info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Could classical theory be just as weird as quantum theory?
36 views
Skip to first unread message
Sam Wormley
Feb 23, 2015, 9:50:26 PM2/23/15
to
Could classical theory be just as weird as quantum theory?
> http://phys.org/news/2015-02-classical-theory-weird-quantum.html
> Quantum mechanics is often described as "weird" and "strange" because
> it abandons many of the intuitive traits of classical physics. For
> example, the ideas that the world is objective, is deterministic, and
> exists independent of measurement are basic features of classical
> theory, but do not always hold up in quantum theory. But what if it
> turns out that these intuitive ideas are not true features of
> classical physics, either? Would classical theory be just as weird as
> quantum theory?
> In a new study published in Physical Review Letters, physicists Radu
> Ionicioiu, et al., have shown that the three apparently reasonable
> classical assumptions mentioned above—objectivity, determinism, and
> independence—are mutually incompatible with any theory, not only with
> quantum mechanics. The scientists show that, while any two of the
> three assumptions are compatible, all three are not. All told, our
> seemingly reasonable classical assumptions may not be so reasonable
> after all.
Oh my!
--
sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion
of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related
social issues.
> http://phys.org/news/2015-02-classical-theory-weird-quantum.html
> Quantum mechanics is often described as "weird" and "strange" because
> it abandons many of the intuitive traits of classical physics. For
> example, the ideas that the world is objective, is deterministic, and
> exists independent of measurement are basic features of classical
> theory, but do not always hold up in quantum theory. But what if it
> turns out that these intuitive ideas are not true features of
> classical physics, either? Would classical theory be just as weird as
> quantum theory?
> In a new study published in Physical Review Letters, physicists Radu
> Ionicioiu, et al., have shown that the three apparently reasonable
> classical assumptions mentioned above—objectivity, determinism, and
> independence—are mutually incompatible with any theory, not only with
> quantum mechanics. The scientists show that, while any two of the
> three assumptions are compatible, all three are not. All told, our
> seemingly reasonable classical assumptions may not be so reasonable
> after all.
Oh my!
--
sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion
of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related
social issues.
R Kym Horsell
Feb 23, 2015, 11:31:01 PM2/23/15
to
Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Could classical theory be just as weird as quantum theory?
>> http://phys.org/news/2015-02-classical-theory-weird-quantum.html
>> Quantum mechanics is often described as "weird" and "strange" because
>> it abandons many of the intuitive traits of classical physics. For
>> example, the ideas that the world is objective, is deterministic, and
>> exists independent of measurement are basic features of classical
>> theory, but do not always hold up in quantum theory. But what if it
>> turns out that these intuitive ideas are not true features of
>> classical physics, either? Would classical theory be just as weird as
>> quantum theory?
>> In a new study published in Physical Review Letters, physicists Radu
>> Ionicioiu, et al., have shown that the three apparently reasonable
>> classical assumptions mentioned above?objectivity, determinism, and
> Could classical theory be just as weird as quantum theory?
>> http://phys.org/news/2015-02-classical-theory-weird-quantum.html
>> Quantum mechanics is often described as "weird" and "strange" because
>> it abandons many of the intuitive traits of classical physics. For
>> example, the ideas that the world is objective, is deterministic, and
>> exists independent of measurement are basic features of classical
>> theory, but do not always hold up in quantum theory. But what if it
>> turns out that these intuitive ideas are not true features of
>> classical physics, either? Would classical theory be just as weird as
>> quantum theory?
>> In a new study published in Physical Review Letters, physicists Radu
>> Ionicioiu, et al., have shown that the three apparently reasonable
>> independence?are mutually incompatible with any theory, not only with
>> quantum mechanics. The scientists show that, while any two of the
>> three assumptions are compatible, all three are not. All told, our
>> seemingly reasonable classical assumptions may not be so reasonable
>> after all.
> Oh my!
I'm sure people with a mathematical bent have noticed the implications
>> three assumptions are compatible, all three are not. All told, our
>> seemingly reasonable classical assumptions may not be so reasonable
>> after all.
> Oh my!
of things like Tarksi's "sphere doubling" or "inside connected to outside"
theorems or even Arrow's Theorem nad various voting dilemmas.
I think you posted (and I read somewhere) something r.e. problems
with theories which allow infinities. All those Infinity Hotel paradoxes
and suchlike.
