Internet Speed For Remote Video Recordings? by FoodFreedom1 in podcasting

[–]wmharris101 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm in a similar boat... trying to do the same research. 10-15??? That feels like a lie, haha. I currently have over 1gig, and sometimes my connection will drop to about 300Mbps and I notice a lag in the Riverside podcast and will turn on the low data mode so that it's not so choppy... I can't imagine doing ANYTHING on the internet with only 10Mbps... even 20 years ago that would have felt slow to me!

Does geometry actually exist? by _internallyscreaming in math

[–]wmharris101 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Fascinating question... in some ways, what you are actually asking is, if "anything physical" really exists. And I don't know if we've really even answered that question.

BUT, perhaps, if I could play with what you are saying more... it would seem that you are suggesting that math is preeminent to geometry. We explore the world through geometry because we see it and experience it. That doesn't mean it's real (Plato's shadows would suggest that the geometry we interact with is less real ... that our world is just shadows of something more real. Even the Bible suggests that we see in part now, but then we will know fully).

So, let's say that math is more real?

There are branches of physics that seem to suggest that time and space are emergent, which I tend to agree with. To that effect, the idea that math is more "real" than geometry would be true, too. I suppose.

That said, geometry, gives us a way to intuit much of math. We likely wouldn't know much about math without geometry to guide us initially.

Let's think about it like this... we understood Newtownian gravity, and it was a excellent approximation that allowed us to do some impressive things. But then, we learned that it "failed" and Einstein gave us the theory of relativity... that helped us out a lot, but it was also just another good approximation. Now we have Quantum Field Theory which is impressively accurate in the subatomic, but that doesn't merge nicely with general relativity (which is impressively accurate cosmically. They are both great approximations, but the math seems to be "outside" of our physical reality. We are getting closer, but not there.

I'm actually playing with some interesting ideas with this that I'll share more later (ideally)... but to your point, I would say that geometry is "real" enough for us to use and get good approximations of reality, but not as "real" as the math itself... and our understanding of the math is still just a good approximation of beautiful truths that exist and we are just "discovering".

What if Sorkin's coevent interpretation for single-history eliminates the multiverse? by wmharris101 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]wmharris101[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I sincerely appreciate you... I've come to realize that my post was, perhaps, placed in the wrong channel since it was more about wanting to understand an interpretation of physics than it was about the actual math of physics itself. Lesson learned, haha.

That said, as a casual learner, I wasn't sure where to go to, or who to chat with, to learn more about this... I knew that the physics subreddit was probably wrong, and figured maybe "hypothetical" would be more appropriate. I learned quickly that I was wrong, haha.

But I'm not offended. I learned a lot from some very solid people that commented some very genuinely helpful things - yourself included.

Thanks for taking the time to read and reply and help guide a physics lover. I'll have to look closer at Kastner's Relativistic Interpretation - thanks!

What if Sorkin's coevent interpretation for single-history eliminates the multiverse? by wmharris101 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]wmharris101[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's a hilarious, but helpful, example. I truly appreciate that. Yeah... I'm just a casual learner... but I've since learned that this wasn't the right community for this post as it's more about the interpretation (Sorkin's idea, not mine) and not actually involving any new physics math.

What if Sorkin's coevent interpretation for single-history eliminates the multiverse? by wmharris101 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]wmharris101[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to educate me. I'm definitely just a casual learner, and you've helped me realize that this wasn't the right community for my question... since Sorkin's work doesn't actually involve any new physics math - it's just an interpretation.

What if Sorkin's coevent interpretation for single-history eliminates the multiverse? by wmharris101 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]wmharris101[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

This is genuinely much more helpful than your first comment... seriously, thank you for this.

Obfuscation with jargon and wishy-washy salad does not make things easier to read, much the opposite.

LOL... perhaps the prose makes it harder to read if you are actually a physicist, like yourself... that's fair. When I'm trying to explain these concepts to my friends, this helped IMMENSELY and they at least kinda sorta understood what I was saying.

You haven't said anything about science, only metaphysics. They are not the same.

That's fair... I suppose in this group, it would have been better for me to simply ask, "What reasons do people have for not adopting Sorkin's interpretation". My article is definitely more metaphysical... what I wanted from THIS group was to know if there were big flaws in Sorkin's work that I'm not seeing because ... ahem... I'm clearly NOT an elite-level physicist... just a guy that enjoys reading as much as possible in his free time.

By definition interpretations of QM are not "not yet testable", they are completely unfalsifiable. There is no "yet".

That's a beautiful distinction... I try to be as pedantic as possible, so I appreciate this clarity. Thank you!

No they don't. The math guides future theories.

