Hi Godfrey, As you wrote in reply to others, local deterministic models seem to be ruled out. The class of all formally describable models is much larger than that of only the local deterministic models. So, although 't Hooft may be proved wrong (if loopholes like pre-determinism don't save him), non-local models can reproduce QM.
Saibal ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <email@example.com> Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2005 06:07 PM Subject: Re: subjective reality > Hi Saibal, > > Yes, trans-Plankian physics is likely to be quite different from our > cis-plankian > one. However I think the main reason 't Hooft claims the no-go > theorems of > quantum physics are "in small print" is because his "reading glasses" > are no > longer current :-), I am afraid. His arguments for the prevalence of > simple > deterministic models at this scaled have varied over the years (as his > little > examples) and some of these are quite clever, I'll agree. > > However, as you very well point out, any transplankian theory worth > looking > into has to reproduce a recognizable picture of the cisplankian world > we know > and that means: quantum mechanics (non-locality and all) in some > discernible limit (and General Relativity too in some other limit) and > all > indications is that this cannot be done from deterministic models > alone. > 't Hooft has been working around this for the last 10 years or so and > he doesn't have much to show for it. Considering that it took him less > than 2 years to come up with a renormalization prescription for > non-abelian gauge > theories in his youth I suspect "god's dice" are loaded against him > this time. > > However he is always fascinating to read and hear. I saw him at Harvard > this winter for the Colemanfest and he had the most fabulous > animations... > > Godfrey Kurtz > (New Brunswick, NJ) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Saibal Mitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org > Sent: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 01:34:19 +0200 > Subject: Re: subjective reality > > Hi Godfrey, > > 't Hooft's work is motivated by problems one encounters in Planck scale > physics. 't Hooft has argued that the no go theorems precluding > deterministic models come with some ''small print''. Physicists > working on > ''conventional ways'' to unite gravity with QM are forced to make such > bold > assumptions that one should now also question this ''small print''. > > As you wrote, 't Hooft has only looked at some limited type of models. > It > seems to me that much more is possible. I have never tried to do any > serious > work in this area myself (I'm too busy with other things). I would say > that > anything goes as long as you can explain the macroscopic world. One > could > imagine that a stochastic treatment of some deterministic theory could > yield > the standard model, but now with the status of the quantum fields as > fictitional ghosts. If photons and electrons etc. don't really exists, > then > you can say that this is consistent with ''no local hidden variables''. > > Saibal > > > > > Hi Saibal, > > > > You are correct that Gerard 't Hooft is one of the world exponents in > > QFTh. > > But Quantum Field Theory is but one small piece of QM and one in > which > > non-local effects do not play a direct role (as of yet). > Understandably > > 't Hooft's forays into Quantum Mechanics have not, however, been > > very insightful as he himself confesses (you can check his humorous > > slides in the Kavli Institute symposium of last year on the Future of > > Physics). > > > > So far he has supplied mostly some interesting simple CA models from > > which one > > can indeed extract something akin to superpositions but that in no > way > > bypasses > > the basic facts of entanglement and non-local correlations. > > > > He may very well be the very last hold out for a deterministic (an > thus > > classically mechanistic) point-of-view but I would not count him out > > just yet. If any one around has the brain to deal with this its him! > > That much I will grant you... > > > > (Now I have met 't Hooft! 't Hooft was a neighbor of mine and I tell > > you: Bruno is no 't Hooft! ;- ) > > > > Best regards > > > > Godfrey Kurtz > > (New Brunswick, NJ) > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Saibal Mitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Cc: email@example.com > > Sent: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:11:30 +0200 > > Subject: Re: subjective reality > > > > Godfrey Kurtz wrote > > > > > More specifically: I believe QM puts a big kabosh into any > > non-quantum > > > mechanistic view of the physical world. If you > > > don't get that, than maybe you don't get a lot of other things, > > Bruno. > > > Sorry if this sounds contemptuous. It is meant > > > to be. > > > > > > There aren't many people with a better understanding of QFT than 't > > Hooft. > > > > > > > > http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0409021 > > > > > > http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9903084 > > > > > > http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0212095 > > > > > > http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0105105 > > > > > > http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0104219 > > > > > > http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0104080 > > > > > > > > > > Saibal > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and > > industry-leading spam and email virus protection. > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and > industry-leading spam and email virus protection. >