Can Waves and the physical world be separate?, page 2

Pages: << 1 2 3 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times

reply posted on 20-1-2013 @ 10:09 AM by vasaga

reply to post by yampa

Why do people always hide behind so-called 'scientific principles' to justify their biased dismissal? Scientific principles still require premises, and from there grows a hypothesis, and then the scientific method relies on testing of this hypothesis to see whether it's true or not, and where it leads us. The main essence of science is questioning. Dismissing things the first time you hear about them is not a 'scientific principle'.

What Darwin did was basically the same as what Lanza is doing now, except you're probably very happy to accept what he wrote, without any testing whatsoever (if not, I apologize), but condemn Lanza for doing the exact same thing. You people should look at yourselves more often, so you can see the double standards that you're supporting.

If you want to support scientific principles, walk the talk.

reply posted on 20-1-2013 @ 10:24 AM by Bob Sholtz

reply to post by jiggerj

quantum mechanics ends up confusing people who are new to it because the use of "wave" isn't what you would expect.

wave can mean probability wave (usually the case in qm) or it can refer to a form of oscillating energy.

in regards to your sugar question, it doesn't matter how small you crush the molecules, it has more to do with the level they're being viewed at. with the naked human eye, things appear solid and definite, but at the quantum level things behave in very strange ways. needless to say quantum mechanics is struggling to produce a logical reason for the interactions that are observed, and are currently thought of as probabilities. since the exact position of something cannot be known, it is said to have "wave-like" characteristics.

it has to do with the inherent uncertainty in position of objects. what is extremely interesting is how a single photon (when not observed) can have it's probability wave interfere with itself (the math behind it states that the photon takes all possible paths and none at the same time). this allows for something called a wave interference pattern.

for more information youtube "double slit experiment"

reply posted on 20-1-2013 @ 10:33 AM by yampa

Originally posted by vasaga

If you want to support scientific principles, walk the talk.

If you want to talk about physics, talk about physical theory. You are trying to misdirect into an abstract discussion about definitions of science. That was not the point I'm making. I'm not promoting current science, and I'm not sucking-up to current dogma.

I've already said several times that I have big issues with current quantum theory. Yet you're accusing me of accepting current dogma without testing? Did you actually read any of what I said?

Dr Robert Lanza is not offering a new theory. The idea that 'consciousness creates reality' has been around for thousands of years. And it's always been false and it has never produced a prediction, a piece of data or a usable physical theory. That's what I can dismiss it out of hand (I did actually read about Lanza's theory before posting). I've seen this theory a thousand times on this forum and in mainstream science, and in ridiculous mysticism. It is a dangerous, unhelpful theory which leaves people unanchored and lost with no hope of any real answers about the structure of reality.

The OP was asking a question about what happens with particles in reality - you respond with 'there is no reality'. What kind of an answer is that?

reply posted on 20-1-2013 @ 10:48 AM by yampa

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
with the naked human eye, things appear solid and definite, but at the quantum level things behave in very strange ways. needless to say quantum mechanics is struggling to produce a logical reason for the interactions that are observed, and are currently thought of as probabilities. since the exact position of something cannot be known, it is said to have "wave-like" characteristics.

They didn't struggle for very long. The discovery of electrons and protons was very close to the formalisation of the Copenhagen interpretation and (with slight modifications) that has been dogma ever since. Instead of continuing to search for the logical, physically demonstrable reason, they decided to use purely mathematical heuristics to build a big ugly frankenstein's monster of a theory which is still frighting people like Dr Lanaza and making them say all kinds of non-sensible things.

reply posted on 20-1-2013 @ 11:09 AM by jonnywhite

So is QM just a sort of wave-like equation to specify where a particle might be in space & time since we don't actually know where until we measure it? What this means is that we can't predict EXACTLY where the particle will be in the future. This is because we can't measure the future. The reliability of the prediction exponentially breaks down with larger amounts of time.

What we're talking about is particle-wave duality? How light can have characteristics similar to particles and/or waves. The nature is dependent on whether we measure it or not. If we measure it then it acts like a particle. If we don't then it acts like a wave.

