4 ms·

Just be aware that while Dr. Garret is very smart (and very accomplished with software) he is not a physicist. When this talk first came out I asked a couple pe

Just be aware that while Dr. Garret is very smart (and very accomplished with software) he is not a physicist. When this talk first came out I asked a couple people who do know QFT in detail about it and they were quite dismissive.

lisper 10y ago
It's true. I'm not a physicist. I have never claimed to be a physicist. The only contribution I have ever claimed is a pedagogical one. When I first wrote the paper 15 years ago I submitted it to Physics Today. It was rejected, not because it was wrong, but because the reviewers thought that it was nothing new, that everyone already knew this stuff. Since then the physics community has bifurcated rather neatly into two camps: the ones who agree with the PT reviewers, and the ones who think I'm a "category 5 loon" (that was Lubos Motl's term). Personally, I think the existence of people like Motl and your anonymous "dismissive" QFT experts -- and the fact that I can still stump card-carrying physicists with the EPRG paradox -- falsifies the hypothesis that "everyone already knows this stuff." I will also say, because I'm feeling rather annoying by all this, that in 15 years no one has ever pointed out any actual mistakes in the paper (except for a few typos).
- jasonwatkinspdx 10y ago
  I'm not qualified to adjudicate this, but I would point out that painting yourself as revealing a conspiracy doesn't do you any favors IMO. Edit: downvote me all you like, but at least be accurate. I'm referring to the title of the tech talk video linked several times in this thread: "The Quantum Conspiracy: What Popularizers of QM Don't Want You to Know"
  - bjelkeman-again 10y ago
    There was no conspiracy mentioned. Just people disagreeing about a hard subject.
  - andrewflnr 10y ago
    There is no conspiracy described in GP, only human politics as usual.
  - lisper 10y ago
    You obviously didn't watch even the first minute of the talk because the very first thing I say is that the title is tongue-in-cheek and there is no conspiracy.
    - jasonwatkinspdx 10y ago
      I did, though it's been several years. Making an inflammatory statement, then denying it as a joke is a common mild double bind, one that's best avoided. I'm not speaking toward your intentions as I obviously don't know them. I'm just pointing out that particular rhetorical form isn't doing you any favors, again, IMO.
      - lisper 10y ago
        I prefer to think of it as a marketing strategy. And I think it has actually been fairly effective. That video has had over a million views.
- RangerScience 10y ago
  As a semi-random person with little connection to you or your critic, I just want you to know their comment just reminded me to critically think about what you're saying, not to think it was wrong or misleading.
- ttctciyf 10y ago
  Hi, I'm considerably less of a physicist than yourself :) I did watch your google talk video, and have to thank you for an interesting presentation that introduced me to a couple of new perspectives on quantum interpretation. I'm utterly unqualified to have an opinion on the topic, but enjoy thinking about it sometimes. So I just wanted to ask in respect of "no one has ever pointed out any actual mistakes" - have you seen the stackexchange discussion at http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/208609/does-the-following-experiment-disprove-the-copenhagen-interpretation/208659 http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/208609/does-the-f... , and do you have any comment on the assertion there that your statement of EPRG misses the point that "even if Alice does let her system produce interference, the other system will not produce interference either"?
  - lisper 10y ago
    I have not seen this particular exchange, but it is typical of people who have missed the point. Yes, of course the EPRG paradox doesn't work. That's the whole point. It's a straw man, designed to draw attention to the fact that there is something wrong with QM pedagogy. The thing that people who critique my work generally miss is that it is not about physics, it's about pedagogy. It's about how the physics is explained. Everyone agrees on the physics. It's the explanation that is at issue. The whole first half of the talk is the problem statement. (God damn this is annoying: "I'm afraid I won't have time to critique whatever it is he says in the second half of the video." Well, the second half is where I explain why the EPRG paradox doesn't actually work. By the time I gave that talk I already knew that people got this wrong, so I went to great lengths to highlight the fact that EPRG was a straw man. And then people jump into the middle of the video, see the story out of context, and say "This is wrong." Well, duh, of course it's wrong. That's the whole fucking point!)
    - ttctciyf 10y ago
      Heh, thanks for the explanation, and sorry for apparently ruining your day :) I did suspect that "Garret then claims that this can be used for superluminal communication" missed that you were using this as a kind of reductio, but I then took it to mean that your reductio was not working how you expected it to. Probably I should re-watch the video - it's been a couple of years.

