[OT] "Pre-announcement" of Python-based "computing appliance"project.

[Andrew Dalke]

> Richard Hanson wrote:
>> But, but... How can *QM* be the ultimate framework? -- it doesn't
>> include gravity (GR).

Stephen Waterbury wrote:
> Touche!  OK, modulo superstrings.  :)

There are many quantum mechanics models.  The original
one, the Schrödinger equation, was extended to relativity
with the Klein-Gordon equation, thence refined to
quantum eletrodynamics (QED) to include the weak for
and quantum chromodynamics (QCD) to include the strong
force.

All of these are quantum mechanics, as is string
theory, *-branes, and many others, including many
known to be non-physical.  Superstrings is an attempt
to be a quantum theory that includes gravity.

The confusion you two had is that our current best
description of the universe is called the Standard
Model and it's often assumed that the Standard Model
is identical to being QM, as compared to only be *a*
quantum mechanical model.


>> Likewise, in QM it seems that a robot taking measurements is
>> sufficient to "collapse the wave function." Of course, you could also
>> argue that robots are people, too. ;-)

There was an interesting paper a month or two back,
forgot where, which showed how the length of time for
superposition was a function of temperature.  The
hotter it was the shorter the time, because there
were more photons interacting with the environment.

No active "taking measurements needed" -- only interaction
with the passive environment.  Though I didn't read
the article that closely.  I mostly looked at the
picture.

I also read something recently about a proposed
experiment that might distinguish between a couple
of the standard philosophical interpretations of
QM.  About all I recall is that the granddaughter
of one of the early 20th century physicists (Bohr?
Schrödinger? Heisenberg?) was involved.


				Andrew
				dalke at dalkescientific.com