Personal notes

Beefy

Beefy

Worst gambler ever
Since this place is more deserted than that Island the Forrest Gump was on, I've decided to put some notes here.

Applying the theory of relativity to the wave/particle duality, is it at least plausible that the particle nature of the entity represents and is shown by the mass end of the equation, and the wave nature is shown by the energy end of the equation?

E=mc2. Mass and energy are equal in value, thus different representtions of the same thing, one and the same. Subatomic particles and their equivelent wave functions are not only equal in value, but they're also one and the same.

Particles as mass and waves as energy. Break it down far enough andthe two do exactly as Relativity says it does, but in a completely different way than Einsteins. Reality is as it is, and contrary to Einsteins reaction to quantum mechans, god "DOES play dice with the universe"! But only so far as we can tell.

Random chance, likelyhood, odds, these are all things we experience in our everyday, classical world. But if you apply classical mechanics to these events, they're not really chance at all. They're actually the culmination of a series of forces acting upon eachother, from casualty theory to electromagnetism. There are no counterintuitive events happening at all.

However, when we go down to the quantum world, energy, position, speed, appearance, tangibility and matter or mass are all in some weird way one and the same. But you can only observe them as one or the others, but never as more than once at the same time. No matter What! It's a law, just like gravity or electricity. The heisenburg uncertainty principle ]is a law od quantum dynamics that says you cannot simultaneously measure a particle's position and momentum at the same time with certainty, ever.

The implication is that this business is inherently incomplte because its not resolved. Einstein believed this, and spent the better part of his last 30 years trying to get around this problem, uncertainty. But he wasn't able to.

Energy, energy is everything, every last portion of the univers ultimately i energy. Life is but a dream.
 
Wheeler sowed a few other oats as well. After the "thought expirement" in which the EPR Paradox was born and later, to Einsteins dismay proven ( Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen had theorized the experiment to disprove the Quantum Theory via the counterintuitive nature of the EPR paradox itself), Wheeler set the stage for himself and other physicists to show a very very counterintuitive, but result driven set of experiments which in 1968 proved the EPR paradox! The very paradox that was set forth the show the inconsistency of quantum theory had been tested and shown to be true!!! This was the final nail in the coffin for the corpse of figuring a grand unified theory using classical phyics! Very exciting shit.

Back to Wheeler. He took the quite a large step in uniting the quantum and macro universe. He looked at the effects of macroscopic forces such as gravity, and applied them to quanta, I.E. photons.

According to quantum theory, time is a variable, not an absolute like in our world. In fact, there have been many experiments in quantum physics where the result is ultimately affected by the observation after the event has actually occurred. In other words, the observation of the event begat its outcome. Now, the time frames are very small in this regard, less than a billionth of a second, but still evident.

Back to Wheeler again. He took a mocroscopic look at the picture the unverse was creating for us. There is a quasar that previously in history looked like 2 quasars about 50,000 lightyears away from eachother in space - over a billion lightyears away.

But it has been since shown that this is actually the same quasar with a galaxy in front of it. This galaxy has enough mass to act as a lens. It bends the space enough that the light from the quasar bends around it, much in the same way that a couple of mirrors would.

Now, take an experiment thay has been done on the quantum level for some time. A single photon, that is quanta of light, which being a single entity is paradoxically a particle and a wave can be split into different directions without losing its potentials or properties. In other words, as long as it is derived from the same source, as a single quanta, it retains equivient properties that equal its spin and properties, no matter how far apart they are. They are in a "superposition", thus they are not a "they", but an "it". For they are one and the same, even if a billion light years part in our classical world. Change the spin on one, and the spin on the other changes immediately, completely slapping relativity in its face. This is known as entanglement, and its been observed in the lab many times.

But what happens if the particles are split billions of years ago by this quasar's gravitational lense? The photons must, by the time they reach the telescope, have been travelling on the same path for the billions of light years it took it to get from the quasar to Earth, right? By the time the photon is intercepted by a man made instrument, it should be able to be determined with total accuracy that it passed either the left or right (or above or below) the gravitational lense galaxy, and when we observe these photons long after the fact, this indeed appears to be the case. But this all changes if we observe, OBSERVE the particlas very shortly after the event! The act of observation affects the outcome, always!

