perhaps not a GOD, but definitely a GAP

reply to post by tgidkp


Regarding your .9999999999 = 1. I completely disagree.

We have 3 rocks sitting on a table. The rock is not .999999 rock. It is an object we are familiar with and it is one.

now that rock is made up of molecules. I can say that a molecule is 1. But the molecule is made of atoms, and I can say I have 1 atom. But the atom is made of sub atomic particles, and we can say an electron is 1. Or a quark is 1. But thats where it gets tricky with my ignorance on the status of particles of energy and how hey are created by fields, and are also waves, and can turn into other particles, and have mass and spin.

So I guess your .99999 is all about the nature of math. And I guess it arises attempting to divide 2 numbers that dont go into one another evenly. So numbers become quantities or whole objects, which could be broken off into infinitely smaller objects, as long as the objects you break them up into are noted in sequential order of a balance. So you can split a 1 in 100 pieces... or a 2 in a hundred pieces.. but because a 2 is 2 ones. there will still be more objects in the 2 scenario. That may be totally wrong but its just how I thought the nature of decimals might be owed too.

reply to post by tgidkp

Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by arpgme

 

the problem is that you had to use a system *other than* English to come to that conclusion.

Yes, that "system" is called Observation/Analyzing.

If I only speak the English language, are any of these words recognizable to me? If so, then the words are in English. Are they not recognizable? Then they may be unlearned words or words of another language. All of the words in the statement "This statement is not in English" can be recognized, therefore it is in English.

Unfortunately, this thread's discussion is losing focus.

I invite 'Tgidkp' to make a post that outlines his question clearly and coherently, and to articulate it in such a way as to leave no room for a re-interpretation as to what answer he is seeking.

If it is not 'God, but definitely a 'gap'...what do you mean by 'gap'?

Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

there is one tiny hiccup in your magic trick entanglement....

Then you show me the ball in your right hand, and it is red.

you have artificially introduced a source of intelligent behavior into the story. conversely, modern physics has yet to graduate from 'billiard-ball' modelling....and yet, these billiard balls appear to be conforming to patterns which (as you have pointed out) would be easily explained through some type of intelligent behavior (however rudimentary).

billiard balls ought not to make wavefunctions.

but they do.

No you didnt. you could do this trial 100 times, the person holding the balls can be blindfolded each time, the action of him reaching in a bag and picking up the red and blue ball is akin to the machine creating 2 particles. he can also randomly adjust which hand he shows you first, as one can randomly adjust which of the 'entangled' particles they would measure first.

I agree about the billiard balls, that is why quantum field theory was created im guessing, to say that particles dont really exist, they are just the congruence of specific fields, which can behave in a wave manner. As far as I dont know about quantum mechanics and field theory at least.


What would happen if both entangled particles are measured at the EXACT same time?

reply to post by tgidkp


And extremely interesting thread OP. I applause.

"what in the holy hell are you talking about?!":

pt.1

before we can have a meaningful discussion about quantum theory, we must first understand the meaning, the method, and the purpose of quantization. damn mr. feynman and his quote about not understanding....we are ALL well equipped to understand quantum physics because we all deal directly with the dynamics of quantized systems every moment of our lives.

in the minds of most people, there is a grave misassociation of the unit of quantization with the planck constant. i can hear the arguments forming in your heads already.... but the fact of the matter is that in the scale of things, by the time we have arrived at an atomic radius, we are already several orders of magnitude larger than the planck length.

so when we talk about the wavefunction of hydrogen, plancks constant plays a considerably diminished role, sorta like a yardstick on the coastline of britain.

from there, the physics maths make a move that, while in my OP i led you to believe are mistakes, they are only mistakes because YOU dont know anything about them. and as a result, you feel terribly lost whenever people start to talk about superpositions and uncertainties. it turns out that, when you consider the additional information, not only do you understand quantum theory much better, but when "they" tell you that "quantum mechanics has nothing to do with the human scale", you can speak with confidence to the contrary.

physics' dirty little secrets:
#1 - the largest wavefunction which has been explicitly solved and proven is for the hydrogen atom. all other atomic and molecular wavefunctions are fancy elaborationsof this initial structure.
#2 - all levels of quantization are performed by a method called renormalization, which renders the planck constant nearly meaningless in the grand scheme of things.


