New quantum theory?

[merlin wood]

Accuracy is certainly not the only measure of a successful theory.

 

So Kepler's laws could be used to accurately predict the orbital motion of celestial bodies but said nothing about the weight, trajectory and free-fall of obects that are not in orbital motion like Newton's laws.

 

Also, by being a theory of natural cause and effect, Newton's account of gravity and its effects explained how the weight, trajectory, fall and orbital motion of objects is possible, and still applies today even though Einstein's account could describe gravity in more detail and explain an even wider range of gravitational effects.

 

Then in sciences other than physics there are theories that causally explan natural effects but can't be used to accurately predict them in measurable terms. Such are biological evolution, and also plate techtonics in relation to earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.

 

So perhaps more important than measured accuracy are the range of application and explanatory power of a theory.

 

Thus even given quantum field theory, Richard Feynman, one of the theory's principle developers, always insisted that 'nobody understands quantum mechanics'. And Feynman's path integrals account of quantum behaviour bypassed the cause and effect problem of explaining this behaviour.

 

So one could conclude that QFT is only the small scale equivalent to Kepler's account of the large scale behaviour of objects, and wonder whether the lack of a cause and effect explanation of quantum wave, spin and entanglement behaviour in QFT is the reason why no successful theory has been developed that unifies quantum theory with gravity and the general theory of relativity.

 

I personally have found quite detailed reasons to consider that the nearest to a true and successful 'theory of everything' does not arise from an attempt to unify the forces at all but can be developed from a sufficienlty detailed cause and effect hypthesis of quantum wave and entanglemrent behaviour, and then finding support for this hypothesis from a wide range of larger scale natural evidence of where a distinct cause could be considered to act in addition to the known forces.

 

See my blog.

[lucaspa]

Accuracy is certainly not the only measure of a successful theory.

 

You have to define "successful". Accuracy with what we find in the physical universe is the basis for any other criteria. If the hypothesis/theory does not do that, then none of the others matter.

 

Then in sciences other than physics there are theories that causally explan natural effects but can't be used to accurately predict them in measurable terms. Such are biological evolution, and also plate techtonics in relation to earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.

 

AH! Here's the problem. You are using the word "predict" in the lay definition of "telling a future event". That isn't how science uses the word "predict". In science, predict means finding new observations/facts not presently known but that should be there if the theory is true.

 

For instance, in evolution "scorpionflies (Mecoptera) and true flies (Diptera) have enough similarities that entomologists consider them to be closely related. Scorpionflies have four wings of about the same size, and true flies have a large front pair of wings but the back pair is replaced by small club-shaped structures. If Diptera evolved from Mecoptera, as comparative anatomy suggests, scientists predicted that a fossil fly with four wings might be found—and in 1976 this is exactly what was discovered." Teaching about Evolution and Science, National Academy of Science

Chapter 5 Frequently Asked Questions About Evolution and the Nature of Science

http://books.nap.edu/catalog/5787.html

 

Do you see Merlin? This is not predicting the future, but predicting facts we should find if the theory is true. So yes, both evolotion and plate tectonics "predict" in the scientific use of the word.

 

So Kepler's laws could be used to accurately predict the orbital motion of celestial bodies but said nothing about the weight, trajectory and free-fall of obects that are not in orbital motion like Newton's laws.

 

But Kepler wasn't trying to do that! He was only trying to explain the observations of planets from earth. And his "laws" about planetary orbits did that. Hypotheses/theories have boundaries and no theory explains everything. Even the so-called "Theory of Everything" isn't going to do that. It won't explain evolution, for instance. It will only unite Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. That's a huge goal, but still limited.

 

Also, by being a theory of natural cause and effect, Newton's account of gravity

 

What do you mean by "natural" here. You need to be careful. Both Newton and his contemporary Gravesende were very clear about what "natural" meant.

 

"A Law of Nature then is the rule and Law, according to which God resolved that certain Motions should always, that is, in all Cases be performed. Every Law does immediately depend upon the Will of God." Gravesande, Mathematical Elements of Natural Philosophy, I, 2-3, 1726, quoted in CC Gillespie, Genesis and Geology, 1959.

 

So perhaps more important than measured accuracy are the range of application and explanatory power of a theory.