Does particle-wave duality affect all matter, or just light?

Is there anything that ALWAYS acts like a wave, measured or not? Or vice versa?

edit on 20-1-2013 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 20-1-2013 @ 11:17 AM by Bob Sholtz

reply to post by yampa

i was trying to say that there exists a divide between the quantum level of seemingly random interactions and outcomes, and the obviously deterministic macro world we observe. finding an explanation for that has been difficult, given things at the quantum level don't seem to play by the rules.

this has caused some physicists to postulate that quantum interactions aren't truly random, it's just that we don't understand (or perhaps it is impossible for us to understand from our perspective) the underlying laws.

So is QM just a sort of wave-like equation to specify where a particle might be in space & time since we don't actually know where until we measure it? What this means is that we can't predict EXACTLY where the particle will be in the future.

yes, though two important things must be changed in your statement. firstly, even when measuring a particle it has a level of uncertainty in it's position, though when it is observed, it's wave-function (probabilities of location) is said to be collapsed. secondly, we cannot know or predict the exact location of a particle in past, present, or future.

edit on 20-1-2013 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 20-1-2013 @ 11:22 AM by jonnywhite

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

Could it be like a fractal?

Fundamentally, fractals are based on random numbers.

But equations force patterns onto the random numbers to yield all manner of structure.

The essence is that the non-randomness comes from the equations.

Where did the equations come from?

The simple equations we use to make random 3d-landscapes only work because we know what landscapes look like and thus can fashion the equations correctly. But another key thing here is that 3d-landscapes, at least in some sense, are based on modulating random numbers with waves. The waves create natural-like persistent curves (hills and valleys) in the data.

But in order to produce something like our universe in the same way you'd have to be able to create life and all the wonder of the universe with equations. That seems impossible. But I cannot say it's impossible. Mathematics is increasingly seen in everything around us. But it's mind numbing.

And it would also hint that there's a form of determinism. However, if we cannot know what the random numbers will be then we cannot predict them and thus cannot see the future. And this all presumes that we'd be able to reverse engineer the equations. Maybe some of them...

edit on 20-1-2013 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 20-1-2013 @ 11:28 AM by jiggerj

Originally posted by vasaga
reply to post by yampa

Just some guy?

Robert Paul Lanza (born 11 February 1956) is an American Doctor of Medicine, scientist, Chief Scientific Officer of Advanced Cell Technology (ACT)[1] and Adjunct Professor at the Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Wake Forest University School of Medicine.

Source

And it's actually a theory of everything. You can look up Biocentrism. In fact, here's a links.
www.biocentricity.net...

The most important point of his video (my prior post) comes after 4:45, where there's supposed to be different laws for the small and the big, and he challenges that. What exactly is wrong with that?

Also.. Let me leave this to you, since you're promoting scientism, not science.
The Folly of Scientism
edit on 20-1-2013 by vasaga because: (no reason given)

Sorry Vasaga, I have to agree with Yampa. I thought this Lanza fellow was doing fine until he kind of snuck in the idea that since life creates life, then the universe had to be created (or something along those lines). There is absolutely no proof that life couldn't have started in a random natural event. This is because we simply cannot prove what we don't yet know.

As for the difference in laws between the small and the big, I don't see a conflict here. We can throw a match in a container of kerosene and nothing will happen. But, turn that kerosene into a mist (tiny particles) and it fires right up when you put a match to it.

What I think I'm getting from others is that maybe everything in the physical world isn't made of waves, as I previously thought. So now I have to figure out just what everything IS made from - yikes!

