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.

 

Plasma Ribbon Confirms Electric Sun

page: 60
55
<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 08:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Id rather you just state an answer to my question; A taught 3d manifold of particles that exist everywhere?

Besides that, according to standard model, what other possibilities are there for what space is?

I started reading that page but had to stop, im a bit under the weather and dragonriders first two posts were rambling nonsense, of which had nothing to do with my question. Im asking a very direct question that can be answered generally or directly, simply, but at all.

According to standard model, is it thought the space field which is responsible for gravity is a connected network of particles? yes or no.


No its nothing more than potential energy. It doesnt exist until something causes it to interact.


If you do something called thinking, you would discover that saying that 'the area that allows gravity to exist is absolutely nothing, but when something causes it to interact, then that area of absolutely nothing, 'exists'' makes no sense.


Welcome to the world of QM. Takes a force carrier to cause virtual interactions. Difficult comcept for people to grasp until you indwrstand particle physics.


No, dont give me that tired excuse. I understand reality and truth, if a theory doesnt make sense in regards to reality and truth, the theory is wrong.


wrong!



If you cant explain it in anyway that is logical, that makes sense, than the theory is not logical, does not make sense, and is there fore wrong. Reality by nature of existing at all, must be logical and make sense, it must equal it self at all times, it must be tautological, it must have reasons at every level for what exists, why, and how, and how each aspect of it interacts and why. If your theory cannot explain this, or if your theories explanations are impossible to be logical, impossible to claim what exists, why, and how each part of what exists, exists and works, your theory is wrong.


wrong wrong wrong!

Mother Nature doesn't give a crap about what any individual meatbag thinks is 'logical'.




posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 08:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: dragonridr
Ill try a different way the energy to create virtual particles is there because of the uncertainty principle.so it means the more acurately we measure the energy, the less accurately we know the time. And vice versa. This means the shorter the time scale the more energy we find. For per Heisenberg's formula, a virtual electron and virtual positron, each of mass 9.11x10^^-31 Kg, can pop up and remain in existence for no longer than 3.22x10^^-22 seconds.


Describe what you mean by 'pop up'.

The energy IS NOT THERE BECAUSE THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE! ITS THERE BECAUSE REALITY WORKS AS REALITY WORKS. THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE IS NOT A DESCRIPTION OF REALITY. IT EVEN SAYS SO IN ITS NAME, IT SAYS, "WE ARE UNCERTAIN ABOUT REALITY".


No, that's not what it means. It means certain observations are not commutative, in a well-defined and experimentally verified way.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 08:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Id rather you just state an answer to my question; A taught 3d manifold of particles that exist everywhere?

Besides that, according to standard model, what other possibilities are there for what space is?

I started reading that page but had to stop, im a bit under the weather and dragonriders first two posts were rambling nonsense, of which had nothing to do with my question. Im asking a very direct question that can be answered generally or directly, simply, but at all.

According to standard model, is it thought the space field which is responsible for gravity is a connected network of particles? yes or no.


No its nothing more than potential energy. It doesnt exist until something causes it to interact.


If you do something called thinking, you would discover that saying that 'the area that allows gravity to exist is absolutely nothing, but when something causes it to interact, then that area of absolutely nothing, 'exists'' makes no sense.


Welcome to the world of QM. Takes a force carrier to cause virtual interactions. Difficult comcept for people to grasp until you indwrstand particle physics.


No, dont give me that tired excuse. I understand reality and truth, if a theory doesnt make sense in regards to reality and truth, the theory is wrong.


wrong!



If you cant explain it in anyway that is logical, that makes sense, than the theory is not logical, does not make sense, and is there fore wrong. Reality by nature of existing at all, must be logical and make sense, it must equal it self at all times, it must be tautological, it must have reasons at every level for what exists, why, and how, and how each aspect of it interacts and why. If your theory cannot explain this, or if your theories explanations are impossible to be logical, impossible to claim what exists, why, and how each part of what exists, exists and works, your theory is wrong.


wrong wrong wrong!

Mother Nature doesn't give a crap about what any individual meatbag thinks is 'logical'.


