Eise

Again, could you please answer the questions I asked in this thread? I already did in the 'digital science' thread in speculations. The question is simply how you reconcile the Copenhagen interpretation with 'looking behind the curtain'. The Copenhagen interpretation just says that it is impossible for us to look behind the curtain.

Do you think that is according the 'Bohr-Heisenberg interpretation' of quantum physics? Why?

Now you made your own thread about digital physics, can you come back to the topic here? I asked you a lot of questions, and you just ignored them and changed the subject. I might have another question, but I'll ask that in your 'digital science' thread.

Biased in what way? What would a none-biased approach be? I am not aware of any 'old school physicalism combined with math' in my reaction. Can you explain? Why not? Measurement devices, even if they are brains, are physical systems. What did I write, that does not fit the the Bohr/Heisenberg interpretation? Let's recap my argument: Yes, you are right. Particle/wave dualism and non-locality are 'expressions of the same phenomenon'. But I would say this is common sense for quantum physicists (if not, then please let some quantum physicist on this forum correct me). Of course they have both to do with measurements: did you read and understand my example? But again, this is not a revolutionary insight. Very long distance entanglement is possible, because you do not have to maintain realtime measurement of a particle far away. It suffices to compare precise notes, if you want years after the measurements were being made. There is no violation of the maximum communication speed. The measurement on one side does not cause a change on the other. There is only correlation, which is not bounded by time or distance. The correlation was theoretically predicted (EPR and Bell's theorem) before it was experimentally confirmed. So why is there a problem to solve? Now, where did I say something that is against the Copenhagen interpetation? Only if you do not want to discuss your ideas. Let's hear it. But given your misunderstandings of QT, I do not think we really need an alternative. The only problem I see with QM is that it is not-understandable using classical concepts. And as we all in daily life are classical physicists (where particles and waves are definitely different phenomena) we will have troubles to picture what occurs on the quantum level. But the math of QM is unambiguous.

Yes, what then? In my opinion they are intimately related. Let's take an example. Imagine a very weak photon source, emitting about one photon every minute. All around it, but at a distance of one light second (=300,000 km) we have photon detectors. Now according to Maxwell (no photons, just waves) every minute a circular wave front expands into space. According to QM however, we only have a 'probability wave', and the photon is detected at only one detector. At the moment of detection, I know immediately that none of the others will detect a photon. So the event 'measuring a photon' and 'not measuring a photon' are entangled. If behind every detector would stand a human observer, one could send a message to all the others when measuring a photon and tell them that at timepoint 5:09h she knew that nobody else had measured a photon, based on the fact that she already had measured it. So the entanglement follows directly from the wave character of the probability distribution. The power of real entanglement experiments (also known as EPR, or Bell experiments) is that we have positive measurements on both sides, not just a lack of a measurement. But they are expressions of the same phenomenon. So, what then? No. We do not need realtime measurements. If two detectors at a great distance of each other are in the same inertial frame they just can make their measurements, notice the exact time of measurement, and then later compare their measurements. There is no faster-than-light communication. See here. The mathematical theory of QM is unambiguous: entanglement must exist. Do not forget, it was theoretically derived before it also was measured. So there is no problem to solve. The only problem is that we, humans, cannot picture this based on our daily concepts.

Well, at least the eye doctor can also measure the eye pressure (I assume, I do not know where you live), and look at your retina, and what else. Would you mind to report here what it is, when you know it?

Well, I gave you the two phenomena I know of from my own experience. Again, if it disturbs you, or if you are worried, go see an (eye) doctor. Oh, btw, I know dancing blue flies too: It happens when the pressure in your head increases, e.g. on the toilet doing big but heavy business (if you know what I mean...). If you see them normally, without any mechanical stress on your head, then it really might be a sign that something is wrong. then definitely go see a doctor.

OK, you did not answer all my questions, but based on your descriptions I have two guesses: Lymphatic pressure on your eyeballs. This is periodic, in my case with a period of about 5-7 seconds. Retinal cells that might fire under pressure of course cause activity in your visual cortex. What I see are big blurry spots of yellow and blue, that move rhythmically with this period of 5-7 seconds. I am only aware of them being in the dark, or staring at something so that I do not recognise anything anymore. Your eyes only can see when the image on the retina moves. When nothing moves, then it becomes possible to see these 'flying colours'. However this does not explain the smaller spots you see. A pre-stage of migraine. Many migraine patients see what is called an 'aura' (no, no connection with new age humbug), see Wikipedia. So I would say, if you do not see these phenomena anymore, then it was probably an aura (did you feel sick, by the way? Often it is also a pre-stage of migraine.) If you always have them, then I assume it was just the first time you noticed these phenomena, and you have nothing to worry about. It belongs to life as many people have a tinnitus, which is an auditory illusion instead of a visual one. If it really disturbs you, or becomes worse then definitely see a doctor. Otherwise, just enjoy it when you see it.