P.S. Thank you, though. Your contribution to this thread has made it interesting, and that's all that matters to me.

edit on 1/20/2013 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 20-1-2013 @ 11:30 AM by Bob Sholtz

reply to post by jonnywhite

not really.

an example would be colliding two particles together. you can list all the possible results, but as far as quantum mechanics has currently gone, the end result is completely random and unpredictable.

but there is also something to suggest order in the madness, because given two of the same particles colliding over and over, you'll get a repeatable percentage, sort of like flipping a coin. a coin toss appears to be completely random, but it actually isn't. if we were able to calculate all the variables acting on the coin, the outcome could be predetermined.

so particle a and b collide, and have (i'm simplifying all the percents down, these don't represent actual particles or outcomes) a 37% chance for "x" to occur, a 43% chance for "y", and a 20% chance for "z", but individually it is impossible to predict what will actually happen with any given collision.

reply posted on 20-1-2013 @ 11:38 AM by jonnywhite

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

An example of how are universe might exhibit fractalism is rivers and veins. Ever seen the snake-like channels that break off from a river? They look EXACTLY like veins under the skin.

There're too many other examples to bring up.

If mathematics is applied to the random QM then maybe our universe is the result. I mean, I may be hitting hte ball the wrong way into the wrong field, but at least I'm playing baseball.

Right now I have an article in front of me in Astronomy magazine about super clusters. The universe at the small to the large scales is very fractal-like. Current theory states this isn't true for the infinitely small and infinitely large. One of hte guys behind all this fractal theory is Benoit Mandelbrot.

This is how Mandelbrot describes it: "There are laws of nature that apply under extremely different conditions," says Mandelbrot. "Nature is ruled by the big equations of mathematical physics. Things that seem to be completely irregular are, in fact, very regular. So, there is some big principle of organization in our universe from one scientific discipline to another."

However, I'm careful to recognize that just because we can create some of the patterns in nature on computers does not mean that this is their ultimate nature. Correlation is not causation. It could be that something completely different is creating the patterns and we're just making imitations.

edit on 20-1-2013 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 20-1-2013 @ 11:39 AM by Bob Sholtz

so in theory, it makes sense that interactions at the quantum level follow some set of rules, BUT because the actual location and velocity of a particle cannot be known precisely, it may be that, due to our perspective, we will never be able to fully prove or even coherently grasp quantum phenomena

reply posted on 20-1-2013 @ 11:47 AM by Bob Sholtz

Originally posted by jonnywhite
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

An example of how are universe might exhibit fractalism is rivers and veins. Ever seen the snake-like channels that break off from a river? They look EXACTLY like veins under the skin.

There're too many other examples to bring up.
edit on 20-1-2013 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

i agree with you there, but those are all macroscopic examples. once you realize a proton isn't like a miniature planet, but is actually made up of three quarks and some gluons, and that these particles themselves are made up of something else, well...at that level weird things can happen. waves can propagate through objects that they shouldn't be able to go through, particles can become entangled with each other and simply ignore time. really cool stuff, but at that level, it becomes hard to say whether it's a continuation of a fractal, or what we think of as fractals are more like illusions.

reply posted on 20-1-2013 @ 12:52 PM by vasaga

Originally posted by jiggerj
There is absolutely no proof that life couldn't have started in a random natural event. This is because we simply cannot prove what we don't yet know.

This argument again... This is the same argument creationists use. They say "you can not prove that God does not exist". What would you say to someone like that? Do you see how your argument is pretty much the same? No offense to creationists btw, I have nothing against them, but, a lot of people on this forum seem to be anti-creationism, so, I put out this argument so they understand the principle and their hypocrisy when they criticize others for doing the same thing.

I just explained this in another thread. It's impossible to prove a negative. You can not prove God does not exist. That's why people say that it's up to the theists to prove that God does exists, and not up to the disbelievers to prove that he does not. You can not prove fairies do not exist. You can not prove the spaghetti monster does not exist. You can not prove that I do not have an invisible undetectable black cat in my lap right now. All you can do is try to prove that they do exist, and if you fail, you can say there is no indication that they exist. But that is not proof of them not existing.

So saying that 'there is no proof that life could not have started in a random natural event', is not only impossible to prove, it's an appeal to probability if you want to argue that we eventually will show that it did come from a random natural event.

Originally posted by jiggerj
As for the difference in laws between the small and the big, I don't see a conflict here. We can throw a match in a container of kerosene and nothing will happen. But, turn that kerosene into a mist (tiny particles) and it fires right up when you put a match to it.

