5 ms·

Anyone who's studied beginning grad level physics should know that. I don't get why it's trending on HN

by sbussard 10y ago

gunnihinn 10y ago
Perhaps for those few of us who are a bit rusty on beginning grad level physics.
GolDDranks 10y ago
Most of us haven't studied grad level physics?
- sbussard 10y ago
  It's presented as if it's a new discovery. If someone's interested in Physics, they should study Physics. It doesn't help much for one to jump right in the middle of a subject and act like they know what they're talking about. Which is exactly what linking to this scientific paper on HN encourages. In this case, anyone who could understand the paper would very likely have encountered the information already. I've seen too many programmers act as if there's nothing they don't know or can't understand after a weekend's worth of study. That kind of arrogance is what separates scientists from pragmatists. It leads to situations like this: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/9602/rediscovery-of-calculus-in-1994-what-should-have-happened-to-that-paper http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/9602/rediscovery...
joeberon 10y ago
Yeah I'm being taught QFT in my undergrad. Any theoretical physicist would be expected to know this concept well. I guess people here aren't theoretical physicists though! However I do think the quality of physics commentary here is generally quite poor. I see a lot of crackpot theories or just ignorance in general. Especially with anything involving quantum mechanics, that seems to drive people crazy. I don't think that many people realise that in physics we don't talk about the philosophical implications at all, we're just trying to find good models, that's it...
- gpsx 10y ago
  I agree that many people who are not experts often misunderstand quantum mechanics. It is a very difficult field to learn. It takes a long time. I disagree about physicists not talking about philosophy. At least some people do in theoretical physics. That is probably why this paper is published in the area of "History and Philosophy of Physics".
  - joeberon 10y ago
    I mean in general. Of course there are physicists at some universities that write about philosophy, but not a single one in my theory department.
- daxfohl 10y ago
  > that seems to drive people crazy Schrödinger's catnip?
ilaksh 10y ago
My grade-school and freshmen physics texts contradicted the article and said there was a paradox caused by duality. Wikipedia 2 slit article still gives this general impression. Hobson is first time I have seen this idea that there is definitely no paradox and just fields. I think its like he says, there is a lot of lag in the mainstream basic education.
- Noseshine 10y ago
  > ...this idea that there is definitely no paradox... Yes, it depends on what one means by "there are", ones own perspective or a much more abstract take, which I wrote somewhere else earlier: > Whenever you have a paradox, like wave-particle duality - but also the "French paradox" > in nutrition, it's not because there really is a "paradox" in the universe, it's because > the way you look at it is too limited, and if you find a better view you will see there > is no paradox. Since you, especially as a human being, can't look at a phenomenon without having a point of view (models) paradoxes are real are not real - at the same time, depending on your models. I claim there always is a (higher) POV where there is no paradox.
mypalmike 10y ago
One of the points he makes in the paper is that none of the 36 quantum mechanics textbooks he found in the library held that fields were fundamental. "30 implied a universe made of particles that sometimes acted like fields, 6 implied the fundamental constituents behaved sometimes like particles and sometimes like fields"
- sbussard 10y ago
  It's interesting that the authors aren't clear about fields being fundamental, it's not even controversial. I noticed that he looked for books with the words "Quantum Mechanics" in the title. The subject he should be investigating is called "Quantum Field Theory". But regardless, anyone qualified to write a text book on QM should be well versed in QFT.
- sbussard 10y ago
  The theory behind the LHC experiment that led to the discovery of the Higgs Boson is based on the unanimously-accepted concept that particles are just quantized localizations of fields. Even in quantum mechanics, problems are solved by assuming that it is impossible to tell the difference between two or more of the same particle - which suggests that they are somehow the same thing. They are different parts of the same field.

Anyone who's studied beginning grad level physics should know that. I don't get why it's trending on HN

gunnihinn 10y ago

Perhaps for those few of us who are a bit rusty on beginning grad level physics.

GolDDranks 10y ago

Most of us haven't studied grad level physics?

sbussard 10y ago
It's presented as if it's a new discovery. If someone's interested in Physics, they should study Physics. It doesn't help much for one to jump right in the middle of a subject and act like they know what they're talking about. Which is exactly what linking to this scientific paper on HN encourages. In this case, anyone who could understand the paper would very likely have encountered the information already. I've seen too many programmers act as if there's nothing they don't know or can't understand after a weekend's worth of study. That kind of arrogance is what separates scientists from pragmatists. It leads to situations like this: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/9602/rediscovery-of-calculus-in-1994-what-should-have-happened-to-that-paper http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/9602/rediscovery...

joeberon 10y ago

Yeah I'm being taught QFT in my undergrad. Any theoretical physicist would be expected to know this concept well. I guess people here aren't theoretical physicists though! However I do think the quality of physics commentary here is generally quite poor. I see a lot of crackpot theories or just ignorance in general. Especially with anything involving quantum mechanics, that seems to drive people crazy. I don't think that many people realise that in physics we don't talk about the philosophical implications at all, we're just trying to find good models, that's it...

gpsx 10y ago
I agree that many people who are not experts often misunderstand quantum mechanics. It is a very difficult field to learn. It takes a long time. I disagree about physicists not talking about philosophy. At least some people do in theoretical physics. That is probably why this paper is published in the area of "History and Philosophy of Physics".
- joeberon 10y ago
  I mean in general. Of course there are physicists at some universities that write about philosophy, but not a single one in my theory department.
daxfohl 10y ago
> that seems to drive people crazy Schrödinger's catnip?

ilaksh 10y ago

My grade-school and freshmen physics texts contradicted the article and said there was a paradox caused by duality. Wikipedia 2 slit article still gives this general impression. Hobson is first time I have seen this idea that there is definitely no paradox and just fields. I think its like he says, there is a lot of lag in the mainstream basic education.

Noseshine 10y ago
> ...this idea that there is definitely no paradox... Yes, it depends on what one means by "there are", ones own perspective or a much more abstract take, which I wrote somewhere else earlier: > Whenever you have a paradox, like wave-particle duality - but also the "French paradox" > in nutrition, it's not because there really is a "paradox" in the universe, it's because > the way you look at it is too limited, and if you find a better view you will see there > is no paradox. Since you, especially as a human being, can't look at a phenomenon without having a point of view (models) paradoxes are real are not real - at the same time, depending on your models. I claim there always is a (higher) POV where there is no paradox.

mypalmike 10y ago

One of the points he makes in the paper is that none of the 36 quantum mechanics textbooks he found in the library held that fields were fundamental. "30 implied a universe made of particles that sometimes acted like fields, 6 implied the fundamental constituents behaved sometimes like particles and sometimes like fields"

sbussard 10y ago
It's interesting that the authors aren't clear about fields being fundamental, it's not even controversial. I noticed that he looked for books with the words "Quantum Mechanics" in the title. The subject he should be investigating is called "Quantum Field Theory". But regardless, anyone qualified to write a text book on QM should be well versed in QFT.
sbussard 10y ago
The theory behind the LHC experiment that led to the discovery of the Higgs Boson is based on the unanimously-accepted concept that particles are just quantized localizations of fields. Even in quantum mechanics, problems are solved by assuming that it is impossible to tell the difference between two or more of the same particle - which suggests that they are somehow the same thing. They are different parts of the same field.