frederic83
Senior Member
- Messages
- 296
- Location
- France
@Mark Wow, that's a post!
Regarding the paper, the researcher is french, he did some conferences about Time (the paper is an experiment he did to validate, in some way, his theory). What I understand is that it is not about the Planck length, but to calculate all the speeds and positions, the computer needs information from the "future", so that is not possible with our computers, whatever the power of the computer is. I have to find the conference where he talks about this and I will give some precision.
From my understanding, there is no link with quantum decoherence although it looks like a transition between the classical physic to a new level of physics, where Time and information are different and that leads to the Information Physic.
I think it was proven that there are no hidden variables in QM, with the Aspect experiment, an experiment that was reproduced several time. But the interpretation of QM is actually in debate.
As I see it, we are in front of an extremely complex epicycles model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle
The researchers add a new epicycle to the model to fit the data, and it works! But it is not the reality. It is just the feeling of a fogged brain.
Regarding the paper, the researcher is french, he did some conferences about Time (the paper is an experiment he did to validate, in some way, his theory). What I understand is that it is not about the Planck length, but to calculate all the speeds and positions, the computer needs information from the "future", so that is not possible with our computers, whatever the power of the computer is. I have to find the conference where he talks about this and I will give some precision.
From my understanding, there is no link with quantum decoherence although it looks like a transition between the classical physic to a new level of physics, where Time and information are different and that leads to the Information Physic.
I think it was proven that there are no hidden variables in QM, with the Aspect experiment, an experiment that was reproduced several time. But the interpretation of QM is actually in debate.
As I see it, we are in front of an extremely complex epicycles model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle
The researchers add a new epicycle to the model to fit the data, and it works! But it is not the reality. It is just the feeling of a fogged brain.