Looking at faraway stuff
-
Check this out davy. It's not so much the extra dimensions but more the extra universes. Many Worlds is a compelling argument.
"Plus he wore shorts like a total cunt" - Bob -
Although tbf it doesn't actually explain entanglement, just the consequences."Plus he wore shorts like a total cunt" - Bob
-
I wonder how many dimensions you'd need to explain many worlds. Is it really an infinity, or could it be described by 11/12 and end up tying in with M/string theory.
-
It should be infinite. The wave function is, mathematically speaking, analogue, so you need an infinite number of universes to make the wave from all the single point particles (in all the universes).
However, Planck Length/time means that's not actually needed, because spacetime isn't analogue, but sort of pixelated. Also, the energy of the combined universes isn't increasing (see vid above) because they're weighted by the probability of them occuring. String theory is consistent with MWI because they're describing different things.
MWI explains wave/particle duality, ST tries to unify the laws/particles in each universe."Plus he wore shorts like a total cunt" - Bob -
Also, and I like to repeat this loud and often because it annoys Muzzy, QM is completely explained if our universe is a simulation. The wave/particle duality is just a saving of computation, like draw distance in a game. You don't bother calculating stuff that you don't look at until you look. Then Schrodingers wave eq is simply the function in the code that determines the probability of where the particle might be when you run code. It also explains the pixelation."Plus he wore shorts like a total cunt" - Bob
-
b0r1s wrote:Quantum Theory exists because we all live in VR: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0801.0337.pdf
Old but a good read.
Read this Muzz
-
Sorry SG, space time is analogue, but our ability to interpret it is not. That's why we may never be able to fully understand stuff, that's the very basis of the uncertainty principle"I spent years thinking Yorke was legit Downs-ish disabled and could only achieve lucidity through song" - Mr B -
SpaceGazelle wrote:It should be infinite. The wave function is, mathematically speaking, analogue, so you need an infinite number of universes to make the wave from all the single point particles (in all the universes).
Does it need to be? Could the infinity of worlds from one particle not be described as different points along a single dimension (so the wave function could be thought of as a wave along that dimension). -
cockbeard wrote:Sorry SG, space time is analogue, but our ability to interpret it is not.
It's analogue according to Einstein but we know GR is wrong, or at least incomplete. QM says it is because it contains energy, the vacuum energy of space. That makes it quantitised."Plus he wore shorts like a total cunt" - Bob -
Although I should point out this hasn't been comfirmed by experiment either way."Plus he wore shorts like a total cunt" - Bob
-
voices wrote:SpaceGazelle wrote:It should be infinite. The wave function is, mathematically speaking, analogue, so you need an infinite number of universes to make the wave from all the single point particles (in all the universes).
Does it need to be? Could the infinity of worlds from one particle not be described as different points along a single dimension (so the wave function could be thought of as a wave along that dimension).
I'm not sure I understand, how do you describe the position of a 3d particle in 1d?"Plus he wore shorts like a total cunt" - Bob -
You don't - we're talking additional dimensions i.e. using position in those/that additional dimension/s to determine the possible states in the wave function.
-
MWI and ST aren't really on about the same thing. ST deals with the number of dimensions in each universe, MW deals with number of universes. You can certainly read multiple branches universes as multiple dimensions, but it's not the extra dimensions ST is banging on about. Those dimensions are simply added to try and get the maths right as it fails if you only have 3 spacial dimensions."Plus he wore shorts like a total cunt" - Bob
-
Yeah, it's noodling on my part. The actual maths of ST isn't very well communicated, or even spoken about, beyond blanket statements.
-
The trouble with ST is it isn't really trying to explain anything, apart from maybe the weakness of gravity, it's just trying to unify everything for the sake of it. MWI is different because it's trying to explain wave particle duality. ST is just playing about with maths and shoe-horning it all to fit a vague idea of unity."Plus he wore shorts like a total cunt" - Bob
-
That's a little disingenuous but the point stands."Plus he wore shorts like a total cunt" - Bob
-
I've never deep dived into the underlying maths, but it seems to me that MWI explains nothing because it allows everything. It's nice, but it feels like a cop-out, especially as surely there'll also be a bunch of worlds where certain laws of physics do not even apply, even if they are needed to underpin the whole thing"I spent years thinking Yorke was legit Downs-ish disabled and could only achieve lucidity through song" - Mr B
-
Did you watch the vid I posted?"Plus he wore shorts like a total cunt" - Bob
-
The cop out is wave paricle duality, which MWI is attempting to resolve."Plus he wore shorts like a total cunt" - Bob
-
To be fair -SpaceGazelle wrote:Did you watch the vid I posted?
That video is an hour long, which is a bit much. Did you watch the video I posted? -
*nods repeatedly hoping ppl assume he's following*Don't wank. Zinc in your sperms
-
voices wrote:To be fair -
That video is an hour long, which is a bit much. Did you watch the video I posted?SpaceGazelle wrote:Did you watch the vid I posted?
Yes."Plus he wore shorts like a total cunt" - Bob -
Tbf it's a good video (mine, and yours). In that hour you might learn quite a bit."Plus he wore shorts like a total cunt" - Bob
-
voices wrote:I will watch when I get a chance, it's just an hour is a long time!
Please do. Much like his predecessor Richard Feynman, Sean Carroll is perhaps the best explainer of physics in our time. That vid is just one of his Royal Institution lectures, and all of them are good. RI lectures are always great, but when Carroll is picked you know it is going to be a bit special."Plus he wore shorts like a total cunt" - Bob -
Armitage_Shankburn wrote:*nods repeatedly hoping ppl assume he's following*
It's not as hard as it seems, you just have to forget everything you think you know. That's the harder part."Plus he wore shorts like a total cunt" - Bob -
SpaceGazelle wrote:you just have to forget everything you think you know.
That's gonna take a LOOOONG time
Don't wank. Zinc in your sperms -
There's a number of places I could put this, but this thread is perhaps the most appropriate place.
Astronaut Chris Hadfield reviews space movies. Honestly, they should send this guy round schools he's so good. Great guy. Great stuff.
Come with g if you want to live... -
This is good...
Come with g if you want to live... -
g.man wrote:There's a number of places I could put this, but this thread is perhaps the most appropriate place.
Astronaut Chris Hadfield reviews space movies. Honestly, they should send this guy round schools he's so good. Great guy. Great stuff.
This was a good watch. Interesting guy to listen to
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Discussions2,715
- Games1,879
- Off topic836