It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Without any further context, I don't know what is meant by "if the universe is a wave...". Part of the support of the big bang theory is the "Cosmic Microwave Background" (CMB), which are "micro-waves" aka microwaves coming from seemingly all directions. You could say each of the numerous photons making up the CMB has a wave function which collapses when we observe them, and you could also talk about countless other wave functions, but I don't see how this adds up to "the universe is a wave" as in singular. There are many wave functions.
originally posted by: Peeple
Another thought I would like to have your opinion on:
If the Universe is a wave which collapses as soon as "the observer" shows up, is that maybe what happened instead of the big bang? The birth of the observer the possibility wave collapsed and the material world was born.
...maybe more philosophical than physics, but pretty, right?
Byrne:...it's important to realize that Everett, like all good physicists, did not give theories of consciousness any magical powers in quantum mechanics. Because of the intractability of the measurement problem and several other similar paradoxes in quantum mechanics, some people, especially philosophers, have been attracted to the idea that human consciousness collapses the wave function. That human consciousness is the major actor in the universe, and that without human consciousness, the universe would not exist. Physicists like Everett who are materialist and realist thought that was bunk. They think human consciousness is a quantum-mechanical system like any other quantum-mechanical system. Personally, I agree with that....
Everett was very up on cutting-edge ideas like that when he was writing his thesis in 1954, 1955. He took the basic analysis, that information is physical, and developed a mathematical argument showing how data correlates within itself. That is, what happens in a superposition is that the person looking at a gram of carbon that exists in a superposition of a billion different places at once does not collapse the wave function.
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I don't see how this adds up to "the universe is a wave" as in singular. There are many wave functions.
That is pretty well defined.
originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
I know what what an incommensurable number is
That is less well defined but is loosely based on the mathematical definiton.
and what it means in theoretical philosophy
The few times I've seen anything about incommensurable fields I just presumed it had the same context as incommensurable in the philosophy of science, but I don't really know for sure that's the case or if it might have another context I don't know about. When It comes to philosophy of science, I find it difficult to take seriously, and I'm not the only one. Neil DeGrasse Tyson got slammed for expressing his views on that but I sympathize with his comments and I don't find the philosopher's counterpoints very compelling.
but does it describe a property of certain fields in Quantum Field Theory?
I agree with Eros on the particles. We don't know what we don't yet know. In one way quantum replaces the table, but in another way as Nima Arkani Hamed said the new models always end up simplifying to the old models and that's the case for how quantum applies to most large objects, it simplifies to a classical description quite often with large objects, but everything is quantum. There are exceptions to that like superconductivity which is a quantum effect observed on a large scale such as the superconductors at the LHC.
originally posted by: LightSpeedDriver
Does quantum bring new "things" to the table or does quantum just replace the whole table?
Superconductors are the holy grail of energy efficiency. These mind-boggling materials allow electric current to flow freely without resistance. But that generally only happens at temperatures within a few degrees of absolute zero (minus 459 degrees Fahrenheit), making them difficult to deploy today. However, if we're able to harness the powers of superconductivity at room temperature, we could transform how energy is produced, stored, distributed and used around the globe.
Five Ways to Measure Body Fat
There are five main types of methods to measure body fat, shown in order of practicality:
Circumference: Waist-to-Hip Ratio (WHR), with a measuring tape
Skinfold Testing (Pinch Test), with skinfold calipers
Bioelectric Impedance Analysis (BIA), with body fat scales
Underwater Weighing (Hydro-densitometry), in a water tank
Computed Tomography (CT), with a X-ray scanner
I read the preface to your paper, but I didn't read your entire paper reproduced there: ""An Absolute Theory for the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies".
originally posted by: delbertlarson
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Have you had a chance to spend some time on my absolute theory article on InfoGalactic? (I thought it might be time to check in on that again.) I'd appreciate any feedback.
I wonder if they could be referring to your ideas, among others.
They note that other researchers have investigated abolishing the idea of spacetime in favor of separate space and time entities, but often suggest that this perspective is best formulated within the framework of an ether, a physical medium permeating all of space.
I must admit this idea is a little easier for me to swallow.
In contrast, Sorli and Fiscaletti think that the idea can be better modeled within the framework of a 3D quantum vacuum. Rather than viewing space as a medium that carries light, light's propagation is governed by the electromagnetic properties (the permeability and permittivity) of the quantum vacuum.
Even if that's true, I'm not sure how it's going to help me model nature any better than relativity does, and I'm not sure that you claim it will. From my perspective it seems to add confusion about time compared to the simpler assumption that it's what atomic clocks measure.
With the advent of general relativity, gravitation is also proposed to have an affect on time. In absolute theory no such effect occurs. Instead, absolute theory takes the position that clocks (any physical manifestation by which time is measured) will be affected by their gravitational environment but that time itself will not be.
This de-emphasizes empirical evidence (I suppose because there isn't any yet to distinguish between the models?) and refers to the choice as philosophical. However near the end of your paper you say this:
The choice of relative over absolute theory is predominantly philosophical; it is not a choice based solely on empirical evidence.
That gives me a different impression than the preface saying the choice is primarily philosophical, by stating experiments can be done in the future to determine which model best matches nature. If that's true then I find myself awaiting the results of those experiments. I'm not married to Einstein's model but it seems to work well enough and if experiments can show another model works better I'm open-minded enough to consider adopting the better model, but I guess we're not there yet in terms of the experimental evidence.
It must be admitted that none of the three possible space-time theories are ruled out at the moment, since the experimental picture is not completely clear in those areas where the Lorentz and Einstein theories appear to have difficulties. Nonetheless, it is clear that there are experiments that can be done in the future that can clarify which of the three theories best represents nature.