Deutsch Deutsch Deutsch Deutsch Deutsch Deutsch

[hibbsa-/[e-mail] [Fabric-of-Reality]]

He's released his first theory in the constructor theoretic framework.


http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.5563 http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.5563


article: A Meta-Law to Rule Them All: Physicists Devise a “Theory of Everything” http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-meta-law-to-rule-them-all-physicists-devise-a-theory-of-everything/


I've been waiting for his next paper in the constructor theoretic thing...it feels pretty exciting that here it is, and I have liteally five minutes ago found out about it and have not read it.


But he's talking about theory...a unification...so this could be a scientific theory. please some ya do read it yeah, because I'm a bit too thick for this so will need to drill some heads.

[David Deutsch david.deutsch-LR/[e-mail] [Fabric-of-Reality]]

Post by hibbsa-/***@public.gmane.org [Fabric-of-Reality]
He's released his first theory in the constructor theoretic framework.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.5563

Deutsch and Marletto.

Post by hibbsa-/***@public.gmane.org [Fabric-of-Reality]
article: A Meta-Law to Rule Them All: Physicists Devise a “Theory of Everything”
I've been waiting for his next paper in the constructor theoretic thing...it feels pretty exciting that here it is, and I have liteally five minutes ago found out about it and have not read it.

Beware of some of the media reports of what the paper is about. It's not a "theory of everything". Nor does it say "the universe is information" (which the New Scientist put into the title they chose for our own article!). Nor does it "put information centre-stage". In fact, trying to make physics out of information is one of the older approaches that we reject. As someone rightly said on Twitter, it's not "it from bit", but rather "bit from it".


A web site is being set up to point to sources on constructor theory:


http://constructortheory.org


The Physics arXiv blog does a reasonably good job of explaining what our constructor information paper is about:


https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/deeper-than-quantum-mechanics-david-deutschs-new-theory-of-reality-9b8281bc793a


-- David Deutsch

[David Deutsch david.deutsch-LR/[e-mail] [Fabric-of-Reality]]

Post by hibbsa-/***@public.gmane.org [Fabric-of-Reality]
He's released his first theory in the constructor theoretic framework.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.5563

Deutsch and Marletto.

Post by hibbsa-/***@public.gmane.org [Fabric-of-Reality]
article: A Meta-Law to Rule Them All: Physicists Devise a “Theory of Everything”
I've been waiting for his next paper in the constructor theoretic thing...it feels pretty exciting that here it is, and I have liteally five minutes ago found out about it and have not read it.

Beware of some of the media reports of what the paper is about. It's not a "theory of everything". Nor does it say "the universe is information" (which the New Scientist put into the title they chose for our own article!). Nor does it "put information centre-stage". In fact, trying to make physics out of information is one of the older approaches that we reject. As someone rightly said on Twitter, it's not "it from bit", but rather "bit from it".


A web site is being set up to point to sources on constructor theory:


http://constructortheory.org


The Physics arXiv blog does a reasonably good job of explaining what our constructor information paper is about:


https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/deeper-than-quantum-mechanics-david-deutschs-new-theory-of-reality-9b8281bc793a


-- David Deutsch

[hibbsa-/[e-mail] [Fabric-of-Reality]]

No disrespect to deutsch whom I regard as basically a good guy, but having read and considered it, this first theoretical attempt from CT was a disappointment for me personally.


Emphasis strongly on 'first' attempt. I think he's intuitively possibly onto something, and I certainly would acknowledge [one] of his seedling arguments that the need for a radical further layering is now a strong signal from the heart of incumbent hard won knowledge. So regardless this disappointment (for me) I shall nevertheless remain on deutsch's intellectual not-twitter follower list and shall certainly wait with undiminished hopefulness for the next CT product from him and his partner. I would also like to add appreciation for the way he promoted what had been an assistant to the status of partner without hesitation given (presumably) the circumstances. Something sadly missing in science from the start, particularly females.

[Alan Forrester alanmichaelforrester-gM/[e-mail] [Fabric-of-Reality]]

Post by hibbsa-/***@public.gmane.org [Fabric-of-Reality]
No disrespect to deutsch whom I regard as basically a good guy, but having read and considered it, this first theoretical attempt from CT was a disappointment for me personally.

Do you have a criticism?

