Notices
Results 1 to 51 of 51

Thread: Dumb Questions Reborn

  1. #1 Dumb Questions Reborn 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,761
    I missed this part when the forum was down. To get another chance to ask dumb questions has lifted me up above my melancholy. I had some time to think of some incredibly dumb stuff (for me at least) so I'll start anew with this one.....It has to do with wave/particle duality and anti-particles.

    Part 1: Do posi and anti particles actually need to collide in order to annihilate one another? I'm thinking that since they can behave as waves then contact as a particle is not necessary.

    Part 2: if I try to observe an annihilation event as in above scenario, will it be impossible to do so? I say this because to observe it, would not the wave function collapse? Just want to know if there's annihilation going on when I'm not looking.

    Hope these qualify as being dumb enough


    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,146
    These questions aren't dumb, in fact they are actually pretty non-trivial. Firstly it needs to be noted that creation and annihilation processes are something for which you need the full framework of quantum field theory to describe them, as they involve changes in the numbers of particles ( standard quantum mechanics describes only how a given ensemble of a fixed number of particles evolves ).

    1. An annihilation event would involve the interaction of two quantum fields ( e.g. an electron and positron ), so yes, interaction is necessary. Whether you describe the entities involved as particles or waves is irrelevant, since these are just two aspects of the same underlying physical reality - being an excitation of the quantum field.

    2. Is there a reality if there is no observer ? In quantum physics, there is a concept called "counterfactual definiteness" ( CFD ); this means the ability to meaningfully speak of quantum systems having definite properties, even if they have not been measured. While there are different interpretations in existence, the current consensus tends towards the recognition that CFD is lacking in our world - that means that quantum systems have no fixed properties other than those we determine through a measurement process. So essentially, reality is what you measure, everything else is simply potential and probability. This is not just a fancy idea; there is empirical data pointing towards that being the case ( look up "Bell Inequalities" if you are interested - it turns out that those are violated in our world, so we have to abandon either realism or locality ). Do take note though that applying these ideas to quantum field theory is quite non-trivial, and I can't say I fully understand all implications myself.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,587
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    These questions aren't dumb, in fact they are actually pretty non-trivial. Firstly it needs to be noted that creation and annihilation processes are something for which you need the full framework of quantum field theory to describe them, as they involve changes in the numbers of particles ( standard quantum mechanics describes only how a given ensemble of a fixed number of particles evolves ).

    1. An annihilation event would involve the interaction of two quantum fields ( e.g. an electron and positron ), so yes, interaction is necessary. Whether you describe the entities involved as particles or waves is irrelevant, since these are just two aspects of the same underlying physical reality - being an excitation of the quantum field.

    2. Is there a reality if there is no observer ? In quantum physics, there is a concept called "counterfactual definiteness" ( CFD ); this means the ability to meaningfully speak of quantum systems having definite properties, even if they have not been measured. While there are different interpretations in existence, the current consensus tends towards the recognition that CFD is lacking in our world - that means that quantum systems have no fixed properties other than those we determine through a measurement process. So essentially, reality is what you measure, everything else is simply potential and probability. This is not just a fancy idea; there is empirical data pointing towards that being the case ( look up "Bell Inequalities" if you are interested - it turns out that those are violated in our world, so we have to abandon either realism or locality ). Do take note though that applying these ideas to quantum field theory is quite non-trivial, and I can't say I fully understand all implications myself.
    I note you are admitting your lack of understanding of the detail("implications") in this but I also notice that you have introduced the concept of "realism" ("realism or locality") ,

    On a general note can I ask you whether this idea of "realism" (as part of the theory ,I am assuming) bears any relation to the question that keeps arising from some people as to whether ,for example spacetime is a real thing or simply a model? (personally, I have accepted the model "interpretation" and am quite happy with that)

    Does this model interpretation help us out in these "particle collision " and "unobserved vs real" scenarios, too?

    Without wishing to cringe (well ,to be obsequious), I know that ,even with your confessed shortcomings you will have an incomparably better insight into this question than I will ever have (provided only that I have been able to pose a clear question)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,146
    Quote Originally Posted by geordief View Post
    I note you are admitting your lack of understanding of the detail("implications") in this but I also notice that you have introduced the concept of "realism" ("realism or locality") ,
    My lack of understanding refers to aspects of quantum field theory, which is something I am still self-studying.
    Realism means that, when you perform a measurement, the property you measure was already present prior to the measurement process; in other words, it refers to the notion that it is meaningful to speak of quantum systems having definite properties, even if no one measures them. Essentially, it means that measurement is a passive process, which simply reveals something that already preexisted.

