It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: mbkennel
originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: mbkennel
With all due respect; why are there scientists who are obviously well above your pay grade, that offer in conclusions that your are wrong???
Any thoughts?
What is their position? Mine is minimal, and I thought should be uncontroversial: quantum mechanics as it is presently known is right and there's nothing else needed, and we should get used to it, and mentally reassess where we're imposing biases from classical physics.
originally posted by: mbkennel
Non-locality means "space-time points which cannot have a causal connection in physics described by a classical geometric field theory subject to relativistic requirements."
Well, because QM isn't one of those theories, you don't get the same result always, though in practical limiting cases those restrictions are nearly always true. Except when they aren't.
It means that quantum mechanics is correct.
Because quantum mechanics is an operator evolution equation of motion on a function space, not on a continuum of 3+1 (or 12 or 15-dimensional) space. Points in this space are not geometrical points, a point is a function.
When the effect in question is modulated through evolution in this space, and not some classical approximation, you get effects which would be strange or prohibited in the classical approximatnio.
No it doesn't "make sense" in the slightest but it happens to be true as far as we can tell by experiment.
Evolution operator in a functional space. Sorry, ourmind capabilities were evolved for survival in a macroscopic three dimensional world, and we have no easy neural capabilities for envisioning a functional space. We have neural hardware to imagine 3 dimensions in our head using neural units from our visual cortex. Maybe dolphins who have to interpret complex sonar wavefunctions might do better?
Only if you assume the evolution of true physics is on local fields with only differential operators. Experiment shows this isn't the case, and QM's model is better. If you assume it is churning through the Bohr/Heisenberg equation of motion, then QM works. Go forth and integrate your operator---it gives the right result. "Distance" is measured in functional space.
Because your "skepticism" and intuitive assumption of "what can make stuff move" is completely influenced by our evolutionary biology and practical observations of the classical limit that dominates nearly everything that we do or observe, in which case our assumptions work.
originally posted by: mbkennel
originally posted by: ImaFungi
[
My definition of real is everything that is not nothing.
My definition of real is "contributes as a source term in gravitation".
I am confident my mind has the potential to comprehend anything that is true. Even if I do not have the full and complete details and information, I can comprehend the essence and nature of anything that ever has existed and ever will. There is nothing that could convince me otherwise, and no reason for me to think otherwise.
originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: ImaFungi
I am confident my mind has the potential to comprehend anything that is true. Even if I do not have the full and complete details and information, I can comprehend the essence and nature of anything that ever has existed and ever will. There is nothing that could convince me otherwise, and no reason for me to think otherwise.
That is an incredibly grandiose statement.
So you think you are all knowing even though you do not know everything???
originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: ImaFungi
I think that once you begin experiencing dementia, due to old age, you should make sure you take your Cogentin.
originally posted by: Kashai
originally posted by: mbkennel
originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: mbkennel
With all due respect; why are there scientists who are obviously well above your pay grade, that offer in conclusions that your are wrong???
Any thoughts?
What is their position? Mine is minimal, and I thought should be uncontroversial: quantum mechanics as it is presently known is right and there's nothing else needed, and we should get used to it, and mentally reassess where we're imposing biases from classical physics.
Yes it is minimal, so minimal it seems you are suggesting we should stop looking for a unified field theory?
I can consider that the large scale structure of the Universe is reflected at the quantum scale. So that if one could observe the Universe at the large scale quantum activity is then observable at the macro scale.
originally posted by: ImaFungi
originally posted by: mbkennel
originally posted by: ImaFungi
[
My definition of real is everything that is not nothing.
My definition of real is "contributes as a source term in gravitation".
My deffinition is better, more thorough, more honest, more truthful, more accurate. Is a photon a source term in gravitation? Is the gravity field itself not real?
originally posted by: ImaFungi
originally posted by: mbkennel
Non-locality means "space-time points which cannot have a causal connection in physics described by a classical geometric field theory subject to relativistic requirements."
Well, because QM isn't one of those theories, you don't get the same result always, though in practical limiting cases those restrictions are nearly always true. Except when they aren't.
It just doesnt seem true.
You havent once explained how it can be true, what it can mean.
Are you saying that the distance from this galaxy to the nearest galaxy is not a real distance? That the distance between those two galaxies 'in reality' is equal to half that distance and equal to no distance between them at all? And this is proven by entanglement?
