If you do not have a proper education in physics, you probably should not be trying to speculate on building new models to “fix” it, because physics is kind of like a house of cards: if you change one thing somewhere, it’s hard to know what rippling impacts it may have on other parts of physics, potentially producing obviously incorrect results even if the change seems reasonable. You thus need to have a pretty good understanding of the whole field if you want to speculate on changing it.
But that is the job of a theoretical physicist. People often poke fun at String Theorists for proposing things that don’t have immediate practical use, but that is kind of their job to do that, no? They are paid specifically to speculate on new physics. Yes, it’s speculation, but you kind of need some people to speculate and explore possibilities, that’s helpful to make progress.
My concern, however, is that speculation seems to be allowed in some areas, but disallowed in others. If you speculate that general relativity is wrong and that it should be replaced by a deeper theory like String Theory, there is no issue. But if you were to speculate that quantum theory is wrong and it should be replaced by a deeper theory, well, that is treated as a huge taboo.
Indeed, I had posted a peer-reviewed paper in /r/askphysics and asked people’s opinions regarding it for a matter of discussion. I was immediately permabanned from the subreddit without explanation. I messaged a moderator and asked what on earth rule did I break?
The moderator told me that they are themselves a PhD physicist, and one of the authors of the paper (of several) is Robert Spekkens, and Robert Spekkens is a theoretical physicist who has published papers on alternative models to quantum mechanics. He said that this makes him a “pariah” in academia, that everyone agrees on this and if you were part of academia you would understand this as well, and everyone is just waiting for people like him to die off.
The paper was not even about an alternative model to quantum mechanics. But the very idea that I posted a paper for discussion which one of the authors had also just so happen to work on alternative models, I’m told, is apparently grounds to be completely kicked out of any physics community.
This to me seems to be turning quantum physics into a religion. Why are theoretical physicists allowed to publish papers that question general relativity, and that’s all fine and dandy, but if a theoretical physicist publishes papers on quantum mechanics, suddenly they are a “pariah” and anyone who brings them up needs to be exorcised?
Keep in mind that the conclusion to John Bell’s paper where he presented his theorem was not that it is impossible for a theory to replace quantum mechanics, but that if there existed one, it would have to be nonlocal. Bell himself also published papers on models of this kind.
Bell later stated in an interview with the BBC that you could make it work without locality if it was superdeterministic, which a Nobel prize winner, Gerard 't Hooft, has indeed published a model of this form.
It has also been pointed out by the physicist Ken Wharton that you can have an alternative model if you drop the assumption of a fundamental arrow of time, as you can allow it to have causality that is symmetric in time. This is inspired by Yakir Aharonov’s time-symmetric interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Note that this post has nothing to do with me. I am not saying that I shouldn’t be made fun of if I try to publish an alternative theory, because I have a PhD in physics. I am asking why is it that a literal PhD physicist, such as Spekkens, is apparently a “pariah” if they do so?
I am not saying any of these ideas are even correct, I am not endorsing nonlocal models, superdeterministic models, or even time-symmetric models. I can even understand a person believing these models will go nowhere. I mean, String Theory has a lot of critics who think it will go nowhere as well. Loop Quantum Gravity might not go anywhere, either.
But it seems to me that there is a big difference between just not thinking it is the right route, and treating a physicist who researches that route as if they are a malignant cancer that just needs to die off. This reeks of religious zealotry, not science. Yes, it’s speculation, but that’s what theoretical physicists are literally paid to do. You don’t see this kind of hostility for research into other kinds of speculative models.
We used to strongly believe Newtonian mechanics was fundamental, then later learned it isn’t, and it was replaced by general relativity. Most people agree it is therefore fine to speculate that general relativity is not fundamental either and replace models that replace it. But why is it such a taboo, even for a professional academic with genuine credentials, to speculate that there might be something underneath quantum mechanics? Why does it make one a “pariah” for even asking that question?
lvxferre@mander.xyz 5 days ago
inb4 sorry for the wall of text.
What you’re noticing is not one, but three problems. None exclusive to quantum mechanics, although I think they do affect QM a bit more.
The first one is an academy full of old fucks, busier making sure their positions remain unchallenged, than investigating their own fields. They do it by nipping the buds of any research that might challenge the theories they support.
Publish-or-perish culture further solidifies the position of those old fucks, and gives them ammunition against their opponents.
The second problem is a society full of clueless muppets, eager to worship: the scientific institutions, some scientists of the past and present, and some discoveries. They do it while shitting on science, demonising the process while deifying its output.
Science is all about the “I don’t know”. It’s about building hypotheses nonstop, so you can collectively tear them apart; including the well-established ones. But that doesn’t work if you want certainty, if you want truth, and society is a bit too eager to wallow in both to get science right.
The third problem is… well, Reddit. And social media in general. There are four types of “collective idiocy” you’re supposed to follow in that shithole, and one of them is genetic fallacy - “focus on who says it, not on what is said”.
What the mod there did is a subtype of genetic fallacy, argumentum ad hominem; it boils down to “Spekker said it, thus it’s invalid”. (The “trust me” is also genetic fallacy, appeal to authority.)
As I said those issues plague science in general, not just quantum mechanics; but since QM is specially prone to attract quacks, it creates a strong knee-jerk reaction from the scientific community - such as fallacious (i.e. idiotic) shortcuts to gauge the validity of a claim, like “this contradicts the status quo, so I assume it’s quackery”.
It’s more than that: those hypotheses* are not falsifiable. They offer you no way to say “if X happens, then this is bullshit” - like the theory of general relativity and quantum mechanics itself do. (Note this does not mean either theory is “the truth”; it means they’ve been tested, and survived the tests, warranting their current positions.)
*Let’s call bread “bread” and wine “wine”, OK? String hypotheses. Not theories.
PhD is a title. It does not tell you how valid what you’re saying is. As such, neither you nor the PhD should be made fun of, provided both are in good faith and playing along the method. But what both say should be tested, and potentially made fun of.