Quantum Physics and trading forex | Page 4 | Forex Factory

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

Quantum London Trading 4,442 replies

Quantum London Trading Custom EA 1,506 replies

Quantum 00 Level Daily Trading 137 replies

Application of physics in trading? 6 replies

Short Term Trading is Quantum Physics 55 replies

Attachments: Quantum Physics and trading forex
Exit Attachments

Quantum Physics and trading forex

  • #61
  • May 4, 2007 6:46am May 4, 2007 6:46am
Newton did not consider himself a physicist, as the term was not in use, he was a Natural Philosopher!
  • #62
  • May 4, 2007 7:02am May 4, 2007 7:02am
This is the funniest thread I have come across since I've been a member here.

Call me unimaginative but I simply cannot accept that the native Aboriginees saw only a "ripple" when Captain Cook sailed in a f*ck off ship.

But I understand your point - that is I think you are saying that we cannot see something that we have no comprehension of.

I can almost get my head round that since it is impossible to comprehend "nothing" since we have no idea what "nothing" is because we have never experienced it. (If you don't believe me, try imagining death as being unaware of anything. The closest I can get to is being asleep which in itself we aware of)

But the difference is, that nothing is nothing and a ship is something that affects our immediate surroundings.

At any rate, what really cracks me up is how a parallel has been drawn with not being able to find the salt in the kitchen cupboard!

The reason you probably can't find the salt is because you are not opening your eyes! (or you're male)

Tom
  • #63
  • May 4, 2007 8:07am May 4, 2007 8:07am
Quoting the_wizard
This is the funniest thread I have come across since I've been a member here.

Call me unimaginative but I simply cannot accept that the native Aboriginees saw only a "ripple" when Captain Cook sailed in a f*ck off ship.
This sounds like a story from the movie What the %^*# do We Know?, which blends pseudo-science New Age talk with quantum physics. The site Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics shows what is wrong with this movie.
  • #64
  • May 4, 2007 8:23am May 4, 2007 8:23am
Quoting Ted1983
Hi Blueruby,

I think the conception of atoms as little hard golf/snooker/king kongs' balls is flawed.I mean, I think we all percieve them that way and your analogy sheds light as to the minute scale of these things, but at this scale the material world does cease to exist. I believe it is to do, in part, with the relative strenghts of the fundamental forces. The Earth can orbit the sun under the influence of gravity, but at the sub atomic level gravity is negligible. Unfortunately our human sizedness (if thats a word) does not allow us to "experience" the nuclear forces.
I like to think of everything as a wavicle, rather than a particle or a wave. Its just that big stuff is very particley and small stuff is very wavy. Inbetween stuff like radiation "particles" can be either depending on how you look at them.
However you want to picture them, or whatever scale you use is fine.

The question was, what's in between?

The only point was that matter is mostly not there.
  • #65
  • May 4, 2007 8:59am May 4, 2007 8:59am
Agreed!

Was just pointing out that the spaces inbetween are irrelavent as it is the nuclear forces that dictate the interaction between the particles, not the macroscopic gravity which golf balls obey. This is because gravity is an intensely weak force which is why it is only discernable if you are the size of a planet.
It is postulated that the fundamental forces (strong, weak, gravity, electrical) were distilled from one overarching force as the universe expanded and cooled. Einsteins great "failure" was to be unable to unite these forces as was his ambition. Todays generation of particle accelerators may be able to further the search for a "grand unified theory" but as far as I am aware no-one has been able to reconcile gravity with the other forces.
  • #66
  • Edited 5:22am Jan 7, 2008 5:03am | Edited 5:22am
Since it is against the very definition of rationalism to base an argument or statement in probability, the original post is neither Decartian nor physical in content. Decartes thought is a substantiative form of metacognition. All that have been posted here are slightly sophomoric opinions. Ironically, the original post doesn't hold to Decartian scrutiny.

As far as quantum physics goes, sharpen a pencil. It's amazing how so many believe it's nature is textual and that any meaningful nonformulaic discussion can exist in regards to it. Lets say one grapples with nuclear physics; then quantum mechanics will definitely lower the boom and this discourse hasn't broken up to differential calc yet.

If discussion is to continue, drop the keyboards and get out the chalkboards.
  • #67
  • Jan 7, 2008 5:49am Jan 7, 2008 5:49am
Interesting theory, but.... I'm not buying into it.

Quoting Rusty_forexman
Remember, the market does not exist - we create the market in our head.
Unfortunately the market is not the imagination of several million people, it is a reality (and not a fabrication,) often controlled by a few select Central Bankers. Bankers on agendas move markets, not the masses.
  • #68
  • Jan 7, 2008 6:58am Jan 7, 2008 6:58am
Quoting tdion
Interesting theory, but.... I'm not buying into it.



