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

paul valletta: on 8/28/07 at 19:40pm UTC, wrote Ian, are you the same I T Durham, as cited in this co-incedetally topic...

Ian Durham: on 8/27/07 at 1:18am UTC, wrote Actually, the commutation relations *lead* to HUP (well, to...

Bee: on 8/20/07 at 13:33pm UTC, wrote off topic: there's something wrong with the picture placement using...

Matthew Leifer: on 8/16/07 at 16:48pm UTC, wrote I think this is a fairly conventional view, but I don't think the HUP can...

paul valletta: on 8/16/07 at 3:02am UTC, wrote "How can we understand why the world obeys quantum theory rather than any...

Matthew Leifer: on 8/15/07 at 17:31pm UTC, wrote Plenty of people have been writing about the recent fqxi conference, which...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "I think i have experienced some aspects of my foetal neuro-biological ..." in Searching for Physical...

Jason Wolfe: "Georgina, The spirit is fully integrated into the biochemistry of the..." in Searching for Physical...

Jason Wolfe: "Many years ago, I learned a difficult truth to practice. I learned that..." in The Nature of Time

Jason Wolfe: "The speed of light is both a clock and a ruler. Speed of light c=..." in The Nature of Time

Zeeya Merali: "You're invited to a special free film screening and panel discussion event,..." in Film Screening: "Infinite...

jim hughes: "I'm not a mathematician, so the math part is mostly lost on me. And I'm..." in Structure Invention by...

Charles Harrow: "The AI only works really well in the "comfort zone", i.e. under test..." in Is Causality Fundamental?

Jason Wolfe: "In all honesty, I'm not even sure what intelligent and educated people..." in Generalised Integrated...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Lockdown Lab Life
Grounded physicists are exploring the use of online and virtual-reality conferencing, and AI-controlled experiments, to maintain social distancing. Post-pandemic, these positive innovations could make science more accessible and environmentally-friendly.

Is Causality Fundamental?
Untangling how the human perception of cause-and-effect might arise from quantum physics, may help us understand the limits and the potential of AI.

Building Agency in the Biology Lab
Physicists are using optogenetics techniques to make a rudimentary agent, from cellular components, which can convert measurements into actions using light.

Think Quantum to Build Better AI
Investigating how quantum memory storage could aid machine learning and how quantum interactions with the environment may have played a role in evolution.

Outside the Box
A proposed quantum set-up that could predict your game-playing strategy resurrects Newcomb’s classic quiz show paradox.


FQXi BLOGS
July 16, 2020

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.