Where do numbers come from? + Quantum superposition could unravel ‘grandpa paradox’

[Magical Realist]

No, the theorem is only proven using Lorentz transformations from SR.

Do you REALLY think that the phenomenological behavior of fermions and bosons wasn't known prior to an explanation and proven theorem? O_o

Pauli established his Exclusion principle before his theorem was proven.

An explanation and proof is what gives a principle its credibility.  There have been numerous principles throughout history that turned out to be completely wrong.

Now, back to Aaron O'Connell's experiment.  We’ll use Syne as an example.  When he is fully isolated from the forum—from our perception, he’s in a wave like state and can take any and every position at once.  Just like with the phase space.  Until you interact with it, it’s simply not there in the way we usually think of things as being there, and is in simultaneous superposition of all possible states, without time, matter, or space.    

The same thing happens with Syne.  As soon as we interact with him, his emotions cause him to collapse, and he assumes his only possible state. Once he enters our world of perception, he’s an asshole.  When he’s isolated, he’s simply not there in the way we usually think of things as being there, but once you interact with him, he becomes hyper-realistic (our physical world that we know so well), and has all the qualities of being an asshole.

[Image: 1714856914-ea3dcff8ed8e8939d98c96b81f747623.jpg]

So when Syne is not being interacted with, he's like a big asshole wave that spreads thruout the whole universe?

[stryder]

There are a number of quotes from different people that all conclude the same. If you think you have an understanding of Quantum Mechanics, there will always be something you didn't truly understand. You might mis-interpret what people have said previously, or conjecture something that is completely false compared to what the consensus currently concludes so there is currently difference in opinion.

The only true thing is that over time we get closer to answers, as long as the makeup for the questions don't change too much.

The interpretations I have for QM is more than like filled full of speculative fallacy. It is difficult to get straight answers that are empirically supported, factually correct and respectfully expressed. For that reason those interpretations I have will likely continue to be flawed and perceived akin to a belief system even if I don't personally want to just "believe" and rather actually "know".

I'd assume that I'm not alone in wanting to know more, we are just left with either attempting to read some very circular papers on the subject, third part snippets of buzz worded literature or compositing our own personal philosophies to make up for not knowing what to trust. (A Phd doesn't state a person knows what they are talking about, it just states they are good at explaining what they are talking about even if what they are talking about is complete fiction.)

[Secular Sanity]

There are a number of quotes from different people that all conclude the same.  If you think you have an understanding of Quantum Mechanics, there will always be something you didn't truly understand. You might mis-interpret what people have said previously, or conjecture something that is completely false compared to what the consensus currently concludes so there is currently difference in opinion.

I’m not sure what your point is, Stryder, but as usual, Syne started it.

This is a good book for beginners and there’s a free draft.

In this book, I have tried to make the subject as accessible to beginners as possible.

Quantum field theory has a reputation as a subject that is hard to learn. The problem, I think, is not so much that its basic ingredients are unusually difficult to master (indeed, the conceptual shift needed to go from quantum mechanics to quantum field theory is not nearly as severe as the one needed to go from classical mechanics to quantum mechanics), but rather that there are a lot of these ingredients. Some are fundamental, but many are just technical aspects of an unfamiliar form of perturbation theory.

There are three main aspects to my approach. Logical development of the basic concepts. This is, of course, very different from the historical development of quantum field theory, which, like the historical development of most worthwhile subjects, was filled with inspired guesses and brilliant extrapolations of sometimes fuzzy ideas, as well as its fair share of mistakes, misconceptions, and dead ends. None of that is in this book. From this book, you will (I hope) get the impression that the 9 whole subject is effortlessly clear and obvious, with one step following the next like sunshine after a refreshing rain. Illustration of the basic concepts with the simplest examples. In most fields of human endeavor, newcomers are not expected to do the most demanding tasks right away. It takes time, dedication, and lots of practice to work up to what the accomplished masters are doing. There is no reason to expect quantum field theory to be any different in this regard.