definition, and it certainly does not make it true.

This is so wrong it is laughable. If you have two quantum systems each consisting of one particle that do not interact with each other, this is physically different than having one quantum system, by any set of non-idiot definitions of "exist", "interact", and "system". And both particles exist, again by any reasonable definition of "exist". I honestly have no idea what the hell you are thinking or trying to say.

Any other incorrect physics-sounding statements that you want to arbitrarily make up and be wrong about? Just say "by definition", I am sure you will fool some people about your lack of understanding.
Click to expand...

Long on bluster, short on evidence.
 
PixyMisa said:
The hypotheticals being raised here don't just have no detectable effect, they have no interaction by definition. That means that they don't exist by definition.
Click to expand...

PixyMisa is wrong, by definition.

But for precisely that reason we can exclude gravity or similarly weak forces as causes for woo effects because we'd be talking about a field source the size of a mountain range, which we would notice.
Click to expand...

Can you show your calculation for size of the "field source", if we had a previously unknown virtual particle that interacts with the brain? A back of the envelope calculation will be fine. I mainly just want to check if you're still just arbitrarily making stuff up that sounds physics'y.
 
Last edited:
NotEvenWrong said:
I agree. PixyMisa just seems to keep making stuff up without any evidence or argument to support it. Claiming something is true "by definition" only works for so long.
Click to expand...
I only quoted you, thus the comment is meant for your posts. I'm unsurprised by your tactic here, though.
 
The Norseman said:
I only quoted you, thus the comment is meant for your posts. I'm unsurprised by your tactic here, though.
Click to expand...

I know, that's what I found so amusing ;).

Just for fun, can you note for me what claim I am making and what evidence you are looking for? (Hopefully once you think about this question for a second or two you will realize your error.)
 
NotEvenWrong said:
steenkh claimed this. I even quoted him in my reply. Can you not pretend every single reply is directed at you?



No, the point is that some people are claiming that if something interacts with the brain then the particle which is involved in the interaction can be detected (you would probably say "by definition" or something else equally wrong). i.e. if something interacts via particles with the brain, it will show up in basic particle physics experiments. This is not correct, as I have shown. A particle can interact weakly enough or on a short enough time scale as to be undetectable, yet have a real physical effect.


Huh? Are you just saying this to try to save face?



What does this even mean? (Please explain it in your own words)

The statement, as it is written, is nonsensical. We don't know if QFT (i.e. the current best approximation we have at the energy scales it explains) is the best and more accurate physical law of reality that can be written down. It almost certainly isn't, because it isn't compatible with a bunch of other stuff that we have equal reason to believe is true. Therefore, there is probably a better law of physics out there that is waiting to be discovered that is better and will replace QFT.
I don't even know what you mean by "strong enough to account for any form of woo", or how that has any bearing on this discussion.



Here, you clearly need some help with this, so I'll walk you through it:

existence -- the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence.

This is from merriam-webster. Probably the most pertinent definition to the discussion. Do you see how the word "interact" does not appear in the definition? This means that "interaction" is not a necessary logical property of existence according to the definition. i.e. if you want to claim that something which does not interact does not exist, you need to show a logical argument why this is necessarily so.

If you want to look at various other sources discussing existence in a physical or philosophical sense, you will see that none of them discuss interaction as a necessary property for existence.

The lesson to take home from this is that just because you use the words "by definition" does not make it a definition, and it certainly does not make it true.



This is so wrong it is laughable. If you have two quantum systems each consisting of one particle that do not interact with each other, this is physically different than having one quantum system, by any set of non-idiot definitions of "exist", "interact", and "system". And both particles exist, again by any reasonable definition of "exist". I honestly have no idea what the hell you are thinking or trying to say.

Any other incorrect physics-sounding statements that you want to arbitrarily make up and be wrong about? Just say "by definition", I am sure you will fool some people about your lack of understanding.
Click to expand...

NotEvenWrong said:
I know, that's what I found so amusing ;).

Just for fun, can you note for me what claim I am making and what evidence you are looking for? (Hopefully once you think about this question for a second or two you will realize your error.)
Click to expand...

Hilited three.
 
NotEvenWrong said:
A particle can interact weakly enough or on a short enough time scale as to be undetectable, yet have a real physical effect.
Click to expand...
This is dead wrong if you accept Carroll's argument. If you do not accept it, you should be able to point out where he is wrong.

Then of course, you constantly hint that QFT is not good enough, thus colliding with his main point that QFT has gained so much credibility that even though it still needs to be worked over, it is good enough for our everyday lives.
 
NotEvenWrong said:
A particle can interact weakly enough or on a short enough time scale as to be undetectable, yet have a real physical effect.
Click to expand...
steenkh said:
This is dead wrong if you accept Carroll's argument. If you do not accept it, you should be able to point out where he is wrong.
Click to expand...
Gravity is such a particle.

Gravity has an extremely small effect, but it is the vast amount that we feel at our scale. In one of his graphs, Carroll acknowledges that we can detect the large/long effects, but half of his graph is small/short effect particles currently not detected. Gravity resides the the latter (small/short) part of the graph.

What effect at our scale remains unexplained, that could be caused by a massive volume of unknown small/short particles? [Directed at NotEvenWrong]
 
Last edited:
tsig said:
You're suggesting an agency that can affect the universe but can't be detected experimentally because it doesn't want to act within an experiment?
Click to expand...

The Greater Fool said:
It has been suggested to me, yes. Fundementalist brother, you know. :blush:
Click to expand...

Yes I know too many fundamentalists.:bricks:

If this entity doesn't show up in experiments and the experiments tell us how the universe works then the non appearing entity is not needed to explain the the working of the universe.

(nice shave Occam):)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom