On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 9:15 PM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: > This is very interesting! If it's true it means that any worlds where the > Nazis won WW2 are googolplexes of lightyears away and moving away from us > at far greater than lightspeed, rather than "merely" separated from us by a > lack of quantum entanglement - which has to be a good thing, IMHO. > > Many of the fluid dynamicists involved in or familiar with the new >> research have become convinced that there is a classical, fluid explanation >> of quantum mechanics. > >
A fkuid explanation of QM is consistent with string theory where a nonlinear hyper-EM Flux or fluid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-form_electrodynamics) (the low energy equivalent of the hyper-Flux is electromagnetism.) is responsible for the compactification of 6 space dimensions as 3 space dimensions inflate and seemingly one space dimension turns into a time dimension, just the opposite of what happens at the event horizon of a black hole where the time dimension turns into the radial space dimension, at least in one solution to the equations of GR. I also believe as a graduate mechanical engineer that the hyper-Flux may be amenable to a higher level Navier-Stokes treatment of an totally entangled (BEC) Flux medium while maintaining consistency with quantum mechanics. But I wonder if the Flux is compressible and if the Flux could be simulated experimentally using the techniques of condensed matter physics (http://f3.tiera.ru/other/DVD-005/Bruus_H .,_Flensberg_K._Many-body_Quantum_Theory_In_Condensed_Matter_Physics%5Bc%5D_An_Introduction_(2002)(en)(336s).pdf) In the beginnings of odd centuries, experiments rule. Richard > > This seems to me a rather big ask, and is one of the objections I (and > maybe others) have raised to "Tronnies". If you are going to extract > quantised behaviour from something classical (i.e. from something that is > continuous and infinitely divisible) you need your states to emerge exactly > - to infinite precision - to get them identical in different parts of the > universe (e.g. in the spectral lines from trillions of stars). Otherwise, > it seems reasonable to suppose that you will only get similar solutions, > like a classical particle orbitting in a potential well they should be > subject to small perturbations. Using a fluid medium filling space (aside > from any considerations of Lorentz invariance etc) seems to me a way to > allow all sorts of influences to get at, say, an electron inside a hydrogen > atom. So each H atom should have a slightly different spectral signature. > > There is also a local mechanism for EPR suggested, which I would imagine > is equivalent to hidden variables. I was under the impression that Bell's > inequality ruled these out (except in the case of time symmetry). Has this > been rescinded? > > I would hope that the pilot wave approach makes different predictions to > others, which will allow it to be tested experimentally. A 500 qubit > quantum computer which worked would apparently rule out most theories apart > from the MWI, for example - does the PWI have anything similar? Otherwise > as David Deutsch said, isn't it just Everett with one world singled out by > a (so far undetectable) "bolt-on extra" ? > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
