Cafaro et al., just posted a paper: 1111.2348. They address the issue of how to reconcile Quantum Mechanics with Relativity. Of course Paul Dirac, did this many years ago, we have the so-called Dirac equation. The point is that the new ideas of Quantum Information, leave us a bit confused on how to make all that relativistic.
I find this relevant to my effort to state a New Scientific Method.
In my view there are two tasks, first to incorporate digital computers in the very essence of the Scientific Method: If you cannot program it, you don't understand it, as professor David Deutsch states in his new book, The Beginning of Infinity.
The second task is to define Physics, as the method to get mathematics to fit experimental data, no less and no more. If the booth fits ...
Along these lines of thought, how do I get ALL information tools to be relativistic?
I don't expect this to be possible, nevertheless, in every case, given the measurement situation, I will try to get the best fit, consistent with relativistic principles. If not successful in the relativization of the algorithm, so be it. Until and unless, I get a measurement, that seems to cry for a relativistic description, I will apply the idea again, the relativistic one should fit better, if not, I will be willing to put off relativity, for a better occasion, i.e., when it is needed to fit.
All this seems very ad-hoc; in my defense, I can only say, that given the powerful computers, and measurement instruments at our disposal today, we will manage.
The main point of my proposal is to make explicit, and thus understandable, the nature of the Scientific Method. What do we actually do?
Fit data.
Friday, November 11, 2011
My Daughter Was Born on 12/25/1981
I am informed, that adding these numbers one gets 29, which reduces to 11. Also her name Leza, can be assigned number 11.
I guess both coincidences bear well for her today.
Congratulations, dear one!
TKM (¡Te quiero mucho!, in kid's new shorthand)
I guess both coincidences bear well for her today.
Congratulations, dear one!
TKM (¡Te quiero mucho!, in kid's new shorthand)
11/11/11; 11:11:11
Today my students wanted to celebrate the moment, to the second, when this numerological coincidence happened. Some of us just made a little cheer, hurray, to commemorate, the momentous cosmic occasion. Some thought of a wish. Afterward I told them that it seemed to me like a purely conventional coincidence. To begin with, Jesus Christ was born in the year zero, but Jews and Romans, did not use that alien Arab-Indian concept. So at least we are off one year.
Let's not talk about the leap second!
It was fun, though.
BTW, a little baby was born today. We proposed the name, Triple Eleven, for the poor tot.
Mail Online
Let's not talk about the leap second!
It was fun, though.
BTW, a little baby was born today. We proposed the name, Triple Eleven, for the poor tot.
Mail Online
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Happy Today!
I am watching DN! Breadth of fresh air. Latinos finally spoke up. Today also my Me'phaa students got a new HP Laptop!
I see a light at the end of the tunnel.
We are going to make it!
I see a light at the end of the tunnel.
We are going to make it!
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
New Scientific Method
As I wrote in this blog earlier, Wolfram's NKS , requires a New Scientific Method. In its simplest terms, it must incorporate digital calculators (below, find the NYT piece on Babbage) to fit data. The most abstract element is the use of axioms, to better code data. I am reading professor Fivel's article in the arXiv. He was able to code in five Axioms, the conventional rules of quantum mechanics. He is following a path set by Dirac and von Neumann; now using tools by Shannon.
Axiom I: For every w, z $$\in$$ S:
w(z) = 1 if and only if w = z;
w(z) = z(w):
Axiom II: S is compact in the d-metric.
Axiom III: The function a(x) is a frame function on S for every a $$\in$$ S.
Axiom IV: Given any two distinct elements a, b $$\in$$ S there exists a pair of orthogonal elements
c, c' and a number 0 < $$\alpha$$ < 1 such that
a(c)c + a(c')c' = $$\alpha$$ a + (1 - $$\alpha$$ )b:
Axiom V: The purities of the mixed states resulting from random measurements of a pure qubit state are uniformly distributed.
At first, these axioms are as mysterious, as the conventional rules of quantum mechanics, which they are supposed to "explain".
Just bear with me, and obviously with professor Fivel.
Axiom I: For every w, z $$\in$$ S:
w(z) = 1 if and only if w = z;
w(z) = z(w):
Axiom II: S is compact in the d-metric.
Axiom III: The function a(x) is a frame function on S for every a $$\in$$ S.
Axiom IV: Given any two distinct elements a, b $$\in$$ S there exists a pair of orthogonal elements
c, c' and a number 0 < $$\alpha$$ < 1 such that
a(c)c + a(c')c' = $$\alpha$$ a + (1 - $$\alpha$$ )b:
Axiom V: The purities of the mixed states resulting from random measurements of a pure qubit state are uniformly distributed.
At first, these axioms are as mysterious, as the conventional rules of quantum mechanics, which they are supposed to "explain".
Just bear with me, and obviously with professor Fivel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)