Cosmology Intelligent Design Physics

Has another hole been found in the standard model of the universe?

Spread the love

Via quantum mechanics? (New understanding of charge transport reveals an exotic quantum mechanical regime (that cannot be explained by the standard model):

Caltech scientists for the first time have developed a way to predict how electrons interacting strongly with atomic motions will flow through a complex material. To do so, they relied only on principles from quantum mechanics and developed an accurate new computational method.

Studying a material called strontium titanate, postdoctoral researcher Jin-Jian Zhou and Marco Bernardi, assistant professor of applied physics and materials science, showed that charge transport near room temperature cannot be explained by standard models. In fact, it violates the Planckian limit, a quantum speed limit for how fast electrons can dissipate energy while they flow through a material at a given temperature.


Robert Perkins, California Institute of Technology, “New understanding of charge transport reveals an exotic quantum mechanical regime” at Phys.org

How about?: The Standard Model is terrible—until you compare it to string theory and the multiverse


See also: Post-modern physics: String theory gets over the need for evidence

and

The multiverse is science’s assisted suicide

Hat tip: Philip Cunningham

17 Replies to “Has another hole been found in the standard model of the universe?

  1. 1
    AaronS1978 says:

    I’m confused at this post, What does this have to do with intelligent design, or comparing it to string theory and multi-verse?

    Wooden finding holes in the standard model be counterintuitive to intelligent design

    There are many holes like this in quantum physics that the standard model can’t exactly explain

    But I’m not sure quite the point of this one
    I generally take it as a bad thing because anytime a whole is found in the standard model we get wild series of the multi verse in string theory models that will attempt to explain it immediately

    And these holes often are used to validate these theories

    So I was just wondering if somebody could give me a explanation on that and the point of this post

    I’m not being rude I hope nobody takes me as being rude

  2. 2
    Silver Asiatic says:

    I think we see a lot of references on UD to the weirdness of Quantum effects with the idea that Darwinism, for example, declares all kinds of certainties about physical constructs but they are actually all subject to doubt.. But once that happens, as you said, it fuels speculations about a multiverse, and also some will deny the principle of causality, which really puts an end to science and rationality.
    As I see it, ID is really based on the standard model. As quantum theory shows more “exotic” results it becomes more difficult to equate certain effects with intelligent design.
    I think posts like this assume (maybe correctly?) that the purpose of ID theory is really to undercut and falsify Darwinism. But if quantum theory alone destroys the Darwinian mechanisms, then most of the discussion around ID is not necessary.
    Sometimes, it seems to me, that a Darwinian claim is met with something like “yeah, but quantum effects are so weird you don’t know what you’re talking about” and that basically puts an end of Darwin.
    As I think you’re pointing out, it doesn’t do much for ID really, but if the purpose is to clear out all of the stupid claims of Darwinian theory, then whenever we find a “hole” in the standard model of physics, that does the job well-enough (I suppose?).
    The fallout from that is support for a multiverse concept. I don’t see how ID can have anything to say about a multiverse – it’s unobservable.
    For myself, I’ve taken a lot more interest in Aristotelian/Thomistic philosophy which really give the slam-dunk proofs against materialism, even with a multiverse, than ID can do.
    As I see it, ID is a very good refutation of Darwinism because it uses the same terms and models as evolutionary science. But if those traditional evolutionary concepts are refuted by physics, then ID really isn’t needed for that any more.

  3. 3
    Gordon Davisson says:

    As far as I can see, this has nothing to do with “the standard model of the universe”, it’s about the standard model of how electrons move through materials:

    The standard picture of charge transport is simple: electrons flowing through a solid material do not move unimpeded but instead can be knocked off course by the thermal vibrations of atoms that make up the material’s crystalline lattice.

    This doesn’t have much of anything (other than being based on QM/QFT) to do with either the standard model of Big Bang cosmology or the standard model of particle physics.

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    First a little background: The standard model grew out of the success of Quantum electrodynamics (QED)

    History of quantum field theory
    Excerpt: In particle physics, the history of quantum field theory starts with its creation by Paul Dirac, when he attempted to quantize the electromagnetic field in the late 1920s. Major advances in the theory were made in the 1950s, and led to the introduction of quantum electrodynamics (QED). QED was so successful and accurately predictive that efforts were made to apply the same basic concepts for the other forces of nature. By the late 1970s, these efforts successfully utilized gauge theory in the strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force, producing the modern standard model of particle physics.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_quantum_field_theory

    Quantum field theory – history
    Excerpt: As a successful theoretical framework today, quantum field theory emerged from the work of generations of theoretical physicists spanning much of the 20th century. Its development began in the 1920s with the description of interactions between light and electrons, culminating in the first quantum field theory — quantum electrodynamics. A major theoretical obstacle soon followed with the appearance and persistence of various infinities in perturbative calculations, a problem only resolved in the 1950s with the invention of the renormalization procedure. A second major barrier came with QFT’s apparent inability to describe the weak and strong interactions, to the point where some theorists called for the abandonment of the field theoretic approach. The development of gauge theory and the completion of the Standard Model in the 1970s led to a renaissance of quantum field theory.,,,
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory#History

    And QED unifies special relativity with quantum mechanics,,,

    Precise measurements test quantum electrodynamics, constrain possible fifth fundamental force – June 04, 2013
    Excerpt: Quantum electrodynamics (QED) – the relativistic quantum field theory of electrodynamics – describes how light and matter interact – achieves full agreement between quantum mechanics and special relativity.,, QED solves the problem of infinities associated with charged pointlike particles and, perhaps more importantly, includes the effects of spontaneous particle-antiparticle generation from the vacuum.,,, Recently, scientists,, tested QED to extreme precision..,,, can be interpreted in terms of constraints on possible fifth-force interactions beyond the Standard Model of physics,,
    http://phys.org/news/2013-06-p.....ental.html

    The Gravity of the Situation
    The inability to reconcile general relativity with quantum mechanics didn’t just occur to physicists. It was actually after many other successful theories had already been developed that gravity was recognized as the elusive force. The first attempt at unifying relativity and quantum mechanics took place when special relativity was merged with electromagnetism. This created the theory of quantum electrodynamics, or QED. It is an example of what has come to be known as relativistic quantum field theory, or just quantum field theory. QED is considered by most physicists to be the most precise theory of natural phenomena ever developed.
    In the 1960s and ’70s, the success of QED prompted other physicists to try an analogous approach to unifying the weak, the strong, and the gravitational forces. Out of these discoveries came another set of theories that merged the strong and weak forces called quantum chromodynamics, or QCD, and quantum electroweak theory, or simply the electroweak theory, which you’ve already been introduced to.
    https://www.infoplease.com/science/universe/theories-universe-quantum-mechanics-vs-general-relativity

    Quantum field theory – History
    Excerpt: ,,, (Quantum field theory) QFT is an unavoidable consequence of the reconciliation of quantum mechanics with special relativity (Weinberg (1995)),,,
    The first achievement of quantum field theory, namely quantum electrodynamics (QED), is “still the paradigmatic example of a successful quantum field theory” (Weinberg (1995)).
    https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Quantum_field_theory.html

    Whereas the ‘renaissance’ of Quantum Field Theory (QFT), which led to the Standard Model, is the result of the combination of classical field theory, quantum mechanics, and special relativity. To wit “The Standard Model successfully describes all fundamental interactions”