Logic is beyond all things, it is the definition of perfection. It is impossible for reality to be anything other than pure logic. Only a mind can be illogical by misunderstanding the logic of external reality.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 08:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: dragonridr
Ill try a different way the energy to create virtual particles is there because of the uncertainty principle.so it means the more acurately we measure the energy, the less accurately we know the time. And vice versa. This means the shorter the time scale the more energy we find. For per Heisenberg's formula, a virtual electron and virtual positron, each of mass 9.11x10^^-31 Kg, can pop up and remain in existence for no longer than 3.22x10^^-22 seconds.


Describe what you mean by 'pop up'.

The energy IS NOT THERE BECAUSE THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE! ITS THERE BECAUSE REALITY WORKS AS REALITY WORKS. THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE IS NOT A DESCRIPTION OF REALITY. IT EVEN SAYS SO IN ITS NAME, IT SAYS, "WE ARE UNCERTAIN ABOUT REALITY".


No, that's not what it means. It means certain observations are not commutative, in a well-defined and experimentally verified way.


Yes, I know, so it is improper to say; "the universe 'does this' because of the uncertainty principle".
edit on 4-7-2014 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 08:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Id rather you just state an answer to my question; A taught 3d manifold of particles that exist everywhere?

Besides that, according to standard model, what other possibilities are there for what space is?

I started reading that page but had to stop, im a bit under the weather and dragonriders first two posts were rambling nonsense, of which had nothing to do with my question. Im asking a very direct question that can be answered generally or directly, simply, but at all.

According to standard model, is it thought the space field which is responsible for gravity is a connected network of particles? yes or no.


No its nothing more than potential energy. It doesnt exist until something causes it to interact.


If you do something called thinking, you would discover that saying that 'the area that allows gravity to exist is absolutely nothing, but when something causes it to interact, then that area of absolutely nothing, 'exists'' makes no sense.


Welcome to the world of QM. Takes a force carrier to cause virtual interactions. Difficult comcept for people to grasp until you indwrstand particle physics.


No, dont give me that tired excuse. I understand reality and truth, if a theory doesnt make sense in regards to reality and truth, the theory is wrong.


wrong!



If you cant explain it in anyway that is logical, that makes sense, than the theory is not logical, does not make sense, and is there fore wrong. Reality by nature of existing at all, must be logical and make sense, it must equal it self at all times, it must be tautological, it must have reasons at every level for what exists, why, and how, and how each aspect of it interacts and why. If your theory cannot explain this, or if your theories explanations are impossible to be logical, impossible to claim what exists, why, and how each part of what exists, exists and works, your theory is wrong.


wrong wrong wrong!

Mother Nature doesn't give a crap about what any individual meatbag thinks is 'logical'.


You are wrong. I said you and your meatbag friends theories are illogical. I said nature is logical, therefore your theories are wrong.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 09:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: dragonridr
Ill try a different way the energy to create virtual particles is there because of the uncertainty principle.so it means the more acurately we measure the energy, the less accurately we know the time. And vice versa. This means the shorter the time scale the more energy we find. For per Heisenberg's formula, a virtual electron and virtual positron, each of mass 9.11x10^^-31 Kg, can pop up and remain in existence for no longer than 3.22x10^^-22 seconds.


Describe what you mean by 'pop up'.

The energy IS NOT THERE BECAUSE THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE! ITS THERE BECAUSE REALITY WORKS AS REALITY WORKS. THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE IS NOT A DESCRIPTION OF REALITY. IT EVEN SAYS SO IN ITS NAME, IT SAYS, "WE ARE UNCERTAIN ABOUT REALITY".


No, that's not what it means. It means certain observations are not commutative, in a well-defined and experimentally verified way.


Yes, I know, so it is improper to say; "the universe 'does this' because of the uncertainty principle".


The universe decided the uncertainty principle man defined it for our understanding. Doesnt change the fact we dont make the rules only discover them.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 09:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: dragonridr
Ill try a different way the energy to create virtual particles is there because of the uncertainty principle.so it means the more acurately we measure the energy, the less accurately we know the time. And vice versa. This means the shorter the time scale the more energy we find. For per Heisenberg's formula, a virtual electron and virtual positron, each of mass 9.11x10^^-31 Kg, can pop up and remain in existence for no longer than 3.22x10^^-22 seconds.


