Talk-Polywell.org

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... ?full=true

Quantum Mechanics making sense? What would Feynman say.

jgarry wrote: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... ?full=true

Quantum Mechanics making sense? What would Feynman say.

bump.

fantastic post, thanks for that jgarry. made my bedtime reading list.

dunno about Feynman, but Penrose and Hawking dont seem to be phased by it (pardon the mathmatical pun

edit:

actual paper:: - 'The Invariant Set Hypothesis: A New Geometric Framework for the Foundations of Quantum Theory and the Role Played by Gravity' - Authors: T.N.Palmer - Feb 2009

- wonderful read imo - here - http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0812/0812.1148.pdf )

some notable quotes::

"....We propose here that the amplification of
self-similarity by positive-exponent Lyapunov vectors is the key to the wave nature of the quantum state....."

"...Hence, the Invariant Set Hypothesis implies that it is not meaningful to
regard a quantum particle as having any intrinsic properties independent of the measurements performed on the quantum system. This is one of the key tenets of the Copenhagen Interpretation..."

"...As such, a challenge for the future will be to combine the pseudo-
Riemannian geometry of space-time, and the fractal geometry of state space..."

I'm woefully out of my depth here, but wouldn't this be something in the way of a unification theory?

jgarry wrote:I'm woefully out of my depth here, but wouldn't this be something in the way of a unification theory?

All roads lead to Rome.

Everything in science leads to gut.



David

I mean this seems as though it's bringing together the definite world of newton with the probabilistic world of quantum mechanics. In one something goes from one place to another; in the other it ends up somewhere based on probability. Thus we see the penumbra of a shadow.

... or as he is suggesting, just a relatively simple, but vast Turing Machine and a finite sampling frame - at least, ultimately that is the only (cannonical) description of the universe we will ever be able to produce, so why not introduce that abstraction at start, and presto - it all looks like at hangs together.

Deutsch and others have been nibbling away at this angle for some time, and ive always been a big fan. however, this is the first time i have seen all the elements of a unified theory gathered and treated coherently to this level.

not a proof, yet, though provable i suspect. be interesting to see what kicks off as a result.