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.

 

New Law of Physics Could Explain Quantum Mysteries

page: 3
19
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by RogerT
 


I was referring to media...but I don't ever intend to take him off ignore.

I thought your comment was sarcasm, but I guess I was wrong




posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
"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.


You are on the right path...

Both of these threads are dots on converging lines.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by RogerT
.... seems obvious, no?

If you mistranslate tao as 'the field of all possibilities', I suppose it is.

But that is not in any sense the meaning of the word.

Lao Tzu repeatedly observed that it was not possible to say exactly what Tao is. This does not mean it is impossible to say what it is not. Indeed, much of the Tao Te Ching is devoted to explaining what is not Tao.

It certainly isn't 'the field of all possibilities'; that is, if you like, its ambit of operation. If Tao is what orders and drives reality, then it is, perhaps, that which selects what is to be included in that field - the ten thousand things which deserve the epithet 'real'. I think you are forgetting that Tao is not represented in terms of objects and events, but in terms of the principle or process behind them.

You might, perhaps, claim, that the defining parameters of the invariant set are Tao, but this is mere word substitution; it leaves out the all-important mathematics, i.e. the physical implications of the postulate, and gets us nowhere.

It is worth remembering that all ideas have but one source: the human brain. Thus morphological similarities between ideas from different cultures, periods of history, etc., are only to be expected, especially when the subject-matter of those ideas (the nature of reality, in this case) is the same. It does not do to read too much into such parallels, which is why books like The Tao of Physics and The Dancing Wu Li Masters have no philosophical or scientific value.

I would, with your permission, prefer to discuss the scientific implications of this postulate, in particular its consequences for quantum mechanics, string theory and quantum gravity. Remember, this is the Science & Technology forum. The philosophical or metaphysical implications are doubtless interesting, and if you would like to start a thread about them in the Philosophy forum I should be more than happy to participate. I'm sure more than one other contributer to this thread would do so, too.

Thank you, RogerT, for your patience.

[edit on 21/8/09 by Astyanax]



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 04:31 AM
link   
reply to post by RogerT
 

Also,


reality as we experience it is merely a momentary manifestation from the field of all possibility.

This is not what the ISP is about. It is about differentiating the possible from the impossible, not about differentiating the actual from the possible.

Badmedia did us both a service by quoting you in his most recent animadversion; I might have missed the sentence above if he hadn't.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax

It is worth remembering that all ideas have but one source: the human brain.



Really?

I don't agree with this assumption. In fact in moments when I do actually 'remember', I am certain that my brain is not the source of ideas. My mind may well be occupied with an incessant stream of thoughts, and maybe even generates a few of its own, but even if brain and mind are synonomous in this discussion, original ideas seem to come from some other source .... that which cannot be named





I would, with your permission, prefer to discuss the scientific implications of this postulate, in particular its consequences for quantum mechanics, string theory and quantum gravity. Remember, this is the Science & Technology forum. The philosophical or metaphysical implications are doubtless interesting, and if you would like to start a thread about them in the Philosophy forum I should be more than happy to participate. I'm sure more than one other contributer to this thread would do so, too.

Thank you, RogerT, for your patience.



OK, no worries, sorry to have butted in.

I can't hold a candle to this discussion in the terms you describe, so I'll bow out at this point.

Best
R



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by RogerT
 

Thank you, RogerT.

In response to what you posted, I think you would enjoy Nietzsche's refutation of Descartes in Beyond Good and Evil. If you're not already familiar with it, that is.



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by makinho21
 

Makinho21, please don't feed the little furry feller. You know he never gives up.

I really, really, really want to keep this on topic. Anyone who understands the potential importance of the ISP is smart enough to see that Badmedia's ideas aren't even in the ballpark. Leave him alone and let's move on.


NLP? Really? lol.

I actually like this idea, very interesting indeed, thanks for bringing it to my attention.

I actually believe in a similar thing to this, although badmedia has already been slated for stating his opinion so I may have to refrain from reitirating what he has said.

That said, not all people see God as a dude on a throne in heaven, remember that.

Edit to add: Thinking on, this could explain why gravity is so weak, it could be seaping in from the outside? When I say that, I don't mean literally rivers of gravity pouring into the universe, but maybe it is pulled in through mass? I'd get started on EU and all that, but I don't think you want that here.

To me though, this basically says that this particular 'State of space' or 'reality' has formed out of a greater 'state of space' and is but a small part, sectioned off from the whole. The 'laws' for this reality are dictated by the whole.