Describe what you mean by 'pop up'.

The energy IS NOT THERE BECAUSE THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE! ITS THERE BECAUSE REALITY WORKS AS REALITY WORKS. THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE IS NOT A DESCRIPTION OF REALITY. IT EVEN SAYS SO IN ITS NAME, IT SAYS, "WE ARE UNCERTAIN ABOUT REALITY".


No, that's not what it means. It means certain observations are not commutative, in a well-defined and experimentally verified way.


Yes, I know, so it is improper to say; "the universe 'does this' because of the uncertainty principle".


The universe decided the uncertainty principle man defined it for our understanding. Doesnt change the fact we dont make the rules only discover them.


No. Reality is equal to itself at all times. The uncertainty principle is not equal, it is an approximation within ranges. It is a tool of mans best yet to organize measurements of reality. It is not a perfect encapsulating description of reality itself. Once you comprehend this, you will comprehend why I have been asking every question I have asked of you since I began asking you questions, and you will understand why those questions are so important.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 11:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: dragonridr
Ill try a different way the energy to create virtual particles is there because of the uncertainty principle.so it means the more acurately we measure the energy, the less accurately we know the time. And vice versa. This means the shorter the time scale the more energy we find. For per Heisenberg's formula, a virtual electron and virtual positron, each of mass 9.11x10^^-31 Kg, can pop up and remain in existence for no longer than 3.22x10^^-22 seconds.


Describe what you mean by 'pop up'.

The energy IS NOT THERE BECAUSE THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE! ITS THERE BECAUSE REALITY WORKS AS REALITY WORKS. THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE IS NOT A DESCRIPTION OF REALITY. IT EVEN SAYS SO IN ITS NAME, IT SAYS, "WE ARE UNCERTAIN ABOUT REALITY".


No, that's not what it means. It means certain observations are not commutative, in a well-defined and experimentally verified way.


Yes, I know, so it is improper to say; "the universe 'does this' because of the uncertainty principle".


The universe decided the uncertainty principle man defined it for our understanding. Doesnt change the fact we dont make the rules only discover them.


No. Reality is equal to itself at all times. The uncertainty principle is not equal, it is an approximation within ranges. It is a tool of mans best yet to organize measurements of reality. It is not a perfect encapsulating description of reality itself. Once you comprehend this, you will comprehend why I have been asking every question I have asked of you since I began asking you questions, and you will understand why those questions are so important.


See you misunderstand the uncertainty principle its nothing more than an observation. No different than us observing the moon. You're arguing against the moon being real when reality shows us it is.We found through experiments the universe never lets us see everything at once. This isnt anything other than an observation because try as we might the universe does things the way it wants to not as we would like it to. The uncertainty principle at its most basic is an equation that we use to show how reality responds to given circumstances no different than us using math to predict high tides or lunar eclipses. Theres no interpretation it is reality we just make it predictable and testable. The moment some observation invalidates it it will no longer be used. But its pretty safe to say thats not going to happen since its been proven correct time and again in the real world.

Your problem is you dont understand the difference between a principle and a theory i suggest you might want to look that up.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 11:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: dragonridr
Ill try a different way the energy to create virtual particles is there because of the uncertainty principle.so it means the more acurately we measure the energy, the less accurately we know the time. And vice versa. This means the shorter the time scale the more energy we find. For per Heisenberg's formula, a virtual electron and virtual positron, each of mass 9.11x10^^-31 Kg, can pop up and remain in existence for no longer than 3.22x10^^-22 seconds.


Describe what you mean by 'pop up'.

The energy IS NOT THERE BECAUSE THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE! ITS THERE BECAUSE REALITY WORKS AS REALITY WORKS. THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE IS NOT A DESCRIPTION OF REALITY. IT EVEN SAYS SO IN ITS NAME, IT SAYS, "WE ARE UNCERTAIN ABOUT REALITY".


