Correlating Newtonian Model with Einstein's GR

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by hansda, May 8, 2017.

  1. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    As far as it says so, it is nonsense.
    It is not even a theory. No definition of the objects of the theory, no equations of motion for these objects, nothing.
    It limits the accuracy of the predictions of QT. Which is what matters. I do not plan to play endless word games.
    Learn to read.
    So what? Classical theory says there is, and gives exact equations, which allow exact predictions given exact initial values. That in a particular interpretation of a particular theory (QT) trajectories do not exist does not make them non-existent. In realistic interpretations of QT they exist.
    There are no missing things in classical theory, the things are the same (configurations). In this sense, your "aspects" was more accurate, it made at least clear that you are talking about something diffuse, and undefined.
    No. In the limit, the inaccuracy of quantum theory is simply small enough to be ignored.

    The language of physics is essentially mathematics. The principle I have explained you is nothing specific, but a very general strategy - no exceptions for the trivial cases - which every rational physicist uses too.
    Not ok, learn to read.
    What oops? Nobody has claimed here that the classical SM has anything to do with observable reality.
    Wrong. There will be a myon field, with field equations, and solutions of them. Of course, the energy levels are not discrete, so you have no "particles" in classical field theory. But classical EM theory also does not go away because you have no photons in it.
    Learn what a strawman is. This is certainly not a strawman because there is not even an intention to present this as if this would be really your point of view. It is simply an intentional exaggeration into the absurd of the weak points of what you do, namely to use vaguely defined notions like "aspects" or "quantum effects" without specifying them.
    Fine, so you have no longer written this, and can forget about it:
    So a TOE is not a TOE if it is false. This would be the consequence of this. And this would be nonsensical. With Newtonian gravity no longer being a theory of gravity (given that it is false in the relativistic domain).
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Or, the Heisenberg uncertainty is a feature of nature, and it makes quantum theories model nature to levels of accuracy unobtainable by classical theories.

    You seem to be under the impression that the Heisenberg uncertainty is a limitation of quantum theories, while in actuality it's one of the most important steps forward of quantum theories. Might I suggest you learn what the Heisenberg uncertainty really is?

    I'm not playing word games; you are free to stop doing so at any time.

    You said: "No. You can get also, easily, a density distribution which contains all possible trajectories." So you agree that a density distribution can model all possible trajectories. And, because a density distribution can also model trajectories where uncertainty plays a role, it can model more.

    If that's not what you meant: Learn to write.

    That's what the Heisenberg uncertainty means. It's the entire point.

    I don't deny that. I am just pointing out then (when quantum effects are significant) those predictions are wrong, and that quantum theories can model both the predictions classical theories give, and cases where quantum effects are important.

    I'm not claiming that; you are claiming that quantum theories can't model trajectories.

    Obviously, and I've never argued otherwise. They just spring from the density distribution, which is more fundamental.

    Yet you refuse to give a classical explanation of the photoelectric aspect, the strong and weak nuclear forces, etc.


    That you don't know what Wikipedia is referring to is not my fault.

    Please learn what limit taking is, and how in this particular case the uncertainty disappears.

    No, only of the quantitative models, not of physics in general.

    Yes, you are generalizing "language typical for mathematicians" to physics, just as I said.

    How else am I supposed to interpret your continued refusal than as an implicit admission?

    Except the definition of TOE, which is what we are discussion, remember?

    I said "muons", not "muon fields".

    So it's an attempt to discredit my argument by using an extreme version of my argument that I don't really hold? Yep, sounds like a straw-man to me!

    I'm talking about aspects of the Standard Model there, not aspects of QFT?

    Which you have yet to demonstrate.

