TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Relational Quantum Mechanics

103 点作者 hackandthink3 个月前

8 条评论

markisus3 个月前
RQM is an interesting viewpoint on QM that I have not encountered before, even though it was apparently introduced in 1996.<p>It says that the physical world is a collection of discrete events, doing away with continuous time. It also says that every event involves two systems, in that each event takes place in one system <i>relative</i> to another system.<p>The idea seems a little strange but the article gives a more intuitive example. It doesn&#x27;t make sense to talk about the absolute velocity of a particle, only its <i>relative</i> velocity with respect to a reference frame.<p>But RQM takes it further. It brings to mind the old question about &quot;If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it.&quot; I guess RQM would say that this question isn&#x27;t even wrong.<p>The article quickly becomes too technical for me to understand, so I&#x27;m still confused about some aspects. For instance, if each event only involves two systems, how is it that we can have a whole population of systems (eg scientists) eventually coming to a consensus about some phenomenon (eg the value of some physical quantity?) It seems necessary to have a unified global system coordinating the whole thing.
评论 #43011973 未加载
评论 #43009327 未加载
评论 #43013093 未加载
lisper3 个月前
Gotta put in a plug for QIT, which is very similar, but I think a little easier to understand:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;abs&#x2F;quant-ph&#x2F;9512022" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;abs&#x2F;quant-ph&#x2F;9512022</a><p>and a more accessible version that I wrote a long time ago:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;flownet.com&#x2F;ron&#x2F;QM.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;flownet.com&#x2F;ron&#x2F;QM.pdf</a>
katabasis3 个月前
I&#x27;m a fan of Carlo Rovelli&#x27;s popular science books. &quot;The Order of Time&quot; in particular left a big impression on me. He is a philosopher as well as a scientist, and he has a gift for writing beautiful and accessible prose about some pretty heady topics.<p>If you are interested in RQM but find this article somewhat dry, check out his short book &quot;Helgoland&quot;.<p>I find both RQM and Rovelli&#x27;s notion of &quot;thermal time&quot; (i.e. the idea causality and entropy are emergent properties dependent on our perspective, as opposed to fundamental features of reality) to be very convincing.
评论 #43014381 未加载
anon2913 个月前
This is interesting to me. Some of the various paradoxes are resolved, but now consciousness does become even more important, because I cannot escape from the fact that my perspective (which is unique to me according to RQM) still seems very real. Now the entirety of the universe is literally an observation that I (and I alone) experience. But then why do I &#x27;feel&#x27; like it happened. Do other things feel like things happened to them? Am I the only one out here?
评论 #43012860 未加载
greenbit3 个月前
So .. a superposition of states would really just be a point in time during which the state variable takes no specific value?<p>Or, it isn&#x27;t so much that Schrodinger&#x27;s famous cat is both alive and dead at the same time, as that it&#x27;s neither?<p>The thing about the cat in the box is that, when you later open the box, it&#x27;s some kind of <i>cat</i> that&#x27;s revealed. You don&#x27;t open the box to find a nice loaf of bread. I.e., seems like <i>something</i> must have some kind of state, in that box, when no one is looking, that retains at least the possible outcomes and precludes others.
评论 #43008670 未加载
评论 #43013254 未加载
moi23883 个月前
“ double (a) variables only take value at discrete interactions and (b) the value a variable takes is only relative to the (other) system affected by the interaction.”<p>Layperson here. Can I read this as saying yes to locality, no to realism, and violation of causality since this only depends on who measured it, another interaction could interpret cause and effect differently?
AdmiralNines3 个月前
I was lost by the second sentence.
评论 #43008516 未加载
hackandthink3 个月前
by Carlo Rovelli himself