theory salon - 2019-09-18

« first day (2272 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (1357 days later) »

4:12 AM

Surely Scott knows his stuff?? I actually have read a bit of the paper in question ... The source of noise he expects is due to engineering contraints :/

He himself says: "conclusions about small-scale quantum systems from insights of the theory of computation that are usually applied to large systems" ... The engineering is obviously gonna play a massive role .. It's kinda like someone came up with a proof that says if you u use traditional engineering then you can't have semi-conductor electronics (agreed with pre semi-conductor technology ... you can't)

Ur missing out on those quantum computing stocks :P

@vzn "Closing in on a solution" ... on collatz conjecture? Using some data science techniques ?? Whats the confusion matrix of your results? (just curious)

4:25 AM

Also you can catch a glimpse of the depth of Scott's knowledge here (on alternative interpretations) here: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/34588/shors-algorithm-and-bohmian-mechanics ....

The real problem with these non-standard interpretations of QM is they have to somehow explain or unexplain quantum probability (for example it's really difficult to talk about conditional probability in QM) and quantum computation ...

.... Here's the relevant paper for quantum probability:

file:///Users/zomato/Downloads/Dialnet-OnQuantumConditionalProbability-4141434.pdf

AI Agents Startle Researchers With Unexpected Hide-and-Seek Strategies / ieee spectrum

5:24 AM

Whoops wrong file liknk (forgot I downloaded it)

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/345402/how-is-conditional-probability-handled-in-quantum-mechanics

11 hours later…

4:18 PM

@MoreAnonymous agreed, probability is at the heart of the problem, which is very subtle in many ways. think QM probability is not exactly what people think it is.

4:52 PM

@vzn I agree ... Whatever it is I bet it's not "classical probability" ... Then the question remains how will this notion of probability affect "computation" since a computer which was running on "determinism" (with some semi-conductor physics :P) will different from the computer created to harness this notion of probability

I'm sure quantum mechanics has waaay more potential in computing than "the ultimate random generator"

1 hour later…

6:09 PM

@vzn I worked on an interesting math problem today at work and I think I created a pretty decent algorithm :)) Wonder if a better one is possible :))

1 hour later…

7:30 PM

@MoreAnonymous have some deep ideas on that but few are listening... have been looking for an audience for years... :|

@vzn How much meat (math) is on these bones (ideas)?

@MoreAnonymous years of blogs man! copious refs! try reading 1!

@vzn Do these "copious refs" have math?

@vzn also here's something I was curious about you thought about stuff? the "equivalence principle + "quantum mechanics" = something impossible? Got any refs that on that subject?

I was recently working on getting outta Penrose's contradiction of this problem

If you have anything (even blogposts) please let me know?

Thats a problem that could use outta the box thinking (even at an idea of words level)

8:46 PM

user image

^couldn't google anything :(((

@MoreAnonymous (lol!) its an entire paradigm! o_O

@vzn Alright what would be a good intro (blog post or otherwise) to this paradigm?

Sep 15 at 16:51, by vzn

@MoreAnonymous this is my last general writeup https://vzn1.wordpress.com/2018/05/25/fluid-paradigm-shift-2018/ it cites borns law briefly, the idea is connection/ analogy to EM energy density...

How do talk about "QM + GR path" without any love for the equivalence principle :(((

@vzn Anyway I'll tell u what I think about it?

@MoreAnonymous just didnt approach it from that angle like Einstein did.

8:55 PM

@vzn hmmm... So how do you bring GR to the table?

@MoreAnonymous its all about refs by Tenev + Horstemeyer on "spacetime fabric" which coincidentally, not noticed by them or anyone else so far, is also the madelung fluid, they have 2 brilliant refs.

"Maxwell had some very old ideas that relate to cellular automata theory of physics EM field/ space propagation" - I'm getting the impression Maxwell was referring to ether ?

@MoreAnonymous yes, Maxwell had an idea of ether that was largely thrown out (now buried in sands of time so to speak)... these old ideas, influential at the time, are no longer found in textbook even some about physics history...

@vzn I suspect for good reason ...

@MoreAnonymous Michelson-Morley experiment had the effect of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater"...

9:09 PM

Alright .. I skimmed through most of it. And I wanted to tell you my impression either your going about something "profound" or your using old theories to justify some "misinterpretation/misconception." I'd have to really invest time to distinguish which one it is. In any case my advice to you would be "what a waste would it have been if Einstein shared his physical insights but never made contact with mathematical form of his ideas( or laws)."

