Issue #49 ~ Flat Earthers are a small but growing community of people who, as the name suggests, believe that the Earth is flat. They claim, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that they can account using flat geometry for all the experiments revealing the Earth’s spherical shape.
I always write at a semi-popular level to reach a wider audience. However, all the aspects of my discourse have the relevant mathematics associated with them, and the analogies I explore can be made formally. In that sense, you can "isomorphically" map the flatness concept in quantum physics to the one in general relativity. Whether this is fruitful depends on what we get from such a mapping, and one never knows in advance. Certain ideas are clearly deadends (like hidden variables in quantum physics) but most ideas are neither here nor there (at least at first sight). This one seems to me worth exploring further not least of all because we are still actively exploring the quantum nature of spacetime.
Please consider the papers "Evidence of Vedic Renaissance: From Veda to Modern Science and Back", "Seamless Transitions between Matter, Energy, Mind and Consciousness", and/or "Superdeterminism and Other Popular 'Illusions' in Physics Today" (full-text/open-access on ResearchGate.net). These papers address a more integrated approach of levels of spacetime as 'curved' (associated with GRT),'flat' (associated with some current versions of UFT), and Maldacena's insightful AdS/CFT Correspondence conjecture.
Unfortunately, physicists resemble flat-Earthers when they make complexity a mere “aspect” of hypothetical fundamental micromechanisms rather than a dimension of its own.
Geurdes, H., Nagata, K. and Nakamura, T. (2021) The CHSH Bell Inequality: A Critical Look at Its Mathematics and Some Consequences for Physical Chemistry. Russian Journal of Physical Chemistry B, 15, S68-S80.
I always write at a semi-popular level to reach a wider audience. However, all the aspects of my discourse have the relevant mathematics associated with them, and the analogies I explore can be made formally. In that sense, you can "isomorphically" map the flatness concept in quantum physics to the one in general relativity. Whether this is fruitful depends on what we get from such a mapping, and one never knows in advance. Certain ideas are clearly deadends (like hidden variables in quantum physics) but most ideas are neither here nor there (at least at first sight). This one seems to me worth exploring further not least of all because we are still actively exploring the quantum nature of spacetime.
The qubit may be round but is still epistemic imho. Like -1 apple is round but not real
Vlatko,
Please consider the papers "Evidence of Vedic Renaissance: From Veda to Modern Science and Back", "Seamless Transitions between Matter, Energy, Mind and Consciousness", and/or "Superdeterminism and Other Popular 'Illusions' in Physics Today" (full-text/open-access on ResearchGate.net). These papers address a more integrated approach of levels of spacetime as 'curved' (associated with GRT),'flat' (associated with some current versions of UFT), and Maldacena's insightful AdS/CFT Correspondence conjecture.
Thanks,
Bob (RW Boyer)
No flat earth. Nonlocality is a kind of flat earth believe. See:
http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.15808
It's quite simple to demonstrate that Aspect's experiment is statistically flawed. If you don't believe that then the flat earth fallacy is on you.
Unfortunately, physicists resemble flat-Earthers when they make complexity a mere “aspect” of hypothetical fundamental micromechanisms rather than a dimension of its own.
Geurdes, H., Nagata, K. and Nakamura, T. (2021) The CHSH Bell Inequality: A Critical Look at Its Mathematics and Some Consequences for Physical Chemistry. Russian Journal of Physical Chemistry B, 15, S68-S80.
https://doi.org/10.1134/S199079312109005