Is Quantum Mechanics First Principles Enough?

[BenTheMan]

Well, fredrik should be along shortly

 

The point I am getting at is basically that, who knows really what the heck people will learn about reality in the next hundred years.

 

This all depends on what experiments they preform---let's be perfectly clear that NOTHING can be learned untill we do more experiments. Then there will be more discussion by people like you about ``deeper reality'' and so on untill we iron quantum gravity out.

[swansont]

Hold on a second, you are obviously the science bunch that read science textbooks, learn the modern interpretation of it (repeat: _intepretation_) without any real knowledge of the actual evolution of the theory, and perhaps the interpretation as seen through the eyes of the founders of such theory (even though they themselves may not be right, or have complete view of the theory's potential, etc).

 

There is such thing as: 'principle', through which logical, scientific and mathematical relationships that is physics, can be successfully applied. Lets look at the numerous numerous examples.

 

Einstein wanted to reinforce the principle of special/general relativity because he 'believed' it was true in life, that was the foundation of his theory on it. It agreed with experiments hence its now good.

 

Wolfgang Pauli hypothesized the existance of the neutrino because of his 'belief' that the energy is surposed to be conserved. Energy conservation is a principle, a good willed belief. The neutrino was discovered later.

 

ETC ETC

 

So, it is no suprize that there are those in the scientific comunity (Einstein being one also!) that believes the world is deterministic and that particles infact do travel continuous, real paths. It is only because of QM's current inabilities, that such actual particle dynamics are not theorized. It doesnt make this 'belief' wrong. Maybe you just dont like the word belief and get all technical on me, and maybe i could have used a better term like the statement of a principle, etc - but like it or not ill stick to the word belief because ultimately that is what it is, it is when you can build a theory on this belief and that it agrees with experiments that it becomes science. Lets wake up a little.

 

 

It's not so much the use of "belief" as the equivocation that is occuring when using the word. There's belief because of a tremendous amount of evidence, e.g. in gravity and the notion that the sun will rise tomorrow. Then there is belief with no evidence or belief that is contradicted by evidence.

 

If your belief is such that evidence will not sway you, then it is the latter definition, and it's simply not science. It's religion.

 

"I blieve in determinism and so did Einstein" is appeal to authority, a fallacy. It means nothing.

 

Yet this proves you dont understand what I am saying or what is going on here. Do you not understand that the conservation of energy is a PRINCIPLE. We call it a law because it is so strongly substantiated in all forms of life that we can call it a law' date=' but ultimately its a principle. Something that is the very basic foundation, perhaps abstractly controlled by natures wierd ways (which physics will never be able to __explain__ and shall never aim to anyways). But it is no doubt that if for example, conservation laws were not to be conserved then certain theories may certainly break down.

 

I hope you do realize that Pauli looked at the problem of the missing energy, then he went on to apply a principle here to reinforce his postulate of what is the 'neutrino' now, that energy has to be conserved in life (this is a belief also!!! a good belief, yes but a belief! a principle!).

 

Its like how the lorentz transformation is so wierd and abstract. How do you explain or understand it? Well you dont. Its a mathematical relationship, used and made and designed such that you will have the theoretical establishment of the principle of special relativity to ensure that the speed of light is (on the whole of course strictly speaking) the maximum.[/quote']

 

Klaynos has already linked to Noether's theorems; those conservation laws stem from symmetries observed in nature. I think perhaps you underappreciate the tremendous weight behind these "principles" and how all of physics would fail if they weren't true.

[BenTheMan]

I think perhaps you underappreciate the tremendous weight behind these "principles" and how all of physics would fail if they weren't true.

 

This statement applies to many in these fora

[sciencenoob]

It's not so much the use of "belief" as the equivocation that is occuring when using the word. There's belief because of a tremendous amount of evidence, e.g. in gravity and the notion that the sun will rise tomorrow. Then there is belief with no evidence or belief that is contradicted by evidence.

 

If your belief is such that evidence will not sway you, then it is the latter definition, and it's simply not science. It's religion.