You don't want to look too close to the underpinnings of things
that appear to be working OK. :)
--
[Even the Big End of Town bleeds:]
BHP Billiton chief Andrew Mackenzie has told reporters his accountants
tell him the deficit levy he'll pay under the Hockey budget will hurt
him just as much as a pensioner paying for a couple visits per week to
the doctor. Mr Mackenzie earns a base salary of $2 mn pa; the 2% levy
will cost him $36.4k. An Austroyan pensioner receives about $20k pa;
and 3 doctor visits per wk will cost $21 under the new rules --
about 5.5% of their income.
-- 29 May 2014
R Kym Horsell
Feb 24, 2015, 1:41:43 AM2/24/15
to
<http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/infinity-logic-law/>
--
Almost any question you write down about sets is unsolvable. It's not a
satisfactory situation.
-- Hugh Woodin, UCB, Dec 2013.
reber g=emc^2
Feb 25, 2015, 6:25:14 PM2/25/15
to
On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 6:50:26 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Could classical theory be just as weird as quantum theory?
> > http://phys.org/news/2015-02-classical-theory-weird-quantum.html
>
> > Quantum mechanics is often described as "weird" and "strange" because
> > it abandons many of the intuitive traits of classical physics. For
> > example, the ideas that the world is objective, is deterministic, and
> > exists independent of measurement are basic features of classical
> > theory, but do not always hold up in quantum theory. But what if it
> > turns out that these intuitive ideas are not true features of
> > classical physics, either? Would classical theory be just as weird as
> > quantum theory?
>
> > In a new study published in Physical Review Letters, physicists Radu
> > Ionicioiu, et al., have shown that the three apparently reasonable
> > classical assumptions mentioned above--objectivity, determinism, and
> Could classical theory be just as weird as quantum theory?
> > http://phys.org/news/2015-02-classical-theory-weird-quantum.html
>
> > Quantum mechanics is often described as "weird" and "strange" because
> > it abandons many of the intuitive traits of classical physics. For
> > example, the ideas that the world is objective, is deterministic, and
> > exists independent of measurement are basic features of classical
> > theory, but do not always hold up in quantum theory. But what if it
> > turns out that these intuitive ideas are not true features of
> > classical physics, either? Would classical theory be just as weird as
> > quantum theory?
>
> > In a new study published in Physical Review Letters, physicists Radu
> > Ionicioiu, et al., have shown that the three apparently reasonable
> > independence--are mutually incompatible with any theory, not only with
> > quantum mechanics. The scientists show that, while any two of the
> > three assumptions are compatible, all three are not. All told, our
> > seemingly reasonable classical assumptions may not be so reasonable
> > after all.
>
> Oh my!
>
>
> --
>
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion
> of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related
> social issues.
GR can be just as weird as Quantum gravity in my minds eye.Quantum gravity I read needs 10 or 11 dimensions.GR needed just 4. Another good reason they don;t go well together in both realms.Well I posted most of this today. TreBert
> > three assumptions are compatible, all three are not. All told, our
> > seemingly reasonable classical assumptions may not be so reasonable
> > after all.
>
> Oh my!
>
>
> --
>
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion
> of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related
> social issues.
hanson
Feb 26, 2015, 2:56:53 AM2/26/15
to
"reber g=emc^2" <herbert...@gmail.com> wrote
Well I, TreBert, posted most of this today,... namely that
"g = emc^2" means, and is short for
>
....... "glazier exhibits micro cephalic cretinism" ....
>
Pity. Get well.
.
Well I, TreBert, posted most of this today,... namely that
"g = emc^2" means, and is short for
>
....... "glazier exhibits micro cephalic cretinism" ....
>
Pity. Get well.
.
reber g=emc^2
Feb 26, 2015, 9:15:14 PM2/26/15
to
On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 6:50:26 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Could classical theory be just as weird as quantum theory?
> > http://phys.org/news/2015-02-classical-theory-weird-quantum.html
>
> > Quantum mechanics is often described as "weird" and "strange" because
> > it abandons many of the intuitive traits of classical physics. For
> > example, the ideas that the world is objective, is deterministic, and
> > exists independent of measurement are basic features of classical
> > theory, but do not always hold up in quantum theory. But what if it
> > turns out that these intuitive ideas are not true features of
> > classical physics, either? Would classical theory be just as weird as
> > quantum theory?
>
> > In a new study published in Physical Review Letters, physicists Radu
> > Ionicioiu, et al., have shown that the three apparently reasonable
> > classical assumptions mentioned above--objectivity, determinism, and
> > http://phys.org/news/2015-02-classical-theory-weird-quantum.html
>
> > Quantum mechanics is often described as "weird" and "strange" because
> > it abandons many of the intuitive traits of classical physics. For
> > example, the ideas that the world is objective, is deterministic, and
> > exists independent of measurement are basic features of classical
> > theory, but do not always hold up in quantum theory. But what if it
> > turns out that these intuitive ideas are not true features of
> > classical physics, either? Would classical theory be just as weird as
> > quantum theory?
