Dear Alex: This is the old view, held for centuries. Determining when disorder occur is not easy. Computers use “Monte Carlo” to create apparent disorder. Fractals have shown that apparent disorder can be caused by definite order. “Chaos” has become a mystery.

In the Tokomak Fusion Reactors, chaos in the plasma is the number one problem. So, also old, the problem is crucial. In hypersonic flight, chaos can’t be computed. We will need QC or something.

“Chaos”, or even randomness, has to be banned from the Quantum Computer.

The open problem is whether chaos can be created at a distance, through Quantum Entanglement. This is what Quantum Theory says. Quantum correction codes ought to be able to handle this (they are being developed).

PA

LikeLike

]]>LikeLike

]]>Well… Remember my argument about inertia? That seems to me a prime candidate for a global entanglement effect.

Right now, people look at entanglement of degree one, so to speak… And even that is controversial!

LikeLike

]]>that wired website link certainly helped me understand quantum pilot wave stuff little better. It resonated with me more than the probabilistic quantum stuff.

I can imagine there is some-underlying force connected through out all space…like fluid. The entanglement has to be related to that somehow.

what percent of a certain causality is due to space…5% ? Its hard to imagine the other end of the universe has anything more than .0001% influence on causality in here.

LikeLike

]]>Applications from pure Quantum Physics are coming, in many domains. They are also penetrating theory, from solid state to biology. The metamorphosis has a high probability of happening in the next few years.

I have been thinking (nearly) all my life on how to extend, explain Quantum Physics. Here too, things are moving. It will make Quantum “weirdness” something desirable and obvious.

In classical mechanics determinism depends upon an evolution equation and Cauchy Data. In Quantum, one has to add a space to that. So Quantum takes context into account in a way classical does not.

In the essay, I did not wax lyrical on Entanglement. But that clearly extends space beyond Relativity’s causal light cone.

LikeLike

]]>may be there will be something more fundamental than quantum in the future, and causality expands again ?

LikeLike

]]>Indeed. If Riemann was 9 Richter, Aristarchus was 10, Poincare’ at least 8, De Broglie may be 8 too (time will tell), and Einstein 6. (Or maybe more, mostly because of… EPR? But then that involves Popper)

LikeLike

]]>Einstein “hid his sources” he said so himself, that was quoting him.

LikeLike

]]>What struck me with the connection to Bohm was that Bohm wrote a book called “Wholeness and the implicate order” in which everything is linked and non-local.

Mi, I believe v is more significant. I don’t like taking the square root of mass from the kinetic energy. Note E= ppcc + mcc is not dimensionally valid as written.

As for Einstein, his paper “On the electrodynamics of bodies in motion” (technically, the title was in German) was not exactly overloaded with references!

LikeLike

]]>True. But? I mentioned the LOGOS (namely a chain of reasons).

LikeLike

]]>