It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Schrödinger's Cat

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 05:32 PM
reply to post by ElectroMagnetic Multivers

EMM (and anyone else) should check out a book titled 'FlatLand' Sorry I don't know the Author's name. It is Science Fiction, postualting a World in which the inhabitants only know of two dimensions....until a third dimensional object intrudes!!!

Great allegory for trying to imagine other dimensions.


posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 06:21 PM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Neon Haze

... does any of the Quantum Theory relate to String Theory? Are there two camps on this, or are they working together in the theoritical field?

[edit on 6/12/0808 by weedwhacker]

String Theory is supposed to be the unification of Relativity and Quantum theory - the two seemingly incompatible theories of the macro world and the micro world. A very interesting read on the subject is the popular "The Elegant Universe" is also a good program by the same name on PBS.

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 06:30 PM
The problem arises - afaik - due to the Uncertainity principle (the basis of quantum theory) which is compounded by the duality observed at the particle level. Another issue is what really is light? why is it special in Maxwell's equations? Why is the speed of light an unbeatable constant?

Observed phenomenon agree with currently popular theories, however there is lot we still do not understand e.g. why does mass warp spacetime? And what the heck is spacetime?

All of these are tied at some level, hopefully String Theory or M-String theory or SuperString theory will resolve these issues sometime soon!

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 07:20 PM

Originally posted by ElectroMagnetic Multivers
reply to post by Kruel

I do have one question, assuming that it is 2D in a 3D environment, this would make it, for lack of a better word, a membrane and it would therefore have properties of a wave? or am I confusing things?

thanks. EMM

I would say that it created the waves via movement but it isn't the wave itself. The first movement would likely have been spin. Like the yin yang. Imagine pulling it apart, with positive and negative sides and two spirals (waves) connected to each side of this dual nature "particle", the photon.

If something is 2D and infinite in all directions then it can be both a vector or a circle. So with this in mind you might imagine this spiral wave intersecting with itself an infinite number of times to form more and more complex (and dense) forms.

Alright well I'm going slightly off topic so I'll stop. Lol, easy to do when it's all connected.

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 08:21 PM
reply to post by 2believeor0 wrote M-string....that's the same as "MemBranes", correct?? or just "Brane" theory??

This get s far into the high-level math, and is difficult to describe, without knowing the math (which I don't).

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 09:33 PM
If only you could observe me because I am still dying laughing (another paradox) over the term "brain pretzel".

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 10:04 PM
UMMmmm... there IS NO CAT.


posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 10:12 PM
reply to post by Kruel mention 'spin' know that phyicists use terms like 'Up', 'Down', 'Left' and 'Right' to describe 'spin'?

These are derived, from what I've learned, from Collider experiments.

Now, I hear they use 'color' as an additional descriptive.

It's what I have written in an earlier post....these are attempts by mathematicians to put something into words, for laymen (like me) who don't know their math.

It's like me trying to explain Algebra to my dog. "Dog", I'd say, "Solve 2X + 3X times 5 = 25X"

"Solve for X", I'd say. Well, he'd wag his tail, and think 'treat'?? Well, out of the goodness of my heart, if he wagged his tail five times, I'd give him one treat....because he got the answer wrong. But then, I'd give him a lot more, but not so many that he'd get sick.

See, I wouldn't give extra treats for getting it right....he was way wrong....I'd give him extra treats out of love.....see, he didn't understand the question....just the word "treat"!!!

Make sense?

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 10:32 PM
In answer to the OP.

The entire reason for this postulation is in the questioning itself.

In witnessing any event (the geiger counter) that alone changes everything. Especially on the quantum level.


The answer lies in the fact that quantum physics is soooooo 'outside the box' where awareness itself is concerned, the conceptualizing alone leads to awarenesses never before contemplated, yet alone valid. And therein lies the key... ALL are valid. Each and every possible conceptualized outcome (and some not conceptualized) are all valid.

That thought alone is crazy.

