Recent content by unusualname

Er, you make it relativistically correct by redefining what you mean by the Hamiltonian Evolution operator - the Schrodinger Equation is a postulate of quantum mechanics for a reason. Just because people haven't worked out the correct evolution operator doesn't mean it's not possible to get...

Yeah, but only at energies so their constitute fermions aren't relevant - a composite boson can not break the exclusion principle for its constituents!

The problem is, what stops the universe happening "all at once"? With a deterministic CA you have to make an additional assumption that each iteration takes some finite time-step. (Wolfram's computational speed limit of the universe idea) Whereas if you have spontaneous "jumps" seeding each...

Suppose you have a single particle (with no internal structure) in the entire universe. What would it do? You'd probably say nothing, but let's describe it by exp(ix), where x is real, and allow x to spontaneously change (otherwise nothing ever happens) We could perhaps just describe it by x...

edit, to be more precise, it does not matter that |Psi|^2 is invariant in time (globally)

Sorry I deleted an incorrect comment, what I meant to say was that it does not matter that the probability distribution GLOBALLY is invariant in time, in fact this would be expected otherwise the entire universe might flip into some unnatural state every 10^-43 secs. You only see this as a...

Of course the problem only exists if we are sure the Hamiltonian of the Universe is zero. The zeroness relies on General Relativity being completely correct in its application to Cosmological models. But General relativity will almost certainly be replaced by a more correct theory when Quantum...

post #8 was the best post in the thread

OK friend, No one understands how the quantum mechanical property of "spin" truly relates to reality, its background or whatever. My Answer: Just suppose the QM background IS the evolution equation (and everything)

eh? (I don't know latin) no, spin exists cos of all the complex (universe wide) linear algebraic evolution going on every 10^-43 secs or whatever

Yeah, I wouldn't bother with continuous multi-dimensional geometry models, they're the epicycles of our age, maybe good for approximate modeling in simplistic situations but otherwise not reality. Reality = linear algebra + probability

Yes sorry, your reply contained cool and relevant info which i didn't mean to dismiss :-)

Hi Tom, except Spin isn't a relativistic property - look at Levy-Leblond's paper (see my post above, sorry we posted simultaneously) - you just need a multi component wave function to incorporate spin.

Hi friend, spin is just an extra degree of freedom introduced when you realize the "wavefunction"/"state-vector" of a particle requires more than one complex component to describe it, Levy-Leblond's famous 1967 paper (free download) explained this (so, in particular, Dirac's relativistic...

Yeah, hollywood hype, it was an economics award remember, not a mathematical one, even Nash thought his embeddings ideas were his best work http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_embedding_theorem anyway, no one cares, you seem to want fundamental QG research to tackle fundamental QM foundations -...