 

Not "more important". After all, if the theory is not accurate, then the range of application and explanatory power don't mean a thing. Flood Geology has a huge range of application and explanatory power. But it isn't accurate. So it's gone.

 

So one could conclude that QFT is only the small scale equivalent to Kepler's account of the large scale behaviour of objects, and wonder whether the lack of a cause and effect explanation of quantum wave, spin and entanglement behaviour in QFT is the reason why no successful theory has been developed that unifies quantum theory with gravity and the general theory of relativity.

 

That's not the reason according to everything I have read. Physicists say that the problem is quanticizing gravity. Remember, quanta are discrete entities, but gravity is continuous.

 

then finding support for this hypothesis from a wide range of larger scale natural evidence of where a distinct cause could be considered to act in addition to the known forces.

 

That's your problem: finding support. What you want to do is try to show your theory false. The reason is that nearly ANY theory will have evidence in support of it. So, if you look for support ONLY, you will find it. What you need to do is seriously look for evidence against your theory. Evidence counts as "support" if and only if it was obtained by a serious but unsuccessful attempt to show the theory to be wrong.

 

All that said, your post does remind me of the writings of Phillip Kitcher. He was trying to find a criteria to tell science from pseudoscience. Kitcher assumed accuracy. Ad hoc hypotheses come in when the theory is NOT accurate (such as Newton when it came to the orbit of Uranus). So Kitcher had 3 characteristics of "successful" science or scientific theories:

1. Independent testability.

2. Unification

3. Fecundity

 

"I have highlighted three characteristics of successful science. Independent testability is achieved when it is possible to test auxiliary hypotheses independently of the particular cases for which they are introduced. Unification is the result of applying a small family of problem-solving strategies to a broad class of cases. Fecundity grows out of incompleteness when a theory opens up new and profitable lines of investigation." Phillip Kitcher Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism

[merlin wood]

You have to define "successful". Accuracy with what we find in the physical universe is the basis for any other criteria. If the hypothesis/theory does not do that, then none of the others matter.

 

 

 

AH! Here's the problem. You are using the word "predict" in the lay definition of "telling a future event". That isn't how science uses the word "predict". In science, predict means finding new observations/facts not presently known but that should be there if the theory is true.

 

For instance, in evolution "scorpionflies (Mecoptera) and true flies (Diptera) have enough similarities that entomologists consider them to be closely related. Scorpionflies have four wings of about the same size, and true flies have a large front pair of wings but the back pair is replaced by small club-shaped structures. If Diptera evolved from Mecoptera, as comparative anatomy suggests, scientists predicted that a fossil fly with four wings might be found—and in 1976 this is exactly what was discovered." Teaching about Evolution and Science, National Academy of Science

Chapter 5 Frequently Asked Questions About Evolution and the Nature of Science

http://books.nap.edu/catalog/5787.html

 

Do you see Merlin? This is not predicting the future, but predicting facts we should find if the theory is true. So yes, both evolotion and plate tectonics "predict" in the scientific use of the word.

 

 

 

But Kepler wasn't trying to do that! He was only trying to explain the observations of planets from earth. And his "laws" about planetary orbits did that. Hypotheses/theories have boundaries and no theory explains everything. Even the so-called "Theory of Everything" isn't going to do that. It won't explain evolution, for instance. It will only unite Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. That's a huge goal, but still limited.

 

 

 

What do you mean by "natural" here. You need to be careful. Both Newton and his contemporary Gravesende were very clear about what "natural" meant.

 

"A Law of Nature then is the rule and Law, according to which God resolved that certain Motions should always, that is, in all Cases be performed. Every Law does immediately depend upon the Will of God." Gravesande, Mathematical Elements of Natural Philosophy, I, 2-3, 1726, quoted in CC Gillespie, Genesis and Geology, 1959.

 

 

 

Not "more important". After all, if the theory is not accurate, then the range of application and explanatory power don't mean a thing. Flood Geology has a huge range of application and explanatory power. But it isn't accurate. So it's gone.

 

 

 

That's not the reason according to everything I have read. Physicists say that the problem is quanticizing gravity. Remember, quanta are discrete entities, but gravity is continuous.

 

 

 

That's your problem: finding support. What you want to do is try to show your theory false. The reason is that nearly ANY theory will have evidence in support of it. So, if you look for support ONLY, you will find it. What you need to do is seriously look for evidence against your theory. Evidence counts as "support" if and only if it was obtained by a serious but unsuccessful attempt to show the theory to be wrong.