    Quantum field theory – history
    Excerpt: Quantum field theory is the result of the combination of classical field theory, quantum mechanics, and special relativity.,,,
    ,,, Given the tremendous success of QED, many theorists believed, in the few years after 1949, that QFT could soon provide an understanding of all microscopic phenomena, not only the interactions between photons, electrons, and positrons. Contrary to this optimism, QFT entered yet another period of depression that lasted for almost two decades.,,,
    These theoretical breakthroughs brought about a renaissance in QFT. The full theory, which includes the electroweak theory and chromodynamics, is referred to today as the Standard Model of elementary particles.[12] The Standard Model successfully describes all fundamental interactions except gravity, and its many predictions have been met with remarkable experimental confirmation in subsequent decades.[8]:3 The Higgs boson, central to the mechanism of spontaneous symmetry breaking, was finally detected in 2012 at CERN, marking the complete verification of the existence of all constituents of the Standard Model.[13]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory#History

    Thus to rely only on quantum mechanics in order to make accurate predictions for fundamental interactions in a material, i.e. strontium titanate, is to find another hole in the standard model which, among other things, supposedly successfully describes all fundamental interactions”

    This is not a minor hole to find in the standard model, which is not to say the other holes found in the standard model are not also very troublesome: To wit: “it (the standard model) leaves some phenomena unexplained and falls short of being a complete theory of fundamental interactions. It does not fully explain baryon asymmetry, incorporate the full theory of gravitation[3] as described by general relativity, or account for the accelerating expansion of the Universe as possibly described by dark energy. The model does not contain any viable dark matter particle that possesses all of the required properties deduced from observational cosmology. It also does not incorporate neutrino oscillations and their non-zero masses.”

    Standard Model
    Excerpt: The Standard Model of particle physics is the theory describing three of the four known fundamental forces (the electromagnetic, weak, and strong interactions, and not including the gravitational force) in the universe, as well as classifying all known elementary particles. It was developed in stages throughout the latter half of the 20th century, through the work of many scientists around the world,[1] with the current formulation being finalized in the mid-1970s upon experimental confirmation of the existence of quarks. Since then, confirmation of the top quark (1995), the tau neutrino (2000), and the Higgs boson (2012) have added further credence to the Standard Model. In addition, the Standard Model has predicted various properties of weak neutral currents and the W and Z bosons with great accuracy.
    Although the Standard Model is believed to be theoretically self-consistent[2] and has demonstrated huge successes in providing experimental predictions, it leaves some phenomena unexplained and falls short of being a complete theory of fundamental interactions. It does not fully explain baryon asymmetry, incorporate the full theory of gravitation[3] as described by general relativity, or account for the accelerating expansion of the Universe as possibly described by dark energy. The model does not contain any viable dark matter particle that possesses all of the required properties deduced from observational cosmology. It also does not incorporate neutrino oscillations and their non-zero masses.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model

    Of supplemental note:

    Richard Feynman (and others) were only able to unify special relativity and quantum mechanics into Quantum Electrodynamics by quote unquote “brushing infinity under the rug” with a technique called Renormalization.

    THE INFINITY PUZZLE: Quantum Field Theory and the Hunt for an Orderly Universe
    Excerpt: In quantum electrodynamics, which applies quantum mechanics to the electromagnetic field and its interactions with matter, the equations led to infinite results for the self-energy or mass of the electron. After nearly two decades of effort, this problem was solved after World War II by a procedure called renormalization, in which the infinities are rolled up into the electron’s observed mass and charge, and are thereafter conveniently ignored. Richard Feynman, who shared the 1965 Nobel Prize with Julian Schwinger and Sin-Itiro Tomonaga for this breakthrough, referred to this sleight of hand as “brushing infinity under the rug.”
    http://www.americanscientist.o.....g-infinity

    One of the more interesting facets of “brushing infinity under the rug” in QED is that, interestingly, “Although quantum field theory is fully compatible with the special theory of relativity, a relativistic treatment of quantum measurement has yet to be formulated.”

    Not So Real – Sheldon Lee Glashow – Oct. 2018
    Review of: “What Is Real? The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics”
    by Adam Becker
    Excerpt: Heisenberg, Schrödinger, and their contemporaries knew well that the theory they devised could not be made compatible with Einstein’s special theory of relativity. First order in time, but second order in space, Schrödinger’s equation is nonrelativistic. Although quantum field theory is fully compatible with the special theory of relativity, a relativistic treatment of quantum measurement has yet to be formulated.
    https://inference-review.com/article/not-so-real

    That is to say, although they unified special relativity and quantum mechanics together in QED by “brushing infinity under the rug”, this unification between special relativity and quantum mechanics into Quantum Electrodynamics has come at the unacceptable cost of leaving the entire enigma of Quantum Measurement on the cutting room floor.

    Quantum measurement is precisely where conscious observation makes its presence fully known in quantum mechanics.

    And since there would be no reality for us in the first place unless there is first conscious observation of that reality then, as should be needless to say, to leave measurement on the cutting room floor is simply completely unacceptable for any theory that purports to be the right step towards a ‘theory of everything’.

  5. 5
    Gordon Davisson says:

    BA77 @ 4:

    Thus to rely only on quantum mechanics in order to make accurate predictions for fundamental interactions in a material, i.e. strontium titanate, is to find another hole in the standard model which, among other things, supposedly successfully describes all fundamental interactions”

    Again, that’s not the “standard model” they’re talking about here. There is more than one thing called “the standard model”, because there’s more than one thing that people model. There’s a standard model of this, a standard model of that, a standard model of the other thing…

    The standard model that’s being talked about here is a perturbative approximation to compute how electrons interact with the matter they’re passing through. From the article:

    Individual vibrations can be thought of as quasiparticles called phonons, which are excitations in materials that behave like individual particles, moving and bouncing around like an object. Phonons behave like the waves in the ocean, while electrons are like a boat sailing across that ocean, jostled by the waves. In some materials, the strong interaction between electrons and phonons in turn creates a new quasiparticle known as a polaron.

    “The so-called polaron regime, in which electrons interact strongly with atomic motions, has been out of reach for first-principles calculations of charge transport because it requires going beyond simple perturbative approaches to treat the strong electron-phonon interaction,” says Bernardi. “Using a new method, we have been able to predict both the formation and the dynamics of polarons in strontium titanate. This advance is crucial since many semiconductors and oxides of interest for future electronics and energy applications exhibit polaron effects.”

    So, they found a situation where the standard computational approximations didn’t work well, and found a new approximation that works better (at least in this situation). This has nothing to do with fundamental physics.

    Back to BA77:

    Quantum measurement is precisely where conscious observation makes its presence fully known in quantum mechanics.

    There’s no credible evidence that consciousness has any special status in QM. The various effects that’re sometimes claimed to show that conscious observers are special also work with non-conscious observers (i.e. measuring equipment), and in fact are usually demonstrated that way. Bell theorem tests are normally done with non-conscious observers, so are delayed choice experiments (including the quantum eraser versions), so are quantum zeno effect tests, etc.

    If you want to claim that conscious observation is special, you at the very least have to explain why non-conscious observation has the same effects. But even if you do that, you’ll have to explain why you think it’s different from non-conscious observation… even though they have the same effects.

    And since there would be no reality for us in the first place unless there is first conscious observation of that reality then, as should be needless to say, to leave measurement on the cutting room floor is simply completely unacceptable for any theory that purports to be the right step towards a ‘theory of everything’.