lisper 10y ago

It's true. I'm not a physicist. I have never claimed to be a physicist. The only contribution I have ever claimed is a pedagogical one. When I first wrote the paper 15 years ago I submitted it to Physics Today. It was rejected, not because it was wrong, but because the reviewers thought that it was nothing new, that everyone already knew this stuff. Since then the physics community has bifurcated rather neatly into two camps: the ones who agree with the PT reviewers, and the ones who think I'm a "category 5 loon" (that was Lubos Motl's term). Personally, I think the existence of people like Motl and your anonymous "dismissive" QFT experts -- and the fact that I can still stump card-carrying physicists with the EPRG paradox -- falsifies the hypothesis that "everyone already knows this stuff." I will also say, because I'm feeling rather annoying by all this, that in 15 years no one has ever pointed out any actual mistakes in the paper (except for a few typos).

jasonwatkinspdx 10y ago
I'm not qualified to adjudicate this, but I would point out that painting yourself as revealing a conspiracy doesn't do you any favors IMO. Edit: downvote me all you like, but at least be accurate. I'm referring to the title of the tech talk video linked several times in this thread: "The Quantum Conspiracy: What Popularizers of QM Don't Want You to Know"
- bjelkeman-again 10y ago
  There was no conspiracy mentioned. Just people disagreeing about a hard subject.
- andrewflnr 10y ago
  There is no conspiracy described in GP, only human politics as usual.
- lisper 10y ago
  You obviously didn't watch even the first minute of the talk because the very first thing I say is that the title is tongue-in-cheek and there is no conspiracy.
  - jasonwatkinspdx 10y ago
    I did, though it's been several years. Making an inflammatory statement, then denying it as a joke is a common mild double bind, one that's best avoided. I'm not speaking toward your intentions as I obviously don't know them. I'm just pointing out that particular rhetorical form isn't doing you any favors, again, IMO.
    - lisper 10y ago
      I prefer to think of it as a marketing strategy. And I think it has actually been fairly effective. That video has had over a million views.
RangerScience 10y ago
As a semi-random person with little connection to you or your critic, I just want you to know their comment just reminded me to critically think about what you're saying, not to think it was wrong or misleading.
ttctciyf 10y ago
Hi, I'm considerably less of a physicist than yourself :) I did watch your google talk video, and have to thank you for an interesting presentation that introduced me to a couple of new perspectives on quantum interpretation. I'm utterly unqualified to have an opinion on the topic, but enjoy thinking about it sometimes. So I just wanted to ask in respect of "no one has ever pointed out any actual mistakes" - have you seen the stackexchange discussion at http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/208609/does-the-following-experiment-disprove-the-copenhagen-interpretation/208659 http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/208609/does-the-f... , and do you have any comment on the assertion there that your statement of EPRG misses the point that "even if Alice does let her system produce interference, the other system will not produce interference either"?
- lisper 10y ago
  I have not seen this particular exchange, but it is typical of people who have missed the point. Yes, of course the EPRG paradox doesn't work. That's the whole point. It's a straw man, designed to draw attention to the fact that there is something wrong with QM pedagogy. The thing that people who critique my work generally miss is that it is not about physics, it's about pedagogy. It's about how the physics is explained. Everyone agrees on the physics. It's the explanation that is at issue. The whole first half of the talk is the problem statement. (God damn this is annoying: "I'm afraid I won't have time to critique whatever it is he says in the second half of the video." Well, the second half is where I explain why the EPRG paradox doesn't actually work. By the time I gave that talk I already knew that people got this wrong, so I went to great lengths to highlight the fact that EPRG was a straw man. And then people jump into the middle of the video, see the story out of context, and say "This is wrong." Well, duh, of course it's wrong. That's the whole fucking point!)
  - ttctciyf 10y ago
    Heh, thanks for the explanation, and sorry for apparently ruining your day :) I did suspect that "Garret then claims that this can be used for superluminal communication" missed that you were using this as a kind of reductio, but I then took it to mean that your reductio was not working how you expected it to. Probably I should re-watch the video - it's been a couple of years.