Quantum Field Theory: The Woo Stops Here

[The Man]

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.

Exactly.

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.

Well, that's the rub of it we've gone well beyond human scales (for good reason) and the only detectable anomalies attributable to such woo claims are those resulting from just people.

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.

Again, exactly.

 

[PixyMisa]

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.

Carroll mentions that more than once in the lecture. He points out that very short range means something on the order of the width of an atom - and such a force is not going to have any direct effect on our everyday lives.

Such a force might exist - but it can't matter. So it's not a logical gap.

 

[PixyMisa]

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.

What you would have to claim here is that gravity is not a field (in the QFT sense) but magic fairy sprinkles that do whatever is needed to justify your favoured brand of woo.

There's just one problem with that: It is unmitigated nonsense. We have not yet detected the hypothesized graviton, but QFT characterises gravity very precisely, and we have tested that characterisation very precisely, and it is correct. And it does not allow for dowsing in any way, shape, or form.

You're making a God of the gaps argument where there is neither a God nor a gap. Dowsing is, as QFT shows, quite impossible, but we should never forget that it also does not work.

 

[PixyMisa]

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.

No good theoretical reason apart from Quantum Field Theory, the exact theory under discussion here?

 

[dlorde]

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.

In the video, Carroll goes to great pains to point out that he's not claiming that our knowledge of the present state of affairs is complete, nor that unknown forces, particles, fields, or effects are impossible in absolute terms. He explicitly states that his analysis is only that, as you say, 'such interactions have no measurable importance in everyday existence'.

QFT doesn't have to be the whole story; there may be other fields, forces, dimensions, etc. Nevertheless, Our experimental reach and the theory behind it are sufficient to tell us, beyond reasonable doubt, that whatever the unknowns out there, they can not be relevant at everyday scales - just as Newtonian mechanics isn't the whole story, but is sufficient to tell us, in everyday terms, what will happen if you crash your car into a brick wall at 50mph, or to guide us on a journey to the moon and back.

When I grasped the implications of what Carroll was saying, I had an ambiguous response; on the one hand, I was delighted to have a solid argument for dismissing the vast majority of woo; on the other, I was a bit sad that the fantasy possibilities that had lurked at the back of my mind since childhood had finally been shown to be just that - fantasy.

 

[The Greater Fool]

No you didn't, you proposed no mechanisms.




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.




"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.





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.



"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.




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.




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.

What you would have to claim here is that gravity is not a field (in the QFT sense) but magic fairy sprinkles that do whatever is needed to justify your favoured brand of woo.

There's just one problem with that: It is unmitigated nonsense. We have not yet detected the hypothesized graviton, but QFT characterises gravity very precisely, and we have tested that characterisation very precisely, and it is correct. And it does not allow for dowsing in any way, shape, or form.

You're making a God of the gaps argument where there is neither a God nor a gap. Dowsing is, as QFT shows, quite impossible, but we should never forget that it also does not work.

I have said gravity itself has effects at human level that could be part of dowsing. I even employed a thought experiment to demonstrate the effect. No, I don't know how gravity works, no one does. We just know the effects to an amazing degree.

Please explain how such a gravitational effect is impossible at human scale when it is the exact same gravitational effect we feel at human scale.

Again, every human attempt at dowsing in controlled environment has failed. It seems extremely improbable that anyone can discern the slight differences necessary to succeed. Again, were the elements large enough, seperated enough, and with no muddling gravitational effects, it seems possible. It's not becuase the effects aren't there at human scale, its that their are too many effects that can't be differentiated by every human tested.

God of the gaps? Force of the gaps? No. To me, there appears to be no gap, gravity is already there.

 

[dlorde]

I have said gravity itself has effects at human level that could be part of dowsing. I even employed a thought experiment to demonstrate the effect. No, I don't know how gravity works, no one does. We just know the effects to an amazing degree.

Please explain how such a gravitational effect is impossible at human scale when it is the exact same gravitational effect we feel at human scale.

Gravity is just too weak a force to be detectable at a human scale unless planetary masses are invoked. There's no good evidence we can even directly detect the gravity of the moon, despite it raising tides. Gravitational variations on a local scale, i.e. small enough to associate with dowsing, are not detectable even with the most sensitive detectors, and humans do not have hypersensitive gravitational detectors. Our physiology is based on the electromagnetic force, which is roughly 10³⁶ times stronger than gravity.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Carroll mentions that more than once in the lecture. He points out that very short range means something on the order of the width of an atom - and such a force is not going to have any direct effect on our everyday lives.