    My observations are special in this respect to me, and yours are to you, and the same is true for everyone else. But that doesn’t mean that any of our observations are special in any non-subjective sense.

  6. 6
    kairosfocus says:

    Folks, take these as a reminder that physics etc and science in general are works in progress. Science is never truly settled and is always full of anomalies and unsettled questions, whether condensed matter physics (seemingly the focal technical question in the OP) or cosmology or quantum theory and relativity, which drive the frames of thought. KF

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    after I laid out the overall history of the mathematical formulation of the Standard Model of particle physics, Gordon Davisson claims that

    “that’s not the “standard model” they’re talking about here.,,, There’s a standard model of this, a standard model of that, a standard model of the other thing…”

    Really??? I note that Gordon did not specify exactly which other standard model that he thought they were talking about:

    I’ll give him a hand. Here you go Gordon, tell us exactly which other standard model you think they are talking about:

    Standard model may refer to:
    Standard Model of particle physics
    The mathematical formulation of the Standard Model of particle physics
    The Standard Solar Model of solar astrophysics
    The Lambda-CDM model, the standard model of big bang cosmology
    Standard model (cryptography)
    Intended interpretation of a syntactical system, called standard model in mathematical logic
    The standard models of set theory
    The Standard Model (Exhibition) held in Stockholm, 2009
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_model_(disambiguation)

    Next Gordon gives his ‘this is not the standard model’ bluff away with this,

    So, they found a situation where the standard computational approximations didn’t work well, and found a new approximation that works better (at least in this situation).

    But then Gordon doubles down and states this whopper

    This has nothing to do with fundamental physics.

    OH MY GOSH! You just can’t make this stuff up. Gordon, directly after quoting extensively from the article itself about the exact ‘fundamental physics’ involved,,,

    “Individual vibrations can be thought of as quasiparticles called phonons, which are excitations in materials that behave like individual particles, moving and bouncing around like an object. Phonons behave like the waves in the ocean, while electrons are like a boat sailing across that ocean, jostled by the waves. In some materials, the strong interaction between electrons and phonons in turn creates a new quasiparticle known as a polaron.
    “The so-called polaron regime, in which electrons interact strongly with atomic motions, has been out of reach for first-principles calculations of charge transport because it requires going beyond simple perturbative approaches to treat the strong electron-phonon interaction,” says Bernardi. “Using a new method, we have been able to predict both the formation and the dynamics of polarons in strontium titanate. This advance is crucial since many semiconductors and oxides of interest for future electronics and energy applications exhibit polaron effects.”

    Of note, phonons, like photons, are bosons:

    Firstly, phonons are bosons, since any number of identical excitations can be created by repeated application of the creation operator ak†. Secondly, each phonon is a “collective mode” caused by the motion of every atom in the lattice.,,,
    Phonons are bosons possessing zero spin.
    https://www.quantiki.org/wiki/phonon

    and “Phonons and electrons are the two main types of elementary particles or excitations in solids.”
    https://www.britannica.com/science/phonon

    After citing that, again Gordon had the audacity to state

    This has nothing to do with fundamental physics.

    Well golly gee whiz, I guess, instead of fundamental physics they must instead be talking about the price of tea in China. 🙂

    But seriously, Gordon’s post is, as usual for atheists, pathetic.

    They were trying to extend “the mathematical formulation of the Standard Model of particle physics” so as “to predict how electrons interacting strongly with atomic motions will flow through a complex material”. As they state in their paper, this “remains an open challenge. ”

    In materials with strong electron-phonon (e?ph) interactions, the electrons carry a phonon cloud during their motion, forming quasiparticles known as polarons. Predicting charge transport and its temperature dependence in the polaron regime remains an open challenge.
    https://journals.aps.org/prresearch/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.1.033138

    And as they themselves stated in the article in the OP, in order to make ‘accurate’ predictions they relied ONLY on quantum mechanics and found that “charge transport near room temperature cannot be explained by standard models.”

    Bottom line, when they tried to extend “the mathematical formulation of the Standard Model of particle physics” so as “to predict how electrons interacting strongly with atomic motions will flow through a complex material” they failed and were only able to make accurate predictions by using quantum mechanics alone.

    And again, this is yet another gaping hole that is found in the standard model of particle physics, and is yet another blow against its claim to be a correct step towards the theory of everything:

    Over the past few centuries, two theoretical frameworks have been developed that, together, most closely resemble a TOE (theory of everything). These two theories upon which all modern physics rests are general relativity (GR) and quantum field theory (QFT).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything
    and again
    These theoretical breakthroughs brought about a renaissance in QFT. The full theory, which includes the electroweak theory and chromodynamics, is referred to today as the Standard Model of elementary particles.[12] The Standard Model successfully describes all fundamental interactions except gravity,

    Gordon, goes on to state,

    There’s no credible evidence that consciousness has any special status in QM.

    Contrary to what Gordon, as an atheist, wants to desperately believe beforehand, there is a EXTREMELY tight correlation between defining attributes of the immaterial mind, (i.e. consciousness), and the experimental results that are now being obtained from quantum mechanics:

    How Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness Correlate
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4f0hL3Nrdas

    Gordon then claims

    My observations are special in this respect to me, and yours are to you, and the same is true for everyone else. But that doesn’t mean that any of our observations are special in any non-subjective sense.

    Quantum mechanics itself could care less what Gordon wants to believe beforehand. This recent 2019 experimental confirmation of the “Wigner’s Friend” thought experiment established that “measurement results,, must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement”.

    More Than One Reality Exists (in Quantum Physics) By Mindy Weisberger – March 20, 2019
    Excerpt: “measurement results,, must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement”.
    https://www.livescience.com/65029-dueling-reality-photons.html

    Bottom line, Gordon either purposely, or through ignorance, has made major and serious errors in the claims of his post. If he had any integrity he would admit his mistakes, apologize, and move on. But alas, he is an atheist first and foremost, evidence to the contrary be damned, so he is extremely unlikely to admit his serious mistakes since to do so is to, basically, concede that his atheistic worldview is false.

  8. 8
    Silver Asiatic says:

    BA77

    And as they themselves stated in the article in the OP, in order to make ‘accurate’ predictions they relied ONLY on quantum mechanics and found that “charge transport near room temperature cannot be explained by standard models.”
    Bottom line, when they tried to extend “the mathematical formulation of the Standard Model of particle physics” so as “to predict how electrons interacting strongly with atomic motions will flow through a complex material” they failed and were only able to make accurate predictions by using quantum mechanics alone.

    You made that very clear – thank you. They’re talking about “the Standard Model of particle physics”. The observed effects “cannot be explained by standard models” so they used quantum mechanics.

  9. 9
    Gordon Davisson says:

    BA77 @ 7:

    after I laid out the overall history of the mathematical formulation of the Standard Model of particle physics, Gordon Davisson claims that

    “that’s not the “standard model” they’re talking about here.,,, There’s a standard model of this, a standard model of that, a standard model of the other thing…”

    Really??? I note that Gordon did not specify exactly which other standard model that he thought they were talking about:

    Actually, I did; you just missed it (probably because it doesn’t use the phrase “standard model”). Here’s the section of the article I quoted:

    Individual vibrations can be thought of as quasiparticles called phonons, which are excitations in materials that behave like individual particles, moving and bouncing around like an object. Phonons behave like the waves in the ocean, while electrons are like a boat sailing across that ocean, jostled by the waves. In some materials, the strong interaction between electrons and phonons in turn creates a new quasiparticle known as a polaron.

