Notices
Results 1 to 31 of 31

Thread: A theory of everything

  1. #1 A theory of everything 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    3
    Hi everyone.

    So here is my attempt at coming to terms with our own existence. Inspired primarily by Hawking, Einstein, Feynman and good old biology textbooks.

    The universe is a self contained structure. It is a closed system universe. Imagine a globe-like model with a north and south to represent the big bang and (potentially) crunch. By understanding space-time we can better understand how the universe came into existence. The universe did not rely on any creator to set it in motion nor on the existence of any amount of parallel universes as multiverse theories might suggest.


    Since time moves at an independent rate depending on separate energy states of two observers it is non-linear. Time would have not existed before the big bang since there was no space and movement. The past, present and future already exist. The most fundamental particles, many of which have still to be properly defined, and the interactionary forces between them are what give rise to the perceived dimensions of space and time. Ultimately, time and space are related where time is the measured movement of space and space is the representation of the forces and properties of matter (and matter is similarly the physical property of the forces).

    As biological machines, our understanding of the universe is based on the biomechanical input of stimuli into the brain. Our nervous sytem lets us paint a subjective picture out of an objective world. For example, our perception of colour is actually a measurement of electromagnetic radiation.

    The following are also, but not limited to, subjective interpretations of the mind: Temperature, spatial awareness, time, emotions, creativity, sound and mathematics. Mathematics actually only exists in our universe because the universe represents one whole, or the number 1. From the existence of the number 1 it is subsequently possible to derive addition and every other number and mathematical function, and it is worth noting that this is the reason we are able to properly define particles and forces, which may represent connections and symbolisms of more basic particles which are outside our scope of perception.

    Time perception as the product of biological evolution: Energy has a tendency to become more and more disordered in future states, in a process defined as entropy. Evolution has thus designed biological organisms to collect energy from states where it is more available in order to be able to survive the future states. What this means is that we must consciously view the present in order to survive the future, but the future already exists as much as the present and the past do. The common sense notion of how we expect time to pass is an artifact of evolution. In reality, we are traveling both backwards and forwards in time. Feynman's diagrams help to illustrate this point by showing us that the lines and behaviours of particles in any chosen system are reversible, just by reversing the arrow of time.

    Edit: Please move this to personal theories if it belongs there. My bad.


    Last edited by Zowie; September 8th, 2014 at 07:30 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Well, if I were critiquing your observations I would say that you are using your imagination - a good thing; there isn't really any science in it - a neutral thing; it is rather ambiguous and waffly - a bad thing.

    Staying with the absence of science, that is probably a bad thing on a science forum. You may feel you have included the science; I would disagree. Where is the evidence for each of your contentions?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    MODERATOR NOTE : I think this is best suited for "Personal Theories". Moved.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Well, if I were critiquing your observations I would say that you are using your imagination - a good thing; there isn't really any science in it - a neutral thing; it is rather ambiguous and waffly - a bad thing.

    Staying with the absence of science, that is probably a bad thing on a science forum. You may feel you have included the science; I would disagree. Where is the evidence for each of your contentions?
    The evidence is all around you. Why do events happen the way that they do? Here is a simple premise: since the present relies on the past, then it follows that the future relies on the present. Things do not happen by chance. God does not play dice. That's what Einstein said. If particles appear spontaneously as current QM says then this does not need to be magic but rather have a logical explanation for doing so.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,854
    Quote Originally Posted by Zowie View Post
    The evidence is all around you.
    Yes it is, but it unfortunately contradicts your assertions. One only needs to regard the evidence with an open mind.

    Why do events happen the way that they do?
    If you mean to imply that there's a purpose to nature's actions, that itself is an extraordinary claim (and thus requires similarly extraordinary evidence). If you instead mean "why are the laws of nature what they are" the answer is that no one knows at present. They are what they are.

    Here is a simple premise: since the present relies on the past, then it follows that the future relies on the present. Things do not happen by chance.
    Your conclusion does not follow logically from the premise. The future does rely on the present, but that is different from saying that the future is wholly dependent on the present. There are purely random processes whose evolution may be followed from past to present to future, but only in a coarse way. "Re-running the movie" yields a different specific evolution each time. In all cases, the "future relies on the present" but the futures are not all the same, even with the same initial conditions.