    The consensus among most physicists these days is that (local) realism does not apply to our universe.

    This doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not spacetime is "real", whatever that is actually meant to mean. I think it is best to think of spacetime as a mathematical model, which has shown excellent agreement with experiment and observation in the real world. This is true for all other concepts in physics, too.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,761
    Markus, such great answers. You are special and the forum is fortunate to have you around.

    OK, Enough of that. One thing that has always bothered me was, and I think it's related to your recent answers, is simply the wave function and what happens when I gaze upon the visible universe. My head cannot get around how the entire universe could exist in multiple (probalistic?) states or be everywhere at once when there is only one and I'm actually a part of it. I'm thinking that when I look heavenward, at the same time I can't see myself. Did the act of observing something mean the observer changed roles with the observed? Hope I'm making myself clear, I have trouble trying to make sense of what I hear on this subject.
    Last edited by zinjanthropos; July 2nd, 2017 at 07:34 AM.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,123
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    My head cannot get around how the entire universe could exist in multiple (probalistic?) states or be everywhere at once
    Can your head get around the idea that the future exists in a way that is every bit as real as the present? Consider yourself sitting in front of a computer monitor at a given instant in time. You can't see the version of yourself that is one second into the future from that given instant in time. Yet if you wait one second, you'll see that you are still sitting in front of a computer monitor, and every bit as real as you were a second ago. The essential thing to realise is that the version of you in the present is no more real than the versions of you in the future or in the past. Now, consider a physics experiment involving the trajectory of an object. To process the results of the experiment, one uses mathematics to describe the trajectory as a superposition of the different versions of the object at all the different times. But nowhere does the mathematics make one version at a particular time more real than the versions from other times. The different versions at all times are equally real. Indeed, from a mathematical perspective, the notion of things being more real than other things makes no sense at all. Thus, the intuitive notion that the present is more real than the past or future cannot be mathematically described. In other words, if we accept that mathematics describes our reality, then we must accept that the past, present, and future are all on equal footing. The same can be said about the set of all possible distinct spacetimes that make up a multiverse.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,761
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post

    Can your head get around the idea that the future exists in a way that is every bit as real as the present.
    How a universe can be everywhere at once when there is only one place it can be is what puzzles me. Maybe I shouldn't consider the universe as an object that can be observed. I can't see all of it at any time, so does it mean that what I see is particle and the unobserved portion a wave?
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,587
    I find this present/past /future delineation difficult to understand.

    Especially, how do we define (or experience?) the present?

    I don't expect GR to be applicable here but on a subjective (which is a valid viewpoint as it is truly objective on its own terms**) level we cannot pinpoint a region of the perceptual system in our physical mind that is actually "straddling" this present experience.

    It is more like a fiction that we create for ourselves so as to navigate the multiple "presents" that are going on together.

    For example ,our different senses are following different "film scores" and yet we stitch them together so that they seem to us to represent the same moment (the onmarching "present")

    If my understanding of the situation is correct(or in the right ball park area) ,I also wonder whether any practical consequences could follow or whether this is purely a philosophical area where we tie ourselves up in knots in an attempt to unravel what is an underlying very simple situation(a little "knowledge" actually being an impediment to a truer understanding)

    **I mean ,it is possible to consider our own individual mental apparatuses as mini/micro scientific experiments ,although we have to somehow abstract ourselves from the internal processes to do so.We have to "look at ourselves looking at the outside world"
    Last edited by geordief; July 7th, 2017 at 04:52 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,123
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Can your head get around the idea that the future exists in a way that is every bit as real as the present.
    How a universe can be everywhere at once when there is only one place it can be is what puzzles me. Maybe I shouldn't consider the universe as an object that can be observed. I can't see all of it at any time, so does it mean that what I see is particle and the unobserved portion a wave?
    I'm not sure if I've interpreted your question in the same way as you intended, but my interpretation is about the multiverse where all the possible outcomes of an experiment are in superposition, and although only one outcome is observed, all of the possible outcomes are equally real. That is, all of the possible outcomes are occurring ostensibly at the same location in space and time, though they are at different locations in the multiverse itself. This is similar to the notion that the two different versions of yourself one second apart are ostensibly at the same location in space, though they are at different locations in spacetime.