    “The so-called polaron regime, in which electrons interact strongly with atomic motions, has been out of reach for first-principles calculations of charge transport because it requires going beyond simple perturbative approaches to treat the strong electron-phonon interaction,” says Bernardi. “Using a new method, we have been able to predict both the formation and the dynamics of polarons in strontium titanate. This advance is crucial since many semiconductors and oxides of interest for future electronics and energy applications exhibit polaron effects.”

    The “simple perturbative approaches” mentioned here — that’s the standard model in question. If the fact they’re not explicitly called “the standard model” bothers you, go read the full paper. You’ll find that the phrase “standard model” doesn’t appear anywhere in it. In fact, the word “standard” isn’t even there. “Model” is mentioned a number of times, but — funny thing — it’s mostly in relation to models of electron motion in solids (there’s also one mention of a “model Hamiltonian”). It refers to the Holstein model (their reference 3: “Studies of polaron motion: Part II. The ‘small’ polaron”) and the Fröhlich model (reference 4: “Fröhlich polaron and bipolaron: recent developments”)… but there’s no reference to the standard model of particle physics.

    Take a look at the “Research areas” listed as related to the paper: Electrical conductivity, Electron-phonon coupling, Polarons, and Transport phenomena. It’s all about solid-state physics, which is a whole different field from particle physics!

    Read the “Conclusion” section of the paper:

    In summary, we developed a broadly applicable approach for computing charge transport in the large polaron regime in materials with intermediate e-ph coupling strength. Our calculations on SrTiO3 unveil a transition from bandlike transport of strongly weight-renormalized QPs at low temperature to an incoherent transport regime beyond the QP picture near room temperature. Our approach can shed new light on broad classes of materials with polaron effects, ranging from perovskites [53] and transition metal oxides [54,55] to high-Tc superconductors [56,57].

    Again, nothing there about the standard model of particle physics; we’re purely in the land of solid state.

    For contrast, let’s take a look at some actual particle physics. Here’s a diagram of the particles that make up the standard model. Do you see anything about phonons or polarons? Nope, because those aren’t part of the standard model of particle physics. Phonons and polarons are quasiparticles, higher-level (emergent) phenomena that arise from interactions of the more funtamental particles.

    So, no, it’s not about the same thing at all. You are completely out to lunch here.

    If you’re still so deep in the Dunning-Krueger fog that you think I’m wrong, I have a suggestion to settle this: one of us could email one of the authors and ask them.

    Now, let me turn to the question of a special role for consciousness in QM. Quoting BA77 again:

    Gordon, goes on to state,

    There’s no credible evidence that consciousness has any special status in QM.

    Contrary to what Gordon, as an atheist, wants to desperately believe beforehand, there is a EXTREMELY tight correlation between defining attributes of the immaterial mind, (i.e. consciousness), and the experimental results that are now being obtained from quantum mechanics:

    How Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness Correlate
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4f0hL3Nrdas

    I tried to make it through this once, but I gave up. It’s basically a Gish gallop of misunderstandings, misrepresentations, and wishful thinking. (Note: I’m not accusing you of dishonesty; I’m sure you honestly believe all of this. It’s just all wrong.) Let’s take this latest example:

    This recent 2019 experimental confirmation of the “Wigner’s Friend” thought experiment established that “measurement results,, must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement”.

    More Than One Reality Exists (in Quantum Physics) By Mindy Weisberger – March 20, 2019
    Excerpt: “measurement results,, must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement”.
    https://www.livescience.com/65029-dueling-reality-photons.html

    Did you actually read the research paper referred to? Hint: they didn’t use conscious observers (in fact, two of the observers were basically just photons), so the effect has nothing to do with consciousness. From the paper (with my emphasis added):

    Before we describe our experiment in which we test and indeed violate inequality (2), let us first clarify our notion of an observer. Formally, an observation is the act of extracting and storing information about an observed system. Accordingly, we define an observer as any physical system that can extract information from another system by means of some interaction, and store that information in a physical memory.

    Such an observer can establish “facts”, to which we assign the value recorded in their memory. Notably, the formalism of quantum mechanics does not make a distinction between large (even conscious) and small physical systems, which is sometimes referred to as universality. Hence, our definition covers human observers, as well as more commonly used non-conscious observers such as (classical or quantum) computers and other measurement devices—even the simplest possible ones, as long as they satisfy the above requirements. […]

    And:

    One might further be tempted to deny our photonic memories the status of “observer”. This, however, would require a convincing revision of our minimal definition of what qualifies as an observer, which typically comes at the cost of introducing new physics that is not described by standard quantum theory. Eugene Wigner, for example, argued that the disagreement with his hypothetical friend could not arise due to a supposed impossibility for conscious observers to be in a superposition state [2]. However, the lack of objectivity revealed by a Bell-Wigner test does not arise in anyone’s consciousness, but between the recorded facts. Since quantum theory does not distinguish between information recorded in a microscopic system (such as our photonic memory) and in a macroscopic system the conclusions are the same for both: the measurement records are in conflict regardless of the size or complexity of the observer that records them. Implementing the experiment with more complex observers would not necessarily lead to new insights into the specific issue of observer-independence in quantum theory. It would however serve to show that quantum mechanics still holds at larger scales, ruling out alternative (collapse) models [20]. However, this is not the point of a Bell-Wigner test—less demanding experiments could show that.

    This fully supports what I said earlier:

    The various effects that’re sometimes claimed to show that conscious observers are special also work with non-conscious observers (i.e. measuring equipment), and in fact are usually demonstrated that way. Bell theorem tests are normally done with non-conscious observers, so are delayed choice experiments (including the quantum eraser versions), so are quantum zeno effect tests, etc.

    If you want to claim that conscious observation is special, you at the very least have to explain why non-conscious observation has the same effects. But even if you do that, you’ll have to explain why you think it’s different from non-conscious observation… even though they have the same effects.

    …but I guess I need to add another qualification to that last paragraph: you have to first face the reality that these experiments are actually done with non-conscious observers.

  10. 10
    bornagain77 says:

    Gordon, trying to save face, claims that ” It’s all about solid-state physics, which is a whole different field from particle physics!”

    BALONEY! Solid-state physics studies how the large-scale properties of solid materials result from their atomic-scale properties. And if you try to claim that the standard model is not about ‘atomic-scale properties’ you are living in a fantasy land.

    Solid-state physics is the study of rigid matter, or solids, through methods such as quantum mechanics, crystallography, electromagnetism, and metallurgy. It is the largest branch of condensed matter physics. Solid-state physics studies how the large-scale properties of solid materials result from their atomic-scale properties. Thus, solid-state physics forms a theoretical basis of materials science. It also has direct applications, for example in the technology of transistors and semiconductors.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_physics

    Moreover, If the standard model cannot be extended into solid state physics, (as the paper showed, and which Gordon is, ironically, trying to claim) , then that directly underscores the main point that I was trying to make in that the standard model is “NOT” the correct first step towards a ‘theory of everything’ as it is currently believed to be by many in the physics community, i.e. Sabine Hossenfelder for example, and is of extremely limited utility beyond the most basic of particle interactions.

