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.

 

The Quantum Conspiracy: What Popularizers of QM Don't Want You to Know

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 01:19 PM
link   
well this talk blew my mind

a must watch . most physicists walk out at the end with no words . one tries to talk but u can tell he is ... just as idk the word but its great

he tries couldnt refute it

basicly we dont live in a single universe.

a mulitverse is possible but there is a new theory proposed

we live in a zero universe ...um reality

love it

worth the watch





posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Can you please add a more detailed synopsis/summary for those of us who can't view the video or don't have the time to right now? As per the terms and conditions of posting a video. Share some actual details for this 1 + hour vid so your fellow ATS members can participate - thanks! a reply to: Another_Nut



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Another_Nut

Can't watch video now... But can you tell me if this is about the zero energy universe hypothesis?

Or is about the "zero point universe"- this guy's theory...

(Below is quoted from here: thezeropointuniverse.com...)

"What if there was no such thing as action at a distance, no magical force transmission? What if there where no such things as smart particles carrying memory chips full of the information needed for an object in space to know where it is supposed to go? What if all forces where transmitted point-to-point by zero point energy, through the zero point field? What if all objects where pushed on by the zero-point field, and all forces where due pressure differentials, much in the same way as the Casimir Force. In the Zero-Point Universe reasonable explanations for force interactions, are identified by ignoring old theories that rely on action at a distance, since magical force transmission is obviously false. There is only one thing we know to be present through the vacuum of space and that is zero-point energy; hence every force interaction must be transmitted by and through the zero point field. By being rigorous, and jettisoning the old magical force transmission theories, and being conservative in our approach to explain force transmission, without violating the principles of conservation of energy and momentum, the energy limitations for virtual particles required by Planck’s theory of quantum harmonic oscillators, and the detection limits of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, we find that there is only one possible self consistent theory in the zero-point universe, and only one force, the Electro-Matter Force. Along the way the following facts reveal themselves:

The vacuum is not composed of virtual photons as any conceptualization of virtual photons exceeds the energy limits of the quantum harmonic oscillator and the detection limits allow under the Uncertainty Principle. Instead the vacuum must be thought of as a sea of charged dipoles, virtual electron-positron pairs or virtual proton-antiproton pairs, zero-point energy. Collectively they are called “zeptons” in this book, to avoid confusion with their non-virtual counterparts.

It is then discovered that photons are not fundamental particles, or shall we say re-discovered. It has been known for many decades that a photon can be thought of as a virtual electron-positron pair over the course of a half wavelength. What physicists have missed is that this truly is a fundamental description of a photon. Photons are composed of a series of virtual particle pairs, with the surrounding zero-point field polarized and rotating around it forming the electric and magnetic fields. Photons are simply a mechanism for transporting packets of energy through the zero-point field.

From there we realize that Faraday field lines are actually virtual electric dipoles of zero-point energy aligned in space forming physical electric fields or zero-point energy dipoles rotating in space forming physical magnetic fields.

A precessing gyroscope generates an upward force equivalent in magnitude to gravity. This additional force is not gravity, it is also not any of the three other forces in the Standard Model. It is a true fifth force, the Matter Force. While Eric Laithwaite and others have understood that a gyroscope behaves magnetically, they have not attempted to describe it as a true magnetic-like force due to the motion of electrically neutral matter. The opposite charge to matter is antimatter. The Matter Force fields can also be described with Faraday field lines composed of real zero-point dipoles, and by a set of equations completely analogous to Maxwell’s equations. The electric and matter force can be combined into a single force, since all particles carry both types of charge.

Inertia is also a part of the matter force, a Lorentz force due to matter movement. The movement of matter produces a mattermagnetic field of rotating zero-point energy dipoles. This mattermagnetic field induces motion. The two effects together work to sustain motion, i.e. inertia.

There is a repulsive force between like charges associated with the Matter Force. This repulsive force is the so-called Dark Energy and is responsible for the expansion of the universe.

It is discovered that the mass-energy of the proton and electron is equal to the zero point energy excluded by a spherical shell of each particle’s diameter, the charge radius of the proton, and the charge radius (e.g. Compton radius) of the electron. The mass ratio ~1836 is simply a consequence of this relationship. To find out more about the origin of mass see originofmass.com.

The electro-magnetic origin of mass requires that gravity also be electromagnetic. Gravity operates in accordance with Fatio’s Push Gravity theory where the corpuscles are zero point energy vacuum fluctuations, which produce pressure in space just as they do with respect to the Electro-Matter Force. The pressure is a long-range van der Waals force that comes about due to the interaction between electron-like zero-point vacuum fluctuations and proton-like zero-point vacuum fluctuations as they have different electric and matter charge orientations, which do not cancel over short range like van der Waals forces between dipoles with a single type of charge.

