Ruth & Rindler (General)

by David Turell , Monday, August 05, 2013, 21:19 (4126 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I don't understand how transactions can be the fundamental ontological entities independently of the 'quanta' that form the basis of the transaction. Again it seems that the properties of the quanta depend on the observer, and I can't see how your argument does or does not tell us whether the quanta actually exist. It's as if you are simply saying their existence is irrelevant. 
> 
> This whole post may well be a total misunderstanding of your argument, but if so, my hope is that it will give you some idea of how easy it is for the potential reader of your 'popular' book to get confused. So once again I hope you won't be too put off by my obtuseness.-I think I understand dhw's confusion. The problem is quanta have been handled as twins, particle and wave, successfully for 90 years. Something exists and newer researchers, like Ruth, want to dig to the bottom of reality, if possible.
She and they should. Half an answer is never satisfying. PTI and a differing interpretation of Heisenberg's probability layer of reality may be the solution.-The reference to Rindler quanta in Chapter Seven has to do with an attempt to get away from the 90 year old Copenhagen Convention of duality with particles and waves. The recent research has tried to look at quantum field theory (qft) for a different concept. Rindler are conceptualized quanta, with comparisons of moving observers and stationary observer results in Hilbert (relativized) space, compared to real Minkowski quanta in Minkowski spacetime (developed originally in 1908 from Einstein's work). -"Philosophical reflection on quantum field theory has tended to focus on how it revises our conception of what a particle is. However, there has been relatively little discussion of the threat to the "reality" of particles posed by the possibility of inequivalent quantizations of a classical field theory, i.e., inequivalent representations of the algebra of observables of the field in terms of operators on a Hilbert space. The threat is that each representation embodies its own distinctive conception of what a particle is, and how a "particle" will respond to a suitably operated detector. Our main goal is to clarify the subtle relationship between inequivalent representations of a field theory and their associated particle concepts. We also have a particular interest in the Minkowski versus Rindler quantizations of a free Boson field, because they respectively entail two radically different descriptions of the particle content of the field in the *very same* region of spacetime." ( http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/73/)-Ruth's chapter 7 is confusing for those of us at a lay level in understanding quantum mechanics. All she is saying is her theory does away with qft conjectures to try to understand duality.-I suggest referring to Matt Strassler's blog on virtual particles and field theory for more understanding of the latest thinking. -( http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particl... hope this clears up some of the confusion. Ruth's popular book is going to require much simplification for lay readers. I've spent a couple days googling and thinking to come up with this post. It is clear to me why trained philosophers need to interpret and advance quantum theory, as logic defying as it is.