Interesting argument. However, this doesn't have to do with big or small particles. The molecules of kerosene are roughly the same size whether it's a gas or a liquid. As you know, for something to burn, oxygen is required. In a can of kerosene, there's barely any oxygen, so nothing to react with. If you put a match in there, you've cut off the oxygen, and the flame goes out. If you turn it into a mist like you say it, you're mixing the kerosene with air, and a bunch of oxygen is available, allowing the reaction to happen. You've just given the kerosene heat + reactant.

If there is no conflict between the big and the small, why are scientists trying so hard to unify quantum mechanics with relativity? They've been trying this for ages now... So, it must be a problem then, wouldn't you say? Also, we basically still use Newtonian physics to build bridges and stuff, despite the perspective that it has been superseded by relativity...

Originally posted by jiggerj
P.S. Thank you, though. Your contribution to this thread has made it interesting, and that's all that matters to me.

Thanks I guess. No one generally likes what I post. Maybe because I love to shake foundations of people's beliefs.

edit on 20-1-2013 by vasaga because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 20-1-2013 @ 12:59 PM by Bob Sholtz

reply to post by vasaga

the problem with unifying the two lies with their reluctance to change their perspective on time and the cause-effect order.

as i'm sure you know, the issue arises between special relativity's speed of light through a vacuum, and the instant change of state that occurs with entangled particles. the solution is really quite simple, there isn't much of a problem theoretically.

relativity does need a small update, but the same update needs to be applied to quantum mechanics as well, then they'd find that the theories aren't incompatible, merely incomplete.

reply posted on 20-1-2013 @ 01:08 PM by vasaga

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by vasaga

the problem with unifying the two lies with their reluctance to change their perspective on time and the cause-effect order.

as i'm sure you know, the issue arises between special relativity's speed of light through a vacuum, and the instant change of state that occurs with entangled particles. the solution is really quite simple, there isn't much of a problem theoretically.

relativity does need a small update, but the same update needs to be applied to quantum mechanics as well, then they'd find that the theories aren't incompatible, merely incomplete.

Fair enough.. Then comes the conundrum. Why does the speed of light remain the same independent of the observer's movement speed? Wouldn't the logical conclusion be that the one observing is the one creating? I know it sounds wild but, what other explanation do you have? I'll gladly hear them.

According to quantum mechanics there isn't even such a thing as 'speed' if I'm not mistaken. So, how exactly does the above question tie into it. I'm not a pro at neither of these subjects so, please enlighten me.

Another thing. Are you guys aware of the double slit experiment? If so, what are its implications?

edit on 20-1-2013 by vasaga because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 20-1-2013 @ 01:31 PM by Jukiodone

Originally posted by vasaga

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by vasaga

the problem with unifying the two lies with their reluctance to change their perspective on time and the cause-effect order.

as i'm sure you know, the issue arises between special relativity's speed of light through a vacuum, and the instant change of state that occurs with entangled particles. the solution is really quite simple, there isn't much of a problem theoretically.

relativity does need a small update, but the same update needs to be applied to quantum mechanics as well, then they'd find that the theories aren't incompatible, merely incomplete.

Fair enough.. Then comes the conundrum. Why does the speed of light remain the same independent of the observer's movement speed? Wouldn't the logical conclusion be that the one observing is the one creating? I know it sounds wild but, what other explanation do you have? I'll gladly hear them.

According to quantum mechanics there isn't even such a thing as 'speed' if I'm not mistaken. So, how exactly does the above question tie into it. I'm not a pro at neither of these subjects so, please enlighten me.

Another thing. Are you guys aware of the double slit experiment? If so, what are its implications?
edit on 20-1-2013 by vasaga because: (no reason given)

Things are deffintely incomplete but when it comes to measuring the world around us we can use a number known observed variables to correlate unknown variables which give accurate models for predictions of behaviour.