Post by hibbsa-/***@public.gmane.org [Fabric-of-Reality]
Emphasis strongly on 'first' attempt. I think he's intuitively possibly onto something, and I certainly would acknowledge [one] of his seedling arguments that the need for a radical further layering is now a strong signal from the heart of incumbent hard won knowledge. So regardless this disappointment (for me) I shall nevertheless remain on deutsch's intellectual not-twitter follower list and shall certainly wait with undiminished hopefulness for the next CT product from him and his partner. I would also like to add appreciation for the way he promoted what had been an assistant to the status of partner without hesitation given (presumably) the circumstances. Something sadly missing in science from the start, particularly females.

It's a bit unclear what this means, but you seem to have some sort of

hangup about Chiara being female. You think that it is a good idea to
work with an incompetent person if she happens to be female. You have
alleged that Chiara is incompetent (she wrote a bad paper) without
explaining why. You allege that David chose to work with her despite
her incompetence for some unspecified reason.


Since you judge men and women by different standards you are sexist.
You allege that David has done the same and so you are saying he, too,
is sexist. You have smeared yourself and David without making a single
substantive argument.


Alan

[Brett Hall [e-mail] [Fabric-of-Reality]]

Hello,


It takes a while to reorganise one's text book knowledge of quantum physics in a way that makes sense in light of the multiverse. I read FoR years ago many times and I've lost count of the number of times I've read BoI. BoI has a great explanation of what electrons really are as multiversal objects. But I'm still confused.


In David's 2014 Edge Question response he writes that the following is a misconception: "when an electron in a higher-energy state undergoes a transition to a lower energy level, emitting a photon, it quantum-jumps from one discrete orbit to another without passing through intermediate states".


And he writes a response to this that says: "The truth is that the electron in such situations does not have a single energy, or position, but a range of energies and positions, and the allowed range itself can change with time...if an electron in an atom really were at a discrete energy level, and nothing intervened to change that, then it would never make a transition to any other energy."


This makes sense in terms of what BoI says but then I do not understand stuff like emission spectra. For example: if there are a range of energies then why is it that the 21cm Hydrogen line is *always* 21cm for that particular "transition" rather than a range of wavelengths?


To expand on my misconception:


When an electron changes its (range of?) energies from a higher to a lower state, it emits a photon. But that *photon* has a single energy, doesn't it? An energy given precisely by E = hf?
The common way of communicating this idea (I am thinking typical text books which I know are replete with error in this regard, clearly) - is that the electron occupies some orbital where it has potential energy E1 and later it comes to be in orbital of energy E2 and those two orbitals differ in energy matched precisely by the energy of the photon emitted (or absorbed, as the case may be).


Now if this matching is so precise, then how is there energy available for the electron to move (and so gain kinetic energy) from one orbital to another?


Some misconceptions I am sure I have that will help resolve this:


Electrons in atomic orbitals don't have discrete energies - okay. They have a range of energies. They are multiversal objects like an ink-blot spread out in spacetime. But then I don't understand why electrons that move from one orbital to another (say making the transition from first excited state to ground state around a hydrogen nucleus) *always* result in the production of exactly the same energy photon (in the case of the H atom ground to first excited state that's exactly a photon of 21cm wavelength - as described here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hyde.html ).


Any help, because I am confused. Any further reading I should do might also be useful.


Thankyou!


Brett

[David Deutsch david.deutsch-LR/[e-mail] [Fabric-of-Reality]]

On 24 Jun 2014, at 08:43, Brett Hall ***@hotmail.com [Fabric-of-Reality] wrote:


Hello,

Post by Brett Hall brhalluk-***@public.gmane.org [Fabric-of-Reality]
It takes a while to reorganise one's text book knowledge of quantum physics in a way that makes sense in light of the multiverse. I read FoR years ago many times and I've lost count of the number of times I've read BoI. BoI has a great explanation of what electrons really are as multiversal objects. But I'm still confused.
In David's 2014 Edge Question response he writes that the following is a misconception: "when an electron in a higher-energy state undergoes a transition to a lower energy level, emitting a photon, it quantum-jumps from one discrete orbit to another without passing through intermediate states".
And he writes a response to this that says: "The truth is that the electron in such situations does not have a single energy, or position, but a range of energies and positions, and the allowed range itself can change with time...if an electron in an atom really were at a discrete energy level, and nothing intervened to change that, then it would never make a transition to any other energy."
This makes sense in terms of what BoI says but then I do not understand stuff like emission spectra. For example: if there are a range of energies then why is it that the 21cm Hydrogen line is *always* 21cm for that particular "transition" rather than a range of wavelengths?

It is always a range of wavelengths.

