Beyond Quantum Mechanics [video]
youtube.com
Beyond Quantum Mechanics [video]
1–10 of 19 posts
Re: Beyond Quantum Mechanics [video]
#2[deleted]
Re: Beyond Quantum Mechanics [video]
#3He gets to the meat of his argument at 22:37
https://youtu.be/jvsTVlwek-g?t=1357
Essentially that the Bell theorem is wrong because his definition of causality was incorrect. I'm in no position to comment on it one way or another, but it seems like quite an odd forum to be presenting his case.
Re: Beyond Quantum Mechanics [video]
#4He gets to the meat of his argument at 22:37 https://youtu.be/jvsTVlwek-g?t=1357 Essentially that the Bell theorem is wrong because his definition of causality was incorrect. I'm in no position to comment on it one way or another, but it seems like quite an odd forum to be presenting his case.
A less odd forum, where he presents his ideas, is his book "The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics":
> https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-319-41285-6
Re: Beyond Quantum Mechanics [video]
#5If you're interested in learning t'Hooft's theory in detail here's a link to download his book for FREE. You have to pay for a physical copy but Springer has decided to make this book open access.
Re: Beyond Quantum Mechanics [video]
#6Some 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.
Re: Beyond Quantum Mechanics [video]
#7He gets to the meat of his argument at 22:37 https://youtu.be/jvsTVlwek-g?t=1357 Essentially that the Bell theorem is wrong because his definition of causality was incorrect. I'm in no position to comment on it one way or another, but it seems like quite an odd forum to be presenting his case.
Empirically, what draws laymen to science talks is the star power of the speaker, not the correctness of the talk. A talk by a Nobel laureate will always be vastly better attended then one by a qualified nobody, even if the former is taking an unusual position disputed by other laureates and the rest of the community, and the latter is skillfully presenting the community consensus.
Re: Beyond Quantum Mechanics [video]
#8One 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 plank length in all directions and whose spins must orient along the lattice in 90deg transformations
Re: Beyond Quantum Mechanics [video]
#9He gets to the meat of his argument at 22:37 https://youtu.be/jvsTVlwek-g?t=1357 Essentially that the Bell theorem is wrong because his definition of causality was incorrect. I'm in no position to comment on it one way or another, but it seems like quite an odd forum to be presenting his case.
Make an absurd assumption get an absurd conclusion.
Re: Beyond Quantum Mechanics [video]
#10While 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)