Cool Universe

mosii

Look at it this way,if i look down at the ground right now,can i see if i am travelling at 67000 mph.Its stationary to me. My point is ,relativity ,on the classical stage and the quantom/particle stage,we just cant quantify it ,or observe it.

Fourier

mosii wrote: »

quantom/particle stage,we just cant quantify it ,or observe it.

No. Quantum objects are not moving or stationary. It's nothing to do with relativity.

mosii

I dont mean the theory of relativity,my point is, I am in a state , a position and i dont know what speed im going, or my position in that state ,until another state is opened or realised to me,only then can i realise one or the other,.This i think is a super position,but my own thinking is ,that there is movement of some order, which could involve quantom tunneling and/or entanglement.I see this as part of a bigger position of connection to another universe through black holes,which allows for the increasing rate of expansion of our Galaxy and Universe.As i said before ,we dont know a starting point,and we dont know an end point.Maybe i am explaining the many worlds theory ,in my own way.

Fourier

mosii wrote: »

I dont mean the theory of relativity,my point is, I am in a state , a position and i dont know what speed im going, or my position in that state ,until another state is opened or realised to me,only then can i realise one or the other,.This i think is a super position,but my own thinking is ,that there is movement of some order, which could involve quantom tunneling and/or entanglement.I see this as part of a bigger position of connection to another universe through black holes,which allows for the increasing rate of expansion of our Galaxy and Universe.As i said before ,we dont know a starting point,and we dont know an end point.Maybe i am explaining the many worlds theory ,in my own way.

This is hard to make sense of, but quantum tunneling and entanglement don't involve moving.

mosii

Not on the information you are going by,but in the fullness of time ,maybe we will find out information is been communicated,so as to cause and effect quantum entanglement,in my opinion ,something has to be doing this .This is why i am saying ,movement might not occur in our state or system,but in another state or system ,that we have not yet realised ,movement is happening. Its difficult to explain,my thinking sorry. Imagine primitive man,did he know he was travelling on a tiny rock at vast speeds around a galaxy,a galaxy travelling around a universe a great speeds.Only through time did man realise this ,and so have a basic understanding of whats happening around us.

Fourier

mosii wrote: »

Not on the information you are going by,but in the fullness of time ,maybe we will find out information is been communicated,so as to cause and effect quantum entanglement,in my opinion ,something has to be doing this

It has been proven already (roughly 30 years at this point) that no information is being exchanged in entanglement.

mosii

Was he Irish

Fourier

mosii wrote: »

Was he Irish

Who? I'm not sure what you mean.

ps200306

oriel36 wrote: »

There are a lot of voodoo merchants setting lower limits such as a 'Planck length', however, when a discussion arose 20 years ago with the mathematician John Baez, he basically disappeared and was not seen again.

Yeah, well, that's quantum weirdness for ya. :pac:

mosii

Sorry ,was it JOHN BELL ,that disproved communication in entanglement?

Fourier

mosii wrote: »

Sorry ,was it JOHN BELL ,that disproved communication in entanglement?

Not exactly. Although his work is involved in the study of entanglement.

He proved that there cannot be a causal/mechanical theory of how the correlations in entanglement come about.

mosii

He was great.Thanks for info.

Fourier

No problem!

ps200306

Fourier wrote: »

He proved that there cannot be a causal/mechanical theory of how the correlations in entanglement come about.

Would it be fairer to say he proved there cannot be a local causal theory.

Fourier

ps200306 wrote: »

Would it be fairer to say he proved there cannot be a local causal theory.

He proved that. Later work by Spekkens, Wood, Pusey, Bendersky later eliminated more general causal theories.

Fourier

I should say specifically that Robert Spekkens showed all such theories would need to be fine-tuned. Ariel Bendersky showed they'd need to be uncomputable (i.e. their equations cannot be solved, even by an infinitely powerful computer) and Sally Shrapnel has shown they'd need to be contextual (they "know" how we are going to measure them).

