On Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 2:09:41 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 12:27:07 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> On Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 7:13:55 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 6:38:41 AM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >>>> >>>> ... >>>> This trend has galloped off into some sort of nonsense. Some of these >>>> people are fairly well known, such as Dowkers, Wharton, Sorkin and >>>> Deutsch, >>>> but they have all gone into some sort of fantasy land. It is too bad in a >>>> way that Bohr is not still alive to shake his finger at these folks. It >>>> appears that in some ways this is a case of Alan Ginsburg's *Howl*, >>>> with "I have seen the best minds of this generation go mad." These ideas >>>> are so patently wrong, that with a fairly basic even minimal argument >>>> based >>>> on plain vanilla QM they can be seen as false. >>>> >>>> LC >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> So *Fay Dowker *and *Rafael Sorkin * >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fay_Dowker >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Sorkin >>> >>> are now in fantasy land. >>> >>> You want to turn physics into a religious fundamentalist cult. >>> >>> @philipthrift >>> >> >> Sorry, but there are trends in academia where people by virtue of their >> position are able to promote nonsense. I think Jonathan Swift had a bit to >> say with the the floating island of Laputia, which was a knock on academia. >> >> The problem with Dowker and her path integral ideas is the path integral >> is a math method; it has no additional physical content. In fact in general >> in the way it is written it has less content because it is expanded around >> a classical extremum. QFT is much the same. QFT sets commutators of >> observables with spacelike separations to zero, when quantum mechanics in >> its pure setting tells us there is nonlocality and this condition is an >> auxiliary postulate meant to ease calculations. String theory has some >> "funnies" to it as well. The interesting thing about the holographic >> principle with black holes is it tells us that quantum fields are >> projections from fields near the horizon where Lorentz symmetry has these >> quantum field in a time dilated and nonrelativistic QM form. In effect >> plain vanilla QM, the stuff in Merzbacher or Cohen-Tannoudji etc is really >> the fundamental stuff. >> >> Along these lines with fundamental physics, with exceptional group >> theory, Leech lattice, and Jordan algebras etc, the theta representation of >> these involve equations that in complex form are Schrodinger equations. In >> a Euclideanized form they are heat equations with heat kernel solutions. >> When applied to the integral representation of qubits on a stretched >> horizon it does suggest that in some fancy way, say with relationships >> between entanglements, causality and spacetime, the most fundamental theory >> of the universe is just plain QM. >> >> I would strongly advise anyone to avoid ideas about hidden variables or >> in this case ideas of advanced potentials that in ways "wire up" the >> appearance of nonlocality with local rules. For various reasons these ideas >> are not consistent with QM, and at the end of it all these ideas do not >> produce QM as some derived result, but rather demolish it. >> >> LC >> > > > > So Dowker (professor of theoretical physics at Imperial College London) is > misguided and you are not. Who are you? > > The main idea of "Lost in Math" (Sabine Hossenfelder) addresses the > fundamentalist mindset expressed above that traps many (she would know more > how many, being around them) physicists. >
Actually Sabine's argument is about people in positions at schools spinning off nonsense. I have actually read her book. LC > > Better to consider Feyerabend and reject fundamentalist certainty. > > "All descriptions of reality are inadequate. You think that this one-day > fly, this little bit of nothing, a human being--according to today's > cosmology!--can figure it all out? This to me seems so crazy! It cannot > possibly be true!" > > https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/was-philosopher-paul-feyerabend-really-science-s-worst-enemy/ > > @philipthrift > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6fc1787f-6df8-40cc-b2bd-c854917e50c2%40googlegroups.com.
