627 reputation
410
bio website
location Northern Spain, Europe
age
visits member for 2 years, 7 months
seen 2 hours ago

Theoretical Physics Licenciado, starting Mathematics Ph.D. at CSU (F'15).

"Science is not about certainty, it's about finding the most reliable way of thinking at the present level of knowledge", C. Rovelli.

"It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how Nature is. Physics concerns what can be said about Nature", N. Bohr.

"What we observe is not Nature herself, but Nature exposed to our methods of questioning her!", W. Heisenberg.

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent", Wittgenstein.

My major interests are in Algebraic and Arithmetic Geometry, specifically higher-dim. varieties, L-functions, algebraic K-theory, motives and enumerative intersection theory in moduli of curves. I switched from physics after finding out how Riemann, Kähler and Symplectic Geometry are related through, e.g. mirror symmetry and quantum cohomology. Topology is wonderful when it appears in the form of majestic theorems like the Atiyah-Singer index. Number theory, disguised as Diophantine and Arakelov Geometries, is fascinating too: from the Weil conjectures and the modularity theorem beyond Fermat-Wiles, to the arithmetic Grothendieck-Riemann-Roch; now intriguing correlations between prime numbers and knots are emerging in the new field of Arithmetic Topology, perhaps closely related to Anabelian Geometry. Noncommutative Geometry along with motives bridge mysterious links between arithmetics and QFT via Feynman path integrals, making fascinating the subject of Operator Algebras and its Functional Analysis. On the Physics side I like Gauge Theory, Quantum Gravity and Quantum Mechanics, especially its relational and topoi formulations. I fully endorse Carlo Rovelli's stance about Science, me being a Second Philosopher approaching Ontic Structural Realism, whereby Mathematics is epistemologically a Natural Science: the universal study of patterns (above all meta-patterns!). In response to Wigner, its success is tautological, as any phenomena in the Cosmos can only be understood from necessarily information-theoretic models of correlation structures from empirical perceptions. Thus, ontologically, nothing can be said about the 'final nature' of the world except the structurality of what can be represented from within. Physics and Mathematics, despite using different methods to acquire knowledge, are just different 'regions' to grasp from one and the same unified, structured and cognizable empirical reality. Transcendental metaphysics is a void byproduct of language misusage due to operationally unjustified concept extrapolations.


Dec
19
comment Simple example showing why measurement & interaction are different
@user929304 thanks, you should also download the referenced articles and try to read them, as they elaborate on the same idea and its subtleties/details on and on. Basically the answer is the first paragraph and summarized in the last three, and the explanation tries to make clear that your question is a subtle one because it is actually the hardcore confusion of the theory, namely, that the quantum state is not a 'material substance' of the system, but 'informational knowledge' of the observer. Wittgenstein: 'do not confuse substance [the system] with substantive [the relative state]'.
Dec
19
revised Simple example showing why measurement & interaction are different
added 541 characters in body
Dec
18
revised Simple example showing why measurement & interaction are different
added 816 characters in body
Dec
18
revised Simple example showing why measurement & interaction are different
added 445 characters in body
Dec
18
revised Simple example showing why measurement & interaction are different
deleted 5471 characters in body
Dec
18
comment Simple example showing why measurement & interaction are different
@user929304 following your suggestion I deleted my comments and added them partially along with a new long more formal justification of my answer explaining every essential concept of the formalism from the beginning to frame your question in context. I hope it is more clear now.
Dec
18
revised Simple example showing why measurement & interaction are different
added 9943 characters in body
Dec
18
revised Simple example showing why measurement & interaction are different
added 1872 characters in body
Dec
15
revised Simple example showing why measurement & interaction are different
added 1084 characters in body
Dec
15
revised Simple example showing why measurement & interaction are different
deleted 458 characters in body
Dec
15
revised Simple example showing why measurement & interaction are different
added 851 characters in body
Dec
15
revised Simple example showing why measurement & interaction are different
added 3249 characters in body
Dec
15
answered Simple example showing why measurement & interaction are different
Dec
15
comment Intuitive meaning of Hilbert Space formalism
@user929304 thank you, I have added the link as you suggested. Regarding your other question, I am going to post a short answer now. Cheers.
Dec
15
revised Intuitive meaning of Hilbert Space formalism
added link to the freely available Feynman lectures
Dec
15
revised Can general relativity be completely described as a field in a flat space?
added link to Einstein's cited paper
Sep
11
awarded  Custodian
Sep
11
reviewed Edit Can general relativity be completely described as a field in a flat space?
Sep
11
revised Can general relativity be completely described as a field in a flat space?
Removing some opinionated statements.
May
4
awarded  Yearling