    God does not play dice. That's what Einstein said.
    Just because Einstein said something does not make it true ("argument by authority" is one of the feeblest rhetorical tools one can employ; I suggest you eliminate this from your repertoire if you wish your propositions to be taken seriously). From all of the available evidence, nature contains purely random processes. Radioactive decay is one canonical example.

    If particles appear spontaneously as current QM says then this does not need to be magic but rather have a logical explanation for doing so.
    Beware of abusing the word "logic." There's "logical" in the mathematical sense, and there's "logical" in the "it sounds good to me" sense. You are using the latter, colloquial, meaning. In science, one's tastes are not the final arbiter of how nature operates.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Zowie View Post
    The evidence is all around you.
    The evidence for plate tectonics is all around me, but it took the work of scores of scientists to put the evidence together in a coherent, self consistent and convincing manner. You are making the claim. You need to demonstrate how the evidence supports your claim. You cannot ask me to do that work for you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zowie View Post
    Why do events happen the way that they do?
    I have no idea. Scientists have no idea. Some philosophers think they have an idea and that has done more than anything else to devalue philosophy in the minds of some.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zowie View Post
    Here is a simple premise: since the present relies on the past, then it follows that the future relies on the present. Things do not happen by chance.
    Are you arguing for predestination? Are you favouring a Newtonian, clockwork universe? Are you introducing teleology? Are you ignoring Heisenberg? Have you considered tk421's point about radioactive decay?

    If one or more of these questions introduces an unfamiliar concept then perhaps you need to do more groundwork before embarking on speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zowie View Post
    That's what Einstein said.
    Einstein probably also said "Thank you, no. I rarely drink alcohol", but that is not something I would repeat.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zowie View Post
    If particles appear spontaneously as current QM says then this does not need to be magic but rather have a logical explanation for doing so.
    No one is saying it is magic, or even just magic. Are you thinking of virtual particles? In which case their explanation is, I think, accounted for in perturbation theory, in which case they already have a logical explanation.

    I feel somewhat guilty in deconstructing your speculation in this way. I fear it may discourage you. That is not my intent, nor - I think - the intent of tk421. Rather we hope to encourage you to be more self-critical. Your proposals show, as I said before, imagination, but that imagination must be measured against reality. At present, it appears to me, to be a mismatch.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,015
    ~ You said.

    "The universe is a self contained structure. It is a closed system universe. Imagine a globe-like model with a north and south to represent the big bang and (potentially) crunch. By understanding space-time we can better understand how the universe came into existence. The universe did not rely on any creator to set it in motion nor on the existence of any amount of parallel universes as multiverse theories might suggest.
    "

    ~ While I and others here would suggest a open cone to a infinity., might better represent the Universe.
    I do however applaud your attempt at explaining 'All of everything..' but adjustments of view are advised..
    .. and 'Welcome.'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,854
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    I feel somewhat guilty in deconstructing your speculation in this way. I fear it may discourage you. That is not my intent, nor - I think - the intent of tk421. Rather we hope to encourage you to be more self-critical. Your proposals show, as I said before, imagination, but that imagination must be measured against reality. At present, it appears to me, to be a mismatch.
    Yes, to be clear, Zowie, it is manifestly not my intent to discourage you. As does John, I hope that our comments stimulate the focusing of your imagination. Feynman once observed that the physicist's job is to exercise "imagination in a straitjacket." By this he meant that pure imagination alone isn't sufficient. One must also be aware of the constraints imposed by how nature actually behaves (which behaviour may not conform to one's sense of aesthetics). Without acknowledging those well-established constraints, much imaginative energy can be wasted. Simply to "think outside the box" is a recipe for disaster. One must, at minimum, know where the box is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by Zowie View Post
    Hi everyone.

    So here is my attempt at coming to terms with our own existence. Inspired primarily by Hawking, Einstein, Feynman and good old biology textbooks.

    The universe is a self contained structure. It is a closed system universe. Imagine a globe-like model with a north and south to represent the big bang and (potentially) crunch. By understanding space-time we can better understand how the universe came into existence. The universe did not rely on any creator to set it in motion nor on the existence of any amount of parallel universes as multiverse theories might suggest.


