QuoteOriginally posted by: thedocQuoteOriginally posted by: DevonFangsQuoteOriginally posted by: thedocFor choice, I favour something along the lines of the Relational or von Neumann/Wigner interpretations.People have often called me a Kant. Joking aside, I prefer that QM is a model on which we can assess various physical measurements a la a Kant's interpretation of reality. Some of these are described well be Schrodinger (energy jumps of electrons), other require refinement of Dirac (the fine grade splitting of the energy jumps) and still others require QED (the further finer splitting). However at the end of the day these are all models, and arguably much of the various interpretations attempt to do is propose various models to take into account the philosophical inconsistencies there are in QM.Now if it is a model then why should we care about the philosophical impact: well I would say for the same reasons that we cared as to why the electron jump energies were not exactly aligned to the Schrodinger prediction. The model does not take into account the paradox that "measurement" in QM means something, but what it means no-one can agree.I don't believe that there is such a deep rooted philosophical / metaphysical issue with Relativity (that is not to say that I believe god does not play dice - I am pretty sure she might) - however it is more consistent (also willing to be proved wrong). Also don't misunderstand me: there are a host of other issues with GR - specifically that you can write a metric that will define a universe however you may want it!If we are to come up with a "theory of everything" then we cannot have paradoxes

Quoteanother one for Cuchulainn, very special!23 10 4004This brings tears to my eyes; it's a nice universal number.

a physicist Kirzhnits wrote in memoirs that Lev Landau once told him that an electron inside atom is extremely shaggy. that's how you interpret quantum mechanics. he used a Russian word взлохмаченный, which I can't translate properly

I spit on your wave particle duality here

QuoteOriginally posted by: rmaxI spit on your wave particle duality hereI measure the position and momentum of your particle of spit!

I have seen a talk of one of the students of Steinberg at CLEO US. If I remember well it's only the average of the position and the impulsion he measures so there is no violation of the Heinsenberg principle. I should read the scientific article though.Some people like Rmax, T4A and quantmeh for example have the duality physicist/finance guy. Some day you measure them they are physicists, the other day they are finance guys but in average I can say they are more finance guys. What they will be exactly tommorow I have no idea

QuoteOriginally posted by: frenchXSome people like Rmax, T4A and quantmeh for example have the duality physicist/finance guy. Some day you measure them they are physicists, the other day they are finance guys but in average I can say they are more finance guys. What they will be exactly tommorow I have no idea I'm feeling particularly particulate today. I think I'll avoid the slit with rmax's spit on it.

QuoteOriginally posted by: frenchXI have seen a talk of one of the students of Steinberg at CLEO US. If I remember well it's only the average of the position and the impulsion he measures so there is no violation of the Heinsenberg principle. I should read the scientific article though.Some people like Rmax, T4A and quantmeh for example have the duality physicist/finance guy. Some day you measure them they are physicists, the other day they are finance guys but in average I can say they are more finance guys. What they will be exactly tommorow I have no idea Correct. That is my understanding.QuoteI think I'll avoid the slit with rmax's spit on it.and that could be misconstrued!

QuoteOriginally posted by: rmaxQuoteI think I'll avoid the slit with rmax's spit on it.and that could be misconstrued!Only by IMF Managing Directors.

We can't define anything precisely. If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers? one saying to the other: "you don't know what you are talking about!". The second one says: "what do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you? What do you mean by know?"- Richard Feynman, Lectures on Physics, Volume I, 8-2

QuoteOriginally posted by: trackstarWe can't define anything precisely. If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers? one saying to the other: "you don't know what you are talking about!". The second one says: "what do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you? What do you mean by know?"- Richard Feynman, Lectures on Physics, Volume I, 8-2Indeed!

QuoteOriginally posted by: PolterComputer:"WWW"

QuoteOriginally posted by: frenchXI have seen a talk of one of the students of Steinberg at CLEO US. If I remember well it's only the average of the position and the impulsion he measures so there is no violation of the Heinsenberg principle. I should read the scientific article though.Some people like Rmax, T4A and quantmeh for example have the duality physicist/finance guy. Some day you measure them they are physicists, the other day they are finance guys but in average I can say they are more finance guys. What they will be exactly tommorow I have no idea I disagree. Finance and quantum mechanics are so similar, there's hardly any distinction. In QM there are particles, states and transition probabilities (forget waves); in finance there are money particles, asset states and transition probabilities.