Recent content by javisot

Personally, I found this very interesting. As a chess player, I've always wondered if there exists a finite, simple, and perhaps dynamic set of tips that, when executed, lead to only winning games. That is, if we divide the set of all possible chess games into winning games (for me) or...

No site is immune to this; it's common in all physics forums. To avoid problems, you have to ask knowing if your question is correct and practically knowing the answer. That ensures you're never censored for asking. But if you know the answer in advance and if an answer is correct, what are you...

I highlight two paragraphs from this interesting paper: "Hallucinations are inevitable only for base models. Many have argued that hallucinations are inevitable (Jones, 2025; Leffer, 2024; Xu et al., 2024). However, a non-hallucinating model could be easily created, using a question-answer...

I've never heard those terms used in physics. Perhaps "physical reality" was once used as the regime of reality that can be described by physics. The terms "truth" and "objective" are not used and are not necessary for physics. Reality: where physicists conduct their experiments. Physical...

A very interesting article. I've been wondering about this for a while. Personally, I've noticed that physicists sometimes talk about the "textbook," "the consensus in QM," or "the mathematics of QM," referring to a sort of complete, consensual, non-interpretive description of QM, without...

Having a good map helps us explore the territory more effectively, but we shouldn't confuse the map with the territory. Both are reasonable positions.

If we want to explain the entire set of experimental data that make up QM and we try to do so by violating UP, the result is a hidden-variable theory. A hidden-variable theory cannot reproduce all of QM's predictions; therefore, in principle, without UP, the entire data set should not be...

Another example: https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/9/4/162

No law of physics prevents it, but it's highly unlikely, and it certainly wouldn't be easy. If by "creating a black hole" you mean reproducing or simulating some of its properties, that's already been done. The question of whether we'll ever be able to get near to one is a question about...

But that's only true before the coin is tossed, right? Before tossing an unbiased coin the probability is 1/2. When we toss it, that probability changes. The environment during the toss continues to change that probability. Finally, the surface where the coin lands also changes the probability...

Very interesting. One question: Are there differences between CM and CM+, or does CM+ simply represent the idea that CM is complete? Is CM+ a hidden-variable theory, or is it something even deeper?

The question is whether the textbook and the more complete interpretations are truly complete, in the sense of being able to describe all the results of all possible experiments involving quantum effects. It seems a legitimate question, since we don't know in advance "all the results of all...

More like B, they talked about this on a Spanish podcast last week and the general criticism was what you point out in B

I have a naive doubt about Bell's inequalities. Let us suppose an experiment (X) that can be explained with the same precision with both classical and quantum mechanics. Let us also assume that in the quantum version there is a violation of Bell's inequalities. Should Bell's inequalities be...

If this were correct then EPR is not a quantum experiment, but this is not the case.