No, that's not what it means. It means certain observations are not commutative, in a well-defined and experimentally verified way.


Yes, I know, so it is improper to say; "the universe 'does this' because of the uncertainty principle".


The universe decided the uncertainty principle man defined it for our understanding. Doesnt change the fact we dont make the rules only discover them.


No. Reality is equal to itself at all times. The uncertainty principle is not equal, it is an approximation within ranges. It is a tool of mans best yet to organize measurements of reality. It is not a perfect encapsulating description of reality itself. Once you comprehend this, you will comprehend why I have been asking every question I have asked of you since I began asking you questions, and you will understand why those questions are so important.


See you misunderstand the uncertainty principle its nothing more than an observation. No different than us observing the moon. You're arguing against the moon being real when reality shows us it is.We found through experiments the universe never lets us see everything at once. This isnt anything other than an observation because try as we might the universe does things the way it wants to not as we would like it to. The uncertainty principle at its most basic is an equation that we use to show how reality responds to given circumstances no different than us using math to predict high tides or lunar eclipses. Theres no interpretation it is reality we just make it predictable and testable. The moment some observation invalidates it it will no longer be used. But its pretty safe to say thats not going to happen since its been proven correct time and again in the real world.

Your problem is you dont understand the difference between a principle and a theory i suggest you might want to look that up.


Captain Imafungi to major fail, can you hear me major fail, can you hear me major fail?

Is space a taught 3d manifold of particles that exist everywhere? And is this what is responsible for gravity?

A particle of matter travels in this space, this network of space particles?

Doing so, everytime it interacts with the particles in this network, 'virtual particles' are created, and this is how gravity works?

Besides that, according to standard model, what other possibilities are there for what space is?

Is it agreed upon that the Gravity field and EM field take up every infinitesimal point within the universe at all times, or within the universe are there, if even the smallest quantities, areas of pure, absolute nothingness?

You will say things like, particles of matter exist, and they exist in complete nothingness, and when they move in nothingness nothing happens, but when we measure them, there is a probability that the particles of matter will create gravity virtual particles and EM particles. So far that is all you have ever said, in the ~year or so I have been asking questions of you.



posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 03:12 AM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

Ok what is space lets see if we can define it. First space is something because something has to separate stars and planets. We know it has a something is there it can be warped by gravitation. So we can confidently claim that space is a volume that is made of points and the points can be measured.Thats why we can measure space with a ruler. measuring space is what started Einstein on his journey to develop relativity. What we know in relativity is space isnt absolute in fact it varies depending on velocity and the big one time itself. I know time is next question right? Well to Einstein time is simple the time it takes something to travel through space. Einstein's discoveries have shown that due to relativity of motion space and time can be mathematically combined into space-time. And that velocity effects time and time can affect how we measure space. Space is a canvas and its there because we need points or locations for things to happen. This energy we talk about in physics "zero point energy" is something that exists in space but it isnt space anymore than say paint is a canvas. A painting cannot be created without a canvas or paint. What is a canvas to a painting something for interactions to occur between the paint and a way to keep them separated by distance. That is what space is nothing more nothing less.

The real question you have is why does gravity affect time? And why does time affect space? And now theres the problem we dont have an answer mostly because all we can do is measure it but we have no true understanding of gravity or time only observations on how it affects matter. So in other words space isnt so much a mystery what your trying to grasp is gravity and time as we all are.



posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 06:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: ImaFungi

Ok what is space lets see if we can define it. First space is something because something has to separate stars and planets.


Horrendous logic. Why cant stars and planets be separated by absolute nothingness? What for the longest time was thought to be 'pure perfect vacuum', the absence of all fields, particles, energy, matter.

Is there a planck length of area within the universe that is pure nothingness?