Post by Brett Hall brhalluk-***@public.gmane.org [Fabric-of-Reality]
When an electron changes its (range of?) energies from a higher to a lower state, it emits a photon. But that *photon* has a single energy, doesn't it? An energy given precisely by E = hf?

It always has a range of frequencies too.


Not a range of Planck constants, though!

Post by Brett Hall brhalluk-***@public.gmane.org [Fabric-of-Reality]
The common way of communicating this idea (I am thinking typical text books which I know are replete with error in this regard, clearly) - is that the electron occupies some orbital where it has potential energy E1 and later it comes to be in orbital of energy E2 and those two orbitals differ in energy matched precisely by the energy of the photon em itted (or absorbed, as the case may be).

That an orbital has a sharp energy is an idealisation.

Post by Brett Hall brhalluk-***@public.gmane.org [Fabric-of-Reality]
Now if this matching is so precise, then how is there energy available for the electron to move (and so gain kinetic energy) from one orbital to another?

Electrons in atomic orbitals don't have discrete energies - okay. They have a range of energies. They are multiversal objects like an ink-blot spread out in spacetime. But then I don't understand why electrons that move from one orbital to another (say making the transition from first excited state to ground state around a hydrogen nucleus) *always* result in the production of exactly the same energy photon (in the case of the H atom ground to first excited state that's exactly a photon of 21cm wavelength - as described here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hyde.html ).

Post by Brett Hall brhalluk-***@public.gmane.org [Fabric-of-Reality]
Any help, because I am confused. Any further reading I should do might also be useful.
Thankyou!
Brett

Hope that helps.


-- David Deutsch

[Brett Hall [e-mail] [Fabric-of-Reality]]

Post by David Deutsch david.deutsch-LR/***@public.gmane.org [Fabric-of-Reality]

I do not understand stuff like emission spectra. For example: if there are a range of energies >then why is it that the 21cm Hydrogen line is *always* 21cm for that particular "transition" >rather than a range of wavelengths?

It is always a range of wavelengths.

Great. Okay. So this means the line is not infinitely narrow even in theory - it has width (not simply due to fine structure). I was under the impression it was so extremely narrow that any width was true to measurement error rather than intrinsic quantum "spreading" of the orbitals.

Post by David Deutsch david.deutsch-LR/***@public.gmane.org [Fabric-of-Reality]

The common way of communicating this idea (I am thinking typical text books which I know are replete with error in this regard, clearly) - is that the electron occupies some orbital where it has potential energy E1 and later it comes to be in orbital of energy E2 and those two orbitals differ in energy matched precisely by the energy of the photon em itted (or absorbed, as the case may be).

That an orbital has a sharp energy is an idealisation.

Right. This silly misconception comes to me via standard texts and other places that illustrate electronic transitions using the Bohr model. It's strange I make this mistake because I also hold in my head the idea that orbitals are clouds. Stuff that tries to explain orbitals typically does try to picture them as clouds. But stuff that explains transitions explains them using perfect, extremely narrow, circles.


Thanks,

Brett.

[peter cains pgcains-/[e-mail] [Fabric-of-Reality]]

Post by Brett Hall brhalluk-***@public.gmane.org [Fabric-of-Reality]

Post by David Deutsch david.deutsch-LR/***@public.gmane.org [Fabric-of-Reality]

I do not understand stuff like emission spectra. For example: if there are a range of energies >then why is it that the 21cm Hydrogen line is *always* 21cm for that particular "transition" >rather than a range of wavelengths?

It is always a range of wavelengths.

Great. Okay. So this means the line is not infinitely narrow even in theory - it has width (not simply due to fine structure). I was under the impression it was so extremely narrow that any width was true to measurement error rather than intrinsic quantum "spreading" of the orbitals.

Post by David Deutsch david.deutsch-LR/***@public.gmane.org [Fabric-of-Reality]

The common way of communicating this idea (I am thinking typical text books which I know are replete with error in this regard, clearly) - is that the electron occupies some orbital where it has potential energy E1 and later it comes to be in orbital of energy E2 and those two orbitals differ in energy matched precisely by the energy of the photon em itted (or absorbed, as the case may be).

That an orbital has a sharp energy is an idealisation.

Right. This silly misconception comes to me via standard texts and other places that illustrate electronic transitions using the Bohr model. It's strange I make this mistake because I also hold in my head the idea that orbitals are clouds. Stuff that tries to explain orbitals typically does try to picture them as clouds. But stuff that explains transitions explains them using perfect, extremely narrow, circles.

perhaps the thickness of the emission line reflects the quantum uncertainty in the precise energy of the orbitals
regards