Such a force might exist - but it can't matter. So it's not a logical gap.

Only to quibble, as in gral I agree with the thrust of Carroll's arguments: one can posit that such small fields might have a relation to, say, the properties of quarks. While this might not affect us directly, its effects might scale up to the atomic level or beyond.

At one point in the presentations he declares no life after death as proven, for example. I don't think there is, either. But a short range force acting at less than the width of the atom could, in theory, be a mechanism for copying our woo into the next realm. I don't believe that, but it does mean the absolute declaration is not yet justified.

In practice, I suspect Carroll is entirely right. Just trying to limit claims to where they fairly reach.

 

[PixyMisa]

I have said gravity itself has effects at human level that could be part of dowsing.

Yes, you've said that. However, it is not true.

We just know the effects to an amazing degree.

Correct. We do. And we know that it is utterly impossible for gravity to be the mechanism for dowsing. (Even if dowsing worked, which it doesn't.)

Carroll notes this explicitly in his lecture. Gravity is really weak. To produce a gravitational field strong enough for humans to notice at all, you need a ball of rock several miles across - and you'd need to be just about standing on top of it even then.* If you are dowsing for balls of rock several miles across, there are probably easier ways to go about the task.

* On the surface of Mars's moon Phobos, a potato-shaped rock about 15 miles long, an adult human would weigh about an ounce.

 

[PixyMisa]

Only to quibble, as in gral I agree with the thrust of Carroll's arguments: one can posit that such small fields might have a relation to, say, the properties of quarks. While this might not affect us directly, its effects might scale up to the atomic level or beyond.

But what field propagates this scaling up? It can't be the weak or strong forces, as they're too short-ranged. It can't be gravity, as it's too weak (and simply doesn't behave like that). And it's not the electromagnetic force, because we'd have noticed; our instruments are very very good at detecting that sort of thing.

And it's not anything else either, because we know there isn't anything else. Not at that scale and energy level.

At one point in the presentations he declares no life after death as proven, for example. I don't think there is, either. But a short range force acting at less than the width of the atom could, in theory, be a mechanism for copying our woo into the next realm. I don't believe that, but it does mean the absolute declaration is not yet justified.

Nope, that's impossible. Your mind is distributed across your brain. No field acting only at atomic distances can do anything cohesive with your mind.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Gravity is just too weak a force to be detectable at a human scale unless planetary masses are invoked. There's no good evidence we can even directly detect the gravity of the moon, despite it raising tides. Gravitational variations on a local scale, i.e. small enough to associate with dowsing, are not detectable even with the most sensitive detectors, and humans do not have hypersensitive gravitational detectors. Our physiology is based on the electromagnetic force, which is roughly 10³⁶ times stronger than gravity.

Yes, you've said that. However, it is not true.


Correct. We do. And we know that it is utterly impossible for gravity to be the mechanism for dowsing. (Even if dowsing worked, which it doesn't.)

Carroll notes this explicitly in his lecture. Gravity is really weak. To produce a gravitational field strong enough for humans to notice at all, you need a ball of rock several miles across - and you'd need to be just about standing on top of it even then.* If you are dowsing for balls of rock several miles across, there are probably easier ways to go about the task.

* On the surface of Mars's moon Phobos, a potato-shaped rock about 15 miles long, an adult human would weigh about an ounce.

Thanks for pummeling me into submission. I'm convinced.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

But what field propagates this scaling up? It can't be the weak or strong forces, as they're too short-ranged. It can't be gravity, as it's too weak (and simply doesn't behave like that). And it's not the electromagnetic force, because we'd have noticed; our instruments are very very good at detecting that sort of thing.

And it's not anything else either, because we know there isn't anything else. Not at that scale and energy level.

Excellent objection. My little scenario would require a change, say, in the up or down properties of quarks, affecting the nature of the parent particle itself (proton or neutron), which would have a vast effect.

But to my knowledge, which is limited, there are no observations of proton decay, even if some unification theories require it. Maybe there would be a short range force at work? I know too little about other quark properties that I cannot even posit what changing, say, charm values might do, other than result in a spate of particle petulance.

