Alain Aspect + The Holographic Universe
- Thread starter ska invita
- Start date
I don't see what distinguishes your vortical causation from our 12 dimensional furry friend. If you can introduce completely evidence free and unexplained "vortexes" which act in at least "one extra large scale dimension of space" thereby causing things to happen in the observed universe, then you might as well go the whole hog and make it an invisible pink unicorn.
There's little worth in inventing mysterious forces which act in mysterious dimensions to solve problems, regardless of how you can tie it in with quantum wave-particle funniness. You would need to describe it mathematically and show how the system is internally consistent and can predict the behaviour of our observed universe before you'd have anything worth considering, and even then it would be little more than an intellectual curiousity like string theory, but with less dimensions, if you couldn't find a test for it (ie something observable which it predicts but which can't be predicted with quantum theory). That's why string theory came from maths rather than physics - the hard part is working out the internally consistent mathematical system, not the invention of the mysterious forces / dimensions. Anybody can do that and indeed many have been doing it for a long time now (god!)
merlin wood
mind traveller 3rd class
Crispy said:
The evidence id found in the quantum wave behaviour of every quantum object, of course.
Orthodox physics doesn't recognise any cause of this behaviour and Bohmian mechanics can only describe and unexplained quantum potential. I think it's explained quite clearly in my blog..
Although I have had thoughts of late that this feature of the non-local causal hypothesis could and needs to be further developed diagrammatically.
merlin wood
mind traveller 3rd class
You can only really argue the point with reference to my blog, which I don't like to push too hard here, but to save you searching back through this thread here it is again.gurrier said:
merlin wood said:
Your Id, we presume...
merlin wood said:
But there's the crux. In your bog you have merely asserted
- That there "must be" a cause - presumably because it fits with the æsthetics of some acid-induced or organic hallucination; and
- That that cause is "vortexes" which act in at least "one extra large scale dimension of space"
If I propose there is a Cause, and it resides in three extra time dimensions (two of them imaginary) - there is no way we can tell the difference from your assertion. So both are redundant. They tell us nothing.
Why on earth would I read all that?merlin wood said:
I'm asking you for what evidence you have for the existance of these vortices in your extra dimension (as distinct from their effects in the observable universe). If you can't give me an answer to that I'm certainly not going to bother to read a long work which I currently estimate to have a 99.99999999% chance of being worthless.
merlin wood
mind traveller 3rd class
laptop said:
(Laptop trolling again, I see. Seems that there are lies, damn lies and such twats as this fart-arsing around on u75 forums.)
merlin wood
mind traveller 3rd class
snadge said:
Actually my blog article as it stands does require some prior knowledge of the experimental results and interpretations of quantum physics. This is why I haverecommended some prior reading at the beginning.
Also, my argument is quite compressed because a most of it is intended to be submitted as an article for a science journal and each section of the hypothesis provides evidential support for the other sections . So that the argument does really need to read quite carefully all the way through.
merlin wood
mind traveller 3rd class
laptop said:
I would strongly recommend anyone reading this thread to totally ignore this git and read my blog itself.
merlin wood said:
Well, clearly the only reason you came here was to get people to read your blog.
The testier you get with people who have, the more we can be sure:
- your "theory" stems from a prior commitment, not any attempt to work out how things are; and
- the criticism is rattling you because it challenges that prior commitment (whereas if you were interested in how things are you would find it useful).
How would one distinguish my "three extra time dimensions" from "vortexes" which act in at least "one extra large scale dimension of space"?
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
You're coming out of this far worse than laptop here. Now I've read your blog properly (which was quite a work out let me tell you) I can now see that your theory is utterly barking. I am not surprised no scientist will talk to you. I would not be surprised if they suggested therapy. I also think you should talk to someone.
Let me tell you the three things I found wrong with your blog:
1. Is English your first language? If not, then I can understand, but still, those are some really broken sentance structures there.
2. The whole thing sounds like an acid trip. Including "There being a single collective subject of experience for each species of living organism means that each individual species member continues to experience the world as a species member beyond the death of the individual" - say what now? QM=life after death now somehow?