so, if you are still with me, and you want to understand the truth of quantization (why these two "secrets" are perfectly valid), read on.....

pt.2

i am certain that you have at some point watched, with mouth-gaping wonder, an animation depicting the vast scale of our universe. it is truly astounding. one of the most obvious things about it which has likely not escaped your attention is that the universe is comprised of punctuated transitions. as a thought experiment, let's examine one of these transitions.

first, we will see a particle of some kind.

next, by taking a step upward, we see a sea of these particles which looks to our eyes to have a (position) distribution approximately normal and generally formless. we also, at this level of viewing, have no difficulty in observing quite plainly the motions (velocity) of all particles.

continuing upward, there comes a moment....it seems to happen all at once....when the particles form some type of delineation. we begin to see that the "sea of particles" are all members of what appears to be a "system of particles". there is no doubt to our rational judgement that there is now an "inside" and an "outside" of this system which has now taken form. what is peculiar, however, is that in the same instant that the system appears, the boundary which contains it seems terribly fuzzy. the boundary cointains positions which are:

(1) currently occupied but will probably become empty, and
(2) currently empty but will probably become occupied.

it appears as though once we gain clarity of the higher system, we immediately trade off with uncertainty of the lower system. in fact, bizzarely, the uncertainty itself appears to be the sole component of this new system's delineation. the boundary is made up of positions which are both (1) occupied but going out, and (2) unoccupied but coming in.... it is only the boundary that persists. (if you study this carefully, you can easily understand the tradeoff between velocity and position leading to uncertainty leading to superposition.)

upward we go...and the higher we get, the less severe the uncertainty becomes until, at last, we can see quite plainly that this higher system can legitimately be referred to as a particle in its own right.

.....

NOW DRAW A LINE, GO BACK TO STEP ONE, AND PILE THE NEXT SYSTEM ON TOP.

hopefully you now understand why both of the "dirty secrets" of physics are not, in and of themselves, all that big of a deal.

really simple stuff, right?

pt.3

if you have some quarrel about the validity of my claim that this process happens over and over and over again during the animation of the scale of the universe, then you may as well stop reading here....i cannot help you. however, there are likely members reading this who will acknowledge that systems-within-systems is universally applicable..... and yet they will argue that this process produces quantum effects ONLY at the atomic-level, and that quantum effects do not apply in any significant way to our own human-level. for both cases, please do read on...


so, WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL?!?!

renormalization is perfectly acceptable. it is obvious and totally natural.

let us go back to the beginning of the OP and try to understand what it all really means.





arpgme tells us HERE that it is not a huge problem to simply construct a system "outside of" english which can resolve the paradox of the above statement. that is true, arpgme.

but like the annoying child who keeps adding "plus one" to your infinity....
(infinity)+1)+1)+1)+1)+1)+1)...)))))))))...
you will NEVER arrive at a system of logic which will unfailingly produce statements which can consistently be proven within that system. there will always be (1) invalid statements which are true, and (2) valid statements which are false. (please do compare this (1) and (2) to the (1) and (2) in the previous post. the statement's paradox is a valid metaphor for quantum superposition.)

"oh yeah, smarty-pants, infinity to the power of infinity."
"plus one."



no matter where you draw the line, uncertainty will ALWAYS persist.

the only thing you can do is push that uncertainty upward a level (and another, and another).

.....

the great big dumb point of it all:

renormalization of physical systems, no matter at which level of the cosmos it occurs, only pushes the "decision" upward. it DOES NOT isolate the uncertainty exclusively to the sub-molecular levels. uncertainty is like a thread that joins all levels of the cosmos simultaneously (yet, from different relative perspectives).

"quantum phenomena happens everywhere, all the time? ... no way":

yes way. without a doubt.

the most prevalent argument against large-scale quantum effects is that the noise (heat) of systems becomes too great to accomodate the coherent (uncertain) boundary of the particle system. it all just sorta falls apart.

the problem with this argument, which i hope is now plain to see, is that "noise" presupposes a "signal".....and a clear boundary between the two, where the noise always and only interferes with the desirable signal. the signal is clear and definite. the noise produces uncertainty.

but, as i have shown, the opposite is true:

in quantum mechanics, coherence is noisy (uncertain) and decoherence is clear (certain).

the signal IS the noise. quantum coherence relies exclusively upon uncertainty. noise does not destroy the wavefunction. the line which has been draw between signal and noise, while useful for renormalization, does not actually exist.



the line is a line which is not a line.