    An alternative albeit similar interpretation is about the notion that a particle in the double-slit experiment travels through both slits. And the notion of a single-particle wavefunction is that the particle is simultaneously at all locations within the domain of the wavefunction. But in this case, one shouldn't regard the particle as being at multiple individual locations, as the wavefunction itself is the true nature of the particle, and that the notion of particles being at individual locations only occurs if individual locations are being measured for the presence of the particle.

    One point that needs to be made is that the position of an object has no meaning except in relation to other objects. Thus, it makes no true sense to speak of different points in the multiverse as being the same point in spacetime, or even to speak of different points in spacetime as being the same point in space. That is, where I speak of being ostensibly at the same location, there is an implicit regard to the context of the physical surroundings. Sometimes I say to people that you can't hammer a nail into space.
    Last edited by KJW; July 9th, 2017 at 12:08 PM.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,123
    Quote Originally Posted by geordief View Post
    I find this present/past /future delineation difficult to understand.

    Especially, how do we define (or experience?) the present?

    I don't expect GR to be applicable here but on a subjective (which is a valid viewpoint as it is truly objective on its own terms**) level we cannot pinpoint a region of the perceptual system in our physical mind that is actually "straddling" this present experience.

    It is more like a fiction that we create for ourselves so as to navigate the multiple "presents" that are going on together.

    For example ,our different senses are following different "film scores" and yet we stitch them together so that they seem to us to represent the same moment (the onmarching "present")

    If my understanding of the situation is correct(or in the right ball park area) ,I also wonder whether any practical consequences could follow or whether this is purely a philosophical area where we tie ourselves up in knots in an attempt to unravel what is an underlying very simple situation(a little "knowledge" actually being an impediment to a truer understanding)

    **I mean ,it is possible to consider our own individual mental apparatuses as mini/micro scientific experiments ,although we have to somehow abstract ourselves from the internal processes to do so.We have to "look at ourselves looking at the outside world"
    The question of why we perceive time differently to space is an interesting one. However, in classical relativity, objects are world-lines in spacetime (point-particle trajectories are one-dimensional curves). But why we experience a particular present at any given instant can be understood in terms of a version of the anthropic principle: We experience a given time because that is the time our brains are perceiving at that time. The same is true at all times even though we only experience a single time at any instant. Thus, although we experience single instants in time and even a continuous temporal ordering of events, there is no such thing as an objective present.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Masters Degree Implicate Order's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    27.4679į S, 153.0278į E
    Posts
    610
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    How a universe can be everywhere at once when there is only one place it can be is what puzzles me. Maybe I shouldn't consider the universe as an object that can be observed. I can't see all of it at any time, so does it mean that what I see is particle and the unobserved portion a wave?
    Great to be back guys. Where else can you chew the fat about the Big Ideas :-)

    Viewed as a system the only real universal context that we can experience without projecting our assumptions is that which is made available within our light-cone (the hubble volume surrounding a single point in spacetime) .....or that which is causally connected. As participants, we need to consider our universe from 'inside out' as opposed to a universe from 'outside in'. Fortunately observers situated on this planet share a vast portion of their hubble volume with others and thus a shared reality. I share your concern with a viewpoint that treats the universe objectively as 'one place'. I err on the side of a viewpoint that allows for a multiverse, but as opposed to separate distinct realms with different physical laws, a multiverse arising from an array of different possible interpretations arising from perspectives taken from different points in space-time. To compare different perspectives we need to transform the complete system from one perspective to another (apply a phase shift from one 'universal state' to another). A superposition of states arises from the different perspectives taken from different vantages in spacetime, each equally valid, as they simply arise from system processes applicable within each hubble volume.
    Last edited by Implicate Order; July 11th, 2017 at 12:09 AM.
    Quidquid latine dictum, altum videtur
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,587
    Quote Originally Posted by Implicate Order View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    How a universe can be everywhere at once when there is only one place it can be is what puzzles me. Maybe I shouldn't consider the universe as an object that can be observed. I can't see all of it at any time, so does it mean that what I see is particle and the unobserved portion a wave?
    Great to be back guys. Where else can you chew the fat about the Big Ideas :-)
    .
    I thought the 40 days in the outback was up long ago.As the great man said ,we were just killing time till you came back
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,761
    Sat down the other night and listen to a TED talk given by Brian Greene. In it he went on about multiverses and extra dimensions. Personally I can't believe I actually got through reading The Elegant Universe one time awhile back. Seemed pretty heavy then, still does but I think I'm actually getting some of this stuff and that's a scary thought.

