New Law of Physics Could Explain Quantum Mysteries

page: 1
19
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 03:35 AM
link   
The word 'law' in the title, which I took from the linked article, is a bit premature. This isn't a law yet. It's still a postulate.

But if it checks out, we'll be hearing a lot more about Dr. Palmer in the months and years to come. Ladies, gentlemen, disinfo agents and bots, I give you the Invariant Set Postulate


Since the early days of quantum mechanics, scientists have been trying to understand the many strange implications of the theory: superpositions, wave-particle duality, and the observer’s role in measurements, to name a few. Now, a new proposed law of physics that describes the geometry of physical reality on the cosmological scale might help answer some of these questions. Plus, the new law could give some clues about the role of gravity in quantum physics, possibly pointing the way to a unified theory of physics.

The postulate, or proposed new law, would explode the infamous paradoxes of quantum mechanics, putting physics back in the familiar world of human reality. Rather more important, however, is the hope it holds out for a genuine, testable theory of quantum gravity.

If the Invariant Set Postulate finds acceptance, string theorists will have to find something else to apply their equations to. So will New Age quantum mystagogues - though I wonder. Reality has never troubled their certainties before, so why should it now?


The theory suggests the existence of a state space (the set of all possible states of the universe), within which a smaller (fractal) subset of state space is embedded. This subset is dynamically invariant in the sense that states which belong on this subset will always belong to it, and have always belonged to it. States of physical reality are those, and only those, which belong to this invariant subset of state space; all other points in state space are considered “unreal.” Such points of unreality might correspond to states of the universe in which counterfactual measurements are performed in order to answer questions such as “what would the spin of the electron have been, had my measuring apparatus been oriented this way, instead of that way?” Because of the Invariant Set Postulate, such questions have no definite answer, consistent with the earlier and rather mysterious notion of “complementarity” introduced by Niels Bohr. PhysOrg.com

Uncle Albert, you may have been right about God's gambling habits after all.

[edit on 18/8/09 by Astyanax]




posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 03:40 AM
link   
In all honesty, I would like a youtube video - "State Space for Dummies".




[edit on 18-8-2009 by Copernicus]



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 04:00 AM
link   
Hmmm. Interesting. What testable predictions does it propose? I'm still waiting for a Time Warp type presentation of Young's double slit experiment.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 04:08 AM
link   
So woould i like a state space for dummies. I still dont understand this state space stuff... help anyone?



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 04:23 AM
link   
Disclaimer: I'm a theist but not of the Abrahamic faiths. I have minor biblical scholar and scriptural skills. Also I am not a scientific/legal or medical expert in any field. Beware of my Contagious Memes! & watch out that you don't get cut on my Occams razor.All of this is my personal conjecture and should not be considered the absolute or most definitive state of things as they really are. Use this information at your own risk! I accept no liability if your ideology comes crashing down around you with accompanying consequences!

Explanation: Starred and Flagged!

Personally it doesn't explode the percieved paradoxes but just defines and confines them within this postulated "LAW". This defininition redfines the percieved paradox and in doing so hey presto with the semantic wand waving they are no longer ghostlike apparitions but become instead real reflections in the mirror! Basiscally its a new symantic interpretation on the infinite universe theory which they have added a caveat that states that at any 1 plancks second unit of time being considered, that everything everywhere happens but only a small portion of that happening is able to be squeezed into the subset of existence that is considered "REAL" [i.e. 1 plancks second subset of time] and therefor exhibits phenomena registered as actuality over that entire subset!

Personal Disclosure: IMO:- ALL states EXIST! But only SOME are EXPRESSED!

P.S. Uncle Albert clearly stated "God DOES NOT play dice with the universe!" where as this postulate states that "God DOES play dice with the universe but the dice are LOADED!". They didn't get rid of uncertainty! They just codified HOW the uncertainty is accounted for!



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 05:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


I like this postulate. I don't understand it really, but I like it.

I have a sneaking suspicion though, it doesn't really change the way we view anything, it is just another way to spin uncertainty.

