I remember, at age nine or something silly like that, showing my father a diagram full of filled circles and trying to convince him that the indeterminacy of particle collisions was because they had a fourth-dimensional cross-section and they were bumping or failing to bump in the fourth dimension.
Interesting, I came up with a very similar theory when I was a child. Possibly its a fairly obvious connection for people with an abstract understanding of physics but not the mathematics. [I also invented imaginary numbers at one point.]
Very interesting. When I was 10, a friend and I got together to “crack” the problem of indeterminacy. We also came up with this hypothesis (I fail to recall how).
(On a tangentially related note: After reading a couple of wikipedia articles, we decided we were wrong and moved onto the hypothesis that the universe was a giant simulation, and quantum indeterminacy was floating-point error.)
Interesting, I came up with a very similar theory when I was a child. Possibly its a fairly obvious connection for people with an abstract understanding of physics but not the mathematics. [I also invented imaginary numbers at one point.]
Very interesting. When I was 10, a friend and I got together to “crack” the problem of indeterminacy. We also came up with this hypothesis (I fail to recall how).
(On a tangentially related note: After reading a couple of wikipedia articles, we decided we were wrong and moved onto the hypothesis that the universe was a giant simulation, and quantum indeterminacy was floating-point error.)
What problem? If you want to predict, indetrrminacy is inconvenient, but why should the universe be convenient for humans?
What’re your current thoughts on this? Also, you and your friend sound awesome.
After learning more about the math behind quantum mechanics, I’m pretty sure indeterminacy doesn’t work that way. :P