In the case of gauge theory, the idea that we should consider the most general case has been well proven. As GP pointed out, all observable phenomena ultimately depend only on the absolute modulus of the field Ψ, so a theoretical physicist naturally wonders, what happens if you allow its complex phase to vary. Turns out nothing interesting happens if you apply a global phase, but if you allow the phase to vary at every point in spacetime, it ends up breaking the theory. That is, unless you include an additional field at every point in spacetime that precisely cancels out the change induced by the gauge freedom.

In other words, the motivation is that we can't simply look and "see" whether or not there is a locally varying phase on the wavefunction Ψ, since we only can measure |Ψ|^2. So we have to assume there is, until proven otherwise. Since a local phase would imply the existence of an extra field to cancel it out, we can indirectly check for this scenario by looking for the corresponding field. As pointed out by GP, in the case of a U(1) gauge, it turns out there is such a field, and electromagnetism (and all of its laws) exactly fit the bill.

There are other "unmeasurable" symmetries you could apply to the wave function as well, beyond just a complex phase. SU(2) is a Lie group symmetry which would mean that the measurable properties of certain tuples of fields (Ψ, ϕ) are indistinguishable under a sort of complex-valued rotation of Ψ->ϕ and ϕ->Ψ. Again, if you assume a such symmetry is locally varied at every point in spacetime, you end up requiring not one but three new fields to cancel out the effects on the SM Lagrangian. It turns out that the vector bosons W+, W-, and Z, which mediate weak nuclear forces exactly fit the bill.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant

The work of theoretical physicists always seemed like the other side of an ocean of math away, but thanks to this explanation it feels like I can at least make out a lighthouse in the distance.

Could you elaborate on this a bit? To a layperson this sounds like a hack. "Things get screwy when you screw with them, UNLESSSSS we add a magic thing that undoes our work". Well yeah.

Here's an analogy: You find a box, and you can't see inside it. You have no reason to think there's something inside it. But also, boxes have stuff in them sometimes. So, you shake the box, and hear something clinking around. Therefore, you infer there's something in the box.

Somebody next to you says "This sounds like a hack. There was a box and you had to go shake it until it started making sounds that it wasn't making before. UNLESSSSS we now magically have to agree that there's something in the box."

It's a perfectly reasonable question, and I'm just turning your words on you in good faith :)

To take the technical discussion a bit further, it's exactly this kind of reasoning that led to the discovery of the Higgs boson. Strictly speaking, it's impossible for gauge bosons (that's what the particles are called that show up when you add these locally-varying symmetries) to have nonzero mass. The photon and gluons (from the SU(3) strong force) are massless, but the W and Z bosons are VERY massive. This was a big problem with the Standard Model; the vector gauge bosons had every property expected from the gauge theory, except for this one point about their mass, which was experimentally incontrovertible.

That is, until Brout/Englert/Higgs came along. They said "Yeah the vector bosons must be massless UNLESSSSSSSS you assume there's this magic additional field that couples to every particle's mass, in which case it perfectly cancels out all the problems and allows the W and Z bosons to be heavy". It took 50 years but we found that particle eventually.

The argument isn't against physicists inventing new fields or interactions to fit data. The argument is about why you can motivate it as "something that has to be added out of pure logic" :)

The first option might be true, no real way to measure it and that's sort of it, no explanation for all the other stuff going on. The second option is a little more complex, it requires an extra construct to make it work. And apparently when we do the math and work out this construct, it exactly maps to things we can measure in reality, that were not explained by the other simpler option.

So it's not backwards because it's simply the first full match in a depth first search through the possible realities that follow from this wave function theory.

In a Physics degree, the order is quite historical. Like one full course for the three first next items, and all the other together. I'm not sure if there is a book with all of them, you probably need 4 or 5 books.

1) Non-Quantum Non-Relativistic Electromagnetism

2) Quantum Non-Relativistic Electromagnetism

3) Non-Quantum Relativistic Electromagnetism

4) Quantum Relativistic Electromagnetism

5) By the way, you can interpret the Quantum Relativistic Electromagnetism as a U(1) symmetry. (my comment)

6) It looks like a good idea. Let's use other groups to explain other known forces: the weak and strong force. (The G...GP comment about SU(2) and SU(3).)

7) ???

[See note 1]

For some reason, popular science articles love to show something almost magical and prefer to present something like the "5)". It makes it easier to hide the math and use hand waving.

Also, Physicist working in physic particle also believe that "5)" and "6)" are the correct approach, and the other are just useful for teaching and for historical reasons. But to discover "7)" it's better to think about some weird new symmetry group [2].

For examples, a few years ago, it was popular to think the next step "7)" was using a new group SU(5) that combines SU(2) and SU(3). The problems is that the experiments gave different results than then new proposed theory, not too bad but like 1% off. I still remember my professor talking about how great was SU(5) and how the experiment disagree, and he looked heartbroken because he really liked SU(5).