The (entirely hypothetical) point is not that the unknown force itself might scale up, but anything acting on subatomic particles would engender changes in values that other known forces would then act upon.

Nope, that's impossible. Your mind is distributed across your brain. No field acting only at atomic distances can do anything cohesive with your mind.

Now that is a different kettle of fish altogether. A materialist view of the brain would admit that it is a collection, at some level, of particle states. If ~ a huge, enormous "if" ~ the sum total of all states were somehow abstracted by this "woo force," we might have something.... Not that I claim that this is the case, nor that there is the remotest evidence for it.

...

Pls keep objecting! As a layman non-physicist, my goal is to have fun thinking about this stuff, until such time as I've managed to make myself look sufficiently foolish, even if a tad more informed by those in the know.

 

[dlorde]

The (entirely hypothetical) point is not that the unknown force itself might scale up, but anything acting on subatomic particles would engender changes in values that other known forces would then act upon.

The point is (as the video makes clear), that whatever the effects of any unknown forces that may be acting at the subatomic level, we already know how they play out at the atomic level and above, because we've done the experiments, we've measured how stuff behaves at the larger scale. Ken Wilson (Nobel prizewinner 1982) has already explained how the precise details of one scale are not of concern to behaviour at different scales (see the video at 35 min 00 sec).

A materialist view of the brain would admit that it is a collection, at some level, of particle states. If ~ a huge, enormous "if" ~ the sum total of all states were somehow abstracted by this "woo force," we might have something...

You'll have to explain more precisely what you mean, because 'somehow abstracted' means nothing to me. Given the scale abstraction noted by Wilson (above), and that we already know how stuff behaves at the scale of human physiology, even your 'huge, enormous "if"' is untenable. That was rather the point of the thread...

 

[PixyMisa]

Excellent objection. My little scenario would require a change, say, in the up or down properties of quarks, affecting the nature of the parent particle itself (proton or neutron), which would have a vast effect.

But that effect would be localised to an atomic nucleus. For the effect to propagate, it would have to be via the electromagnetic force - there are no other options - and if that were happening, we would know.

We regularly subject human brains to enormously strong electromagnetic fields - medical imaging, for example - and we observe nothing of the kind of effect you are proposing. If a medical scanner that can rip metal clean out of your body can't produce the effect, how can an unaided brain do so? And how is it that it happens without a tornado of exploding light bulbs and melted iPhones?

Now that is a different kettle of fish altogether. A materialist view of the brain would admit that it is a collection, at some level, of particle states. If ~ a huge, enormous "if" ~ the sum total of all states were somehow abstracted by this "woo force," we might have something.

And that is exactly what QFT shows is impossible.

 

[The Man]

I have said gravity itself has effects at human level that could be part of dowsing. I even employed a thought experiment to demonstrate the effect. No, I don't know how gravity works, no one does. We just know the effects to an amazing degree.

Correct on both counts, gravity certainly has effects detectible within the human scale and some of them are employed in dowsing, though not really in the way you have been suggesting. In some forms of dowsing, with the two rods, it is in fact gravity (of the Earth) that rotates the rods (based on the orientation of the hands holding them).

Please explain how such a gravitational effect is impossible at human scale when it is the exact same gravitational effect we feel at human scale.

In the post you quoted I asserted some gravitational effects at the human scale. Just pick the liter of whatever up, but that is simply not how dowsing is purported to work. So it seems odd that you would ask me to now explain how such forces would be impossible. Again it is certainly not forces within the human scale that would be impossible under QFT, just the purported mechanisms of some things like dowsing.

Again, every human attempt at dowsing in controlled environment has failed. It seems extremely improbable that anyone can discern the slight differences necessary to succeed. Again, were the elements large enough, seperated enough, and with no muddling gravitational effects, it seems possible. It's not becuase the effects aren't there at human scale, its that their are too many effects that can't be differentiated by every human tested.

God of the gaps? Force of the gaps? No. To me, there appears to be no gap, gravity is already there.

Sure, some day we may be able to develop some kind of sensing device (like the Star Trek tricorder) to identify different things in the surrounding area. One might even assert that it would be analogous (at least in some ways) to dowsing. However, even such an assertion claims it would not be dowsing but just analogous to it.