Anyone who contemplates quantum physics will soon go utterly and inevitably insane lol

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 10:35 PM
reply to post by Grock

Grock, are you 'channeling' Robert A. Heinlein?

He coined a word, in a 1961 Hugo-Award winning work. 'grok', used in the novel 'Stranger in a Strange Land'.

Just wondering, or is there another more mundane meaning?


[edit on 6/12/0808 by weedwhacker]

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 10:54 PM

Originally posted by weedwhacker mention 'spin' know that phyicists use terms like 'Up', 'Down', 'Left' and 'Right' to describe 'spin'?

these are attempts by mathematicians to put something into words, for laymen (like me) who don't know their math.

It's like me trying to explain Algebra to my dog. "Dog", I'd say, "Solve 2X + 3X times 5 = 25X"

Heh, yeah there's different ways of interpreting it. It's difficult to convey anything fully in human language. I'm terrible at numbers, but I can see math in my head as geometry and I try to translate it, but it takes so much longer to put it into words and even longer to put it into numbers.

I suppose that's why we often give up trying to even understand what theoretical physicists are trying to say sometimes, because they have to go back in their mind through the whole process they went through to come to their understanding in order to fully convey it to anyone else. I like simple theories.

Speaking of your dog doing multiplication... I think a dog can and does do it, it's just automatic. Every movement we make is governed by math on a more fundamental level. Dog just doesn't speak your language.

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 11:07 PM
reply to post by Kruel

Kruel....LOL! I think that's amazing, your ability to think geometry in your head!! I am serious, I envy that skill.

Maybe I can too, in a, I can pack the trunk of my car better than others in my 'circle''s just being able to visualize space, and what fits where, and rotating the shapes as needed, in my mind, to fit the space required.

Can't describe it, I just see it.

Back to the dog analogy....OK, I guess algebra is math.....but my point was whether a dog could be taught an equation....specifically, to SOLVE an abstract equation. I doubt it, since it isn't something that is required in order to survive, in the wild.

I'm reminded of the old hoax, of the horse that 'knew' how to add. Seems, the horse actually learned to pick up on clues from it's trainer...subtle, it was a hoax all along.....even the trainer believed it, so maybe not a hoax....but extremely telling of how persons can be fooled, even unwittingly.


EDIT: After pondering, Kruel.....not sure dogs can actually do multiplication, again because it would not be a survival skill. They can count, (maybe) but only as it relates to recognizing pack members, and that most likely is by smell, anyways.

My thinking is....imagine an experiment, with a dog, and three bowls of food. A hungry dog will eat all three bowls. If you try to teach the dog the concept of, say, only one bowl per day, lest he won't work.

See, future consequences, and, thusly, higher mathematics, just cannot be comprehended by a dog. YES, you could CONDITION a dog, with training and repetition. BUT, that is not ackowledgement of a concept, it is behavioral training.

We humans are exhibiting the ability of abstract thinking. Perhaps other creatures do as well...I don't know...we aren't able to fully communicate with them to be able to undestand if, or if not, THEY understand.

But, there is no doubt that humans can learn, and can communicate. That is a focus we should tend to investigate as much as we can.

[edit on 6/12/0808 by weedwhacker]

posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 12:57 AM
reply to post by weedwhacker

What I meant by the dog doing math is meant subconsciously, as in moving body parts being a form of math and difficult to do without the left brain. As far as the dog being able to do this consciously... perhaps the potential exists yet has probably never been required for the dog to survive, and therefore never attempted. I've no doubt that evolutionary potential exists in all creatures, it just requires the proper catalyst. I'd imagine this catalyst is often survival.

Anyway, funny you mention communication. I was just thinking about that the other day and came to a realization that a lack of proper communication may be both our biggest flaw yet greatest asset. That is, in the sense that it gives rise to creativity and curiosity, but on the other hand we tend to kill each other a lot.