Simply imagine a universe as a ball, or a multi verse as balls... Eventually if we zoom out and out and out and out we will come to a perspective where we will see 'thats all the 'stuff' that exists'. Do you agree so far? If you dont agree, your only other option would be to say, 'well there could be more stuff!'...ok...keep zooming, we zoom out and out and out and out, and yea, maybe you are right, now we see 9999999999 more multi verses all over the place. But! and this is a big but and I cannot lie, would you agree that eventually this trend cannot keep going on? Eventually there will have to be a point where the quantity of 'things/systems/universes' that exist comes to a finitude? More appropriately stated, the quantity of stuff that exists is always finite, according to the law of duh? If you are smart enough to agree so far, then we will find that eventually we will come to a perspective of knowing that 'that is all the stuff that exists', and then it would be appropriate at that point to assume 'in every direction surrounding that totality of stuff' is the purest, most absolute, truest, expression, example of perfect nothingness. So from that high zoomed out perspective where we can see all the multi verses that exist, if we were to zoom out further for infinity eternal infinities at the speed of light to the power of speed of light, we would find vast distances/areas in which there were no particles, fields, energies, matters, anythings? When I use the term nothing, that is the nothing, the true real pure nothing I am refereeing to. A very real distance!!!! That is to say if you had two balls in a space of nothingness, there would be a very real difference between placing them a foot away and 10 feet away, that does not make the distance somethingness.

So, does even a planck length of that true pure nothing, exist within the universe?



We know it has a something is there it can be warped by gravitation. So we can confidently claim that space is a volume that is made of points and the points can be measured.


Not so fast buckaroo. Now depending on how you answer what I have asked above, this statement right here may be interpreted as iffy either way. If the universe is particles of energy connected in different ways but they exist in an area/space of pure true nothingness, than that nothingness is the pure true 'space', and it is something entirely about the particles that exist in this space, and how they interact that allows the particles and how they interact to warp and curve.

So saying that the source of gravity is invisible points, and those invisible points is space and that is a volume that can be measured is just like saying that for all matter, the earth is a volume that is made of points and the points can be measured.




Thats why we can measure space with a ruler. measuring space is what started Einstein on his journey to develop relativity. What we know in relativity is space isnt absolute in fact it varies depending on velocity and the big one time itself. I know time is next question right? Well to Einstein time is simple the time it takes something to travel through space. Einstein's discoveries have shown that due to relativity of motion space and time can be mathematically combined into space-time. And that velocity effects time and time can affect how we measure space. Space is a canvas and its there because we need points or locations for things to happen. This energy we talk about in physics "zero point energy" is something that exists in space but it isnt space anymore than say paint is a canvas. A painting cannot be created without a canvas or paint. What is a canvas to a painting something for interactions to occur between the paint and a way to keep them separated by distance. That is what space is nothing more nothing less.


Hm, I would have had beautiful talks with Einstein if he were alive
me and him would have gotten along grand. He probably would have fixed a lot of interpretations that are standard about space-time, he would have wanted a lot of cleaning up, he would have probably committed suicide due to the state of physics.



The real question you have is why does gravity affect time? And why does time affect space? And now theres the problem we dont have an answer mostly because all we can do is measure it but we have no true understanding of gravity or time only observations on how it affects matter. So in other words space isnt so much a mystery what your trying to grasp is gravity and time as we all are.


No, thats not the real question I have, I cant be any more specific and clear. Read exactly what I wrote. Time is no mystery to me. I have only ever attempted to understand modern physic knowers points of views to criticize them to help them learn how they are ignorant, and hopefully there fore work towards correcting this and learn.



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 04:17 AM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi


Problem is you cant criticize something you dont understand. But something occurred to me as to what might be leading to your confusion. Everything has a waveform even matter itself and i think you dont truly understand how far wave particle duality actually goes. Matter can travel as a particle or a de Broglie wave. So alot of what you think is wrong or against nature is in fact just the opposite. We learned matter isnt what we thought it was and for example virtual particles em fields ect is just a wave function. Didnt occur to me to explain this to you but its the basis for everything in QM. The other is quantum tunneling understand these two things and you can see why particles act the way they do.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 09:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: ImaFungi


Problem is you cant criticize something you dont understand. But something occurred to me as to what might be leading to your confusion. Everything has a waveform even matter itself and i think you dont truly understand how far wave particle duality actually goes. Matter can travel as a particle or a de Broglie wave. So alot of what you think is wrong or against nature is in fact just the opposite. We learned matter isnt what we thought it was and for example virtual particles em fields ect is just a wave function. Didnt occur to me to explain this to you but its the basis for everything in QM. The other is quantum tunneling understand these two things and you can see why particles act the way they do.

en.wikipedia.org...