Have a look at Planck Constants , especially their importance in Double Special Relativity for an intuitive explantion :
en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 20-1-2013 by Jukiodone because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 20-1-2013 @ 05:23 PM by yampa

Originally posted by vasaga
Fair enough.. Then comes the conundrum. Why does the speed of light remain the same independent of the observer's movement speed? Wouldn't the logical conclusion be that the one observing is the one creating? I know it sounds wild but, what other explanation do you have? I'll gladly hear them.

It doesn't. This is a misreading of the function of relativity. I realise you can find lots of pop science which will claim this is the case (especially those popular and flawed cartoons on youtube about relativity and QM), but they are really just romanticising an operational fact of mathematics. The same applies to calculations done on any moving object, not just light.

To graph and do calculations on a moving object you *must* set a fixed point to observe from. You cannot make sane measurements if the axis in your graph is moving at the same time as the object you are observing. It makes no sense to do that and acknowledging that it is saying nothing about the constancy of the speed of light.

The interpretations which postulate one craft going at half the speed of light while observing another moving at the speed of light, then conclude that the second craft would be physically observed to be passing the first at the speed of light are mistaking the rules of calculation for reality. Think about it. Does this really make any sense without applying magical rules to the motion of photons?

Originally posted by vasaga

Another thing. Are you guys aware of the double slit experiment? If so, what are its implications?

Several of the comments here have mentioned the double slit. I even offered a hypothesis about how the resolve the apparent paradox without spooky conclusions. Are you actually reading what people are saying?

edit on 20-1-2013 by yampa because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 20-1-2013 @ 06:03 PM by vasaga

reply to post by yampa

So.. Moving clocks do not run slowly then. Or is that due to another thing than the relative speed of light?

Let me elaborate. I know that you must choose a fixed perspective to calculate the speed of something, but in reality, there is no such thing as a fixed perspective. Everything is constantly moving, and that's the point. You can choose a fixed perspective, say, the chair you're sitting on right now, but in reality, you are constantly moving, since the earth is constantly spinning and moving through space around the sun, which is also constantly moving and so on. So nothing is ever truly in fixed position, and yet, the speed of light is apparently always the same, independent of this movement. So, from what I've been told, the speed of light measured in the deepest canyon of the earth is to be the same as the speed of light measured on the highest mountain top, despite the difference in speed of the observer. The observer on the mountain is theoretically moving faster due to being further away from the center of the earth. Or even in a moving airplane going a thousand miles per hour.

And that's where the problem comes in. The speed of light is the maximum speed of anything, right? So the logic is that, if you have two cars going in opposite directions at 100mph, they see each other going at 200mph. But if you have two hypothetical cars each going at the speed of light in the opposite direction, and nothing faster than the speed of light can be perceived, what do you see? How exactly is this a mistake in calculation, provided that nothing ever stands still?

And yes, I did read the comments of the double slit experiment, but, they don't really gave me the answer I was looking for. I just phrased it that way, so not only the ones who were already reading this thread would respond, but 'new' people could as well in case they don't read everything. You said waves do not make up matter, and that these are all 'particles', but define what you mean by particles. Just because you call something a particle, it doesn't make it a hard ball or whatever. A particle could very well be a wave.

edit on 20-1-2013 by vasaga because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 20-1-2013 @ 06:47 PM by yampa

Originally posted by vasaga
So.. Moving clocks do not run slowly then. Or is that due to another thing than the relative speed of light?

Let me elaborate. I know that you must choose a fixed perspective to calculate the speed of something, but in reality, there is no such thing as a fixed perspective.

Time dilation and length contraction are a reality for objects moving away from each other. The inverse is also true. But this is nothing more spooky than the classic Doppler effect. No one feels the need to invoke magical conclusions to the distortions in sound waves we perceive when a police car with a siren passes. What reason do you have to give different conclusions to observations done on light?

I think saying 'everything is moving' is a dodge. I don't think that point even features in functional relativity? - what would be the point? The purpose of relativity is to allow us make corrections to the distortions observed due to objects being in motion (particularly c over cosmological distances). Relativity transforms data. How does saying 'everything is moving' help us calculate anything? It doesn't. In fact, that statement is the first thing you must abandon to make sane calculations.