    Since time moves at an independent rate depending on separate energy states of two observers it is non-linear. Time would have not existed before the big bang since there was no space and movement. The past, present and future already exist. The most fundamental particles, many of which have still to be properly defined, and the interactionary forces between them are what give rise to the perceived dimensions of space and time. Ultimately, time and space are related where time is the measured movement of space and space is the representation of the forces and properties of matter (and matter is similarly the physical property of the forces).

    As biological machines, our understanding of the universe is based on the biomechanical input of stimuli into the brain. Our nervous sytem lets us paint a subjective picture out of an objective world. For example, our perception of colour is actually a measurement of electromagnetic radiation.

    The following are also, but not limited to, subjective interpretations of the mind: Temperature, spatial awareness, time, emotions, creativity, sound and mathematics. Mathematics actually only exists in our universe because the universe represents one whole, or the number 1. From the existence of the number 1 it is subsequently possible to derive addition and every other number and mathematical function, and it is worth noting that this is the reason we are able to properly define particles and forces, which may represent connections and symbolisms of more basic particles which are outside our scope of perception.

    Time perception as the product of biological evolution: Energy has a tendency to become more and more disordered in future states, in a process defined as entropy. Evolution has thus designed biological organisms to collect energy from states where it is more available in order to be able to survive the future states. What this means is that we must consciously view the present in order to survive the future, but the future already exists as much as the present and the past do. The common sense notion of how we expect time to pass is an artifact of evolution. In reality, we are traveling both backwards and forwards in time. Feynman's diagrams help to illustrate this point by showing us that the lines and behaviours of particles in any chosen system are reversible, just by reversing the arrow of time.

    Edit: Please move this to personal theories if it belongs there. My bad.
    Einstien didn't really have the advantage of a well developed Quantum Theory. His skepticism of uncertainty probably wouldn't have existed had he been born later in history.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    3
    I am basically trying to unite predeterminism with QM. It is ultimately an interpretation of quantum mechanics. I believe that in a predetermined universe current observations that have no explanation such as the double slit experiment, action at a distance exceeding FTL speeds, randomness, and possibly even dark energy can be understood if we assume that the future already has an intrinsic effect on the present.

    I wasn't of course using Einstein's words as anecdotal proof for anything. I was simply following his motif that the universe should have an elegant explanation. Elegant doesn't necessarily mean that it is intuitive to humans, but elegant nonetheless.

    Basically I wanted to get my ideas up on the internet before the inevitable theory is published by somebody. Then I can claim that I was also 'quite smart'. If anybody happens to like my ideas and take them forward then that is perfectly invited. The internet is the modern day library of Alexandria.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Zowie View Post
    I am basically trying to unite predeterminism with QM.
    Why?
    Is predeterminism a fact?
    Can you show this?

    if we assume that the future already has an intrinsic effect on the present
    Why would we assume this?

    The internet is the modern day library of Alexandria.
    And certain parts of it should be burnt to the ground. But that's possibly by the by.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Zowie View Post
    I am basically trying to unite predeterminism with QM. It is ultimately an interpretation of quantum mechanics.
    QM as it stands is inherently stochastic in nature ( and so is QFT ); that isn't just a matter of interpretation. Hence, it is not possible to unite QM with any meaningful notion of predeterminism.

    current observations that have no explanation such as the double slit experiment
    It has a perfectly good explanation, it's just that the explanation is of course not classical. But then again, there isn't any principle of nature that dictates the universe to be classical.

    action at a distance exceeding FTL speeds
    No such thing exists to the best of our knowledge. You are probably referring to entanglement, but that doesn't involve any action or exchange of information ( in the same way that static gravitational fields don't involve the exchange of information ), it is just a correlation between quantum states.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zowie View Post
    I am basically trying to unite predeterminism with QM. It is ultimately an interpretation of quantum mechanics.
    QM as it stands is inherently stochastic in nature ( and so is QFT ); that isn't just a matter of interpretation. Hence, it is not possible to unite QM with any meaningful notion of predeterminism.