 

All that said, your post does remind me of the writings of Phillip Kitcher. He was trying to find a criteria to tell science from pseudoscience. Kitcher assumed accuracy. Ad hoc hypotheses come in when the theory is NOT accurate (such as Newton when it came to the orbit of Uranus). So Kitcher had 3 characteristics of "successful" science or scientific theories:

1. Independent testability.

2. Unification

3. Fecundity

 

"I have highlighted three characteristics of successful science. Independent testability is achieved when it is possible to test auxiliary hypotheses independently of the particular cases for which they are introduced. Unification is the result of applying a small family of problem-solving strategies to a broad class of cases. Fecundity grows out of incompleteness when a theory opens up new and profitable lines of investigation." Phillip Kitcher Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism

 

My basic point is that, while QFT and the standard model can make accurate predictions and explain much concernining the specific chemical, electromagnetic, nuclear and constant visual properties of many forms of matter, it cannot clearly explain how matter and the energy it radiates can exist or persist while the know forces act as they have been described. And the reason that this is so is because the standard model does not include a cause and effect explanation of quantum wave, spin and entanglement. And I've found reasons to consider that, while there is no such explanation then no successful account, like string theory, could be developed that could be called a theory of everything.

[merlin wood]

My basic point is that, while QFT and the standard model can make accurate predictions and explain much concernining the specific chemical, electromagnetic, nuclear and constant visual properties of many forms of matter, it cannot clearly explain how matter and the energy it radiates can exist or persist while the know forces act as they have been described. And the reason that this is so is because the standard model does not include a cause and effect explanation of quantum wave, spin and entanglement. And I've found reasons to consider that, while there is no such explanation then no successful account, like string theory, could be developed that could be called a theory of everything.

 

Or, in short, Quantum Field Theory is not an explanatory account of how, in general, matter and the energy it radiates is or can be the way that it is. And so no theory of everything that is based on QFT, such as string theory, can be an explanatory account of how the universe is the way that it is.

[merlin wood]

Or, in short, Quantum Field Theory is not an explanatory account of how, in general, matter and the energy it radiates is or can be the way that it is. And so no theory of everything that is based on QFT, such as string theory, can be an explanatory account of how the universe is the way that it is.

 

And, indeed, it was David Bohm who, in 1952, really put the cat among the quantum theorist pigeons by showing that, despite all the Copehagenist arguments by Niels Bohr, Max Born, Wolfgang Pauli. John von Neumann etc, a mathematically systematic, determinate and causal hidden variables interpretation of quantum objects in motion could be given to account for a wide range of experimental results.

 

http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~oldstein/quote.html

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/

http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~oldstein/papers/bohmech.pdf

 

And Bohm really should have been able to chase the Copenhagenist (as well as, later on, the many worlds) pigeons away for good but for the facts that:

 

(a) in the 25 years since the birth of Copenhagenism, a generation of physicists had been brought up on the indeterminate interpretation.

 

(b) all the leading Copenhagenists condemned Bohmian mechanics without any reasoned criticism as 'metaphysical', and

 

© Rather than backing his determinate account up with additional scientific arguments, Bohm himself tended to live up to the metaphysical accusation by only introducing quite vague philosophical ideas in his subsequent books relating to his quantum theory.

 

I say it is just because the determinate interpretation was rejected by the vast majority of physicists that no adequate theory of everything has been developed. Whereas developing a determinate non-local causal hypothesis from the quantum findings holds the key to a most remarkable and significal theory of everything that could be called a general theory of natural organisation.

[lucaspa]

And, indeed, it was David Bohm who, in 1952, really put the cat among the quantum theorist pigeons by showing that, despite all the Copehagenist arguments by Niels Bohr, Max Born, Wolfgang Pauli. John von Neumann etc, a mathematically systematic, determinate and causal hidden variables interpretation of quantum objects in motion could be given to account for a wide range of experimental results.

 

http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~oldstein/quote.html

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/

http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~oldstein/papers/bohmech.pdf

 

I already knew about Bohm and his proposed solution for the weirdness of QM. I'm not going to argue it here because this is the wrong forum. Bohm (and Bell) had their opportunity in front of their peers -- physicists. They were unable to convince that audience -- the people who knew QM the best.

