Scientist say the wave function is a non physical reality

My thinking is as follows:

Just as the 2nd dimension is party to the 3rd dimension, and the 3rd dimension is party to the 4th dimension, I believe we will eventually be able to demonstrate causation within a 5th or 6th dimension.

3 dimensional objects are subject to influence by the 4th dimension (time). In the same way, I believe that time, within the constraints of the 4th dimension, can be almost completely circumvented by this 5th or 6th dimension.

If you stay strictly within the constraints of 4 dimensional relativity, Einstein was right when he said that nothing could exceed the speed of light. A higher dimension would most certainly have the ability to negate that law. I believe causation will eventually be found in one or all higher dimensions.

Now, on a side note:

For the theologians, this begs the question: Is it possible that it is within one of these higher dimensions that Elohim/God the creator exists? Biblically speaking, God certainly exists without the constraints of time; in fact, He seems to have constant access to any part of time at any given time...

...and then there is the "miraculous" events that seem to defy logic...

Probably would make an interesting thread...

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.

Further, the fact we observe quantum activity to be random does not necessarily make it so. There could be a "method to the madness," where upon the large scale of the Universe, that is apparent.

Bias in science is a double edged sword.

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? 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?

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.

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.

What do you mean by local fields? Arent there only a couple of absolute fields? Or if not local fields, does that not mean then there are only absolute fields, that are non local, and all events 'run' through them?

So you are suggesting there is a massive difference between the classical world and the quantum world? 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? Or that all classical things measured are measured to be further (or closer, not sure which you are suggesting) then they quantumly are, which is the truest expression of reality, the quantum realm? So that is what you are saying, the classical realm is a 'delayed' illusion of sorts, and the quantum world is really much more closer and existing in a different 'realm' or space (time/space) because it is operating at such a higher rate, so it cant possibly be existing and operating on the plane where our fleshy hands and our throwing of stones into water exist, because every time, by the time these evens occur, the quantum information has already occurred millions of times over...or something?

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.

Tell me an unintuitive example of 'what can make stuff move' making something move, please. And just, im not asking for a lot, your thoughts in a few simple sentences, some background, on how and why, it is possible, for the example you will provide, to occur. What establishments and truths of nature, physical/material, or not, nature, allow this to occur, and force it to occur.

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?

a reply to: Deran

Thank you very much for that well thought out explanation.

Is there any way you can prove these statements wrong, or give me reasons as to why they are not most likely:

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle, is not a description of reality; that is to say, it is a wave function equation that does not perfectly and absolutely embody the existence of particle/wave of reality, thus it is not to say that a particle or wave of energy behaves in a superposed state and it does not have an exact location and momentum. But that the uncertainty principle is only a human made tool, that is our best yet form of 'wrangling' bits and areas of nature, into the neatest and tidiest ways of measuring it, and predicting it? An analogy of the question I am asking is, the uncertainty principle relating to a stick figure drawing made by a 10 year old of the most details of the mile radius surrounding his childhood home, and then referring to it as reality in an argument, and then me saying, but dont you mean that that stick figure of your mom and dad is an approximation, your best yet, of a truer more viable reality? And the 10 year old saying, no according to my stick figure drawing this is what my mom and dad are.

The other statement I want to make and for you to try and prove wrong, or not most likely:

When 'entanglement' occurs, what really occurs, is 2 separate particles being created, that are not 'entangled' in any way, but merely have inherently, do to the event which created them, opposite characteristics, so that when either is measured, it is discovered that the other has its opposite characteristic. This is to say, if we imagine a quarter, a pre 'entanglement' event particle, and then we split the quarter and create 2 'entangled quarters', when we measure one and discover that it is heads, instantaneously! it signals the other side to make sure that it transforms into tails. (please heed the sarcasm

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 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???

You are not as confident in your abilities, thus, nor should you be, that is not to say confidence is always accurate, but who are you to judge. That being said, it should only be expected one in your position would call the statement made by me, one in my position, 'incredibly grandiose'. Either way...enjoy...that. I did not say I was all knowing, I said I had the potential to comprehend anything that could ever exist.

a reply to: ImaFungi


I think that once you begin experiencing dementia, due to old age, you should make sure you take your Cogentin.

The universe is just a very big hologram that can be cracked.

a reply to: ImaFungi

A) it can be damaging...

B) it's mentally draining to say the least, & depending on rest or meditative technique can transfer throughout the physical vessel...

C) not so much but would have to have a similar telepathic technique...
You see their is the messages and images within the brain & minds eye, which apprear like intrusive imagery, so any PTSD sufferers will understand this concept...
& there is also messages & images "outside the box" seen with the optical a & heard with the ears either right beside or from across the room/street... Which some Schizophrenics will be able to relate to!!!

D) it can be the most damning curse of a gift, or it could just be "diagnosed" as schizophrenia like my condition/illness/ability/gift/insert other word!!!

I liked your post a lot though because it would seem one of two things occurred...
You know how this works and engage in the telepathic, or stumbled across the 4 main points involved and are beginning to tap into you own gift!!!


