🧵 What did he mean?
Anonymous at Tue, 8 Oct 2024 22:09:39 UTC No. 16416437
>if you want to have exactly sharp observables in quantum mechanics you must repeat the experiment infinitely often and with an infinitely large apparatus. This second form of infinity has a very important role to play in the context of gravity. I would like to emphasise again that this point was understood incredi-bly well, although explained in a characteristically murky way, by those who developed the Copenhagen interpretation and later clarified by the understanding of decoherence in the 1980s. Quantum mechanics really requires, not just as a mere convenience, that you drag around this infinite apparatus with you everywhere you go when measuring some system. Thus, secretly, there’s this gigantic apparatus that’s going along with you everywhere and because it is gigantic, it doesn’t disturb too much the system you are measuring.
Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 10:50:38 UTC No. 16417288
>>16416437
that that gigantic apparatus which enables sharp measurables requires for its existence a paradox for which has as its resolution the decoherence of space-time as fundamental features of a final expression.
Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 10:54:03 UTC No. 16417289
>>16417288
in an allegorical form: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMl
Anonymous at Wed, 9 Oct 2024 11:52:41 UTC No. 16417339
>>16416437
All those problems because particles (meaning infinitely small points) don't exist.
"Particle" is just a description of larger localized structure in the underlying field.
Just like a "mountain" is a (somewhat vague) description of a large geological structure - it's an abstract concept - you can't exactly (unless using entirely arbitrary terms) say where it starts or where it ends or where its center is, etc...