    I never claimed that, and in fact, I disagree with that. Is this another straw-man of yours, perhaps?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    You might want to suggest such things if you want an EOD. What you think about steps forward or backward is completely irrelevant for the topic we are discussing here.
    False. Ok, I was sloppy using your "contains" here too. A "contains" makes sense if it means that the resulting probability distribution is nonzero at every place where a trajectory is possible. It does in no way mean that the probability distribution contains any information about the trajectories. In fact, it does not.
    Again, so what? The Heisenberg uncertainty relation is non-existent for classical theory. So, a classical theory can give more accurate predictions.
    No, they don't. The trajectories are the evil "hidden variables" which according to other interpretations do not exist at all. And what they certainly don't do is to spring from density distributions. It is the other way around: If we don't know the trajectories, we can describe the information which we have using probability distributions.
    Because, as explained, the photoelectric effect is not a configuration, not an element of the configuration space, so not a thing which has to be described by a classical theory of that particular configuration space. The strong and weak nuclear forces are, instead, in the classical theory completely normal gauge fields, and described.
    Wiki is not a scientific authority, so I see no reason to care about this. [another effrontery disposed of]
    Learn to read. (Internet jargon for try to interpret what was said in a reasonable way, in case you did not know.)
    And I say muon fields. So what? Don't forget, the SM is a field theory. (There are people who think the particles are more fundamental, but the semiclassical theory gives strong arguments that they are secondary, similar to phonons in acoustics and that the fields are fundamental.)
    So, learn what a straw man is. According to wiki, a straw man is "giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent". I do not even try to give the impression that the extreme version is yours, and do not even try to refute it because it is self-evident that it is in this extreme form nonsense. So, the very argument is the transformation from your argument to the extremal variant, the difference between them is not hidden at all.
    Whatever aspects you talk about, stop talking about them, given that they are not precisely defined, but sloppy language. Or give a precise definition.
    I have, by showing that the consequences would be absurd. Here, learn to read: "And this would be nonsensical. With Newtonian gravity no longer being a theory of gravity (given that it is false in the relativistic domain)." That this consequence is absurd, even you seem to recognize:
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    I wouldn't have to suggest such things if you didn't show an apparent misunderstanding of basic quantum theory.

    Yes, and I can construct such a probability distribution easily. In fact, I've already done that in post #215.

    If the probability distribution describe the trajectories, it must contain at least the same (amount of) information.

    For which you have given no arguments so far.

    So you agree with me that classical theories cannot model reality's quantum effects? Good!

    I think I see what the problem here is... You interpret accurate as meaning: the smallest error bars on a number, the smallest "spread" of a value. But I interpret accurate in this context to mean: matches reality most closely. And since reality seems to exhibit quantum effects, those need to be modeled.

    The standard scientific interpretation/meaning of "accurate" in the context of "a classical theory can give more accurate predictions" is of course the latter. (I think the former would more correctly be called: "precision".)


    (Note: I goofed up, and mixed up my distributions. I didn't mean density distribution, but probability distribution! That's what I get for being active in two different threads in the same time!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I've given you the procedure to make a probability distribution out of a trajectory. It's simple to see that this procedure could easily be reversed. Any trajectory you stick in the distribution, you can later extract from it as well.

    It's very similar to path integrals, actually.

    But we can also describe the information with a probability distribution if we do know the trajectories.

    So the transitions between configurations are not important to you, only that a theory covers the configuration space? That's a terrible idea: you're throwing out time evolution!

    Can you point me to some literature that agrees with your view?

    Can you point me to a classical description of the weak nuclear force, because I couldn't find it?

    Neither are you; another effrontery disposed of.

    And not caring about definitions of the words you are using is silly.

    Fine, I'll change my statement into:
    "So you demonstrate that your statements were baseless assertions by not providing any evidence to back them up? OK."

    "So what?" Well, I wasn't talking about muon fields, I was talking about muons. So that.

    [another effrontery disposed of]

    Ah, so you were trolling, by replying to my argument with something unrelated to it! Got it.

    I can't find a good precise definition, but I can tell what "aspects" includes:
    "Yet GUTs are clearly not the final answer; both the current standard model and all proposed GUTs are quantum field theories which require the problematic technique of renormalization to yield sensible answers."
    So a TOE must encompass both the current standard model and a GUT.