    Gordon, then, once again, (I think he has claimed this four or five times now), tries to say that the measuring device, all by its lonesome, can be the observer, yet, the measuring device is an inanimate object that cannot possibly make ‘decisions’ as to what it will measure or when it will measure. And our free will decisions as to how to set up the measuring device figure centrally in quantum mechanics

    “It begins to look as we ourselves, by our last minute decision, have an influence on what a photon will do when it has already accomplished most of its doing… we have to say that we ourselves have an undeniable part in what we have always called the past. The past is not really the past until is has been registered. Or to put it another way, the past has no meaning or existence unless it exists as a record in the present.”
    – John Wheeler
    – The Ghost In The Atom – Page 66-68 – P. C. W. Davies, Julian R. Brown – Cambridge University Press, Jul 30, 1993

    As Steven Weinberg explains, In the instrumentalist approach (in quantum mechanics) humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.,,, the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.,,, In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure,,, Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,

    The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics – Steven Weinberg – January 19, 2017
    Excerpt: The instrumentalist approach,, (the) wave function,, is merely an instrument that provides predictions of the probabilities of various outcomes when measurements are made.,,
    In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level. According to Eugene Wigner, a pioneer of quantum mechanics, “it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.”11
    Thus the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else. It is not that we object to thinking about humans. Rather, we want to understand the relation of humans to nature, not just assuming the character of this relation by incorporating it in what we suppose are nature’s fundamental laws, but rather by deduction from laws that make no explicit reference to humans. We may in the end have to give up this goal,,,
    Some physicists who adopt an instrumentalist approach argue that the probabilities we infer from the wave function are objective probabilities, independent of whether humans are making a measurement. I don’t find this tenable. In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,
    http://quantum.phys.unm.edu/46.....inberg.pdf

    In fact Weinberg, an atheist, rejected the instrumentalist approach precisely because “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level” and because it undermined the Darwinian worldview from within. Yet, regardless of how he and other atheists may prefer the world to behave, quantum mechanics itself could care less how atheists prefer the world to behave.

    As leading experimentalist Anton Zeilinger states in the following video, “what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”

    “The Kochen-Speckter Theorem talks about properties of one system only. So we know that we cannot assume – to put it precisely, we know that it is wrong to assume that the features of a system, which we observe in a measurement exist prior to measurement. Not always. I mean in a certain cases. So in a sense, what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”
    Anton Zeilinger –
    Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism – video (7:17 minute mark)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4C5pq7W5yRM#t=437

    The Kochen-Specker theorem undermines atheistic determinism in the most fundamental way possible in that “it would not even be possible to place the information into the universe’s past in an ad hoc way.”

    The free will theorem of John H. Conway and Simon B. Kochen,,,
    Since the free will theorem applies to any arbitrary physical theory consistent with the axioms, it would not even be possible to place the information into the universe’s past in an ad hoc way. The argument proceeds from the Kochen-Specker theorem, which shows that the result of any individual measurement of spin was not fixed (pre-determined) independently of the choice of measurements.
    http://www.informationphilosop.....eorem.html

    As well, with contextuality we find that, “In the quantum world, the property that you discover through measurement is not the property that the system actually had prior to the measurement process. What you observe necessarily depends on how you carried out the observation”

    Contextuality is ‘magic ingredient’ for quantum computing – June 11, 2012
    Excerpt: Contextuality was first recognized as a feature of quantum theory almost 50 years ago. The theory showed that it was impossible to explain measurements on quantum systems in the same way as classical systems.
    In the classical world, measurements simply reveal properties that the system had, such as colour, prior to the measurement. In the quantum world, the property that you discover through measurement is not the property that the system actually had prior to the measurement process. What you observe necessarily depends on how you carried out the observation.
    Imagine turning over a playing card. It will be either a red suit or a black suit – a two-outcome measurement. Now imagine nine playing cards laid out in a grid with three rows and three columns. Quantum mechanics predicts something that seems contradictory – there must be an even number of red cards in every row and an odd number of red cards in every column. Try to draw a grid that obeys these rules and you will find it impossible. It’s because quantum measurements cannot be interpreted as merely revealing a pre-existing property in the same way that flipping a card reveals a red or black suit.
    Measurement outcomes depend on all the other measurements that are performed – the full context of the experiment.
    Contextuality means that quantum measurements can not be thought of as simply revealing some pre-existing properties of the system under study. That’s part of the weirdness of quantum mechanics.
    http://phys.org/news/2014-06-w.....antum.html

    Moreover, although there have been several major loopholes in quantum mechanics over the past several decades that atheists have tried to appeal to in order to try to avoid the ‘spooky’ Theistic implications of quantum mechanics, over the past several years each of those major loopholes have each been closed one by one. The last major loophole that was left to be closed was the “setting independence” and/or the ‘free-will’ loophole:

    Closing the ‘free will’ loophole: Using distant quasars to test Bell’s theorem – February 20, 2014
    Excerpt: Though two major loopholes have since been closed, a third remains; physicists refer to it as “setting independence,” or more provocatively, “free will.” This loophole proposes that a particle detector’s settings may “conspire” with events in the shared causal past of the detectors themselves to determine which properties of the particle to measure — a scenario that, however far-fetched, implies that a physicist running the experiment does not have complete free will in choosing each detector’s setting. Such a scenario would result in biased measurements, suggesting that two particles are correlated more than they actually are, and giving more weight to quantum mechanics than classical physics.
    “It sounds creepy, but people realized that’s a logical possibility that hasn’t been closed yet,” says MIT’s David Kaiser, the Germeshausen Professor of the History of Science and senior lecturer in the Department of Physics. “Before we make the leap to say the equations of quantum theory tell us the world is inescapably crazy and bizarre, have we closed every conceivable logical loophole, even if they may not seem plausible in the world we know today?”
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140220112515.htm

    And now Anton Zeilinger and company have recently, as of 2018, pushed the ‘free will loophole’ back to 7.8 billion years ago, thereby firmly establishing the ‘common sense’ fact that the free will choices of the experimenter in the quantum experiments are truly free and are not determined by any possible causal influences from the past for at least the last 7.8 billion years, and that the experimenters themselves are therefore shown to be truly free to choose whatever measurement settings in the experiments that he or she may so desire to choose so as to ‘logically’ probe whatever aspect of reality that he or she may be interested in probing.

    Cosmic Bell Test Using Random Measurement Settings from High-Redshift Quasars – Anton Zeilinger – 14 June 2018
    Abstract: In this Letter, we present a cosmic Bell experiment with polarization-entangled photons, in which measurement settings were determined based on real-time measurements of the wavelength of photons from high-redshift quasars, whose light was emitted billions of years ago; the experiment simultaneously ensures locality. Assuming fair sampling for all detected photons and that the wavelength of the quasar photons had not been selectively altered or previewed between emission and detection, we observe statistically significant violation of Bell’s inequality by 9.3 standard deviations, corresponding to an estimated p value of ? 7.4 × 10^21. This experiment pushes back to at least ? 7.8 Gyr ago the most recent time by which any local-realist influences could have exploited the “freedom-of-choice” loophole to engineer the observed Bell violation, excluding any such mechanism from 96% of the space-time volume of the past light cone of our experiment, extending from the big bang to today.
    https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.080403

    Moreover, here is another recent interesting experiment by Anton Zeilinger, (and about 70 other researchers), that closed a technical loop-hole and insured the complete independence of the measurement settings in a Bell test by using the free will choices of 100,000 human participants instead of having a super fast randomizer determine the measurement settings (as is usually done in these quantum experiments).