I'd agree that it isn't a force, more of a medium? like foam, the 'forces' we feel in our reality are due to the presence of the whole, like walking through custard?

Oh well, just spit ballin.

EMM

[edit on 22-8-2009 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]

[edit on 22-8-2009 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectroMagnetic Multivers
 


Don't let them get you down. It sounds like what it does, because it is what it does. Astyanax just simply wants to look at things on small level, and refuses to see the pattern into the bigger picture.

But what a scientist can prove, and what they understand are 2 different things.

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." --Albert Einstein



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 10:25 PM
link   
I like the refusal of the mods to moderate this thread.

Isn't it nice?
And we wonder why ATS is going where it's going.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
I like the refusal of the mods to moderate this thread.

Isn't it nice?
And we wonder why ATS is going where it's going.


There is an alert button. But I'm pretty sure what I posted has been on topic from the start.

Honestly though, if what I say is so wrong, wouldn't this be the perfect opportunity to completely debunk it, rather than just saying things like "anyone who is smart enough to understand knows you are wrong" and things like that?

Or is it on topic to call anyone who might view the theory as such ignorant without defining a real reason as to why?

The only real issue and why I'm being dismissed is because I call that which views all the possibilities "God", and that which views the smaller reality within it the "son". If not for that 1 little word being mentioned by me, there would be no issue at all.

Which is somewhat funny, because I was just watching a video the other day about CERN, in which Michio Kaku was saying such things as being able to read the "Mind of God".

It turns out, it's not really the scientists who have such a problem with the word "God". They apparently think it is "on topic", and so do I.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by OmegaLogos
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!


I found that very accessible, and as highlighted, quite brilliantly succinct. Thank you for that, it is an area I struggle with and always love it when I find someone who can cut through it for me.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by makinho21
But yes, as soon as "god" comes in to the topic, the discussion loses most of it's worth.


I'm really sorry about this, and in addition I am most likely parading my ignorance, but wouldn't there be some validity in "god" being programmed into the equation as a variable? Or at least I can see some validity in doing so (for fun if nothing else). To simply assume that there is no external influence, god or otherwise, seems somewhat limiting.

I am way out of my depth here, so be kind



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by coodeytar
 
Disclaimer: As elsewhere!


Explanation: and Star for you!

To answer your question to makinho21 RE: "wouldn't there be some validity in "god" being programmed into the equation as a variable?" and I respond with YES as IMO 1: God must be IMMANENT [i.e.present] due to the OMNIPRESENCE A-PRIORI REQUIREMENT! 2: If 1 is correct then ALL the variables are then "God"! 3: 1,2 and 3 are only VALID if one wishes to semantically codify it like this either for personal satisfaction and/or use for wider communication as a jargon amongst like minded individuals! Beyond that the answer is probably NO until the current Kuhnian paradigm fails [i.e NO GOD!] and the Popperian "can it be falsified when compared with some peer reviewed A-Priori yardstick" [Omnipresence!?] is tested and validated one way or the other!

Personal Disclosure: It depends on the A-PRIORI POV's that we limit ourselves to and how robust those ideological bootstraps are!



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Some of you who have posted on the thread appear to believe that the Invariant Set Postulate is a means of distinguishing what is actual from what is possible. This is wrong. The Postulate proposes that there is a set of states within a state space (a state space is a mathematical model of a system in terms of inputs, outputs and system states) that model physically real (possible) states of the system. However, there may be other states of the system allowed for by the mathematics, but which are physically impossible. Here is a quote from Tim Palmer's paper (linked in an earlier post):


If states of physical reality necessarily lie on I, then points p∉I in state space are to be considered literally ‘unreal’. In a hypothetical ‘oracle’ theory of physics which (non-computability notwithstanding) had perfect knowledge of I, these points of unreality would be an irrelevance. However, for practically relevant theories (such as quantum theory and any algorithmic extension), the intricate structure of I is unknown and these points of unreality cannot be ignored.

Here's an analogy that may be helpful in understanding the above. Consider a guitar amplifier. We can model its state space by defining the relationship between the amplitude of the input signal (call this Vi) and that of its output signal (which we'll call Vo). We don't know everything that is going on inside the amplifier, but we know enough to establish the relationship between Vi and Vo. This relationship will be given by a mathematical equation.

Once we have this equation, we can plug various values of Vi into it and get a corresponding value for Vo. Indeed, for any value of Vi we choose, we will get some value for Vo. But do all these values represent possible real states of the amplifier?

