Uses of The 4th Dimension (Einstein was wrong!)

by use4d 138 Replies latest social current

• 

  AuldSoul

  You categorically state that YOU CANNOT OPERATE with simplified building blocks having paradoxical quantum-mechanics features. That is not too dissimilar to saying it is impossible for a Bumble bee to fly because of its physiognomy.

  I think you made a fatal flaw in argument, Terry. You attributed to me an argument put forth by flyphisher. You also categoried it most unflatteringly while ranting at me for making it.

  The most telling of our antithetical points of view is contained in this nugget of an exchange

  That was an exchange between you and flyphisher, not you and I. flyphisher is accustomed to these discussions in the German language and does not always know exactly the word to choose to make his points clearly understood by everyone. I would not have worded what he wrote the way he worded it.

  Incidentally, I am cynical and not skeptical.

  You'll get no argument from me. Cynicism has little place in science—in most human pursuits, for that matter—although it always seems to find a nook or crack for burrowing its way in. A healthy degree of skepticism is quite useful.

  Conservation of Energy is pretty important in Physics and that is what convinces me that the ledger always balances in favor of a finite amount of matter/energy.

  Except, that it doesn't always observably do so. You assume it is doing so, even on those occasions when it cannot be observed to do so. In fact, you have conviction that it is doing so. Synonymous to both "convinced" and "conviction" you will find "certainty." And that is why I stated you are already certain you are right. All of your arguments are not simply biased in favor of the view you had at the outset (which I regard as strongly held opinion), they are blinded to any alternative view. Prejudicially blinded, from the looks of things.

  You allowed the possibility you were wrong with the same degree of possibility that pigs could fly. That is certainty.

  AuldSoul
• 

  DannyBloem

  Flyphisher, you write

  Thats not quite right, jgnat. Your message "that only the directly observable exists" is called "Mach’s sensualism". But, It is much worse;-) Actually - and this is verifiable by quantum theory, especially by the decoherence theory - the things come just into existence through observation! Without observation, there is no matter; even no TIME. Objectively! Observer can be any sort of biological, molecular or atomic structure having sufficient complexity btw certain minimal-configuration to sense time intervals (better said: to quantize elapse time sequences).

  Can you explain to me plase why?

  As I see it. Every observation can result in a collapse of the quantum wave function. A single photon can. That a more complex sturcture is needed to measure it, does not man anything in my opinion. Whould the collapse of the wave function not have happened if you did not measure this photon?
  Even the probability function is QM have time and space properties in them, so does that not say the oppsoite?

  Danny

  p.s. I read that QM and elementary particles are weird. No, bt they are strange. The strange quark is a second-generation quark with a charge of -(1/3)e and a strangeness of -1.The strange quark is a second-generation quark with a charge of -(1/3)e and a strangeness of -1.
• 

  flyphisher

  Danny Bloem

  I read the QM and elementary particle are weird. No, bt they are strange.

  Whats the difference? Fact is, the results of QM researches are weird (or strange, or bizarre - in other languages it is the same word). Note: I said, the results. Definitely said, the results we can watch with scientific instruments and measurement units, are WEIRD. Or STRANGE. For instance, an EPR-effect (you can observe it in every physical institute!) is weird. I did not say, that e.g. elementary particles or quarks are weird (though definitely nobody had seen such a particle yet). For EPR-effect see link: http://molaire1.club.fr/e_quantic4.html

  Besides: Einstein called this EPR quantum effect a "spooky action at a distance".
• 

  flyphisher

  Danny Bloem

  Even the probability function is QM have time and space properties in them, so does that not say the opposite?

  That is exactly the problem I wanted to make clear in this thread.

  The main fault the present QM-scientists make, is that they are insisting on probability functions (including time and space; and "points in time" etc.) to explain and teach the QM-theory. In this way they make the QM-phenomenons extremely complicated to describe and calculate them. There are other - much more easier - possibilities do describe them. Probably, there are indeed relatively simple concepts to formulate a so-called TOE (theory of everything) - but it maybe would destroy the present philosophical mainstream, and for this reason -> that which must not, can not be...
• 

  Terry

  When it comes to understanding energy, we are still at the Neanderthal stage of the game. It is too early by far to be making claims about how much energy there is or where it comes from. These are questions that should still be asked because ... no one has answered them yet. We should look for answers because that is what the scientifically minded among us do.

  By the by, as a child I learned quite a lot about radios, electronics, computers, and many other technological advances by taking them apart. I was looking at and trying to understand the components that made the finished product, trying to figure out why each component was there, what its function was. I think many have had personal experience that contradicts your assumptions about the clock and hammer. If the boy never smashed a clock how would he know what was inside a clock?

