Fred56

Just as any “past” interval of time has no actuality, no existence other than as a memory in some brain, or words on some dusty page, distance also has no realization, it isn't more than some concept of a separation of objects. Distance is a measurement, it's something we do without laser rangefinders or tape-rulers, or human steps. Distance is apparent because of entropy –and entropy is (part of) the way our entropic brains perceive change --we cannot step outside this frame of reference, because our brains have to change to perceive, to observe and measure. Quantum states see distance as virtual, what does this reveal to us about the nature of distance as a real and tangible thing to the reality of superposition? This property of matter-waves that does not 'see' entropy, or at least not the projection that entropy makes: Distance. Entropy is a projection of energy, energy is a projection of the universe. Mass is then also a projection (as a function of its own character -separation) which is its condensate. Mass is the surface of the mirror, and energy is its obverse. Mass 'communicates' as matter-waves by using energy as waves for the message. Mass (the stuff we know and love), comes with the following properties: Gravity is a projection (an attractive, proportional character) of matter's existence. Charge (a balanced character or property, with its own symmetry and a proportional attractive/repulsive symmetry with Gravity) is a projection of the “energy communication” (photons), that a matter-wave (a lepton) --when it forms a 'resonant stable oscillation' around one or two other “condensed bits” (matter waves called hadrons or baryons), and this assembly -of matter-waves- is the energy “sender/receiver” (a hydrogen or helium atom). Superposition is a projection of the nature of waves and oscillations, phases and polarisations, resonances, coupling (of oscillation), and the way waves can “mix together”. This property (superposition of wave-function) is a coupling of oscillations, a connection between (quantised) states of the wave nature of mass/energy. This property, like Gravity, has no known causative effect. Charge is the only 'obvious' property we can explain in terms of other bits of matter and energy.

Perhaps there is a need to be a bit more particular with this. Maybe you're implying that it isn't static, or isn't like a "thing" that doesn't move. But saying "H is a member of P" and "H is not a member of Q" means that P can't be a Q either. Heat is a process that isn't a thing ...

I think myths are very much alive, even in forums like this, that purport to be frequented by rational, well adjusted people. There is no such thing as a rational human being. We are all, to some extent, under the spell of mystic and "unknown" things. We actually want these things. If you don't believe me, have a look at how many believe in horoscopes for starters. We tend to invent things when we don't or can't see or work something out... Some people who think they are quite normal are actually complete morons...IMO

Evangelists are a bunch of idiots? TV can make you write strange stuff down and post it? I was directing this at a certain public and very "Christian" figure who's quite well known here... Of course it's got absolutely no point at all, just like all the drivel I heard this guy say this a.m. But then this is a gen. topic thread...

Hmm. We sure know that the process of thinking uses energy. Anyone who's gone to any school or studied for an exam knows how tiring it can be. I'm not sure but I think the brain can use up to about a third of the body's energy... But how much does thought weigh? The thing is, entangled states are "unknown" to us until we "select" a state (measure it). It isn't real until we project "ourselves" onto it... weird.

I grabbed someone else's post in a shameless ripoff (its about gravitomagnetics):

Here we see the heuristic paradox. Mens sibi proicatia fini continati nullus et omnium {the null and the infinite (are) the mind's own projections of ending (and) of continuing}

You seem to be referring to modes of energy diffusion other than kinematic... I'm fairly sure the standard definition of heat describes it as the "motion" of atoms or molecules. as I have... Is heat flow not due to this "coupled kinematics" -(vibrational, rotational, translational)...? I was under the impression that emr plays a significant role only once something gets pretty "hot"? Are we discussing whether IR heats things or hot things emit IR... (of which they of course, do both)?

