Call it what you will…
This topic contains 27 replies, has 7 voices, and was last updated by 
Unseen 7 minutes ago.
-
-
<li class=”d4p-bbp-quote-title”>PopeBeanie wrote:
I have an unpublished paper that was submitted to the Journal; physical review A, that combines chaos and QM. In one section I used a recursive transform typically used to generate Julia sets (similar to the famous Mandelbrot set to generated the 2p orbital shell around a hydrogen atom using the Bohm model and not the Heisenberg model which is more advanced.
If you’re willing to accept me as a peer, we can publish this. Just don’t expect me to understand it. 🙂
Thanks for the offer. The multi-spatial frame work can use help if you have a background in mathematics. Particularly formalizing the new theorem.
The recursive orbital transform is based on David Bohm’s orbital model which is old school yet interesting. It will be next on the list.
_As we studied the Chua circuit I was also concurrently ditching my catholic religion and concluded that chaos theory and the big bang are the only avenues that even allow for some sort of creation and the implications and complexity and scale immediately rule out the validity of all religious claims. As Hitchens said of the universe ” It’s much much more impressive than that”.
If you want to dabble in the apparent metaphysical, I would suggest you read; “The Emperor’s New Mind” and “Quantum Reality”,as prerequisite material.
Not that interested in conjecture however I enjoyed the fictional ‘Dr. Ian Malcolm’ character from the Jurassic Park 😉
My Master’s thesis was on the chaotic vibration of a flexible cantilever beam. I had to tackle that after watching my introduction to chaos on Nova.
Jeff Goldblum did an excellent portrayal by the way.
I have an unpublished paper that was submitted to the Journal; physical review A, that combines chaos and QM.
Thinking about “chaos and QM” I find that I am unable to define what the difference is. I visualize “everything” as existing in a field of particles, like the fuzz on an old TV set, stuck between channels. I even “see” solid objects (a chair) as structures that are just a temporary formation of individual particles. Everything, including light. space and time are all made of individual quanta and these make up all the “dots in the fuzz”. This is the basis of the Quantum universe. If we can understand the “rules” of quantum gravity then we will figure the rest out and get our “Theory of Everything”. It is in this “tiny arena” where the answers lie……maybe it is not chaos we need to understand but probabilities.
Note: A small percentage of the fuzz on your old TV set is from the CMBR, the earliest light in the Universe.
-
This reply was modified 4 days, 20 hours ago by
Reg the Fronkey Farmer.
I have an unpublished paper that was submitted to the Journal; physical review A, that combines chaos and QM. Thinking about “chaos and QM” I find that I am unable to define what the difference is. I visualize “everything” as existing in a field of particles, like the fuzz on an old TV set, stuck between channels. I even “see” solid objects (a chair) as structures that are just a temporary formation of individual particles. Everything, including light. space and time are all made of individual quanta and these make up all the “dots in the fuzz”. This is the basis of the Quantum universe. If we can understand the “rules” of quantum gravity then we will figure the rest out and get our “Theory of Everything”. It is in this “tiny arena” where the answers lie……maybe it is not chaos we need to understand but probabilities. Note: A small percentage of the fuzz on your old TV set is from the CMBR, the earliest light in the Universe.
i see QM as being unbounded by space and time. Filling all space and time as a wave function. That’s where the debate begins. Is the wave just a mathematical construct or is it a reality?
Being unbounded explains what Einstein described as spooky action at a distance. The distance can be in space or time.
Yes, in all probability it would have been difficult to predict we would get to this point. Seems rather a chaotic path to have taken but we will remain determined to freely post some more.
LOL
Let me throw a philosophical/logical wrench in the works. How can an infinitely branching system of universes be possible under determinism? It would seem that if determinism is anything, it is abolutely linear. How could a branching even be possible?
-
This reply was modified 7 minutes ago by Unseen.
-
This reply was modified 4 days, 20 hours ago by
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.