merlin wood
mind traveller 3rd class
merlin wood said:
(Sorry, I really should've said there's more to Life the Universe and Everything than is dreamt of in the present mathematical physocs.)
Alain Aspect + The Holographic Universe
- Thread starter ska invita
- Start date
(Sorry, I really should've said there's more to Life the Universe and Everything than is dreamt of in the present mathematical physocs.)
Jonti
what the dormouse said
merlin wood said:
There's always more to discover; and yes, some of it willl be quite unexpected. But that's just because the scientific method is open-ended and enhances comprehension. Science rocks. It's the only way ever found for us to escape from our idiosyncratic bubbles of illusion and wishful thinking.
But the World may still be stranger than one can think, in certain essential aspects. It's certainly strongly counter-intuitive in parts -- and who's to say it can't be downright incomprehensible in others?
laptop said:
This was a bit of a classic from laptop the scientific expert, who devoted several hours to trying to make me say that the entangled particles separated at the speed of light, in order to play a rhetorical semantic trick. (In fact they don't separate at the speed of light. , see below)
The obfuscation laptop was referring to was me saying.
"Well, I would have thought it was fairly obvious to anyone that particles of light separate spatially at a speed not unrelated to the speed at which particles of light move."
The confusion in the first place was created by laptop talking about separation of entangled particles, without mentioning the fact he was talking about spatial separation, when the kind of entanglement we're talking about has nothing to do with spatial proximity. Naturally it was hard for me to know what he was on about.
However, when I actually discovered he was asking a very straightforward question, I answered it.
You don't have to be a genius to see that if a light source emits two photons in opposite directions, each travelling at the speed of light, then in fact the two "particles" separate spatially at
twice the speed of light 
They could also separate at various other speeds related to the speed of light, depending on the angle at which the two photons travel relative to each other.
You don't really even have to be an expert to grasp that.
The fact that neither laptop or Gurrier were even aware of this, and that in the first stage of laptop's "argument" he has clearly made an error worthy of a dunce leads to me believe that perhaps his claims to expertise are not entirely truthful.
ZWord said:You don't have to be a genius to see that if a light source emits two photons in opposite directions, each travelling at the speed of light, then in fact the two "particles" separate spatially at
No, you don't have to be a genius. You have to be a nutter engaged in the absurd exercise of trying to claim that science justifies magic. .
And you have to have failed to understand thing one about relativity - which is precisely that this is not the case.
Well, go ahead, shoot. I think it's fairly obvious that you're talking balls though.
let's say it's a star. And emits light in all directions at the speed of light.
As far as I know, the light separates spatially from the star at the speed of light, whichever direction it's going in, and so in the case of how fast the light travelling in opposite directions separates spatially, ...
maybe I'm being hopelessly ignorant here, but I don't see it.
let's say it's a star. And emits light in all directions at the speed of light.
As far as I know, the light separates spatially from the star at the speed of light, whichever direction it's going in, and so in the case of how fast the light travelling in opposite directions separates spatially, ...
maybe I'm being hopelessly ignorant here, but I don't see it.
laptop said:
Translation, I know it's been shown I'm talking total bollocks, but I don't want to admit it. So again, I'll take refuge in pretending to be an expert.
let's say it's a star. And emits light in all directions at the speed of light.
As far as I know, the light separates spatially from the star at the speed of light, whichever direction it's going in, and so in the case of how fast the light travelling in opposite directions separates spatially, ...
maybe I'm being hopelessly ignorant here, but I don't see it.
No I won't go and find a book. You explain it, you're the self-proclaimed expert, and me the dunce. Prove it.
But I'm off now, so if you need to do some reading, go ahead.
Translation, I know it's been shown I'm talking total bollocks, but I don't want to admit it. So again, I'll take refuge in pretending to be an expert.
People who know about shit are able to explain it to people who are ignorant about it.
You obviously can't, which is why it's fairly obvious that you don't know shit.
People who know about shit are able to explain it to people who are ignorant about it.
