I believe you’re speaking about General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics refers to “quantum” aka discrete, non-smooth things like the energy levels of electrons.
General Relativity indicates that the temporal ordering of events may appear different to different observers, although there is a way to objectively switch between perspectives.
In all cases, the theories point to a uniform, self consistant reality, as that is in fact their very purpose. If they didn’t work as expected, your GPS wouldn’t be a thing.
I know what you meant and you’re wrong. Unless, you know how to resolve the interpretation of QM, then by all means go ahead and take that nobel prize, you deserve it!
I’m not trying to toy with you, please reciprocate. Because you didn’t say what about quantum mechanics causes reality to appear non self consistent I tried to connect the dots in my head: what I know about relativity fits the bill a hell of a lot better than QM.
QM does predict some weird probability distributions where the interpretation of causality is unclear. Just like mfed1122’s argument of understanding calculus, just because you or I don’t know what it means doesn’t indicate that it’s meaningless. Regardless of how confusing it is, QM describes everything objectively and so it doesn’t say the universe is inconsistent. Like with my example about GPS, quantum computers wouldn’t be possible if QM didn’t describe a uniform, self-consistent reality.
Unless, you know how to resolve the interpretation of QM, then by all means go ahead and take that nobel prize
This is unrelated to both your point and the original commenter’s discussion, per mfed1122’s argument.
If you want to continue this discussion in a meaningful way could you outline the elements of quantum mechanics that indicate a non self-consistent reality?
I believe you’re speaking about General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics refers to “quantum” aka discrete, non-smooth things like the energy levels of electrons.
General Relativity indicates that the temporal ordering of events may appear different to different observers, although there is a way to objectively switch between perspectives.
In all cases, the theories point to a uniform, self consistant reality, as that is in fact their very purpose. If they didn’t work as expected, your GPS wouldn’t be a thing.
No i was speaking about quantum mechanics thank you
It doesn’t.
I meant that GR better fits the vague description you gave.
Thanks for the conversation.
I know what you meant and you’re wrong. Unless, you know how to resolve the interpretation of QM, then by all means go ahead and take that nobel prize, you deserve it!
I’m not trying to toy with you, please reciprocate. Because you didn’t say what about quantum mechanics causes reality to appear non self consistent I tried to connect the dots in my head: what I know about relativity fits the bill a hell of a lot better than QM.
QM does predict some weird probability distributions where the interpretation of causality is unclear. Just like mfed1122’s argument of understanding calculus, just because you or I don’t know what it means doesn’t indicate that it’s meaningless. Regardless of how confusing it is, QM describes everything objectively and so it doesn’t say the universe is inconsistent. Like with my example about GPS, quantum computers wouldn’t be possible if QM didn’t describe a uniform, self-consistent reality.
This is unrelated to both your point and the original commenter’s discussion, per mfed1122’s argument.
If you want to continue this discussion in a meaningful way could you outline the elements of quantum mechanics that indicate a non self-consistent reality?
That’s fascinating your brain works like