tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post6525239110691692517..comments2023-09-27T07:44:19.769-04:00Comments on Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: Understanding Quantum Mechanics #1: It's not about discretenessSabine Hossenfelderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comBlogger156125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-74404707982115344392020-08-26T01:04:06.752-04:002020-08-26T01:04:06.752-04:00Hi Jacob Gajek,
I would guess your thinking is cor...Hi Jacob Gajek,<br />I would guess your thinking is correct.<br />But I would not imagine a unit volume as a cube. I think we need a theory that creates structures and spaces between structures. Then, with any luck, everything will fall into place. <br />Have fun<br />StefanStefan Freundthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04834262116439292657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-15831512639570555072020-08-25T17:46:22.885-04:002020-08-25T17:46:22.885-04:00Is there anything wrong with the following argumen...Is there anything wrong with the following argument? We know from the resolution of the black hole information loss paradox that there is an upper bound on the entropy enclosed by any surface. So there is only a finite number of distinct states that the contents of a volume space can be in. But then space must be discrete, because if we could resolve locations in space with arbitrary precision, Jacob Gajekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01373009490897912729noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-39890457660907959302020-07-12T04:56:37.847-04:002020-07-12T04:56:37.847-04:00Weyl quote:
"For as long as I do not proceed...Weyl quote:<br /><br />"For as long as I do not proceed beyond what is given, or, more exactly, what is given at the moment, there is no need for the substructure of an objective world. Even if I include memory and in principle acknowledge it as valid testimony, if I furthermore accept as data the contents of the consciousness of others on equal terms with my own, thus opening myself to the Prof. David Edwardshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16079658994584920395noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-16372967993891520202020-05-12T23:50:44.482-04:002020-05-12T23:50:44.482-04:00Peter,
I do not approve links to websites whose q...Peter,<br /><br />I do not approve links to websites whose quality management I do not know. You posted links to some preprint server I am unfamiliar with. If you could please stick with journal references. I am sure that Dave will be able to find a pdf should he desire to look at it, thank you. Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-92085614813263223732020-05-12T14:48:40.291-04:002020-05-12T14:48:40.291-04:00Hi PhysicistDave
Thank you for your opinion of Ian...Hi PhysicistDave<br />Thank you for your opinion of Ian, for what it was worth, 2c.<br />You had kept asking for Ian's paper so you could give some feedback on it. I did try to post links to free downloads but Sabine must have not thought it worthy.<br />I do think that Ian's chemistry ideas have little to do with QM and he should have named it Bond Wave or something. But I do think Peter Becherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04022891868017776895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-28142648069870152062020-05-12T00:26:53.733-04:002020-05-12T00:26:53.733-04:00Peter Becher wrote to me:
> You are brutal.
Ye...Peter Becher wrote to me:<br />> You are brutal.<br /><br />Yes, I am most certainly brutal to jerks, liars, and con artists.<br /><br />Pete also wrote:<br />>I did not ask anyone to comment on Ian Miller.<br /><br />You mentioned him in a context that appeared to indicate that you did not know Ian's stuff was utter garbage. I did you the courtesy of enlightening you. You owe me a &PhysicistDavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11111405959451703182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-61343166466467936352020-05-11T23:10:20.529-04:002020-05-11T23:10:20.529-04:00Wow PhysicistDave, You are brutal.
I did not ask a...Wow PhysicistDave, You are brutal.<br />I did not ask anyone to comment on Ian Miller. I just mentioned that I got an incite while reading him. I am just reading various things looking for basic concepts. Seems like QM/QFT/QG could use a little more of that.<br />PetePeter Becherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04022891868017776895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-14035564658000173652020-05-11T23:05:59.645-04:002020-05-11T23:05:59.645-04:00Hi Sabine
I cannot imagine why you make such a big...Hi Sabine<br />I cannot imagine why you make such a big deal "That's wrong" about the de Broglie relation and Planck's constant. Seems like a simple answer to set the record strait to your satisfaction. Probably take no longer than your previous answer.<br />PetePeter Becherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04022891868017776895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-83282206692736740552020-05-11T04:09:53.442-04:002020-05-11T04:09:53.442-04:00Peter Becher wrote to me:
>Hi PhysicistDave, to...Peter Becher wrote to me:<br />>Hi PhysicistDave, too bad you do not have anything useful to add to the questions. Ian must rub you guys the wrong way.<br /><br />Pete, I gave <i>extremely</i> detailed explanations above of what is wrong with our pal Ian.<br /><br />Read them.<br /><br />How much of my time do you expect me to waste on this jerk??<br /><br />Look: if you understood high-schoolPhysicistDavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11111405959451703182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-61291386269927808222020-05-11T01:08:34.480-04:002020-05-11T01:08:34.480-04:00I neither have the time nor the patience to give p...I neither have the time nor the patience to give private lectures to any random dude who comes by my blog with their confusions about quantum mechanics. Sign up for a class. Read a book, or maybe better two. Watch some videos on YouTube and try to actually listen. Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-67192145372948065572020-05-10T18:24:10.038-04:002020-05-10T18:24:10.038-04:00Hi PhysicistDave, too bad you do not have anything...Hi PhysicistDave, too bad you do not have anything useful to add to the questions. Ian must rub you guys the wrong way.Peter Becherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04022891868017776895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-11572686917818483842020-05-10T17:34:08.272-04:002020-05-10T17:34:08.272-04:00Real helpful comment Sabine, ha. Then tell us why...Real helpful comment Sabine, ha. Then tell us why it is wrong and what is right! How can it be so wrong if wavelengths are continuous as you say in the video and momentum = h / wavelength?Peter Becherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04022891868017776895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-21626317537855542522020-05-09T06:45:32.092-04:002020-05-09T06:45:32.092-04:00I thought I had responded to this thread. Anyway, ...I thought I had responded to this thread. Anyway, I will make this brief.<br /><br />@Lockley: Getting spacetime to play an active role with QM is what quantum gravitation is all about. At this time, we really do not have a complete theory on that. With the dynamics of the vacuum state and the Casimir effect, it is the case that in general the vacuum is tied to general relativity. The Lawrence Crowellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12090839464038445335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-76760773621973959692020-05-09T03:19:46.812-04:002020-05-09T03:19:46.812-04:00Pete,
