----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 12:31 AM
Subject: Re: Science and knowledge


> Dan Minette wrote:
>
> > I think the key to reconciling this with the general description of
> > physicists as mostly realists is the "shut up and calculate" statement
of
> > Feynman.  It is an acknowledgement that there is no good realistic
> > explanation for how QM works.  It deliberately tables the question;
tacitly
> > acknowledging Feynman's inability to solve it.
>
>
> Because today's physicists can't explain it it can't be explained?

Its really significantly stronger than that, but it requires a bit of
explanation to show how.  Physicists have not been able to unify gravity
and E&M for over 100 years, but there is still a general feeling that it is
doable. Further, with two different systems to reconcile, the problem is
not underdetermined.  That is to say there are not a wealth of free
parameters to play with: the first person or group of people to come up
with a system that has both GR and QM as special cases will have made a
tremendous step forward.  Historically, unification of previously distinct
theories has been a great source for increased understanding.


Reconciling QM with realism was never the same type of thing.  First of
all, the mechanism for doing this has always been hidden variables.  These
hidden variables behave classically, they just happen to result in
observables that do not.

What does this mean?  Classically, particles go through one slit or
another; waves do not interact at a single point; objects have their
properties independent of observation.  This is not seen in QM. What was
proposed by Einstein and others was that the lack of these properties was
just temporary; when the next level was explored, it would be found to
contain objects that behaved in a more classical manner.

Only, many many levels have been explored since then, and nothing has been
discovered.  Roughly 10^15 orders of magnitude have been explored below the
first quantum levels seen, and no hidden variables have been observed.
This is in contrast with the neutrino, which was observed after only about
25 years after it was first postulated as the reason for the apparent
non-conservation of mass in weak decays.

But, that's not the only problem with hidden variables.  The biggest blow
came with Bell's and Wigner's  work, showing that a local hidden variable
theory was impossible.  That is to say, that the hidden variables would
have to transmit spacelike signals.  At the time, it simply showed the
inconsistency of local hidden variable theories with the theory of QM.
Since then, there has been extensive experimental work, inconsistent with
local hidden variable theories.

So, the only available realistic theories are either non-local in a hidden
manner, like TI, or invokes other features that really have a hard time
matching common sense realism. Why? Because finding out that there really
are hidden variables and observable backwards in time signals would falsify
special relativity (SR) in a profound fashion: indeed in a fashion that
classical mechanics has not been falsified.  It would be akin to
discovering that there really is a preferred reference frame and an aether,
after all.  Indeed, I'd state that this is one of the less revolutionary
ways for scientific discovery to reconcile QM and realism.  The others
involve things like real backwards in time signals, allowing the
possibility of a transmitter destroying itself via a signal sent after the
destruction.

This is the fundamental difference between our present inability to
reconcile gravity with QM and our present inability to reconcile local
realism with QM.  With the former, we need to take a step forward.  In that
case, both GR and QM will be special cases of the new theory.  With the
later, we need to take a step backwards, since the last 100 years of
physics would be proven to be a dead end.  Well, that might be overstating
it a bit, but it would certainly be akin to  finding that there really is
an aether.

Dan M.


_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Reply via email to