If your putting in this kind of time "learn" the mathematics of the physical world! If it turns out you were wrong so what? Atleast you stopped being wrong. If you were right all along .. Well I don't need to tell you more about Einstein do I?

re ether, sometimes wonder if relativistic nature of de Broglie wavelength is evidence of ether ala Michelson-Morley type experiment. much like Doppler waves. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_invariance

@MoreAnonymous am generally familiar with the math of the physics world, theres copious math in the cited refs. but yes need to develop the math further. have long been looking for a collaborator on that.

@vzn Ah ... That's quite interesting. Are you doing so through "formal education" or autodidactly (self taught)? If possible I'd recommend "formal education" otherwise I could recommend you some links (though I'm not sure what you'd really need (which tools of math)". As for looking for a "collaborator" I'm not sure that's pragmatic. A collaborator for the maths side of stuff would require him to share your insights and understand them deeper to translate them into an equation.

9:24 PM

@MoreAnonymous Einstein had Grossmann. BS software engr here, heavy on math + physics. science is ultimately about "sharing insights," in different ways. actually all the equations already exist, they just have to be stitched/ sewn together so to speak.

For example, look at this math formula I discovered: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2888976/the-definite-integral-problem-with-a-twist

I was a process of years. It took me years to identify a problem (mentioned in the question) that I felt intuitively the solution existed. I then attacked the problem for another year even lowering my standards of mathematics to derive it "conjectured formula." After which I started attacking the conjecture with simple to crazy examples. This gave me insights of what the problem I was attacking was really about (it was more convoluted than the pro…

@vzn If you see my anecdote above you'll see I'm not disagreeing with you.

@MoreAnonymous lol not disagreeing with you either :P

@vzn I'd be willing to attempt to play Grossmann's role. But let be warn you my knowlegde is limited. So take everything with a pinch of salt. Also you make it sound as though the ideas were always in the air the people where just in the wrong place and wrong time. So it's alot of ground we'd have to cover.

For me to even say you might have to learn x, y or z. Maybe some combination can help you? I'd recommend you try some physics modules (maybe skip 1st year if your confident with classical mechanics and calculus used there?) ?
Usually in physics the math pattern is math or theory A is one level below it's fundamental counter-part of theory B ... So even if I did give you the right suggestions. You would have a lot of things to catch up before you could even touvh the advanced mathematics your theory requires.

@MoreAnonymous the ideas are definitely in the air, have been for many decades, even over a century, and are starting to consolidate in new ways. yes there is a lot of ground to cover, that is clear to me, it will require a very extended collaboration... with "somebody". think you are somewhat mistaken however about the theory requiring very advanced math. there is an idea that hard problems require very advanced math. my feeling is that something crucial has been missed up until now.

9:41 PM

@vzn Just so you know I don't think any knowledgeable mathematician would be willing to collaborate. You'd have to get your ideas to a point where you construct a "well -defined" problem ...

@MoreAnonymous the problem is well defined. please dont assume it isnt. havent laid out all details in my blog (yet). there are strong hints. btw yes, some of the math will turn out to be very advanced, anything to do with solitons. but there is an interface with conventional QM, a crux of the new theory, which think will turn out to be not extremely complex. its more about the complexity of emergence from simple components.

@vzn Ah .. would you be willing to share a well-defined formulation? Then maybe it would be possible to bring on board a mathematician. You must have worked a lot and for many years to get it to this point.

@MoreAnonymous thx for your openness. we can start when you are ready/ have time.

@vzn Well there is something called "topology" which is supposed to be fairly easy maths. But getting mileage from it in the fundamental theory of gravity is something I think only 1 nobel laureate proposed something like that?

Sep 15 at 16:55, by More Anonymous

@vzn same ... Im really tired I'll have read that blogpost another time

↑ lol not the time to bring on board a mathematician :P

9:46 PM

@vzn I'd prefer a latex (though word would be okay too) ... Not tonight though it's already 3 in the morning. I'll try to give maybe an hours time one day? (I'll schedule it with you?)

@MoreAnonymous my theory is not much topological at all. leaving topology to the string theorists.

@MoreAnonymous it will have to start out in chat. it involves you looking at derivations/ math/ following up on claims. it will have to start as Socratic. there is no need to schedule. just type when youre ready. :)

@vzn topology comes in qft as well .. Ask me one idea of the mathematicians the physicists haven't tried to use?

