Who Can Apply the Operator on a Wave Function to Measure an Observable?

[unusualname]

Well, all I can say then is that the comittee probably was asleep when they granted you that award. The quality of what you write is so low that I can hardly imagine what you say is even 1% of the truth (unless you suffered a complete mental breakdown or so). And why do you think Poincare invariance is not important? It is a fundamental property of relativistic theories and within quantum theory, you do need a (Hilbert) space carrying it's representation. It is irrelevant whether you work here in the path integral formulation or not.

Really, take my advise and visit a shrink or so: talk about your passion and desire to solve a puzzle which you do not even properly comprehend. Focus on other things in life and enjoy it, but give up on things which you cannot possibly reach.

Poincare invariance is less relevant here than Poincare recurrence is to statistical physics (which is about zero relevance). I'll probably have to construct a CUDA simulation of 10^9 states or so to convince you, but the theory is sound. All QFT falls out of the evolution law + randomness if you think about for even a short time.

 

[Careful]

Poincare invariance is less relevant here than Poincare recurrence is to statistical physics (which is about zero relevance). I'll probably have to construct a CUDA simulation of 10^9 states or so to convince you, but the theory is sound. All QFT falls out of the evolution law + randomness if you think about for even a short time.

Well you can say whatever you want but
(a) there was no evolution law written down in your ''paper''.
(b) no simulations were presented whatsoever.
(c) It is just impossible to recover Poincare invariance from a finite lattice formulation unless your lattice is dynamical itself. 't Hooft has written some nice papers about the breaking of rotation invariance on lattices and so on (in the context of cellular automata).
(d) In order to talk about even just a correspondence with QFT, you would have to define what a particle is. Now, I can imagine that you can simulate such thing like an ordinary classical Klein Gordon equation on a lattice, but no way you are dealing with the problem of an arbitrary number of particles (and no way you solve the measurement problem in this approach).
(e) the dynamics of QFT is defined on an infinite dimensional space (mandatory by Poincare invariance), no way that you manage to get something like that out from a finite simulation + some noise.

So, go home, learn some proper physics, and do your job or follow my advise and look for a good shrink.

 

[unusualname]

Well you can say whatever you want but
(a) there was no evolution law written down in your ''paper''.
(b) no simulations were presented whatsoever.
(c) It is just impossible to recover Poincare invariance from a finite lattice formulation unless your lattice is dynamical itself. 't Hooft has written some nice papers about the breaking of rotation invariance on lattices and so on (in the context of cellular automata).
(d) In order to talk about even just a correspondence with QFT, you would have to define what a particle is. Now, I can imagine that you can simulate such thing like an ordinary classical Klein Gordon equation on a lattice, but no way you are dealing with the problem of an arbitrary number of particles (and no way you solve the measurement problem in this approach).
(e) the dynamics of QFT is defined on an infinite dimensional space (mandatory by Poincare invariance), no way that you manage to get something like that out from a finite simulation + some noise.

So, go home, learn some proper physics, and do your job or follow my advise and look for a good shrink.

If you were sure of your arguments you wouldn't resort to ad hominem.

The debates between people like yourself go on here for years and years, and finally presented with a conclusion you resist, it is understandable but disappointing.

The measurement problem is dealt with by invoking human attributes and otherwise is restricted to stable macroscopic remnants in the universe - ooh - that's controversial.

 

[Careful]

If you were sure of your arguments you wouldn't resort to ad hominem.

The debates between people like yourself go on here for years and years, and finally presented with a conclusion you resist, it is understandable but disappointing.

The measurement problem is dealt with by invoking human attributes and otherwise is restricted to stable macroscopic remnants in the universe - ooh - that's controversial.

I am sure of my arguments because I tried some far less naive ideas myself! And no, I don't go ad hominem, you have no idea how sad it is to see someone claiming to have solved the deepest problem in nature and comes up with a lousy A4 sheet full of rubbish. You know, I do have a cousin who suffers severly from bipolar and who has been in a manic phase for such a long time that psychiatrists feared for his life even (you can die of exhaustion here you know). Well, we did not meet for like 15 years and 3 years ago he wrote me a letter with two sheets of paper containing elementary formulae which he thought might be of use for my work. A week later, I called him and politely thanked him for sharing his thoughts with me - we did not speak about it any further.

And no, I am not 'a standard physicsforums-member' as most people who ''know'' me can testify: I have an unusual patience with unconventional ideas and always try to reason with the person. But if I see a case like you, I have to say what I said, for your own good (even if you don't take my word for it).

 

[unusualname]

It wan't simple when I conceived it, It was argued out over a week with Lubos Motl. I had orginally conceived of a holographic "projection" to retrieve local causality but the model reduced to its seemingly bare simplicity after realising Motl (and others) had the wong understanding of "non-locality" which is only manifest as local causality in nature.

