23 ms·
where is the contradiction here? my understanding of 'natural' physics is as a relation between particle(s) and every other particle in the universe and our p
by justifier 11y ago
where is the contradiction here?
my understanding of 'natural' physics is as a relation between particle(s) and every other particle in the universe
and our physics calculations trying to understand and predict those natural events wave away those relations valued insignificant to the desired probability threshold?
contrived but applicable example, "assume you are on a frictionless plane with zero wind resistance"
or in one of the most amazing results of applied physics in recent news :
"Fred Jansen, Rosetta's mission manager at ESA, said officials predicted a 70 to 75 percent probability of a successful landing by Philae before the mission's launch in 2004. But that number assumed the comet was a rounded body, not the oddly-shaped world found by Rosetta."
- dghf 11y ago> my understanding of 'natural' physics is as a relation between particle(s) and every other particle in the universe The key word in the parent comment is instantaneous. This means that pilot-wave theory is not compatible with relativity, if I understand correctly.
- cordite 11y agoIs it instantaneous or is it the known or observable state propagated at the speed of light? Perhaps unrelated, but they have already shown that entangled particles propagate state at the speed of light. So we probably wont have any Ender's game ansible communication devices any time soon.
- dghf 11y agoAFAIUI, under pilot-wave theory it's instantaneous. It's how the theory gets round Bell's Theorem, which only forbids local hidden variables. (Again, I am an interested layman, not a scientist, so this comment may be nonsense.)
- paulrouget 11y agoIt is instantaneous. But if you want any information to travel, you'll need to use a mechanism named "feed-forward", which is limited by the speed of light.