Wheeler showed that by altering the reflecting and refracting guides to the photons nanoseonds after the photon had laready passed through could have an effectual cause on the properties of the photon prior to its passage through the experiment! Photons can be affected by the very near future! Because the universe, when down at the Plank scale, does not exist of the tangibilities that we perceive as our reality. Life is but a dream.
 
Einstein hated the uncertainty principle. He believed that science could be condensed down to the bare bones, and that everythig was capable of being understood wholly, and without exception, if the parameters were right.

But, in his own theory, relativity time becomes subjective. Time itself, one of the fundamental features of life, living, science and measurement, is not what it seems. Is it this variable that ultimately can tie the wave function to the particale nature of quantum mechanics? I doubt it, because I'm merely a retired hot tub salesman and they probably would have thought of this in their more expert capacity, but I do think there must be a relationship there. The Uncertainty Principle as Heisenberg laid it out, says that a particle's position, and momentum cannot be measured accurately at the same time through observation, and that the more accurately you measure position, the less accurately you can measure momentum.

But it is in the reference of time. Time, being relative, and in a certain sense, subjective, especially in the quantum world, is not something that photons, waves, and leptons are terribly concerned with. So maybe, the element of time is the barrier between the wolrd the Einstein hoped for, in that the rules of cassical physics applied to, and the world that Heisenberg discovered. Maybe they haven't looked at time in the correct fashion.

If it is the 4th dimension, as is shown by General Relativity, then it certainly should be treted as such. Has it been though? Has it been respected as a true dimension, and if it were, would the Uncertainty Principle have the same weight?
 
All I can say for this thread is.....

Beefy needs a real job he has lost it!:nuke: Right Beefy in your world E=Mc2


or three or four or whatever it takes to make it through the night!:cof1:
 
Feynman knew of the wonder, the perplexity, the sheer beauty of the true nature of things, the enigma that is reality.

Full circle beteen the great philosophers and the the great physicists. As it turns out, science is proving things that have been on the table for years.
 
Beefy said:
Feynman knew of the wonder, the perplexity, the sheer beauty of the true nature of things, the enigma that is reality.

Full circle beteen the great philosophers and the the great physicists. As it turns out, science is proving things that have been on the table for years.
Click to expand...
Just wait, tomorrow, behind that rock right over there, they'll find evidence of God.
 
Beefy said:
Einstein hated the uncertainty principle. He believed that science could be condensed down to the bare bones, and that everythig was capable of being understood wholly, and without exception, if the parameters were right.

But, in his own theory, relativity time becomes subjective. Time itself, one of the fundamental features of life, living, science and measurement, is not what it seems. Is it this variable that ultimately can tie the wave function to the particale nature of quantum mechanics? I doubt it, because I'm merely a retired hot tub salesman and they probably would have thought of this in their more expert capacity, but I do think there must be a relationship there. The Uncertainty Principle as Heisenberg laid it out, says that a particle's position, and momentum cannot be measured accurately at the same time through observation, and that the more accurately you measure position, the less accurately you can measure momentum.

But it is in the reference of time. Time, being relative, and in a certain sense, subjective, especially in the quantum world, is not something that photons, waves, and leptons are terribly concerned with. So maybe, the element of time is the barrier between the wolrd the Einstein hoped for, in that the rules of cassical physics applied to, and the world that Heisenberg discovered. Maybe they haven't looked at time in the correct fashion.

If it is the 4th dimension, as is shown by General Relativity, then it certainly should be treted as such. Has it been though? Has it been respected as a true dimension, and if it were, would the Uncertainty Principle have the same weight?
Click to expand...

What do you mean?

There is the Einsteinen 4th dimension of time.