    Anyways he mentioned that our universe may be one of several billions and billions of universes and that occasionally ours is going to make contact with another. Now it would seem to me that if the numbers are true then perhaps occasionally's status should be elevated to likely always being in contact. If so then what would we see as evidence of it or exactly what should we look for?

    I also picture in my mind each universe surrounded by some sort of protective membrane but I'm in doubt whether this would be the case. So what would constitute a boundary between universes.........extra dimensions and shapes, fields of some sort, or what is the best current scientific hypothesis?
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,146
    Quote Originally Posted by geordief View Post
    Especially, how do we define (or experience?) the present?
    You cannot experience anything but the present. Awareness always happens in the "now" - you can be aware of memories, or of future plans, but those are just mental objects that exist here and now. We do not have direct access to either the past or the future, so it is the faculty of awareness itself that defines the present.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,587
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by geordief View Post
    Especially, how do we define (or experience?) the present?
    You cannot experience anything but the present. Awareness always happens in the "now" - you can be aware of memories, or of future plans, but those are just mental objects that exist here and now. We do not have direct access to either the past or the future, so it is the faculty of awareness itself that defines the present.
    So ,is there a general consensus that ,as an objective physical reality the concept** of "presentness" has no validity?

    Can we go further (is it "further" ?) and say the concept of (absolute?) "objectiveness" also has no firm validity ?

    (was Lewis Carroll implying this when he made his famous comment through Alice about words and meanings -after all he was quite a noted mathematician/logician I seem to remember,and also a reactionary one wrt the evolution of physics at that time again if I remember well)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,146
    Philosophy ( of science ) isn't really my area of expertise, so I can't authoritatively answer this. In mathematical terms, "the present" is just a hypersurface of constant time, as measured by a given clock, and can be precisely defined. Actual measurements are a different story, since clocks have a finite resolution, and there is also the uncertainty relation to be considered.

    I am not really sure what you mean by "absolute objectiveness" - can you explain ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,587
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post

    I am not really sure what you mean by "absolute objectiveness" - can you explain ?
    Probably something of a strawman insofar as it is something that feels like it should exist but when examined more closely may not be able to be pinned down.

    But I think the general idea is (in philosophy which is not my area of expertise) that "reality" can be considered as either entirely (or fundamentally) based on our perceptive experience of it or that it exists independently of it.

    I only claim to be familiar with the question (as I have come across it) and not to be able to flesh out the arguments (since I have not seriously studied it and ,if I had would not be a good student either )

    Sorry not to be more help
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,761
    Let's try this one: Is there evidence to suggest our universe may be a combination of universes?
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,587
    https://www.spaceanswers.com/news/bi...-a-multiverse/

    What about that? If there is any "contact" there would have to be "combination" even if only minimally (I would have thought)

    I think it is probably speculation but it is nice to "watch that space"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,761
    Quote Originally Posted by geordief View Post
    https://www.spaceanswers.com/news/bi...-a-multiverse/

    What about that? If there is any "contact" there would have to be "combination" even if only minimally (I would have thought)
    I kind of hope it is evidence. Bubbles seem to be the most popular way to depict multiverse. When you watch kids play with soap bubbles there's always some that collide, combine, share a common membrane for a moment and then boom, one bubble. Always wondered when that happens if the shared membrane gives way and we're left with a larger bubble because the remaining bubble all of sudden contains the innards of the other and expands to make room? Any bubble dynamics experts out there? Can it be used as an analogy* for our universe?