I prefer the word unknown to fakery... To claim reality or fakery at this stage of human evolution is absolutely absurd...
Or complete arrogance...
We will never know the full extent, no matter what we believe or don't faith wise!!!
Even the most ardent atheist science mind with a level of intelligence we could ever imagine will never know it all!!!
Likewise the closest person to God on earth will never know it all... Because creation expands every millisecond of the day, so even God is adding to their objective & knowledge!!!

So let's go with what we do know... & work out the unknown with patience!!!


Peace Fungi!!!

a reply to: Kashai

No i went back and looked on page 3 and didn't get any answers.

With respect it seems to be that if i ask what makes water flow then I have to go and learn the whole of the bible.

This entanglement theory is so abstract that it seems like trickery to me when we hear about empty jars being full, you cannot see it because things come and go or a photon can be inside five separate atoms all at the same time but this is based on probabilities, it does not make it so and reminds me of that magical trick of following which egg cup is the coin under and it's not like I don't want to understand because I do.

I did find this youtube clip that seemed helpful if anyone is interested
www.youtube.com...

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.

I didnt say my potential was immortal or invincible, just that it exists now. And I am relatively young, so hopefully will exist for a relatively long while.

a reply to: VirusGuard

Take a look at this one...www.youtube.com...

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?

No, not at all. It's not apparent to outsiders but there is a difference.

Choices of the various field theories which predict specific particle interactions and properties (e.g. Standard Model + whatever comes next) is a different, much more empirical, subject than quantum mechanics.

In a nutshell, it is believed that ANY true description of physics will obey quantum mechanics and relativity---they are the "general rules" of how things should work, but the identity of "What things are actually in THIS universe, and how do they work" is a different subject. QM & relativity are "rules of the road", the theories are the maps of where the roads actually go and what is there on the intersections, and why do Russian cars crash in such crazy ways.

So there is still plenty of freedom to choose particle/string/whatever theories but at some level they all should obey fundamental principles of QM & relativity.

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.

Why?

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

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.

Yeah it doesn't seem like it could be possible but experiment says that's how it works.

You havent once explained how it can be true, what it can mean.

"how"? who knows. What does it mean? Quantum mechanics is right.

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?

Not quite a 'real distance' but that because the true equations of motion take place in a function space, what appears to be 'not possible' if you confine yourself only to geometrical physical space is not necessarily impossible in the functional space.

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,

It's an 'illusion' in the same way that the continuous nature of matter, for example, fluid properties of water, are an extremely good explanation of how things work, until you really examine it at the very smallest scales, and then you find out that your continuous Newtonian equations of fluid mechanics aren't quite the whole story---there are particles underneath, but when aggreggated it doesn't behave like a big fat particle but a nice continuous fluid. When a fish needs to swim, the regular laws of fluid mechanics are as real to it as any other.

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!

Not on one logic gate---on a functional space which is even more complicated than continuous geometrical space. Why are my theories wrong? I didn't think them up. Heisenberg and friends did.

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.

Why are the experiments faulty or inconclusive?

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?

The functions which are being evolved can be parameterized by geometrical space sometimes.

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.

a reply to: ImaFungi
Actually you will probably live to see your 100th b-day. Also, medicine is about to experience a boom in technology similar to what the communication industry (cell phones, internet and so on) has gone through.

Religion presents that we are immortal but clearly the whole all knowing thing is operated under a monopoly

When you think something consistently you develop neural connections that support those conclusions. This is t is difficult to get over relationships and why it takes time to learn to play Microsoft flight simulator, using the keyboard.

Myself I am in my early 50"s my only advise at present is that you consider the present as potentially infinite.

a reply to: mbkennel

"Why?"

Well one issue is that everything we experience between the common senses are the result of internal representations.

So while I can look at a tree I cannot see what is going on at the quantum scale. When we talk about looking at something at the quantum scale. We often relate the idea that it as to small for us to observe. I disagree and a point being in the case of my tree it is apparently interconnected with all carbon. Now in relation to how I am interconnected to a piece of Iron I understand that because of a difference in density. Their could very well be a minute but significant difference due to issues of relative density in respect to interconnectedness.

I then consider that upon the large scale structure of the Universe where these differences become observable in the classical sense.

Clearly I am influenced by Chaos theory

It also seems apparent that relativity has an effect upon interconnectedness.

Any thoughts?

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?)

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?

The EM field enters through the stress-energy tensor which sums up contributions from material particles, pressure, and electromagentic fields. It's not quite right to say that the EM field has mass, though it does have an energy density and momentum flux, but more correct to say that gravitation responds to a sum of mass plus other stuff. In practical quantitative terms, mass dominates the other stuff in almost all cases (other than maybe cosmology).

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?

Yes, that's right it's not linear. Linearity roughly means response to A plus B is the sum of the response to A to response to B, electrogmagnetism is linear in its sources--superposition principle, as is Newtonian gravity, but GR isn't like that, which makes computations immensely more difficult.

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?)

The full theory relating all the fields of Standard Model (or its future replacement) to GR in a quantum way is not presently known to science, but it would be unexpected if there is any exception.