Ref. Old Thread: "Do you believe in God, etc."
- Thread starter mismused
- Start date
G
Guest
Guest
God and I broke up -
I'm not certain it's the end of the relationship, but currently we are not speaking.
And we decided it was OK to date others.
She's just so pissy sometimes!
I'm not certain it's the end of the relationship, but currently we are not speaking.
And we decided it was OK to date others.
She's just so pissy sometimes!
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
Hello, mismused...thank you for the AP info..interesting...
Not that it matters...but...knowing that the speed of light is considered 'a constant' an 'absolute' rate which cannot be exceeded...and knowing...that the 'distance' measured in 'light years' to the nearest stars is so great that it is beyond the human lifespan to travel there and return...I am left with somewhat of a metaphysical contradiction in my own view of the Universe.
A science fiction fan for over half a century...I have read just about every possible approach of mans attempt to solve the cosmological questions of existence and purpose.
You might find Anne McCaffrey's take on instantaneous transportion using the power of the mind, interesting. She portrays it in her series of books beginning with 'The Rowan', if memory serves.
In addition, McCaffrey's writes speak of empowered females who basically control the future...that should please many who inhabit this forum.
thanks for the post....
Amicus (the ancient amicable Troll)
Not that it matters...but...knowing that the speed of light is considered 'a constant' an 'absolute' rate which cannot be exceeded...and knowing...that the 'distance' measured in 'light years' to the nearest stars is so great that it is beyond the human lifespan to travel there and return...I am left with somewhat of a metaphysical contradiction in my own view of the Universe.
A science fiction fan for over half a century...I have read just about every possible approach of mans attempt to solve the cosmological questions of existence and purpose.
You might find Anne McCaffrey's take on instantaneous transportion using the power of the mind, interesting. She portrays it in her series of books beginning with 'The Rowan', if memory serves.
In addition, McCaffrey's writes speak of empowered females who basically control the future...that should please many who inhabit this forum.
thanks for the post....
Amicus (the ancient amicable Troll)
G
Guest
Guest
She's a bit uptight, actually.
G
Guest
Guest
amicus said:
So - is this more to your liking, then?
http://www.addis-welt.de/smilie/smilie/zensiert/sex-smilies-sm.gif
On your knees, bark like a dog!
Oh, wait. You didn't actually mean this was what you wanted and needed? That's right, you were just saying that others on this forum would enjoy it.
My mistake.
dr_mabeuse
seduce the mind
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2002
- Posts
- 11,528
I'd really like to see the original article on this, because even science writers are in the habit of misunderstanding quantum theory.
I assume this is based on the phenomenon of virtual particles, which says that there is nothing to keep empty space from giving birth to particle/anti-particle pairs. These could exist, but the laws of the universe insist that if one of these pairs is destroyed, then the other one be simultaneously detroyed as well. The thinking is, that if you could separate these particles at birth, then whenever you destroyed one, the other, no matter how far away, would have to instantly vanish as well. The problem is, how does one virtual particle know what's happening to its anti-twin?
I'm not aware of any experiment that's demonstrated this, but I'm not entirely up on what's new in quantum physics. I'm also not sure what it means to measure real simultaneity, because I dont think we're able to make any measurement faster than the speed of light on a small scale. All our electronic instruments use electricity, which is limited to below-light speed.
Anyhow, if you have a link to the original paper, I'd like to see it. Or see if I can even understand it.
---Zoot
I assume this is based on the phenomenon of virtual particles, which says that there is nothing to keep empty space from giving birth to particle/anti-particle pairs. These could exist, but the laws of the universe insist that if one of these pairs is destroyed, then the other one be simultaneously detroyed as well. The thinking is, that if you could separate these particles at birth, then whenever you destroyed one, the other, no matter how far away, would have to instantly vanish as well. The problem is, how does one virtual particle know what's happening to its anti-twin?
I'm not aware of any experiment that's demonstrated this, but I'm not entirely up on what's new in quantum physics. I'm also not sure what it means to measure real simultaneity, because I dont think we're able to make any measurement faster than the speed of light on a small scale. All our electronic instruments use electricity, which is limited to below-light speed.
Anyhow, if you have a link to the original paper, I'd like to see it. Or see if I can even understand it.
---Zoot
Re: Hope this helps some, Doc.
How do we do that?
EITHER they start next to each other, which has to mean <3 inches apart to satisfy the accuracy required,
OR they start 6 miles apart where the experiments are, in which case we cannot synchronise them that accurately, because we cannot communicate over that distance with a sufficiently accurate known time lag, because if we could then one clock would suffice.