  AuldSoul

  Hard to escape the fallacy of Arguing from Ignorance; which is to say from what we DON'T KNOW and drawing a conclusion.

  Science asks questions. The right questions lead to useful answers. The wrong questions lead us on a merry chase after white rabbits.

  In the meantime, those writing about scientific pursuits leave certain impressions (in non-math language) that the general public "ohh's and ahh's" about AS THOUGH they have a clue what is being discussed in a meaninful way.

  As a child dismantling radios and electronics you are dealing with ACTUAL PARTS of radios and electronics. If you took the parts and proceeded to smash them you'd learn only what a mess you'd made. But, if you were the kind of scientist you've described for us you'd start labeling the mess and dividing the scrap into constituencies and theorizing about the ultimate nature of the radio. My point? You've got to know when to stop, you know, put on the brakes and take it slow; it's worth repeating again.......you've got to know when. Among all the things science needs to know that is perhaps the most difficult.

  T.
• 

  flyphisher

  Danny Bloem

  As I see it. Every observation can result in a collapse of the quantum wave function. A single photon can. That a more complex sturcture is needed to measure it, does not man anything in my opinion. Whould the collapse of the wave function not have happened if you did not measure this photon?

  We should not confuse or confound notions, when we discuss QM.

  Look at http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/qphil.html and read e.g. as follows:

  "So far the experiments are confirming Einstein's worst fears. Photons, neutrons and even whole atoms act sometimes like waves, sometimes like particles, but they actually have no definite form until they are measured. Measurements, once made, can also be erased, altering the outcome of an experiment that has already occurred. A measurement of one quantum entity can instantaneously influence another far away.This odd behaviour can occur not only in the microscopic realm but even in objects large enough to be seen with the naked eye..."

  Note: The OBSERVATION (or = DETECTION) defines the form of e.g. a single photon. If NOT observed, it is behaving like a wave, if observed, it is behaving like a particle (better said: it definitely "becomes" a particle). The latter is called "collapse of the wave function". If it is a complete system consisting of elementary structures, that is interacting with an environment showing "observing features" (also named: sensorium), then the entire systems changes from a "wave-like-behaviour" to "particle-, btw. matter-like-behaviour" (or, what we call the --> "classical world"). This change is called "decoherence" in QM.

  Of course, the observing entity (detector) has to show a certain minimal-configuration (or adequate complexity) to serve as detector or observer. Atomic structure can serve. Single particles can certainly not. They can be detected or observed, but they cannot serve as a detector or observer through themselves.
• 

  AuldSoul

  Terry,

  But, if you were the kind of scientist you've described for us you'd start labeling the mess and dividing the scrap into constituencies and theorizing about the ultimate nature of the radio.

  If we are seeking the nature of reality, then your comment here only makes sense if the finished product (the radio) is assumed to be reality. I disagree completely with your claim that you know that to be the case.

  I am not in favor of labeling everything. I don't think we know what a quark, a lepton, a hadron, or a gluon is and I think that the active attempts to "thingify" that which is poorly understood is a gross fallacy. Had you answered my questions (which is the customary course of things in a multi-sided discussion) you would have found my responses agreeing very much with the basic precepts of your last post.

  Except in one respect: We are already very certain that what we used to think matter was ... it isn't. In other words, we are certain it isn't what the Greeks thought it was, we have reached the point below which we are no longer dealing with things, but rather we are dealing with a sort of "stuff" (for lack of a better term) that has few of the expected properties and none of the expected behaviors. Not all interaction with this "stuff" requires smashing atoms. This "stuff" is seemingly ubiquitous.

  We are able to rule out possibilities, by a process of elimination, although we have not yet come to that which is left—however unlikely it may prove to be. So, we are still in the Neanderthal phase of discovery when it comes to quantum physics.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  dorayakii

  I have a tendancy to get a bit lost when discussions slip down from the observable and mathematical, into the hypothetical and immeasurable, because contradictory states begin to pop up everywhere.

  It has been said that nothing exists independant from the observer, but i'm not sure that that is actually what the most prominent theory is at the moment. If you think of the Schrödinger's Cat thought experiment, the matter in question was the actual state of the cat, and not whether the cat actually existed in the first place, that was never called into question. In a similar way, particles can exist without an observer, but in all possible states, they only fall into one state or the other because of the "interference" of observation. Its like a thin coin placed on its edge which can fall either way with equal probability when it is pushed forward (but obviously this is never going to be a perfectly accurate analogy because of the fact that different laws govern the macroscopic).

  If we deny the existence of particles without an observer, we risk falling into the range of the uncalculable and the purel philosophical. Things tend to get very contradictory when we start moving in this direction, trying to combine philosophy with physics and mathematics...