Do you see them always now, when you look at a dark well? Or was it only temporary? And if you look at a bright wall you do not see them? And another question: are they moving? And how? Are the patterns jut moving chaotically, or do movements repeat? And if they repeat, what is the period?

I don't. But there are notable physicists who do. Science should explain what we can observe. In physics this means we observe events, and try to find the regularities and put them into 'laws of nature', which are then abstract descriptions of what factually happens. To say it in other words: the laws of nature are descriptions of causal relationships. A very special example of this is a measurement. Our measurements are also caused by something. Say we have a method of measurement, M1. Now scientists must guess: what kind of phenomenon could cause measurements like M1? Here you must realise that our 'language equivalent' of causal relationships are sentences like 'if A happens, then M1 happens'. However, when that sentence is true, it does not mean that 'If M1 happens, then A has happened'. So we must test by other experiments to see if we find other causal relationships, e.g. 'if A happens, then M2' happens. So we measure according M2, and it is confirmed. That does not yet mean that we know A is true: maybe M3, another kind of measurement for A doesn't work out. So science can never be 100% sure. But now for the multi-universe. It supposes that there are no causal relationships between the universes. So how can we hope to find measurements that prove that there are other universes? Then there are several kinds of 'multiverses': those that follow from the 'many worlds interpretation' of quantum mechanics, for which the above ('no causal relationship') is definitely true. Also, it is just an interpretation, the many worlds interpretation is empirically equivalent with other interpretations. Then there are those presupposed by string theory. The problem with string theory is that it does not lead necessarily to a universe like ours. Many different kinds of 'universes', with different laws of nature can be derived from it. So one way out is to postulate that all these different universes exist, and we happen to be in the one we actually observe. But again: such idea is not supported by any kind of measurement. Measurements occur, by definition, in our universe. So in my opinion, even if physicists do not like the standard model, because of its many parameters that only can be measured, but not derived from a more fundamental theory, we still must explain how our universe works. Theoretically, it is possible we find nothing that explains the standard model. It is just as nature is. Full stop.

What is Itoero doing at the moment? Still trying to understand? I wonder why he seems to have left the thread.

Yes and no

(Historical) Sources? When did Solomon live? When Jesus? What happened in the time between? Yes. And from a poor, rural country, that was oppressed by the Romans. He did not work and live in the high society of Jerusalem. Illiteracy was wide spread, even in Rome itself. The worse in their conquested countries. You compare modern times with antiquity? If I want to read fantasy, I prefer Tolkien. If I want to read about history, I read historians. But if you prefer to keep your head in the sand, be my guest. Why should I fear? In the end, it did not occur the time for what is predicted (should have been somewhere between 33 - 100 CE). And your thread is closed... It is funny: you are on a science forum here, but when it comes to the bible you refuse to look at what historical science has to say about the bible. Instead you argue with arguments from within the bible, stating that it is consistent and true. Which of the 2 birth stories is true? Matthew or Luke? Luke was shown wrong about the census. You did not react on that at all. Obviously you see the problem.

And virtual all New Testament scholars are convinced that: - Peter could not write, so surely not Greek - the gospel of Luke was not written by Luke 'the physician' - the gospel of John and Revelation were not written by the apostle John (but very probable were written by the same person) You see, the bible itself has a history, and a lot that historians agree on, does not agree with your naive believe in the bible as factual truth. E.g. Was Jesus just born in Bethlehem because Joseph and Maria lived there (Matthew); or was he born there because they had to travel to Bethlehem because of the Roman census (Luke). All historians agree that such a census never took place. And Luke makes even false propositions about the time that that supposed census should have taken place (Herod the great and Quirinius did not reign at the same time, as Luke suggests).

Sigh... I pick one too: So God's kingdom would happen in at most one generation. So what is true? Don't we know when the Kingdom of God will come, or do we not know it precisely? Jesus estimated it would happen in at most one generation. But it still did not happen... How many generations have passed since? About 60? (Taking a generation to be about 30 years). No, John the baptist, Jesus and Paul all expected the apocalypse in a lifetime. They differed however on the question how to prepare for it: Jesus proclaimed to keep to the Jewish law; for Paul the only thing really needed was to accept Jesus as saviour. What you do is preaching, not arguing.