I'm not sure which thought experiment you are talking about with the cars in opposite directions. I'm not claiming to have any great knowledge of relativity, but the one I'm familiar with has both going in the same direction. One at c/2 one at c. The spooky part is supposed to be that one is always measured at c no matter the speed of the other. But like I said, this is a conflation of operational facts and what would happen in observed reality. Perhaps you could post a link to the specific experiment you are talking about?

Originally posted by vasaga
You said waves do not make up matter, and that these are all 'particles', but define what you mean by particles. Just because you call something a particle, it doesn't make it a hard ball or whatever. A particle could very well be a wave.

Particle is not my definition. It's a definition from physics. And in current physics, both photons and electrons are particles.

en.wikipedia.org...
"A photon is an elementary particle, the quantum of light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation"

en.wikipedia.org...
"The electron (symbol: e−) is a subatomic particle with a negative elementary electric charge."

A particle cannot *be* a wave. That makes no sense. Which waves are you talking about? Sound waves, water waves, seismic waves and every other known wave I can think of is composed of particle motion. The dualistic nature of the motion of photons and electrons can probably be explained by physical motions too. It's just that 20th century dogma has forbade all attempts at physical analogy for quantum experiments. I see no reason to apply those rules to my own thinking.

Einstein knew that these spooky postulates would eventually be proven to be subtle misreadings of the real motions of particles, and that still seems like a sane way to approach thinking about these subjects.

reply posted on 20-1-2013 @ 07:44 PM by vasaga

Originally posted by yampa
Time dilation and length contraction are a reality for objects moving away from each other. The inverse is also true. But this is nothing more spooky than the classic Doppler effect. No one feels the need to invoke magical conclusions to the distortions in sound waves we perceive when a police car with a siren passes. What reason do you have to give different conclusions to observations done on light?

Well, we can break the sound barrier, and we know what happens with sound waves. But the lightspeed 'barrier' can supposedly not be broken. I guess that's what makes it spookier.

Originally posted by yampa
I'm not sure which thought experiment you are talking about with the cars in opposite directions. I'm not claiming to have any great knowledge of relativity, but the one I'm familiar with has both going in the same direction. One at c/2 one at c. The spooky part is supposed to be that one is always measured at c no matter the speed of the other. But like I said, this is a conflation of operational facts and what would happen in observed reality. Perhaps you could post a link to the specific experiment you are talking about?

I can't find any experiment like the one I described on YouTube. I saw it on my Encarta Encyclopedia 97 CD, but I don't wanna go hunting for it in my house right now. I don't think the principle changes using the one you know.
I don't get how this is the same as the Doppler effect either. Is sound moving at the same speed to the observer in a car as it is to someone standing on a sidewalk? I actually think it relatively moves slower to the one in the car, unlike light.

Originally posted by yampa
Particle is not my definition. It's a definition from physics. And in current physics, both photons and electrons are particles.

en.wikipedia.org...
"A photon is an elementary particle, the quantum of light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation"

en.wikipedia.org...
"The electron (symbol: e−) is a subatomic particle with a negative elementary electric charge."

A particle cannot *be* a wave. That makes no sense. Which waves are you talking about? Sound waves, water waves, seismic waves and every other known wave I can think of is composed of particle motion. The dualistic nature of the motion of photons and electrons can probably be explained by physical motions too. It's just that 20th century dogma has forbade all attempts at physical analogy for quantum experiments. I see no reason to apply those rules to my own thinking.

Einstein knew that these spooky postulates would eventually be proven to be subtle misreadings of the real motions of particles, and that still seems like a sane way to approach thinking about these subjects.

Einstein didn't like quantum mechanics. But there is no real other explanation for the double slit experiment, other than them being waves too. Waves of what you ask, well, maybe, quantum fluctuations? The double slit experiment has been carried out many times. They even shot electrons one at a time to see what would happen, and instead of getting the particle pattern, they still got an interference pattern like waves. How else can you explain quantum superposition?