4 ms·

I'm not a physicist, so I might sound like a moron stating this: Isn't it possible that current theories in particle physics are just simply inaccurate models

I'm not a physicist, so I might sound like a moron stating this: Isn't it possible that current theories in particle physics are just simply inaccurate models of the world? They're just hypothetical low-level explanations of observed high-level effects, and could have been empirically proved by the large colliders, which doesn't seem to have happened. So maybe we don't need new experiments, but new models. A negative result is a result too. On a related note, the assumption in quantum physics that particles have a probability distribution rather than an exact location has always bugged me. Why can't there be low-level mechanisms going on that are too quick/small to be measured (today)?

wongarsu 9y ago
The models are almost certainly inaccurate, we just don't know how inaccurate. It's quite possible that we need new models (or ditch supersymmetry), but physicists become invested in their models and try everything to tweak them to match observations, until it just doesn't work anymore and we have a major breakthrough. >On a related note, the assumption in quantum physics that particles have a probability distribution rather than an exact location has always bugged me. Why can't there be low-level mechanisms going on that are too quick/small to be measured (today)? It bugged a lot of other people too (Einstein's famous "God does not play dice" comes from the same corner). Experiments so far are only consistent with a probability distribution, unless you permit signals to go back in time. Of course how you interpret the model is an entirely different problem (do things only happen once observed, are we in a multiverse and all possibilities happen in some universe, are we simulated and those effects are caused by optimisations (both not calculating things until needed, and inaccuracies akin to floating point errors), etc. the possibilites are endless)
kgwgk 9y ago
> Why can't there be low-level mechanisms going on that are too quick/small to be measured (today)? There are (non local, contextual) “hidden variables” theories that can “complete” QM and restore determinism. But there is nothing to detect, the predictions are identical to “standard” QM (at least in equilibrium).
Confusion 9y ago
The problem is that we have a model that is incredibly accurate for all the things we can apply it to, but that has many conceptual loose ends and leaves some observations completely unexplained. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_beyond_the_Standard_Model https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_beyond_the_Standard_...
nessus42 9y ago
There are a couple "interpretations" of QM in which there is no probability distribution. One is the "Many Worlds" interpretation. (AKA, the Everett interpretation.) In this QM wave functions never collapse, and the only reason that we perceive there to be probability distributions is that the lack of collapse results in many different apparent worlds. Though in reality, there is really just one very big complicated world, but the difference parts of it stop effecting each other via a property called "decoherence". Another deterministic interpretation is the Bohm interpretation, in which the particles are push around by a "pilot wave", which is the same wave function that never collapses in the Many Worlds interpretation. Since the "pilot waves" never collapse in the Bohm interpretation, one might wonder, then why you don't also end up with many worlds here too, but it is taken that the reality that we perceive is always determined by the particles that are being pushed around by the pilot waves. One point of interest is that the Many Worlds interpretation and the Bohm interpretation are experimentally indistinguishable from each other. Regarding the postulation of a multiverse, this is almost certainly true, if you ask me. It would seem to be the only way to explain the apparent "fine tuning" of the universe. Unless you believe that it was tuned by God, that is. But if that's the case, I have a few nits to pick with some of the choices that he or she made.

wongarsu 9y ago

The models are almost certainly inaccurate, we just don't know how inaccurate. It's quite possible that we need new models (or ditch supersymmetry), but physicists become invested in their models and try everything to tweak them to match observations, until it just doesn't work anymore and we have a major breakthrough. >On a related note, the assumption in quantum physics that particles have a probability distribution rather than an exact location has always bugged me. Why can't there be low-level mechanisms going on that are too quick/small to be measured (today)? It bugged a lot of other people too (Einstein's famous "God does not play dice" comes from the same corner). Experiments so far are only consistent with a probability distribution, unless you permit signals to go back in time. Of course how you interpret the model is an entirely different problem (do things only happen once observed, are we in a multiverse and all possibilities happen in some universe, are we simulated and those effects are caused by optimisations (both not calculating things until needed, and inaccuracies akin to floating point errors), etc. the possibilites are endless)

kgwgk 9y ago

> Why can't there be low-level mechanisms going on that are too quick/small to be measured (today)? There are (non local, contextual) “hidden variables” theories that can “complete” QM and restore determinism. But there is nothing to detect, the predictions are identical to “standard” QM (at least in equilibrium).

Confusion 9y ago

The problem is that we have a model that is incredibly accurate for all the things we can apply it to, but that has many conceptual loose ends and leaves some observations completely unexplained. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_beyond_the_Standard_Model https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_beyond_the_Standard_...

nessus42 9y ago

There are a couple "interpretations" of QM in which there is no probability distribution. One is the "Many Worlds" interpretation. (AKA, the Everett interpretation.) In this QM wave functions never collapse, and the only reason that we perceive there to be probability distributions is that the lack of collapse results in many different apparent worlds. Though in reality, there is really just one very big complicated world, but the difference parts of it stop effecting each other via a property called "decoherence". Another deterministic interpretation is the Bohm interpretation, in which the particles are push around by a "pilot wave", which is the same wave function that never collapses in the Many Worlds interpretation. Since the "pilot waves" never collapse in the Bohm interpretation, one might wonder, then why you don't also end up with many worlds here too, but it is taken that the reality that we perceive is always determined by the particles that are being pushed around by the pilot waves. One point of interest is that the Many Worlds interpretation and the Bohm interpretation are experimentally indistinguishable from each other. Regarding the postulation of a multiverse, this is almost certainly true, if you ask me. It would seem to be the only way to explain the apparent "fine tuning" of the universe. Unless you believe that it was tuned by God, that is. But if that's the case, I have a few nits to pick with some of the choices that he or she made.