[1] You should add some material about the historical discovery of the weak and strong forces between "5)" and "6)".

[2] Other's prefer superstrings for "7)", there are other approach, but all are weird.

What you describe as a "hack" is actually the empirical (look/probe and see what happens) nature of physics as a science.

It seems like a hack because there's no a priori theoritical reason to do it. But physics is not based on verifying empirically a set of a priori rules (who would give them?), but by building theories and rules by empirically looking at things at seeing what model fits, and if a changed model fits better - we then verify those empirically with more experiments.

And this is not "Things get screwy when you screw with them, UNLESSSSS we add a magic thing that undoes our work", but more like a reverse engineering session:

"Behavior X appears to be described by this formula with parameter p. What if we changed the parameter to -p? Hmm, the results would still be consistent with X, if only there was an additional factor v in the formula.

Would this (-p,v) combo buy us anything over our previous (p)?

Wow, yeah, v would then perfectly match the behavior we see for this other thing Y too. So (-p, v) seems to describe both X and Y, whereas before with p we could only describe X.

So it turns out this happens quite often that there is some kind of constant that can be divided out. In case of particle physics a whole framework has been developed out of it that has really close relations to Lie group theory. (The experimentally confirmed parallels are just astonishing with group generators and elements corresponding to interaction particles and the normal particles.)

For example the laws of physics are time translation invariant, i.e. it does not matter what point in time you call t equals zero which essentially means that the equations do not contain time but only time differences so that you can add the same constant to all your times and nothing changes as the constant cancels out when calculating a difference between two times.

Its the same with voltage, where you put your reference potential does not matter but this is again a global symmetry and you have to use the same reference potential everywhere, you will obviously get nonsense if you use different reference potentials at different points.

Local symmetries on the other hand are kind of defects in the mathematics of physical theories, they are the expression of redundancies in the mathematical description. Say you want to describe the orientation - but not the strength - of the magnetic field on earth and for simplicity lets assume the earth is flat and the magnetic field parallel to the surface, then you could do this by associating a two dimensional vector with each point on earth that describes the tip of a compass needle placed at that point.

But there is a problem, there are longer and shorter compass needles but that is irrelevant for the orientation of the magnetic field, the length of the vector does not actually matter. You could multiply this vector field with a different constant at every point, i.e. independently change the length of all the compass needles and you would still describe the same magnetic field orientation across earth. What you do to fix this is to declare that all fields are physically equivalent if they only differ by a constant factor - which may depend on the point - at each point.

The other solution is to use a better mathematical representation without the redundancy, instead of compass needle tip vectors you use the bearing angle and take the compass needle length out of the equation to begin with. Problem solved. Now you can no longer change the field value, i.e. the angle, at every point independently and still describe the same physical situation. Also note that there is still a global symmetry, you can still change all the angles by the same constant, you are free to pick which direction you label with angle zero, which is again physically meaningful and expresses that space is isotropic, i.e. there is no preferred direction and the equation therefore do not depend on the direction but only on the angle between directions.

And you can do the same thing with the known physical laws, you can for example get rid of the U(1) symmetry - which should better be called a redundancy - in quantum electro dynamics. The price you have to pay is that the resulting equations lack some other properties often considered desirable, for example they are no longer obviously local.

Looking at my comment, it says "multiply each point of the universe by a different complex" it's actually a "event" like in relativity, i.e. (ct, x, y z). This is an easy case where the function you use to multiply does not depend on x, y, z, but only on t.

The origin is set at an arbitrary point so this "space shift invariance" is saying that it doesn't matter what point we set for the origin (and mathematically this corresponds to the conservation of momentum - see Noether's theorem[0])

Hmm maybe the "zero" for the quantum states is arbitrary, so you should be able to add anything to it for the whole universe, and this merely changes the zero state in the opposite direction.. and since this should be a conversation law, pretty sure this is equivalent to the conservation of electric charge

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem

It's a complex number for QED but in general, it's a unitary matrix: a rotation which preserves the magnitude of a wavefunction (a complex vector).

In physics, symmetries play a fundamental role.

Given that "light" is fundamentally a electromagnetic wave and its propagation in spacetime is constant, and this results in time slowing down when you go faster to maintain this property, it isn't unreasonable to hypothesize a more fundamental basis here.

Personally, I think adding in the time component will be essential to completing this puzzle but all in all it makes for an avenue of investigation which is interesting.

Basically "the speed of light" should be called "the speed of massless things" or possibly "the speed of causality" or something. We just call it "the speed of light" because light is the first thing we discovered that travels at this special speed.

*the star is because everything about quantum-chromodynamics is terrible so gluons don't really ever exist as particles themselves. If they did they would travel at the speed of light.

* not actually infinite, because reality itself propagates at a finite speed

(I’d love to know if this is wrong - this is my best attempt to make sense of it from college classes)

Not a physicist, but I've often wondered if the basis of QFT got off on the wrong foot by making time a privileged coordinate instead of a quantum operator like it does for position.