And there is also a spatial 4th dimension. Imagine that, as well as there being up down, left right, forward backward, there were another two things name kapa and kata. That would be the 4th spatial dimension.

I don't think any one of them can be considered the "true" 4th dimension. They just are, and that's how it is.
 
Beefy said:
Einstein hated the uncertainty principle. He believed that science could be condensed down to the bare bones, and that everythig was capable of being understood wholly, and without exception, if the parameters were right.
Click to expand...
True. He was never comfortable with quantum mechanics at all.
If it is the 4th dimension, as is shown by General Relativity, then it certainly should be treted as such. Has it been though? Has it been respected as a true dimension, and if it were, would the Uncertainty Principle have the same weight?
Click to expand...
Yes, modern physics does treat time as a true dimension. One of the very odd things that many theorists struggle with from time to time is why the temporal dimension is different from the three "normal" spatial dimensions: one can move through it in only one direction. Usually. But let's not go there -- I don't have the math for it anyway. ;)

Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity are still not completely reconciled. M Theory does it but is still very controversial. One thing we know for certain, though, is that the weird effects of uncertainty and quantum mechanics that Einstein so abhorred are quite real: they've been observed and measured repeatedly.

In other words, we can't just toss one or the other, we need both.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
True. He was never comfortable with quantum mechanics at all.
Yes, modern physics does treat time as a true dimension. One of the very odd things that many theorists struggle with from time to time is why the temporal dimension is different from the three "normal" spatial dimensions: one can move through it in only one direction. Usually. But let's not go there -- I don't have the math for it anyway. ;)

Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity are still not completely reconciled. M Theory does it but is still very controversial. One thing we know for certain, though, is that the weird effects of uncertainty and quantum mechanics that Einstein so abhorred are quite real: they've been observed and measured repeatedly.

In other words, we can't just toss one or the other, we need both.
Click to expand...

Why should time be considered a spatial dimension? That doesn't even make sense.

There are infinity possible spatial dimensions and only three present ones. Time is different.
 
I models with only two spatial dimensions, I guess, time could be computed as a third dimension. But you couldn't consider it a spatial "dimension".
 
Watermark said:
Why should time be considered a spatial dimension? That doesn't even make sense.

There are infinity possible spatial dimensions and only three present ones. Time is different.
Click to expand...
It both is and isn't different. As far as math is concerned, time is just another dimension of spacetime.

Why do you consider spatial dimensions different? That's why the term "spacetime continuum" was coined. The perception that space and time are separate and distinct is an illusion: it's an artifact of our culture, which in turn results from our limited human senses.

The three spatial dimensions with which we're familiar by everyday experience are indeed "special" in that they are distinct from other spatial dimensions. They're bigger, to put it crudely. There's a lot of argument as to how many other very tiny spatial dimensions there are but almost all theorists now agree that there are some. The temporal dimension is also different, primarily because it appears to posses a natural "directionality" that other dimensions do not; normally, particles can move through time in only one direction.

One can always fall back on the notion that relativity, quantum mechanics and other physical theories are just abstractions. They're just mathematical games which don't change the nature of reality itself. In a sense this is quite true but it is also, ultimately, a contrarian cop-out.

The physical effects predicted by both general relativity and quantum mechanics have been measured many times. The effects are real, however counterintuitive they may be. So if you want to dismiss the existing theories as merely abstract games, you're still stuck with replacing them with something better.
 
Time isn't a spatial dimension because it's limited. A fourth spatial dimension would have another dimension in which you could move through.

200px-8-cell-simple.gif


That is a four dimensional cube rotating.
 
Watermark said:
Time isn't a spatial dimension because it's limited. A fourth spatial dimension would have another dimension in which you could move through.

200px-8-cell-simple.gif


That is a four dimensional cube rotating.
Click to expand...
We do move through time. Just because we only have the ability to move in one direction through the dimension doesn't mean it isn't possible.
 
LMAO..........

When y'all retire ya will forget about time...clocks mean nothing relavent...ya do what ya want when ya want...and just wait for death to sneak up on ya!:cof1:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top