You obviously can't, which is why it's fairly obvious that you don't know shit.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
ZWord said:
Mate, it's fundamental relativity. You even said the word 'relative' in your original explanation. The relative speed of one photon relative to another is the speed of light. The speed of light is always the speed of light. Time and space dilation are the result.
eg. (god I hope I've got ths right!)
Your two photons are heading in opposite directions
If you hitch a ride on one photon, it will appear as if the other photon is moving at the speeed of light way from you. The distance between the photons is apparently halved or the time taken is apparently doubled (I forget how you can tell which)
It's a pig to put into language. Try reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_relativity
Jonti
what the dormouse said
People who know about shit are able to explain it to people who are ignorant about it.
In the case of Einstein, this is true, but it ain't necessarily so, I'm afraid. All the same, the advice is apposite. You would undoubtedly enjoy reading Relativity : The Special and the General Theory
Here's a bit from a reader review ...
Albert Einstein wrote this book (more than fifty years ago) whit the purpose of exposing the special and the general theory of relativity in such a way that anyone can understand it. I this sense, I think, Einstein succeeded because despite the shortness of the book, the same covers the most important aspects of relativity in a clear and concise form. Moreover, the book has appendixes where the author makes reference to some interesting subjects like the problem of space and relativity, the experimental confirmation of the theory, to name a few. If you have decided to learn something about relativity, and you do not have vast knowledge in physics and mathematics, I sincerely recommend you this book.
In the case of Einstein, this is true, but it ain't necessarily so, I'm afraid. All the same, the advice is apposite. You would undoubtedly enjoy reading Relativity : The Special and the General Theory
Here's a bit from a reader review ...
Albert Einstein wrote this book (more than fifty years ago) whit the purpose of exposing the special and the general theory of relativity in such a way that anyone can understand it. I this sense, I think, Einstein succeeded because despite the shortness of the book, the same covers the most important aspects of relativity in a clear and concise form. Moreover, the book has appendixes where the author makes reference to some interesting subjects like the problem of space and relativity, the experimental confirmation of the theory, to name a few. If you have decided to learn something about relativity, and you do not have vast knowledge in physics and mathematics, I sincerely recommend you this book.
Crispy said:
If you hitch a ride on one photon, it will appear as if the other photon is moving at the speed of light away from you. I
But it's important to bear in mind that you've mentioned both appearance, and hitching a ride for this thought-experiment.
As far as I remember, and i'm far from an expert on this, then the reason it seems that way is because the faster you get, the more time appears to slow down for the other parties, and so other things would appear to be moving slower, from your frame of reference. Is it true that time and space dilation are the result, or are they perhaps the cause, and how do you decide a question like that?
Summing up the theory of relativity, I wonder if it's a fair approximation to say that the point is that the results of your measurements of something's speed, size, time passing, depend on your frame of reference, in particular on how fast you're moving.
But the normal reference point for considering the case of two photons moving in opposite directions from a "fixed" light source, for example, a star, would be the point of view/frame of reference of the star. From the point of view of whoever lives on the star, the two photons would appear to be moving at twice the speed of light relative to each other. From the point of view of the photons, they would appear to be moving away from each other at the speed of light. This is something I do not quite understand, but I think it's to do with the effect of moving at very fast speeds on time and space.
I found a really good link:
http://www.sysmatrix.net/~kavs/kjs/relrap.html
As far as I can work out, the apparent inconsistency that two photons cannot get away from each other faster than the speed of light, even when moving in opposite directions and even considering the supposition that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant, is actually the result of the fact that the speeds they are moving at shorten distances and make the other's clocks appear to go slow.
Speed after all, is distance/ time, ifwe find that actually, distance and time are not absolute, but depend on your frame of reference, then it is not surprising that from the point of view of the photons things are different than from our point of view, from which I maintain, it is true that they separate at twice the speed of light.
