3 ms·
> the new take is that the classical notion that the state of a system can be fully described by its properties at some moment in time is wrong. One also needs
by pdonis 4y ago
> the new take is that the classical notion that the state of a system can be fully described by its properties at some moment in time is wrong. One also needs to know some information about future to fully describe evolution of the system.
Do you have any references that give more details on this?
- _0w8t 4y agoSee https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Schulman https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Schulman and the book Time’s Arrow and Archimedes’ Point by Huw Price
- pdonis 4y agoSo basically he's using the path integral formalism, and since that requires you to specify both the start and end points of the path, he's claiming that physics has to work that way? That seems like a very extravagant claim given that we can compute the same results without using the path integral formalism, and without having to know anything about future end points.
- pdonis 4y ago> Time’s Arrow and Archimedes’ Point This looks something like the Transactional Interpretation of QM, which made use of advanced as well as retarded waves to explain things like EPR correlations. I think it's fair to say this is still a very open area of research and it's way too early to say how it will end up.