Classical Atom Models: A Nobel Prize Waiting to be Won?

[Careful]

**There is a difference, as you should know. Supersymmetry promises a unified theory, which is a specific benefit. **

that is funny: supersymmetry is one component in the fabric of superstringtheory and has already been the subject of experiments for 30 years now with constant falsification of the specific claims made (concerning the energy scales at which supersymmetric partners ought to be found; the same game - to some lesser extent- concerns the Higgs boson btw ). By the way, as you should know, EXACT supersymmetry HAS to be broken in our universe (anthropic principle) If you do not mind this, then I do not understand why you are so protective concerning Bell experiments which are not conclusive at all


** CM promises absolutely nothing, and I do mean nothing as in nada and zilch; and it is completely ridiculous to claim otherwise. Why should anyone invest a penny in it? There is only one reason, and that is BLIND FAITH. **

Blind faith is the guideline of the above mentioned programs too. And I think any CM'mer would agree that we take a leap in the dark; but that is fine, that is what scientific exploration is about. The point which was already made for a LONG time by Vanesch is that it is just a matter of taste wether you start from GR or QM. The latter is done consistently for some 40 years now, and apart form toy models in lower dimensions the program really got nowhere. It seems to me that you are too much impressed by merchandising tricks ...


**
Of course, the search for a TOE may not lead to anything anyway, as perhaps there is no unification of GR and QFT**

So, why not try CM: if CM gets the necessary part of QM out, we are done. By the way, I am still hoping you can - as a quantum erudite - give me a reference for the above question concerning cooper pair formation.

 

[vanesch]

I seems to me that when the scientific community wants to invest millions of dollars into ``constructs´´ such as string theory, supersymmetry, LQG and so on, which do not have even produced a single experimental prediction in 30 years (supersymmetry is still waiting for falsification and LQG is still digesting the Hamiltonian constraint); then for sure one might give CM a good try.

As I said already, LQG approaches and so on (brilliant or misguided as they may be) have the conservative advantage that they AUTOMATICALLY reduce to quantum theory in "lesser" areas. So they have their "correspondence principle" build into them and as such do not have to justify themselves comparing to EXISTING EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS. So they are already *beyond* the status of where you are: they *already acquired* agreement with existing experimental results, while you are saying that one day you HOPE to acquire agreement with existing experimental results.

Now, let us, for the sake of argument, follow your reasoning. Let us suppose that the "true" theory of nature is a CM theory, and that by some very bizarre circumstances, in the 20ies, people took a wrong turn, and discovered a very strange theory - completely wrong - but that spits out results in agreement with experiment for about everything that it is confronted with, until they finally, one century later, hit the wall of this sideroad. How do we know that we hit a wall ? The only way to know for sure is by experimental falsification! At that point, you WILL find people ready to fund such searches, and moreover, they will be guided by experiment. So why spend money on it before ?

And let us now, for sake of argument, suppose that the theory you are looking for doesn't exist. Now, suppose that you get it your way, and that a lot of people are paid to look for it. They find lots of partial results, which can agree with QM results and experiment in certain areas, but not with others. How do you finally know that you are hitting a wall ?

 

[Careful]

**As I said already, LQG approaches and so on (brilliant or misguided as they may be) have the conservative advantage that they AUTOMATICALLY reduce to quantum theory in "lesser" areas. So they have their "correspondence principle" build into them and as such do not have to justify themselves comparing to EXISTING EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS. So they are already *beyond* the status of where you are: they *already acquired* agreement with existing experimental results, while you are saying that one day you HOPE to acquire agreement with existing experimental results. **

Ah but they sacrifice locality and by far do not know anything yet about the low energy limit of their hypothetical (read: does not exist yet) theory (apart from some imaginary wishful ansatze).
So, it is NOT true that they fit with current experimental GR results at this moment in time (remember that taking the classical limit of a quantum theory requires FULL knowledge of the theory and is a very subtle issue).
Like I said, it is just what you wish to consider; I save the GR output and locality and sacrifice QM for now. In my view this is equivalent.


The conclusion from the rest you write is : ```we have no clue whatsoever, but we wish to remain conservative´´. My answer is : that is not how science progresses, certainly when other reasonable alternatives are available.

 

[vanesch]

Ah but they sacrifice locality and by far do not know anything yet about the low energy limit of their hypothetical (read: does not exist yet) theory (apart from some imaginary wishful ansatze).

I think that your arguments are less arguments for supporting your programme than for diminishing funding for these programmes - something I wouldn't mind much, honestly. And if you listen carefully, you hear these arguments more and more.

 

[vanesch]

The conclusion from the rest you write is : ```we have no clue whatsoever, but we wish to remain conservative´´. My answer is : that is not how science progresses, certainly when other reasonable alternatives are available.

Science progresses by experimental falsification. If it ain't broken, don't fix it. You can call that "conservative" if you wish. All the discussion is about how reasonable your alternative is. You find it reasonable, but people deciding about funding apparently not. They take the bets, that's the way it works. The day that QM will be falsified, or that you can convince them that your programme is worth a bet, you are in. But if it really bothers you, I don't see why you don't do something real for a living, and work on your own in your free time (the way Einstein started off). You could also work on popular topics until you get tenure.

 

[Careful]

** But if it really bothers you, I don't see why you don't do something real for a living, and work on your own in your free time **


That is what my wife always says (but in her definition REAL excludes science). It is the old story that a senator or a successful businessman has the *****.


** You could also work on popular topics until you get tenure **

But then you are old and contentious that you made it

 

[vanesch]

** But if it really bothers you, I don't see why you don't do something real for a living, and work on your own in your free time **
That is what my wife always says (but in her definition REAL excludes science).

You should listen to your wife

** You could also work on popular topics until you get tenure **
But then you are old and contentious that you made it

Ok, but now you have enough influence to get your programme funded for other youngsters

And honestly, if by the time you're old, there has not yet been any experimental indication that QM is falsified, I think you can forget it, you will not be heard. So if you go for a more conventional career, you'll be ready, from the first indications of falsification of QM, to jump on the bandwagon (I'll testify for you, if you want, that you only did the conventional thing to keep in business, but that you are a True Local Realist ) ; or, if no such thing happens during your career, be happy that you didn't jump on the bandwagon . A win-win situation

Or even better: start a business, become rich, and start a foundation that gives grants for local realist research. You could even couple it to a Disney resort

 

[Careful]

**
Or even better: start a business, become rich, and start a foundation that gives grants for local realist research. You could even couple it to a Disney resort **

No, I should make a link between local realism and creationism so that I cash in many fat oil dollars already at this moment in time

 

[vanesch]

No, I should make a link between local realism and creationism

Well... you said that, not me !