You say matter can travel as a particle, or a de Broglie wave. Can you give me an example of each; an example of matter traveling as a particle, and an example of when matter is traveling as a de Broglie wave? Answer this question please, I ask everything for a reason.


Explain why this logic is wrong.

You need equations which include probabilities in them, to make predictions about particles.
Then, you think reality must have probabilities in it, because you can use probabilities to make predictions.

Where is the proof that reality has probabilities in it, of course flipping dice is a case of reality having probabilities in it, but we are discussing the most fundamental substance of reality.

I believe, as Einstein did, that no matter what a scientist thinks or measures, reality is always definite, it is always equal to itself. And that the probabilities only exist in scientists equations, and for scientists.

It is possible a piece of matter travels physically in a wave like motion, like the top of the ocean is physical matter that travels in a wave like motion. But because I am truly smart, and careful, and truly care about truth more than anything, I will not believe that the uncertainty principle is reality. And yea, in this reply of yours you pretty much neglected the entire most important track of discussion I was attempting to get us on, which is the nature of space and gravity, which eventually leads, to its relation to QM. So if you have anything more to say about that, that would be...meh... I guess, great.



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
I believe, as Einstein did, that no matter what a scientist thinks or measures, reality is always definite, it is always equal to itself. And that the probabilities only exist in scientists equations, and for scientists.
I just had this discussion with mbkennel, and pointed out that Einstein cited his finger for evidence of his belief, or more correctly it was a joke about the lack of any evidence for his belief.

Meanwhile, the probablilites are observed and confirmed. If there exists something like hidden variables which explain the observed probabilities, they haven't yet been found. I'm not even sure this belief qualifies as a hypothesis until we have a way to test it. None of this means the belief is wrong, however with no evidence to support it, it's not very scientific and I think even Einstein would agree with that...it's the point he was trying to make by jokingly citing his little finger as evidence.



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: ImaFungi


Problem is you cant criticize something you dont understand. But something occurred to me as to what might be leading to your confusion. Everything has a waveform even matter itself and i think you dont truly understand how far wave particle duality actually goes. Matter can travel as a particle or a de Broglie wave. So alot of what you think is wrong or against nature is in fact just the opposite. We learned matter isnt what we thought it was and for example virtual particles em fields ect is just a wave function. Didnt occur to me to explain this to you but its the basis for everything in QM. The other is quantum tunneling understand these two things and you can see why particles act the way they do.

en.wikipedia.org...


You say matter can travel as a particle, or a de Broglie wave. Can you give me an example of each; an example of matter traveling as a particle, and an example of when matter is traveling as a de Broglie wave? Answer this question please, I ask everything for a reason.


Explain why this logic is wrong.

You need equations which include probabilities in them, to make predictions about particles.
Then, you think reality must have probabilities in it, because you can use probabilities to make predictions.

Where is the proof that reality has probabilities in it, of course flipping dice is a case of reality having probabilities in it, but we are discussing the most fundamental substance of reality.

I believe, as Einstein did, that no matter what a scientist thinks or measures, reality is always definite, it is always equal to itself. And that the probabilities only exist in scientists equations, and for scientists.

It is possible a piece of matter travels physically in a wave like motion, like the top of the ocean is physical matter that travels in a wave like motion. But because I am truly smart, and careful, and truly care about truth more than anything, I will not believe that the uncertainty principle is reality. And yea, in this reply of yours you pretty much neglected the entire most important track of discussion I was attempting to get us on, which is the nature of space and gravity, which eventually leads, to its relation to QM. So if you have anything more to say about that, that would be...meh... I guess, great.