Schroedinger's cat is either "neither dead nor alive" (my view) or "both dead and alive" depending on your preferred POV. Now this postulate seems to be saying that this uncertainty is only an illusion. It only appears that way because we have no way of knowing what is in the Invariant State Set.

OK, fine. So how is that giving us any more information than we knew before? We are still left not knowing what the state of the cat is without looking at the darn thing.


[edit on 18/8/2009 by rnaa]



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 05:57 AM
link   
mmmm.... it might catch on if Michio Kaku presents it in lamens terms




or Phage whichever see's this first



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 06:22 AM
link   
How is that different from the very things we were talking about in the other thread?

Is that not exactly what I have been telling you in the other thread the entire time? That reality is the result of limitation on all that is possible in order to bring about the experience before us.

And in that thread, I also said the exact same thing - that Einstein was right - there are no dice.

"state space (the set of all possible states of the universe)" = that which is all knowing, that without limitation.

And then:

"within which a smaller (fractal) subset of state space is embedded." = the limitation/experience.

Hello?





[edit on 8/18/2009 by badmedia]



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 07:07 AM
link   
Ouch! thinking about that just made my head hurt. This is going to take some time to digest. Nice find



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


Please stop trolling this thread. I don't care what you said in any thread anywhere. And please don't bother replying to this post.
 


Moving on,
en.wikipedia.org... is an interesting yet woefully incomplete explanation of this theory.

I'm not really sure why this is significant. It simply seems that he is saying that things either happen or don't. That is, when they happen, they are part of the real set, and when they don't, they are part of the unreal set. I don't see any explanation for any phenomenon whatsoever aside from shamelessly using the names of Einstein and Bohr.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


No Schroedinger's cat is only mostly dead! DUH!



To the OP. Great stuff S&F. I have no time to comment right now, but be sure I will later.


[edit on 18-8-2009 by DaMod]



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   
all the universe is a holographic stage and we are but the players. . . . slavishly following the script

if every possible state must be included in the subset then complete free will goes out the _ . .you cannot make a choice that leads to a state outside the subset

or is it that every possible outcome or state is pre included in the subset?

damn you newton


[edit on 18-8-2009 by constantwonder]



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 


If I'm reading this right and trust me read it 4 times and still confused. But from what i understand i think it means there is a basic reality. The universe has multiple possibilities but until it is filtered by the laws of a particular universe.It doesn't exist.It only becomes real if it conforms to the universes excepted forms of reality. And if this is what hes getting at its a cop out. Please ignore all the irrelevant data because it hasn't been accepted by the confines of our reality? If thats the case it means everything that has happened and will happen is all ready decided makes the universe alot less interesting doesnt it?



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 01:33 AM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


yea I don't know, I tried to read through it, but it didn't make alot of sense to me (imagine that...I don't possess a doctorate of physics).
Needless to say it seems like its just "fine-tuning" already accepted theories.
Nothing exactly extraordinary - "that which happens occurs in reality, and that which doesn't...occurs in unreality"...
thought provoking, yes, but it just reminds of reading one of those books about "alternate history" schemes and what not.

I don't think it translates to "that which is all-knowing and all-powerful" media.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 01:43 AM
link   
Anything might happen but it's the only things that actually have happened that count?

Seems a bit obvious but I assume there is some weird math that goes along with it. Sheesh, just more quantum weirdness. Can't talk about math I don't have, but...sheesh.

*mumble...mumble*



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 02:39 AM
link   
Miscellaneous Replies & Link to Original Paper


Originally posted by Phage
Seems a bit obvious but I assume there is some weird math that goes along with it.

Justement, mon brave.

I have seen it said on other threads that the source of your apparently inexhaustible knowledge is a talent for googling. This comment is more than enough to show that it is not.

For the benefit of other posters who say they don't see anything new or special in this: it is a mathematical framework that adapts quantum processes to reality, resolving the attendant paradoxes.

Those whose brains are hurting (like mine) may find the Wikipedia entry mildly analgesic. It's a bit of a PR job, though. Doubtless that will change in the months to come.