(did you actually read all of that?!)

P.S. there have been a rash of anti-science threads lately. while my statements here would likely get me run straight out of the scientific community, my position is not that of anti-science.

reply to post by tgidkp


I dont really know what the main point or points of discussion are, so I will just ask some questions I thought of while reading your replies.

Can the area of the universe ever increase or decrease? If the totality of the universe is 1 whole, which = it self, how can that wholes area change, how can it escape its ever present quantity, where can it store parts of itself and where would it get new parts to add onto itself to increase its area?

The only reason I ever brought up planck length, is to try to express my thoughts that at any and every given moment there is an exactness to the universe, if a planck length is created or a yard, there are an exact number of these that exist within the universe. Planck length attempts to get to the smallest quanta of increment or area, why could we not divide smaller? because at that point we would be overlapping into the next planck length? So there does not appear to be a zenos paradox quality to the nature of space.

Now fundamentally what is the universe mostly? Energy? pure energy? Fields? subatomic particles? Radiation? and is it top down or bottem up, or a mixture of both? Everything that exists contains the smallest quanta (even though those smallest quanta owe their existence to the mixing of universally encompassing fields, so is it top down, these massive fields twist around one another, and at their intersections create the illusion of particles and patterns and harmonies? ) so is the most fundamental nature of all material the subatomic particles? Even though macro collections of subatomic particles are able to then determine the fate of clusters of subatomic particles...

In your second post reply you are discussing boundaries of objects, going up in scale. For example a rock has its specific molecules that make it a rock, and something in t time and space occurred that brought those molecules together, and something in time and space determined that those atoms would have the potential to become rock in those physical circumstances, and there were other atoms, that because of their difference in physical makeup, naturally fell into the position of being atmosphere, the atmosphere is not rock, and the rock is not atmosphere, so there is a boundary.

With sloppy philosophical thought, I feel like saying it appears as if this is an activity of physical math. Think of the atoms that exist as numbers, and interactions between them as rules of math (or laws of physics). So because an exact quantity of atoms were caused to exist in an area of space, and those atoms were moving in their exact ways, and the laws of gravity were forced to be present, in that physical equation of math our solar system was created, the balancing of that equation. The boundaries represent a very real difference in the inherent exactness of quanta/matter. My curiosity lies in how were all these quanta made, so many numbers and bits. Why did the process that caused this physical scenario to occur, allow for this to happen, this quantized, interacting, physical math equation, that can create larger structures, of order and balance, etc. How did 1 whole, create infinitely many parts?

reply to post by ImaFungi

i think these are all interesting questions, and certainly different than the ones from before....so thats good. i want to interject, also, that i absolutely do not claim to be the last word on any of this.

Planck length attempts to get to the smallest quanta of increment or area, why could we not divide smaller? because at that point we would be overlapping into the next planck length?

there is no such thing as a plank's length. not really. (blasphemer!)

truth is that it is simply the statistical standard deviation on the smallest wavefunction that (as far as we know) exists. it is certainly a physical limit, however, in that the statistical significance at that level becomes so great that any single unit of measurement literally begins to interfere with itself. it is entirely possible that the universe continues on downward (and upward) forever, and we are simply incapable of investigating it empirically.

but, if we had a method of quantum mechanics that was well thought-through (the current theory is more like a patchwork of decade's worth of "let's use this...it seems to work"), it might be possible to mathematically model the universe at infinitely small levels. (trivia: when QM was first developed, the 'h-bar' which now stands for planck's length was a very flexible quantity. mr. planck filled in that gap many years later. h-bar is NOT the end-all be-all of QM. it's just "what seems to work".)

it appears as if this is an activity of physical math. .... interactions between them as rules of math.

that is a fair estimation. as is most of what you have posted here in this reply.

there is a lot of resistance to the idea of math being (big R) Reality, esp. in the thread that we came out of. but the reality of numbers and number theory is, to me, perfectly legit. on the other hand, when we start having to invent strange and exotic mathematical entities, IMO something has gone wrong.

lastly, you are correct that i have only given the bottom-up version of this story. the top-down version is pure speculation and an area of great interest for current research in the life sciences.

a question for you: if we consider ourselves to have membership of a quantum system, what role would you say uncertainty plays when YOU look "upward"?

reply to post by elysiumfire

It would seem there are no 'absolutes' in nature, and therefore, no ultimate truth?

