Ideals were covered earlier in the playlist. They are like multiplying by zero but without collapsing the whole algebra. Ideals are the things that multiplied by anything only get scaled. Ideals and nilpotents are related, nilpotents square to zero, ideals square to themselves.
-
-
Vastauksena käyttäjille @JasonHise64, @vi_ne_te ja
Ideals are the algebra of the lightcone. Photons don't experience time, and yet we can see some travel farther than others. It's an operation you can't undo. You can't collapse all time to nothing and then ask how much of it there was.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @JasonHise64, @vi_ne_te ja
Ladder operations seem to be about a discrete operation that makes something more. In discrete form the only way that makes sense to me is in number of dimensions. But it could connect to what floor you are on in the complex logarithmic spiral.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @JasonHise64, @vi_ne_te ja
Creation and destruction operations, as quantum all or nothing changes to a quantum field, are still not totally clear to me. As far as I can tell it gets swept under the rug under the guise of some Hilbert space proxy for some infinite dimensional linear algebra.
1 vastaus 2 uudelleentwiittausta 2 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @JasonHise64, @vi_ne_te ja
But I'm pretty sure that if integers are coming back in after we have a continuum it's because of topology; making a full cycle or turning back. Returning to start having completed something or not.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @JasonHise64, @vi_ne_te ja
Some kind of topological invariant.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
On the point about quantization from topology, that’s kind of true. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete_spectrum …. Would you say you’d like to explain quantum mechanics in terms of classical stuff?
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 3 tykkäystä -
I'd like to explain quantum mechanics in terms of geometry which may or may not be classical. I by no means want to explain it by deciding it is an axiom.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @JasonHise64, @vi_ne_te ja
Especially if the axiom is that 'there are things we fundamentally cannot know described as if they were perfectly known as perfect sources of randomness'
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @JasonHise64, @vi_ne_te ja
I am convinced that quantum mechanics is going to stop looking mysterious when we see how correlations are something we learn about our perspective and not something we assume about superluminal information communication
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys
What is geometry that is not classical? Also, what specific quantum things do you find conceptually problematic? I’m guessing entanglement is one of them
-
-
Special relativity going all hyperbolic is perhaps geometry that is not classical. But most of my problems with quantum are that I've never learned it properly and have learned most of what I know from Wikipedia.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @JasonHise64, @vi_ne_te ja
Entanglement has been described, I get that it is spacelike but that's ok because it commutes.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys - Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.