This combined with the fact that they can't be made to match relativistic particle experiments (like the LHC) has essentially left them a dead end as of 2020.

ps200306

Fourier wrote: »

...they'd need to be contextual (they "know" how we are going to measure them).

I presume that's the basis of super-determinism that I've seen Gerard 't Hooft talking about. On the face of it, it just sounds too freaky to be true.


On the other hand, the alternatives are all pretty weird too. Strange old world.

Fourier

ps200306 wrote: »

I presume that's the basis of super-determinism that I've seen Gerard 't Hooft talking about. On the face of it, it just sounds too freaky to be true.


On the other hand, the alternatives are all pretty weird too. Strange old world.

The options for a causal theory have been narrowed down to the following. I'll mention how they are contextual in some cases.

1. Nonlocal. Faster than light transmission of information. One particle signals to the other faster than light what measurement it undergoes.
   
2. Multiple Worlds. Fairly obvious meaning.
   
3. Acausal. The past and future communicate. Particles signal back in time to their past selves how they were measured.
   
4. Superdeterminism. The initial conditions of the world were such that we are deterministically bound to perform incorrect experiments that lead us to false conclusions. Entanglement isn't real, we're just fated to obtain corrupted experimental data suggesting it is.

The problem is as of 2020 all look pretty poor with more and more theorems proving deeper and deeper problems with them. Further deeper investigation into Quantum theory has also shown mathematical structures in the theory which are very hard to understand in any of them.

For this reason the majority view is still the Copenhagen view: there is no causal mathematical model of how the correlations in entanglement come about. At a certain level nature is non-mathematical and only properties choosen by the observer come into existence. The micro level of Nature is not a "machine" which can be described mechanically. All you can do is calculate probabilities for how it might affect our macroworld, but it cannot be comprehended

mosii

For this reason the majority view is still the Copenhage view: there is no causal mathematical model of how the correlations in entanglement come about. At a certain level nature is non-mathematical and only properties choosen by the observer come into existence. The micro level of Nature is not a "machine" which can be described mechanically. All you can do is calculate probabilities for how it might affect our macro world, but it cannot be comprehend

I think conciseness comes in along somewhere,but how are we ever to know? I actually think,that someday there will be a connection found between the micro and macro world,but we will probably be stardust by then.

Fourier

mosii wrote: »

I think conciseness comes in along somewhere,but how are we ever to know? I actually think,that someday there will be a connection found between the micro and macro world,but we will probably be stardust by then.

Conciousness doesn't enter into quantum theory.

There is already a connection "found", namely quantum theory. It is the theory about how how the micro affects the macro. The problem is there is no theory about what the micro is like in and of itself.

oriel36

Fourier wrote: »

At a certain level nature is non-mathematical and only properties choosen by the observer come into existence. The micro level of Nature is not a "machine" which can be described mechanically. All you can do is calculate probabilities for how it might affect our macroworld, but it cannot be comprehended[/B]

I am sure the peasants find those words authoritative but they are basically meaningless for those who have a healthy respect for geometry.

So tell me ? - when does the diameter/ circumference/ Pi proportion break down for you can create a circumference from a diameter with the non-periodic arithmetic of Pi ( 3.1415927...) as an inviolate proportion. In creating a circumference it is then possible to create a radius which is half the original diameter therefore a new diameter/circumference/Pi is created so on it goes with Pi always generating the same non-periodic decimals. A lower geometric limit ( Planck length) would make Pi a periodic value so good luck with that.

What mathematicians call counter-intuitive is really counter-productive unless the reader feel they are encountering minds gifted with common sense. It keeps the mathematicians in jobs and reputations but does nothing for astronomy or large scale sciences.

Bruthal

oriel36 wrote: »

So tell me ? - when does the diameter/ circumference/ Pi proportion break down for you can create a circumference from a diameter with the non-periodic arithmetic of Pi ( 3.1415927...) as an inviolate proportion.