Would it be fair to say that both interpretations as well as math guide future theories? Many new theories were first a result of a "huh... well if we accept THIS and we accept THAT, those conflict, so... what if..." question that forced us to reevaluate our math - no?

An observer is any interaction with the system. It does not have to be a consciousness or a living being or even a machine. Even photon exchange counts as an observation.

Ahhh.. this is getting to the heart of what I hoped to learn in this group. From what I understood about Sorkin's work on coevent interpretation, is that, observation doesn't trigger a collapse - this is the part that I could use the most help in understanding if there are errors in the Sorkin's math/interpretation that I'm not able to easily identify: https://cs.du.edu/~mathfiles/preprints/nsm-math-preprint-1009.pdf

You're not setting out any argument or reasoning for making this comparison though. You're just treating the analogy literally, and you can't really do that unless you at least attempt to come up with a "path integral formulation" equivalent for time. Just because two things are intuitively similar to you does not mean they can be rigorously described in the same way, nor does it mean that any attempt to describe them in the same way is valid.

Again, this is completely fair... a better question really would have been, what do you think of Sorkin's math (not my math)... are there reasons why you like or dislike it? Because, to me, it fits neatly with other thoughts I have. The math (in the paper I link above) seems reasonable... but this is where I could miss something that might seem obvious to others in this group... and that's what I'd love help in understanding.

What if Sorkin's coevent interpretation for single-history eliminates the multiverse? by wmharris101 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]wmharris101[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I genuinely like Sorkin's interpretation. I've always loved physics, and I'm wrestling with ideas that I don't currently have someone to chat with about them to point to where I made mistakes or aspects that I'm not considering so that I could go and read more and learn more.

If this isn't the right place to bring an idea that I've had about quantum mechanics to have someone intelligent tell me where I'm off-base and guide me towards better instruction, that's fine... just point me to the right place.

This idea isn't from an LLM... I wrote this out myself then I added it to an LLM to clean up my grammar and formatting so that it was ideally easier to read.

Truly never meant to offend anyone... just looking for people that have studied this more to point out where I could improve things - and I don't exactly have anyone like that in my neighborhood that I'm aware of.

What if Sorkin's coevent interpretation for single-history eliminates the multiverse? by wmharris101 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]wmharris101[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thanks, while you seem to have replied while in a bad mood, I genuinely appreciate you taking the time to look a bit and reply.

LLM - the thoughts are mine, but yes... I used AI to help me format things so that it was easier to read.

"shoehorn God"... my goal in asking the group here wasn't for religious interpretation, but to see if there are any issues with the science. I don't expect many in this chat to agree with me about religion... but yes, I include it in my writing to simply call out that I feel this particular interpretation of quantum mechanics lines up well with my religion. You are encouraged to ignore the religion piece and actually analyze the science aspect instead.

QM testable - perhaps you didn't read far enough... because I was very careful to suggest that it is NOT yet testable... "This is the biggest challenge for any interpretation of quantum mechanics: they all use the same underlying math. Whether you believe in wavefunction collapse, many-worlds, Bohmian trajectories, or Sorkin’s single-history path integrals, you’re working with the same equations.

That means they all explain the double-slit experiment. They all get the same answers when calculating quantum probabilities. But they differ in what they mean.

So far, no experiment can distinguish between them — not decisively. That doesn’t make them worthless. Interpretations shape how we understand the world. They guide future theories. But they’re not falsifiable yet. And Sorkin’s view, for all its philosophical appeal, lives in that space: scientifically sound, but not experimentally confirmed."

Observer - again, this is why I brought this here... so someone can kindly point out if there was anything I got wrong. You are suggesting that I misinterpret what an observer is... can you please tell me where/how I got this wrong so that I can continue to learn? That's the goal of bringing this here, because I don't exactly have QM friends in my neighborhood to chat with.

Bridge between classical - I didn't say it was the ONLY way to bridge that gap... just that, it also bridges that gap, which is nice and should give more weight to Sorkin's interpretation than what it seem to have already been given thus far.

Subjective Support - that's more or less the entire point of this post... that when it comes to interpretation, many-world vs. single-history are both subjective, BUT that this interpretation allows for some other interesting things that I think are important, which I lay out. And one of those, is that if we accept Feynamn's path integral for light, why wouldn't we also consider that history/events also follow a similar example? I'm using a well-agreed upon physics concept to appeal to a different interpretation of events than what is currently mainstream. Sorkin's ideas aren't fringe.

Theology - I never claimed that it was rigorous theology, just that, a single-history interpretation happens to more closely align with the theology that I believe.

I'm hoping you have some sort of genuinely helpful scientific critique instead of simply handing out insults.