"Scientists assert that no material thing can ever reach or exceed the speed of light. But they're not talking about an object's ABSOLUTE speed, such as relative to a hypothetical macro scale set of x-y-z axes of our universe/space, which is a myth... NO, they mean that no object can move as fast as light as assessed from another object's reference frame. This perhaps is an even greater constraint than the first, because it means that every single object in the world must comply in relation to every other possible citing object! and in relation to any conceivable vantage or trajectory. Another way to phrase this particular rule of Relativity Principle is: no object can OUTRUN being viewed by others. That truth is inviolate and universal."
So, in conclusion, I think on this red herring, I think both laptop and I were correct from different points of view.
Once again, though, I find this truth a great deal more mind-boggling than laptop appears to. mainly because it seems a remarkably intelligent feat for the universe to be able to pull off.
merlin wood
mind traveller 3rd class
Jonti said:
But then one can argue that at least some of this counter-intuitiveness in quantum physics is due to a counter-intuive interpretaiion of the findings rather than due to nature itself
And you could also conclude that, while the maths in the Standard Model of quantum works for predicting the results of further experiments, it also acts so as to obscure the issue of interpretation (what with Hilbert space and path integrals and so on).
My approach has been to take the experimental results just as observed or directly detected and an interpretation that's not necessarily counter-intuitive but is causal and determinate, like Bohmian mechanics, and then see whether this causal approach works in relation to the apprropriate large scale natural evidence.
And I've concluded that with this approach you really do get a 'quantum leap' in understanding and a possible cosmology thst could work without WIMP dark matter (which still hasn't been directly detected after some twenty years or so of experiments) or faster than light inflation which has its own problems (including how it properly fits into existing particle theory and working out how this inflation could have slowed down).
Jonti
what the dormouse said
one can argue that at least some of this counter-intuitiveness in quantum physics is due to a counter-intuive interpretaiion of the findings rather than due to nature itself
The experimental results themselves are wierd, that's the real point
Perhaps the best we can do is invent stories that more-or-less fit the facts. In the case of QM, the facts do agree with the calculations to an extraordinary accuracy. Yet this is a statistical accuracy: the half life of Uranium 235 can be specified exactly, but the decay of a particular uranium atom happens at random, quite uncaused by anything!
I understand it's a mathematical possibility that suchlike quantum events are but the surface workings of a determinist process involving unobservable entities. Bohm has shown the math for this, using Hilbert spaces. But there's no experimental evidence yet, that his is the right interpretation.
It seems important to you that the World is determinist, and I wonder why? I would rather say that being free and able to choose how to act is something that enriches the World.
The experimental results themselves are wierd, that's the real point
Perhaps the best we can do is invent stories that more-or-less fit the facts. In the case of QM, the facts do agree with the calculations to an extraordinary accuracy. Yet this is a statistical accuracy: the half life of Uranium 235 can be specified exactly, but the decay of a particular uranium atom happens at random, quite uncaused by anything!
I understand it's a mathematical possibility that suchlike quantum events are but the surface workings of a determinist process involving unobservable entities. Bohm has shown the math for this, using Hilbert spaces. But there's no experimental evidence yet, that his is the right interpretation.
It seems important to you that the World is determinist, and I wonder why? I would rather say that being free and able to choose how to act is something that enriches the World.
merlin wood
mind traveller 3rd class
Jonti said:The experimental results themselves are wierd, that's the real point.
Perhaps the best we can do is invent stories that more-or-less fit the facts. In the case of QM, the facts do agree with the calculations to an extraordinary accuracy. Yet this is a statistical accuracy: the half life of Uranium 235 can be specified exactly, but the decay of a particular uranium atom happens at random, quite uncaused by anything!
Actually I've never thought of the results of quantum physics experiments as 'wierd', even though popular books I've read on the subject often told me that they were.
Rather, what I found particularly wierd were the indeterminate interpretations of quantum mechanics propounded by von Neumann and the Copenhagenists.
So while their arguments may be compelling in some respects you can still ask do they really make sense?
Thus, for a start, you can ask Is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle really describing the indeterminate behaviour of quantum objects themselves or just a systematic limitation in our capacity to measure and thus determine certain pairs of properties of this behaviour?
And OK, so radioactive decay in particular atoms is totally
random but this need not imply that, overall, radioactivity is not caused by anything. So there could be some unknown cause that results in a tendency for particular isotopes of an element to decay.