They do not. I could, for example, keep plugging in higher and higher values of Vo and getting gratifyingly enormous values of Vi. But remember, I don't know everything that is going on inside the amplifer, so I can't predict the behaviour of its working parts under all conditions; the state space I'm modelling is therefore 'non-computable' (see above). My state space equation doesn't tell me that for values of Vi above a certain magnitude, the circuits of the amp will fry, and thereafter the value of Vo will be a big fat zero - no matter what amplitude of Vi I feed the amp.

Thus the invariant set postulate. It proposes that while a broad set of outcomes may be possible according to the mathematical model of a quantum event, only a very much smaller set of those outcomes is actually possible in physical reality. To quote, again, from the original paper,


It is, of course, one of the great mysteries of quantum theory (some would say the central mystery) as to the physical reality of the superposed state. The Invariant Set Postulate provides a simple answer to this: on the invariant set, and only on it, |ψ〉=α|A〉+β|B〉 can be interpreted as defining a probability of two discrete alternatives based on a well-defined sample space.

So you see, the ISP isn't about distinguishing the set of all actual events from the set of all possible events, as RogerT, OmegaLogos and others have interpreted it. The ISP is about distinguishing the real from the unreal. It also eliminates nonlocality.

On-topic responses, including corrections, welcome.

[edit on 23/8/09 by Astyanax]



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 
Disclaimer: As elsewhere!


Explanation: RE: "Thus the invariant set postulate. It proposes that while a broad set of outcomes may be possible according to the mathematical model of a quantum event".....broad set eh? OK RE: "that everything everywhere"!
:shk:
and furthermore RE: "only a very much smaller set of those outcomes is actually possible in physical reality."...smaller set eh? OK RE: "a small portion of that happening is able to be squeezed into the subset of existence that is considered "REAL"."
:shk:


Chill Dude I'm down with the word on ISP OK!


Personal Disclosure: Are they/you/we sure "the state space I'm modelling is therefore 'non-computable'" = "well defined sample space"???



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


But, in the amp example wouldn't the circuits that fry also be along it's own range. And so if you also moved that variable around, you could get the values in 1 setting, which were not possible in another setting?

In this way, I see it as being in physical dimensions of 4d, 5d and so forth. Where the hypercube is a 4d version of the 3d cube and so on(rather than time, which is really just change). So, while the "circuits" are the static constant in your example, that static constant for our reality would be "us", or the specific spot in reality(set) "we" are currently in/experiencing.

As such, what is available most immediately would be the invariant set postulate. Where that set is based on the constant value of the "circuits", or "our position". But if you change the constant value, then you would get a different set.

In this way, it could be a bit of a breakthrough, because it's starting to identify what is more immediately available, which in turn narrows down that "randomness" that is experience from simply not knowing all the factors involved. Because while realizing the understanding I and others are speaking of is the theory of "everything possible", it in itself says nothing about where exactly we are within that, our position or anything else. While philosophically we might say that position is really no where, and is "true" on a "higher level" it still avoids the fact of dealing with this reality(thus, the need for science).

There is nothing about this theory that I find contradictory. Seems like progress to me, as it closer defines what is immediately available/possible.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 


Originally posted by OmegaLogos
broad set eh? OK RE: "that everything everywhere"!
:shk:

It would help the conversation along a great deal, OmegaLogos, if you could write your meaning in plain English. I don't mean to be rude; this is a sincere request.

You appear to be saying that the set of all outcomes of a quantum event predicted by its wave equation is 'everything everywhere'. That is incorrect.

As for this,


and furthermore RE: "only a very much smaller set of those outcomes is actually possible in physical reality."...smaller set eh? OK RE: "a small portion of that happening is able to be squeezed into the subset of existence that is considered "REAL"."
:shk:

I have absolutely no idea what it means. Would anyone care to translate?


Personal Disclosure: Are they/you/we sure "the state space I'm modelling is therefore 'non-computable'" = "well defined sample space"???

The universe? Yes, I'm pretty sure it's non-computable.


reply to post by badmedia
 


But, in the amp example wouldn't the circuits that fry also be along its own range. And so if you also moved that variable around, you could get the values in 1 setting, which were not possible in another setting?

See 'non-computable'.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


Give it a rest would you. You want to make quantum mechanics = god when you should just see it as laws and mechanics as it is. You keep harping on about it so insistent of your extrapolation - You've had your say and made your contribution so why don't you save us the time and make your own thread already?

////////////////end of discussion/////////////////////


reply to post by Astyanax
 


Why are you still talking to BM?

[edit on 23-8-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Why are you now disagreeing with the article you posted?

I'll quote it again.



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.


Are you sure you understand it?



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join