I think we should qualify that statement with: there are no absolutes discernible through logic.

Some things retain their validity simply because they contain a universal appeal.

Take morality. Most people understand that killing is wrong. This is a universally recognized dictum; there may be modifications to it such as: you can kill in self defense, which, again, is a universally recognized truth.

What other angle towards this issue would render that perspective invalid? Well, from logic's perspective, any premise seems to be arbitrarily selected. Logic could just as well argue: why shouldn't we kill people? Why should I care about preserving another life if I can live my life happily? If someone can truly live happily breaking the law - something that is theoretically possible - then there seems to be no counter-argument.

The only thing that suppresses our absolute reliance on logic is basing our logic around some mutually recognized experience: being happy and at peace; ergo, it is right to help others to be happy and at peace.

So, paradoxically, at the root of most things, logic seems to serve the irrational, and not the other way around. Logic can speculate all it wants, but at the end of the day, the "irrational" TRUTH will win out. It is good to be good simply because it is good. Circular logic, yes. Logically indefensible, yes; but it derives its truth not from logic, but from an experiential truth that logic realizes it is in its interest to pay heed to.

Originally posted by tgidkp

there is no such thing as a plank's length. not really. (blasphemer!)

truth is that it is simply the statistical standard deviation on the smallest wavefunction that (as far as we know) exists. it is certainly a physical limit, however, in that the statistical significance at that level becomes so great that any single unit of measurement literally begins to interfere with itself. it is entirely possible that the universe continues on downward (and upward) forever, and we are simply incapable of investigating it empirically.

but, if we had a method of quantum mechanics that was well thought-through (the current theory is more like a patchwork of decade's worth of "let's use this...it seems to work"), it might be possible to mathematically model the universe at infinitely small levels. (trivia: when QM was first developed, the 'h-bar' which now stands for planck's length was a very flexible quantity. mr. planck filled in that gap many years later. h-bar is NOT the end-all be-all of QM. it's just "what seems to work".)

Of course there is no such "thing" as a planck length, just as there is no such thing as an inch, yard, second or minute. But these self consistent modes of measurement may have relevance in a reality such as this universe that seems to exhibit discreteness, distance, and regularity.

It is not entirely possible that the universe goes on downward (

reply to post by ImaFungi

I thought my other replies were fair as well, regarding superposition and entanglement but you ignored those

I apologize for taking the position of superior knowledge on this topic. it is a huge turn off, I know. there are certainly people on ATS that are more qualified to speak. and surely if they are reading this now, i would catch hell. the truth is that it has been a very important exercise for myself in preparation for my graduate studies starting this fall. what better way to practice but in this lonely little corner of the internet?

I did not purposely ignore those replies, but instead opted to try and establish a better foundation for further discussion. actually, I think that your position on entanglement is also correct, though I do not agree with the reasoning upon which it is based. IMO you are right, but perhaps you don't know WHY you're right. but then again, neither, really, do I.

about the silly question, I was hoping to hear you postulate on matters of time. time remains unaddressed in quantum theory, but the theory obviously has some serious implications about time.

thanks for the discussion.

"obsessed with uncertainty, ....." was that a jab?

reply to post by tgidkp


No jab intended, like I stated it appeared you were taking it out of context ( so I exaggerated and described it as being an obsession with the idea, to use it in other contexts)(Like someone may hear about the idea of observation collapsing wave function and then claim that our observation of the universe causes it to exist)

My view of time is; All that exists is energy/matter. Somethingness. There exists something, not nothing.