>
> > In a new study published in Physical Review Letters, physicists Radu
> > Ionicioiu, et al., have shown that the three apparently reasonable
> > independence--are mutually incompatible with any theory, not only with
> > quantum mechanics. The scientists show that, while any two of the
> > three assumptions are compatible, all three are not. All told, our
> > seemingly reasonable classical assumptions may not be so reasonable
> > after all.
>
> Oh my!
>
>
> --
>
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion
> of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related
> social issues.
Quasars are weird.So far away that their light takes over 12 billion years to get here.TreBert
> > three assumptions are compatible, all three are not. All told, our
> > seemingly reasonable classical assumptions may not be so reasonable
> > after all.
>
> Oh my!
>
>
> --
>
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion
> of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related
> social issues.
Sam Wormley
Feb 26, 2015, 9:35:37 PM2/26/15
to
than there are today.
hanson
Feb 26, 2015, 10:25:46 PM2/26/15
to
"reber g=emc^2" <herbert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Quasars' light takes over 12 billion years to get here.
> TreBert
>
hanson wrote:
Hebe Herbie, you just read that & parrot it here now .
>
BFD, ... but here is your big, BIG chance to prove that
this is "reality you related to" what you said and that it
"is a given" by you using your "g=emc^2", which "is
known by Billions", according to you.
>
Now Bert, show these Billions in/with 5-6 lines of
equations that you are not just a loudmouth who can't
even use his "g=emc^2" with you plagiarized in 1946
off a framer's Barn, and then quickly wrote it down on
a brown paper bag, so that you wouldn't forget it.
>
Bert, show me now that "g=emc^2" is not just short for
that "glazier (is an) endlessly moronic cacca composer"
> Quasars' light takes over 12 billion years to get here.
> TreBert
>
hanson wrote:
Hebe Herbie, you just read that & parrot it here now .
>
BFD, ... but here is your big, BIG chance to prove that
this is "reality you related to" what you said and that it
"is a given" by you using your "g=emc^2", which "is
known by Billions", according to you.
>
Now Bert, show these Billions in/with 5-6 lines of
equations that you are not just a loudmouth who can't
even use his "g=emc^2" with you plagiarized in 1946
off a framer's Barn, and then quickly wrote it down on
a brown paper bag, so that you wouldn't forget it.
>
Bert, show me now that "g=emc^2" is not just short for
that "glazier (is an) endlessly moronic cacca composer"
benj
Feb 27, 2015, 12:11:14 AM2/27/15
to
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
Julio Di Egidio
Feb 27, 2015, 9:29:50 AM2/27/15
to
On Tuesday, February 24, 2015 at 2:50:26 AM UTC, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Could classical theory be just as weird as quantum theory?
> > http://phys.org/news/2015-02-classical-theory-weird-quantum.html
<snip>
> Could classical theory be just as weird as quantum theory?
> > http://phys.org/news/2015-02-classical-theory-weird-quantum.html
> > In a new study published in Physical Review Letters, physicists Radu
> > Ionicioiu, et al., have shown that the three apparently reasonable
> > classical assumptions mentioned above--objectivity, determinism, and
> > Ionicioiu, et al., have shown that the three apparently reasonable
> > independence--are mutually incompatible with any theory, not only with
> > quantum mechanics. The scientists show that, while any two of the
> > three assumptions are compatible, all three are not. All told, our
> > seemingly reasonable classical assumptions may not be so reasonable
> > after all.
Looks like just broken logic, although, of course, all I have read is the article.
> > three assumptions are compatible, all three are not. All told, our
> > seemingly reasonable classical assumptions may not be so reasonable
> > after all.
On the other hand, Bell's theorem allows a resolution in terms of non-local processes: isn't in fact the universe as a universal computation by some universal computer (etc.), essentially such resolution? I'd just venture it is not a physical resolution: it is not self-contained, namely, the notion of computation remains extra-physical. Hence, quantum mechanics is more fundamental... unless we extend the domain of physics as well as the notion of computation. Right?
Julio
reber g=emc^2
Mar 1, 2015, 1:00:54 PM3/1/15
to
On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 6:50:26 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Could classical theory be just as weird as quantum theory?
