Reputation
3,120
Top tag
Next privilege 5,000 Rep.
Approve tag wiki edits
Badges
1 15 27
Newest
 Nice Answer
Impact
~40k people reached

  • 0 posts edited
  • 1 helpful flag
  • 3 votes cast
Dec
21
comment Deterministic quantum mechanics
The new version v3 of my paper quant-ph/ 1405.1548 was sent to the ArXiv today, Dec 21, 2015. "The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”. Criticism is always welcome, even if it comes from amateurs, although I cannot guarantee response.
Dec
21
comment Can quantum mechanics really be the same as underlying deterministic theory?
The new version v3 of my paper quant-ph/ 1405.1548 was sent to the ArXiv today, Dec 21, 2015. "The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”. My answer to the question posted here is: yes. Criticism is always welcome, even if it comes from amateurs, although I cannot guarantee response.
Dec
21
comment In 't Hooft beable models, do measurements keep states classical?
The new version v3 of my paper quant-ph/ 1405.1548 was sent to the ArXiv today, Dec 21, 2015. "The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”. My answer to the question posted here is: yes. Criticism is always welcome, even if it comes from amateurs, although I cannot guarantee response.
Dec
21
comment Deterministic quantum mechanics
The new version v3 of my paper quant-ph/ 1405.1548 was sent to the ArXiv today (Dec 21, 2015): "The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”. Criticism is always welcome, even if it comes from amateurs, although I cannot guarantee response.
Aug
12
comment Does any particle ever reach any singularity inside the black hole?
... what is needed is a fresh look at scale transformation symmetry and conformal symmetry. A way out could be that such symmetry transformations transform the singular situation with an eternally shrinking observer into a regular description of physical events. That would remove the contradiction, but the technical details are not understood - at least not by me. Questions we can answer are ones about the mathematical nature of any given space-time, like some solution to Einstein's equations, but as soon as new physical principles are asked for, we have to be very careful about what to say
Aug
12
comment Does any particle ever reach any singularity inside the black hole?
@Nathaniel, As for the formal nature of the question, you have to realise that the outside world sees the ingoing spaceship (or whatever) approach the horizon exponentially, that is, every microsecond or so, his distance from the horizon is reduced by a factor 1/2. Imagine what that is after millions of years when the black hole decays. But apart from that, you are right and the question is important. Today's understanding of physics at the ultrashort distance scale is quite incomplete, no matter what string theorists and AdS/CFT considerations try to tell you. I strongly suspect that ...
Mar
1
comment How does Bell's theorem rule out the possibility of local hidden variables?
@Gugg: I just don't agree with the Zeilinger quote. Determinism indeed implies that the experimenter's decisions, and questions, are generated by physical forces themselves, so his attitude would dismiss determinism categorically, and I am not ready to go that far. And my bottom line remains to be a simple one: I now have models telling me what might happen, and what they say does not disturb me. Important: I still keep causality intact.
Mar
1
comment How does Bell's theorem rule out the possibility of local hidden variables?
@user7348 : Non-locality would generate serious trouble with special relativity and causality. And I don't need it. That's why I don't introduce it. Non-local correlations is not the same as non-locality in the equations of motion. In QFT, the equations of motion are local but the vacuum-correlations are not. This is because the vacuum is a special solution of the e.o.m.
Feb
27
comment What are the 't Hooft papers about classical models underlying QM?
except that it raises the suspicion that what's really happening in this world might be just these ontological states, and the rest is due to our limited understanding, somewhat contaminated with some sort of religious feeling that God likes to superimpose. So, the answer to @Motl's objection is that it's our equations used to describe observed reality that allow for superpositions, not reality itself. I thought that this statement would be trivial and unimportant, but if not understanding it causes someone to reject the models first-hand, apparently the statement is important after all.
Feb
27
comment What are the 't Hooft papers about classical models underlying QM?
Our theory is now that physicists describing the real world have no way of knowing whether they are describing an ontological event, or just any other solution of their equations (except when it's about cats, where we think we DO know!). The simple reason for this is that Schroedinger's equation is linear. We keep that property throughout. But now I add something new: a true, ontological state should, some way or other, evolve to become again a true, ontological state. That's just a constraint on the set of Schroedinger's equations that we impose. What's wrong with that? Nothing of course,
Feb
27
comment What are the 't Hooft papers about classical models underlying QM?
There's this little point that @Motl failed to grasp about these models: It's the "ontological, true" events described here that are such that any superposition of such events is NOT an ontological event. That's just like cats: the dead cat is ontological, the live one is, but any superposition of the two isn't, or at least, that's the case in our models. Now the superposition of the two cats DOES obey Schroedinger's equation. What I have done is take all "ontological" states of a system and look at the equations they obey. Now superpositions of ontological states also obey the equations.
Nov
8
comment Will Determinism be ever possible?
sigoldberg1 and Seamus's remarks about Laplace apply if the world is described by real numbers. The problem with real numbers is that they each require infinite sets of digits. If you can't control the millionth digit you will have indeterminism. This problem would not arise if we would have theories based only on integers, or even better, bounded integers.
Nov
7
comment Will Determinism be ever possible?
Indeed, I should have stated more clearly that I mean local reality, and that this should be interpreted in a completely classical sense. But, as you say, this "reality" is not about particles with position, momentum, etc. My minority view is that there is a loophole in the arguments usually employed against local reality.
Nov
1
comment Is flying really easier on smaller scales?
Apologies to AlanSE, my comments and questions were to be directed to @miceterminator.
Oct
30
comment Is flying really easier on smaller scales?
But this is what I read on my screen, signed by your name. If you didn't mean $\sqrt{\text{diameter}}$, then what are you trying to say?
Oct
28
comment Is flying really easier on smaller scales?
@AlanSE Please explain why you write $\sqrt{\text{diameter}}$ where I would have expected $\text{diameter}^2$, assuming that strength of muscle tissue is more or less size independent. Of course, the energy produced by a muscle scales with its volume, times frequency.
Sep
12
comment Why do people categorically dismiss some simple quantum models?
In principle, yes, one should be able to construct a Bohmian field theory, but I think it would be inelegant. To my taste, Bohmian mechanics adds far too many "unobservable observables" in the form of pilot waves. This would be awful for field theories, where the pilot wave would be a field functional, or a function of infinitely many particle positions.
Sep
7
comment Why do people categorically dismiss some simple quantum models?
Think of qft as a large set of quantum harmonic oscillators, each oscillating at isolated points in space. Then assume that each oscillator shows interactions only with its direct neighbors. In qft, these are quantum interactions. To most theorists, this looks sufficiently local, no spooky signals.
Sep
7
comment Why do people categorically dismiss some simple quantum models?
@user7348: No, quantum field theory as it stands has causality built in; for that, it is sufficient to demand that all commutators vanish outside the light cone. This guarantees that no signal ever will go faster than light. So qft obeys relativity and has ordinary qm particles in its non-relativistic limit. Everything is fine, no problem with relativity, until you try to understand what the ontology is. You have to remember that spacelike correlations are fine if you can explain them in terms of intial states in the past.
Sep
6
comment Why do people categorically dismiss some simple quantum models?
If you repeat an experiment, or do it many times, you therefore can't modify one observable without affecting an other one, somewhere, somehow. It is difficult to understand how this happens, you have to remember that the vacuum surrounding us is a very complicated entangled state. All this is the real reason why Bell may be violated in the CA. So I ignore Bell, and in that case qm (rather: qft) is local.