There is no 3-dimensional edge to spacetime. There is an "edge" to its expansion, which is the "arrow" of entropy. The expansion and the "fact": the universe has no (Euclidean) boundary, are related. The "vector" of time (Time's arrow) is obviously not a real quantity, but belongs in the imaginary realm. Is it still logically consistent to say the vector (of time) is measurable? Of course. How should it be modelled? Do we only have a single point we can consider? This last seems to, in fact, be the case. We need to invent, for ourselves, some point; a reference, to be able to take the pulse of anything we call "motion": the movement of mass -(ourselves, with our single time-point) through what we know (but a strange property of mass we have observed doesn't), as spatiality -distance or separation (of mass). Time is an apparent property of (classical) entropy/distance. This isn't, or shouldn't be any big deal: temperature is also an apparent measure, available to us, which has no actual existence, similarly weight is a feature of some mass in the grip of a gravitational “field” (our model of a "force", which we assume to be a universal property of mass). Weight only exists,as such, because the mass and the field exist, we do not conjure such things into any separate, independent existence. They are, obviously, artefacts of the act, the process of our “measure-taking”. There is no time (we "imagine" it), there is diffusion (separation) of mass due to entropy. The mass/energy equivalence of information exists in the quantised world of very small scales/distances, except for a mysterious property of mass/energy: superposition ("entanglement" of quantum states). Which appears to us to be able to ignore distance, as if space did not exist.... ... .. . oh, right, there's another one: a massless (very small scale) particle that travels really fast, that photon thingy. The photon is the "message" we get from the quantum world, which we "convert" into "information" in our brains... The conceptual (philosophical/scientific) problem with our quantum view -(our present thermodynamic and physical concepts might need some repair) is: We can't apply the classical thermodynamic view to quantum "information" (superposition). We know that mass/energy is conserved (throughout the universe, presumably). We know that it "emits" photons, little packets of energy that "convey" information into our biochemical, thermodynamic brains. We know there is another conserved and quantised property that mass "has": superposition, and that this, unlike the photon (a "real" particle), is perturbed easily (by the thermodynamic/quantum world). Edit: The preceding, some of you may have noticed (or not), is using "information" in a classical (no-cost, no-mass) way. What sort of mass/energy does this information (that is labeled "quantum") have? It isn't due to photons being emitted from a "classical collection" of iron atoms (like a red-hot stove) or an "excited" gas. Photon "information" (the mass/energy of photons impinging on electrons, say in someone's eye) is different from their entangled "state information", but we know it (superposition) also has mass. P.S. Apologies to anyone who has already read any of this: this is a bit of a rehash of stuff from the pseudoscience thread, and other bits...

You mean, something maybe like this: ?

There are literally thousands of mathematicians, physicists, philosophers, (and us in this forum), looking pretty hard at this. Our models seem to have done a fairly good job so far, but obviously our current views, still sort of stuck in the 19th century (to some extent), are possibly interfering somehow with the view we need. I guess, one day when some future Einstein or Newton realises what it is we need to be "seeing", it will probably be considered something obvious, something we "should have been seeing" all along... something fairly obvious (about the universe) to anyone, if they just think about it... A bit more "information mapping" has condensed into "real ideas" (I have thought of something): The concept of information that not only has energy but a mass equivalent flies in the face of centuries of thinking, of presuming that we can interact with the world around us and observe the changes that “occur” in it, “receive” this information: some measurement, perhaps the circumference of some tree -and the result: “two full armspans and once to the elbow”, would then be stored, “weightlessly and masslessly”, in our consciousness, where it would remain until some later event required us to “access” it -(perhaps to “remember the location” of a large enough tree to build something), and this “remembering” -recalling from (some kind of) biochemical store, "information of use to us", is a cost in those terms, biochemical terms: molecules of ATP; proteins that fold and unfold as they “reconfigure”, reacting both chemically to “signal” molecules, and sometimes, less often, bursts of electrical activity occur (on the membranes of specialised cells within this processing and memory store). All of which results in our conscious determination of the thing we measure and "receive information" from (both as photons, and as conceptual projections which, whilst receiving "photon information" (light), react electrically and biochemically to it. We believe that these mappings -ideas that “form” around such, or because of such, external sense stimuli (light, sound, etc.) are weightless, have no existence as real things except inside some space -a conscious or “unconscious” mind, which is part of the world around it, but appears to have its own internal universe of information. Our brains project complex and intricate virtual models of reality on the world (of senses) and receive back the stimuli (information) needed to both find their way in the external and explore the internal space they themselves occupy... “ ...then you'll see you're really only very small, and Life goes on within you and without you.” - George Harrison (sorry, couldn't resist) There's also this:

OK, two things to deal with here for me: 1. post something about black hole research 2. continue discussion of entanglement and information and the (non)determinism of reality... ... after turning down (or maybe it was up) the tv, thinking a bit, looking through the several browser pages open, drawing on my trusty pipe a bit, redolent with Longbottom's finest, I have the following for your perusal: Bugger, this all ended up elsewhere, looks like I got hit by a random cosmic event, folks. You'll have to look here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=366628&postcount=56

I found this comment from the Brothers, or maybe cousins Horodecki: but it's a 2000 paper.

Darn, I should have mentioned in the following par. that I watched his "morning talk" (like after the word "phrases"), but I s'pose you can figure out I've seen him on the t v before.

