Hacker News Reader

Notions like wave-particle duality, virtual particles "popping in and out", etc. aren't input assumptions. They're metaphors that come out of the equations, which are precise and well-founded. These have a useful role as levers to spur intuition, but ought not to be confused with the theories themselves.

It turns out questions like "what is a photon" are not that simple. For example, the very phrase: "a photon." Well, the particle number is an operator which is subject to the uncertainty principle and doesn't commute with other measurements, so already you're at risk... Our intuition misleads us in the quantum realm.

Yes, they are metaphors. However, they come out of prior assumptions and they are used as input assumptions for later work. The equations are simplified mathematical characterisations of the experimental evidence. Certain simplifying assumptions are made to create these equations. Theories are an attempt to clarify what is believed to be happening and are always based on some kind of simplifying assumptions.

Often, it is difficult to take a step back and take another long hard look at what the evidence is.

The point of my mentioning "what is a photon?" is that we make certain assumptions (as per your operators, uncertainty principle, etc) which we don't step back from and see if there are alternatives. Even trying to get a handle on what the uncertainty principle means gets us into a philosophical quagmire. Our view of the "quantum realm" is coloured by a huge amount of background assumptions, including the "intuitions" of those investigating the subject matter.

There is an oft stated saying: "The science is settled" over some matter or another. Yet, the whole point of scientific endeavour is that it is not settled, we are still investigating (or at least should be).

In Carlo Rovelli's, Reality is Not What it Seems [0], he speaks of this final point in its short, final chapter.

He starts by using an example from Plato's, Phaedo, where Plato acknowledges the limits of the knowledge of his time – in relation to Socrates being unsure about his "belief" in the Earth being a sphere.

Rovelli says:

"This acute awareness of our ignorance is the heart of scientific thinking. It is thanks to this awareness of the limits of our knowledge that we have learned so much. We are not certain of all which we suspect, just as Socrates was not sure of the spherical nature of the Earth. We are exploring at the borders of our knowledge."

As was Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, amongst others.

Rovelli goes on:

"Science is not reliable because it provides certainty. It is reliable because it provides us with the best answers we have at present. ... They are the best we have because we don’t consider them to be definitive, but see them as open to improvement. It’s the awareness of our ignorance that gives science its reliability."

Science is never settled. Rovelli's book is about Loop Quantum Gravity; as unsettled a field of research in science _today_.

[0] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/29767627-reality-is-not-...

I think you might be underestimating physicists, or over-estimating yourself... rest assured, modern physics is not a blind cargo-cult.

The mainstream complex models are the simplest explanations consistent with empirical evidence, and gaps or weirdness in those models drives further experimentation. So far, reality has proven to be more complex than the trivially simple and clean abstractions found in software.

I don't think I am underestimating physicists, simply because it is irrelevant if you are a physicist or not, you are a human first with all the foibles associated with that. Physicists are not immune to being pig-headed, obstinate, arrogant, self-righteous and just out and out plain wrong. These are attributes of all humans.

The mainstream complex models are not the simplest explanations consistent with empirical evidence. There are various kinds of models that explain some phenomena better, but since they are not the consensus view they are not further investigated. that's the point I'm making. There is no funding for anything that is not part of the current suite of models.

The reason for mentioning software was simply the mindset demonstrated by people to how they look at something. Reality is way more complex than any theory or model that we have so far come up with. Software is a dog's breakfast and that's my opinion after nearly 40 years being involved with it.

One of the advantages of peer review is using the natural human tendency to be “pig-headed, obstinate, arrogant, self-righteous” to poke each other’s work for flaws we cannot find in our own work.

Which models are thinking of?

"Various kinds of Models"... uh huh.

QM is the most rigorously tested and most accurate scientific theory in the whole of human history and nothing even comes remotely close. You seem to think you have insights that the greatest minds in history have missed, then please by all means enlighten us plebs and take your Nobel Prize.

> is that the scientists are not standing back and looking at all the assumptions they use

Plenty of physicists do exactly this. I have seen a number of physics papers that center around re-thinking or re-deriving basic assumptions. What gave you the impression otherwise?

By the way, if you're inferring anything at all about the field via popular science articles, please don't. They are almost always extremely misleading.

Some physicists will do this (in part). I, also, have seen various papers that look at the basic assumptions. What I am saying is that on the whole, physicists don't do this. The impression comes from seeing the lack of diversity of funding, the standard way of discouraging investigation into looking at assumptions, the ad hominem attacks by various segments and actually communicating with various scientists in various fields about their subject matter.

Popular science articles, well, there's another problem.

I suppose what I am saying here is that scientists of all stripes (including physicists) are human and have all the same human fallibilities of politics, anger management, distrust, hatred, cowardice, hero worship, arrogance, hypocrisy and back biting, to name but a few, that occurs in all human environments.