I can't apologise for the the beautiful simplicity of the universe, Wolfram and others had similar models but I assume the reluctance to embrace fundamental randomness and a non-local evolution law kept everyone from making the obvious discovery:

Nature is non-local, non-real (in Einstein's sense) and non-deterministic! who'd have ever thought it!

 

[Careful]

It wan't simple when I conceived it, It was argued out over a week with Lubos Motl. I had orginally conceived of a holographic "projection" to retrieve local causality but the model reduced to its seemingly bare simplicity after realising Motl (and others) had the wong understanding of "non-locality" which is only manifest as local causality in nature.

I can't apologise for the the beautiful simplicity of the universe, Wolfram and others had similar models but I assume the reluctance to embrace fundamental randomness and a non-local evolution law kept everyone from making the obvious discovery:

Nature is non-local, non-real (in Einstein's sense) and non-deterministic! who'd have ever thought it!

Knowing Lubos' way of dealing with unconventional ideas, he would have dismissed it after one single look at your paper. You use expensive words here, but they don't mean anything, you don't make a coherent sentence! For example, you conceived a ''holographic projection'' to retrieve local causality. What the ****? Local causality simply means that the state of a field at a point is determined by the initial value on any local spacelike slice of the past lightcone. How can you retrieve something that local from a non-local thing like a holographic projection?! And no, nature is appearantly not locally causal and no-one has ever succeed to show a model which recuperates all quantum predictions in this way. The rest doesn't make any sense except for the last line. I think any researcher in quantum gravity would agree on those three statements. So, if the last line were your revolutionary discovery: welcome, you share this opinion with thousands of people.

 

[unusualname]

Knowing Lubos' way of dealing with unconventional ideas, he would have dismissed it after one single look at your paper. You use expensive words here, but they don't mean anything, you don't make a coherent sentence! For example, you conceived a ''holographic projection'' to retrieve local causality. What the ****? Local causality simply means that the state of a field at a point is determined by the initial value on any local spacelike slice of the past lightcone. How can you retrieve something that local from a non-local thing like a holographic projection?! And no, nature is appearantly not locally causal and no-one has ever succeed to show a model which recuperates all quantum predictions in this way. The rest doesn't make any sense except for the last line. I think any researcher in quantum gravity would agree on those three statements. So, if the last line were your revolutionary discovery: welcome, you share this opinion with thousands of people.

Jesus, until I actually produce the exact form of the evolution Matrix M I guess I'm going to have to put up with this.

M is unitary, it's huge, it's probably a bit more complex than the current Standard Model would suggest, especially since gravity is so much weaker than everything else.

At worst you'll get a toy universe containing some basic particles with this model, with all the probablistic creation and annihilation described in QFT. Any reasonably foresighted person can see that the real universe is not beyond construction.

 

[Careful]

Jesus, until I actually produce the exact form of the evolution Matrix M I guess I'm going to have to put up with this.

M is unitary, it's huge, it's probably a bit more complex than the current Standard Model would suggest, especially since gravity is so much weaker than everything else.

At worst you'll get a toy universe containing some basic particles with this model, with all the probablistic creation and annihilation described in QFT. Any reasonably foresighted person can see that the real universe is not beyond construction.

Sure, we are all dumb and do not understand your brilliant work which is written by little invisible green men on one sheet of A4. Neither are my comments probably valid that your language is incoherent. Since there is no way of talking to you, since you actually do not show any real work and do not properly react to the many counterarguments I have given so far to you, do the decent thing and work out the ''details'' of your theory. Then, you will have surpassed Garret Lisi in one stroke of genius

 

[unusualname]

I really don't want to make a fuss. I had a simple honest argument with Motl about the interpretation of the delayed choice quantum eraser and refused to submit to orthodoxy in analysing it.

I came to my conclusions after several days of intense thought, my stumbling along the way is documented in a thread on his blog.

However, once coming to the conclusions, I had no doubt in their correctness and superiority to copenhagen + decoherence. I am not currently in academia so do not have arXiv submission access, however any reasonable person can see my conclusions are important and I really think they have at least the beginnings of an idea which should help us evolve beyond the 1930s philosophy of QM.

 

[Careful]

I really don't want to make a fuss. I had a simple honest argument with Motl about the interpretation of the delayed choice quantum eraser and refused to submit to orthodoxy in analysing it.

I came to my conclusions after several days of intense thought, my stumbling along the way is documented in a thread on his blog.

However, once coming to the conclusions, I had no doubt in their correctness and superiority to copenhagen + decoherence. I am not currently in academia so do not have arXiv submission access, however any reasonable person can see my conclusions are important and I really think they have at least the beginnings of an idea which should help us evolve beyond the 1930s philosophy of QM.

I give up, your idea of what a reasonable person is supposed to be goes beyond the pale for my taste. As I thought, you did not discuss with Lubos your A4 sheet, try it!

 

[Borek]

Closed pending moderation.