"Quantum untanglement"

[foodchain]

The probability wave idea is problematic to me, in that I want to know where and how the probability is stored and recorded, and how it persists and is "objectified". Perhaps there is some level of description beyond which infinite regression or self-reference is unavoidable. That would then have to qualify as the Final Theory, I suppose.

 

I think if I have my understanding correct a probability wave is more or less a function. For instance in nucleosynthesis the higher elements are products of that system trying to move to "lower" or stable energy states. I think this also reflects in chemical bonding behavior overall here on earth. So you cant remove the probability wave away from what it overall is aiming to describe. I mean have you ever had to do some action in life in which you did not know how to go from point A to B in a timeless instant? It might be that probability is not the most real answer we will have for such in time, but right now it does work empirically as to the actual behavior of such. Also you must remember that such is also derived from the implementation of math, so it will share properties with such in regards to human thought.

[Farsight]

In my preferred view, the observer is the realisation of the record, and subjective probabilities are induced from the observer himself.

 

fredrik, can I say that I now think that there is a very straightforward classical explanation of quantum physics, and this does not involve observers collapsing wave functions or anything similar. I also think that this will become accepted physics fairly soon. How soon, I don't know. And I doubt that I can prove this to your satisfaction. But keep an ear to the ground for developments involving geometry or The Perimeter Institute of LQG.

[fredrik]

I'm not going anywhere, and I'm open to have my opinion challanged by the unexpected. But it would have to fight the intertia of my current opinion and turn the unexpected into the expected and until the unexpected occurs my personal journey continues as per expectations. I need a reason to change direction.

 

/Fredrik

[Farsight]

Do read the New Scientist article and the Joy Christian paper we were talking about earlier. The Simple Theory of Everything paper by A Garrett Lisi was interesting too. It's on anothe thread.

[fredrik]

I just got home from a worktrip.

 

About Christians papers it's not available. I never liked the idea that you have to buy articles. The preview doesn't motivate me to purchase it.

 

Garretts papers seems very interesting as I read it quickly. However he doesn't seem to address the foundational problems from a first principle view. He rather is guided by mathematical beauty. For this reason I see his paper as very interesting, and I hope that people will follow this up, but it does not in that papers make the fundamental reconstruction that I'm personally attraced to and therefore I have not specific comments without analysing the papers i depth. My immediate comments is his from my point of view, choice of problem and method.

 

But I don't see in what sense garretts paper has to do with classical explanation, or what it means?

 

/Fredrik