 

[Arcade22]

No good theoretical reason apart from Quantum Field Theory, the exact theory under discussion here?

Considering that quantum field theory does not assume that everything is made up by either "particles" or by "forces", yes absolutely.

 

[PixyMisa]

Considering that quantum field theory does not assume that everything is made up by either "particles" or by "forces", yes absolutely.

So what exactly are you proposing as an alternative?

 

[Hlafordlaes]

The point is (as the video makes clear), that whatever the effects of any unknown forces that may be acting at the subatomic level, we already know how they play out at the atomic level and above, because we've done the experiments, we've measured how stuff behaves at the larger scale. Ken Wilson (Nobel prizewinner 1982) has already explained how the precise details of one scale are not of concern to behaviour at different scales (see the video at 35 min 00 sec).

You'll have to explain more precisely what you mean, because 'somehow abstracted' means nothing to me. Given the scale abstraction noted by Wilson (above), and that we already know how stuff behaves at the scale of human physiology, even your 'huge, enormous "if"' is untenable. That was rather the point of the thread...

But that effect would be localised to an atomic nucleus. For the effect to propagate, it would have to be via the electromagnetic force - there are no other options - and if that were happening, we would know.

We regularly subject human brains to enormously strong electromagnetic fields - medical imaging, for example - and we observe nothing of the kind of effect you are proposing. If a medical scanner that can rip metal clean out of your body can't produce the effect, how can an unaided brain do so? And how is it that it happens without a tornado of exploding light bulbs and melted iPhones?

And that is exactly what QFT shows is impossible.

The core assumption involved in Carroll's rejection of life after death via QFT is that there is no possible mediating physical force, or quantum field, that could account for consciousness, and in particular, any post-biological persistence thereof.

So, one difficulty is in dealing with this assumption of a required field. It is central to Carroll's argument; he specifically states it as premise. It is not something I wish to propose and then explain how it should work: that's Carroll's pending task! I just say "information is somehow abstracted" in order to continue in Carroll's vein of argument.

Further, I reject the notion that any such exotic field or other effect, such as QM-derived woo, is needed to explain the workings of subjective consciousness itself. In fact, I think neuroscience requires none of it.

In my arguments so far, there is a difference: (a) a field to explain consciousness as experienced (Carroll), vs (b) a field to carry information about particle states (me). The second form - posited as possible but not claimed as known - is not something we need be aware of, nor experience on any level whatsoever, nor have necessarily observed, since its purported mystical workings have also never been observed.

So, if "it were happening," we would not know.

What I have argued so far is that, insofar as information about the particle/field states that make up a brain might be held by another field, that field could potentially lie among the inaccessible known unknowns as per Wilson. That the field would be extremely short range is of no consequence, since we are already dealing with an imponderable and unknown mechanism that - in this far-fetched scenario - needs to carry information from the natural world into some other. There are no a priori restrictions, then, on field strength, particle mass, or range, other than that any new field(s) lie among the known unknowns.

This is key to the problems with Carroll's argument. He relies on the lack of a detected field as a natural mechanism for connecting to a non-natural state to deny life after death, when this is a contradiction. Note that I do not subscribe to the existence of a non-natural realm, but am trying to make sense of Carroll's arguments in their own terms.

Certainly to carry on a debate such as the one in this thread we would benefit from closer examination of Carroll's views of consciousness, not QFT.

And is not the point of this or any thread to tease out these matters?

 

[PixyMisa]

The core assumption involved in Carroll's rejection of life after death via QFT is that there is no possible mediating physical force, or quantum field, that could account for consciousness, and in particular, any post-biological persistence thereof.

Consciousness is brain function. No special field needs to be postulated, and Carroll doesn't do this. On the contrary, he shows how we know that no such special field can possibly exist

The only reason to propose such a field is if you are proposing that consciousness persists after death. And if you are, that's your own train wreck to deal with.

So, one difficulty is in dealing with this assumption of a required field. It is central to Carroll's argument; he specifically states it as premise.

No. See above.

Further, I reject the notion that any such exotic field or other effect, such as QM-derived woo, is needed to explain the workings of subjective consciousness itself. In fact, I think neuroscience requires none of it.

Right. And Carroll never proposes such a field.

