I'm used to articles like this having some citation, but this doesn't seem to have any. I know about los Alamos lab but not familiar with their writing, am I correct in assuming this is pre-published findings?
This seems a bit self referential, if viewed from a many worlds interpretation.
The infinity of universes in which you can exist is reduced to a lesser infinity by the reverse time travel, since you could only have travelled backwards from universal states in which those specific conditions still existed, ergo reality appears to the traveller to be self healing.
That’s one of the things about MWI that is irritating, even though it still seems the most likely to me. It covers the testing parameters so completely that it is impossible to test. You always end up in a lesser infinity, but an infinity nonetheless. What we need is a way to quantify randomness in such a way that we might detect a change in the dimensions of infinities or something, but that seems improbable at best.
The issue with Copenhagen is that it doesn’t describe when precisely wave-function collapse actually happens, i.e., when the physical process deviates from the Schrödinger equation. It is not a proper theory in that sense. There are objective-collapse theories that do, and therefore provide different predictions from Many-Worlds (which simply says that the Schrödinger equation always holds). We haven’t come up with experiments yet that could test those different predictions, but we may in the future.
I remember reading somewhere wave function collapse would have some energy signature and that someone failed to detect it, indicating the many worlds interpretation could not be ruled out.
Bohm's Interpretation is experimentally indistinguishable from MWI.
On the other hand, Bohm's interpretation seems pretty ad hoc. And it also includes all of the other worlds that MWI has in it via the pilot waves that continue to exist and propagate forever. (The pilot waves never collapse.) It's just that only one of those many worlds ends up being "real".
That seems unsurprising, right? Probably all physics we experience - light-surface interactions, surfaces at the atomic scale, and waves in air and water - are all made entirely of only small perturbations, but enough of them the result is statistically stable.
The popular idea of the butterfly effect in weather has always seemed suspect to me, due to the fact that air is a naturally damped system; a butterfly’s influence on air drops over distance, and likely falls off fast enough that the probability it can affect something even a few miles away is below atomic or quantum thresholds. The analogy between weather and simple mathematical chaotic systems seems specious.
Looking around a little it seems like some physicists are starting to agree, and believe Lorenz’ observations based on his weather modeling has more to do with the modeling and limited numerics than reality: “the limited predictability within the Lorenz 1969 model is explained by scale interactions in one article[22] and by system ill-conditioning in another more recent study.[25]” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect#Recent_debate...
> “At the outset, it wasn’t clear that quantum chaos would even exist,” says Yan. “The equations of quantum physics give no immediate indication of it.”
Aren't the Copenhagen interpretation and Heisenberg uncertainty principle an immediate indication that Quantum systems can only be chaotic?
>>Aren't the Copenhagen interpretation and Heisenberg uncertainty principle an immediate indication that Quantum systems can only be chaotic?
Quantum systems are not chaotic but intrinsically indeterminate, insofar as the initial conditions of a system have no relation to the observed state. Chaotic systems are deterministic, and therefore classical. Quantum chaos tools attempt to bridge the gap.
I think they are referring to the mathematical definition of "chaotic" (sensitivity to initial conditions, topological mixing, dense periodic orbits) which some equations and dynamical systems satisfy, but that was not immediately clear for the governing equations of QM.
From this mathematical definition, the dense periodic orbits seem very hard to be satisfiable in many natural systems which aren't bound by gravity or some other form of locality.
Readit News
https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.02651
Deleted Comment
The infinity of universes in which you can exist is reduced to a lesser infinity by the reverse time travel, since you could only have travelled backwards from universal states in which those specific conditions still existed, ergo reality appears to the traveller to be self healing.
That’s one of the things about MWI that is irritating, even though it still seems the most likely to me. It covers the testing parameters so completely that it is impossible to test. You always end up in a lesser infinity, but an infinity nonetheless. What we need is a way to quantify randomness in such a way that we might detect a change in the dimensions of infinities or something, but that seems improbable at best.
On the other hand, Bohm's interpretation seems pretty ad hoc. And it also includes all of the other worlds that MWI has in it via the pilot waves that continue to exist and propagate forever. (The pilot waves never collapse.) It's just that only one of those many worlds ends up being "real".
The popular idea of the butterfly effect in weather has always seemed suspect to me, due to the fact that air is a naturally damped system; a butterfly’s influence on air drops over distance, and likely falls off fast enough that the probability it can affect something even a few miles away is below atomic or quantum thresholds. The analogy between weather and simple mathematical chaotic systems seems specious.
Looking around a little it seems like some physicists are starting to agree, and believe Lorenz’ observations based on his weather modeling has more to do with the modeling and limited numerics than reality: “the limited predictability within the Lorenz 1969 model is explained by scale interactions in one article[22] and by system ill-conditioning in another more recent study.[25]” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect#Recent_debate...
Aren't the Copenhagen interpretation and Heisenberg uncertainty principle an immediate indication that Quantum systems can only be chaotic?
Quantum systems are not chaotic but intrinsically indeterminate, insofar as the initial conditions of a system have no relation to the observed state. Chaotic systems are deterministic, and therefore classical. Quantum chaos tools attempt to bridge the gap.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chaos