• Blog

  • Quantum Physics and the End of Reality by Sabine Hossenfelder and Carlo Rovelli

suicide society of the third milenium , the same a protein in a cell has a lifespan from seconds to days
the same "human" in the year 3000 will be semiaranged to live more or less a certain amount of time and naturally voluntarly terminate its own life after completions of goals

how could science be better

the competition essay does not specify what's year science, next year or after the sun's death five billions in to the future

the irony is that the data on this forum might last longer than that . a hadd drive if its ssd has an evaporation of the memory cells, if the next backup is made on photonic crystals or something ....

*later edit -no , there is a specification - for decades from now

there are two possibilities, one in witch, i'm a living scientist and one in witch, i am not
if i kill myself tomorrow witch of the two possibility i will check ?

can i be a scientist for a month than make a two years break and return to be a scientist

this reminds me of an other communication idea
namely there is an implicit assumption of the time expected for the reply .

when two or more people talk nobody is saying(specifying) -i will wait for your answer the interval between of 0.2 to 10 seconds and then after that i may change the subject of conversation by saying something more

    if words are the comunication between people what are the parts that proteins are a communications of

    (person A) communicate with the word "fvjakdsngkjsadn" with ( Person B )

    (cell A or i don know ) comunicate with the help of protein "fvjakdsngkjsadn" with (cells or dont know B)

    to skew the comparison to an extreme

    ( whatever category with a boundary A) communicate with the lifetime works of the person with the name "fvjakdsngkjsadn" ( whatever category with a boundary B)

    find the categories such that is a correct description/ comparison

    cristi marcovici
    The two possibilities you mention are like Schrodinger's cat and Many World's interpretation. Superposition of possible outcome states, in the theory, stands in place of observer independent singular, absolute reality when no reference frame for measurement or observation has been applied. Which would give the limited, relative outcome state. Not You, nor cat, can be both alive and dead, so don't kill yourself to check.

      9 days later

      Local realism :This term refers to the idea of locality of cause and effect. I.e only near objects can be effected by touching each other or inter mediating matter or field.
      Realism is about being, (as it is), independent of human thought ….
      “Generic Realism:
      a, b, and c and so on exist, and the fact that they exist and have properties such as F-ness, G-ness, and H-ness is (apart from mundane empirical dependencies of the sort sometimes encountered in everyday life) independent of anyone’s beliefs, linguistic practices, conceptual schemes, and so on.” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy )

      The reference frame of the observer is established for /by that observer. The relation of the 3 dimensions to each other is fixed and that relation is imagined superimposed onto seen 3D space. Allowing description pertaining to orientation of things, (including apparatus) seen within it. It is an artificial procedure. The superimposed orientation of the 3 dimensions, in fixed relation to each other, upon 3D space is variable according to orientation of the observer. The orientation of the superimposition of the3 dimension, in fixed relation to each other, is not determined independent of human thought, by nature.
      Prior to observation, or measurement involving orientation of apparatus, there can not be a definite relative outcome state, involving orientation, because the outcome is a relative determination.
      That does not mean that the subject under investigation does not have an orientation within the pattern of all currently existing things. Which is different from one singled out and described relation. This is showing the error of both QM and ERP. ERP is wrong for assuming the relative outcome is predetermined before measurement, prior to the choosing of individual viewpoint. QM is wrong for not considering absolute observer independent orientation of the subject, and therefore a pre-measurement relation of orientations of a particle pair.

        Georgina Woodward
        I want to clarify what i meant by "in fixed relation." I want to covey that the 3 dimensions are orthogonal to each other, that is unchanging. So as the orientation of one of the dimensions is altered all 3 dimensions change orientation, maintaining their relation to each other.

            Georgina Woodward
            [Currently realism in physics is about there being observer independent relative states in 3D space prior to measurement or some ‘hidden variable’ determining what the measurement or observation outcome will be. As if the relative result is observation independent. Not taking into account the role of the experimenter viewpoint (seen this way’) in determining apparatus or observer orientation. A ‘modified-realism’ term to refer to there being observer independent absolute condition prior to measurement, which together with the viewpoint imposed determines the relative outcome and it’s description.]

              Computer Operating systems keep changing. Will the data survive but become inaccessible. My desk top has stopped working 😞

              ACVV
              Will the data survive but become inaccessible.
              Operating systems keep changing.
              My desk top has stopped working 😞

                ACVV
                Yes, in other words.The idea is intact. I think "remains'' is ambiguous there , because it is unclear if you mean more like sitting or placed or whether it is meant like enduring, continuing in relevance. I'd rather after it's temporary use in physics it was dispelled, having no physics equivalent happening in existential reality

                  Yesterday I watched the third interview by Lex Fridman with Elon Musk. About half way through, they're talking about Tesla autopilot, neural nets, self driving cars. Elon mentions how the photons are used to make,what he calls, a vector space, that is used to choose a safe route. Engineers working in Robotics, self driving etc. Must be aware that the generated vector space is not where the photons have come from. There is some talk about the cameras of the car and human vision, including human visual gap filling.They are working towards full 360 video. Working towards neural net interpretation of photons density changes rather than generated vector space map to identify things.

                    It is difficult writing without a full sized keyboard.
                    See scholarpedia_Bell's theorem, to see the assumptions of QM that lead the illusion of entanglement.
                    Do the rabbit from hat performance 100 times, take the hat to Mars and do it again. For the naive observer it is consistent with the idea that the results shows that magic rabbits materialise from thin air. It does not prove or disprove the speculation. To be reality the explanation of why that is found, must correspond to what actually happens . The results of the experiment are not enough to verify the Idea of magic rabbits or entanglement.