    Let's say each universe is a different size and for example a small one smacks into an extraordinarily large one. Perhaps the large bubble is barely affected when the shared boundary breaks between the two but wouldn't a smaller universe all but disappear while a lot more space opens up for its contents? Doesn't this seem like sperm meets egg, sheesh?**

    * Not advocating that universes actually behave like soap bubbles or that our universe is a bubble
    ** or that the universe is alive
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,123
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Let's try this one: Is there evidence to suggest our universe may be a combination of universes?
    Whenever I advocate a multiverse, it will always be the multiverse of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. Is there any evidence for the existence of such a multiverse? I regard the notion of quantum superposition itself as evidence for the existence of a multiverse. But quantum superposition only manifests itself at microscopic scale, and the Born rule itself provides the reason that the quantum multiverse is unobservable at macroscopic scale: Distinct macroscopic states are orthogonal and orthogonal states do not exhibit interference. That is, orthogonal states (whether macroscopic or microscopic) behave as if none of the other states exist.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Visalia, CA
    Posts
    42
    Fascinating stuff. I completely agree with KJW. Through the years I've pieced together a picture of the Universe as a quantum structure that is absolute. From the Big Bang all the way to the End of Time; all things that could happen, has happened, and we just simply observe our way through it. I believe that's what we consider the "present".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,761
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Let's try this one: Is there evidence to suggest our universe may be a combination of universes?
    Whenever I advocate a multiverse, it will always be the multiverse of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. Is there any evidence for the existence of such a multiverse? I regard the notion of quantum superposition itself as evidence for the existence of a multiverse. But quantum superposition only manifests itself at microscopic scale, and the Born rule itself provides the reason that the quantum multiverse is unobservable at macroscopic scale: Distinct macroscopic states are orthogonal and orthogonal states do not exhibit interference. That is, orthogonal states (whether macroscopic or microscopic) behave as if none of the other states exist.
    Lets see if I understand. When the particle is in superposition, each position (not sure what word to use there) is in or part of a different universe?

    Edit: woke up this morning wondering that if one quantum particle can be everywhere at once then could all that's observable in what we call the universe be just one particle. Or could each particle be its own universe and what we think is our universe is just a special place where all these universes can exist or be observed?
    Last edited by zinjanthropos; July 28th, 2017 at 08:00 AM.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,123
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Lets see if I understand. When the particle is in superposition, each position (not sure what word to use there) is in or part of a different universe?
    I'm tempted to say "yes" but it is more complicated than that. Any given state is a superposition of other states. Thus, we can't attribute a single state to a single world. When we say that a photon passes through both slits, this is distinct from the photon passing through either one slit or the other slit, even if we don't know which slit the photon passed through. A superposition of states is distinct from a simple mixture of states. Perhaps the closest analogy is to consider an audio waveform as a superposition of different single-time pulses. It is also a superposition of different single-frequency sinusoidal waveforms. But note that even a single single-time pulse is a superposition of different single-frequency sinusoidal waveforms, and a single single-frequency sinusoidal waveform is a superposition of different single-time pulses. And there are other ways to decompose an audio waveform as a superposition of orthogonal functions. Thus, not only can an arbitrarily oriented plane-polarised photon be regarded as a superposition of vertically and horizontally oriented plane-polarised states, but it can also be regarded as a superposition of left and right circularly-polarised states.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,761
    KJ... appreciate your input.

    in this last post are you intimating a particle is like an array of waves and with each wave there is a frequency, with which we need to tune into to observe?
    Last edited by zinjanthropos; July 28th, 2017 at 09:57 PM.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    863
    Here's my dumb question, but again it may not be so dumb. It could even be a GUT, in some analogous way.
    Take a deep breath.

    Is the universe made of chocolate!?

    Matter is chocolate. There are 2 types of chocolate, light (milk) and dark.
    Milk chocolate is light matter. Dark chocolate is dark matter. Light and dark energy are required for their production. Obviously, all energy on earth comes from the sun and some of it is locked into plants which humans use to commercially make chocolate.

    What is laughingly described as the universe is a chocolate sponge cake. The Milky Way galaxy is actually a milk chocolate whirl. The solar system is a milk chocolate wafer. The comets are granules of escaped sugar.
    Very occasionally the milk chocolate wafer moves into an area of dark chocolate (dark matter). The comets craving for the milk hurtle towards the sun and can hit the earth causing mass extinctions.

    Chocolate sauces.
    https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-universe...lat-1528303752

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_M..._the_Dinosaurs
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,587
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    863
    I'll expand it to what lies outside the universe.
    The Universe lies within a Chocolate Hazel Nutshell.

    The Universe in a Nutshell - Stephen Hawking
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,761
    Yes off topic but please allow me this counter chocolate response .....