    Challenging local realism with human choices – A. Zeilinger – 20 May 2018
    Abstract: A Bell test, which challenges the philosophical worldview of local realism against experimental observations, is a randomized trial requiring spatially-distributed entanglement, fast and high-efficiency detection, and unpredictable measurement settings. While technology can perfect the first two of these, and while technological randomness sources enable device-independent protocols based on Bell inequality violation, challenging local realism using physical randomizers inevitably makes assumptions about the same physics one aims to test. Bell himself noted this weakness of physical setting choices and argued that human free will could rigorously be used to assure unpredictability in Bell tests. Here we report a suite of local realism tests using human choices, avoiding assumptions about predictability in physics. We recruited ~100,000 human participants to play an online video game that incentivizes fast, sustained input of unpredictable bits while also illustrating Bell test methodology. The participants generated 97,347,490 binary choices, which were directed via a scalable web platform to twelve laboratories on five continents, in which 13 experiments tested local realism using photons, single atoms, atomic ensembles, and superconducting devices. Over a 12-hour period on the 30 Nov. 2016, participants worldwide provided a sustained flow of over 1000 bits/s to the experiments, which used different human-generated bits to choose each measurement setting. The observed correlations strongly contradict local realism and other realist positions in bi-partite and tri-partite scenarios. Project outcomes include closing of the freedom-of-choice loophole, gamification of statistical and quantum non-locality concepts, new methods for quantum-secured communications, a very large dataset of human-generated randomness, and networking techniques for global participation in experimental science.
    https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.04431

    Thus regardless of how Steven Weinberg and other atheists, (such as Gordon), may prefer the universe to behave, with the closing of the last remaining free will loophole in quantum mechanics, “humans are indeed brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level”, and thus these recent findings from quantum mechanics directly undermine, as Weinberg himself stated, the “vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.”

  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    (Since Gordon has been a big champion of decoherence in the past) Of supplemental note to decoherence:

    The following video explains why decoherence does not solve the measurement problem: The irresolvable problem of deriving the “Born rule” within the MWI is discussed at the 4:30 minute mark of the following video,

    The Measurement Problem in quantum mechanics – (Inspiring Philosophy) – 2014 video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB7d5V71vUE

    The Strange Link between the Human mind and Quantum Physics – By Philip Ball – 16 February 2017
    Excerpt: The physicist Pascual Jordan, who worked with quantum guru Niels Bohr in Copenhagen in the 1920s, put it like this: “observations not only disturb what has to be measured, they produce it… We compel [a quantum particle] to assume a definite position.” In other words, Jordan said, “we ourselves produce the results of measurements.”
    http://www.bbc.com/earth/story.....um-physics

    As well, Steven Weinberg himself rejects decoherence:

    The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics – Steven Weinberg – January 19, 2017
    The trouble is that in quantum mechanics the way that wave functions change with time is governed by an equation, the Schrödinger equation, that does not involve probabilities. It is just as deterministic as Newton’s equations of motion and gravitation. That is, given the wave function at any moment, the Schrödinger equation will tell you precisely what the wave function will be at any future time. There is not even the possibility of chaos, the extreme sensitivity to initial conditions that is possible in Newtonian mechanics. So if we regard the whole process of measurement as being governed by the equations of quantum mechanics, and these equations are perfectly deterministic, how do probabilities get into quantum mechanics?
    One common answer is that, in a measurement, the spin (or whatever else is measured) is put in an interaction with a macroscopic environment that jitters in an unpredictable way. For example, the environment might be the shower of photons in a beam of light that is used to observe the system, as unpredictable in practice as a shower of raindrops. Such an environment causes the superposition of different states in the wave function to break down, leading to an unpredictable result of the measurement. (This is called decoherence.) It is as if a noisy background somehow unpredictably left only one of the notes of a chord audible. But this begs the question. If the deterministic Schrödinger equation governs the changes through time not only of the spin but also of the measuring apparatus and the physicist using it, then the results of measurement should not in principle be unpredictable. So we still have to ask, how do probabilities get into quantum mechanics?,,,
    Today there are two widely followed approaches to quantum mechanics, the “realist” and “instrumentalist” approaches, which view the origin of probability in measurement in two very different ways.9 For reasons I will explain, neither approach seems to me quite satisfactory.10
    http://quantum.phys.unm.edu/46.....inberg.pdf

    As well, at the 16:34 minute mark of the following video, the reason why detector interference does not give a coherent explanation of why the quantum wave collapses is explained (i.e. observation changes the nature of what we are observing not just the activity of what we are observing):

    Double Slit, Quantum-Electrodynamics, and Christian Theism – video – video – (3:05 minute mark)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK9kGpIxMRM

    Moreover, if decoherence really explained the measurement problem, then how is it even remotely possible that a photon is able to survive all the way to detection at the retina? The following paper found that the human eye can detect the presence of a single photon, the researchers stated that “Any man-made detector would need to be cooled and isolated from noise to behave the same way.”,,,

    Study suggests humans can detect even the smallest units of light – July 21, 2016
    Excerpt: Research,, has shown that humans can detect the presence of a single photon, the smallest measurable unit of light. Previous studies had established that human subjects acclimated to the dark were capable only of reporting flashes of five to seven photons.,,,
    it is remarkable: a photon, the smallest physical entity with quantum properties of which light consists, is interacting with a biological system consisting of billions of cells, all in a warm and wet environment,” says Vaziri. “The response that the photon generates survives all the way to the level of our awareness despite the ubiquitous background noise. Any man-made detector would need to be cooled and isolated from noise to behave the same way.”,,,
    The gathered data from more than 30,000 trials demonstrated that humans can indeed detect a single photon incident on their eye with a probability significantly above chance.
    “What we want to know next is how does a biological system achieve such sensitivity? How does it achieve this in the presence of noise?
    http://phys.org/news/2016-07-humans-smallest.html

    Direct detection of a single photon by humans – 19 July 2016
    Discussion
    To our knowledge, these experiments provide the first evidence for the direct perception of a single photon by humans.
    https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms12172

    Moreover, they are seeking to “probe our understanding of quantum reality” by using human eyes themselves as detectors.

    The Human Eye Could Help Test Quantum Mechanics
    Experiments to confirm we can see single photons offer new ways to probe our understanding of quantum reality
    By Anil Ananthaswamy on July 10, 2018
    Excerpt: Now, “there’s absolutely no doubt that individual photoreceptors respond to single photons,”,,,
    In 2016 a team led by biophysicist Alipasha Vaziri, then at the University of Vienna, reported using single-photon sources to show “humans can detect a single-photon incident on their eye with a probability significantly above chance.”
    Kwiat’s team,,, wants to improve the statistics by doing a much larger number of trials with many more subjects.
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-human-eye-could-help-test-quantum-mechanics/

    I am extremely confident that the results of using humans themselves as detectors, will be, as the experiments always have been in quantum mechanics, extremely disappointing for atheistic materialists:

  12. 12
    bornagain77 says:

    Okie dokie, back to Gordon’s claim that the “standard models’ mentioned in the paper is not the standard model of particle physics:

    Gordon claims:

    The “simple perturbative approaches” mentioned here — that’s the standard model in question. If the fact they’re not explicitly called “the standard model” bothers you, go read the full paper. You’ll find that the phrase “standard model” doesn’t appear anywhere in it.