    current observations that have no explanation such as the double slit experiment
    It has a perfectly good explanation, it's just that the explanation is of course not classical. But then again, there isn't any principle of nature that dictates the universe to be classical.

    action at a distance exceeding FTL speeds
    No such thing exists to the best of our knowledge. You are probably referring to entanglement, but that doesn't involve any action or exchange of information ( in the same way that static gravitational fields don't involve the exchange of information ), it is just a correlation between quantum states.
    question: could we apply a variation of the entanglement function in the following example;

    If we add a single drop of water to a lake, the volume of the entire lake has "instantly" increased by that single drop, even as the wave caused by the drop may reach the shore much later...?
    Last edited by Write4U; September 9th, 2014 at 03:38 AM.
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    4,432
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post

    question: could we apply a variation of the entanglement function in the following example;

    If we add a single drop of water to a lake, the volume of the entire lake at every point in the lake has increased by that single drop, even as the wave caused by the drop may reach the shore much later...?


    Am I nitpicking or do you first have to explain how you can measure the lake before you can even ask the question?

    What does " the volume of the entire lake at every point" mean?

    Edit: did you mean "even though" ? "even as" has a different meaning (of simultaneity , I would say)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    Quote Originally Posted by geordief View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post

    question: could we apply a variation of the entanglement function in the following example;

    If we add a single drop of water to a lake, the volume of the entire lake at every point in the lake has increased by that single drop, even as the wave caused by the drop may reach the shore much later...?


    Am I nitpicking or do you first have to explain how you can measure the lake before you can even ask the question?

    What does " the volume of the entire lake at every point" mean?

    Edit: did you mean "even though" ? "even as" has a different meaning (of simultaneity , I would say)
    Sorry, it was badly presented. It is a theoretical question which assumes that the total volume (and weight) could be measured to within a drop. We can change the lake to a laboratory beaker. I just wanted to show that in principle the entire lake's volume is affected by the addition of a single drop placed anywhere in the lake (or beaker)

    I was trying to make a comparison between "instant" (entangled) information and "transmitted" (wavelike) information.

    I used "even as" to indicate that the wave also started at the same time the drop was added. "Even though" is probably a better way to put it. The statement was intended as illustrative of the difference between "entangled" and "wave" functions.

    Consider the question as purely probative, I am not a scientist.
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    4,432
    Neither am I. So I have no answer for you but perhaps your question could be rephrased as:

    "If we add a single drop of water to a lake, the volume of the entire lake at every point in the lake has simultaneously increased by that single drop, even though the wave caused by the drop may reach the shore much later. " ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    Quote Originally Posted by geordief View Post
    Neither am I. So I have no answer for you but perhaps your question could be rephrased as:

    "If we add a single drop of water to a lake, the volume of the entire lake at every point in the lake has simultaneously increased by that single drop, even though the wave caused by the drop may reach the shore much later. " ?
    Oh, yes, much better. Clear and concise.

    I just wondered if that might in some way be a variation on the principle and function of "entanglement".

    I must admit the standard intepretation of particle entanglement is beyond my understanding. I read somewhere that Einstein tried to use a pair of gloves as an explanation. IOW, if you find the left hand glove, the other glove (regardless of distance) MUST be the right hand glove, but, if I recall, that was not an adequate explanation in the case of reversing the spin of a particle and its complimentary particle instantly also reverses spin, regardless of distance. That completely stumps me.
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Masters Degree Implicate Order's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    27.4679 S, 153.0278 E
    Posts
    610
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post

    I must admit the standard intepretation of particle entanglement is beyond my understanding. I read somewhere that Einstein tried to use a pair of gloves as an explanation. IOW, if you find the left hand glove, the other glove (regardless of distance) MUST be the right hand glove, but, if I recall, that was not an adequate explanation in the case of reversing the spin of a particle and its complimentary particle instantly also reverses spin, regardless of distance. That completely stumps me.
    I have made it easy on myself and am not 'spooked by it'. Difficulties arise when you think in terms of particles and solid seperate things. If you treat wave-particle duality seriously then what this is saying is that these expressions are different facets of the same thing. A wave is spatially extended and non-local in nature and the probability wave comprises all the information about it's state. If a particle can be represented by a wave of probability then you will find that two or more waves intersecting also represent an interaction. Unfortunately given the nature of QM, we can only localise this interaction at one point at a time. This is because a measurement undertaken of the original wave function disturbs the state. The measurement process at the QM level interrogates the original wavefunction with another probability wave of enquiry to determine the nature of that original wave. In doing so, the original coherence is lost and an new wave is substituted comprising the original wave function and the wavefunction applied during the measurement.