Unfortunately the market is not the imagination of several million people, it is a reality (and not a fabrication,) often controlled by a few select Central Bankers. Bankers on agendas move markets, not the masses.
Well said for those who cares to understand the statement. What does this mean..........we must trade like the central banks and other largest participants. We move when they move, pause when they pause, and exit when they exit........very simple!

So when your fibo fall apart, or support no longer support your trade, and EMA , SMA, MACD are confused, you know you are not performing your role in the market place.
  • #69
  • Jan 7, 2008 7:42am Jan 7, 2008 7:42am
Quoting inflxshn
Since it is against the very definition of rationalism to base an argument or statement in probability, the original post is neither Decartian nor physical in content. Decartes thought is a substantiative form of metacognition. All that have been posted here are slightly sophomoric opinions. Ironically, the original post doesn't hold to Decartian scrutiny.

As far as quantum physics goes, sharpen a pencil. It's amazing how so many believe it's nature is textual and that any meaningful nonformulaic discussion can exist in regards to it. Lets say one grapples with nuclear physics; then quantum mechanics will definitely lower the boom and this discourse hasn't broken up to differential calc yet.

If discussion is to continue, drop the keyboards and get out the chalkboards.
Meaningful nonformulaic discussion does exist. And maybe we can continue it here?
  • #70
  • Mar 29, 2009 5:02pm Mar 29, 2009 5:02pm
More on Quantum physics .... anyone???


come on guys, share ur ideas...
  • #71
  • Mar 29, 2009 10:19pm Mar 29, 2009 10:19pm
People read the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox and think that mathematics is optional. People hear a metaphor and use it as if it was the real thing.
A physicist says "Gravity is like a hand that takes objects" and people who WOULD LIKE to know quantum physics begin to think "Ok, so... what are the nails? Is there an elbow?" and so on... this is why Amazon is full of budhists publishing quantum-crap. The words are similar. The context is so different that people who understand quantum physics can't avoid smiling.

Mathematicians and physicists tend to say "Quantum physics is more like philosophy than physics".
This means that "after you study 10 years and finally understand quantum physics, there are many posibilities of creating universes USING THE THEORY AS BRICKS"
This DOESN'T mean that "after you read four books and understand "eigendecomposition of a matrix" you can use the same words in a completely different context"

There's a lot of interesting relationships between quantum physics and forex, specially between quantum chaos and market models in general.
I include here two as an example (see attachments).

Everything is posible if you really believe in it? Right... that's why 90% of forex people fail... because they "don't believe in it", this is why a lot of poor young boys finish their lives in poverty and frustration instead of being first in their class in Harvard... not because of probability (which would be a lot closer to quantum physics), connections, paying favors and having the right high school education, but because they didn't believe in it...

Want to discuss quantum physics and Forex? I'd be very excited, send me a PM and we'll begin with some of the interesting equations.
We're talking REAL quantum physics, not this, right?
Attached File(s)
File Type: pdf 55947.PDF   167 KB | 1,433 downloads
File Type: pdf 55948.PDF   237 KB | 2,160 downloads
  • #72
  • Mar 29, 2009 10:48pm Mar 29, 2009 10:48pm
Quoting Neznaika
More on Quantum physics .... anyone???


come on guys, share ur ideas...

Please see the attachments I put in my last post.
I don't want to be disrespectful, I just want to have the right word for the right concept.
Want to discuss quantum chaos? Let's do it.

But to discuss quantum physics, a basic thing is... to know quantum physics. Before that we're just waiting our time.

The other possibility would be to open a bottle of beer and just say what we think using interesting names, while we watch the football game and wait for MACD to cross and get a signal...

Again, please don't confuse this with being disrespectful. I just think that discussions about quantum physics should be positive and constructive. To talk about what we think about ontology, epistemology and the existence of chairs... we could open a new post, I'd gladly share my thoughts.
  • #73
  • Feb 23, 2019 3:01pm Feb 23, 2019 3:01pm
it may be that we do ourselves here (in Germany) somewhat easier with the understanding of quantum physics. We orient ourselves more to Heisenberg and B.Heim.
Einstein, who made the atomic bomb, is less an example for us. He came from Germany / Switzerland and we know very well from where he copied.
We can therefore easily understand how reality works (in probabilities). But here in the forums I find unfortunately only little, with which one uses the quantum physics and better to be able to trade
  • #74
  • Feb 24, 2019 2:22am Feb 24, 2019 2:22am
whether success or failure in trading can be calculate using quantum physics?
  • #75
  • Last Post: Feb 24, 2019 8:36am Feb 24, 2019 8:36am
Quantum physics hurts my head!
0 traders viewing now