Who else has that niggling feeling that maybe, just maybe...

Who else has that niggling feeling that maybe, just maybe, quantum physics is a fucking scam that's grown too big to fail?
Pilot-wave theory and vacuum as paired photons theory make so much more sense and they can explain things like like entanglement without resorting to bullshit hacks through n dimensions.

Other urls found in this thread:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>things like like entanglement

Thanks for pointing that out, friend.
It should read "things like like like entanglement" of course

Weird thing is that both Quantum Field Theory and General Relativity both provide incredibly precise results for the vast majority of energy scales (read

>Pilot-wave theory and vacuum as paired photons theory

You're an idiot, please stop posting. Pilot wave theory is just an interpretation of QM, it has to reproduce all the predictions already made. With that in mind, nonlocal theories should make everyone stop and question where they're going, QFT is explicitly local, they means moving from pilot waves to a QFT, or QFT like theory, is going to be hard to impossible (if it is possible then it's going to be inelegant as fuck).

"Vacuum as paired photons" sounds like you're taking about vacuum polarisation, which isn't a theory, but the interpretation of a result from QFT.

>like entanglement without resorting to bullshit hacks through n dimensions.

What?

plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/

>without resorting to bullshit hacks through n dimensions
he probably means renormalization methods
still, OP is a dumb idiot who should study physics properly before asking stupid questions

Just because QFT is a working model in most cases, doesn't mean that the essence if it is correct. And it being hard to develop an equivalent of QFT for a deterministic, nonlocal theory is the "too big to fail" effect I was talking about. The theory just gets more ornate with time, as edge-cases like cosmological constant problem are paved over and dark energy is added to the mix just to keep the theory consistent.
It's not worth it to even consider that the theory itself might be conceptually wrong, even though the predictions match?

>Cosmological Constant
>QFT
>Deterministic
what the fuck user, do you even science?

Locality is assured by special relativity.

>The theory just gets more ornate with time, as edge-cases like cosmological constant problem are paved over and dark energy is added to the mix just to keep the theory consistent.

You've mixed up like two different things here, QFT was used to try and get a theoretical value for the cosmological constant, but that failed miserably, to date no one knows why theory and experiment were so far out. Dark energy is a name for the observed phenomenon of the accelerating expansion of space, that's general relativity not QM or QFT, QM and QFT are still to be unified.

>It's not worth it to even consider that the theory itself might be conceptually wrong, even though the predictions match?

If there predictions match then there's no way to choose between them. Sure you could pick whichever you preferred, but that's just a value judgment, not really science.

>QM and QFT are still to be unified
are you literally retarded?
QFT is explicitly expressed in second quantization
QM is just the non-relativistic QFT

Sorry I meant GR and QFT.

oh, then i completely agree with you
but for some reason, the loss of the concept that what matters are differences in energies when we go to GR makes me a bit uneasy
also, when GR is formulated, it "borrowed" topological concepts from mathematics, whose manifolds don't vary with time
what i mean is that I'd be more inclined to touch RG rather than QFT
then again, my first QFT and RG courses were last year, so I dont know that much

>entanglement

you don't even need that. Tunneling is retarded. Sure, we can observe something and can do some math gymnastics to describe it in the model, however I'm sure we have no idea what is happening really and are on a very wrong track

>so I dont know that much
None of us do, not really.

It all has to do with density as concerned with gravity dude. There is a reason that the other prime forces meld as you dial the timescale, ie the density of the universe back.

Gravity isn't reconciled because in an early universe there was no electron, just complete (as we would see it) particles akin to the neutron.

Gravity was the energy of the early universe, pre-big bang. Theres a reason the proportions of models for matter to energy in the universe today resemble the dark matter and dark energy to all matter and energy we interact with.

The electron and the interlocking fields that can occur as a result of their existence, is just the further fracturing of the matter-energy duality in the universe. Its why gravity can affect all matter and even energy and yet its so elusive to us.

Quantum nonlocality is compatible with SR, what are you talking about exactly? Besides, I was arguing for a deterministic nonlocal cosmology, not a probabilistic one. Dark energy itself is supposed to be a manifestation of the vacuum energy, which again had to be "renormalized" so it wouldn't give nonsensical results. There are weird points in the whole Quantum cosmology, but fuck it, this train just keeps chugging on.

Which is to say that the higgs-boson plays a pivotal role. I'm just not convinced its the divisive force some seem to think it is.

I think that as the density decreased due to some unknown, perhaps some furthering of space in an earlier universe, and the particles couldn't communicate/interact and the increased force of vacuum, in a different sense than what comes to mind, invited the higgs and the electron is just those particles reacting to density on a quantum level that we can't yet measure

yes

Are you from Brazil?

Gravity has so many oddities about it. Its action on the early universe when it was just base atoms speaks to its nature as a larger force than the comparatively local phenomenon of electromagnetism, strong, and weak force

>Besides, I was arguing for a deterministic nonlocal cosmology

Modern cosmology is deterministic and local, assured by general relativity this time.

>There are weird points in the whole Quantum cosmology, but fuck it, this train just keeps chugging on.

I've honestly no idea what you're getting at anymore. QFT and GR have yet to be unified, which might be why the theoretical value and measured value differ so much. That said we don't really need QFT to do cosmology, the Friedman equations do a good job of that. But I don't get why you think this has anything to do with an interpretation of QM.

Isn't quantum cosmology considered to be the modern cosmology? It sure as hell isn't deterministic. Maybe you're using a different meaning for cosmology though, seeing as you're mentioning Friedmann. In any case, I was talking about the cosmology predicted by the while quantum theory. I think GR and SR are correct, but I have my doubts about the whole quantum theory. Again, it's a useful model, but parts of it seem to be fitted to observation - like vacuum energy problem.

>different meaning for cosmology though, seeing as you're mentioning Friedmann

holy shit user please stop, i'm embarrassed for you

...

Not him but no

>doesn't mean that the essence if it is correct

Tunnelling is simple conservation of energy. Mass impacts 1 side of barrier. Some energy is reflected, some absorbed for deformation, some released as radiation, and some of the barrier is pushed out the other side.

Everything is composed of the same energy, like constantly flowing water. Matter just happens when a lot of energy happens to be forced to coalesce in one little eddie.

Gravity is the effect of the underlying water flow - the more energy in an object, the more water there is in that eddie, and it exists because water is flowing towards it.

The whole universe is one great string of a near-infinite number of coincidences.

To create antigravity, you need negative energy flow - ie antimatter - in greater proportions to the energy flow you're trying to get away from.

To put it concisely - a planet doesn't generate gravity, a planet exists because gravity put all the pieces of it there.

You need exotic matter, not antimatter. As far as we can tell antimatter generates gravity the same way normal matter does

>Who else has that niggling feeling that maybe, just maybe, quantum physics is a fucking scam that's grown too big to fail?
Lots of people. Most of them are ingredient quacks though.