Junior infants stuff brought to senior infants level with a few extra unnecessary words:pac:

oriel36

Bruthal wrote: »

Junior infants stuff brought to senior infants level with a few extra unnecessary words:pac:

If you are going to set a lower geometric limit like a 'Planck length' then you can create a circumference around that diameter with the Pi proportion maintaining the correlation. You can then create a radius which is half the 'Planck length' thereby rendering the whole notion pointless, meaningless or whatever.

If people want their brains melted for no particular reason then so well and good but the revenge of physical geometry is swift on mathematicians who spent 150+ years trying to distort physical geometry.

Fourier

oriel36 wrote: »

So tell me ? - when does the diameter/ circumference/ Pi proportion break down for you can create a circumference from a diameter with the non-periodic arithmetic of Pi ( 3.1415927...) as an inviolate proportion.

I'm not talking about circles so I don't know why you're bringing up Pi.

mosii

conciousness doesn't enter into quantum theory.

In my opinion it does,and nobody can prove otherwise,,,,,

There is already a connection "found", namely quantum theory. It is the theory about how how the micro affects the macro. The problem is there is no theory about what the micro is like in and of itself.

I am thinking a physical connection, of some ordered state,that we do not know of yet.

Fourier

mosii do you know about the quote function? In order to separate my responses from yours.

mosii wrote: »

In my opinion it does,and nobody can prove otherwise,,,,,

It can easily be proved otherwise. Quantum Theory is a subject explained in many textbooks. None of the mathematics or predictions of the theory mention consciousness. This can easily be verified from any college textbook on the subject.

mosii wrote: »

I am thinking a physical connection, of some ordered state,that we do not know of yet.

There is a connection though in the theory. It is literally the theory of how the microworld connects to/affects the macroworld.

I don't know what "ordered state" means.

mosii

no cant use the quote function.

Text books are text books,any body can write a book,and come up with there own theory. It posits that quantum mechanical phenomena, such as quantum entanglement and superposition, may play an important part in the brain's function and could form the basis for an explanation of consciousness.Consciousness and quantum theory is a huge question.Today some physicists suspect that, whether or not consciousness influences quantum mechanics, it might in fact arise because of it. They think that quantum theory might be needed to fully understand how the brain works.
Might it be that, just as quantum objects can apparently be in two places at once, so a quantum brain can hold onto two mutually-exclusive ideas at the same time?
So because you read it in a book,it might not be accurate ,for future discoveries ,as you know,Richard Feynman said, "nobody truly understands quantum mechanics", buy I believe that is going off the information he had at his time,and in the fullness of time,we will.

Fourier

no cant use the quote function.

The functionality is available on all platforms in the response box.

mosii wrote: »

Text books are text books,any body can write a book,and come up with there own theory.

Obviously anybody can write a book. However I'm talking about textbooks in the subject by experts.

such as quantum entanglement and superposition, may play an important part in the brain's function and could form the basis for an explanation of consciousness

That's different. Fluid dynamics can explain clouds, but clouds aren't fundamental to or required by Fluid Dynamics. Similarly quantum theory doesn't fundamentally require conciousness even though it might explain it.

Might it be that, just as quantum objects can apparently be in two places at once, so a quantum brain can hold onto two mutually-exclusive ideas at the same time?

Quantum objects aren't in two places at once. That's an incorrect idea commonly repeated in textbooks.

mosii

quantum superposition. This principle of quantum mechanics suggests that particles can exist in two separate locations at once.
The cat is dead and alive .

Experts are Experts until some genius come along ,and re writes the text book written by experts.consciousness is connected somewhere,i believe this to be true,only i havnt a clue how to connect the dots ,its so complicated.

oriel36

mosii wrote: »

quantum superposition. This principle of quantum mechanics suggests that particles can exist in two separate locations at once.
The cat is dead and alive .

Experts are Experts until some genius come along ,and re writes the text book written by experts.consciousness is connected somewhere,i believe this to be true,only i havnt a clue how to connect the dots ,its so complicated.

You are mistaking contrived for complicated so unless you enjoy chasing mathematical rainbows invented by Victorian mathematicians I suggest you familiarise yourself with astronomical principles for the first time in your life, at least if you value your own ability to reason.