I really appreciate Dr. Oriti's comments at the end because I must say I was feeling rather foolish after hearing Dr. Catani's explanation of the Toy Feild Model. In particular, I was very tripped up by the epistemic restriction. It seemed to me as if Dr. Catani was saying that the experimenter's knowledge about the system changed the values of variables within that system. This seemed to me every bit as mysterious as the issues posed by Quantum Mechanics. In particular, it seemed both observer-dependent and nonlocal> Dr. Oriti, provided me with a bit of orientation and now I -- timidly -- believe I understand the Toy Feild Theory to be saying: "Suppose we lived in a world where it just so happened to be the case that any detector we could possibly build also had the property that it randomly adjusts the phase" I think I understand Dr. Cantani then to be saying: "Set aside the question of why it is that detectors must operate this way, just accepting that they do does not in any way violate classicality" If I am headed down the correct road then I think I appreciate Dr. Cantani's point about being specific. However, I think its at a minimum confusing to say that this refutes Feymen's claim. That's because before confirmation that Bell's inequalities were violated the mysteries of quantum mechanics could be characterized as principally an epistemic phenomenon. We were just not allowed to know certain combinations of things about quantum particles. Then lots of concerns about the really of values one cannot know came in as a philosophy of science concern. I think what we ordinarily identify as the pathbreaking contribution by Bell is to show that this goes beyond the epistemic and that the existence of such values is not merely philosophically vacous but experimentally inconsistent. It seems, again I say timidly, that Dr. Canati is essentially making this same point over again. Is that correct? Have I grossly misunderstood?

Observer dependence is already required by the *classical* theories of special and general relativity. There you have observer dependent classical quantities like momentum or time. Consequently in relativistic theories you get observer dependent quantum quantities e.g. particle numbers of a quantum field. If you drop observer dependence, you will be completely on the wrong way. Therefore I had to vote this down.

Can't even contextuality be explained classically? There is a paper "Classical systems can be contextual too: Analogue of the Mermin-Peres square". But it requires updating of internal states between the two things measured, so it still breaks down unless nonlocal effects are added to it. That to me seems to imply to me that contextuality is not inherently "quantum" only the fact it seems to be able to occur over distances, so the deviation from classical mechanics is not contextuality but nonlocality explicitly. I also kind of wonder if you could just update the toy model to include these kinds of nonlocal updates if it could be extended to explain all quantum phenomenon, or if doing so would cause it to break down.

I believe that things travelling at light speed outpace time. This means that the object is eternal and therfore exists in all positions all of relevant time. This is a far more tiddly manner to answer the double slit conundrum. Eternal Super Position is the premise I propose to you. Tthe wave is time because we are subject to time as the observers. Time and space are connected and behave together in wave form. Our reality. My further premise.

@r.g.j.leclaire8963

Жыл бұрын

So would the wave be a result of something similar as on the one hand the frames per second generated by a computer, and on the other hand the refresh rate of the monitor? Such that certain frames would not be visible due to the refresh rate being lower or out of sync, just like how time would be the limiting factor in observing the super position?

@MrJch24

Жыл бұрын

@@r.g.j.leclaire8963 Well put.

@r.g.j.leclaire8963

Жыл бұрын

@@MrJch24 thanks 🙂 glad I understood you correctly