    I guess one could say no to chocolate universe and yes to one made of shit. Dark crap (mammals) and light (white) for birds. Does bring black holes into play. The universe is situated at the end of a digestive tract just beyond the BH event horizon. Matter at this point is solid, liquid or gas. New universes emerge from the BH every day only to disappear in a swirling vortex while gravity pulls others towards the boundary only to be swallowed up, recycled and reborn.
    Last edited by zinjanthropos; August 1st, 2017 at 11:07 AM.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,761
    Back to more on topic questions....

    Im a little confused as to whether a quantum particle exists in more than one place or if it is just the probability that does ?
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    863
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Does bring black holes into play. The universe is situated at the end of a digestive tract just beyond the BH event horizon. Matter at this point is solid, liquid or gas. New universes emerge from the BH every day only to disappear in a swirling vortex while gravity pulls others towards the boundary only to be swallowed up, recycled and reborn.
    According to this theory. baby universes are born within black holes as a by product of chocolate manufacture by the Great Chocolateer.
    A black hole should indeed look like this.

    Black Hole Chocolate Cheesecake - Bake or Break
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,587
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Does bring black holes into play. The universe is situated at the end of a digestive tract just beyond the BH event horizon. Matter at this point is solid, liquid or gas. New universes emerge from the BH every day only to disappear in a swirling vortex while gravity pulls others towards the boundary only to be swallowed up, recycled and reborn.
    According to this theory. baby universes are born within black holes as a by product of chocolate manufacture by the Great Chocolateer.
    A black hole should indeed look like this.

    Black Hole Chocolate Cheesecake - Bake or Break
    I think you are making the dark art of chocolate making out to be simpler than it is.

    Clearly this is a recipe for failure as a chocolate cheesecake that falls in on itself cannot be called a true cheesecake.(although a chocolate soufflee may)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Freshman Secular Sanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Back to more on topic questions....

    Im a little confused as to whether a quantum particle exists in more than one place or if it is just the probability that does ?
    "Congratulations to Drs. S. Haroche and D. Wineland for winning the Nobel Prize in Physics.

    They proved the correctness of the bizarre properties of quantum mechanics, i.e. that electrons can be two places at the same time."


    I havenít met the post quota. Iím not sure what it is, but I canít post links yet.

    Iíll send you a link of a laymanís summary at SciVillage.

    Damn, this site is slow. It takes forever to load.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Visalia, CA
    Posts
    42
    What if Dark Matter that we infer around Visible Matter is nothing but the manifestation of a macro-sized probability function of the Visible Matter and the gravity leaks into our universe from close probabilities or realities overlapping our own universe? How's that for a dumb question? Epic, huh?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,627
    Quote Originally Posted by Metallicbeing View Post
    What if Dark Matter that we infer around Visible Matter is nothing but the manifestation of a macro-sized probability function of the Visible Matter and the gravity leaks into our universe from close probabilities or realities overlapping our own universe? How's that for a dumb question? Epic, huh?
    I have basically thought about this myself.

    But i see dark matter as regular matter before it has enough of itself to exist. Think about a car before it is put together. The smallest part may not be the smallest part. Most matter may be undetectable and not responding to anything. Would be interesting. We float around in a scrapheap, with bodies made from the best parts of the universe, dark matter being the scrapheap.

    Again... Just an idea.. and please correct me..
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Visalia, CA
    Posts
    42
    A topper to the Dark Matter question is what I also think about Dark Energy. What if our universe is a Black Hole from another universe (much more energetic than ours) and when that Black Hole feeds in that universe, it creates more space-time in this universe? Even more Epic-ness, huh?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    863
    We can always speculate about where the Dark Matter (85% of matter) came from. It's so dark it doesn't reflect light. This could be because the analogous dark syrupy chocolate absorbs all light.
    We could also live within a black hole, which in turn lies within another (Russian doll multiverse).

    Are We Living in a Black Hole?

    Understanding the geometrical shape of the universe could provide a clue. My money will go on a chocolate Easter egg.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,761
    If space is infinite then why or how can it expand? I'm thinking expansion of infinite space would be, if I'm allowed to say it, more likely to occur in a curved universe. I just can't visualize expansion for an endlessly flat universe so I figure this common layperson is missing something(s) as usual.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    863
    Just wondering if you've read Lawrence Krauss on this. A Universe From Nothing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,587
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    If space is infinite then why or how can it expand? I'm thinking expansion of infinite space would be, if I'm allowed to say it, more likely to occur in a curved universe. I just can't visualize expansion for an endlessly flat universe so I figure this common layperson is missing something(s) as usual.
    (don't quote me on this) .but are you sure you are using "curved" vs "flat" in the way it is normally used in this context?