    In fact in all types of interactions, this merging of wavefunctions is going on, the result being 'an entangled universe'. Measurement of a quantum system is one type of interaction, but the environment is doing this all the time so it is not a peculiar feature attributed to an observer. The problem is that as classical observers we only observe a classical result and can't see the entanglement. With so much interaction going on, the classical universe emerges from a description of the interactions themselves at discreet points in spacetime and we do not see the entanglement.

    The feature is part and parcel of complementarity and the quantum no cloning rule. You can only interrogate the original wave once to extract information and when you have you disturb it. For another measurement taken, they need to then interrogate the new superposition, hence the 'no-cloning principle'. Just as with normal waves (and think of being a surfer), an intersection of waves creates a new wave comprising composite information of two seperate states. Furthermore the merging of two waves (or the disturbance) takes time to travel across each previous state.

    So now think of what is occurring at an interaction. A wave function of x now intercepts a wavefunction of y to create a new state say xy and the disturbance emanates throughout at a finite speed.
    Last edited by Implicate Order; September 9th, 2014 at 08:30 PM.
    Quidquid latine dictum, altum videtur
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    4,432


    Just wondering does this kind of a topic (reality at the smallest levels and the nature of the observer to the measured ) actually require less mathematical ability than that required for Special and General Relativity ?

    It has a really intimate feel about it as in "it is on the tip of your tongue" kind of a feeling.- as if the problem might actually be solved eventually even if that didn't help to integrate the quantum and the classical realms necessarily..

    Are there ongoing attempts to establish a supremacy of the observer over the measured (or vice versa) or some symbiosis. Or has the question been more or less settled in favour of the observer being incidental to the process?
    Last edited by geordief; September 9th, 2014 at 07:06 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Masters Degree Implicate Order's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    27.4679 S, 153.0278 E
    Posts
    610
    Quote Originally Posted by geordief View Post
    I think you need to edit that post just after "So when a measurement is undertaken, the " , IO .
    Ta muchly, edit made. I posted before completion as I was juggling work and fun.:-)

    Quote Originally Posted by geordief View Post
    Just wondering does this kind of a topic (reality at the smallest levels and the nature of the observer to the measured ) actually require less mathematical ability than that required for Special and General Relativity ?

    It has a really intimate feel about it as in "it is on the tip of your tongue" kind of a feeling.- as if the problem might actually be solved eventually even if that didn't help to integrate the quantum and the classical realms necessarily..
    I must admit that once you overcome the counter-intuitive nature of things in QM and this depends a lot on the interpretation taken, from an explanatory point of view for the layman things seem to be simpler in QM than say GR. I am not so sure this applies to the maths however but Gere, Mr Rourke, Janus, Markus, KJW and others proficient in the mathematics would be able to enlighten us on this. GR is so mathematically complex as we are dealing with a perspective taken within a system viewpoint as opposed to say QM where we sit outside the system and look at the mathematics of a fundamental interaction.
    Quidquid latine dictum, altum videtur
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    4,432
    This summer I had a lot of fun standing in the waves on the beach in my wellies (it is beautifully relaxing) and I happened to notice how the waves met and combined as they approached the shore from different angles. It didn't give me a eureka moment but at least it sounds a bit like what you are saying about waves combining.