And while you need statistical probabilities to describe the directly detected behaviour of quantum objects as they produce interference and diffraction, overall this behaviour certainly isn't random.
Jonti said:
But then the fact is that Bohm's is a systematic, mathematically justified argument that is consistent with a wide range of experimental results, and that he used Hilbert Spaces for this argument could have been a factor contributing towards his rather abstract philosophical musings on his own interpretaion.
Jonti said:
But then you can ask whether it necessarily follows from indeterminacy with regard to quantum behaviour that human beings would have freedom of choice. So instead one could think their could be a disassociation between one's intention to do something and what one actually does. There thus being only be a probability that one actually carries out the action that is one's intention. And hence when I intend to lift a cup to my mouth what I actually do a lot of the time is throw it out the window.
Jonti
what the dormouse said
Experimental results that build up an interference pattern on a screen, even though only one photon at a time traverses the apparatus, are considered wierd. It's easy to explain why ...
Interference patterns are a signature of wave interaction (not particles). And if there is not light going through both slits, then light from one slit cannot interfere with light from the other. Hence no interference pattern. However, an interference pattern does appear after a while. And that's almost the simplest QM experiment!
If the world is totally deterministic, then there is no room in it for freedom of action, that's all. That's not to say that QM is anything to do with human freedom of action. It's just to say that human freedom of action would be ruled out in a determinst world view. As you strongly favour a determinist world view, I wondered about your views on freewill.
It appears you do think you have freewill, but that it only sometimes succeeds. A common experience, I'm sure. But if you have any freewill at all, then hard determinism as a world view must fail.
Interference patterns are a signature of wave interaction (not particles). And if there is not light going through both slits, then light from one slit cannot interfere with light from the other. Hence no interference pattern. However, an interference pattern does appear after a while. And that's almost the simplest QM experiment!
If the world is totally deterministic, then there is no room in it for freedom of action, that's all. That's not to say that QM is anything to do with human freedom of action. It's just to say that human freedom of action would be ruled out in a determinst world view. As you strongly favour a determinist world view, I wondered about your views on freewill.
It appears you do think you have freewill, but that it only sometimes succeeds. A common experience, I'm sure. But if you have any freewill at all, then hard determinism as a world view must fail.
merlin wood
mind traveller 3rd class
Jonti said:
But then Bohmian mechanics can account for such experimental results in a determinate way! See here for example, then click on 'Introduction to BM' on left hand side and on next page click on 'poster in HTML' at beginning of text.
Jonti said:
Well this is a science and environment forum so I'm not doing to get caught up in a free will debate that can go on forever: see such threads on U75 philosophy theory history forum just for an example, and here's a google just on the meaning of free wil. So things really ain't, of course, as simple as you make out above.
(Also I have rather a lot of other things to do with my time at the moment)
But, anyway, just for an example, you can ask; can everything be determined but, at the same time, in some sense, you can have free will?
And also, Does the notion of absolute free will really make sense?
But on this thread, anyway, I'm only going to respond to other issues relating to quantum physics.
Jonti
what the dormouse said
Yes, we've done Bohm, thanks. He has a determinist interpretation of QM -- in the sense that determinist processes in a space we cannot access appear as random processes in our own space. Most mathematicians, phycisists and philosophers seem distinctly underwhelmed at the notion. I can understand why! But, really, why worry? The point is that as this is science, eventually experiments will be performed to decide the matter.
you can ask; can everything be determined but, at the same time, in some sense, you can have free will?
You can ask, and the answer is, of course, NO, if the course of events cannot be deflected in any way, then there is no possibility that freedom of action is going to influence things.
It's important just because it may be possible to prove that organisms are not computable in all their behaviours. In which case, a determinist cosmology would be out of the question.
But *why* is it so important to you that folk adopt a determinist cosmology?
you can ask; can everything be determined but, at the same time, in some sense, you can have free will?
You can ask, and the answer is, of course, NO, if the course of events cannot be deflected in any way, then there is no possibility that freedom of action is going to influence things.