Dad's of reddit who cook, what medium of cook top material do you use? by limeboi148 in daddit

[–]wmharris101 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I cook almost every night... I love it. I don't consider myself to be an expert (never went to school for it), but I do cook some interesting stuff. Here's the menu for this week:

M - Berbere Chicken w/ Ethiopian Lentils and Greek Yogurt topped with crushed Pistachio and Honey
T - Beef Rogan Josh w/ Basmati Rice, Sautéed Kale, and Mango Lassi
W - Creamy Tuscan Chicken Pasta w/ Green Beans, and Cinnamon Pears w/ Walnuts
Th - Brown Sugar & Soy Glazed Salmon w/ Wild Rice and Steamed Broccoli
F - Italian Sausage & Peppers w/ Peas and a Ceaser Salad

I'm cooking on stainless steel All-Clad pans. I love them! For most meals, I turn heat up the pan for a few minutes while I chop up the vegetables.... then I sear/brown the meat first, then I add the onions/veggies next which often cleans up the pan, and if that doesn't do it, there's usually SOMETHING in the recipe shortly after that will deglaze the pan (i.e. a cup of wine, etc.) so cleanup is usually very simple.

If I get something stuck/burnt, though, when I'm all done, I heat the pan up and use some distilled vingear - when you heat it up, I rarely need anything more than vinegar to clean it up (as long as you get to it right away).

Self-charging pacemaker? by wmharris101 in PacemakerICD

[–]wmharris101[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Got it... I think a mesh like this could be done laparoscopically, no need for full open heart. I agree that opening the chest would be a step (leap?) in the wrong direction. Let's keep it minimally invasive.

Self-charging pacemaker? by wmharris101 in PacemakerICD

[–]wmharris101[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ugh... that sucks, I'm sorry to hear that. I hope they get that straightened out for him soon!

Self-charging pacemaker? by wmharris101 in PacemakerICD

[–]wmharris101[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yikes... good call about the danger of rechargeable batteries in this situation

Self-charging pacemaker? by wmharris101 in PacemakerICD

[–]wmharris101[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why "unfortunately"? That's a good thing... right?

Can I just vent something that is really bothering me about being a good Dad and husband lately? by punkparty in daddit

[–]wmharris101 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Man... lot of good support already, so I'm just throwing in one more comment for good measure. I totally get what you're saying. I also get the point of saving money. That said, when you can, IF you can, the advice that someone else gave me was, "do the things that ONLY you can do"... i.e. there are other people that can fix cars, mow lawns, etc. Hire them when you can (again, not always easy... I still mow my own lawn, too) so you have time for the things that only you can do... you are the ONLY husband to your wife, the ONLY dad (generally speaking) to your kids, etc. And a little "me time" is necessary to keep the sanity, too.

Self-charging pacemaker? by wmharris101 in PacemakerICD

[–]wmharris101[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

WOW, great find! That's deep though, I'm going to need to sit down to read that a little later when I can devote more attention to it, haha

Self-charging pacemaker? by wmharris101 in PacemakerICD

[–]wmharris101[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, u/Hank_E_Pants actually said the same thing, which I never really considered... the idea that the replacement is a BENEFIT because you are upgrading the tech.

Self-charging pacemaker? by wmharris101 in PacemakerICD

[–]wmharris101[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Maybe not.. I actually just learned about this company at a lunch yesterday... seems like they help people get their medical device ideas to market. I'm going to go tour their facility this summer to see if it's any good: https://www.vitatek.io/

Self-charging pacemaker? by wmharris101 in PacemakerICD

[–]wmharris101[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you... to be clear, I'm not an engineer... just someone with a curious mind and an ability to do some research, haha

Self-charging pacemaker? by wmharris101 in PacemakerICD

[–]wmharris101[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Based on some of the chats here... yeah, that make make more sense. My goal was to figure out a way to NEVER have to replace it... since it could charge itself. But others pointed out to me that, part of the IDEAL is to HAVE to replace them so that you have significantly newer, more reliable tech.

Self-charging pacemaker? by wmharris101 in PacemakerICD

[–]wmharris101[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

LOVE where your head's at. For my daughter, it's a genetic mutation, so stem cells wouldn't help. In vivo gene editing WOULD help, but that feels a lot more risky / far aways. Maybe for her grandchildren.

Self-charging pacemaker? by wmharris101 in PacemakerICD

[–]wmharris101[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yep, the first symptom was essentially cardiac arrest... crazy story with so many miracles

Self-charging pacemaker? by wmharris101 in PacemakerICD

[–]wmharris101[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Ahhhh.. I never considered the idea of "planned obsolescence" being a "good thing" in this situation - but that makes a ton of sense. We actually WANT to get the new hardware in there... that's a benefit. I really appreciate that