I dont know much details about the nature of this somethingness. But I do know that the somethingness that exists does not remain exactly in one state, form, place. I.e. (imagine a brick, the simplest brick, all of the same molecules, that brick cannot do much, it may stay as it is, for a while, imagine a brick that could just exist as it is for eternity, never ware, never move, cant do anything, and the brick was allll that existed ever always) The totality of somethingness that exists is not, like that brick. Using observation, experience, science, intuition it is seen that the somethingness, moves, changes, does things. This activity, moving, velocity, angular momentum, frequency, entropy, dynamics, IS what time is. Time is not a "thing" that exists, time is like the yard or the inch, time is the second or the minute. The second and minute do not exist as things or objects. They are descriptions of actions which energy/matter under go 'in space'. A person that runs 1 meter in 1 minute is an expression of the time it takes for matter to move 1 meter through space, velocity over distance I guess. A person that runs 1 meter in 1 second, their velocity is measured to have a different relation ship regarding its movement through space, the speed at which it moves. This is comparable relatively to the movement of the person that runs 1 meter in 1 minute.

Now, if all the somethingness of this universe, was 'born' 'new' and 'fresh' at the same instance of space and time. Then that is the overarching absolute timescale that all the somethingness of the universe shares. And that is what is referred to in mainstream science as 14 billions years ago or so. From that moment, each particle that was first created, or each quanta of energy, started a trajectory, some became parts of structures, and this perhaps allowed them to travel through space as their whole self for a longer period of time, then others, which perhaps became a part of a process where their atom was shredded in a nuclear reaction. But the absolute flow of time, would be the sequential order of interactions. These particles had to come together at point A, for them to come apart at point B, which led to one of the particles spinning this way, colliding into this particle at point C, Time is; Point A had to occur before point C could occur.

And so time is the stream, of interactions starting at that first original interaction.

Now a minor problem comes up if energy cannot be created or destroyed and entropy. This has to do with eternity. If somethingness exists now, somethingness must have always existed, and must always exist. So this sucks to try to think about an infinitely long temporal past. This still indicates a flow of time, for the somethingness had to be in this form, before it could take on this form, and it has to be in this form, before it can take on that form, and that frame rate of interactions is the flow of time.

reply to post by ImaFungi

Like someone may hear about the idea of observation collapsing wave function and then claim that our observation of the universe causes it to exist

yes. that is definitely not what i am advocating. in fact, just the opposite:

our observation of the wavefunction allows it to persist as a relative uncertainty. and as that uncertainty "makes an appeal" to each higher level of the cosmos, we experience the perception of time as moving in the top-down, or reciprocal, direction.

our consciousness has nothing to do with the decoherence (collapsing) of ANY wavefunction. our consciousness is an artifact (or perhaps, even, the NULL level) of the coherence of ALL wavefunctions.

reply to post by tgidkp

our consciousness has nothing to do with the decoherence (collapsing) of ANY wavefunction. our consciousness is an artifact (or perhaps, even, the NULL level) of the coherence of ALL wavefunctions.

Are you suggesting we are Holograms?

Regarding the occurrence of quantum coherence at a macroscopic level, it is interesting to note that the classical electromagnetic field exhibits macroscopic quantum coherence. The most obvious example is carrier signals for radio and TV. They satisfy Glauber's quantum description of coherence.

Source

Any thoughts?

reply to post by Kashai


well, now that you mention it.... yes. I think the concept of hologram is very fitting to what I am suggesting.

thanks for that.

reply to post by tgidkp


A can a Hologram perceive time unless programed to do so?

Are you suggesting holograms can evolve if so how exactly?

And also why would evolution be necessary beyond say virus's and bacteria?

reply to post by Kashai


...for the same reason that fungi got after me about my liberal use of the term "uncertainty". which is that every time I try to offer a "cliffs-notes" version of quantum theory, I get a lot of complaints about being too short on some aspect or another. I can always fully defend my position, but many times I would rather communicate a particular idea than be overly pedantic.

usually, I just keep my mouth shut.

I took a bioinformatics coarse in the spring which focused heavily on evolutionary theory. I hated it. I am not saying that the theory isn't effective. but in the long run, I think it will be a bullet point in a much more comprehensive theory. but its too late to get into that now.

I do not have much to say about the hologram aspect. it is hard to know if it will be useful as a metaphor or literally or both. it is definitely something that I will put some thought into.

how would you answer the questions you've posed?