Speaking of which, time(-of-arrival) measurements in quantum mechanics have recently attracted quite some interest: The classic Copenhagen formalism doesn't seem to give an answer here (or at least not a unique one – it depends on how you perform the calculation). Meanwhile, Bohmian mechanics does seem to make a precise prediction. It will be interesting to see what experiments will yield.

The article looks a lot like word salad... too many specific technical terms for the average person to manage, yet lacking in the specifics that would be needed by someone capable of understanding their theory.

If it's written for their audience, then the only audience they seem to be targeting is average people who won't understand their assertions may be a load of crap.

Or is there someone here with a deep understanding of these topics that would care to chime in?

But I think the article is well written. It essentially says, "We think this interesting thing is true. It has these nice properties, and should be provable/falsifiable. Please help us prove it!"

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27944642

(Warning: Rather technical and full of math)

Now that may purely a choice of convention for Ψ at different points in space/time (a choice of "gauge" in the jargon), but where it gets interesting is if your successive nearby points in space/time trace out a closed loop. If your A is such that the phase of Ψ ends up different as a result of going round the loop, you have an electromagnetic field!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aharonov%E2%80%93Bohm_effect#P...

A is quantum, the electromagnetic potential is classical, so they are not really the same thing.

Also, it's not so immediate, because you must be stubborn enough to think that a global obvious symmetry "must" be extended to a local symmetry. And in any case, it took like 40 years a few brilliant persons to discover it.

Right. It seems to me that both approaches make sense. Perhaps with some cleaver yet-to-be-determined math both ideas can finally be mated.

I've never been convinced that the æther doesn't exist. Sure, it's been long debunked in the luminiferous æther sense but as the article points out "...the aether hypothesis was abandoned, and to this day, the classical theory of electromagnetism does not provide us with a clear answer to the question in which medium electric and magnetic fields propagate in vacuum." It is this aspect of the abolition of the æther that has always worried me.

For starters, any new model of the æther would have to exhibit Lorentz-invariant properties. Then there's the matter of vacuum permittivity ε0 and vacuum permeability μ0 to consider as the speed of light/aka 'electromagnetism' is directly linked to these physical constants via the expression c = 1/(μ0 ε0)^0.5. If one constant were to change then so too would the others including α Sommerfeld's fine structure constant, RK the von Klitzing constant, and Z0 the vacuum (free space) impedance, etc., etc. (Anyway, one would expect them to change—not that we'd ever know as we'd likely not exist if they did). ;-)

But I digress a little. We know that ε0 and μ0 have actual non-zero values and cannot be equated out (as we sort of tried to do in the days when we expressed electromagnetism in cgs units). In essence, physical constants ε0 and μ0 are absolutely intrinsic to electromagnetism, and whilst I cannot prove the fact, it seems to me they would be just as intrinsic to any new definition of the æther. Moreover, similar reasoning makes me think that QFT, ZPE/Zero-point energy/quantum vacuum state, ε0 and μ0 are all inextricably linked to GR.

It seems to me that whilst matters such as whether the spacetime manifold is Ricci-flat, etc. are extremely important principally from the perspective that when properly dovetailed into any new theory they'll provide proof thereof—are secondary to the proposition (note, I'm not saying they're secondary aspects of physics, only that they're secondary to the initial proposition).

Moreover, an equally important question to ask is why the constants ε0 and μ0 have the values they do given the quantum vacuum state, etc. Of course, the same logic applies to both α and c. Finally, we base just about everything on c it being the fundamental immutable constant (despite the the perennial emphasis/importance of α ≈ 1/137). The question is, is it in fact so, or is it that underlying physics first determines ε0 and μ0 and thus these constants could be considered more fundamental to any new formulation of the æther than that of c, it being the consequential resultant of the properties of those constants. (Heresy I know, but it would seem to make sense to view c in this context if or when we end up with new definition for the æther.)

For example, I used that if k is a complex number with modulus 1, and k* is the conjugate, then kk*=1. It's a subject from a course of the first years of the university of a technical degree and perhaps a high school. Adding a detailed explanation in the middle makes the explanation too long. Also, it's a very important part of the correct technical complete version of the explanation, it's not a side comment or a metaphor.

I think it could be explained better, or with different tradeoff to make it easier to understand. Anyway, it's my best effort with my personal taste.

If you tell me the part that confused you, I can try to explain that part more. (And if you provide some personal background, like age range and what you studied, I can try to tailor it more.)

Er, I'm not sure that things like dressed particles [1] and off-shell matter [2] violating E=mc^2 [3] could be described as even remotely "natural".

Perhaps they are valid theories, but "natural" certainly isn't an appropriate description of most of what unavoidably follows from particle assumptions.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dressed_particle

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_shell_and_off_shell

[3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle#Properties

If you do the calculations in another way (e.g. by discretizing stuff on a lattice) no virtual particles appear but your calculations become a lot harder.

http://www.claymath.org/millennium-problems/yang–mills-and-m...