    You do understand that a term can have a different meaning than merely the composition of its parts? A TOE has the added bit that it must describe the (= our) universe. A theory of gravity doesn't have that requirement. Perhaps you should learn to read as well?
  8. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    I didn't. If you think I did, show the details of that "misunderstanding" instead of starting to flame.
    A trivial probability distribution which is not a solution of the Schroedinger equation, but which makes sense only in classical theory. What was your point of this construction was unclear to me.
    It does not describe them.
    So this was yet another word game. So, ok, let's forget about accuracy. Use whatever English word you like to describe that classical trajectories can be exactly computed, but quantum theory does not give any information about them (in some interpretations not even if they exist at all).
    This works only for this particular construction. For every other probability distribution not of this particular form $\rho(q) = \delta(q-q_0)$ it does not work. Already $\rho(q) = p \delta(q-q_0) + (1-p) \delta(q-q_1)$ does not contain which of the two possibilities is the correct one.
    This is indeed easy, because throwing away information is easy. In the other direction, it doesn't work. Except for the pure states.
    How do you make such conclusions? These are important physical predictions about these configurations. But these are already details, which do not change the fact that both theories are about configurations in this particular fixed configuration space.
    After you point me to some literature that agrees with your view about green gremlins. Sorry, but there will be no literature about such trivialities.
    Why do you think somebody would study it? It is trivial to define it, but of no practical interest, given that for the computation of physical effects one anyway needs the quantum theory.
    No, I do not provide any evidence for trivialities, because I already loose far to much time answering your postings.
    Makes no sense. A GUT (if there is such an animal) would be a theory which contains the SM.
    It can. But this is not the default assumption. And for a TOE where is no need for such a hypothesis. It has to describe all the objects known to exist. Which are the gravitational field and the fields of the SM. And probably also some sort of dark matter.
  9. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    As I've already pointed you, you stated that "[the Heisenberg uncertainty] limits the accuracy of the predictions of QT", which is obviously false if we use the proper definition of "accuracy" (i.e. matching with reality).

    My point is that a probability distribution will contain more (or at least as much) information as any trajectory can. That such probability distributions don't match the classical theory is (at this point in the discussion) neither here not there.

    Please explain how they do not describe them, instead of merely stating that over and over again.

    No, it was a misunderstanding because you have been using the word "accuracy" with a non-standard definition, given the context. Your non-standard usage confused the issue.

    As I said, that is probably the word "precise".

    Again, I see you claiming this, but no proof?

    Wow, are you saying probability distributions can describe more than mere trajectories? That they can contain "things"/"features"/information that cannot be expressed with mere trajectories? You, sir, have just agreed with my point.

    How is my procedure throwing away information? You just stated that the trajectory can be recovered from it, so no information can be lost.

    Are there trajectories in classical theory that are not pure states?

    You are constantly saying that only the coverage of configuration space is important, and that the allowed transitions between them plays no role (see our discussion about the photoelectric effect).

    Agreed, so the transitions are important to get right too.

    They may be details, but they happen to be crucial in this case.

    It is you that started talking about gremlins, remember?

    And another case of you not being able to back up your own claims.

    If you had just provided it, we would have already passed this point. If they are trivialities, it should be easy to provide proof. In fact, it should be trivial, by definition.

    I agree, but that was not the point of that statement. Please re-read it in context.

    The meaning of words is not a scientific endeavour, so this is neither here not there.

    Remember that word "aspects"? It includes more than just "all objects known to exist". But hey, we can also go down that route. Clearly, an electron is a particle with a very specific set of behaviors, which seem to be modeled quite well by QED. Any proposed particle that doesn't have these behaviors is thus not an electron. In other words, a TOE must contain a type of particle with those exact behaviors. Realize that those "quantum effects" are part of that behavior, and hey presto, a TOE must model quantum effect, and thus cannot be a classical theory.
  10. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    And this point is obviously wrong.

    Thanks, so replace "accurate" with "precise".
    Make a proposal how much you pay for a beginners course in QT 101, then we will see.
    No, I don't. Excercise 1: Find out your error in the interpretation of what I have written.
    I did not do such a thing. Learn how the content of information of a probability distribution is computed, compute the content of information of $\delta(q-q_0)$ and then of $\frac12(\delta(q-q_0)+\delta(q-q_1))$.
    No. Trajectories are pure states. But there are, of course, probability distributions in classical theory too. They describe situations where one does not have exact information about the trajectory.
    Are you in iceaura modus reinterpreting what I'm saying in completely arbitrary ways?