IF they start effectively co-located, then moving one six miles causes a possible discrepancy to arise, due to the Lorentz-Fitzgerald effect, let alone the varying gravitic and other environmental effects of moving them on Earth.
My conclusion is that I want a rigorous explanation of how they measure the time that accurately in two locations six feet apart, let alone six miles, before I will even consider whether these observed changes happen faster than light could travel between the two points.
And I haven't even started on the time lag between the event and its being observed ...
So we have two atomic clocks, synchronised.mismused said:
How do we do that?
EITHER they start next to each other, which has to mean <3 inches apart to satisfy the accuracy required,
OR they start 6 miles apart where the experiments are, in which case we cannot synchronise them that accurately, because we cannot communicate over that distance with a sufficiently accurate known time lag, because if we could then one clock would suffice.
IF they start effectively co-located, then moving one six miles causes a possible discrepancy to arise, due to the Lorentz-Fitzgerald effect, let alone the varying gravitic and other environmental effects of moving them on Earth.
My conclusion is that I want a rigorous explanation of how they measure the time that accurately in two locations six feet apart, let alone six miles, before I will even consider whether these observed changes happen faster than light could travel between the two points.
And I haven't even started on the time lag between the event and its being observed ...
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
Mismused....excellent...marvelous thinking... way back when, I was musing about the stars being within the reach but beyond the grasp of man..and referenced the 186,000 miles per second that light travels and how distant the nearest stars were.
Never did I suspect and it surely is a bonus for this forum, to be presented with a possible way around that 'constant' in physics, the speed of light.
Having a small knowledge of electronics and the math dealing with generating and transmitting radio waves, my best shot at exceeding the speed of light was through the theory of 'Harmonics'.
When you create or generate a radio wave at frequency X, you also generate a harmonic and a sub harmonic frequency at 2X and .5X..infinitly doubling or halving in each direction.
Light rays..light...are just the visible spectrum of 'radio' waves, thus one should be able to double the frequency of a 'light' wave as one can any other radio wave.
That probably makes no sense at all to a real mathematician or physicist..which I am not...but..it has always been a curiousity to me.
Thank you for a find forum thread...
regards..amicus
Never did I suspect and it surely is a bonus for this forum, to be presented with a possible way around that 'constant' in physics, the speed of light.
Having a small knowledge of electronics and the math dealing with generating and transmitting radio waves, my best shot at exceeding the speed of light was through the theory of 'Harmonics'.
When you create or generate a radio wave at frequency X, you also generate a harmonic and a sub harmonic frequency at 2X and .5X..infinitly doubling or halving in each direction.
Light rays..light...are just the visible spectrum of 'radio' waves, thus one should be able to double the frequency of a 'light' wave as one can any other radio wave.
That probably makes no sense at all to a real mathematician or physicist..which I am not...but..it has always been a curiousity to me.
Thank you for a find forum thread...
regards..amicus
smutpen
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2004
- Posts
- 117
Oy.
Quantum theory and Relativity explain the behavior of our universe at scales of size and speed outside our everyday experience.
They have never been shown to conflict with each other, and this latest result does not reflect any contradiction between them.
Both have been tested with incredible rigor, and both have proven accurate to the best of our ability to measure their predictions.
Neither theory in any way supports belief in the supernatural, or spirits or gods or magic. Rather they confirm far beyond any reasonable doubt that the foundational concepts of modern physical science (namely the conservation laws and the 2nd law of thermodynamics) are utterly reliable and convey fundamental truths about the nature of the universe.
The dualism (spirit separate from and independent of matter) which supports the notion of gods and spirits has been intellectually bankrupt for centuries now, and because people don't want to accept that, they hope to find that these newer and odder physical theories may support the concepts they want to believe in.
Science writers, and even a few scientists, have contributed to this confusion.
The experiment originally referenced is a somewhat trivial (by which I mean unsurprising) follow-on to the Aspect experiment of 1982.
Alain Aspect figured out a way, with technology Einstein didn't have, to actually perform a version of something called the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen thought experiment, a refinement of one Einstein used in his famous debates with Bohr.
It's important to understand that this was not about a conflict between the theories, but about Einstein's personal distaste for some of the implications of QT, especially the breakdown of cause and effect into pure probability at a certain scale of size, and the apparent "spooky action at a distance" implied by the instantaneous collapse of the wavefunction.
Aspect proved that Einstein was wrong, but there is no violation of Special Relativity in the Aspect results.