When Ian is in a good mood, he admits that ...Pete,<br /><br />When Ian is in a good mood, he admits that his books have pretty much nothing to do with quantum mechanics as worked out by Schrödinger et al. back in the 1920s and as taught today at most of the world's universities.<br /><br />I call his stuff "Ian mechanics," and it is in fact wildly, hilariously wrong.<br /><br />If you want to learn something, study PhysicistDavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11111405959451703182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-63262077287949874982020-05-09T03:06:52.561-04:002020-05-09T03:06:52.561-04:00That's wrong. Please stop submitting ill-infor...That's wrong. Please stop submitting ill-informed comments. Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1876129438966276152020-05-09T02:42:45.728-04:002020-05-09T02:42:45.728-04:00Peter, h IS the quantum of action, and equals 6.62...Peter, h IS the quantum of action, and equals 6.626 x 10^-34 J.s. That is constant, and not a "continuously variable". Momentum and wave length are continuously vsriable, but their product is not.Ian Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17252375814985734176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-86054205154018959782020-05-08T19:05:18.094-04:002020-05-08T19:05:18.094-04:00Hi Sabine, et al.
Thanks for this video. Kind of ...Hi Sabine, et al.<br /><br />Thanks for this video. Kind of late to the comments but... <br />I had been wondering why they make such a big deal of the "quantum". I just lately came to realize the "quantum of action" is continuously variable because h = momentum * wavelength (actually hit me while reading Ian Millers "The Covalent Bond from Guidance Waves" which Peter Becherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04022891868017776895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-47578403052553372552020-05-01T11:52:05.521-04:002020-05-01T11:52:05.521-04:00PhysicistDave wrote: "I suggest you google th...PhysicistDave wrote: "I suggest you google the 'Milne universe'"<br /><br />This is drifting off topic. I don't expect cosmology to shed much light on the quantum "measurement problem".<br /><br />Werner<br />Wernerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08502954437062856468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-74859155361121702642020-05-01T10:24:47.346-04:002020-05-01T10:24:47.346-04:00Dave,
Thanks for the responses. Incidentally, my ...Dave,<br /><br />Thanks for the responses. Incidentally, my comments about “handshakes” of advanced and retarded photons (I can’t help it, I smile every time I type “retarded photons”), that part was straight from Feynman’s own descriptions in one of his popular books, thought I don’t recall which one. He and Wheeler got pretty loopy in all of that, and I think honestly surprised themselves when Terry Bollingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03915136249111338024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-258371722762571582020-05-01T10:19:48.171-04:002020-05-01T10:19:48.171-04:00Jean-Paul, thanks!
While I am literally at the op...Jean-Paul, thanks!<br /><br />While I am literally at the opposite end of quantum interpretation in terms of what I think is the most fundamental interpretation (least bits for maximum predictivity) of quantum mechanics [1], I also love how the de Broglie & Bohm (dBB? I like that) interpretation imposes clarity and challenges sloppy thinking. Bell credited dBB style thinking for coming up Terry Bollingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03915136249111338024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-83120321736407818412020-05-01T05:24:19.336-04:002020-05-01T05:24:19.336-04:00Werner asked me:
>Isn't it a goofy idea tha...Werner asked me:<br />>Isn't it a goofy idea that something expands into the entire universe and collapses to a point in an instant?<br /><br />That bothered me for a long time (decades).<br /><br />The answer turns out to be fairly simple -- at least if you have access to a whiteboard, which we don't here!<br /><br />So, in lieu of a whiteboard, I suggest you google the "Milne PhysicistDavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11111405959451703182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-62560538603165724392020-05-01T04:30:45.853-04:002020-05-01T04:30:45.853-04:00Correct, ''if you have one (quantum parti...Correct, ''if you have one (quantum particle), you also have<br /> the other (waves). For example: if you have ''string particle''<br /> you have all kinds of waves, depends on string frequancies. <br />String theory solved the puzzle of ''wave-particle dualism''<br />===israel sadovnik socratushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05455782761752129698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-4966204326253325702020-05-01T04:03:45.863-04:002020-05-01T04:03:45.863-04:00antooneo wrote to me:
>Yes, I can show it. Ther...antooneo wrote to me:<br />>Yes, I can show it. There was a letter exchange between Lorentz and Einstein. I can send you a facsimile of these handwritten letters. Which way do you want it?<br /><br />Well, I am sure I will not be able to decipher early twentieth-century German handwriting! <br /><br />But, you know, the collected papers of Einstein are available online (in both German and PhysicistDavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11111405959451703182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-73757989606157334452020-04-30T09:17:41.114-04:002020-04-30T09:17:41.114-04:00This makes zero sense because the equation itself ...This makes zero sense because the equation itself already tells you that if you have one, you also have the other. Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-69203712144668458182020-04-30T08:25:13.148-04:002020-04-30T08:25:13.148-04:00The ''quantum'' is E=h*f.
It means...The ''quantum'' is E=h*f.<br />It means:<br />Quantum energy has dualistic ability : h-particle, f-wave<br />====israel sadovnik socratushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05455782761752129698noreply@blogger.com