    The coverage of the configuration space is important only for one (quite unimportant) thing, namely how to name the theory. So, a theory of gravity needs a configuration space containing the gravitational field, a theory of electromagnetism, instead, a configuration space containing electric and magnetic forces. Given that this is the topic of our discussion, I care about this, else there would be not much reason.
    Another case where I'm not interested in doing this. If you ask me to back up that 2+2=4, I will ignore this too.
    Not at all. Trivial things are trivial only as long as one does not try to explain them to people who don't like to understand.

    We already see it here: A long thread for the triviality that a TOE should describe gravity as well as the SM fields, but is not obligatory a quantum theory.
    We have been already there, I know that aspects are also aspects of beauty, religious and philosophical importance, and many others, and that's why I leave the details of various aspects to your fantasy.
  11. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    And once again, no explanation except you "I say so".

    Well, then the problem disappears, right? I say a TOE has to be accurate, you say classical theories are very to be precise. No immediate contradiction there.

    You want me to pay money for you to show evidence? Yeah, how about no?

    Exercise 1 for you: point out my supposed error in the interpretation of what you have written.

    Here I am being accused of word games, and you are playing the "you are wrong because I said so" game.

    If the original trajectory can be recovered from the density distribution, obviously all its information in contained within the density distribution. No need to calculate anything; this is information theory 101.

    So my proposed procedure works for all trajectories in classical theories. Good.

    Sure, but those are not related to the probability distribution related to the wavefunction, they are purely statistical things.

    I have no clue what "iceaura modus" is?

    I don't disagree with this, but that's not what I'm arguing about. I'm purely talking about TOE's, not theories of gravity.

    A wise man once said: "Claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." If you are unwilling or unable to back up your claims, I will not take them seriously.

    Is that supposed to be an insult?

    You keep saying it is a triviality, but you keep being unable to provide even the slightest proof for it. Providing evidence for it should be, as one might say, trivial.

    Another straw-man. I have never claimed "beauty, religious and philosophical importance" are part of the aspects of a TOE, and I do not agree with that; it's you who brought that up first, and keeps bringing that up.
  12. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    In this case, try yourself to get an elementary education about the quantum theory, which is imho what would be the "evidence" you ask for.
    Yes. And this happens only if $\rho(q) = \delta(q-q_0)$. In the second case, $\frac12(\delta(q−q_0)+\delta(q−q_1))$ the information which trajectory is the correct one is already lost.
    Fine. Feel free to ignore everything I say. If you decide that a TOE has to be a quantum theory which described green gremlins, so be it. That's not my problem. Have a nice day.
  13. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    If I say the same to you, would you do it? If not, why do you expect me to?

    In any case, that's neither here nor there. You are suggesting that any elementary education about quantum theory will provide the answers, yet you are unable to provide even the slightest modicum of evidence. You keep claiming things to be trivial, but you can't/won't even back them up.

    If an elementary education about the quantum theory is enough, please point me the right literature. Like a page number for "Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell" (2nd edition, please), Le Ballac's "Quantum Physics", or even Griffiths' "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" (again, 2nd edition please).

    Good, so we at least agree that some trajectories can be fully modeled with a probability distribution.

    But which one is the correct one? The expression is symmetrical in \(q1\) and \(q2\), so neither is. There is no information to be lost?

    Again, you brought up the gremlins, not me.

    Does this mean you really refuse to back up any of your claims? Are you really running away from providing any proof or evidence for "trivialities"?
  14. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Because there is a difference: I have published papers in peer-reviewed journals about quantum theory, so it is obvious that I do not need elementary education about QT. You have shown here that you need.
    The one in correspondence with reality.
    Yes. You have shown in this thread that it is almost impossible to argue with you even about such trivial conventions like the meaning of "TOE". So the predictable results of any attempt to explain you these trivialities would be an endless thread giving nothing except the loss of time. Sorry.
  15. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Papers? After searching, I found just one, about 8 year old. One that has only two citations that aren't self-citations. And both citations only mention your paper in passing; they don't go into any depth. That's a pretty pathetic track record for any groundbreaking scientist.