It's important just because it may be possible to prove that organisms are not computable in all their behaviours. In which case, a determinist cosmology would be out of the question.
But *why* is it so important to you that folk adopt a determinist cosmology?
merlin wood
mind traveller 3rd class
Jonti said:
Yes, we've done Bohm, thanks.
Nope. Sorry Bohm hasn't been 'done' any means.
So no experiment's will be performed ot show who's right about the interpretation of quntum mechanics because the crucial behaviour that quantum mechanics described and can't be understood, ie wave, spin and entanglement, can by no means be directly detected from objects in motion.
This was the whole point of the Copenhagenist/von neumannian versus Bohmian argument (if you can call it that), the question was: could you give a systematic account of quantum objects in motion in terms of the hidden variables of their behaviour?
The Copenhagenists said you couldn't and in 1935 von Neumann produced an extended mathematicall justified argument that purported to be a proof that hidden variables were impossible. Whereas in 1952 Bohm showed that it was possible after all.
But by then the CI indeterminist account was so entrenched that Bohm's arguent was largely ignored or poo poohed without any scientific justification by the top enchelons of the physics eastablishment.
Recommended reading: Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics John S. Bell (2004)C.U.P;
Beyond Measure Jim Baggott (2004).) 0.U.P.
James T Cushing Quantum mechanics: historical contingency and the Copenhagen hegemony, (1994)University of Chicago Press.....
(....but then why try to argue with this jonti guy for chrissake?! He obviously thinks he's got the whole thing sewn up and, anyway---where's that needle? I've got my own sewing to do, rather than waste time around here with such people.
Jonti
what the dormouse said
I understand there are some differences in the predictions made by the rival interpretations, but the crucial experiments have yet to be performed. What makes you think that no-one will ever attempt such experiments to see which of the interpretations fits the outcome?
Surely members of the Bohmian school would be keen to get those results -- and members of the Copenhagen school would also be keen. Heck, it's the *only* way to resolve the question! Or to put it another way, it really doesn't matter who's right about things -- what matters is that we have ideas whose validity can be checked by experimental means.
At the moment, there is no experimental evidence to fall back on. That's all. But it does kind of make it pointless to argue, except to discuss those grounds which have led scientists, mathematicians and philosophers to favour the Copenhagen view over the Bohmian one. I've given my reasons for prefering the more open-ended model, and politely enquired as to your reasons for so strongly favouring a determinist cosmology. I'd still be interested in an answer to that question, if you can find the time.
"Spooky" action at a distance and uncaused events count against the Copenhagen view. But the Bohmian reliance on unobservable entities in an inaccessible space counts even more heavily against the Bohmiam one. Either option changes the scientific world-view quite radically. The fact is that practicing scientists prefer the Copenhagen interpretation. Yes, they could be wrong. But I have no doubt that both schools are keen to remove any doubts and get the crucual experimental results which are the only thing that can conclusively decide the matter, one way or the other.
What makes you think otherwise?
Surely members of the Bohmian school would be keen to get those results -- and members of the Copenhagen school would also be keen. Heck, it's the *only* way to resolve the question! Or to put it another way, it really doesn't matter who's right about things -- what matters is that we have ideas whose validity can be checked by experimental means.
At the moment, there is no experimental evidence to fall back on. That's all. But it does kind of make it pointless to argue, except to discuss those grounds which have led scientists, mathematicians and philosophers to favour the Copenhagen view over the Bohmian one. I've given my reasons for prefering the more open-ended model, and politely enquired as to your reasons for so strongly favouring a determinist cosmology. I'd still be interested in an answer to that question, if you can find the time.
"Spooky" action at a distance and uncaused events count against the Copenhagen view. But the Bohmian reliance on unobservable entities in an inaccessible space counts even more heavily against the Bohmiam one. Either option changes the scientific world-view quite radically. The fact is that practicing scientists prefer the Copenhagen interpretation. Yes, they could be wrong. But I have no doubt that both schools are keen to remove any doubts and get the crucual experimental results which are the only thing that can conclusively decide the matter, one way or the other.