Doesn't suffice as an answer. I suggest you have a look e.g. at this Christian site: www.jesuswordsonly.com, especially this page. In short: Jesus said you have to live according to the Jewish law, i.e. prepare by being morally good, doing good works and loving God and each other. Paul, on the other hand, said that people should accept Jesus as saviour, that's all. For gentiles (non-Jews) it is not necessary to keep to the Jewish laws. He saw Jesus resurrection as the first sign, that the apocalypse actually had begun. So the Catholic Church (and I assume most protestant churches too. Or are the protestant boys circumcised? Or don't protestants eat pork?) are not Christians, but Paulians. It is not the religion that Jesus taught, but Paul. Paul's religion is a religion about Jesus, not the religion of Jesus. I don't. Jesus said it would happen during his lifetime, or at least shortly after (as did John the Baptist). Also Paul assumed it would happen pretty soon, and he hat to quieten some churches where people were worried that some of their companions had died before God's Kingdom was established. Obviously God's Kingdom did not come in nearly 2000 years, so we can safely put this prediction aside. The only thing I do is trying to get at peace with life as it is, including its suffering and eventually my personal death. But I do not do this because I want to be rewarded in some fantasised afterlife. (And of course you know that Jesus meant the coming of God's Kingdom was on earth, not some afterlife).

Hey! Coffeesippin should answer this! In the end, he knows the bible is the truth, so he should know this.

As DrP noticed, you did not answer my question: so here is it again. How should one prepare for the coming of God's kingdom: - according to Jesus - according Paul If you evade to answer the question again, we all know that your believe in the bible is a lie.

The apocalypse. And I want the answer from coffeesippin. He claims the bible is consistent, the true word of God. I'll wait for his answer.

-1 for evading and irrationality. Tell us what you found: how do you prepare for the youngest day? The way that Jesus said, or the way Paul said? Who of the two is right, and why? Or don't you prepare at all, even that Jesus and Paul both mention the youngest day several times?

I can imagine why. c is the velocity of light, light is an electromagnetic phenomenon, so everything should be electromagnetic. The correct way to see it however, is that c is the maximum velocity that is possible in the universe. It is so to speak the 'speed limit of causality'. And only particles (or waves, or... anything) that have no restmass travel at this speed. So c is more universal than just the velocity of light.

Well, that is easy. This posting is written by Paul too. This is proof! Really? (See bold passage) (Bold and Italics by me). Of which day? About 50 CE? Or 250 CE? See passages in italic above. The books of the bible are written by people, the bible was composed by people, it was falsified by people, people made errors copying, and therefore is full with errors, biases, falsifications, inconsistencies etc etc. E.g can you tell me. - What should we do in the face of the youngest day according to Jesus? - What should we do in the face of the youngest day according to Paul? Who is right, and why?

It seems 80% of the scholars agree that Timothy (yes, both) is not written by Paul. So where does your certainty come from?

(Bold by me). I'll give it a try... I will repeat arguments already given, but maybe it helps to see the different causes of redshift all together in comparison. Strange already said that in the case of light there are more possible causes of redshift. So I have no idea why there should be only one cause for redshift. (There is of course just one cause for cosmological redshift.) Doppler effect when source and observer are moving away from each other light 'climbing' out of a gravity field expanding space The first one should be the simplest to understand: when moving away from the source, the succession of e.g. wave peaks slows down for the observer. This means that for the observer he measures less peaks per second, so the frequency is lower than the frequency at the source. Logically then also the wavelength becomes longer. Compare when you sit in a train and you pass a railway crossing with sound signals. First, when nearing the crossing, you hear a higher pitch, and when you have passed the crossing, the pitch lowers. There is of course an important difference between the Doppler effect for sound and for light: for sound there is a medium, for light there isn't. So the formulas differ. A typical case for the second cause of redshift is a (heavy) star. Say we look at the spectral lines of hydrogen that glows at the surface of the star. When we, from a far distance, measure the frequencies of these spectral lines, they are redshifted. A simple explanation would be: the light loses energy when climbing out of the gravity field of the star. But be careful! When we look at the light of a distant source, passing a strong gravity field, the following will happen: 'falling' into the gravitational field, the light will be blueshifted, because it gains energy. However, when climbing out of the gravitational field, it loses exactly the same amount of energy again, so gets redshifted exactly the same amount as it was blueshifted before. So as an endresult, we will see the frequency of the light of the remote source exactly the same as if the gravitational field was not there at all. Only when the observer is in the gravitational field it will see a difference in frequency: but it will be blueshifted. From this it already follows that gravitational fields that light passes on its way, make no difference in frequency. (It can change the path of the light, that is gravitational lensing.) The third case is due solely to the expansion of space itself. As space is stretching, the light 'stretches' with it, and the wavelength of the light becomes longer, and so its frequency lower. I think you really should read the article Strange linked too.

This was jfoldbar's question. So I would expect only people who believe in a soul to react... Which might not too many on these fora. Of course I can throw in a bon mot (that does not actually fit to jfoldbar's descriptions): "of course the soul exists: and it is made up of many tiny robots" But that was an Italian journalist's description of Dennett's philosophy of consciousness... Ah, found it: