Matt Strassler

Many tens of thousands of people have studied quantum chromodynamics (and related experimental results) enough that they understand there is a scaling problem in the proton: the more energy you use to probe a proton the more internal structure is revealed. We're orders of magnitude away from being able to probe proton structure at scales where "the problem of time" arises in any practical sense.

You haven't studied QCD or much high-energy physics, but you can improve your understanding of the proton starting with this excellent recent article by Matt Strassler: https://profmattstrassler.com/2024/07/22/the-standard-model-more-deeply-how-the-proton-is-greater-than-the-sum-of-its-parts/

> "our assumption of time: that it's a level straight stream that flows forward"

That's not an assumption anyone who's studied physics would recognize, except (being generous) to the extent they read about the history of physical equations before about 1910 which were parametrized by "absolute time", and which have been superseded by relativistic equivalents.

There is no single "assumption" about time; time is treated very differently in different candidates for a fundamental physical theory (and differently again in theories that aren't fundamental; non-fundamental means that although bulk behaviour might be completely and accurately described, it emerges from microscopic behaviour not dealt with in detail by the non-fundamental theory -- examples include Navier-Stokes and Bloch's…

As usual I think that Woit's blog post is unnecessarily polarizing. If you decide to read his post then I would recommend you also read the excellent comment by Marty Tysanner on the same page.

Also, sigh. If you dig deep into the dark corners of the internets then I am sure that you can find fake anything. Focus on the beauty and the truth, people. For example:

[1] LIGO continues to work beautifully, as evidenced by its second detection of gravitational waves back in June: http://news.mit.edu/2016/second-time-ligo-detects-gravitational-waves-0615

[2] A fun but highly speculative 'bump' in the LHC data, which will probably go away but is fun to think about: https://profmattstrassler.com/2016/10/21/hiding-from-a-nightmare/

[3] New precision results from a nice little experiment done 'on the side' at CERN: https://press.cern/press-releases/2017/01/cern-experiment-reports-sixfold-improved-measurement-magnetic-moment

[4] Or just a very accessible overview of particle physics in 2016: http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/2016-year-in-particle-physics

It's a good question that I wish I could answer.

For me looking into String Theory's status as scientific/not-scientific is a good way to learn that the Popperian view of falsifiable==scientific is a bit too simplistsic and that classifying things as scientific/not-scientific may not even be a productive activity. It's just not that simple.

In the meantime it's generally best to listen to scientists talk about it to get a feel for its standing: https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/28pzc1/string_theory_what_is_its_status_as_of_now/?ref=search_posts

A good quote from that thread which may answer your question: "Anyways, my point is that String Theory is not just some whacky idea "what if everything was strings" that exists in a vacuum, but is rather a very natural and conservative extension of Quantum Field Theory to a more general and less arbitrary framework."

And here's a blog post (series of posts) linked from that discussion which may also help: http://profmattstrassler.com/2013/09/23/quantum-field-theory-string-theory-and-predictions/

People keep referring to Scott Aaronson like he changed his mind, and it's pretty clear he didn't. He just didn't want to be the Chief Naysayer anymore; he has more important things to do and frankly that shouldn't be his calling card.

I think the only part of "general-purpose quantum computer" D-Wave can claim is the "computer" part. They have not proven that any part of their annealing is "quantum". They have pretty epic lithography/fabrication skills, and are barreling ahead without any regard for coherence. They also have just an insane number of control lines, so there's some innovation there.

But their net worth becomes negative if you count the bad press for quantum computing in having a charlatan claim they have 1024 qubits and are "500,000" times faster at solving Sudoku. Other fields are having this PR problem too, where even careful program reviews are getting brutalized by the PR news cycle (see recent dark-matter experiment: http://profmattstrassler.com/2013/04/03/ams-presents-some-first-results/ -- forgive the typography)

It's very helpful to use natural units (or QCD units) when working with particle physics. Set the speed of light, the reduced Planck's constant, and Boltzmann's constant equal to 1. For QCD units also set the mass of the proton equal to 1. Then compute all the other units based on this. (There are several other systems of "natural" units also in use. All of them set the speed of light to 1, but differ in what other units are included.)

A particular advantage to intuition comes with the famous e=mc^2. Since c is 1, and 1^2 is 1, e=m. Energy and mass are completely equivalent. Strong force binding energy in a proton is mass. The only bit that's not straight from binding energy is from the Higgs mechanism, which is where the mass of the electron (and the quarks themselves) comes from. Matt Strassler has an excellent explanation of that: https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/how-the-higgs-field-works-with-math/

> The law of conservation of momentum was created before quantum mechanics was discovered.

The law of conservation of momentum is a fundamental part of quantum field theory; without it, we don't have particle accelerators, nor any understanding of particle decay.

I strongly suggest, well, everything on this site, but in particular, https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/why-do-particles-decay/most-particles-decay-yet-some-dont/ and https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/why-do-particles-decay/most-particles-decay-yet-some-dont/ . It's the best review of modern physics I've seen anywhere that is both accessible to a lay-but-interested reader, and aligns correctly with the actual math.