The Casimir force between two protons is calculated at the femtometer range and found to be stronger than the Coulomb repulsion. This Strong Casimir Force is the Strong Nuclear Force, and as such the Nuclear Force is part of the Electro-Matter Force.

The Weak Force or more properly Weak Interaction can be better explained as being similar to Hawking Radiation as an interaction between a nucleon and a virtual electron-positron type zepton. For example when a virtual electron-positron is near a neutron, the positron may annihilate with the electron component of the neutron, leaving a free proton. That also leaves the once virtual but now free electron is space separate form the proton. This is the Weak Hawking Interaction is the fundamental mechanism responsible for all forms of beta decay, and the probabilistic nature of electron orbitals. The Weak Hawking Interaction is not a force, but a simple interaction between stable particles and zero-point vacuum fluctuations, which can be described as part of the Electro-Matter Force.

There is only one Force, the Electro-Matter Force, and all force interactions are transmitted by and through the zero point field. That is the way of the Zero-Point Universe. "



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to: Another_Nut

I am in physics, I known a thing or two about the QM and multiverses.

I cannot watch the video on my device - could you provide a short description of what he claims the "QM Conspiracy" is?



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: FamCore

I've seen this video and it is good. Synopsis: Speaker is a top guy who was at Google, a real good software engineer and mathematician who get interested in QM. He admits that the title is provocatively named. His quantum conspiracy is that the laws of quantum mechanics, mathematically all have this similarity, and in fact there may be a further level of reduction or simplification to them as I recall. He posits an interpretation different from many-worlds, which someone in the audience takes issue with, but I can't remember what it is. Its really just a good intro talk to QM for computer scientists/programmers, because that's how this guy thinks too. I think the king of QM talks for non-physicists is still from Richard Feynman though, Google Feynman QM talks, and start with the talk on photons.



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Another_Nut

my take on it - the classical world is is not real - it's an illusion

the real world is the quantum world, but because our minds are classical we can only 'see' the illusion

effectively matter is emergent out of the underlying quantum reality and mind is emergent out of matter

going to think about it a bit more but it does strike me as a very mystical concept




posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: VegHead

In a word no.
anyock summed it up pretty well.

to add: interference = entanglement



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 03:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: aynock
a reply to: Another_Nut

my take on it - the classical world is is not real - it's an illusion

the real world is the quantum world, but because our minds are classical we can only 'see' the illusion

effectively matter is emergent out of the underlying quantum reality and mind is emergent out of matter

going to think about it a bit more but it does strike me as a very mystical concept



No, it's not mystical at all, it's physics!

There's a great analogy. Consider the transition from bouncing individual (classical) particles (kinetic theory) to fluid mechanics. Particle to particle, the microscopic interactions conserve energy individually. But in the right limits, the macroscopic theory aggregating squillions of particles is a quite different apparently continuous field theory, most commonly the Navier-Stokes equations. They seem to be quite different, but one comes out of the other in certain macroscopic, local thermodynamically relaxed limits. I spent 2 weeks in statistical mechanics lectures in grad school with the instructor starting from axiomatic microscopic laws, and after quite a bit of perspiration, you end up deriving the Navier-Stokes equations plus thermal diffusion. And there were key limits and assumptions in there in a few stages & approximations.

Measurement in QM doesn't require consciousness. It requires microscopically large systems which can't be practically prepared in any pure quantum state and whose microscopic degrees of freedom can't be perfectly known or controlled. Theoretically reversible, but practically not, just like fluid mechanics from kinetic theory.

Just a few minutes of googling finds a recent discussion on this very issue: iopscience.iop.org... Measurement and the transition to classical observables is a dynamical systems result and can be accessed experimentally. Many-body physics, not woo.

It so happens that your noggin is also this macroscopic as well, so solipsistically and egotistically people imagine there must be something magic about your brain, and your conscious part of your brain to boot.

Condensed matter physics undersatands the power of collective large N making things different. Take PW Anderson's famous article, "More is Different".

robotics.cs.tamu.edu...
edit on 30-1-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-1-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

i'm not sure of the relevance of your example to my comments



Measurement in QM doesn't require consciousness...solipsistically and egotistically people imagine there must be something magic about your brain, and your conscious part of your brain to boot.


i'm pretty sure i didn't say or imply any of that



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: aynock
a reply to: mbkennel

i'm not sure of the relevance of your example to my comments



Measurement in QM doesn't require consciousness...solipsistically and egotistically people imagine there must be something magic about your brain, and your conscious part of your brain to boot.


i'm pretty sure i didn't say or imply any of that


I agree, you didn't---people in another thread here did and this is directed at that notion.