For Phage, Johnmike and others to whom it may make sense, then, here's the full paper. It's not exactly overflowing with symbols and equations, but it looks pretty difficult (to me, at least).

From the abstract:


An exploratory analysis is made of a possible causal realistic framework for quantum physics based on key properties of a non-computable fractal-state geometry I. For example, sparseness is used to relate generic counterfactual states to points p∉I of unreality, thus providing a geometric basis for the essential contextuality of quantum physics and the role of the abstract Hilbert Space in quantum theory. Also, self-similarity, described in a symbolic setting, provides a possible realistic perspective on the essential role of complex numbers and quaternions in quantum theory. A new interpretation is given to the standard ‘mysteries’ of quantum theory: superposition, measurement, non-locality, emergence of classicality and so on. It is proposed that heterogeneities in the fractal geometry of I are manifestations of the phenomenon of gravity. Since quantum theory is inherently blind to the existence of such state-space geometries, the analysis here suggests that attempts to formulate unified theories of physics within a conventional quantum-theoretic framework are misguided, and that a successful quantum theory of gravity should unify the causal non-Euclidean geometry of space–time with the atemporal fractal geometry of state space.

Constantwonder, dragonrider: I'm not sure you're right about the implications of this idea for the concept of free will, but that illusion has been pretty much exploded already, hasn't it? There is strong evidence against free will from neuroscience, psychology and physics. The philosophical arguments against it seem very strong to me, as well.

Badmedia, if you have anything to say on topic, you're most welcome to say it. I am certainly not willing to continue here a discussion on another topic from another thread.

Any responses from people who have read and understood the actual paper will be greatly appreciated. And not just by me; I think I speak for others, too, when I say this.

[edit on 19/8/09 by Astyanax]



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 03:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Ok, so I ignored what the other guy said. But what I posted is exactly on topic. And it is in fact what I have been talking about in the other thread, which you dismissed as being nuts.

I asked very specifically what is the difference between this(on topic) and what I had been saying in the other thread.

This theory states that from a state of all possibilities, there exists a small portion within it that we call reality. So, reality ends up being a limitation of all possibilities.

What did I say in the other thread? Reality comes from the limitation of that which is limitless, all possibilities, all knowing. And that is exactly what this theory is also stating.

You are just using that other guys post as a way of coping out. This theory is saying the same basic things I was saying in the other thread.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 

Sorry, Badmedia. I'm not playing with you. You spoil the game for everybody.

Second line, should one be needed.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 03:11 AM
link   
S & F

Finally, they see.

I haven't read in detail, but the few paragraphs I've scanned give me hope that they finally get it. Ignorance of certain aspects doesn't rule them out of existence yet the fact that they must be measured by man and put in his context, gives his observation a hand in the concept reality but is not its sole determining factor. Schrodingers Cat is either alive or dead, not both as we simply observationally are unsure of said cats state but it definitely occupies one or the other.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 03:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Spoil what game? Is a little honesty too much to ask for? I am asking you specifically, what is the difference between this and what I purposed in the other thread?

It's completely on topic, because it has to do with this theory/thread.

This talks about the geometric shapes - I also mentioned that in the other thread as well, in reference to 4d, 5d and other physical geometric shapes(which we can not really perceive, but can be understood in math).

I told you in that thread that science was heading in this direction. Heck, I was really happy you posted this thread as I thought perhaps we could get into things a bit deeper, rather than being reduced to the arguments of "prove it" in the other thread. But it seems you are now being so defensive over things, that you won't even address it.

Whatever, cop out if you want. But we both know that is exactly what it is, and this is exactly what I was talking about in the other thread. I'm glad someone has come up with a suitable scientific theory, and thanks for posting it. I will be sure to link this thread or that theory in the future when people start treating me as you did in the other thread over the things I say.

Time always proves me right, and it did here once again. If you can't handle that, fine and good luck. If you would like to address it, and perhaps move beyond the pettiness and more into the ideas surrounding this kind of realization on reality, I would be more than happy to do so.






top topics



 
19
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join