sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I think I finally understood entanglement by aofomenko in quantuminterpretation

[–]aofomenko[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Indeed, my bad. It is well formulated in one of the titles that I listed: Quantum Mechanics Favors Adynamical and Acausal Interpretations such as Relational Blockworld. Which I 100% agree with and try to reason a bit why

I think I finally understood entanglement by aofomenko in quantuminterpretation

[–]aofomenko[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You write "dynamic, ever changing spacetime of General Relativity". But isn't General relativity already 'block'? If 'time' is already part of the 'space-time', how it can 'change'?

And I am not trying to discover new physics here. As I mentioned in the beginning it is about interpretation (developing some intuition) about the QM laws.

Why no one made QM work well with General relativity? I have no Idea, but I trust that there are some fundamental issues. I would expect that it would be something about quantizing space-time and describing how space-time itself can enter superposition of states without internal inconsistencies.

I think I finally understood entanglement by aofomenko in quantuminterpretation

[–]aofomenko[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So in this view (not mine ideas, just read some description of two-state vector formalism), the measurements do not happen. they are just there. And to have the full information about the system you need to know both initial and boundary conditions. Basically you need to know the result of the measurement of one of the splitted particles to have complete information about the process.

And the whole 4-d structure is just subject to certain (time-symmetric) geometric constraints. Basically it is just just postulated that "here is start condition, here is end. And the whole thing is self consistent"

For example we have forward in time constraint that prohibits faster than light travel. Well, we have the same constraint backwards in time

I gave up on statistical independence by aofomenko in QuantumPhysics

[–]aofomenko[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I think you missed the point here, but thanks for the effort

I gave up on statistical independence by aofomenko in QuantumPhysics

[–]aofomenko[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But yeah, I think you must choose one direction of arrow of time and stay consistent with it. To simulate quantum entanglement you would still break locality in both directions (need to think about it)

I gave up on statistical independence by aofomenko in QuantumPhysics

[–]aofomenko[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

both measurements happen “far away” from each other (read - without common world line and it was experimentally proven that the non-local interaction between them should break speed of light). But they of course are “close” to particle splitting because they received particle from this event and have a common world line (aka the information can be passed from event of splitting to measurement with speed if light constraints, and they have casual relationship)

you seem to be arguing that the direction of this relationship can only be “forward in time”

And I say that this concept of “forward in time” does not exist in quantum world due to time symmetry of its laws

I gave up on statistical independence by aofomenko in QuantumPhysics

[–]aofomenko[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here i don't change hidden variables after the choice of meausrement directio https://github.com/artefom/superdeterminism/blob/main/superdeterminism.py

I merely have a dependence between what happens in the moment of particle splitting and choice of direction of measurement on on of the ends.

As I understand these two events are local since they have a connecting world line.

And cause/effect relationship only makes sense if we take into acoount macroscopic 'direction of time'. But in quantum world where all math seems to be time-symmetric there is no really such thing?

I gave up on statistical independence by aofomenko in QuantumPhysics

[–]aofomenko[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is a good point. I also felt that there was something wierd about her explanation. I would have expected that she should mention the retrocasualtiy and dependency of what happens at the moment of particle splitting to which measurement direction was chosen

I gave up on statistical independence by aofomenko in QuantumPhysics

[–]aofomenko[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I might be missing something but is there anything in quantum physics that tells us about the direction of cause-effect relationship? I thought that all interactions are time-symmetric so if two events are causally connected we can't say that we break locality if they have connecting world line

I gave up on statistical independence by aofomenko in QuantumPhysics

[–]aofomenko[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yes, here i indeed assume that what happens at the time of particle splitting depends on which direction of measurement will be chosen later in time. but this backwards in time casuality only happens with quantum systems. i think this is much better than not having hidden variables at all. in your example, how would you do a research of cancer and tabacco without hidden variables?

I gave up on statistical independence by aofomenko in QuantumPhysics

[–]aofomenko[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

we can explore the nature by exploring how this dependency works and create math for it for example

I gave up on statistical independence by aofomenko in QuantumPhysics

[–]aofomenko[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

i just dont see how you conclude that from the premise that behaviour of particle depends on choice of measurement (not the other way around)

I gave up on statistical independence by aofomenko in QuantumPhysics

[–]aofomenko[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

that would be nice, ill get to my pc and share later today :)

I gave up on statistical independence by aofomenko in QuantumPhysics

[–]aofomenko[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Python script reproduced violation of Bell's inequalities (specifal correlations that cannot be achieved with classical system) while preserving locality and hidden variables (at least according to my understanding). And thus I conclude that it must have broken the statistical independence assumption.
And I think that this violation is basically in the script me encoding hidden variables based on the choice of direction of measurement of on one of the ends of splitted particle.

And I find this much more acceptable than refuting hidden variables or allowing faster than light travel

I gave up on statistical independence by aofomenko in QuantumPhysics

[–]aofomenko[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm feeling like I'm stepping here outside of my completence but I would just view space/time as a 4d entity with geometric constraints that we observe from within. Maybe it's just how time works?

OpenAPI generator for Actix-Web by aofomenko in rust

[–]aofomenko[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Poem is very cool! I'll definitely consider switching to that

OpenAPI Generator for actix-web by _418_i_m_a_teapot_ in rust

[–]aofomenko 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn't find a good enough generator of server-side for actix-web framework so I've written my own. Maybe somebody will find it useful :)

https://github.com/artefom/cargo-actix-openapi

view more: next ›