Recent content by pines-demon

On turbulence: –Horace Lamb (1932 address British Association for the Advancement of Science, I could not find it) –Richard Feynman (The Feynman Lectures on Physics, vol. 1, chapter 3)

Einstein got (Nobel) help from his dad? Albert Einstein was unable to get an assistant position while he was studying in Zurich. He tried to contact chemist Wilhelm Ostwald twice and got no reply. The situation was so harsh that that Hermann Einstein, Albert's father, wrote to Ostwald asking...

If anybody here knows: How readable is Galois’ original work? I was wondering how much could he do without the work of Noether and Van der Waerden…

I liked this half more than most of the stories at the end of Foundation 1. Sure but a reason was given. In the TV series there is no indication yet on why psychohistory fails (and kind of does not matter, Seldon is manipulating everything actively in the TV series).

Oh boy I finally got to watch season 2. What a fabulous... mess. I can say that: I liked most of the fabricated new plots related to Empire. Disliked most of the fabricated new plots related to Seldon and Gaal Dornick. As for the original plot, it covers everything from third chapter of...

In previous threads, I have argued that it is not an interpretation in the sense that it does not claim to give an explanatory interpretation of what happens. It is just like some kind of duality.

A single fermion in vacuum cannot turn into a single boson in vacuum due to conservation laws (can you tell which?). If you want to consider more than one particle please develop.

Isn’t that how we justify the whole Standard Model Lagrangian? What’s new here?

Yes I did a two parter in the anecdotes of physics thread see https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/interesting-anecdotes-in-the-history-of-physics.1059261/

Amazing age and amazing number of contributions. I wonder if we will ever know why he was not in terms with Lee.

Retaking this point. So basically the only idea here is that gravitational-based collapse is maybe not like the quantum mechanics we know (beyond Standard Model) so that it could allow noncomputability? I feel like this is like looking for the God of the gaps but replacing God by consciousness.

Oh right! It was the "quantum gravity" terminology that threw me off. Proving or disproving gravitational-based collapse does not mean that it reveals anything about quantum gravity (unification of QFT/GR) right? Maybe in a sense it does but I would keep the terms separate.

Just for sake of everything, I am not equating noncomputablity with nondeterminism, I am saying that quantum computing does not give you noncomputability, and does not give you nondeterminism either. You would have to argue what is uncomputable in quantum mechanics for that to work, under...

This is what I find hand-wavy. It is well know that a classical computer can simulate anything a quantum computer can do (just in more steps) so anything quantum is computable. UNLESS according to objective collapse interpretations like Penrose's, the collapse is truly random. But then, it does...

I can see why searching for quantum phenomena in the brain would be encouraged or at least interesting to look into it. But I cannot even fanthom how quantum phenomena in the brain could have any link to consciousness, and even Penrose is very handwavy about this.