Quantum theory: Are there limits to it's validity? If so, can they be probed and tested? Subsequent q & a session

0:00 Thank you for your attention. But the theory, I still view it as a theory, and I'm not going to go into too much detail about it, but it is a theory, and I'm going to take some time to think about it, and I'm going to take some time to think about it, but it is a theory, and I'm going to take some time to think about it, I should have asked you this question many, many times, many months before.

2:30 There must be a slightly easier experiment to do rather than feel it. No, hold on. An easier experiment that would rule out the GRW theory. I was just wondering whether that is more within the bounds of the ability. I've heard in my own practice that GRW theories are other schemes for modeling quantum mechanics, And so they don't decide too much when we go back to our W series, because they contain a lot of parameters, and the algorithm might be aware of that too, which is why we don't determine which is really the outcome of the parameters. And they think that experiments should be done, usually, yes, and of course. Have you spoken to Gerardi or any of these people about it? There are some versions of these already, but you have to come right under control of the lecture. You see, mine is pretty cool. I have a worksheet. There are no off-the-grounds. You don't need the lecture there. So if you shoot it down, it shows up. And then, a slight complication of that. I think I'm clear. You can imagine that some of the problems that come in there with mathematical physics, two pieces of the whole world, if this is really going to happen, then I'm going to have to go and take a very serious look at what I'm going to have to do. I'm not going to tell you. But I know that there are people that can probably work with it if they do get paid off, if they run with it, and they're there for their students.

5:00 You stressed that the quantum state reduction is time asymmetric, and then you wanted to link that with general relativity, which I think this is not my field, but if I understand correctly, the equations of general relativity are perfectly time symmetric also, so the problem is solely in the initial conditions of the universe in time asymmetric. Well, you say general asymmetric. I mean, there's something very extraordinary about that, I'm going to say. I've had people who try to explain to you the inversionary of quantum physics before, but they don't understand it very well. You come back to, or explore that, and unless you have an enrollment rate on the interstate, meaning you're explaining it to the same kind of students, to the same kind of members, the learning always goes back on the interstate. And the reason, the main reason is, that's the source of the central algorithm of mathematics. There's four of those sessions that I wrote about in my book, and the brain needs to be fixed on it, and it needs to be fixed on it, and it needs to be fixed on it. Now you might take the view that that's an act of God and that that's the nature of himself, but you know that you might take the view, well, you know, what's the theory, you're looking at how the theory is explaining to you that expression. And whatever theory that is, it teaches you that it's great, and it's a great thing, and then you say, well, I'm correct. So the initial conditions are going to take the plane now, not only for the second model of the dynamics, but also for whatever modifications are going to come to the plane. Yes. Well, you know, they're not going to take the plane. I'm just getting back to you. You can say, okay, there is a theory of a condition, and that theory of a condition is the same as the theory of a gas condition, which you don't know, but you can see that. So it seems to me, we've developed a knowledge of a condition, and that theory of a condition is the top of a theory, which, I don't know what to say about that. I think it is that theory, but I think that theory is more graphic.

7:30 If the human model turns out to be correct, do you need any revision of the text that we have when we deal with quantum physics in a different space time, like when we talk about it, and we just expect it to be separate from all of it? The common theory set of backgrounds is that most of the university subjects seem to like trying to grapple with common problems that you can try to deal with and work together to come to a conclusion. So, if you get the subject, I guess, and there are problems there which are not the same as the ones you have to deal with, you have to deal with the problem of, say, mathematics. Thank you for your attention.

10:00 There are a number of different types of mathematics in physics, including quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics, Okay, I'll take this part. I mean, just to, you know, love you, which is one of the number of theories, which is easy to understand, but I'm just saying, you know, the distribution case, I'm not saying how that, you know, how the distribution case, whereas these other theories do make a total. And if I were to say, if I were to direct the case, it would be interesting. So I think it's time to direct the case and close the distribution case. I think we have knowledge of this stuff, but if we have a chance up here, we may be stuck in my office. There are many possibilities that we could be very good at. He was telling me, he's got to give it up for anything which has developed by dynamics, developed by dynamics, which is going to run for thousands of years.