If we could convey both information and perspective at the same time - all the time to each other, we wouldn't find ourselves going down these abstract lines of thought in order to properly convey our existence to one another. We'd probably also be living in harmony... at least with each other, but we wouldn't be nearly as intelligent. Tough choice.

posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 01:14 AM
reply to post by Kruel

Kruel, but....isn't motion, at least, physical motion, there is a term, it escapes me at the moment....but when we are conscious....our minds signal to certain muscles, which respond to the stimuli, and movement/motion occurs?

Nerves, in the cerebral cortex, form a thought (impulse) that is transmitted, through nerves within the body, to stimulate a particular muscle fiber, or fibers....

That is the basis of how muscles work....we are electrical, at our simplest terms. Why do you not realize that a 'Taser' can immobilize a human being???

OOPS....I've just given away another truth of our being, haven't I?

NOW, we just need to understand the concept.....and incorporate other facts, and let the mind do the rest.

That is the OOBE....please discuss!!!

posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 01:36 AM
reply to post by weedwhacker

Aye, the name keeps changing. I think its just M-Theory these days. Oh and just to complicate matters there are the detractors who say String theory is just rubbish ....

I am not much in the know on the high level math either, but the basic concepts are reasonably straightforward to grasp (depending on who is explaining them). It is here where the crux of the matter lies.

Simply put, why does light change its behaviour based on the experiment being performed. How is quantum entanglement achieved etc. etc.

I actually quite enjoyed high school and college level physics (whatever they teach us engineers) - I wish I could have majored in the pure sciences.

[edit on 6/13/2008 by 2believeor0]

posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 01:51 AM
reply to post by 2believeor0

2believe, you just mentioned 'quantum entanglement'. That is the specifice term for what I described. Some think it may be a beginning of 'teleportation'.

It is something deeper, that we just don't yet yet....but that's me, sounding sceptic!

As I said, the math 'tis beyond me....but, since I have a brain, I welcome any chance to explain it t'me!!

Shucks...I am stayin' in my Irish accent, as I least, I'm tryin' to!!

posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 05:14 AM
There's a problem with quantum physics and actually,physics in general.Among other things,the numbers tend to be based on closed or isolated systems---which are purely theoretical.

In the natural sciences an isolated system, as contrasted with a open system, is a physical system that does not interact with its surroundings. It obeys a number of conservation laws: its total energy and mass stay constant. They cannot enter or exit, but can only move around inside. An example is in the study of spacetime, where it is assumed that asymptotically flat spacetimes exist.

Truly isolated physical systems do not exist in reality (except for the universe as a whole), but real systems may behave nearly this way for finite (possibly very long) times. The concept of an isolated system can serve as a useful model approximating many real-world situations. It is an acceptable idealization used in constructing mathematical models of certain natural phenomena; e.g., the Sun and planets in our solar system, and the proton and electron in a hydrogen atom are often treated as isolated systems. But from time to time, a hydrogen atom will interact with electromagnetic radiation and go to an excited state.

In the attempt to justify the postulate of entropy increase in the second law of thermodynamics, Boltzmann's H-theorem used equations which assumed a system (e.g., a gas) was isolated: i.e., that all the mechanical degrees of freedom could be specified, treating the walls simply as mirror boundary conditions. This inevitably lead to Loschmidt's paradox. However, if the stochastic behavior of the molecules in actual walls is considered, along with the randomizing effect of the ambient, background thermal radiation, Boltzmann's assumption of molecular chaos can be isolated
wiki closed

To the best of my knowledge,physicists basically ignore the fact that they don't know why an electron's orbit doesn't degrade over time.They just invented a force (strong nuclear) to explain it and moved forward with theories.

posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 05:15 AM
OMG, I didn't know there was a thread about my old housemate!

[edit on 13-6-2008 by schrodingers dog]

posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 05:55 AM
I really like this subject, I think that the cat can only be thought of as alive and dead whilst it is out of site, the Cat CANNOT be alive and dead, but it is possible for some one to believe it to be alive and dead. Its a complacated theory alright.


posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 08:58 AM
its like that ol saying

if a tree falls in the forest and noone is around does it make a sound?

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in