Roger Penrose Says Physics Is Wrong, From String Theory to Quantum Mechanics

The Discover magazine interview mirrors my own point of view. Roger Penrose Says Physics Is Wrong, From String Theory to Quantum Mechanics

How about you?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I suppose then, the only difference between you and Penrose is one of ability.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Believe it or not, I think he would appreciate my novel approach to solving such a complex puzzle.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Inquiring Minds Want to Know

Wasn't Penrose the guy who once sued a toilet paper company over tessellations?

From the interview:

Quantum mechanics is an incredible theory that explains all sorts of things that couldn't be explained before, starting with the stability of atoms. But when you accept the weirdness of quantum mechanics [in the macro world], you have to give up the idea of space-time as we know it from Einstein. The greatest weirdness here is that it doesn't make sense. If you follow the rules, you come up with something that just isn't right.​

My real question, toilet paper aside, is whether the recent word that scientists at University of California Santa Barbara have developed a quantum device large enough to be seen by the unaided eye undermines anything Penrose is saying.

I mean, it's new data, of a sort, but I can't tell what its implications are in this context.
____________________

Notes:

Kruglinski, Susan. "Roger Penrose Says Physics Is Wrong, From String Theory to Quantum Mechanics". Discover. September, 2009. DiscoverMagazine.com. March 30, 2010. http://discovermagazine.com/2009/se...ics-is-wrong-string-theory-quantum-mechanics/

Nature Publishing Group and World Science. "Bizarre 'quantum' behavior noted in device large enough to see". March 22, 2010. World-Science.com. March 30, 2010. http://www.world-science.net/othernews/100318_quantum.htm

 

I just had to wipe the coffee off of my monitor, after the spit-take...

So, the point is that GR is not consistent with quantum mechanics. Period. You can either take the point of view that GR is right, and Quantum mechanics is somehow different, and start from there, or you can treat quantum mechanics as fundamental, and try to see how GR can emerge from a quantum system.

It is no surprise that relativists, like Penrose, Hawking, et al. prefer to start wth GR, and treat geometry as something fundamental. And, for all of their ``brainpower'', they have failed to achieve anything since 1930 or so, when people first started this research program. The current incarnation, Loop Quantum Gravity, is beset with all sorts of issues, and most people treat it rather skeptically.

In 1980 or so, it was realized that one could build a quantum theory based on strings, and that (from this theory) general relativity naturally emerged. In contrast to the other program (starting with GR, advocated by Penrose, Hawking, et al.), string theory has a plethora of ways to reconcile observations with experiment---of course, some view this as a problem, as there are no unique solutions.

So the question is---would you rather have no solution to the problem, or would you rather have too many solutions?

Penrose, for all of his genius, would take the path that offers no solution to the problem.

I don't know how to directly answer the question, but probably not. The experiments are consistent with the tenets quantum mechanics, and Penrose would like to derive those tenets from some more fundamental, geometrical picture.

 

Interesting points. We as humans have always used stories to help explain our observations of nature and used those stories as a basis upon which to make predictions. As time progresses and we learn more, so do our stories. They change to match our observations and become tools for prediction.

We have small minds and talents relative to the complexity of our universe, even those with the best minds are dwarfed by the grandeour of our universe.
So I would not be suprise to see our stories of the universe undergo some radical changes in the years ahead of us, but that is part of the facination, excitment and beauty of this universe. The good news is that we can create these stories (models and projections).

 

It could possibly rule out the objective collapse hypothesis he proposed where he posited that it is gravitational fields which cause the wavefunction collapse so QM should fail for masses of order of the Planck mass.

 

I believe you think that. I do not believe it to be true.

His is an opinion based on knowledge and experience. You're is an opinion based on the absence of those.

 

From wiki:

Sounds pretty suspect to me. What does ``significant'' mean? How can it be defined, other than in a circular manner?

Penrose did good work, but so did Einstein. Einstein spent the years from 1930 until his death doing nonsense, and if this ``Penrose interpretation'' is the best that he can do, it looks like he suffers the same fate.

 

It's not that crazy an idea, if I understand it correctly. I believe he is just talking about decoherence. It is well known that quantum systems decohere on interaction with larger systems, i.e. the environment, which is why one must isolate things like BEC's extremely well to preserve the quantum state. I think he is just suggesting that gravitational interactions may be a significant factor for the decoherence of large systems; since there is no way to gravitationally isolate a system this would prevent superpositions of things above a certain mass from existing, or rather they would decohere extremely quickly if you did make one, even if otherwise well isolated.

Actually I changed my mind, that's not what he's talking about, although it seems related. Confusing.

 

I lost all faith in Penrose when he decided he knew more about brains/consciousness/intelligence than those who work in the field.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I think his argument was that a superposition of gravitational fields is energetically unstable so the lifetime of a superposition of states should depend on the mass of the system.

I think this is his main paper on the subject

http://www.springerlink.com/content/k75046wh3668l654/

 

1.) This should teach me (as if I haven't already learned) not to form opinions after informing myself via wikipedia.

2.) After reading the intro to his paper, it's not very convincing. He basically says ``All those problems with QM and GR aren't really problems.'' Anyway, he doesn't go on to show how to actually quantize gravity, so it seems like a bunch of hot air.

The basic point, I guess, is that

T = hbar / E

where T is the time that the superposition of states relaxes, hbar is some constant, and E is the gravitational self-energy. This is, of course, trivially true: he's just substituted ``gravitational self energy'' into the uncertainty relation. What I don't quite understand is that (for example), self-energies may diverge. If ``gravitational self-energy'' is anything like ``electromagnetic self-energy'', then it diverges for 1-d and 0-d objects, as far as I remember. If this is right, then any point particle will never show particle characteristics.

Of course, there maybe some different way to calculate gravitational self-energy, so I am probably wrong.

 

true, if Penrose can say what he said and take it to a natioal level, he should provide an alternative.

 

that being said, the man should still provide an alternative theory. Look I'm not to crazy right now about string theory myself, but I think if Penrose has really done those things he should an anternative theory at least before goes any further with this. I know this because if I were Penrose right now I'd have one.

 

I found the presence of quantum scale brain wetware intriguing and the fact that he discovered those structures on a 'side gig' quite entertaining. We still know squat about what they do.

I found faith in Penrose while doing graduate research on quasi-periodic tilings. While actually trying to tile the plane pentagonaly, quasiperiodics sort - of just fall out into your lap. It is that he tried to do it in the first place that impresses me.

That we have now extended those r - 2 quasiperiodic tilings into r - 3 space tilings instantiated in metallurgic alloys is fun indeed. Those appear to right up there with Buckminsterfullerenes for true applications weirdness.