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.

 

Advances in quantum research are like a broken zipper.

page: 2
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 07:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: charlyv
a reply to: CallYourBluff

I have great respect for the work of Robert Lanza. His work with stem cells and the regenerative capabilities in the human body are probably the forefront of this science presently. He incorporates quantum methods in his research and is a believer that our conscious mind has so many more abilities than we presently use, and also the way we approach experimentation actually changes the outcome and in essence creates reality. Here again, is a deep researcher who uses revelations in quantum research and produces results that still have so much mystery in their actual mechanisms. It is like jumping the gap, and not repairing the existing theories so they fully explain what is really happening. This is what I mean by the zipper analogy... Somewhere there is a profound and fundamental force in the universe that when we finally pin it down, will be a revelation that changes everything but explains why as well. Great video and thanks for the post.

Thanks for your appreciation.The understanding of consciousness is definitely the missing piece of the jigsaw.
It's what I spend most of my time contemplating.
Good to know that others are still asking the same questions, rather than parroting what's expected.
Good post.





posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: charlyv

They've been saying we're close for years, just like with dark matter WIMPs. Of course it's not easy but you can't just keep searching saying that you're very close for years, at some point you have to admit defeat and search for answers else where. That's not the only reason I'm skeptical of gravity waves though, I just feel like it's incorrect to conceptualize space-time as a medium which can have waves propagate through it. Maybe a gravity wave would occur if a large object were to suddenly disappear, but since that doesn't happen in reality I don't think gravity waves can happen.



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: charlyv

originally posted by: moebius
a reply to: charlyv



According to what science thinks today, it is anywhere from infinity (which is fairly close to instantaneously, but never gets there.), to 20x the speed of light (with some of the heaviest math that is conveniently left out of here, but referenced at the end of the post).
...


That is not what science thinks.

Are you seriously using Van Flandern as your reference for physics?


Science is evolving. He is one of many that claim we possess knowledge that has been kept from the public, but is not a deep researcher. He talks about these enigma's but has no proof. When it comes to Laplace and Heisenberg, however, they attack special relativity with some serious math and observations. Quantum researchers that use their work as a foundation have seriously upset the applecart with some astounding revelations, which require re-thinking how important our conscious minds are to results of some experiments... Heavy stuff.

You mena this guy?
en.wikipedia.org - Tom Van Flandern...

Because a poster at the link below addresses his research and essentially shows it was in error:
www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/gb6y3/what_is_the_sp eed_of_gravity/c1m9h3j

That's actually a much harder question to answer than you might think. There was a now-infamous paper some years ago by a fellow named Tom Van Flandern (recently passed, God rest his soul) that asserted that the change in gravitational acceleration in a dynamical system actually propagates many times faster than the speed of light — at least twenty billion times faster than the speed of light — but not instantaneously. This got a lot of attention at the time. If the propagation speed of changes in spacetime geometry were equal to the speed of light, that'd be fine. If it were literally instantaneous, that'd also be fine, more or less, though our theory would need some tweaking. But faster than c but still finite? That was really hard to explain.

It turned out not to be a problem though. Because Van Flandern just made a mistake in his paper. See, the relationship between motion and gravitation is not as straightforward as it might seem. In fact — and I'm glossing over this now, because the maths are damn complicated — whenever a gravitating object moves inertially, the gravitational acceleration vector at a point removed actually points at where the object actually is at a given instant, as opposed to where the object's light is seen to be coming from at that instant. So in that sense, we're back to gravitation being instantaneous again!

He's saying--I think--CHANGES in "geometry of spacetime" travel at light speed, even though its effects seem to be instant. And this is true because things don't start or stop or appear or disappear instantly.
edit on 11/29/2015 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 07:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: charlyv
a reply to: schuyler




The interesting thing about science and physics is that every time a new discovery is made, it doesn't reject the old theory, but incorporates it into a grander scheme of things. Quantum Mechanics does not invalidate Newtonian Mechanics; it includes it within the fold.


There are the subtle but important contradictions with Newtonian mechanics that presently create great problems with the unity of theories, especially the second Laplace theorum as well as original works by Heisenberg. If aberation causes time differentials to exist in gravitational and/or magnetic propagation, they do temporarily invalidate what we hold as the Laws of Thermodynamics as they add or subtract energy that we really do not understand where it enters or exits the system. To really go forward from there, we must come up with what that is, and it is incredibly perplexing. Not to say it wont be found, but it is still missing.


Could that not be a result of our misunderstandings, though? It's not as if we have both ideas down pat so well that we can point out contradictions. That's assuming we have a thorough 100% understanding of these issues. It's like the contradictions in string theory that were puzzled over until super string theory came along and resolved the differences between the competing and contradictory points of view.

Then there's quantum entanglement, which we all know is "impossible," yet there it is, a beacon daring us to solve the issue. And that's the exciting part of it!



