4 ms·

Obviously you're correct, but you have to admit that the universe pulled a funny one here. "Particles" aren't the emergent property of quantum fields the way yo

Obviously you're correct, but you have to admit that the universe pulled a funny one here. "Particles" aren't the emergent property of quantum fields the way you'd hope. Unlike other classical phenomena, where you can sum up all the wave behavior and see where the classical illusion comes from, fields just kinda describe amplitudes over possible particle positions. We shift from configuration to configuration precisely as governed by the fields, but its over a configuration space of particles! What the hell!? Who wouldn't be confused? I honestly won't be happy until QFT has a good explanation as to why it feels the need to pretend perfect inviolable particles exist (the universe, of course, is under no obligation to oblige, but I am under no obligation to die happy).

namaria 4y ago
Y'all squinting too hard looking into formulas. The artifacts we use to calculate results of experiments are not the fabric of the cosmos.
- abdullahkhalids 4y ago
  I am sure GP is aware of the difference between reality and the map of reality. But creating maps are shown to not correspond to reality and others that do a pretty good job for parts of reality do say something about what the fabric of the cosmos could and could not be. The most striking example of this is Bell's experiments which wipe out entire classes of fabrics.
  - namaria 4y ago
    Sure, understanding the logic behind validating reality models is very useful. Surely, you also can see that pretending like valid reality models are more then useful, but a representation of the very nature of existence, is just a flight of fancy. We don't know what is reality, why is reality, and the bulk of it lies eternally beyond us, towards past and future. Sure we can figure out reality, it's all about tunnels baby! Says the ant.
  - zmgsabst 4y ago
    Sure — but equally so is the response to Bell’s inequality that we must live in a non-deterministic world… even though that’s a purely extraneous assumption (ie, we’re non-local either way). Yet, for longer than I’ve been alive physicists have blathered about this “quantum truth” that’s purely an artifact of extraneous assumptions, so far as anyone can show me.
    - akimball 4y ago
      Is it extraneous to interpret schrödinger psi as a probability amplitude? If not, then all fundamental interactions are stochastic.
    - naasking 4y ago
      > Sure — but equally so is the response to Bell’s inequality that we must live in a non-deterministic world Bohmian mechanics and Many Worlds are both deterministics interpretations of QM.
- ravi-delia 4y ago
  Not really sure this makes sense? We know exactly why light behaves the way it does- the emergent properties of a simpler system. It's weird that particles aren't like this so far! I think your critique here is leveled at QFT (which is fair, it's a practical theory with plenty of compromises), but the "why the hell are particles" issue holds in practically every flavor of QM

namaria 4y ago

Y'all squinting too hard looking into formulas. The artifacts we use to calculate results of experiments are not the fabric of the cosmos.

abdullahkhalids 4y ago
I am sure GP is aware of the difference between reality and the map of reality. But creating maps are shown to not correspond to reality and others that do a pretty good job for parts of reality do say something about what the fabric of the cosmos could and could not be. The most striking example of this is Bell's experiments which wipe out entire classes of fabrics.
- namaria 4y ago
  Sure, understanding the logic behind validating reality models is very useful. Surely, you also can see that pretending like valid reality models are more then useful, but a representation of the very nature of existence, is just a flight of fancy. We don't know what is reality, why is reality, and the bulk of it lies eternally beyond us, towards past and future. Sure we can figure out reality, it's all about tunnels baby! Says the ant.
- zmgsabst 4y ago
  Sure — but equally so is the response to Bell’s inequality that we must live in a non-deterministic world… even though that’s a purely extraneous assumption (ie, we’re non-local either way). Yet, for longer than I’ve been alive physicists have blathered about this “quantum truth” that’s purely an artifact of extraneous assumptions, so far as anyone can show me.
  - akimball 4y ago
    Is it extraneous to interpret schrödinger psi as a probability amplitude? If not, then all fundamental interactions are stochastic.
  - naasking 4y ago
    > Sure — but equally so is the response to Bell’s inequality that we must live in a non-deterministic world Bohmian mechanics and Many Worlds are both deterministics interpretations of QM.
ravi-delia 4y ago
Not really sure this makes sense? We know exactly why light behaves the way it does- the emergent properties of a simpler system. It's weird that particles aren't like this so far! I think your critique here is leveled at QFT (which is fair, it's a practical theory with plenty of compromises), but the "why the hell are particles" issue holds in practically every flavor of QM