    Yes I am sure the mathematics involved in QM would horrify me if I had a clue about them .And I am also sure that the non mathematical side to it must be equally daunting in its own way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Masters Degree Implicate Order's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    27.4679 S, 153.0278 E
    Posts
    610
    Quote Originally Posted by geordief View Post
    This summer I had a lot of fun standing in the waves on the beach in my wellies (it is beautifully relaxing) and I happened to notice how the waves met and combined as they approached the shore from different angles. It didn't give me a eureka moment but at least it sounds a bit like what you are saying about waves combining.
    That's how I see it as well. Note that dependent on the angle of incidence of the wavefronts that it takes time for the interaction to remove the original imprint of the pre-merged waves. This is how I see information of the event travel through the entire state.
    Quidquid latine dictum, altum videtur
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    4,432
    So are these probability waves really like physical waves (in form of course) ? I had assumed it was just an analogy (perhaps a mathematical model) . I am surprised (all these waves!)

    Not that I am up to speed but as the new "3rd wave" increases in length that increase is ,according to you proportional (equal ?) to the speed of traveling information.

    It is traveling "sideways" isn't it (and in two directions)?
    Last edited by geordief; September 9th, 2014 at 07:52 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Masters Degree Implicate Order's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    27.4679 S, 153.0278 E
    Posts
    610
    While actually described as probability wave, if you do away with the notion of particles, you can literally interpret them as waves in the traditional form but they have universal extent in physical space. Remember that they don't exist in physical space but in abstract mathematical space.

    Refer here.

    Note the section on 'Requirements'. When you read this a thousand times it suggests that the physical universe for QM to make sense must be finite in nature and not infinite which raises some interesting thoughts.


    Quidquid latine dictum, altum videtur
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    4,432
    thanks,
    That will be for tomorrow though.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Masters Degree Implicate Order's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    27.4679 S, 153.0278 E
    Posts
    610
    Quote Originally Posted by geordief View Post
    Are there ongoing attempts to establish a supremacy of the observer over the measured (or vice versa) or some symbiosis. Or has the question been more or less settled in favour of the observer being incidental to the process?
    My personal view is that 'decoherence' has resolved this. We rarely undertake measurements of quantum systems directly ourselves but the environment seems to do that for us. The vast array of interacting wavefunctions in any environment contaminates coherent wavefunctions and leads to the particulate 'classical' nature of our universe. There is a difference between quantum information and classical information. In QM an interaction disturbs the wave state. Classical information however simply describes the state of something and does not interact with it. As a result, there can be multiple copies of it as it avoids the quantum no cloning rule. In our classical world, QM interactions are occurring everywhere and multiple copies of classical information surrounding that QM interaction is being released by this process.

    When light hits my retina from a distant object it carries with it 'classical information' arising from collapsed QM interactions that occur elsewhere in our physical universe, but there are a lot of copies of that information being sent everywhere so that everyone (when they receive this classical information) they also can agree on an object being present at a specific location in spacetime.

    .....anyway that's how I interpret things at the moment and this could change at any moment dependent of the latest book I read.
    Quidquid latine dictum, altum videtur
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    My understanding of the "wave function is that it cannot exceed "c", which of course is not the same as the "entanglement function" which is simultaneous regardless of distance. I tried to illustrate this in my example of the lake, which Geordief cleaned up so nicely.

    So, IMO, the wave function of GR cannot be used in a model of entanglement. Is entanglement a QM function?

    Allow me another stab at trying to visualize a possible variation of entanglement (instantaneous change of states) or as Einstein called it "spooky action at a distance".

    If I visualize a long string of interlocking cogs such as in a clock. (I am using the ticking of a clock to simulate a quantum function.)

    Question:
    How could the first cog turn, unless the next cog also turns to allow any movement by the first cog? Then of course this would apply to all subsequent interlocking cogs in the clock including the last cog. They Must all turn at the same time or no movement of any interlocking cog is possible. All cogs are entangled and must act simultaneously. IMO, this principle holds for a clock with a thousand (or any number of cogs). The first cog cannot turn, unless the last interlocking cog (and all the cogs in between) turns at the same time.

    Interestingly if we could reverse the movement (spin) of the first cog, the last cog would have to reverse its spin simultaneously regardless how many cogs are in between, which also must change direction of spin simulataneously. An entaglement function??

    If that is correct can I ask: if seperated particles in spacetime were interlocked in some way and that a spin reversal of a single particle alters the spin of all particles in the string leading to its related but distant companion particle?

    Or perhaps all particles in the universe are interlocked and must reverse spin by the reversal of a single particle spin anywhere in the universe. Could this be tested?