In my arguments so far, there is a difference: (a) a field to explain consciousness as experienced (Carroll), vs (b) a field to carry information about particle states (me). The second form - posited as possible but not claimed as known - is not something we need be aware of, nor experience on any level whatsoever, nor have necessarily observed, since its purported mystical workings have also never been observed.

The video explains precisely why your proposed field cannot possibly exist.

So, if "it were happening," we would not know.

Yes we would. That's exactly what Carroll demonstrates in the video.

What I have argued so far is that, insofar as information about the particle/field states that make up a brain might be held by another field, that field could potentially lie among the inaccessible known unknowns as per Wilson.

No. If it were in that range, it couldn't possibly do what you are proposing.

That the field would be extremely short range is of no consequence

It is of every consequence. It kills your argument stone dead.

This is key to the problems with Carroll's argument. He relies on the lack of a detected field as a natural mechanism for connecting to a non-natural state to deny life after death, when this is a contradiction. Note that I do not subscribe to the existence of a non-natural realm, but am trying to make sense of Carroll's arguments in their own terms.

No you're not. You're talking here about magic, about a universe that is not logically consistent. You can do that, but no-one has any duty to take what you are saying seriously.

Certainly to carry on a debate such as the one in this thread we would benefit from closer examination of Carroll's views of consciousness, not QFT.

Not at all. All we need is QFT. There can be no field that can sustain consciousness after death, regardless of what you think the precise mechanism for consciousness is.

And is not the point of this or any thread to tease out these matters?

Perhaps, but your argument needs to follow logically from its premises.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Consciousness is brain function. No special field needs to be postulated, and Carroll doesn't do this. On the contrary, he shows how we know that no such special field can possibly exist

The only reason to propose such a field is if you are proposing that consciousness persists after death. And if you are, that's your own train wreck to deal with.

Bold added. No, Carroll is proposing that the lack of a field demonstrates no life after death.

The video you linked to, minute 46+: "We know that there is no life after death. If you believe in life after death, tell me what particles contain the information that moves your soul from place to place."

While discussing this, the slide shows several areas of woo that indeed can be dismissed, as all (but one) would logically rely on action at distances that would fall within the range of known QFT forces, such as clairvoyance or bending spoons. However, by lumping in "no life after death," he is implicitly claiming some type of action, at distances that fall in those same ranges or scales. That claims knowledge of workings of an impossible phenomenon qualitatively unlike the others on the list.

No. See above.

He claims that there is no force that "moves your immortal soul from place to place." That is the assumption of a required field, stated clearly and on the record.

Right. And Carroll never proposes such a field.

See above.

The video explains precisely why your proposed field cannot possibly exist.

It is Carroll's proposed need for a field, the idea which I am tossing around for fun, and to see if he can make the claims made. And, once again, given that the operation of such a purported field is a total unknown, any a priori restrictions make no sense. For example, one cannot exclude new physics operating at subatomic levels, the "non-everyday" realm not excluded by known forces, unless one claims to know all about "soul transport."

Yes we would. That's exactly what Carroll demonstrates in the video.

He does not successfully demonstrate that at all. Because no definition is given (or possible) for any force capable of "moving souls," no restrictions may be placed on the scale of operation.

No. If it were in that range, it couldn't possibly do what you are proposing.

Do exactly what? Do what Carroll claims would need be the case? I think you need to recognize there is a problem here.

It is of every consequence. It kills your argument stone dead.

How so? You, or Carroll, or anyone, will need to describe what any force might do to "move souls" in order to say any force at any scale cannot do so.

You see the problem? If one claims there are no known forces for moving souls, one claims that (a) a force is required and (b) knowledge about what is being moved and how.

No you're not. You're talking here about magic, about a universe that is not logically consistent. You can do that, but no-one has any duty to take what you are saying seriously.

The quandary arises when one uses QFT to make claims about what only could be considered a supernatural phenomenon. It's a fundamental contradiction.

Personal dismissals are not logical argument. Let us stay civil.

Not at all. All we need is QFT. There can be no field that can sustain consciousness after death, regardless of what you think the precise mechanism for consciousness is.

Substantiate that claim, providing definitions. In so doing, you will find insurmountable problems and face contradictions.

Perhaps, but your argument needs to follow logically from its premises.

Carroll's argument is too sweeping. While I would love concrete proof of no life after death, I am afraid that via this approach, that is not forthcoming.