Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the blogger are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Revan Revan Istian: on 2/21/18 at 5:00am UTC, wrote The middle of the day is beautiful while visiting your yard is so cool that...

sasa sasa: on 1/29/18 at 6:25am UTC, wrote good information Obat Stroke

sasa sasa: on 1/29/18 at 6:22am UTC, wrote nice info Obat Stroke

sasa sasa: on 1/29/18 at 6:21am UTC, wrote it's good and interesting Obat Asam Urat

sasa sasa: on 1/29/18 at 6:19am UTC, wrote it's nice and great Obat Hernia

songjoong df: on 1/2/18 at 8:45am UTC, wrote jual qnc jelly gamat di magelang jual qnc jelly gamat di mataram jual qnc...

songjoong df: on 12/27/17 at 6:34am UTC, wrote cara menjadi reseller qnc jelly gamat Cara Menjadi Agen Qnc Jelly Gamat ...

Brain Wave: on 8/22/17 at 4:42am UTC, wrote Beauty Tips Skin Tips Beauty Tips For Face Natural Beauty Tips Beauty...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Robert McEachern: ""all experiments have pointed towards this and there is no way to avoid..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Steve Agnew, Naturally provided VISIBLE realty am not a silly humanly..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

James Putnam: "Light bends because it is accelerating. It accelerates toward an object..." in Black Hole Photographed...

Steve Agnew: "Stringy and loop quantum are the two big contenders, but neither has a..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Robert McEachern: "Lorenzo, The nature of "information" is well understood outside of..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Georgina Woodward: "Steve, Lorraine is writing about a simpler "knowing " rather than the..." in The Nature of Time

Steve Agnew: "Knowing information necessarily means neural action potentials. Atom and..." in The Nature of Time


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes
The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.


FQXi BLOGS
May 20, 2019

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: The Convexity Club [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Blogger Matthew Saul Leifer wrote on Aug. 15, 2007 @ 17:31 GMT
Plenty of people have been writing about the recent fqxi conference, which was excellent by the way, so I'll write instead about another fqxi-funded event that happened at the beginning of July in St. Catherine's college, Cambridge.



The two-week workshop was entitled Operational Probabilistic Theories as Foils for Quantum Theory and organized by Rob Spekkens, Jonathan Barrett and...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


paul valletta wrote on Aug. 16, 2007 @ 03:02 GMT
"How can we understand why the world obeys quantum theory rather than any of the other theories?"

One can start with the H.U.P?..can one really locate (measure) a particle..anywhere?

If you know a particle's position, you may not know it's momentum. Relative to the process of measure is what one is asking about the process of measure and measurer. The history of a particle WRT time, is "fixed". You can know a particles path in a past history, it is "fixed", without knowing it's path in a future trajectory, "random" and uncertain.

Now WRT the H.U.P, one can make assumptions based on position and momentum, thus:If one knows a particles future path, then it's location history is unknown. (this is my intepretation).

Seems straight forward for observers, time dictates an observer to be the measurer in a "now" context, if the measurer tries to observe a particles future, then the observation will fail to make sense?

Thinking about the "contact" needed for measurement, how does one locate something that has not yet reached there?..I mean I am trying to pinpoint an objects position of where it is "not" ( it's future location ), by determining where it is ( where it HAS been ), the possible way I can determine a full observation measurment, is to perform the measuments at a very fast rate,(signaling the results performed, to confirm measures taken) faster than the devise is capable of?

The is a limit of observation, random variables operate differently for every measure needed, if say one random variable becomes known (random variable of particles future location), then the corrsponding momentum (which is really nothing more than the particles history), will become unknown, or in the context of particle interactions, become a changed (as opposed to fixed, perminant) factor.

This can be translated to the appearance of "unmeasured" particles, and dissapearance of "measured" particles, as QM shows.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Blogger Matthew Saul Leifer wrote on Aug. 16, 2007 @ 16:48 GMT
I think this is a fairly conventional view, but I don't think the HUP can really be used as a founding principle for quantum theory, at least not in its usual form. In particular, it is not strong enough to entail the canonical commutation relations. In fact, having something like a HUP is another thing that's going to be generic in the framework I described.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Bee wrote on Aug. 20, 2007 @ 13:33 GMT
off topic: there's something wrong with the picture placement using Internet Explorer (pics are on top of each other and cover the text).

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ian Durham wrote on Aug. 27, 2007 @ 01:18 GMT
Actually, the commutation relations *lead* to HUP (well, to Schrödinger's generalization of HUP) so, in a sense, you'd almost be better off building everything on that (the commutation relations). In essence, what I think Matt is describing is a generalization that contains sets of inequalities, one class of which are Schrödinger's generalized HUP, and so forth. Reminds me a bit of something I tried to do once with set theory (http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0508076). I don't think I was terribly successful, but I'm sure these insanely smart folks will succeed.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


paul valletta wrote on Aug. 28, 2007 @ 19:40 GMT
Ian, are you the same I T Durham, as cited in this co-incedetally topic relevant recent paper? :http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.3519

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.