Quantum cosmology (contd.)

0:00 And they show that the measurements will affect behaviour such as the behaviour of our students. I don't know if you can slice on that, but it's not going to be easy to show how that works. So in this particular way then, we have a, here I say, a complete explanation of how, through this particular presentation, which you might not like, but Christ will pay for having this edition. The non-mathematical theory and many of the criticisms and questions that I've been asked is, well, what happens when this theory comes to the surface, and that should be proved. What do you need in a particle theory? Let me consider just a particle theory. If we've got a particle theory, then the essential structure that we're using is, we have trajectories, and the trajectories are determined by this field, by a function, by a field. Therefore, we want to know how this behaves, we want to know the equation of its own side field, and we also want to make sure that we've got the probability. That conservation probability equation tells us that if we start with the initial algorithmic theory, can we do that? If we take the Dirac theory, it's more or less straightforward. You have a velocity and the notation of the music is the notation of the music.

2:30 The realist is in there. It's very hard to understand. Except during the campaign, it's very hard to understand. It's very hard to understand because it's very hard to understand. It's very hard to understand because it's very hard to understand. It's very hard to understand because it's very hard to understand. It's very hard to understand because it's very hard to understand. It's very hard to understand because it's very hard to understand. It's very hard to understand because it's very hard to understand. I may have said it myself, but I do not necessarily believe that it is the best way to do it. I think we have had enough of it, and I think we want to get it back to people who believe it. What I wanted to do was to show you that there is an alternative, which doesn't have something wrong with it. It is a problem that interests this group. But when they are discussing those problems, they want to know what this theory is saying. Two comments and two questions. First of all, the third distinction, you know, you have a particle that is like a metric, but you can't determine which metric applies to which, without making a decision. It changes the way you count your values across the equation. And therefore, I think that what you've had is really a distinction of these things. And that's what you're interested in. And that's it. Okay, and secondly, you have localities. The theory says that you have to determine the depth, the size of it, or the density of it. And you have to know the density of the localities. How do I find this theory? The non-locality, in your theory, is achieved by means of variables that are not observable. This is the example of how, if you, in the electromagnetic field, you can have a certain variance, the x-percentage of which is not the x-percentage of the light, which is the y-axis, you have non-locality, and you can also have x-percentage of which is not the x-percentage of the light. So, I think that for the non-locality, what that is trying to do is, in fact, you cannot put these variables into the equation.

5:00 There may be a lot of applications for that. Therefore, I think that they may have to remain on topology. And, okay, my question is following. In your theory, the quantum potential is dividing particles. Why is it that particles are the bad part of quantum potential? First of all, what I'm going to have is a composition, nothing special. Your second point was about observables. No. Apologies. I can say that I particularly want to restrict myself to noting the electromagnetic field, for example, which is not an observable direct field to observe particles of, but to observe what the electron does in the field of the observable field itself. In the same way here, we can count on observability, potentially in that sense, we can observe what we find. Therefore, I don't. The theory is designed to be a theory of the universe. Hopefully, it will have some sort of intuition on how you would think about it. The reason why you don't get a violation of the rules is that, first of all, you can't say, see, it's great, it's a lie, you need to put it in front of the client, which is a great mistake. The second thing is that if the properties that you might actually observe are relational properties, relational properties, that you could feed off of them, then there would be an adult and non-adult property.

7:30 It was something else, but I don't think so. Although there's no monogramming that you... The answer to the question is that the answer to the question is that the answer to the question is that the answer to Does this theory suggest any modifications to quantum mechanics? Or is it mostly a solid theory? So what theory do you have? It's a solid theory. If you connect these features into one theory, and figure out something about those,

10:00 won't we have nice suggestions of experiments that we can also bring down? But the question is, how do we do it? In the field theory context, if you give up the locality, what does it do to the power, luminosity, heat therapy, what does it have to say about water, land, and ground? Locality is a crucial part of the economy. But not something observable. You can talk to each other on several different levels, and this will be fun. I'm sorry, but I'll stop.