    So are “simple perturbative approaches” part of the standard model of particle physics or not?

    Yes they are:

    Applying perturbation theory
    In the theory of quantum electrodynamics (QED), in which the electron–photon interaction is treated perturbatively, the calculation of the electron’s magnetic moment has been found to agree with experiment to eleven decimal places.[1] In QED and other quantum field theories, special calculation techniques known as Feynman diagrams are used to systematically sum the power series terms.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perturbation_theory_(quantum_mechanics)#Applying_perturbation_theory

    Feynman Diagrams in Quantum Mechanics
    Timothy G. Abbott
    Abstract
    We explain the use of Feynman diagrams to do perturbation theory in quantum mechanics. Feynman diagrams are a valuable tool for organizing and understanding calculations.
    http://web.mit.edu/tabbott/www.....agrams.pdf

    Feynman Diagrams of the Standard Model
    http://www.ips.if.uj.edu.pl/fi.....0model.pdf
    A resource for signs and Feynman diagrams of the Standard Model
    https://arxiv.org/abs/1209.6213

    Feynman diagrams; screening; phonons
    1. Draw all possible topologically non-equivalent diagrams (connected and disconnected)
    in second order perturbation theory with respect to a two-particle interaction V (r1?r2).
    2. Write down the analytical expressions (in momentum representation) corresponding to
    the following diagrams:
    https://terpconnect.umd.edu/~galitski/PHYS625/HW3_PHYS625_2017.pdf
    More Feynman diagrams of phonon-electron interactions:
    https://www.cond-mat.de/events/correl17/manuscripts/heid.pdf

    etc.. etc.. etc..

    You would think that Gordon would try to save himself this embarrassment over and over again and do a little research first?

    Oh well.

  13. 13
    Gordon Davisson says:

    BA77, you’re still way way way off base here. I’ll try to explain why you’re talking nonsense, but I doubt I’ll be able to get through to you, so I emailed Marco Bernardi (the corresponding author of the research paper) asking for an authoritative answer. If he answers, I’ll post it here.

    Meanwhile, I’ll take a quick skim through what you’ve said:

    Gordon, trying to save face, claims that ” It’s all about solid-state physics, which is a whole different field from particle physics!”

    BALONEY! Solid-state physics studies how the large-scale properties of solid materials result from their atomic-scale properties. And if you try to claim that the standard model is not about ‘atomic-scale properties’ you are living in a fantasy land.

    By that standard, chemistry would be part of the standard model of particle physics. So would all of material science, and fluid dynamics, and…

    You’re also wrong about the standard model being about “atomic-scale properties” — it’s about SUBatomic particles, not composite particles like atoms. No, I’m not living in a fantasy land, I just have some idea what the standard model is actually about.

    Let’s review the connection between the charge transport research and the standard model of particle physics. The analysis of charge transport directly involves electrons, phonons, and polarons. Electrons are (as far as we know) elementary particles, and are directly part of the standard model (again, here’s a diagram), but their properties are very well studied & understood (at least at the level they’re relevant here). If the standard model were wrong enough about electrons for it to affect charge transport, we’d have known about it for a long time.

    Photons (note: phoTons, not phoNons) (also part of the standard model) are also fairly directly involved, since they (in the form of the electromagnetic force) mediate the interactions between electrons and the atoms in the crystal (as well as between the atoms). But like electrons, they’re well studied and understood, and not where the the standard model might be wrong.

    The other directly-involved players, phonons and polarons, are quasiparticles with no direct connection to the standard model. They are epiphenomena that arise from interactions between the atoms and/or electrons. But not from atoms as individuals, but from the entire crystal acting as a (complex) unit. The crystal is made of atoms, but it’s really the crystal / bulk properties level that’s relevant here.

    And even if we step past that to the atom level, they still aren’t part of the standard model. Atoms are made of electrons and a nucleus.

    Nuclei are made of protons and neutrons, but even those are still not part of the standard model!

    The things that make up protons and neutrons, quarks and gluons, finally are part of the standard model. But we’re something like 5 levels of structure away from the phonons and polarons that’re the main concerns of the charge transport analysis!

    A replacement for the standard model might do something like explain baryon asymmetry (totally irrelevant to charge transport in crystals), unify it with gravity and the graviton (also irrelevant), extend it to include something like sterile neutrinos (also irrelevant) or supersymmetric partners of the standard particles (still irrelevant)… So in addition to the charge transport analysis being pretty far separated from the standard model, the the parts of the standard model that’re likely to change are also pretty far from the parts that’re at all relevant to charge transport.

    But the problems for your claim don’t end there, because the type of “model”s used in the paper are a bit different from what the standard model is. The models in the paper are computational models — techniques for doing computations about physical situations that’re too complex and messy to compute out in full detail. Doing full brute-force simulation of the quantum dynamics of systems involving many components (e.g. large numbers of atoms) is out of reach of direct computation (at least until quantum computers get much better), so we have to simplify the problem to the point we can actually run the computation. Different models — different ways of simplifying the problem — work better or worse for analyzing different things. What they’ve done in the new research is to find a new computational model that works better for a situation where the standard models — the usual ways of doing the simplification — didn’t work well at all.

    The standard model of particle physics, on the other hand, isn’t oriented toward making computations tractable. It’s about describing the elementary particles, and their relations and interactions with each other.

    In your next comment, #12:

    Gordon claims:

    The “simple perturbative approaches” mentioned here — that’s the standard model in question. If the fact they’re not explicitly called “the standard model” bothers you, go read the full paper. You’ll find that the phrase “standard model” doesn’t appear anywhere in it.

    So are “simple perturbative approaches” part of the standard model of particle physics or not?

    Nope. They are a class of mathematical techniques which can be used in a variety of contexts. They certainly can be — and are — used with the particles that make up the standard model of particle physics, but claiming that makes any subject they’re used on part of the standard model is just plain silly.

  14. 14
    Gordon Davisson says:

    Ok, let’s turn to the question of QM and consciousness. Your reply at #10 was basically your usual Gish Gallop of wrongness. But this time I do need to accuse you of dishonesty, because you’re using it to distract from the fact that you were clearly and unambiguously wrong about the Wigner’s friend experiment. You held it up as showing that conscious measurement has a special role in QM, but it actually used non-conscious observers. Worse for you, it was based specifically on a theory that doesn’t distinguish between conscious and non-conscious observers.

    And it worked.

    It gave the predicted results, despite substituting non-conscious observers for the conscious kind.

    So, rather than getting distracted by the smokescreen you’re throwing up, I’ll repeat the challenge I gave at the end of my comment #9 in more direct form:

    1) Are you able & willing to admit that the Wigner’s friend substituted non-conscious observers… and still worked?

    2) Can you explain why it worked despite substituting non-conscious observers?

    (Ok, I’ll admit the second question is easy… if you understand the principles involved. But if you understood them, you wouldn’t have cited it in the first place. So the real point of this part of the challenge is: how good is your understanding the principles here?)

  15. 15
    bornagain77 says:

    Well golly gee whiz, whom am I going to believe, G.D. or the reference that says,,, “We explain the use of Feynman diagrams to do perturbation theory in quantum mechanics. Feynman diagrams are a valuable tool for organizing and understanding calculations.”