 

"I blieve in determinism and so did Einstein" is appeal to authority, a fallacy. It means nothing.

 

 

 

Klaynos has already linked to Noether's theorems; those conservation laws stem from symmetries observed in nature. I think perhaps you underappreciate the tremendous weight behind these "principles" and how all of physics would fail if they weren't true.

I am not underappreciating any principle here nor am I questioning the validity of the energy conservation laws, so your rantings are pointless. I was pointing it out to make you aware that the conservation laws are themselves none other than a principle in itself, one that you may say can have mathematical and theoretical backup/establishments, but regardless, it is something that you would otherwise 'believe' is true in the universe, throughwhich scientists put fourth further theories and predictions based upon this principle.

 

Likewise then, one should not exclude from the possible notion or principle, that particle dynamics and behavior at the microscopic (one would say 'quantum') level, can behaves in a deterministic and continuous manner. In fact it would be just as wrong and flawed and 'unscientific' to suggest otherwise, than to suggest that particles behave deterministically. But that is exactly why principles are quickly established in theories such that theories can be drawn, otherwise you wont have any basis to found your theory upon. Einstein's work on special and general relativity will be a waste of time, if infact the principle of relativity in itself was a flawed notion. But all of this discussion regarding scientific application of 'principles', is to carry you to the point that it is also a principle that particles may behave deterministically. If that were to be the case them, QM simply cannot be the most fundamental.

 

But then you also dont understand, that current QM theories never have challenged or approached this principle because the current theories utilizes statistical means as a theoretical basis, but does not challenge the particle dynamics side. And since this is to be the case, then one cannot exclude the fact that there has to be a more fundamental theory, one in which can describe the particle dynamics, and one in which can also then further to it explain the findings that QM (statistics) show, experimentaly.Infact it will be bogus to suggest that QM is in itself proof that particles cannot behave deterministically and is 'random', because then it will fall into the relm of personal interpretation of QM theories, and not what the math itself is trying to explain, hence it is also unscientific (just philosophy) under your own descriptions.

[Norman Albers]

Yes, but "agree with experiments" is not entirely trivial statement, because there is a feedback, from our understanding in designing new experiments and devices, beeing constrained to the same rules as everything else. So I think this should be seen in a larger context where our understanding, and our theories evolve... in this context there is another thing beyond falsification, which is effiency or fitness of methodology. One can be correct and right, and yet inefficient.

 

So the effiency of inference in making good predictions is part of the fitness.

 

One observations of mine that that QM fails to predict is the real life relation between the fundamental forces. I can't ignore this observation.

 

So I wouldn't say is flat our wrong, but my personal thinking is that the methodology leading to it, can be severly improved, which in turn will have some spinoff benefits.

 

 

 

My main issue with QM is not the uncertainy principle. It's for example the idealisation of objective probabilities, and slight issues of unitarity and the nature of spacetime. Maybe one can think that - this isn't QM - this is about gravity etc.. but there is only one world. It's bound to be related - this is a basic universal observation.

 

 

 

A probabiliy space is a mathematical object. It's a sample space, event space and a measure constrained to the axioms of probability.

 

The problems resides in that it's logically hard, or impossible to impose an exact bound on our own ignorance. We can do it by hand, trial and error as per some scientific method, or one can try to formalize the scientific method itself, and implement this into the theories themselves so that can evolve on their own, without ad hoc input.

 

The match with reality is just postulated. I think this can be done better. I want the probability space itself to be elevated as an, to principle, observable, dynamic structure. This should I think be founded, at the level of QM axioms.

 

The benefit, that remains for me to proove of course, is that is that this will increase the fitness of the methodology dramatically, and it will resolve some of my issues mentioned.

 

/Fredrik

 

At the electromagnetic level. I offer an addition to the Schroedinger equation or to the allowed forms considered. Without this, there is an inadequate connection between electrodynamics and QFT. I work with assumed transverse divergence on the scale of the fine structure constant.