What makes you think otherwise?
merlin wood
mind traveller 3rd class
merlin wood said:
Jonti said:
I'm sorry I'm not replying to people who misrepresent my arguments. I've gather that's it's known as trolling.
And it's you who introduced the idea that I was so strongly arguing for a determinate world not. I had not been arguing from a philosophical perspective until you put the words in mouth in:
Jonti said:
above.
In fact i'ts not important to me.
merlin wood
mind traveller 3rd class
gurrier said:
Not so, eejit yerself, mate.
merlin wood
mind traveller 3rd class
...and so (after being so rudely interrupted) with regard to all the evidence that has been found of matter on the scale of atoms and molecules and their subatomic components, the question can be asked does a cause that could only be described from its effects act in addition to the known forces so that matter can remain organised out thesea suatomic components and despite the action of the of the forces?
And you could insist that any answer to this question would be such that that it could be sufficiently supported be examining together enough nature evidence of where such a cause could be considered to act, and such evidence should include that found in the natural world on the large observabable scale.
Andso that, if at all, this would be the only means of finding a scientific answer our initial question.
And you could insist that any answer to this question would be such that that it could be sufficiently supported be examining together enough nature evidence of where such a cause could be considered to act, and such evidence should include that found in the natural world on the large observabable scale.
Andso that, if at all, this would be the only means of finding a scientific answer our initial question.
Jonti
what the dormouse said
Just to be clear ...
1) the Bohm interpretation of QM is (sort of) determinist
2) the Copenhagen interpretation is *not* determinist (of any sort!)
3) there is no experimental yet to decide between the two interpretations, although there may be in future
4) Merlin wood strongly favours the determinist Bohm interpretation
1) the Bohm interpretation of QM is (sort of) determinist
2) the Copenhagen interpretation is *not* determinist (of any sort!)
3) there is no experimental yet to decide between the two interpretations, although there may be in future
4) Merlin wood strongly favours the determinist Bohm interpretation
merlin wood
mind traveller 3rd class
Crispy said:
That's a pretty succinct way of putting part of the hypothesis anyway, yes.
The action of the spherical outwardly radiating vortex of the very early universe explains all the properties of the quantum particle/wave system given that this form of causation is universalised via (at least) one extra large scale dimension of space.
The wave property of all electroms that are components of of atoms and molecules prevents electrons from falling into the atomic or molecular nuclei. All elements, compounds and the organic molecules out of which living organisms are composed can remain the way that they are only because of their wave property of behaviour that is perpetuated by the underlying vortical causation.
Then the existencs of the variety of elements, compounds and apecies of organisms is accounted for by an additional dimension of space where the non-locally acting cause conserves the sub-causes for each type of atom, molecule or living organism as causally separate composite particle systems.
Then especially by considering how the cosmos on the large scale could have evolved from a Big Bang I find it more than a coincidence that several large acale observable features could be accounted for by the action of an outwardly radiating spherical causation acting in addition to gravity. But I'm still searching for a prominent cosmologist/ astrophysicist/astronomer who would be willing to test this hypothesis out mathematically. The biggest problem being that such scientists are constantly harrassed by people sending them ideas that they can easily dismiss as cranky. And I'm not a qualified scientist of any variety.
But even so I think I have read through enough good quality and recently published text books on cosmology and astro-physics to put quite a strong case for a non-local causal cosmology, as I think my blog article indicates.
------------------------------
[edit]
(NB I wish to emphase once again that this hypothesis is NOT repeat NOT! an argument from a determin*ist* philosophical perspective. In fact, it started out as seeing what I thought was a direct relationship between certain problems of mind in European philosophy that are quite unrelated to the issue of free will or determinism and the Aspect type experimental tests for non-locality.
And it just turns out that to develop this hypothesis one needs to develop a nonlocal causal hypothesis that is often called determin*ate* in contrast to such indeterminate interpretations as those of Neils Bohr, Max Born, Werner Heisenberg and John von Neumann.)
Similar threads