                      Georgina Woodward
                      This is important. Results are ether compatible with a proposed theory or not. if not compatible, the proposed theory is _rejected. _As falsified. Unless experimental error is found allowing the experiment to be repeated and reassessed - That is, after the needed corrections to the method or apparatus . Results being compatible with the proposed theory do not show the theory is a correct explanation for them or that it is a correct hypothesis. It only shows the hypothesis not falsified. The results are not proof. Other explanations, other hypotheses could be equally compatible.

                          Georgina Woodward
                          The results of rabbits being pulled from hats is compatible with the 'Magic rabbit theory'. It does not prove it. 'Caltech article , "Proving that Quantum Entanglement is Real" says " The Freedman–Clauser experiment was the first test of the CHSH inequality. It has now been tested experimentally hundreds of times at laboratories around the world to confirm that quantum entanglement is real". Note- However many times the rabbit and hat trick is performed , Magic rabbit theory is never proven. The use of the words 'confirm' and 'real' are misleading. This is just one example of the misunderstanding of what results show about a hypothesis.

                              Georgina Woodward
                              You remain unclear on the concept. The results are not being compared to a theory prediction, they are being compared to a theorem prediction; a theorem (Bell's theorem) that has been proven to be true. There is, as you say, some probability that a mere theory may be false. But there is no possibility whatsoever, that a proven theorem may be false. So the only remaining question is, is that proven theorem, even relevant to the actual, physical problem?

                              For example, there is no doubt that the Pythagorean theorem is correct, but is it even relevant to the problem of determining the distance to be traveled, between two points, when the travel path between those two points, turns out to be something other than a straight line?

                              Even if you have a proven "Magic rabbit theorem", it is not going to yield a lot of correct predictions about what might come out of a "Magic fruit hat", that only produces a random selection of fruits, rather than rabbits. The rabbit theorem is not wrong, but it is irrelevant. Instead of "testing" Bell's Theorem, physicists should be testing quantum results against Shannon's Theorem, not Bell's theorem; because Shannon's is the relevant theorem, if you ever hope to understand quantum phenomenon.

                              Just as the Pythagorean theorem will not yield accurate distance predictions for non-straight paths, Bell's theorem will not yield accurate correlation predictions for non-identical particles; but Shannon's theorem does.

                                  Robert McEachern i have done excavations around what are the things that you mention, by seeing a couple of papers, i have not tried to remember/ understand exactly , however if by theorem , you refer to shanon capacity of communicating symbols, this does not tell much about the symbols/ states/ figures / distinctions,(things that end/change); a number is the outcome, and in a previous post ive said why numbers letters are bad . now i check to see. confirmed

                                      marcovici alexandru

                                      this does not tell much about the symbols/ states/ figures / distinctions

                                      Shannon proved that you cannot use any of those things, if you desire a system to be reliable (AKA deterministic).
                                      You have to use NOISE, not numbers, not pictures, not letters, not figures, not symbols, you must use white noise, in order to reliable cause any effect, near the "Shannon Limit" of Information Content.

                                        tell or care, i wanted to edit, before you rushed to reply, im not convinced byy own reasoning / reached a clear result is a hunch.

                                        Robert McEachern
                                        Thank you Robert for your reply.
                                        I am thinking about science , and specifically how entanglement is proposed as an explanation of 'spooky action at a distance. That entanglement is a cause , is a speculation that could be written as a hypothesis. it is often presented as if a fact , as if explaining something about the World rather a proposal with questionable relevance to actual existence and happening.
                                        You are quite right Bell's theorem is mathematics and can be mathematically proved. Binary outcomes just considered as values ( qualitative, up or down or yes or no) do not reveal how they came to be the 'value' they are. Correlation due to same or opposite orientation is different from random co-occurrence at different angles. They are the result of different physical interactions between the material elements of reality. Lumping the differently obtained outcomes together because they have the same 'value' has to be incorrect science though it is ok in math. In science, philosophy of science, at any rate, we are concerned with what happens to produce the outcomes not just the outcomes.
                                        The imagined Magic rabbit theory is based on the hypothesis that rabbits appear and can be pulled from hats because of magic. it is not an imaginary mathematical theorem. It is not a magic fruit hat, rabbits are removed from it . The results are compatible with the hypothesis of magic but do not prove magic has happened. In the same way repeating an experiment many times does not provide proof of the hypothesis ,in science. Magic in the imagined example and entanglement are in the same predicament . They can only be falsified not proved by science. if the premise that as relative measurement states don't exist before measurement there is no relation of particles produced as a pair pre measurement is accepted entanglement is reasonable . However it is not necessarily so. Things can exist independently of there being an observation product. Is the moon there when i don't look?][ viXra:2301.0109 ](https://) Peekaboo, object permanence. if there is a pre -measurement relation influencing outcomes instead entanglement is an incorrect hypothesis.

                                            Georgina Woodward

                                            if there is a pre -measurement relation influencing outcomes instead entanglement is an incorrect hypothesis.

                                            There is a pre-measurement relation influencing the outcomes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                                            The particles are not identical twins!!!!!!!!!!

                                            Both Bell's theorem and Quantum Theory have ignorantly assumed that they are!!!!!!!!!

                                            That assumption is false! That is the problem!