  Just a question to think about. What serves as an observer ? If nothing cannot exist without an observer, what then is the observer itself ? Does it exist ?

  If it doesn't exist the how does anything exist? We then have to delve into Buddhist philosophy to find out if there is a "lone-observer" if everythig exists only as an illusion, or whether it only comes into being when the observer observes it.

  ---

  ps. I haven't had time to read all of your posts Terry, but you've raised some interesting points. I think i agree with you on most points, but i'm not 100% confortable with your analogies.

  I love your analogy of the space-less sentence... and i agree with you on the time travel issue. The me of "now" is different from the me of 5 minutes ago. It is different in Time, and "could" be different also in Space. Just as the same atoms can only exist in one Place at one Time, they can only exist in one Time at one Place. Travelling in Time would mean a violation of E=MC2 in that matter would be created in the desination time, and destroyed at the origin time.

  Abstract reasoning. Here is the quicksand. Man's mind can create castles in the air which he then tries to inhabit. Scientists pack their suitcase and charter a jet, but, there is no e.t.a.

  All conversations about DIMENSIONS (when it goes beyond the observable) is conjecture and science is comfortable talking about it. All I am pointing out here is that science is never FINAL or SETTLED.Don't step in quicksand too quickly.

  Well yes, hyper-demensional theory is "castles-in-the air", but not in the same way religious beliefs are "castles-in-the air". There is a reason for hypothesising the hyper-demensions. Just as the presence of an unseen star is surmised from aa neighbouring stars wobble, the higher-dimensions go some way to explaining why particles behave in the way that they do.

  Even though i agree with you on your refution of decoherance theory, i'm not sure that is constitutes "mysticism".

  I'm not sure that the clock analogy applies on a sub-atomic level either. Like the clock analogy, particles are what physicists actually measure in order to percieve (through mathematics) the dimensions. However, clock parts work together and have been put there by the clock-maker in order to measure Time in the way we experience it. The clock is a fuctional object and would exist even of Time was to stop, in which case it would cease to funtion. Particles work in an almost contrary way. They exist in the dimensions, and are an inextractable part of them. The absence of particles "in" a dimension, means that the dimension itself ceases to exist.

  A clock does not create Time, it mearely measures it. Particles do both, they both create and can measure dimensions. Measurement does not create, and since i believe that obsevation equals measurement, then observation does not create either.
• 

  Terry

  A clock does not create Time, it mearely measures it. Particles do both, they both create and can measure dimensions. Measurement does not create, and since i believe that obsevation equals measurement, then observation does not create either

  All very good points.

  I don't think a clock even measures time.

  I think a clock gives us intervals (mechanically calibrated) which REPRESENT the illusion we are tryng to measure. It is like falling in love with a drawing of a woman who doesn't exist.

  But, then---what I think is pretty much only important inside my own head; I don't expect others to see things my way.

  Measurement in science is a two-edged sword. You can measure actually existing things and you can also "measure" representations of conjectural models of "things". Separating the two in one's mind is my task. For a physicist, perhaps, it matters not at all.

  T.
• 

  Terry

  We are already very certain that what we used to think matter was ... it isn't. In other words, we are certain it isn't what the Greeks thought it was

  
  

  
  I wish I could agree with you here; but, I can't.

  I don't think we use to think matter was anything different than what we think it is now. Fact is, we never presumed to regard matter in a way other than what was practical. For example, at a football stadium we have two teams. What is a team? It consists of individuals subordinating their purposes and actions in accord with particular rules toward a common end. An individual player is not THE TEAM. We don't require him to be. The crowd in the arena is composed of individual audience members or fans. Not one of these people is THE CROWD. We don't seem to need to fret over this because it serves no practical purpose.

  However, over the years and because of the way certain scientific thinkers like to measure things a change in vocabulary impinged on this sort of practical view of matter (and matters). It became very important to think of a Team in terms of the constituents at a micro level (your might say) and science ended up with the molecules of each player being as important as the Team. Then the molecules faded in significance because the atoms became a deeper delving into THE TEAM.

  What is my point? Such close-up invasions and microscopic analysis ceases to have much of anything to do with the practical nature of THE TEAM or the players when it crosses a certain line.

  Physics has become TOO CLOSE of a view to bear any relationship at all with WHAT MATTER IS. The line has been crossed and we aren't even discussing the practical nature of everyday things.

  That is why I disagree with you that we aren't just as sure of what a rock or a toenail clipping is just because a group of curious men invented a means of looking at those mundane objects too closely and contaminated the language and thought processes of everyday people.

  It is just jolly good progress for a scientist but a pain in the ass of ordinary people.

  T.