    Am I making any sense here at all or is it impossible to test how entanglement works by any model?

    As layman, I am forced to express my intuition and logic in an allegorical narrative. I apologize if it seems like word salad.
    Last edited by Write4U; September 10th, 2014 at 03:39 AM.
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    4,432
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post

    Question:
    How could the first cog turn, unless the next cog also turns to allow any movement by the first cog? Then of course this would apply to all subsequent interlocking cogs in the clock including the last cog. They Must all turn at the same time or no movement of any interlocking cog is possible. All cogs are entangled and must act simultaneously. IMO, this principle holds for a clock with a thousand (or any number of cogs). The first cog cannot turn, unless the last interlocking cog (and all the cogs in between) turns at the same time.
    Is the lack of understanding at my end here? We know that your cog mechanism doesn't work like that (don't we ?)and that any acceleration will tear the whole thing apart.

    Are you imagining some analagous quantum mechanism that just has a similar "form" to this cog mechanism?

    A question of my own : Does 'acceleration' have any meaning at the quantum level ?

    Does everything proceed at the same speed ? (I am betraying my ignorance again I am sure)
    Last edited by geordief; September 10th, 2014 at 01:02 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Masters Degree Implicate Order's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    27.4679 S, 153.0278 E
    Posts
    610
    Entanglement is only a problem when you try to resolve a system state from the perspective of multiple observers. Interestingly there is a move afoot from physicists such as Carlo Rovelli referred to as relational quantum mechanics whereby the mystery of entanglement disappears when viewed from the position of a single observer. Rovelli's relational QM renders wavefunction collapse observer-dependent and is based on the principle of complementarity. A single observer can only take one measurement at a time and can never take simultaneous measurements of a state that is spatially seperated. This is what Rovelli suggests causes the conundrum of non-locality, not the mysterious nature of QM itself.

    For example consider an entangled electon-positron pair which has subsequently seperated vast distances and I decide to determine the electron's spin. The two entangled particles are described by a single wavefunction which might have conservation property such as a zero total spin. Consequently when the electron's spin is measured, the positron's spin must be anti-correlated.

    Now it seems that when I collapse the wavefunction of an electron on measurement to determine the spin, I also mysteriously collapse the positron's wavefunction far away. What Rovelli declares is that when I measure my electron, its wavefunction collapses relative to me. As far as another observer is concerned, the electron's wavefunction hasn't collapsed at all and I (according to them)am in a superposition of having measured spin up and spin down. Nothing superluminal is going on. The other observer then subsequently goes to the other particle (the positron) to find out the spin, collapses the wavefunction of the wavefunction (just as in a normal quantum measurement) and finds the electron is anti-correlated with his positron. From my point of view, nothing happens faster than light and from the other observers point of view nothing happens faster than light. It is only a mythical 3rd observer who can see the outcome simultaneously who will be befuddled but we know that can't happen in reality.

    Einstein's 'spooky action at a distance' requires the existence of a hypothetical super-observer that can instantaneously measure both properties at once. Just as with complementarity such as position and momentum, you can only measure in reality one at a time.

    Interesting viewpoint.
    Last edited by Implicate Order; September 10th, 2014 at 06:45 AM.
    Quidquid latine dictum, altum videtur
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    Quote Originally Posted by geordief View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post

    Question:
    How could the first cog turn, unless the next cog also turns to allow any movement by the first cog? Then of course this would apply to all subsequent interlocking cogs in the clock including the last cog. They Must all turn at the same time or no movement of any interlocking cog is possible. All cogs are entangled and must act simultaneously. IMO, this principle holds for a clock with a thousand (or any number of cogs). The first cog cannot turn, unless the last interlocking cog (and all the cogs in between) turns at the same time.
    Is the lack of understanding at my end here? We know that your cog mechanism doesn't work like that (don't we ?)and that any acceleration will tear the whole thing apart.
    In the analogy I was avoiding acceleration, because as I understand it, entanglement is not concerned with speed, it is a simultaneous action (spin) by a "pair" of particles, regardless of distance. IMO, this cancels any notion of acceleration or speed or time.

