Finding Comfort in the Unity of Life: Coping with Unpleasant Events

[pervect]

When unpleasant things happen, do you ever comfort yourself by saying "It's all unitary anyway..."

 

[Fra]

> "It's all unitary anyway..."

Is it? :)

/Fredrik

 

[pervect]

Is it? :)

Well, according to standard quantum mechanics it is, also QFT. Unitarity implies reversibility (unitary transformations are invertible), and also that no information is ever "lost".

There is perhaps some doubt about whether quantum gravity is unitary, last I heard though Hawking had joined the "no information loss" camp.

 

[turbo]

No. Existence may be a zero-sum game at some level, but we as humans do not exist/perceive at that level.

 

[Proof.Beh]

> "It's all unitary anyway..."

Is it? :)

/Fredrik

Is except it?

Thanks.
Mr Beh

 

[samalkhaiat]

Why not antiunitary?

Well, according to standard quantum mechanics it is, also QFT. Unitarity implies reversibility

In QFT, time reversal transformation is generated by the antiunitary operator;

\mathcal{T} \phi (x,t) \mathcal{T}^{-1} = \eta_{T} \phi (x,-t)

(unitary transformations are invertible)

So is any non-singular transformation!

and also that no information is ever "lost".

All depends on the vacuum; whether it is true or fulse vacuum!


sam

 

[Fra]

Is except it?

Thanks.
Mr Beh

The way I see it, unitarity is more often than not, the best single guess, but it's not the only option. There mere uncertainty alone implies that to think that there is a fixed unitarity can hardly be true in the general case. But of course in many special cases.

It's not a coincidence though that theories almost be defintion, apply to "special cases".

In my thinking I don't think of special theories, I think of something as close to the general case my small mind can grasp, and I can't accept unitarity as a fundamental thing. Technically, it would IMO be exepctations. But since these expectations are often well supported, they appear to be alost fundamental. But the different in the viewpoints is on the edge of the theories evolution. I have at least, hard to understand a fundamentally evolutionary model without non-unitary behaviour. In my thinking the non-unitary behaviour is even part of the key.

/Fredrik

 

[Fra]

As long as the non-unitary information part is small in relative significance, it's not a problem IMO. But the non-unitary isn't fundamental either of course. Typically the implication of learning is a desired to inflate the models to make it more unitary.

/Fredrik