Well the first example i think of is an electron microscope it uses de Broglie waves to image objects. Now as far as motion a particle or matter wave moves through space it isnt created by space. You keep expecting space to be made of something its not. When i throw a ball does it require anything other than velocity to move through the air? If i throw it in space it travels on forever no different than a particle traveling through space after all thats what the ball is made of. You so badly want to believe theres there some mesh that makes the universe but theres not. There is energy that was distributed during inflation but that isnt space its something found in space. As far as gravity that propagates in waves as well as i said everything can travel as a wave function.



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: ImaFungi
I believe, as Einstein did, that no matter what a scientist thinks or measures, reality is always definite, it is always equal to itself. And that the probabilities only exist in scientists equations, and for scientists.
I just had this discussion with mbkennel, and pointed out that Einstein cited his finger for evidence of his belief, or more correctly it was a joke about the lack of any evidence for his belief.

Meanwhile, the probablilites are observed and confirmed. If there exists something like hidden variables which explain the observed probabilities, they haven't yet been found. I'm not even sure this belief qualifies as a hypothesis until we have a way to test it. None of this means the belief is wrong, however with no evidence to support it, it's not very scientific and I think even Einstein would agree with that...it's the point he was trying to make by jokingly citing his little finger as evidence.


No his joke, or statement rather, means that the obvious and natural and self evident thought is 'that which exists exists' in the most fundamental and phenomenal way and true and undeniable a priori logical way. This is what is meant by energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed. Reality is tautological, reality = reality ALWAYS. How couldnt it? This is eternally obvious, any honest intelligence would admit this to themselves and others, or provide at least one argument as to how it can be defeated.

The belief that probabilities are not just tools for scientists to use, but that reality itself is full of uncertainty itself, requires the largest leap of faith, and distancing from founded self evidence and logic of reality.

You dont comprehend the meaning of hidden variables. Einstein wasnt making a statement about a theory to be used to do things. He was making a statement about pure truth, pure reality. He was saying 'Hidden variables may never be known or knowable, but they must exist', and you are saying, 'well that doesnt help us make predictions now does it, therefore it must be a false statement'.

Consider with dice, when one rolls dice 10 times one can use probabilities as to what the outcomes of the average rolls might be. How difficult would it be to create equations which include the hidden variables to predict the average of the dice!, but would you agree that there are very real physical circumstances which go into the determinacy of every roll of dice? Not limited to; the weight of the dice, the size of the hand, the temperature and air pressure of the room, the wind in the room, the height of the hand form the table, the pressure of grip from each finger, the exact position of the dice in the hand when dropped, the hands momentum when dropping, the momentum of the dice as they are being dropped and leaving the hand, the surface of the table... These are the hidden variables, that would be very hard to make equations out of to predict the outcome of a roll of dice. But the universe does it every time! QM is saying when you roll a dice and it lands 6 facing up, before the dice side that lands up lands up, that exact side, and all sides are a superposition of 1-6. Schrodingers cat was created to make fun of such notions.



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: ImaFungi
I believe, as Einstein did, that no matter what a scientist thinks or measures, reality is always definite, it is always equal to itself. And that the probabilities only exist in scientists equations, and for scientists.
I just had this discussion with mbkennel, and pointed out that Einstein cited his finger for evidence of his belief, or more correctly it was a joke about the lack of any evidence for his belief.

Meanwhile, the probablilites are observed and confirmed. If there exists something like hidden variables which explain the observed probabilities, they haven't yet been found. I'm not even sure this belief qualifies as a hypothesis until we have a way to test it. None of this means the belief is wrong, however with no evidence to support it, it's not very scientific and I think even Einstein would agree with that...it's the point he was trying to make by jokingly citing his little finger as evidence.


No his joke, or statement rather, means that the obvious and natural and self evident thought is 'that which exists exists' in the most fundamental and phenomenal way and true and undeniable a priori logical way. This is what is meant by energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed. Reality is tautological, reality = reality ALWAYS. How couldnt it? This is eternally obvious, any honest intelligence would admit this to themselves and others, or provide at least one argument as to how it can be defeated.

The belief that probabilities are not just tools for scientists to use, but that reality itself is full of uncertainty itself, requires the largest leap of faith, and distancing from founded self evidence and logic of reality.