Different interpretations of QM suggest different things. There's no wave/particle duality in Bohmian mechanics: there's literally a wave, and literally a particle, and the particle is guided by the wave.

Relational quantum mechanics does something else: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_quantum_mechanics

And the many-worlds interpretation does yet a third thing. They all make the same predictions of measurements though, which means it's rather a matter of philosophy and/or practicality which one you subscribe to.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/pilot-wave-theory-gains-exper...

"The universe seems to like talking to itself faster than the speed of light,” said Steinberg. “I could understand a universe where nothing can go faster than light, but a universe where the internal workings operate faster than light, and yet we’re forbidden from ever making use of that at the macroscopic level — it’s very hard to understand.”

This can only lead to one conclusion: the Universe is a computer program. We can observe some of the side effects of the underlying computer, but we cannot use it from inside the simulation.

That sounds like a hidden variable model. I think those have been ruled out. I don’t grok the why yet, though.

Local hidden variables have been ruled out, notably by experiments with Bell's inequality.

This means that quantum effects cannot be caused by some unseen property of the objects involved (e.g. if particles had some extra 'charge' we didn't know about).

The effects could be caused by some unseen "non-local" property, e.g. some property of space itself which propagates faster than light. A nice example is to model spacetime as a network (e.g. http://www.wolframscience.com/nks/p475--space-as-a-network ) with information/causality propagating along edges in the network. If most of the edges are short, and form a 3D lattice, we'd get the universe we're familiar with. We can then model quantum phenomena, like entanglement, by introducing some long edges, connecting regions of the network which would otherwise be far apart (the entangled particles).

Since there are so many possible non-local theories, with no way to distinguish between them, Physicists tend to prefer quantum descriptions of local, observable properties, since that seems like less of a leap of faith.

It is a hidden variable model, but by construction it reproduces all the results of orthodox QM given certain reasonable starting conditions.

What's ruled out are local hidden variable models if you assume counterfactual definitiveness.

The website is crazy, but the best page explaining why is here: http://quantumtantra.com/bell2.html

And if you assume standard probability theory holds. If you allow for so called Exotic Probability, then local hidden variable theories are not ruled out. See [1] for a list of relevant literature.

[1] http://physics.bu.edu/~youssef/quantum/quantum_refs.html

Um, no, it does not only lead to one conclusion, especially not that one.

Is the particle/wave duality idea hindering or helping the further understanding of these processes?

Is that an idea? I thought that it was an observed fact. Some people believed that light was a wave, some other people believed that it was particles so they tried their assumptions and both calculations were correct, as long as you don't mix them. Maybe it makes more difficult to understand reality, but sweeping duality under the rug doesn't seem right.

The slit experiment and its outcomes make it pretty easy for laymen to understand the duality. Feynman used it to great effect (I just watched that lecture last week - it’s really great.)

We observe certain things, the interpretation is the question. I am in no way saying that duality should be swept under the rug, but rather have the entire interpretation and information held up to the light to see what other information can be brought to bear to the problems this duality give rise to.

As I intimated, should the observations that give rise to the interpretation that there are "virtual" particles that pop in and out of existence be brought to bear on this particular problem? There are those who would have you believe that the quantum vacuum is not empty but full of these "virtual" particles. Does this idea give any explanation to why we see a wave phenomena? Or this there something else that might give a better handle on the subject matter.

Is how we measure adding additional things that give rise to the effects we see? There are so many questions that I do not see being asked.

We should not be confusing the evidence we see with the interpretation we come up with. Too often, the interpretation of the facts is treated as if it is the fact.

One thing kinda like it is the optical mechanics used to describe a mirror, they use virtual points that are beyond the mirror (if my French Lycée memory serves me well) but still produce the correct answer.

In a way you could say that wave physics (from the Lycée too) behave like described by the equations... even though they migh be represented as in a fluid (ripples on water molecules-meta-material).

Sometimes it's hard to reconsider the model and the perception of reality we have.

Nice to see you kept commenting after having so many downvotes ;)

Well being ill in bed does put a crimp in responding. What I find interesting is the different views that come out when someone does make a comment that others find not satisfactory. Further grist for the mill in understanding people and the nature of the universe around should be welcome.

The wonderful thing is that there are so many questions and so few real answers. It means that we are able to have fun in investigating the universe around us. The child's "why?" is a wonderful question and should be delighted in.

Duality more than an interpretation seems to be an uncertainty state since we can't discard one of the possible models. Models are after all mathematical devices around a metaphor: EM waves are similar but not the same as waves in a fluid, and subatomic particles are more like machines than like little balls. But the maths stand.

Actually I just disagree with you about this point. I also believe that physicists are too confident in chains of deductions that could fail in some point.