"the subatomic rules of quantum mechanics, which continue to work within a universal, Newtonian time frame"
Wait, what? QM is based on special relativity. It's problem with general relativity compatibility only remotely touches time, if at all.
Wait, what? QM is based on special relativity. It's problem with general relativity compatibility only remotely touches time, if at all.
Not at all. QM makes no assumption about spacetime; you can formulate it without even mentioning space and time. As Scott Aarons puts it [1]:
Basically, quantum mechanics is the operating system that other physical theories run on as application software (with the exception of general relativity, which hasn't yet been successfully ported to this particular OS).
Historically, QM was developed in the context of Newtonian space + time; then came relativistic quantum mechanics, which is essentially about a fixed number of particles in a special-relativistic spacetime; and then came quantum field theory, where particles can be created and destroyed freely (because they are just excitations of quantum fields).
>"Today, in the quantum information age,"
In what sense do we live in a "quantum information age"?
Edit:
Also, is there an example of a physical theory "running on the quantum mechanics OS"? That phrase doesnt make much sense to me.
Edit2:
Actually there is tons of stuff in here that seems off:
>"More often than not, the only reason we need experiments is that we're not smart enough."
I don't trust this guy to be explaining things to me correctly at all.
You'll have to ask Aaronson what he means by that. :D I would guess he's thinking of technical applications which are attracting plenty of interest and funding (quantum computers, quantum communications).
> is there an example of a physical theory "running on the quantum mechanics OS"?
Sure: the entire Standard Model of particle physics. Stretching the analogy to the limit, because why not, QM is the OS it runs on, QFT is the framework it's written in, and the specific choices of gauge groups, fields and interaction terms are part of the application.
As far as I know nothing usable has come of this. So what will he name the "age" when there are actual quantum computers being used by people?
>"the entire Standard Model of particle physics."
This is still so vague. I'm just trying to think about how some specific thing (eg, E = hv)[1] is linked to quantum mechanics as an OS.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%E2%80%93Einstein_relati...
Quantum communications are definitely a thing:
https://www.insidescience.org/news/china-leader-quantum-comm...
Quantum computing is still at the R&D stage, but if you are an academic, that pretty much defines what "age" you're in:
https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2620
> This is still so vague. I'm just trying to think about how some specific thing (eg, E = hv)[1] is linked to quantum mechanics as an OS.
I think the analogy makes sense in terms of what builds on what. You can build an application on top of an OS, you can't build an OS on top of an application.
With something like "E = hv" you are looking at an application; it's expressed in terms of kinematic concepts, none of which is intrinsic to QM:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_formulation_of_qu...
In what sense is it "an application running on the quantum mechanics operating system".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_formulation_of_qu...
To go from that to something like Planck's law, you need to add states, observables and dynamics (things like photons, energy, temperature). Those are specific to your application.
I just can't map that understanding to this OS analogy.
It is true that QM came about initially as a problem with the quantization of the electromagnetic field, but that was a bit of an accident.