> > http://phys.org/news/2015-02-classical-theory-weird-quantum.html
>
> > Quantum mechanics is often described as "weird" and "strange" because
> > it abandons many of the intuitive traits of classical physics. For
> > example, the ideas that the world is objective, is deterministic, and
> > exists independent of measurement are basic features of classical
> > theory, but do not always hold up in quantum theory. But what if it
> > turns out that these intuitive ideas are not true features of
> > classical physics, either? Would classical theory be just as weird as
> > quantum theory?
>
> > In a new study published in Physical Review Letters, physicists Radu
> > Ionicioiu, et al., have shown that the three apparently reasonable
> > classical assumptions mentioned above--objectivity, determinism, and
> > http://phys.org/news/2015-02-classical-theory-weird-quantum.html
>
> > Quantum mechanics is often described as "weird" and "strange" because
> > it abandons many of the intuitive traits of classical physics. For
> > example, the ideas that the world is objective, is deterministic, and
> > exists independent of measurement are basic features of classical
> > theory, but do not always hold up in quantum theory. But what if it
> > turns out that these intuitive ideas are not true features of
> > classical physics, either? Would classical theory be just as weird as
> > quantum theory?
>
> > In a new study published in Physical Review Letters, physicists Radu
> > Ionicioiu, et al., have shown that the three apparently reasonable
> > independence--are mutually incompatible with any theory, not only with
> > quantum mechanics. The scientists show that, while any two of the
> > three assumptions are compatible, all three are not. All told, our
> > seemingly reasonable classical assumptions may not be so reasonable
> > after all.
>
> Oh my!
>
>
> --
>
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion
> of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related
> social issues.
Sam if we lived in the world of QM the macro large realm would be weird. Think about it. I will make a list of its weird stuff. Its easy to do. TreBert
> > three assumptions are compatible, all three are not. All told, our
> > seemingly reasonable classical assumptions may not be so reasonable
> > after all.
>
> Oh my!
>
>
> --
>
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion
> of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related
> social issues.
noTthaTguY
Mar 1, 2015, 6:49:17 PM3/1/15
to
forlorn motion that digitization is not isomorphic
to analogization
to analogization
reber g=emc^2
Mar 3, 2015, 5:31:43 PM3/3/15
to
On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 6:50:26 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Could classical theory be just as weird as quantum theory?
> > http://phys.org/news/2015-02-classical-theory-weird-quantum.html
>
> > Quantum mechanics is often described as "weird" and "strange" because
> > it abandons many of the intuitive traits of classical physics. For
> > example, the ideas that the world is objective, is deterministic, and
> > exists independent of measurement are basic features of classical
> > theory, but do not always hold up in quantum theory. But what if it
> > turns out that these intuitive ideas are not true features of
> > classical physics, either? Would classical theory be just as weird as
> > quantum theory?
>
> > In a new study published in Physical Review Letters, physicists Radu
> > Ionicioiu, et al., have shown that the three apparently reasonable
> > classical assumptions mentioned above--objectivity, determinism, and
> > http://phys.org/news/2015-02-classical-theory-weird-quantum.html
>
> > Quantum mechanics is often described as "weird" and "strange" because
> > it abandons many of the intuitive traits of classical physics. For
> > example, the ideas that the world is objective, is deterministic, and
> > exists independent of measurement are basic features of classical
> > theory, but do not always hold up in quantum theory. But what if it
> > turns out that these intuitive ideas are not true features of
> > classical physics, either? Would classical theory be just as weird as
> > quantum theory?
>
> > In a new study published in Physical Review Letters, physicists Radu
> > Ionicioiu, et al., have shown that the three apparently reasonable
> > independence--are mutually incompatible with any theory, not only with
> > quantum mechanics. The scientists show that, while any two of the
> > three assumptions are compatible, all three are not. All told, our
> > seemingly reasonable classical assumptions may not be so reasonable
> > after all.
>
> Oh my!
>
>
> --
>
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion
> of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related
> social issues.
Sam QM is our #1 theory. The quantum world created the macro realm.It could never be the other way around. Think BB Think H atom ,think photons.think electrons etc Think fusion. No stars in Quantum realm,but all the right stuff to create them in QM Get the picture "ITS QM ALL THE WAY UP" TreBert
> > three assumptions are compatible, all three are not. All told, our
> > seemingly reasonable classical assumptions may not be so reasonable
> > after all.
>
> Oh my!
>
>
> --
>
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion
> of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related
> social issues.
benj
Mar 3, 2015, 6:19:22 PM3/3/15
to
drool cup while you are at it.
0 new messages