@MoreAnonymous remember, youre talking to a fan of the Riemann-QM link.

@vzn Thank you. Will an hour be enough to cover ground. And I'm a bit rusty with physics at the moment. So can you let me know in advanced which topics I'm needed to know even being broad is okay like GR or QFT or QM (though specific would be better)

@MoreAnonymous (lol, no, thx you!) an hr is a good start. but really all thats needed is regular return to chat at whatever intervals. extended sessions can advance more at a time.

9:50 PM

@vzn Sure just give me heads up on the involved topics as well :)

@vzn I have a friend who did a solitons module at university thought he's busy writing up his PhD at CERN

@MoreAnonymous (cool!) solitons are going to play a starring role (to say the least) in the future of physics but almost nobody )( realizes it yet.

@vzn "almost nobody realizes it yet." The reason my friend did this module was because his Adviser said they're gonna play a massive role. I guess there maybe more people than you think.

@MoreAnonymous MUSIC TO MY EARS! would really like to get the name of that advisor and any refs he likes on the subj! + get your friend into chat too :)

@vzn Sure! I'll ask my friend (he may not reply since he's busy with CERN PhD. But I can find out who the adviser is. But my friend only told me this story because he was complaining about how he took a "useless" module because of his adviser :P

@MoreAnonymous (lol!) exactly. so your story seems to fit my point doesnt it?

in Computer Science, Dec 23 '16 at 2:06, by vzn

> People stumble over the truth from time to time, but most get up and go on as if nothing had happened. —Churchill

9:57 PM

@vzn Haha... I'd say the adviser's opinion is more valuable than my friends. And there's no way he was the only one.

@MoreAnonymous its a small group, adherents are relatively rare right now, its even ridiculed by the mainstream at times, and theres power in numbers so networking is absolutely crucial at this stage.

Any how if we find the adviser it shouldn't be impossible to use ctrl + f and find a solitons papers on his reseach papers list (but let me fb message him first to get the name)

@MoreAnonymous thx yes routinely do stuff like that, thats how have gotten to this point with all the blogs etc... youre right theres been a lot of work so far, but so much work remains. started getting into this stuff ~2decades ago, yes am largely selftaught in the area. sometimes its slow, sometimes its fast. have seen incredible vindications of the overall directions in the last decade and even last few years. has given me great confidence. its unmistakably building momentum.

@vzn Also I don't think it's a great idea to bring this friend into the chat. You kinda have to win his respect for him to listen to you with an open mind. He can put you in a box as "useless" making it even harder for you to make your point. I've suffered due this from this very friend.

It's a different story I persevered and made my point and he was shocked something which sounded so bizzare could make sense (forget what exactly it was we were arguing about). Anyway I'd be slightly wary of this friend. Maybe later?

@MoreAnonymous have been put into a box for many years by Physics regulars, still alive and kicking, but yes some hard close )( calls. its sparring practice for me. am not afraid at all of your friend. think it would be delightful to (cyber-)meet him. he was smart enough to take the class. :)

10:08 PM

@vzn Umm ... I'm not sure this is a good idea. It was east for me to persevere because I was the guy who'd hook him up with dates :P Otherwise it would have been an incomplete conversation ... Yes he is also smart enough to called one of the brightest in our batch .. Clever guy .. Definately useful, I've approached him in the past and he'll say some technical buzzword which I don't know. I'll google it and see it's the formalisation of the thing I'm talking about.

Though our online conversations have gone down due CERN and maybe even me not being a source of his dates due to geographical location constraints :P

@MoreAnonymous ofc its a good idea until proven otherwise :P this paradigm (shift) will need the smartest ppl it can get. thx for your own attn! anyway you cant believe the brainpower that has gone thru the Physics room over the years, its extremely formidable, quite a few Phds over the years, etc... :) ofc theres a lot of noise around it too...

@vzn Anyway gotta go dude! me sleepy got office tomorrow. Give me a ping with list of topics?

@MoreAnonymous (cheers!) 1st thing to think about: a sound digitizer.

10:42 PM

Quantum Chemistry Breakthrough: DeepMind Uses Neural Networks to Tackle Schrödinger Equation / medium

« first day (2272 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (1357 days later) »

Transcript for

Sep '1918

theory salon

theoretical computer science. highlight reel vzn1.wordpress.co...

join this room
about this room

00:00

06:00

12:00

18:00

all times are UTC

site design / logo © 2024 Stack Exchange Inc; legal

mobile