    I don't think it is meant to refer to the shape of the universe as a whole but perhaps you do understand these terms better than I do.

    On the face of it I think most would disagree with your implication that an infinite universe cannot expand (but again perhaps I am misunderstanding you -and the subject as a whole)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,761
    Quote Originally Posted by geordief View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    If space is infinite then why or how can it expand? I'm thinking expansion of infinite space would be, if I'm allowed to say it, more likely to occur in a curved universe. I just can't visualize expansion for an endlessly flat universe so I figure this common layperson is missing something(s) as usual.
    (don't quote me on this) .but are you sure you are using "curved" vs "flat" in the way it is normally used in this context?

    I don't think it is meant to refer to the shape of the universe as a whole but perhaps you do understand these terms better than I do.

    On the face of it I think most would disagree with your implication that an infinite universe cannot expand (but again perhaps I am misunderstanding you -and the subject as a whole)
    Not implying anything and I don't know terms that well. However I think maybe I should have said closed instead of curved. Regardless I'll reword the question to read ' how do you add to something thats infinite in size? Not even sure if that sounds right.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,587
    Well "infinite" (to my mind ) is more a failure to measure than an indication of how big something actually is.

    So I can't see a problem in this size changing ,since we cannot quantify the difference anyway.

    I think ,though you might need an interlocutor who can see the wood for the trees rather than my pettifoggery and nit picking
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Visalia, CA
    Posts
    42
    If the universe is sufficiently larger than we thought, then the "Flat" measurement previously taken can be a small part of a much larger shallow arc; which of course, means the Universe is curved (Dr. Michio Kaku).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,587
    Quote Originally Posted by Metallicbeing View Post
    If the universe is sufficiently larger than we thought, then the "Flat" measurement previously taken can be a small part of a much larger shallow arc; which of course, means the Universe is curved (Dr. Michio Kaku).
    Is that in the same way that the Earth (or any ball) is flat in the immediate vicinity of the observer but is curved when larger measurements are taken ?

    Is MK just extrapolating from this (with no reason to know whether or not he might be right) ?

    Would the size of the universe have to be hugely greater than that of the observable universe for this to be possible?

    And no way to show if was true?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,761
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwolver View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Metallicbeing View Post
    What if Dark Matter that we infer around Visible Matter is nothing but the manifestation of a macro-sized probability function of the Visible Matter and the gravity leaks into our universe from close probabilities or realities overlapping our own universe? How's that for a dumb question? Epic, huh?
    I have basically thought about this myself.

    But i see dark matter as regular matter before it has enough of itself to exist. Think about a car before it is put together. The smallest part may not be the smallest part. Most matter may be undetectable and not responding to anything. Would be interesting. We float around in a scrapheap, with bodies made from the best parts of the universe, dark matter being the scrapheap.

    Again... Just an idea.. and please correct me..
    I think this is like saying that at one time there was nothing but dark matter and regular matter arose out of it through some process. Whether that process still occurs or if it even exists might be worth a look. I wonder if dark matter holds a secret that if discovered will bring us closer to knowing what happened in the first few nanoseconds of the BB?
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Visalia, CA
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by geordief View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Metallicbeing View Post
    If the universe is sufficiently larger than we thought, then the "Flat" measurement previously taken can be a small part of a much larger shallow arc; which of course, means the Universe is curved (Dr. Michio Kaku).
    Is that in the same way that the Earth (or any ball) is flat in the immediate vicinity of the observer but is curved when larger measurements are taken ?

    Is MK just extrapolating from this (with no reason to know whether or not he might be right) ?

    Would the size of the universe have to be hugely greater than that of the observable universe for this to be possible?

    And no way to show if was true?
    I believe MK was talking about distant light from the far reaches of our universe that may not have reached us yet and if the universe was sufficiently larger than we expected then the universe may turn out to be curved; not flat. Speculation for sure, but not too far out of bounds. We continually invent better telescopes to see further into space. Maybe this story isn't finished.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Visalia, CA
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwolver View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Metallicbeing View Post
    What if Dark Matter that we infer around Visible Matter is nothing but the manifestation of a macro-sized probability function of the Visible Matter and the gravity leaks into our universe from close probabilities or realities overlapping our own universe? How's that for a dumb question? Epic, huh?
    I have basically thought about this myself.