If we emit two particles whose net spin is zero, in opposite directions, when one interacts with a detector (or anything else), its spin is revealed, and the spin of the other is instantaneously determined to be in the opposite direction. To understand why there is any mystery at all, you need to understand that QT claims that the spin of either particle cannot be predicted in any way, but is purely random.
The two particles cannot have left with the spins already determined; particles are waves until they interact with something, at which point the wavefunction colllapses, and spin reveals itself.
If this were a violation of SR, we could set up a particle generator between here and Mars, or the Andromeda galaxy. Once we had a steady stream of particles flowing, if we could choose the spin of particles on our side, we could send an instantaneous message anywhere in the universe.
But SR forbids this, and so does QT. It is impossible to influence the particles on our side, so no message can be sent. The only information transmitted is information about the wavefunction, which connected the two particles through whatever amount of space was between them until the moment of interaction and collapse.
If you really want to understand the universe we live in, read Einstein's Relativity, the Special and General Theories. He wrote it specifically to be accessible to any college-educated person with some basic understanding of science. Read a few of the many non-mystical books about QT.
People who engage in speculation or extrapolation about the implications of these theories without having done so are, I'm sorry to say, speaking from an anomalous orifice.
Quantum theory and Relativity explain the behavior of our universe at scales of size and speed outside our everyday experience.
They have never been shown to conflict with each other, and this latest result does not reflect any contradiction between them.
Both have been tested with incredible rigor, and both have proven accurate to the best of our ability to measure their predictions.
Neither theory in any way supports belief in the supernatural, or spirits or gods or magic. Rather they confirm far beyond any reasonable doubt that the foundational concepts of modern physical science (namely the conservation laws and the 2nd law of thermodynamics) are utterly reliable and convey fundamental truths about the nature of the universe.
The dualism (spirit separate from and independent of matter) which supports the notion of gods and spirits has been intellectually bankrupt for centuries now, and because people don't want to accept that, they hope to find that these newer and odder physical theories may support the concepts they want to believe in.
Science writers, and even a few scientists, have contributed to this confusion.
The experiment originally referenced is a somewhat trivial (by which I mean unsurprising) follow-on to the Aspect experiment of 1982.
Alain Aspect figured out a way, with technology Einstein didn't have, to actually perform a version of something called the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen thought experiment, a refinement of one Einstein used in his famous debates with Bohr.
It's important to understand that this was not about a conflict between the theories, but about Einstein's personal distaste for some of the implications of QT, especially the breakdown of cause and effect into pure probability at a certain scale of size, and the apparent "spooky action at a distance" implied by the instantaneous collapse of the wavefunction.
Aspect proved that Einstein was wrong, but there is no violation of Special Relativity in the Aspect results.
If we emit two particles whose net spin is zero, in opposite directions, when one interacts with a detector (or anything else), its spin is revealed, and the spin of the other is instantaneously determined to be in the opposite direction. To understand why there is any mystery at all, you need to understand that QT claims that the spin of either particle cannot be predicted in any way, but is purely random.
The two particles cannot have left with the spins already determined; particles are waves until they interact with something, at which point the wavefunction colllapses, and spin reveals itself.
If this were a violation of SR, we could set up a particle generator between here and Mars, or the Andromeda galaxy. Once we had a steady stream of particles flowing, if we could choose the spin of particles on our side, we could send an instantaneous message anywhere in the universe.
But SR forbids this, and so does QT. It is impossible to influence the particles on our side, so no message can be sent. The only information transmitted is information about the wavefunction, which connected the two particles through whatever amount of space was between them until the moment of interaction and collapse.
If you really want to understand the universe we live in, read Einstein's Relativity, the Special and General Theories. He wrote it specifically to be accessible to any college-educated person with some basic understanding of science. Read a few of the many non-mystical books about QT.
People who engage in speculation or extrapolation about the implications of these theories without having done so are, I'm sorry to say, speaking from an anomalous orifice.
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
smutpen....'anomalous orifice?' I resemble that remark...
Interesting post...although I do not think the one to whom you referred was seeking to establish a scientific basis for a 'god' type, rather a 'continuum' of existence that ties together all the theories.
And I think my question about interstellar travel being limited by K, speed of light was the instigator. I pose it again to you: the Stars are within our reach but not our grasp. That is, given the normal lifespan of the species.
I feel a small disappointment that with our current knowledge, man can never visit the stars. Cryonics, perhaps...freeze 10,000 people on a huge vessel built in space..but Heinlein already did that story with the Howard Foundation...and even they lived longer than is currently possible....