 

Trying to "evangelize" here is the wrong forum. You need to be presenting at the meetings for physics. They are going to be able to tell you in detail why and how Bohm is not accepted.

 

And Bohm really should have been able to chase the Copenhagenist (as well as, later on, the many worlds) pigeons away for good but for the facts that:

 

(a) in the 25 years since the birth of Copenhagenism, a generation of physicists had been brought up on the indeterminate interpretation.

 

(b) all the leading Copenhagenists condemned Bohmian mechanics without any reasoned criticism as 'metaphysical', and

 

© Rather than backing his determinate account up with additional scientific arguments, Bohm himself tended to live up to the metaphysical accusation by only introducing quite vague philosophical ideas in his subsequent books relating to his quantum theory.

 

The first 2 are the well-known "conspiracy" arguments we are used to seeing on the fringe of science. Remember, these physicists were also the same ones that were open-minded enough to discard cause-and-effect when the evidence said to. So you can't have it both ways. You are saying that physicists were not so hard-headed as to discard a well-established belief but are so hard-headed that they won't discard a well-established belief! So (a) doesn't survive testing.

 

As I have read the history, there was a some hot air and lack of reasoned arguments by SOME physicists. However, others did offer detailed and scientific critiques of Bohm. So (b) doesn't work.

 

© says that Bohm himself retreated to metaphysics rather than using his mechanism to address data. Is it possible that he did that because he could not address the data?

 

I say it is just because the determinate interpretation was rejected by the vast majority of physicists that no adequate theory of everything has been developed.

 

Is that the reason? Again, not from what I have read. The problem is that no one can quantize gravity. Did Bohm? Not by anything I have seen you present!

 

Whereas developing a determinate non-local causal hypothesis from the quantum findings holds the key to a most remarkable and significal theory of everything that could be called a general theory of natural organisation.

 

Again, you have the wrong forum. You don't present this in a BLOG! You write it up as an abstract and start submitting it to meetings of physicists and AAAS. Put it to the people who know the subject best, not try to sell it to people without a background in physics. You are doing what you criticize: making metaphysical arguments instead of scientific ones.

[Klaynos]

Here's a question, that I've been puzelling over, and can't find any staff to ask atm....

 

Should this thread be used to discuss peoples ideas, as the OP clearly seems to define it as a discussion of what a theory is?

[lucaspa]

Whereas developing a determinate non-local causal hypothesis from the quantum findings holds the key to a most remarkable and significal theory of everything that could be called a general theory of natural organisation.

 

Nowhere on that site or the "paper" is there a single mathematical equation! How can you expect physicists to consider you seriously if you can't demonstrate how the idea will generate the equations we know describe the universe we are in.

 

When Einstein did Special Relativity, he showed how the equations of Newton were reductions of his equations when the mass and acceleration were low. You haven't even attempted that. Again, go to the OP. If you are going to replace an old theory with a new one, you must show that the new theory is going to account for all the phenomenon of the old. In physics, this means MATH, not just hand-waving and simplified diagrams.

 

No wonder the paper is on a blog. No committee of a national meeting will touch it because it does not meet the minimal requirements for science in the field.

[Severian]

This thread has somehow developed into a parody. The entire point of the original post was that people should stop presenting theories that they have not thought through. New theories need to come with reasons why they are better than the old theories. I don't see that here.

[merlin wood]

Nowhere on that site or the "paper" is there a single mathematical equation! How can you expect physicists to consider you seriously if you can't demonstrate how the idea will generate the equations we know describe the universe we are in.

 

When Einstein did Special Relativity, he showed how the equations of Newton were reductions of his equations when the mass and acceleration were low. You haven't even attempted that. Again, go to the OP. If you are going to replace an old theory with a new one, you must show that the new theory is going to account for all the phenomenon of the old. In physics, this means MATH, not just hand-waving and simplified diagrams.

 

No wonder the paper is on a blog. No committee of a national meeting will touch it because it does not meet the minimal requirements for science in the field.

 

Tell me, please. exactly how could any mathematical equations describe how a cause just acts so that matter remains organised out of its subatomoic parts?

 

So, on the one hand, you have causes that can be called forces that act within matter that attract or repel its subatomic components. And these can be measured and mathematically describes in terms of their strength of effect.