12:30 What I'm saying here is, it's not even objective. It's a very minimal achievement. I don't know about that. In any case, I believe that the dynamics of the universe is, is probably going to be quite, quite large. Because what I want to say is that it is unlikely to be achieved. I think it's going to be achieved if it's not achieved. I think, you know, it's not that it's all, I mean, I'm not going to say it's all about mathematics, but if you get the formal effect, it's that with the time sphere, it's so large, it's a huge amount of stuff. That you will never be able to do what I do, and therefore I should be doing hundreds of years, and I'm not trying to be serious, but I'm just saying that there could be an ability to do the same thing that I like to do, and that's what I'm going to do today, and that's what I'm going to do today. I can't think about that in Paris, but it's a normal way of understanding it.

15:00 Hey, what you're talking about is a lot of shit. I think most of all you put your time and energy into that, and you start to think that you're starting to learn a lot of new things, and you start to think that you're going to learn a lot of new things now, and you start to think that you're going to learn a lot of new things now, and you start to think that you're going to learn a lot of new things now. What makes you so sure that you're right to focus on this?

17:30 The ill-definedness of the Killing vector theory for time translation given the problem of time in the canonical form of an enigma. It actually really needs to be rethinking at a much more fundamental level the nature of time evolution as any important reality. So, in a certain sense, you must already be weathered to a certain view on how to deal with the problem of time evolution. Well, what I'm doing here is the time set that keeps up with quantum mechanics. I mean, the problem can't be anything. If you take time, there are three points, if you take time, there are three points, if you take time, there are three points, if you take time, there are three points, if you take time, there are three points, if you take time, there are three points, if you take time, All of this seems to rule. Thank you for your attention.

20:00 Or you could use the topology, quantum mechanics theory. But no, it's good. You don't need to know that stuff. Oh yeah, there's a good question in my mind, that takes time to answer, but I'm not done with it. I'm just saying that it's fun to use. It's fun and it's open. You can use it if you don't want to. I'm not saying that it's a big part of what you do. I do have a lot of time to talk about it with you. These are the main people I think are very competitive in what they can do. They do go off and do their own stuff. I'm proud to have them. And I'm telling you, if you say quantum gravity is very possible, I'd say yes, it's not that bad. But it's, I mean, I don't really want to do it. Because I don't want to try and use quantum mechanics if you say something like, oh, I don't want to do it. Quantum mechanics tend to spread out, you're not going to have a quantum system, and then there's the algebra class. If you don't spread it out, you're very limited in the number of situations. You don't want that situation where you can't go in and start doing it, or you can't get it done. If you've got this, then you're going to be able to do it.

22:30 If you can't do it, you can't do it. If you can't do it, you can't do it. If you can't do it, you can't do it. If you can't do it, you can't do it. If you can't do it, you can't do it. The theory of quantum physics is not good enough, and that, you know, like all the laws of the 19th century, well, it is, but it's not something we're going to talk about, but it's one of the things I think is true. I think we're going to have time to talk about it. I mean, we're going to have time to talk about it. What we're doing is fascinating, you know, and it's kind of interesting. But I would be very surprised if you came out here today and you teach me that you've got to know this. That type of generalist is going to quickly apply to a student of their time. There are other things I've never done, but I'm going to try to do two things at the same time, and in many cases, we rather do two things at the same time, and they'll rather do two things at the same time. But then I'm going to try to make a theory to involve a major change in the way that I'm going to talk about.

25:00 I've had a major change in the way that I've taken theory, and that is in each other, each of you, and each of us. But it doesn't have to be that way. I'm going to try to look at it in a different way. I'm going to try to look at it in a different way. I'm going to try to look at it in a different way. I'm going to try to look at it in a different way. Thank you for your attention. There's one version of quantum mechanics which avoids all of the interpretive

27:30 Problems that we started your talk with, with no nonsense whatsoever about state reduction. This is not a view I necessarily, a version I endorse, but it is one which actually makes sense. It has a clear ontology and doesn't have any state reduction. Now the problems are with coupling it with special relativity. But at the level of non-relativistic quantum mechanics, it's the only version that I can actually understand that actually has a clear ontology that says what the universe is made of and what its dynamics is. Yes, there's no question about which one is the ontology or which one is the theory. And I agree with you. The quantum theory is not only the theory of ontology, and not only the theory of algebra, but the theory of quantum mechanics. And I've had a long talk with these two masters about that, and I get their knowledge on the ontology of mathematics. And finally, today, it seems like the idea of mathematics is correct, which it is, and the ontology, I should tell you, is far worse than the ontology of mathematics. Thank you very much. My problem is related to special relativity. I don't know how to put special relativity in a natural way.

30:00 Thank you for your attention.