You dont comprehend the meaning of hidden variables. Einstein wasnt making a statement about a theory to be used to do things. He was making a statement about pure truth, pure reality. He was saying 'Hidden variables may never be known or knowable, but they must exist', and you are saying, 'well that doesnt help us make predictions now does it, therefore it must be a false statement'.

Consider with dice, when one rolls dice 10 times one can use probabilities as to what the outcomes of the average rolls might be. How difficult would it be to create equations which include the hidden variables to predict the average of the dice!, but would you agree that there are very real physical circumstances which go into the determinacy of every roll of dice? Not limited to; the weight of the dice, the size of the hand, the temperature and air pressure of the room, the wind in the room, the height of the hand form the table, the pressure of grip from each finger, the exact position of the dice in the hand when dropped, the hands momentum when dropping, the momentum of the dice as they are being dropped and leaving the hand, the surface of the table... These are the hidden variables, that would be very hard to make equations out of to predict the outcome of a roll of dice. But the universe does it every time! QM is saying when you roll a dice and it lands 6 facing up, before the dice side that lands up lands up, that exact side, and all sides are a superposition of 1-6. Schrodingers cat was created to make fun of such notions.


You misunderstand probabilities in physics all rolls of the dice are equally valid and all occur. In physics probability isnt about predicting the outcome at all. This is your interpretation but its not physics. In physics any situation that can occur does occur. All probabilities taught us is you cant predict an outcome as long as there is more than one possibility. Schrodingers cat is an example of this we cant know any outcome until its observed and the cat being alive is equally as valid as the cat being dead.



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

"Schrödinger wrote:[2][3]

One can even set up quite ridiculous cases. A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a Geiger counter, there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small, that perhaps in the course of the hour one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges and through a relay releases a hammer that shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid. If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The psi-function of the entire system would express this by having in it the living and dead cat (pardon the expression) mixed or smeared out in equal parts.

It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally restricted to the atomic domain becomes transformed into macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation. That prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a "blurred model" for representing reality. In itself, it would not embody anything unclear or contradictory. There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks.

—Erwin Schrödinger, Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik (The present situation in quantum mechanics), Naturwissenschaften
(translated by John D. Trimmer in Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society)"

" Is the cat required to be an observer, or does its existence in a single well-defined classical state require another external observer? Each alternative seemed absurd to Albert Einstein, who was impressed by the ability of the thought experiment to highlight these issues. In a letter to Schrödinger dated 1950, he wrote:

You are the only contemporary physicist, besides Laue, who sees that one cannot get around the assumption of reality, if only one is honest. Most of them simply do not see what sort of risky game they are playing with reality—reality as something independent of what is experimentally established. Their interpretation is, however, refuted most elegantly by your system of radioactive atom + amplifier + charge of gunpowder + cat in a box, in which the psi-function of the system contains both the cat alive and blown to bits. Nobody really doubts that the presence or absence of the cat is something independent of the act of observation"



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
No his joke, or statement rather, means that the obvious and natural and self evident thought is 'that which exists exists' in the most fundamental and phenomenal way and true and undeniable a priori logical way.
I've realized the universe's behavior doesn't depend on what I think is logical. I've sort of gotten over this.

But you seem not to have grasped this concept yet.

By the way I didn't say beliefs not founded in observation and experiment are wrong, I only said they are not very scientific, since repeatable observation and experiment is a foundation of science.


originally posted by: dragonridr
All probabilities taught us is you cant predict an outcome as long as there is more than one possibility. Schrodingers cat is an example of this we cant know any outcome until its observed and the cat being alive is equally as valid as the cat being dead.
I thought Schrodinger used that as an example of how illogical quantum mechanics was to him. But even though he helped found quantum mechanics, and won a Nobel prize for this, apparently he didn't like it.



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Care to respond to my hidden variable dice analogy? Does this really surpass your intelligence? Do you fail to grasp the significance of my words? I comprehend everything you think and say, do you not at least attempt to comprehend my perspective? Or do you think you do? I think you do not, or else you would not be talking down unto me, or arguing with me. You are not even arguing with me, you are performing an existence of ignorance.



new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in

join