Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Beyond Quantum Mechanics [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–19 of 19 posts

Re: Beyond Quantum Mechanics [video]

#11

Post by n4r9 »

automada wrote: post #8

One quantum automata question I have is this: is there a rigid lattice that the photons exists on? If one photon is able to exist at any arbitrary position and at any arbitrary spin orientation it would seem simple to imagine an event space between two photons having a distance between 0 and the plank length Unless there is a lattice that ensures that all photons are minimally oriented at a distance of at least a pla…

I believe so. Here is a recent review article: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1904.13318.pdf

Re: Beyond Quantum Mechanics [video]

#12

Post by wolfgke »

danbmil99 wrote: post #10

While the math in this paper is way too dense for me to fully comprehend, the larger premise here -- that the mysteries of quantum mechanics as presently understood mask a deeper, deterministic, discontinuous regime -- is actually gaining ground in many quarters. (Disclaimer: I co-authored a paper referenced in the article)

> (Disclaimer: I co-authored a paper referenced in the article)

The submission links to a video, not a paper. Thus: what paper are you referring to?

Re: Beyond Quantum Mechanics [video]

#13

Post by danbmil99 »

wolfgke wrote: post #12
danbmil99 wrote: post #10

While the math in this paper is way too dense for me to fully comprehend, the larger premise here -- that the mysteries of quantum mechanics as presently understood mask a deeper, deterministic, discontinuous regime -- is actually gaining ground in many quarters. (Disclaimer: I co-authored a paper referenced in the article)

> (Disclaimer: I co-authored a paper referenced in the article) The submission links to a video, not a paper. Thus: what paper are you referring to?

I should have specified I was talking about the book "The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics" mentioned in the thread.

The paper he references is "Two-state, Reversible, Universal Cellular Automata in Three Dimensions"

Re: Beyond Quantum Mechanics [video]

#14

Post by trevyn »

jessriedel wrote: post #6

Some context: t' Hooft the man is treated with great reverence among physicists for his many impressive accomplishments and deep physical insight, but the overwhelming majority think he is dead wrong on quantum mechanics. Even among the small number of nonconformists who would describe their primary work as on the foundations of quantum mechanics, his position is a distinctly minority one.

Einstein also personally believed in complete determinism and lack of free will, but did not formulate a solid argument before he decohered.

See also superdeterminism: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism

It’s interesting that it’s possible for there to be unfalsifiable theories that are nevertheless true, widely believed, and inform how we might approach everyday problems. While not able to be “proved”, it still may be possible one day to come up with large amounts of evidence in favor of such a theory; Stephen Wolfram’s work and ideas seem like they could be in the right direction, even if it is only the very first initial steps: “If the rules are simple enough, one might be able to do something that seems quite outrageous: just search the universe of all possible rules, and find our own physical universe.” - https://blog.wolfram.com/2007/09/11/my-hobby-hunting-for-our...

While the scientific method is extraordinarily effective for questions in its domain of applicability, there are questions that exist out of that domain on which we can nevertheless make progress.

Re: Beyond Quantum Mechanics [video]

#15

Post by trevyn »

automada wrote: post #8

One quantum automata question I have is this: is there a rigid lattice that the photons exists on? If one photon is able to exist at any arbitrary position and at any arbitrary spin orientation it would seem simple to imagine an event space between two photons having a distance between 0 and the plank length Unless there is a lattice that ensures that all photons are minimally oriented at a distance of at least a pla…

Possibly but not necessarily; one of the models is where the fabric of spacetime itself is constructed from an automata where individual graph edges reconfigure as part of the evolution of the automata; this could be responsible for relativistic distortions of spacetime.

It gets really interesting when you consider that the lowest-level edges do not have to obey what appears to be local speed-of-light restrictions — entangled photons could have a “thread” cutting across the higher-level emergent spacetime that could provide a simple mechanism for “action at a distance” that does not actually allow external information to be transferred from one location to another, just information internal to the functioning of a superdeterministic universe. (Though, strictly speaking, if you believe in superdeterminism, you don’t need such a mechanism, but it could be useful for convincing other humans.)

Re: Beyond Quantum Mechanics [video]

#16

Post by ngcc_hk »

jessriedel wrote: post #6

Some context: t' Hooft the man is treated with great reverence among physicists for his many impressive accomplishments and deep physical insight, but the overwhelming majority think he is dead wrong on quantum mechanics. Even among the small number of nonconformists who would describe their primary work as on the foundations of quantum mechanics, his position is a distinctly minority one.

Any summary of the key difference. As long as it opinion with some ground, it would be nice to see competition of ideas not just one voice

Re: Beyond Quantum Mechanics [video]

#17

Post by kittiepryde »

trevyn wrote: post #14
jessriedel wrote: post #6

Some context: t' Hooft the man is treated with great reverence among physicists for his many impressive accomplishments and deep physical insight, but the overwhelming majority think he is dead wrong on quantum mechanics. Even among the small number of nonconformists who would describe their primary work as on the foundations of quantum mechanics, his position is a distinctly minority one.

Einstein also personally believed in complete determinism and lack of free will, but did not formulate a solid argument before he decohered. See also superdeterminism: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism It’s interesting that it’s possible for there to be unfalsifiable theories that are nevertheless true, widely believed, and inform how we might approach everyday problems. While not able to be “proved”,…

(I'm new to this concept) Does free will in the context mean, people's actions could be predicted? Is it just referring to particles as having free will?

If it's people, is it generally considered that if a person could be accurately modeled and predicted, then they have no free will?

Re: Beyond Quantum Mechanics [video]

#18

Post by jessriedel »

ngcc_hk wrote: post #16
jessriedel wrote: post #6

Some context: t' Hooft the man is treated with great reverence among physicists for his many impressive accomplishments and deep physical insight, but the overwhelming majority think he is dead wrong on quantum mechanics. Even among the small number of nonconformists who would describe their primary work as on the foundations of quantum mechanics, his position is a distinctly minority one.

Any summary of the key difference. As long as it opinion with some ground, it would be nice to see competition of ideas not just one voice

If I recall, t' Hooft thinks that at very short distances nature is described by something like a (local) cellular automata. This is in tension with Bell's inequality, so I think he postulates superdeterminism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism

Re: Beyond Quantum Mechanics [video]

#19

Post by trevyn »

kittiepryde wrote: post #17
trevyn wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Einstein also personally believed in complete determinism and lack of free will, but did not formulate a solid argument before he decohered. See also superdeterminism: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism It’s interesting that it’s possible for there to be unfalsifiable theories that are nevertheless true, widely believed, and inform how we might approach everyday problems. While not able to be “proved”,…

(I'm new to this concept) Does free will in the context mean, people's actions could be predicted? Is it just referring to particles as having free will? If it's people, is it generally considered that if a person could be accurately modeled and predicted, then they have no free will?

Superdeterminism implies that people’s actions are fully determined for their entire lives, but we would likely not be able to predict them in any meaningful way even if we had access to all the necessary information, because the computation would be too large to handle. (The “you need a computer more powerful than the universe to compute the universe faster than the universe computes itself” argument.)

In the PDF book linked elsewhere in these comments, t’ Hooft makes the argument that what we mean colloquially by “free will” is more of an emotional definition, and he proposes a rigorous scientific definition that may be more productive.

(Of course, given certain neural data from a person, we can predict certain actions on the order of 100’s of ms in advance of the person’s conscious awareness of choice, so...)

Post reply on HN