How do we measure the mass/energy of this space -our "brain" -to determine this? Are you saying the "superposition" of quantum states that we are so eager to exploit, exists other than in this space -actually contributes something (to the mass/energy of the universe) ?

yourdad: In another post you initially stated (except you were tired, I guess) that entropy is a measure of "unavailable work" ? Entropy isn't heat. Heat is (kinetic) "motion" (of particles of gas/liquid...), entropy is a measure of change. Heat disperses (this is one of its properties), and entropy is a metric of that dispersal or diffusion_ "Work" is a measure of heat "transfer" (entropic "flow"), over time, and this is "lost" to the thermodynamic system (in your case a nuclear reactor) as work. So it "needs" to produce more (heat stuff) to replace it. Please, someone, anyone? I have absolutely no idea what time (it) is... Except for this one... What was that, mate? (from the Survivors Guide): Though the nuances, especially of the derogative form, may be easily familiar to a native Antipodean, the non-native speaker may well run into difficulties with it. One should be especially careful of the laconic-derogative. This is used -almost exclusively, in the interrogative statement: “you farkkin' us around, mate?”. This is never given a rising or falling tone, but spoken neutrally, usually with some emphasis. When any non-native speaker hears the laconic-derogative form, it is probably already too late to any invoke any possibility of avoiding an Antipodean “sorting-out”. {sort-out: v.tr. To correct or make good. To admonish (often by physical means) for a perceived insult or moral/ethical infraction. The sortee may be injured, (possibly with a bottle (hopefully already empty -the non-Antipodean may be somewhat reassured by the fact there is a good probability of it being nearly so at least), or other available object). The term is used as a sense of action, and the object may (be permitted to) “sort-out” the infraction themselves (effect repair or reparation), however if not (the attempt is perceived as ineffective), will be themselves “sorted-out”.} Spoken interrogatively, with a rising tone, “mate?” often means either: “are you (my friend)?” or “what (are you trying to do)?”, or “excuse me?”, and usually comes after some other phrase, e.g.: “what happened, mate?”, or “you ok, mate?”. Sometimes the endearment form appears in this context (“oh, mate!”) which often expresses immediate concern, e.g. for a non-native who has encountered the laconic-derogative form (see above). (BTW there is no such thing AFAIK as a laconic-derogative “anything”)

I see. What if, instead of occupation by some lifeform, you used planet size, or atmosphere, or colour (red ones and blue ones)? Or would there be that same problem with the probability of any planet, say being blue, or having an atmosphere, or whatever? If there are an indenumerable number of planets, how can we know anything about "how many" of them are a particular size, or colour, or anything? This presumably is only applicable to the "quantity" zero? Because zero has no "quantity", how can it, in fact, "belong" to anything (especially a set of values, or "quantities") despite what Godel has to say?

Yes, I've posted some of these Korean guys stuff in other threads, but it is research. (I posted a comment about this too). We have no idea if dark energy really exists, so perhaps I should have left it alone. It isn't interesting that this team thinks they have a mathematical connection?

Here's the standard quantum view: And: But: I'm not sure that "information loss" does mean "determinacy loss"...(maybe I should have said "in the thermodynamic universe"). Comment: This is dark-energy research and all pretty speculative. Just did it to illustrate the contention that quantum information can be "lost" (maybe)... We need to "stay" on topic and discuss what we mean by "quantum" or "logical" information. Ipso facto.

Vale! Quo vadis? Hodie pars alia sapientis paravi: Indicium auscultatoris instruere, igitur indici in mens parare, iuli argumenti virili parte. Qui cogitas? For anyone in need of translation into 'Anglici': Hi, how are you (going)? Today I made up a 'saying' (bit of 'wisdom') The best way to use evidence in an argument is to use the evidence in the mind of the listener. Or: The best evidence for any argument is that in the mind of the listener... (somehow it seems to lose something...) What do you think? Latin, indeed, vehi levis est (a smooth ride is).

I dunno, after the car drug me cross th' lot, I don' remember so good. But regardlessly, it prob'ly don' matter so much anyhow.

Which, of course, everyone has an absolutely crystal-clear understanding of. Natch. Well, let's see if can "diverge any further" from the classical path... Unless I'm mistaken, these guys are saying that sending "quantum information" is the equivalent of doing work... and that information, is like that other stuff, whatsaname, you know, energy...

I could be wrong, but maybe this is meant to be where the quibble stops.

Just my 2c worth: The idea that there is a bunch of religiously-inspired zealots who have been, or are being, indoctrinated into doing "appalling things in the name of" their religion, is, IMNSHO, a bit of a Western myth. Most terrorists and suicide bombers do what they do for quite different reasons (than necessarily religious ones), on analysis.

What happens if the set has its sign changed arbitrarily (that means for no good reason btw)?