    Also, I think this is an argument from authority?
    Additionally, you don't know how many papers I have published in peer-reviewed journals. Oh sure, you're going to assume none, but you don't actually know (and I'm not going to tell you).

    In your mind, yes. But in reality, you haven't been able to provide even the slightest amount of proof for that statement.

    The expression you gave explicitly demonstrated that both are equally corresponding with reality, so your response here is inconsistent with the formula.

    Personally, if it was pointed out to me I can't even back up trivialities, I would take a closer look at my own position, and re-evaluate. But I guess that's your loss.
  16. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    No. It is simply an answer to your question: "If I say the same to you, would you do it? If not, why do you expect me to?"

    Roughly, I know that I don't need a QT 101 course, given I have published papers. This is a reasonable expectation, if you have published papers, you will probably also not care to pay for a beginners course. The second question was why I expect you need a beginners course. This expectation has been created here by your answers in this thread, which IMHO show serious errors in trivial questions. If you would observe trivial errors made by some anonymous guy you would also think that he needs a beginners course, not? It's not me who has asked these questions.
    This would be reasonable if I would be really unable to back them up, instead of having made a deliberate decision not to back them up, because I have anyway lost far too much time here.
  17. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Do you think wikipedia article on TOE is nonsense?

    Do you consider Newton's First Law of Motion as a theory or Law?

    I said my "Instantaneous Law of Inertia" can be applied to any object of our universe. I used the term "particle" for any object of the universe. Even this can be applied to space-time also, if space-time is physical and real. I have classified all the objects in four categories.

    Here force may not be generalized as F=ma but force can be interpreted as F=dE/dx; where dE is energy change in small interval of distance dx.
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2017
  18. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    No, it is more or less acceptable. One or another unfortunate formulation is nothing which makes the whole article nonsense.
    It is part of Newtonian theory, thus, part of an established scientific theory, even if it is today useful only as an approximation. So this is nothing to worry about.

    Your writings are nothing I would like to comment, and this is better for you because any comment would be negative.
  19. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Well, let's just say that I also have my reasons to not need a QT 101 course.

    This is a reasonable expectation, if you have published papers, you will probably also not care to pay for a beginners course.[/QUOTE]
    (Assuming my hypothetical published peer-reviewed papers contain QT content, of course.)

    You call them "error", but at this point they are still baseless assertions.

    The most important question I have been asking if whether you have any evidence to back up your claims.

    So you admit that, for whatever reason, you are unable to back up your claims here? Right, do you mind if I then totally dismiss everything you've claimed, because it's all baseless?
  20. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    And I have no time and interest to search in which beginners course the points in question are nicely explained.
    No, I do not admit any such thing. I do not want to do this. And it is anyway clear from the start that you will totally dismiss everything I say, independent of any attempts from my side. And this impression is the main reason why I do not want to do this. Loss of time for nothing.
  21. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    You do realize how much time (and face) you would've saved if you had just done that to start with?

    Then back up your claims!

    Why is it that you can't instead point to scientific literature to support your claims? Or do you think I'd dismiss that just as easily?

    You seem unable/unwilling to back anything you say up, causing me to pretty much have to question just about everything you say. I'm sorry that you feel the need to project the (apparent) weakness of your position onto me.
  22. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    I would have to answer much longer things, repeating much more boring trivialities.
    I don't think any scientist would write papers about such trivialities. So I would not even start to search.
  23. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    You are justifying your choice not to defend your position because it would take long, and be boring. As an end result, I can dismiss your claims as baseless. I'm OK with that.

    You might not know, because you've (apparently) never been in one (guess based on the verbiage in your post #233), but in many courses of QT 101 they use textbooks. I would consider the more standard and recognized textbooks to be part of the scientific literature.

Share This Page