3 ms·

> I don't think Palmer has ever published anything on quantum mechanical systems, so this claim seems questionable and might be some kind of ideological viewpoi

> I don't think Palmer has ever published anything on quantum mechanical systems, so this claim seems questionable and might be some kind of ideological viewpoint. People are so quick to dismiss without any evidence. Why not look at his actual publications: https://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/our-people/palmer/publications https://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/our-people/palmer/publications Some choice excerpts: * Bell's theorem, non-computability and conformal cyclic cosmology: A top-down approach to quantum gravity, https://avs.scitation.org/doi/10.1116/5.0060680 https://avs.scitation.org/doi/10.1116/5.0060680 * Supermeasured: Violating Bell-Statistical Independence Without Violating Physical Statistical Independence, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-022-00602-9 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-022-00602-9 * Discretization of the Bloch sphere, fractal invariant sets and Bell’s theorem, https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2019.0350 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2019.035... * The Invariant Set Postulate: a new geometric framework for the foundations of quantum theory and the role played by gravity, https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2009.0080 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2009.008... The last is when he first started publishing about quantum mechanics back in 2009, in which he described "invariant set theory" as a new approach to quantum foundations that was well received. He actually worked with Stephen Hawking on developing supergravity before he switched to climate modelling.

photochemsyn 4y ago
I guess that's what I get for only looking at the top page of Google Scholar results for 'Palmer quantum chaos climate'. However, Palmer's view on quantum systems does seem to be pretty set and fairly ideological in nature (i.e. experimental verification doesn't seem to be much of a concern). For example: (2005) "Quantum Reality, Complex Numbers, and the Meteorological Butterfly Effect " https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/86/4/bams-86-4-519.xml https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/86/4/bams-86... > "By considering an idealization of the upscale cascade (which provides a novel representation of complex numbers and quaternions), a case is made for reinterpreting the quantum wave function as a set of intricately encoded binary sequences. In this reinterpretation, it is argued that the quantum world has no need for dice-playing deities, undead cats, multiple universes, or “spooky action at a distance.”" At this point, I think anyone pushing this view of how QM works without experimental results to back it up is just tilting at windmills.
- naasking 4y ago
  > However, Palmer's view on quantum systems does seem to be pretty set and fairly ideological in nature (i.e. experimental verification doesn't seem to be much of a concern). I don't understand this objection. Palmer's theory would have to be consistent with all existing evidence for quantum mechanics. There's a rich unexplored area in quantum foundations (superdeterminism), and he's found a novel, plausible model for how it could work, so why wouldn't he explore it fully until it's been contradicted? A different interpretation on QM might also imply some new experiments that orthodox QM wouldn't consider interesting. For instance, Hossenfelder has suggested that there might be some unusual regularities in repeated low temperature experiments if superdeterminism is true, regularities that would be implausible if reality is actually indeterministic. Palmer's theory has testable predictions for large-scale cosmology, so it's not like his ideas are unfalsifiable in principle. Furthermore, Palmer is a theoretician not an experimentalist. Bell created his theorem but experimentalists designed and ran the actual experiment.

photochemsyn 4y ago

I guess that's what I get for only looking at the top page of Google Scholar results for 'Palmer quantum chaos climate'. However, Palmer's view on quantum systems does seem to be pretty set and fairly ideological in nature (i.e. experimental verification doesn't seem to be much of a concern). For example: (2005) "Quantum Reality, Complex Numbers, and the Meteorological Butterfly Effect " https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/86/4/bams-86-4-519.xml https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/86/4/bams-86... > "By considering an idealization of the upscale cascade (which provides a novel representation of complex numbers and quaternions), a case is made for reinterpreting the quantum wave function as a set of intricately encoded binary sequences. In this reinterpretation, it is argued that the quantum world has no need for dice-playing deities, undead cats, multiple universes, or “spooky action at a distance.”" At this point, I think anyone pushing this view of how QM works without experimental results to back it up is just tilting at windmills.

naasking 4y ago
> However, Palmer's view on quantum systems does seem to be pretty set and fairly ideological in nature (i.e. experimental verification doesn't seem to be much of a concern). I don't understand this objection. Palmer's theory would have to be consistent with all existing evidence for quantum mechanics. There's a rich unexplored area in quantum foundations (superdeterminism), and he's found a novel, plausible model for how it could work, so why wouldn't he explore it fully until it's been contradicted? A different interpretation on QM might also imply some new experiments that orthodox QM wouldn't consider interesting. For instance, Hossenfelder has suggested that there might be some unusual regularities in repeated low temperature experiments if superdeterminism is true, regularities that would be implausible if reality is actually indeterministic. Palmer's theory has testable predictions for large-scale cosmology, so it's not like his ideas are unfalsifiable in principle. Furthermore, Palmer is a theoretician not an experimentalist. Bell created his theorem but experimentalists designed and ran the actual experiment.