    G.D. accuses me of throwing up a smokescreen when I pointed out that the free will loophole was closed. That is laughable. G.D. is the reigning king of bluff and bluster. In actuality the free will loop-hole being closed is simply devastating to his atheist worldview. The smoke he sees is his cherished, but meaningless, atheistic worldview being blown to smithereens

    What Does Quantum Physics Have to Do with Free Will? – By Antoine Suarez – July 22, 2013
    Excerpt: What is more, recent experiments are bringing to light that the experimenter’s free will and consciousness should be considered axioms (founding principles) of standard quantum physics theory. So for instance, in experiments involving “entanglement” (the phenomenon Einstein called “spooky action at a distance”), to conclude that quantum correlations of two particles are nonlocal (i.e. cannot be explained by signals traveling at velocity less than or equal to the speed of light), it is crucial to assume that the experimenter can make free choices, and is not constrained in what orientation he/she sets the measuring devices.
    To understand these implications it is crucial to be aware that quantum physics is not only a description of the material and visible world around us, but also speaks about non-material influences coming from outside the space-time.,,,
    https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/content/what-does-quantum-physics-have-do-free-will

    Moreover, G. D. proves he does not really understand quantum theory. He quoted this as somehow being antagonistic to my position:

    Notably, the formalism of quantum mechanics does not make a distinction between large (even conscious) and small physical systems, which is sometimes referred to as universality. Hence, our definition covers human observers, as well as more commonly used non-conscious observers such as (classical or quantum) computers and other measurement devices—even the simplest possible ones, as long as they satisfy the above requirements.

    Apparently unbeknownst to GD, this is part of the measurement problem,

    The Measurement Problem – video
    https://youtu.be/qB7d5V71vUE?

    “We wish to measure a temperature.,,,
    But in any case, no matter how far we calculate — to the mercury vessel, to the scale of the thermometer, to the retina, or into the brain, at some time we must say: and this is perceived by the observer. That is, we must always divide the world into two parts, the one being the observed system, the other the observer.”
    John von Neumann – 1903-1957 – The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, pp.418-21 – 1955

  16. 16
    bornagain77 says:

    GD, I may have been a bit hasty in the first part of my critique of your denial that involved the standard model. I now see that you put much thought and effort into clarifying exactly why you think they were not talking specifically about ‘extending’ the standard model. I apologize for my hastiness in dismissing your concerns. I will genuinely be interested in the co-authors response if he makes one.

    But still, I don’t think the answer is nearly as clear cut as you think: To repeat:

    They were trying to extend “the mathematical formulation of the Standard Model of particle physics” so as “to predict how electrons interacting strongly with atomic motions will flow through a complex material”. As they state in their paper, this “remains an open challenge. ”

    In materials with strong electron-phonon (e?ph) interactions, the electrons carry a phonon cloud during their motion, forming quasiparticles known as polarons. Predicting charge transport and its temperature dependence in the polaron regime remains an open challenge.
    https://journals.aps.org/prresearch/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.1.033138

    And as they themselves stated in the article in the OP, in order to make ‘accurate’ predictions they relied ONLY on quantum mechanics and found that “charge transport near room temperature cannot be explained by standard models.”

    Bottom line, when they tried to extend “the mathematical formulation of the Standard Model of particle physics” so as “to predict how electrons interacting strongly with atomic motions will flow through a complex material” they failed and were only able to make accurate predictions by using quantum mechanics alone.

    The thing GD, is that the ‘standard model’, and Feynman diagrams in particular, is basically ‘built up’ from a combination of QM and special relativity. Thus for them to use only quantum mechanics is a dead give away that they subtracted an important part away from their apparently hybrid model for phonons/electrons that they were originally trying to use.

    Again, this is not nearly as clear cut as you seem to believe.

  17. 17
    bornagain77 says:

    Of note, “The Standard Model is far more than elementary particles arranged in a table.” And is of no comfort to atheists

    The Fine-Tuning of Nature’s Laws – Luke A. Barnes – Fall 2015
    Excerpt: Today, our deepest understanding of the laws of nature is summarized in a set of equations. Using these equations, we can make very precise calculations of the most elementary physical phenomena, calculations that are confirmed by experimental evidence. But to make these predictions, we have to plug in some numbers that cannot themselves be calculated but are derived from measurements of some of the most basic features of the physical universe. These numbers specify such crucial quantities as the masses of fundamental particles and the strengths of their mutual interactions. After extensive experiments under all manner of conditions, physicists have found that these numbers appear not to change in different times and places, so they are called the fundamental constants of nature.
    These constants represent the edge of our knowledge. Richard Feynman called one of them — the fine-structure constant, which characterizes the amount of electromagnetic force between charged elementary particles like electrons — “one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man.” An innovative, elegant physical theory that actually predicts the values of these constants would be among the greatest achievements of twenty-first-century physics.
    Many have tried and failed. ,,,
    Tweaking the Constants
    Let’s consider a few examples of the many and varied consequences of messing with the fundamental constants of nature, the initial conditions of the universe, and the mathematical form of the laws themselves.
    You are made of cells; cells are made of molecules; molecules of atoms; and atoms of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Protons and neutrons, in turn, are made of quarks. We have not seen any evidence that electrons and quarks are made of anything more fundamental (though other fundamental particles, like the Higgs boson of recent fame, have also been discovered in addition to quarks and electrons). The results of all our investigations into the fundamental building blocks of matter and energy are summarized in the Standard Model of particle physics, which is essentially one long, imposing equation. Within this equation, there are twenty-six constants, describing the masses of the fifteen fundamental particles, along with values needed for calculating the forces between them, and a few others. We have measured the mass of an electron to be about 9.1 x 10^-28 grams, which is really very small — if each electron in an apple weighed as much as a grain of sand, the apple would weigh more than Mount Everest. The other two fundamental constituents of atoms, the up and down quarks, are a bit bigger, coming in at 4.1 x 10^-27 and 8.6 x 10^-27 grams, respectively. These numbers, relative to each other and to the other constants of the Standard Model, are a mystery to physics. Like the fine-structure constant, we don’t know why they are what they are.
    However, we can calculate all the ways the universe could be disastrously ill-suited for life if the masses of these particles were different. For example, if the down quark’s mass were 2.6 x 10^-26 grams or more, then adios, periodic table! There would be just one chemical element and no chemical compounds, in stark contrast to the approximately 60 million known chemical compounds in our universe.
    With even smaller adjustments to these masses, we can make universes in which the only stable element is hydrogen-like. Once again, kiss your chemistry textbook goodbye, as we would be left with one type of atom and one chemical reaction. If the up quark weighed 2.4 x 10^-26 grams, things would be even worse — a universe of only neutrons, with no elements, no atoms, and no chemistry whatsoever.
    ,,, Compared to the range of possible masses that the particles described by the Standard Model could have, the range that avoids these kinds of complexity-obliterating disasters is extremely small. Imagine a huge chalkboard, with each point on the board representing a possible value for the up and down quark masses. If we wanted to color the parts of the board that support the chemistry that underpins life, and have our handiwork visible to the human eye, the chalkboard would have to be about ten light years (a hundred trillion kilometers) high.,,,
    http://www.thenewatlantis.com/.....tures-laws

    The deconstructed Standard Model equation – July 2016
    The Standard Model is far more than elementary particles arranged in a table.
    https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/the-deconstructed-standard-model-equation

    This Is What The Standard Model of Physics Actually Looks Like
    FIONA MACDONALD5 AUG 2016
    https://www.sciencealert.com/this-is-what-the-standard-model-of-physics-actually-looks-like

Leave a Reply