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: jonnywhite




Van Flandern just made a mistake in his paper. See, the relationship between motion and gravitation is not as straightforward as it might seem. In fact — and I'm glossing over this now, because the maths are damn complicated — whenever a gravitating object moves inertially, the gravitational acceleration vector at a point removed actually points at where the object actually is at a given instant, as opposed to where the object's light is seen to be coming from at that instant. So in that sense, we're back to gravitation being instantaneous again!
--your comment---
He's saying--I think--CHANGES in "geometry of spacetime" travel at light speed, even though its effects seem to be instant. And this is true because things don't start or stop or appear or disappear instantly.


Yes, I see the connundrum, but even if there is an error in his math, they still point to a propagation greater than the speed of light, which is in itself paradoxical. The experimental aspect of this , because we cannot simulate instant creation and disappearance, is way beyond what I would expect us to be able to do, but I believe you may be correct in the assumption. The missing premise here is the nature of time itself... would it slip or accommodate the aberation? I don't think we have the ability to simulate that.



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Double post , created in error and removed.

edit on 29-11-2015 by charlyv because: DP



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 07:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: charlyv
a reply to: schuyler




The interesting thing about science and physics is that every time a new discovery is made, it doesn't reject the old theory, but incorporates it into a grander scheme of things. Quantum Mechanics does not invalidate Newtonian Mechanics; it includes it within the fold.


There are the subtle but important contradictions with Newtonian mechanics that presently create great problems with the unity of theories, especially the second Laplace theorum as well as original works by Heisenberg. If aberation causes time differentials to exist in gravitational and/or magnetic propagation, they do temporarily invalidate what we hold as the Laws of Thermodynamics as they add or subtract energy that we really do not understand where it enters or exits the system. To really go forward from there, we must come up with what that is, and it is incredibly perplexing. Not to say it wont be found, but it is still missing.


Could that not be a result of our misunderstandings, though? It's not as if we have both ideas down pat so well that we can point out contradictions. That's assuming we have a thorough 100% understanding of these issues. It's like the contradictions in string theory that were puzzled over until super string theory came along and resolved the differences between the competing and contradictory points of view.

Then there's quantum entanglement, which we all know is "impossible," yet there it is, a beacon daring us to solve the issue. And that's the exciting part of it!


It does seem possible mathematically. With high order algebraic equations, the higher the power, the more boundary surfaces you can if. With the equation of the sphere (x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - r^2 = 0), there are maximum two boundary points, so something can only be in once place at any time in the 3D world. With a cubic equation (x^3 + y ^3 + z ^3 - r^3 = 0), you can have a single blob and an infinite volume. But going up to quartic equations (x^4 + y^4 + z^4 - r^4 = 0), you end up with shapes ranging from a basic sphere to donuts and even eight or more separate "blobs". Even though they seem to be separate pieces of geometry, they really are the same object.

That's simplified compared to the real world physics models for quantum theory. That depends on differential equations to solve, and with those you can end up with all sorts of shapes like spots, stripes and even minimum energy surfaces.



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler




Could that not be a result of our misunderstandings, though? It's not as if we have both ideas down pat so well that we can point out contradictions. That's assuming we have a thorough 100% understanding of these issues. It's like the contradictions in string theory that were puzzled over until super string theory came along and resolved the differences between the competing and contradictory points of view.

Then there's quantum entanglement, which we all know is "impossible," yet there it is, a beacon daring us to solve the issue. And that's the exciting part of it!


I am sure it has a great deal to do with our misunderstandings, and our tenacity in piling on theories that repair and correct previous ones, but still do not go back to the root to reveal why. As far as entaglement, we are producing quantum computers that essentially prove that more than one piece of information (qbits) can exist in the same place at the same time with different values, and exist "somewhere else" at the same time as well. The impossible possible, if you will!. Nice synopsys, and certainly in the spirit of questioning everything!



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: stormcell




But going up to quartic equations (x^4 + y^4 + z^4 - r^4 = 0), you end up with shapes ranging from a basic sphere to donuts and even eight or more separate "blobs". Even though they seem to be separate pieces of geometry, they really are the same object.

Nice math examples. Kind of gives credence to the multiverse theories.... are they all intricately entangled? Really heady stuff. Thanks.



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 08:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: charlyv
Yes, I see the connundrum, but even if there is an error in his math, they still point to a propagation greater than the speed of light, which is in itself paradoxical. The experimental aspect of this , because we cannot simulate instant creation and disappearance, is way beyond what I would expect us to be able to do, but I believe you may be correct in the assumption. The missing premise here is the nature of time itself... would it slip or accommodate the aberation? I don't think we have the ability to simulate that.

What do you think of this:
io9.com - The 200-year-old mystery of Mercury's orbit — solved!...

The newtonian model was unable to get the precession of the perihelion for Mercury correct. GR fixed it.
edit on 11/29/2015 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 08:29 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

Why not expound on those ideas of why it is a result of misunderstandings?

Regardless of who knows what, contradictions, misunderstandings meh!

I am positive that there are many people reading/lurking who would love to hear about them.



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 08:57 PM
link   
a reply to: jonnywhite





What do you think of this:
io9.com - The 200-year-old mystery of Mercury's orbit — solved!...

The newtonian model was unable to get the precession of the perihelion for Mercury correct. GR fixed it.


