4 ms·
With QFT (Quantum Field Theory)[1] there are no particles at all - just perturbances of the corresponding fundamental fields. Moreover, seems like QFT is the do
by xvilka 6y ago
With QFT (Quantum Field Theory)[1] there are no particles at all - just perturbances of the corresponding fundamental fields. Moreover, seems like QFT is the dominant explanation to date. At least at the current level of understanding and according the fad. There is a problem with it - it's incompatible with the general relativity, so unlikely is completely true. But it explained so many phenomena. Some people think it's not even fundamental, nor the space, time, fields themselves - only geometry/topology is - see, for example, the amplituhedron[2][3]. While it doesn't represent our complex 3+1 dimensional reality, it's certainly a new way to look at things. Time will tell.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amplituhedron https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amplituhedron
[3] https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-discover-geometry-underlying-particle-physics-20130917/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-discover-geometry-...
- jiggawatts 6y agoUnless I'm missing something, the Amplituhedron is geometry over an abstract space and is just a clever way of simplifying calculations. Also, its proponents haven't yet been able to apply it to interactions that occur in our 3+1 spacetime, so far they've only applied it to toy models of physics. Clever algebra is not what the Universe "does", and you'll find that 99.9% of the geometry or topology topics in theoretical physics are over abstract, high-dimensional spaces that are a couple of steps removed from the ordinary goings on at the particle interaction level.
- xvilka 6y agoYes, I mentioned it doesn't describe our 3+1 dimensional reality. It's more than just the algebra/geometry though - it kills the locality and unitarity principles. So it has quite a few implications on how we think about underlying physics.
- vertbhrtn 6y agoI've seen a clever way to derive QM out of GR equations by making a single assumption: ds2exp(Cexp(-iwt)) = c2*dt2 - dx2 - dy2 - dz2. This extra exp() factor modulates the ds2 slightly, and when mixed with GR equations, it makes the time-dependent Schrodinger equation. Whether this math corresponds to any physics is a question, but if this idea is right, then the psi-function isn't some abstract "probabilities cloud", but rather a standing wave on top of the spacetime field governed by the GR equations.
- ganzuul 6y agoAFAIK a standing wave requires the interference of two waves going in opposite direction, as in a resonant cavity. How does that work in a boundless space? Do we need some kind of time symmetry for this to work?
- vertbhrtn 6y agoThe relativistic effects create this standing wave, i.e. the particle distorts the spacetime as it's moving and the relativistic "glitch" mixed with the modulated ds2 creates the standing wave. IIRC, the idea was to apply the Lorentz moving frame transformation to the ds2 x exp() interval to derive some bits of QM. To derive the non time-dependent SE, some bits of GR were needed and to derive the time-dependent SE, more GR was needed.
- mhh__ 6y agoThe Schrodinger equation is non-relativistic so your program seems flawed.
- vertbhrtn 6y agoSE is just a diff equation that approximates physics well. It's non relativistic in the same sense as the textbook wave equation is non relativistic. The "true SE" is likely way more complex, includes some bizarre math, but is compatible with GR and all relativistic effects.