Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Friday May 22 2015, @05:09AM   Printer-friendly
from the no dept.

Owen Maroney worries that physicists have spent the better part of a century engaging in fraud.

Ever since they invented quantum theory in the early 1900s, explains Maroney, who is himself a physicist at the University of Oxford, UK, they have been talking about how strange it is — how it allows particles and atoms to move in many directions at once, for example, or to spin clockwise and anticlockwise simultaneously. But talk is not proof, says Maroney. “If we tell the public that quantum theory is weird, we better go out and test that's actually true,” he says. “Otherwise we're not doing science, we're just explaining some funny squiggles on a blackboard.”

It is this sentiment that has led Maroney and others to develop a new series of experiments to uncover the nature of the wavefunction — the mysterious entity that lies at the heart of quantum weirdness. On paper, the wavefunction is simply a mathematical object that physicists denote with the Greek letter psi (Ψ) — one of Maroney's funny squiggles — and use to describe a particle's quantum behaviour. Depending on the experiment, the wavefunction allows them to calculate the probability of observing an electron at any particular location, or the chances that its spin is oriented up or down. But the mathematics shed no light on what a wavefunction truly is. Is it a physical thing ? Or just a calculating tool for handling an observer's ignorance about the world ?

http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-physics-what-is-really-real-1.17585

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by hubie on Friday May 22 2015, @01:05PM

    by hubie (1068) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 22 2015, @01:05PM (#186425) Journal

    We still don't have a grand unified theory yet.

    It doesn't point to shortcomings in quantum or relativity if there is no grand unified theory.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday May 22 2015, @06:36PM

    by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 22 2015, @06:36PM (#186589) Journal

    If a Grand Unified Theory is impossible between Relativity and Quantum Theory, then both must be incorrect. This doesn't say what the replacement should look like, though. A Grand Unified Theory would have either Relativity swallowing Quantum Theory, or Quantum Theory swallowing Relativity...but it's not clear how to do this.

    One unfortunate possibility is that the only possible Grand Unified Theory has no testable predictions. For awhile it looked like string theory was going to be such a theory, but that currently looks less likely (to me. OTOH, I am not a physicist).

    --
    Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
    • (Score: 2) by hubie on Friday May 22 2015, @07:02PM

      by hubie (1068) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 22 2015, @07:02PM (#186597) Journal

      No, you are assuming a grand unified theory exists. If one doesn't exist, that doesn't say anything about quantum and relativity. The most compelling case that a GUT exists is purely on aesthetic grounds. We like simplicity and elegance in our theories.

      • (Score: 2) by boristhespider on Friday May 22 2015, @07:39PM

        by boristhespider (4048) on Friday May 22 2015, @07:39PM (#186622)

        Pure pedantry, but GUTs combine the electroweak theory with the strong theory. A so-called Theory of Everything combines a (postulated) GUT with gravity. I'd note that we do not actually have a single, accepted GUT yet. The idea that the only force to lie outwith a unified theory is gravity is something of a fallacy, although it's certainly the only theory to lie outwith various extensions that are generally accepted as well-enough motivated.

        • (Score: 2) by hubie on Friday May 22 2015, @07:51PM

          by hubie (1068) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 22 2015, @07:51PM (#186629) Journal

          I am being careless between GUTs and ToEs (and whatever the hell other stupid acronyms that come next), but my intention was to talk of unified theories in general. All I'm saying is that it may turn out that you cannot combine all the forces into some nice compact model.

          • (Score: 3, Informative) by boristhespider on Friday May 22 2015, @08:01PM

            by boristhespider (4048) on Friday May 22 2015, @08:01PM (#186638)

            Totally agreed. I've maintained for a number of years - from when I was an undergraduate all the way through a career in post-doctoral cosmology - that there is no a priori reason to assume that we can combine all four forces, particularly as only two of the four manifest themselves on macroscopic scales, and we are attempting to force all four into a formalism that was developed for electromagnetism, which unlike gravity actually acts like a force.

            Frankly, since gravity doesn't behave like a force macroscopically, trying to shoehorn it into a theory developed for something that *does* behave like a force has always struck me as a bit odd. Yes, we can derive (linearised, classical) gravity by postulating a massless, spin-2 particle but I view that as little more than a mathematical curiosity. Hell, we can barely force together the strong force and the electroweak force, scuppered this time by the strength of the coupling of the strong force that pushes out of what is effectively just a Taylor series. Jumping the gun ridiculously by trying to shoehorn in something that may or may not provide a sane description of macroscopic gravity and which is even in vacuum nigh on impossible to renormalise isn't so much biting off more than we can chew as stuffing our gullets with styrofoam.

            • (Score: 2) by hubie on Friday May 22 2015, @08:56PM

              by hubie (1068) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 22 2015, @08:56PM (#186665) Journal

              I've maintained for a number of years - from when I was an undergraduate all the way through a career in post-doctoral cosmology - that there is no a priori reason to assume that we can combine all four forces

              But that is where the Nobels are!! :)

              I never had to venture very far into cosmology, but that whole renormalization business always sounded unsettling to me (probably because I never sat down and did the math myself).

              • (Score: 2) by boristhespider on Friday May 22 2015, @09:20PM

                by boristhespider (4048) on Friday May 22 2015, @09:20PM (#186670)

                About twelve years back in the university library I read through the three-volume "History of Quantum Field Theory", or whatever it was called, in lieu of revising for my exams. In these volumes no less than Schwinger commented something like, "I'm not sure that renormalisation is mathematically justifiable" (it is, arguably; but not the way it's normally presented), while Feynman was quoted as saying, to extraordinarily loosely paraphrase, "Physics is ultimately algorithms and there's no reason to assume that algorithms that work in one situation apply in another; there is therefore no reason to immediately assume we will ever find a theory of everything".

                I'll be back in my old uni town next month. I'm tempted to try and blag my way into their library so I can track down those books again and find Feynman's quote in particular because it's influenced me very strongly. (The only other thing that's influenced me as strongly was Peebles, in a talk in Paris in 2004 or so, who pointed out that modern cosmology wants us to believe that 5% of the universe is made of the standard model(ish) - whose Lagrangian fits on a side of paper - while 25% and 70% respectively are meant to be two types of matter whose *entire physical description* are w=0 and w=-1. Peebles wasn't so much attacking dark matter and dark energy (although he was criticising the tendency to assume them), but commented "I don't like this description of dark matter in cosmology and *I introduced it*" (which is basically true). The point was more that while we might have phenomenological descriptions, there's no way that the *physics* of 75% of the universe is as simple as cosmology might say.

      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 22 2015, @10:00PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 22 2015, @10:00PM (#186682)

        While an unification of the different quantum field theories is not strictly necessary (the standard model works quite well), it is a completely different thing with the unification of quantum field theory with general relativity: While the different quantum field theories are compatible, quantum field theory and general relativity aren't. That is, there is no way both theories can correctly describe the world in all cases. The main problem is that the areas where they conflict are far beyond our (current, and for a long time also future) experimental ability, so we cannot simply make experiments to decide what really happens in the "conflict zones".

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday May 23 2015, @03:16AM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday May 23 2015, @03:16AM (#186757) Journal

    It doesn't point to shortcomings in quantum or relativity if there is no grand unified theory.

    If your theory doesn't explain everything perfectly, then it has short comings, though not necessarily short comings that anyone cares about. Here, people care that QM and relativity don't explain the middle ground between the two theories.