That was cool. One of the commenters actually modified it with this:

1/r**2 force gives you perfect elliptical orbits. General relativity explained the precession because there is a slight deviation from that rule. It's not that space is warped (which still might have given you 1/r**2), but in his theory the gravitational field itself also generates some gravity.


It was not challenged, however in this vein, he is saying a gravitational field can generate gravity as well. If that is true, then how can something which has no mass, do that? Interesting and wonder if it is a valid statement.



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 09:08 PM
link   
I love this post. WOW!

Will be looking into those links, too. Thank you!



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 10:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: charlyv
Einstein's relativistic equation for gravity based on general relativity demands that gravity travels at the speed of light. However, quantum science is departing from that view.
It's really hard to follow your post, because you make statements like this, but as far as I can tell this claim about "quantum science" is not supported by any of your sources.

In fact the standard model doesn't make any demands of gravity, which is not included at all in the standard model. As far as I know we still have no quantum theory of gravity so I think the claim that "quantum science is departing from" the view that "gravity travels at the speed of light" is difficult to support, though since I see you're citing anti-mainstream sources like Van Flandern, you can probably find anti-mainstream science sources to say virtually anything you want. That doesn't mean these views are scientifically sound.

Your post would have been a lot better had you made in-line citations to support your claims even if it's just using a notation system as used in Wikipedia, which is to number your sources and then put the source number in brackets after the relevant claim which relies on that particular source. Without that I'm afraid it's hard to make much sense of your post since as far as I know mainstream science doesn't include gravity in the standard model. Now if you had said that there is a hole our standard model because it doesn't include gravity, I'd agree with that much, but beyond that I think a number of claims you've made such as your claim about what the standard model requires of the speed of gravity are not really supportable.

Standard Model

the Standard Model is a paradigm of a quantum field theory, which exhibits a wide range of physics including spontaneous symmetry breaking, anomalies, non-perturbative behavior, etc...

Theoretical and experimental research has attempted to extend the Standard Model into a Unified field theory or a Theory of everything, a complete theory explaining all physical phenomena including constants. Inadequacies of the Standard Model that motivate such research include:
It does not attempt to explain gravitation


edit on 20151129 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 10:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

But gravity is commonly thought to travel at the speed of light by any modern measure, you have used many words to decry a common concept.



In general relativity, on the other hand, gravity propagates at the speed of light; that is, the motion of a massive object creates a distortion in the curvature of spacetime that moves outward at light speed.


Gravity



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 10:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Jonjonj
It was the part about quantum science departing from that view that I had a problem with, not the relativity claim. Gravity is not yet a part of the standard model based on quantum mechanics, which I thought I made very clear.



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 11:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

My apologies then, spooky things happen, just saying.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 02:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur





originally posted by: charlyv
Einstein's relativistic equation for gravity based on general relativity demands that gravity travels at the speed of light. However, quantum science is departing from that view.

-------

It's really hard to follow your post, because you make statements like this, but as far as I can tell this claim about "quantum science" is not supported by any of your sources.



That actual statement comes from stanford.edu, in an article that discusses Gravity Probe B, testing Einstein's universe:
Does gravity travel at the speed of light?

I know gravity is not in the standard model, but science links Einstein's original claim that nothing travels faster than light, so it becomes the de-facto bell whether when discussing anything that may go faster...

I know I jump around alot, but the point I am trying to make is that new advances in science are saying that gravity and magnetism may take on a scalar wave characteristic when analyzed inside quantum physics. This is what the zipper analogy is about, since it tends to "unzip" those rules we hold , and most of those originated in GR.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 04:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: charlyv
a reply to: Arbitrageur
I know I jump around alot, but the point I am trying to make is that new advances in science are saying that gravity and magnetism may take on a scalar wave characteristic when analyzed inside quantum physics.
...


Please cite your source for this statement.

Also I am not sure what your problem is with magnetism. The magnetic field can be fully explained as a relativistic effect of the electric field.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 08:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: charlyv
That actual statement comes from stanford.edu, in an article that discusses Gravity Probe B, testing Einstein's universe:
Does gravity travel at the speed of light?
I followed that link and the word quantum doesn't appear there, so no your link says nothing about quantum science. Did you post the right link?

The fact that we haven't been able to integrate gravity into the standard model explains why we can't be "unzipping"
gravitation in relativity with quantum mechanics, not yet anyway. It could happen in the future since relativity is probably only right in the limiting case similar to how Newtonian mechanics is right in the limiting case. But I wouldn't say relativity unzipped Newtonian mechanics, on the contrary, Einstein made sure relativity simplified to that in the limiting case where v is much less than c etc.


originally posted by: moebius
Please cite your source for this statement.

Also I am not sure what your problem is with magnetism. The magnetic field can be fully explained as a relativistic effect of the electric field.
Yes a lot of claims in this thread could benefit from sources. QED does explain some quantized electromagnetic effects that aren't explained by Maxwell's equations or relativity, but that is part of the standard model. Again however I don't see the quantized nature of QED as "unzipping" relativity or Maxwell's equations since again in the limiting case where individual quanta aren't relevant, the quantum model (QED) makes similar predictions to relativity/Maxwell's equations.




top topics



 
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join