Here is another interesting question,
Being self aware<<is this part of being sentient?
Is being sentient a break away from entanglement and becoming independent?
However that would ask the question independent from what?
So is entanglement and reality one and the same thing?
Its interesting to watch Feynman's explanation..post 12#
Regards
M. Gregg
Being self aware<<is this part of being sentient?
Is being sentient a break away from entanglement and becoming independent?
However that would ask the question independent from what?
So is entanglement and reality one and the same thing?
Its interesting to watch Feynman's explanation..post 12#
Regards
M. Gregg
No. The rules were set by God (or whatever symmetry breaking event created the universe). The "giants'" task is merely to discover what they are.Jay said:
I find QM very perplexing. For philosophical/theological reasons I reject the Copenhagen and multiverse explanations of QM, but I don't yet know of a suitable alternative. I accept that all experimental tests of QM show that it is true, and many years ago I knew how to do the calculations myself.
I think what confuses many people is that you can't understand QM by thinking classically; you have to think in terms of QM's own concepts such as states and operators and eigenvalues.
Superdeterminism would fit with some, but not all, aspects of my theology - but to go there would result in my collar being felt by a Moderator so I won't!
If you mean all of these are utterly strange and non-intuitive, then I agree.
I honestly don't even know if I'm not even wrong, haha. I think I understand Bell's theorem better than I'm describing, but then again, if you use Feynman's razor* I'm utterly useless.
*(to paraphrase, if you can't give a freshman-level lecture on the core concepts, you don't actually understand it yourself, or his other famous razor: "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics")
If you mean all of these are utterly strange and non-intuitive, then I agree.
Is there anything that is non-intuitive less than strange? I prefer to avoid being entangled in any attempt to intuitively explain QM. Perhaps there is a simple way to integrate better QM in our human body of knowledge; but then similar approaches in pure mathematics (constructive arithmetic, avoiding the Zermelo axiom) reached, after 100 years of struggling, the point of knowing how to constructively calculate 2*(x+y). Hence, it's not worth of sacrificing a productive abstraction for the sake of our intuition. Quantum computers can and will one day work, that's good enough to me.
Which doesn't mean things like "quantum purifiers" don't drive me nuts. "Quantum" is probably one of the most abused word, from purifiers to batteries.
I would add, using the math available at hand. We can't know if the LGMs on the 5th planet around Vega are not using another math foundation (instead of our operator theory and field algebras, combined with the power of the isomorphism concept, our key to "equivalence") to reach the same conclusions, but perhaps better integrated in their body of knowledge. And perhaps they never looked at the CM as anything else as a particular case of QM, which would eliminate any attempts to explain QM, from CM perspective.
I used to hope that hidden variables were the solution, but most hidden variable options have now been excluded by experiment.SY said:
I suspect that LGMs use the same maths as us, although using different ways of writing it down. The fact that maths is so useful in physics leads me to the conclusion that both have a common origin so, like physics, maths is something we discover not invent.Waly said:
If LGMs are much smaller than us then QM will be part of their everyday experience. They will use CM like we use circuit theory: as a useful approximation when we can't be bothered to do a full field calculation.
Very interesting,
I think QM is perplexing because it isn't a complete theory..
We might not like what we find! Then we can choose to ignore it.
Regards
M. Gregg
I don't buy this dilemma. IMHO, it's not black or white, but a complex combination of both. We invent the core concepts (numbers, shapes, sets, ...) by abstracting them from the world around. Then discover their relationships and intricate connections.
Its slightly of topic but I am interested in your thoughts on the universe as an infinite size..how do you see infinity taking into account energy required to make dimensions and the idea of if there was nothing before the big bang where did the big bang happen?
If everything came from a singularity then in theory its all entangled (created at the same time)
Infinity creates a problem with the arrangement of the standard model where after everything has happened that can happen then it can only repeat (the many worlds theory)..thoughts?
Past<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<infinity>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>present ie not relevant its infinite there is no point that has reference..??
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
Sorry, I can't comment much on this, because a) I don't really understand the question(s) and b) cosmology is way beyond my amateur interest.
All I can tell is that I amateurishly favor the big bang as a quantum vacuum fluctuation, as allowed by the uncertainty principle.
There is no energy conservation violation in this, since the energy eigenstates of a hamiltonian do not have a definite number of particles. We are used (from the CM) to finding the energy of a collection of particles by adding up their individual energies. As strange as it may sound, this is incorrect in relativistic QM because the potential energy depends on the interaction between particles.
Long story short, if apparently QM isn't conserving energy it's because we are attempting to interpret something in a way that we shouldn't. All that's usually happening is that states that we thought would be energy eigenstates, are in fact not. We may think we were arranging a state of definite energy, but we were actually dealing with a superposition instead.
OK here is a question,
What do you think of the idea of nothing? or infinite nothing?
Or do you regard nothing as a superposition..
The idea is that although there is a cosmological interpretation the idea applies to the definition of nothing ie just dimensions and absolute nothing no dimensions or energy of any kind.
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
There was a popular TV show about that. Otherwise, the question is meaningless.
Have you ever considered putting in the effort to learn some basic QM?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.