Search type Search syntax
Tags [tag]
Exact "words here"
Author user:1234
user:me (yours)
Score score:3 (3+)
score:0 (none)
Answers answers:3 (3+)
answers:0 (none)
isaccepted:yes
hasaccepted:no
inquestion:1234
Views views:250
Sections title:apples
body:"apples oranges"
URL url:"*.example.com"
Favorites infavorites:mine
infavorites:1234
Status closed:yes
duplicate:no
migrated:no
wiki:no
Types is:question
is:answer
Exclude -[tag]
-apples
For more details on advanced search visit our help page
Results tagged with Search options user 11205

Quantum mechanics describes the microscopic properties of nature in a regime where classical mechanics no longer applies. It explains phenomena such as the wave-particle duality, quantization of energy and the uncertainty principle and is generally used in single body systems. Use the quantum-field-theory tag for the theory of many-body quantum-mechanical systems.

9
votes
Addendum: an other important point of criticism raised (Newman and others): why search for such a theory at all? Its predictions will be nil. While Maimon thinks that my prediction that true quantum …
answered Jan 19 '15 by G. 't Hooft
15
votes
I think the correct answer is that such models are both quantum mechanical and classical, although this could be considered as a question of semantics. It is a fact that, as soon as you found a basis …
answered Aug 18 '12 by G. 't Hooft
29
votes
I'm working on a new, much improved version of my paper. Please note that I am not a fundamentalist, like, as it seems, some of my critics. I don't have an open telephone line with God, like Einstein …
answered Jan 19 '15 by G. 't Hooft
20
votes
I'll briefly respond to these critics in the order I read them. To Mitchell: Since I reconstruct ordinary QM, I can make any state I like, including EPR states, GHZ states or whatever. At the level …
answered Aug 11 '12 by G. 't Hooft
10
votes
In another blog I posted the explanation given below; I edited it slightly more. Apologies for the repetitions. Please react. The idea of my latest paper is simple. I experienced in several blogs now …
answered Aug 14 '12 by G. 't Hooft
122
votes
6answers
Deterministic models. Clarification of the question: The problem with these blogs is that people are inclined to start yelling at each other. (I admit, I got infected and it's difficult not to raise …
asked Aug 15 '12 by G. 't Hooft
9
votes
If you want a minority's view on this subject, here it is: Determinism means that one asks for a theory that describes unambiguously what is going on, without even the slightest amount of fuzziness. …
answered Nov 4 '12 by G. 't Hooft
29
votes
The idea of my latest paper is simple. I experienced in other blogs that most people refuse to go with me all the way. I'll give my argument step by step and you may choose where you want to step out. …
answered Aug 13 '12 by G. 't Hooft
16
votes
I think at least some readers should have noted by now that many of these arguments, particularly the more pathetic ones, are questions of wording rather than physics. Once you made your model simple …
answered Aug 14 '12 by G. 't Hooft
14
votes
(I apologize if this comment pops up twice, I don't quite understand how it works here) To Ron: Don't worry about the authority issue, It's fine with me if you don't take my authority for granted. B …
answered Aug 11 '12 by G. 't Hooft
12
votes
To Ron: The difference between the automaton states representing a filter in one direction, and a filter that is slightly rotated, is huge, because these systems are macroscopic. Now you might wonde …
answered Aug 12 '12 by G. 't Hooft
19
votes
Bell's theorems indeed rule out simple theories where hidden variables obey local equations. However, no matter how you reason, it's always at some point where you need another assumption. In its simp …
answered Feb 27 '13 by G. 't Hooft
41
votes
I only see these writings now, since usually I ignore blogs. For good reason, because here also, the commentaries are written in haste, long before their authors really took the time to think. My cla …
answered Aug 9 '12 by G. 't Hooft
11
votes
To Ron: Maybe we are getting somewhere. You say: "Taking a formal Hilbert space, asserting that one has an unknown ontic state, and then formally defining operators is not justified..." Wait, isn' …
answered Aug 13 '12 by G. 't Hooft