Ruth & Rindler (General)

by dhw, Tuesday, August 06, 2013, 12:31 (4126 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: 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...I 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.-Many thanks for this thoughtful post, David. Unfortunately, although the Strassler link came up with the heading (Of Particular Significance), it also apologized because the page could not be found! Ah, these particles and articles that appear and disappear! That's QM for you!-If Feynman says that no one understands quantum mechanics, what chance does an ignorant layman like me have of doing so? However, Ruth's Chapter 7 merges science with philosophy, and even if the scientific basis is beyond me, the logic of the argument (which often depends on terminology) is something I ought to understand. There is, as far as I can judge, no difference between Ruth's transactional interpretation of quanta as a process of emission and absorption, and the everyday process of perception, whereby an object emits, the senses absorb, and the brain interprets. Subjectivism looms large in both, and ultimately may lead to a questioning of the very existence of the object (see Bishop Berkeley et al). That is the topic Ruth begins to discuss in the section on Rindler: the subjectivism of interpretation and the possibility that quanta don't even exist. But the argument by which "the problem evaporates" is simply not clear to me for reasons I've explained in my post. By discussing these individual points, we can narrow the focus and maybe gain clarification one step at a time, which suits my limited brain and will probably suit the brains of Ruth's potential lay readers!