    But i see dark matter as regular matter before it has enough of itself to exist. Think about a car before it is put together. The smallest part may not be the smallest part. Most matter may be undetectable and not responding to anything. Would be interesting. We float around in a scrapheap, with bodies made from the best parts of the universe, dark matter being the scrapheap.

    Again... Just an idea.. and please correct me..
    I think this is like saying that at one time there was nothing but dark matter and regular matter arose out of it through some process. Whether that process still occurs or if it even exists might be worth a look. I wonder if dark matter holds a secret that if discovered will bring us closer to knowing what happened in the first few nanoseconds of the BB?
    I'm sure I watched a YouTube video suggesting there may have been Dark Stars before there were visible ones and they may have been responsible for the formation of the first Black Holes. If I find it, ill post it.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g64YJPYYWk
    Last edited by Metallicbeing; August 5th, 2017 at 06:36 PM. Reason: Add Link
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,627
    Quote Originally Posted by Metallicbeing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwolver View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Metallicbeing View Post
    What if Dark Matter that we infer around Visible Matter is nothing but the manifestation of a macro-sized probability function of the Visible Matter and the gravity leaks into our universe from close probabilities or realities overlapping our own universe? How's that for a dumb question? Epic, huh?
    I have basically thought about this myself.

    But i see dark matter as regular matter before it has enough of itself to exist. Think about a car before it is put together. The smallest part may not be the smallest part. Most matter may be undetectable and not responding to anything. Would be interesting. We float around in a scrapheap, with bodies made from the best parts of the universe, dark matter being the scrapheap.

    Again... Just an idea.. and please correct me..
    I think this is like saying that at one time there was nothing but dark matter and regular matter arose out of it through some process. Whether that process still occurs or if it even exists might be worth a look. I wonder if dark matter holds a secret that if discovered will bring us closer to knowing what happened in the first few nanoseconds of the BB?
    I'm sure I watched a YouTube video suggesting there may have been Dark Stars before there were visible ones and they may have been responsible for the formation of the first Black Holes. If I find it, ill post it.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g64YJPYYWk
    Dark stars? Something totally different to dark matter.

    Dark stars being formed into black holes makes sense. What would be the difference between a dark star and a black hole anyway?

    Several comments about the video.. No like/dislike visible, no comments, only 450 views... Doesn't seem 100% credible though...
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,761
    Can some one tell me the difference between each and if they attract or repel one another (pos vs pos, pos vs neg, neg vs neg):

    1. Positive and negatively charged particles
    2. Positive and negative matter
    3. Positive and negative energy
    4. Positive and negative gravity
    5. Positive and negative mass
    Last edited by zinjanthropos; September 12th, 2017 at 12:37 PM.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,587
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Can some one tell me the difference between each and if they attract or repel one another (pos vs pos, pos vs neg, neg vs neg):

    1. Positive and negatively charged particles
    2. Positive and negative matter
    3. Positive and negative energy
    4. Positive and negative gravity
    You left out pos vs neg mass (It is in the news) .
    Maybe you thought positive matter covered that.

    But apart from that I can't help.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,761
    Quote Originally Posted by geordief View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Can some one tell me the difference between each and if they attract or repel one another (pos vs pos, pos vs neg, neg vs neg):

    1. Positive and negatively charged particles
    2. Positive and negative matter
    3. Positive and negative energy
    4. Positive and negative gravity
    5. Positive and negative mass

    You left out pos vs neg mass (It is in the news) .
    Maybe you thought positive matter covered that.

    But apart from that I can't help.
    I added it but I think 5 is enough. I was thinking positive and negative time and dimensions too. I wonder how many I missed?
    Last edited by zinjanthropos; September 12th, 2017 at 12:50 PM.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. More dumb questions
    By zinjanthropos in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: February 16th, 2012, 08:49 AM
  2. More Dumb Questions
    By zinjanthropos in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: September 2nd, 2011, 07:12 PM
  3. Dumb Questions VI
    By zinjanthropos in forum Biology
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: September 30th, 2007, 03:25 PM
  4. Dumb Questions V
    By zinjanthropos in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: September 8th, 2007, 05:28 PM
  5. Dumb Questions II
    By zinjanthropos in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: March 22nd, 2007, 09:47 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •