local wrote:Prof. Gill was equivocating about it on another thread:
"do we really need a symposium on this ancient stuff? I doubt that yet another symposium is going to definitively resolve the EPR paradox and the problem of the interpretation of quantum mechanics"
viewtopic.php?p=9627#p9627
Oh, I was just being provocative! Something someone said, annoyed me. Here I am, doing all this work, and it seemed not to be appreciated in certain quarters.
Please, you tell me: do *you* think we need another? Give me good reasons, and that will help me to organise one!
Actually, the present idea (in the minds of a small group of people) is for a workshop of one week, with embedded in that a one-day public symposium, and embedded in that an open debate between myself and Joy Christian. I have the idea to hold the workshop at the Lorentz Center, Leiden. They have a fantastic infrastructure for this kind of thing, and a dedication to multidisciplinarity. The workshop will address not just the problems of the interpretation of quantum mechanics, but also the sociological and media and political aspects of research in areas where there is major public interest. Quantum entanglement attracts the attention of amateurs. Crowd funding! But of intellect, not of money.
On the other hand: quantum computing attracts science journalists, there is hype, there is money, but the journalists do not understand what they are writing about. Hype is dangerous, because if expectations are not fulfilled, it will have negative effects on the public's appreciation of science. People like Sabine Hossenfelder are already preaching that physics is in crisis. I think there is a lot in what she says. The experts in quantum information and quantum computing haven't found out how to explain to the public what they are doing. Of course, there is a big problem (in my opinion): anyone who claims to understand quantum mechanics, clearly doesn't. Sorry, JJC. Just my opinion. But not only my opinion.
Many people claim to solve the problems of the interpretation of quantum mechanics by coming up with different notions of "locality" and "realism" from the mainstream academics in the field of ... the foundations of physics. Metaphysics. Philosophy. What does it mean to "understand" a physical phenomenon? Is a mathematical model which describes it accurately enough? Some people think that that is all that we can hope for. I am not so sure. I think that QM can't be *understood* by our brains because of what evolution has decided that "understand" means. But this is a minority viewpoint, I know.
Amateurs actually have repeatedly made enormously important contributions to the field. First they are excluded and vilified, but finally, some of their ideas turn out actually to be really important. The ideas then get assimilated by the mainstream. Of course, the people who had those ideas, get forgotten, anyway. My favourite example of this is Caroline Thompson.
There is a deadline for submissions to Lorentz Center, Leiden, mid September. So I have quite a few weeks yet to write a proposal. However, I need some co-organisers. I have had some positive responses from suitable persons, but also some negative responses. But I have a lot of avenues still to explore. Time is pressing. In Dutch we say "a cat in a narrow place makes strange jumps". Something like: necessity is the mother of invention. I can just say: "watch this space".
If the Lorentz Center rejects a proposal by myself plus small group of co-organisers, then there are many other options worth following up.
If the Lorentz Center accepts the proposal then still it could easily take a year before the workshop actually happens. Rome was not built in a day. Please, everyone, be realistic and patient. And helpful and constructive!
BTW, of course, no way will we definitively and finally resolve all the problems of the interpretation of QM. Despite JJC's idea that he has laid the groundwork for this. Even if he actually has, he won't gain universal acceptance from what goes on in a week in Leiden. But I hope we can clear the air and make some progress... and generate some new ideas and some new collaborations. We'll see.
You would have to go at least 130 years back to find an amateur who contributed to physics in any significant way (but what is the definition of an amateur anyway...)