    Are you imagining some analagous quantum mechanism that just has a similar "form" to this cog mechanism?
    Yes, "analogous to entanglement" would be more neutral in meaning. I used the clock because it processes quantities of time (like a second) and I thought it might be appropriate to use the "interlocking cogs" of a clock as an illustrative example at macro scale. Perhaps I tend to overthink these things and end up confusing the issue. A scientist would probably never associate a quanta in QM with a quantity of anything other than a packet of energy.

    A question of my own "does 'acceleration' have any meaning at the quantum level ? Does everything proceed at the same speed ? (I am betraying my ignorance again I am sure)
    IMO, there is never any speed (or time) involved, the action is simultaneous. Thus the example of the entanglement of a string of interlocking cogs which, unlike a wave function all have to move simultaneously in order for any action (movement or spin) to even be possible. If I prevent the last cog from turning (spinning), the first cog and every cog in the entire string of cogs is unable to spin also.

    But your question made me re-examine my assumption of the "all interlocking cogs must act simultaniously". If I recall the little desk toy of he 5 "connected" balls hanging from strings in a frame. When you let the first ball fall against the second ball, the fifth ball will pop away, but the other balls remain motionless. As I recall this is due to transfer of kinetic energy and would not be instantaneous (simultaneous).
    Perhaps a scientist can confirm this assumption.

    But I see the entanglement of cogs as being somewhat different, because the principle of rotation adds a dimension forcing all cogs to turn which to me seems slightly different than a straight molecular transfer of energy, the cogs use the energy to move (spin) all interconnected cogs.
    Again, perhaps a scientist might confirm this assumption.

    The thrust of my question was if spacetime itself might have some kind of direct interaction (in addition to the wave function) at every point in space, but of course different in size and scope than just cogs.
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Implicate Order View Post
    Entanglement is only a problem when you try to resolve a system state from the perspective of multiple observers. Interestingly there is a move afoot from physicists such as Carlo Rovelli referred to as relational quantum mechanics whereby the mystery of entanglement disappears when viewed from the position of a single observer. Rovelli's relational QM renders wavefunction collapse observer-dependent and is based on the principle of complementarity. A single observer can only take one measurement at a time and can never take simultaneous measurements of a state that is spatially seperated. This is what Rovelli suggests causes the conundrum of non-locality, not the mysterious nature of QM itself.

    For example consider an entangled electon-positron pair which has subsequently seperated vast distances and I decide to determine the electron's spin. The two entangled particles are described by a single wavefunction which might have conservation property such as a zero total spin. Consequently when the electron's spin is measured, the positron's spin must be anti-correlated.

    Now it seems that when I collapse the wavefunction of an electron on measurement to determine the spin, I also mysteriously collapse the positron's wavefunction far away. What Rovelli declares is that when I measure my electron, its wavefunction collapses relative to me. As far as another observer is concerned, the electron's wavefunction hasn't collapsed at all and I (according to them)am in a superposition of having measured spin up and spin down. Nothing superluminal is going on. The other observer then subsequently goes to the other particle (the positron) to find out the spin, collapses the wavefunction of the wavefunction (just as in a normal quantum measurement) and finds the electron is anti-correlated with his positron. From my point of view, nothing happens faster than light and from the other observers point of view nothing happens faster than light. It is only a mythical 3rd observer who can see the outcome simultaneously who will be befuddled but we know that can't happen in reality.

    Einstein's 'spooky action at a distance' requires the existence of a hypothetical super-observer that can instantaneously measure both properties at once. Just as with complementarity such as position and momentum, you can only measure in reality one at a time.

    Interesting viewpoint.
    If we knew the locations of the electron and the distant positron, what would happen if a second observer is placed at the site of the positron?
    In such a case; if the spin of the electron is reversed by the first observer, would the second observer not notice a (mysterious) reversal of spin of the positron?
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. General relativity theory, Quantum theory, Sting theory, Whatever theory, True theory
    By painwithoutlove in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: June 2nd, 2013, 09:40 PM
  2. Tyler Winkler's Expanding Universe Theory / Big Bang Theory
    By Tyler Winkler in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: October 22nd, 2012, 03:38 PM
Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

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
  •