 

Whereas no details can be descibed fo these forces to explain how matter can be and remain organised as atoms and molecules out of the components that these forces surround, and so no mathematical equations can be used to explain the cause of quantum entanglement. And yet you can conclude that something needs to cause particles to remain entangled in their composite behavioural relationshios such spin-up in relationship to spim down or vertical to horizontal polarisation.

 

I'm saying that physics has missed out on a most significant cause and effect explanation in large part because the methodology of physics assumes that any theory requires measurement and calculation to be valid. While it is also true that to sufficiently develop a general theory of natural organisation evidence needs to be considered of the mind and consciousness that also cannot be described in terms of mathematical formulae, and that physicists are also unlikely to contemplate.

 

And, in general, you can reasonably insist that the present physics has nothing whatsoever to say about accounting for how the organisation of matter into atoms, molecules and living organisms is possible given that this science only recognises the existence of causes that act so as to push or pull objects.

[lucaspa]

Tell me, please. exactly how could any mathematical equations describe how a cause just acts so that matter remains organised out of its subatomoic parts?

 

The Standard Model does that. So does String Theory. Look how those theories incorporate math. Remember, the posit in String Theory are strings and 'branes. Interactions of those cause matter to be organized out of those subatomic parts. In the Standard Model, we have quarks and forces such as the strong nuclear force. Between them, these are the causes for matter to be organized. Again, there is math there. So why do you think your theory should be exempt?

 

Severian is correct. You are turning the thread into a parody by doing exactly what the OP said should not be done when proposing a new theory.

 

So, on the one hand, you have causes that can be called forces that act within matter that attract or repel its subatomic components. And these can be measured and mathematically describes in terms of their strength of effect.

 

Yep. So why can't we measure the effects of your proposed causes? Why no mathematical description of the strength of the effects of your causes? Why is your theory exempt from these when other theories can produce the math and measurements?

 

Whereas no details can be descibed fo these forces to explain how matter can be and remain organised as atoms and molecules out of the components that these forces surround, and so no mathematical equations can be used to explain the cause of quantum entanglement. And yet you can conclude that something needs to cause particles to remain entangled in their composite behavioural relationshios such spin-up in relationship to spim down or vertical to horizontal polarisation.

 

No, you canNOT "conclude that something needs to cause" at the quantum level. That is an extrapolation from common sense that the data denies. There are events at the quantum level that have no cause. Decay of individual radioactive atoms is one. The pattern of decay of large numbers of atoms is regular, but at the level of the individual atom there is no "cause" that triggers that atom to decay at that particular time.

 

Entanglement seems to be the same. Quantum particles become entangled so that spin up or spin down is undetermined. Determine the spin of one of the pair and the other immediately assumes the other spin. How? Don't know and there may be no deterministic cause.

 

What you are doing is trying to force a philosophy -- determinism -- onto the universe instead of letting the universe tell you how it really is. What you are doing is the opposite of science and how science is done.

 

I'm saying that physics has missed out on a most significant cause and effect explanation in large part because the methodology of physics assumes that any theory requires measurement and calculation to be valid.

 

Theories are collections of statements. Statements have consequences. What you call "measurement and calculation" are the consequences. And yes, to be valid a theory requires consequences. If a theory has NO consequences, it doesn't say anything and it is not part of science.

 

While it is also true that to sufficiently develop a general theory of natural organisation evidence needs to be considered of the mind and consciousness that also cannot be described in terms of mathematical formulae, and that physicists are also unlikely to contemplate.

 

No, we do not "need" to consider mind and consciousness. As far as we know, we are the only consciousness in the universe. Therefore, since we are not the cause of quantum entanglement, we don't need to consider consciousness.

 

And, in general, you can reasonably insist that the present physics has nothing whatsoever to say about accounting for how the organisation of matter into atoms, molecules and living organisms is possible given that this science only recognises the existence of causes that act so as to push or pull objects.

 

The OP said that you have to correctly represent current theories. This paragraph does not do that. Interactions among matter/energy are much more complex that the "push or pull" you stated.

[swansont]

Here's a question, that I've been puzelling over, and can't find any staff to ask atm....

 

Should this thread be used to discuss peoples ideas, as the OP clearly seems to define it as a discussion of what a theory is?

 

As you have probably figured out, I've moved this to a new thread.