NTuft Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 On 12/31/2022 at 7:29 AM, Genady said: With so many, how does one pick a favorite? On 1/1/2023 at 3:59 PM, Genady said: To better understand this statement, or rather to understand it at all, may I ask if the computer in front of me exists in any meaningful ontological sense? On 1/1/2023 at 5:08 PM, Genady said: I am familiar with the models. I just wanted to understand what is I still don't know. Maybe I do... Then my answer [...] is, No. This is regardless of waves, particles, strings, [...] I don't know. I think you've got to catch them all, then try to compare and contrast. Which one did you choose that lead to that question and answer? On 1/1/2023 at 4:21 PM, Lorentz Jr said: If you take quantum wave equations seriously as indications of what matter really is, your computer exists as a very complicated wave but not as a collection of particles. According to objective-collapse theories, quantized amounts of the wave keep collapsing repeatedly, creating the illusion of solid matter. The various theories differ in how and why the collapses occur. On 1/2/2023 at 12:31 AM, Lorentz Jr said: There's a theory of geometric gravity without relativity, and it seems very strange to me that physicists wax philosophical about abandoning cherished misconceptions, while at the same time clinging to the classical ontology of matter as being made of solid entities of one kind or another, in the face of wave-based quantum theories. It's called a matter wave, I think it's implied to be "... solid... of... kind...". I read your speculations thread. I don't know if you're on about point particles or (more likely) elementary particles, but it's a stretch to go from there to Genady's computer and I'll be a monkey's uncle if it's not a solid by then. I mean that's a marco-molecular structure, composite particles and on into actual chemicals. Thanks for the link here. Genady doesn't even believe his computer exists ontologically. I'm ontologically uncertain about ontology and I blame 1)Markus Hanke and 2)Loretnz Jr. +1 to TheVat who is on about David Bohm and particles over there. Interpretations of QM->Quantum physics->QFT and of course a treatment for time and gravity so from the end of Relativity: Quote The question of the particular field law is secondary in the prceding general considerations. At the present time, the main question is whether a field theory of the kind here contemplated can lead to the goal at all. By this is meant a theory which describes exhustively physical reality, including four-dimensional space, by a field. The present-day generation of physicists is inclined to answer this question in the negative. In conformity with the present form of the quantum theory, it believes that the state of a system cannot be specified directly, but only in an indirect way by a statement of the statistics of the results of measurement attainable on the system. The conviction prevails that the experimentally assured duality of nature (corpuscular and wave structure) can be realised only by such a weakening of the concept of reality. I think that such a far-reaching theoretical renunciation is not for the present justified by our actual knowledge, and that one should not desist from pursuing to the end the path of the relativistic theory. Having reached different conclusions about his computer and although I hold in reserve G.'s ability to speak facetiously and cryptically can it be inferred that we have different QM interpretations that led inexorably on to logically to this result or is it an illogical loosening on someone's part. I request speculation on this unverified claim: Quote ... gauge fixing can simplify calculations immensely, but becomes progressively harder as the physical model becomes more realistic; its application to quantum field theory is fraught with complications related to renormalization, especially when the computation is continued to higher orders. Historically, the search for logically consistent and computationally tractable gauge fixing procedures, and efforts to demonstrate their equivalence in the face of a bewildering variety of technical difficulties, has been a major driver of mathematical physics from the late nineteenth century to the present. and clarification of if it is Smolin's Public Lecture: Time Reborn at PI, or what, that is referenced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!Register a new account
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now