Constraints and divergent assessments of fertility in non-empirical physics in the history of the string theory controversy

Ritson, Sophie

doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2021.08.016

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Rovelli has written that loop quantum gravity has the advantage over string theory that the former "addressed upfront the problem of describing the fundamental degrees of freedom of a theory without a fixed background spacetime", while the latter treats this in an "indirect" way ( [44], via [45]). We should apply the same standard to the reconstruction of quantum theory itself.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On Relationalist Reconstructions of Quantum Theory

Stacey¹

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Why I'm not happy with how Relational Quantum Mechanics has addressed the reconstruction of quantum theory, and why you shouldn't be either.One appealing feature of Carlo Rovelli's proposal for "Relational Quantum Mechanics" [1] is that it offered a challenge for those who prefer technical work over slinging sentences: the reconstruction of quantum theory from information-theoretic principles. This appeal was witnessed by the means through which I first learned of RQM, a Wikipedia page written by a fan in 2006 [2] and since trimmed heavily on the grounds that it said many things not explicitly stated in the literature already. (As David Mermin once said, "Writing on Wikipedia is like writing on water.") Of course, the idea of rebuilding quantum theory on a better foundation long predates Rovelli. In some fashion, it is at least as old as Birkhoff and von Neumann's explorations. We could also mention Mackey's challenge and its answer by Gleason, and John Wheeler's suggested research project for his more promising undergraduates: "Derive quantum theory from an information theoretic principle!" [3]. But Rovelli's article, along with the 2000 Montreal workshop and Hardy's derivation not long after [4,5], served to mainstream the question for the current century.A few days after I posted a first version of these notes online (https://www.sunclipse. org/?p=3016), Muciño, Okon and Sudarsky independently filed a lengthy critique of RQM on the arXiv [6]. As will become clear over the following sections, I tend to agree with some of their criticisms. However, the overall tone here will be closer to that of Pienaar [7,8], who evaluates RQM from as sympathetic a position as possible, taking as given the legitimacy of "Copenhagen-ish" interpretations and seeing how RQM fares when evaluated in that context. Moreover, my emphasis will be different from that of all these criticisms, as I will focus upon the reconstruction side of Rovelli's proposal. Has it borne fruit? When later work claimed to find inspiration in it, how close was the relationship, and did RQM really hold up its end of the deal? I. ROVELLI'S RECONSTRUCTION POSTULATESRovelli's preliminary stab at reconstructing quantum theory from information-theoretic principles has some appealing features but also a few things going against it, which can be illustrated by quoting the first two postulates that Rovelli proposes. R1. "There is a maximum amount of relevant information that can be extracted from a system."R2. "It is always possible to acquire new information about a system."These have a little of the feel of Einstein's postulates for special relativity, in that they seemingly run the risk of contradicting each other [9]. However, in special relativity, resolving this dramatic tension required overhauling our notions of space and time, whereas it is possible to have R1 and R2 coexist in a much more mundane way. For example, the

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On Relationalist Reconstructions of Quantum Theory

Stacey¹

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For a partially contrary view, see Dawid (2013). And for a balanced overview, see Ritson (2021).I stress that the debate here concerns the criteria for the acceptance of a scientific theory, not the criteria for pursuing a scientific research program. Even the strongest critics of string theory, such as Smolin (2006) and Woit (2006), agree on the value of pursuing research in string theory in the hope that it might contribute insights towards a future theory of quantum gravity; they also agree on the value of pursuing research in string theory for its applications in mathematics and in other branches of physics.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%