3. This fucking vortex:
Is there any evidence for this nature of the universe? How exactly does the motion of the early universe effect all the behaviour of its constituent parts? What happened right at the beginning, when there was not yet enough 'vortex' to create the waves? What was mattter then? And why did it behave like matter 'now' by spiraling out like a spacehip? (which is still a severely flawed metaphor)
By the time you get to the bottom of the page, it's all gone completely pixies. Let me quote a few of the most bonkers:
Sorry Merlin, before I thought it was worth engaging in sensible debate about science with you. Now I realise that your theory truly is an hallucinogenic-induced crazy tale and that your understanding of science is flaky and selective at best. It would make a fantastic SF novel, but this is not science, not by a long shot.
Let me tell you the three things I found wrong with your blog:
1. Is English your first language? If not, then I can understand, but still, those are some really broken sentance structures there.
2. The whole thing sounds like an acid trip. Including "There being a single collective subject of experience for each species of living organism means that each individual species member continues to experience the world as a species member beyond the death of the individual" - say what now? QM=life after death now somehow?
3. This fucking vortex:
Is there any evidence for this nature of the universe? How exactly does the motion of the early universe effect all the behaviour of its constituent parts? What happened right at the beginning, when there was not yet enough 'vortex' to create the waves? What was mattter then? And why did it behave like matter 'now' by spiraling out like a spacehip? (which is still a severely flawed metaphor)
By the time you get to the bottom of the page, it's all gone completely pixies. Let me quote a few of the most bonkers:
How useful! Wavelengths and the speed of light, action at a distance, and evolution! Such explanatory power!
Far out, man. Far fucking out.
Amen, brother. Testify!
Sorry Merlin, before I thought it was worth engaging in sensible debate about science with you. Now I realise that your theory truly is an hallucinogenic-induced crazy tale and that your understanding of science is flaky and selective at best. It would make a fantastic SF novel, but this is not science, not by a long shot.
merlin wood
mind traveller 3rd class
Crispy said:
All total bollocks I'm sad to say, Crispy. It sounds as though you like many others have been thoroughly indoctrinated by an orthodox physics that doesn't attempt to explain quantum mechanics in terms a cause or causes and its or their effects upon quantum objects in motion. That is, in the way that the effects of all the forces have been explained.
All I'm explaining overall, of course, is how matter and the energy it radiates can ba and remain naturally organised and while the forces act just as they can be measured and described. Something that, if you ask other physicists trained in the orthodox methods, they have no real answer other than matter is. somehow, "self-organising" and you have no proper explanation at all of quantum wave and spin behaviour or of quantum entanglement, which can be described as the simplest levels of natural organisation on the smallest scale.
And, as I say, you have to read the whole of my blog acccount carefully all the way through, including the section on living organisms, to see how the hypothesis could make sense
Jonti
what the dormouse said
Nasty. Probably libellous too. That's certainly does not describe my experience of laptop, not in the least.
For example, in this very thread, he's read what you said, considered it, and recommended you read a copy of Albert Einstein's liitle book on relativity. That's not talking shit, nor is it intellectually dishonest, and it is not trolling neither.
Did you read it?
Jonti said:
Nasty. Probably libellous too. That's certainly does not describe my experience of laptop, not in the least.
For example, in this very thread, he's read what you said, considered it, and recommended you read a copy of Albert Einstein's liitle book on relativity. That's not talking shit, nor is it intellectually dishonest, and it is not trolling neither.
Did you read it?
Well, sorry, but, you don't have the experience of him that I have.
yeah right, both me and merlin wood are just imagining that you pay no attention to what the person you disagree with says, misrepresent what they say, ask bogus questions, fail to understand totally obvious points, and are generally a total windup artist. Laptop, you are full of shit. Good bye.
ska invita
back on the other side
Thought this article might be of intereset to those who took part in this thread:
Quantum computers
Dream code
Apr 3rd 2003
From The Economist print edition
Programming languages for quantum computers are now being written...
http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=1682086
Quantum computers
Dream code
Apr 3rd 2003
From The Economist print edition
Programming languages for quantum computers are now being written...
http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=1682086
Similar threads