So all the material we view is not moving and exists directly on top of each other in one dimension, all movement and transformation is an illusion,
and all our conscious minds are really connected to some 'chat room' like mainframe, and this is a virtual reality that all takes place on exactly one logic gate, and all the material information is contained on it, and there is 0 space, TJHIDJITGFSJGILJSDIGJSDGL this is wrong. Your theories are wrong. You skirted the issue...explain!
It means that quantum mechanics is correct.
No it means experiments are faulty and inconclusive and quantum mechanics is the most convenient approximation for doing helpful things least clumsily.
Because quantum mechanics is an operator evolution equation of motion on a function space, not on a continuum of 3+1 (or 12 or 15-dimensional) space. Points in this space are not geometrical points, a point is a function.
When the effect in question is modulated through evolution in this space, and not some classical approximation, you get effects which would be strange or prohibited in the classical approximatnio.
So what is the function of the space/point of space, usually in these equations?
Does this have to do with the expansion of space?
No.
So the function space, every point being a function of space (in an arbitrary volume of space, how many function points are there? As many Planck lengths as there are?), what do these do to the space, these points grow over time, and thats the expansion of space, the points expanding in value, increasing the value of the space between each point, and thus, affecting all non point space values placed in the space?
I don't think you know what a function space is.
No it doesn't "make sense" in the slightest but it happens to be true as far as we can tell by experiment.
Evolution operator in a functional space. Sorry, ourmind capabilities were evolved for survival in a macroscopic three dimensional world, and we have no easy neural capabilities for envisioning a functional space. We have neural hardware to imagine 3 dimensions in our head using neural units from our visual cortex. Maybe dolphins who have to interpret complex sonar wavefunctions might do better?
Speak for yourself. I am confident my mind has the potential to comprehend anything that is true. Even if I do not have the full and complete details and information, I can comprehend the essence and nature of anything that ever has existed and ever will. There is nothing that could convince me otherwise, and no reason for me to think otherwise.
Well you've got a ways to go.
So you are suggesting there is a massive difference between the classical world and the quantum world?
You betcha! What else do the strange experimental results mean?
For example you would say that if you and I were standing 25 feet away from each other, the quantum particles that make up each of our bodies (in a truer measurement of distance) would be closer or further?
Not quite, it particles which were entangled then the interaction in that function space would mean that something can change simultaneously in what seems to be distant parts of physical space (which seems surprising there) but that is just evolution on the same isolated "mode/basis function" on the functional space. Think about it this way. Suppose you represent a 1-d function by its set of coefficients of the Fourier transform. Now you have 'local' evolution of these coefficients---say one coeffficient can interact with coefficients i+1 and i-1 or something like that and make a new value of coefficient i.
Back in the physical space, changing coefficient 'i' means changing the function all over the place. And similarly for coefficient 'i-1' and 'i+1'. In the physical space you would see some value of the function 'here' strongly influencing what happened 'there' at a distant location, but it was all because it was actually just a projection from the Fourier basis.
originally posted by: mbkennel
originally posted by: ImaFungi
originally posted by: mbkennel
originally posted by: ImaFungi
[
My definition of real is everything that is not nothing.
My definition of real is "contributes as a source term in gravitation".
My deffinition is better, more thorough, more honest, more truthful, more accurate. Is a photon a source term in gravitation? Is the gravity field itself not real?
Yes a photon is a source term in gravitation, and because the Einstein Field equations are nonlinear, the gravitational field is also 'self-gravitating'. I'm good so far.
originally posted by: ImaFungi
originally posted by: mbkennel
originally posted by: ImaFungi
originally posted by: mbkennel
originally posted by: ImaFungi
[
My definition of real is everything that is not nothing.
My definition of real is "contributes as a source term in gravitation".
My deffinition is better, more thorough, more honest, more truthful, more accurate. Is a photon a source term in gravitation? Is the gravity field itself not real?
Yes a photon is a source term in gravitation, and because the Einstein Field equations are nonlinear, the gravitational field is also 'self-gravitating'. I'm good so far.
What is the mass of the EM field?
What is the mass of the gravity field? It gives itself its own gravity, or do you mean self gravitating as in, gravity well from body A can interact with gravity well from body B, and not just pass over each other holographically?
Does the higgs field and particle contribute as a source term in gravity? Does the higgs field and particle have mass? What gives the higgs field and particle its mass? (higgs fields all the way down?)