Recent content by javisot20

If you relate beauty to symmetry and symmetry to conservation laws, and further demand that "objective" means "experimentally confirmable," then yes, beauty is objective. (if you use another definition, no)

An infinite universe can expand, no edge of the universe is necessary for that to happen, expansion is an intrinsic property of space-time. 1- Choose a point in the universe to carry out observations with your best telescope. 2- You will observe very young galaxies in the distance, and CMB...

"Universe" and "observable universe" are not the same. We are the center of the observable universe, by definition, whereas the universe has no center. Furthermore, the expansion of the universe is an intrinsic property of spacetime (not a receding edge). The cosmological principle tells you...

I do not understand the conclusions, even if it is true that "entanglement=selection criterion", that would lead to the conclusion that both the entanglement and the selection criterion are physical descriptions of the same physical phenomenon (this tells us nothing about the nature of the wave...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock, "The timekeeping accuracy of the involved atomic clocks is important because the smaller the error in time measurement, the smaller the error in distance obtained by multiplying the time by the speed of light is (a timing error of a nanosecond or 1...

I was trying to answer one of the main questions in the thread, The question is "what is an interpretation of quantum mechanics?" and not "what different interpretations are there?" (I say this because that question is usually answered by mentioning different interpretations, but not by...

If you deny the uncertainty principle and still want to explain the set of experimental data that make up QM, the result is a theory of hidden variables. The uncertainty principle is fundamental in QM.

I understood that Feynman's phrase meant that, if QM is fundamentally based on the uncertainty principle, and the uncertainity principle does not allow to speak of absolute certainty, never say that you understand "all" QM, because you contradict their principles. A QM interpretation is a...

That doesn't happen only with 0's, you can't do the same with other numbers either, for example, you could think that between 0.999... and 1 there is the number 0,(999..)1, but the number 0,(999..)1 is a number that cannot be constructed formally. Same for 0,(000...)1

It is a complicated question, it is likely that a mechanic based on UP (uncertainty principle) would not be expected to be the same as other types of mechanics not based on UP. What do we understand by physical? Physical reality is the set of all physical truths. A physical truth is something...

That is something that worries me, what prevents it? Choose a quantum object (1), the one you want, now compare it with all the quantum objects that have never interacted with (1), neither locally (EPR) nor non-locally through swapping (Bell). What law implies that the correlation with these...

The medium can change but light does not accelerate or decelerate, its speed is always c.

QM says that all objects are quantum objects, then it holds that in QM only quantum objects are entangled. I don't understand why you deny it, can you clarify it? please

I was simply referring to what PeroK comments here, which is true, That's why what I said is correct, quantum objects are not entangled with macroscopic objects (or do you claim that QM doesn't says that?)