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

perhaps i should have used metaphysical instead of mystical




posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: aynock
a reply to: Another_Nut

my take on it - the classical world is is not real - it's an illusion

the real world is the quantum world, but because our minds are classical we can only 'see' the illusion

effectively matter is emergent out of the underlying quantum reality and mind is emergent out of matter

going to think about it a bit more but it does strike me as a very mystical concept


It's the quantum world that is an illusion. A world created by a german nut job and followed by all other ''men of science''.
A 100 years and still struggling with the theory.
With every discovery, they understand less and less and digging themselves deeper into their black hole. Only to find out they live in a fake world created by them and ignored by mother nature.
You really think mother nature would make it that difficult?
How would you explain that matter is created from another reality, dimension borrowed? traded? stolen?
How would you do it? Creating the whole universe with extremely difficult math, formulas, ideas and such or rather simple so that a baby would understand it or any animal, plant and flower. The golden ratio isn't just a coincidence.

I do not have the answers either but the way mainstream science is going, jump off before it's to late, these guys are just crazy, hahaha



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel



Measurement in QM doesn't require consciousness


i think there could be a possibility that consciousness might require quantum mechanics though

and the test might be can we create 'artificial consciousness' with a classical computer or does it need a quantum computer'?

(i use the term artificial consciousness to indicate something that could pass a turing test - ai is the term usually used but i find it a bit inappropriate in so much as we already have machines that are artificially intelligent imo)



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: intergalactic fire



You really think mother nature would make it that difficult?


as hard as possible would be my guess



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Another_Nut

sounds like these are all theories they pull out of thin air. I like to believe in stuff I can touch and see.



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: aynock
a reply to: mbkennel



Measurement in QM doesn't require consciousness


i think there could be a possibility that consciousness might require quantum mechanics though...


When you say "consciousness", do you mean something other than the chemicals in our brains functioning in such a way that causes us to be self-aware organisms, or when you say "consciousness", do you mean a separate "soul" (or whatever you want to call it) that can exist separate from our brains and bodies?

If you mean that our brains work by quantum mechanics (if quantum mechanics is actually a true thing in nature), then I would agree, because if quantum mechanics is real, then everything works that way -- the movement of chemicals in our brains, the evaporation of water on a sunny day, the growing of a tree from a seed.


edit on 1/30/2015 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: intergalactic fire

Please tell me that you just projected your thoughts onto ATS to make you post appear, didn't use one of those silly devices created by those nut jobs and their followers.



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 06:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: aynock
a reply to: mbkennel



Measurement in QM doesn't require consciousness


i think there could be a possibility that consciousness might require quantum mechanics though

and the test might be can we create 'artificial consciousness' with a classical computer or does it need a quantum computer'?


I think it very likely that consciousness does NOT require a 'quantum computer', i.e. using logic beyond classical computers because of entanglement of qbits. They're just so fragile, requiring extreme near absolute zero temperatures and really tiny, not evolutionarily robust or able to function at noisy wetware 300 Kelvin temperatures.
The thermodynamic relaxation to classical physics is extremely fast and very robust, which is why everything we commonly experience is not quantum mechanical.

Now, sensory molecules, individually? Sure QM effects them, but that's not the same as 'consciousness' being necessary or embedded in particularly quantum behaviors.



(i use the term artificial consciousness to indicate something that could pass a turing test - ai is the term usually used but i find it a bit inappropriate in so much as we already have machines that are artificially intelligent imo)


The success of the deep learning neural network models recently (all simulated on conventional digital computers, and definitely NOT quantum) is evidence to me that the orthodox connectionist position is likely to be correct. It's not HAL level intelligence of course, but they can do certain things with quite remarkable skill that one would previously attribute to requiring high-level intelligence. Just boatloads of computation and boatloads of boatloads of data. More is Different, once again.

There isn't any actual evidence that natural consciousness is particularly dependent on, and requires, uniquely quantum behaviors.
edit on 30-1-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel
There isn't any actual evidence that natural consciousness is particularly dependent on, and requires, uniquely quantum behaviors.


"Uniquely quantum behaviors"

That's a good way of putting it. There is no reason to believe that what people call "consciousness" (whatever that may be) needs uniquely quantum behaviors beyond the way that everything else allegedly behaves according to QM.



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: moebius

I can't see what that has to do with QM or the german.




top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join