Nevermind...just musing...
amicus
Interesting post...although I do not think the one to whom you referred was seeking to establish a scientific basis for a 'god' type, rather a 'continuum' of existence that ties together all the theories.
And I think my question about interstellar travel being limited by K, speed of light was the instigator. I pose it again to you: the Stars are within our reach but not our grasp. That is, given the normal lifespan of the species.
I feel a small disappointment that with our current knowledge, man can never visit the stars. Cryonics, perhaps...freeze 10,000 people on a huge vessel built in space..but Heinlein already did that story with the Howard Foundation...and even they lived longer than is currently possible....
Nevermind...just musing...
amicus
smutpen
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2004
- Posts
- 117
I was actually thinking more of the science writers who sensationalize these kinds of things, and often indulge in unfounded and ignorant specualtion, which the public naturally picks up.
There is no convincing evidence of any possibility of faster-than-light travel, and if you read Einsten's book, you'll understand that the notion results from a misunderstanding of reality.
It's as if someone claimed they had discovered a technology to peel their shadow off the wall, and roll it up into a ball -- it's impossible because it's based on a misunderstanding of what a shadow is.
Despite this, the stars are not out of our reach, if we could ever stop concentrating on killing each other long enough to try for them.
With technology already almost achievable, we could travel very, very close to the speed of light, which would put hundreds of stars within reach in a single human lifetime. From there, thousands more would be reachable in even less time.
There is no convincing evidence of any possibility of faster-than-light travel, and if you read Einsten's book, you'll understand that the notion results from a misunderstanding of reality.
It's as if someone claimed they had discovered a technology to peel their shadow off the wall, and roll it up into a ball -- it's impossible because it's based on a misunderstanding of what a shadow is.
Despite this, the stars are not out of our reach, if we could ever stop concentrating on killing each other long enough to try for them.
With technology already almost achievable, we could travel very, very close to the speed of light, which would put hundreds of stars within reach in a single human lifetime. From there, thousands more would be reachable in even less time.
smutpen
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2004
- Posts
- 117
I apologize for my phrasing.
I was not reacting to you in particular but to an attitude that permeates our culture.
By the time I finished, I'd worked myself up to a state of mildly warm indignance, not with you or the posters here, but with people who should know better, or pretend they know better.
Of course normal people believe it when a news reporter who couldn't pass a freshman physics test makes all sorts of hints about the sensational implications of quantum weirdness.
But, with that said, your posts and some others here have been confused to the point of incoherence, though there is certainly a healthy curiosity buried in there somewhere.
You mention Tycho Brahe. He was a great partier, and wore a gold nose after he lost his real one. His great contribution to our understanding was his recognition that the way to find out truth about nature is to observe nature very, very carefully.
He made the most precise observations ever accomplished before the invention of the telescope, and he recorded them precisely in exhaustive detail.
His employee, Kepler, was the genius who figured out the laws of the motions of the planets. Like those who came before him, he tried to do it with speculation, and the tying together of vague notions of harmonies and geometries, which was the way it had been done since Aristotle and his crystalline spheres. But Kepler had something nobody had ever had before -- precise, detailed observations against which to measure all his fuzzy notions. And so he did.
His achievement was key to Newton's discovery of the classical laws of motion and gravitation.
I was not reacting to you in particular but to an attitude that permeates our culture.
By the time I finished, I'd worked myself up to a state of mildly warm indignance, not with you or the posters here, but with people who should know better, or pretend they know better.
Of course normal people believe it when a news reporter who couldn't pass a freshman physics test makes all sorts of hints about the sensational implications of quantum weirdness.
But, with that said, your posts and some others here have been confused to the point of incoherence, though there is certainly a healthy curiosity buried in there somewhere.
You mention Tycho Brahe. He was a great partier, and wore a gold nose after he lost his real one. His great contribution to our understanding was his recognition that the way to find out truth about nature is to observe nature very, very carefully.
He made the most precise observations ever accomplished before the invention of the telescope, and he recorded them precisely in exhaustive detail.
His employee, Kepler, was the genius who figured out the laws of the motions of the planets. Like those who came before him, he tried to do it with speculation, and the tying together of vague notions of harmonies and geometries, which was the way it had been done since Aristotle and his crystalline spheres. But Kepler had something nobody had ever had before -- precise, detailed observations against which to measure all his fuzzy notions. And so he did.
His achievement was key to Newton's discovery of the classical laws of motion and gravitation.
Similar threads
