questionposter

Yeah, wave functions change distance, but in order to "work backwards" from when a photon was measured as at a definite location, wouldn't that have to assume the photon was a point or in a defined location the whole way through?

Having an average of kinetic energies is way different than looking at the kinetic energy of an individual atom. I'm not saying a specific kinetic energy is constant, I'm saying the fact that there is kinetic energy is constant, which is just like "the force of gravity is not constant, but the fact that all mass-particles have gravity is constant". You could even say that the gravity of Pluto on planet Earth is 0 because you can't feel it even though by the laws of gravity the gravity of Pluto has to be effecting us in some way. With general relativity, it can't be spinning according to it's own frame of reference, from it's frame of reference everything else would be moving around it. That's why people thought stars revolved around the Earth. I know that a particle does have to be oscillating and moving in order for it to even exist as it does, but that's one of the problems here. This is where QM and GR for some reason don't mix. Anyway, we can't directly measure things as a wave, which only leaves things as a defined point, unless there's some other shape I'm missing. When you refer to the dimensions of the phosphorus, you are referring to when a photon effects phosphorous atoms and phosphorous atoms themselves occupy 3 dimensional space, but not the measurement of a photon bouncing off of that phosphorous atom itself. A measurement doesn't occupy space, it doesn't move distance over time, it's technically not even a real thing, because by the time you would measure the location of an electron, the electron had already gone into a state in which it has no defined location, unless somehow the measurement and the photon and the electron are still entangled...maybe. I suppose time stopping isn't logical even if people weren't understanding that I wasn't saying the time of the universe is stopping, but there is a difference between an object and the measurement of that object.

Ok, but kinetic energy is different than temperature. Temperature is the measure of the average kinetic energy. A single atom doesn't have an average kinetic energy, but it does have just plain kinetic energy. Also, I'm not saying that you can't measure different motions from different points of reference, but every atom has some kind of kinetic energy. Just how light always travels at C but you can measure different frequencies. A property of kinetic energy is just that it causes things to move in some way shape or form just as a property of gravity is that it gets weaker by f=y/x^2 or a property of electro-magnetism is that it has parity or a property of light is that it travels at C. Some things are just beyond relativity. And again, why are there so many people who say 0K is impossible if all you have to do is pick up a clock to prove something has 0K? Actually, because of the uncertainty principal, there HAS to be motion because there will always be uncertainty about a particle's momentum, so a particle can't actually have 0K without I guess either time having been stopping or it just not existing at least as a wave any more. Also a distinction that somehow people still aren't recognizing is between an actual particle and a measurement. A measurement is different than a particle, that's why they have different definitions in the dictionary. The measurement you make is a point which is not traveling distance over time, where the measurement of a point came from is a particle which does travel distance over time. A measurement doesn't travel distance over time and therefore cannot have kinetic energy or even momentum which is why we don't observe a measurement as a wave, since you need energy to generate a wave.

Except I'm not talking about the wave of a particle, I'm talking about that-which-you-measure, which is a point or single exactly defined result. When you measure a particle, even though the particle itself is a wave, the thing your measuring or seeing is a point, your not actually seeing an entire undefined wave, your somehow only seeing something as a point. Why doesn't someone just see what happens when they plug in "energy=0" for a wave mechanics equation? I'm pretty sure no energy means no wave anyway. So if what we are measuring matches what is generating by what happens when you plug in "energy=0", that what we are measuring is what happens when you plug in "energy=0" Maybe time doesn't stop from a point of reference, but nothing actually has 0K, so what else happens at 0K and what else is happening that turns a measurement from a wave to a point? Also, even though something can have a point of reference from itself, is Swan actually suggesting that every object relative to itself has achieved absolute 0? Why are there so many people that say absolute 0 is impossible if its that simple?

Actually I have a whole nother realm of a question: If a photon hits an electron and get's re-emitted and head's towards an observer, is the location of where the photon hit the electron "recorded" within the photon, or is the location that we measure the electron at uncertain within the photon that we measure? In other words, is it predetermined where we will measure an electron at within a photon?

So what he's mathematically doing is working backwards to see how the photon traveled, even though that would assume that during the entire process a photon was a particle and not a wave?

<br class="Apple-interchange-newline"> Then from any point of reference, one will observe a photon traveling at C, and this is because it is the inherent physics of the universe for it to act so, and it is also the inherent physics of the universe for us to measure particles the way we do. No, it's pretty straight-forward. If nothing is universal, then not even physics itself should be constant. But as you said earlier, physics is, so there are some things that are universal. Ok, now there's a conflict, because in the same page I have "0K is impossible" and "0k is completely possible". The objects making up something in a center-of-mass system are made out of atoms, and atoms are constantly moving in some way because they have energy, so if they have no energy, there would be no wave...oh wait, a point, it's not a wave, and we can't infinitely continuously measure that the point moves distance over time, so how is the point not having 0 kinetic or really 0 of any energy? When I say time stops, I don't mean the time of the universe stops, I mean just the time of one point of reference, either us from the point of reference of the particle, or the particle from the point of reference of us, stops. This notion of time stopping is really simple. Everything is always moving in some way from a point of reference, so if something wasn't moving from a point of reference, then it has to mean that from our point of reference that we're measuring it from that time has stopped for it. But, with a particle, since a measurement from our point of reference doesn't last forever, things will continue to go along.

So if nothing is universal, then from some point of reference I should be able to measure light not traveling at the speed of light, or that something is traveling faster than light, or that gravity get's weaker by the cube of the distance rather than the square of the distance, or that energy=mass times the speed of light quintupled... If I pick up a clock, the vibrations generated by my heartbeat move it, even if it's not noticeable. So do the vibrations from motion within the Earth's crust as well as random neutrino and cosmic-ray hits and all the particles HAVE to be moving because they don't have 0K when your not measuring them, which means the particles of the clock are in some way "moving back and forth" due to kinetic energy and definitely due to unnoticeable vibrations that are proven to exist.

I understand that a clock could "appear" at rest, but truthfully it logically can't be at rest because there are practically infinite factors moving it and effecting it. In fact, any clock on Earth that seems at rest is just moving at too slow of a speed or has vibrations occurring too fast or too slow to measure with your eyes that it's not at rest and is actually moving around the galaxy while the Earth is rotating. Again, exact speed isn't universal, but the fact that something is moving is. Just like the speed of light is universal but the frequency you measure it at isn't, or maybe the fact that time flows everywhere but it doesn't flow at the same rate everywhere.

People said nothing could have infinite thermal conductivity and liquid helium proved that wrong. People said noble gases couldn't form compounds and xenon di-fluoride proved that wrong. People said nothing could be a super conductor but more than one substance proved that wrong. Anyway, if an electron is defined as at point, then it's not a wave, and no wave means no energy to oscillate, so what we measure is a point containing 0 energy which is why its a point and not a wave. Because if we have energy, well then there's a bunch of equations describing wave mechanics, but a point isn't a wave so a point doesn't follow wave mechanics. And since from any known point of reference the point cannot be measured traveling distance over time unless a point of reference could get infinitely continuous data measurement, it has to have 0 kinetic energy upon measurement. It's not that it's universal, it's that every point of reference is individually measuring a wave-particle the same way as to cause it to become a point upon that measurement, which suggests that there is perhaps a point of reference that can measure it as to not cause it's time to stop or have 0K. Also, doesn't something have to be moving in some way from any point of reference? I mean it doesn't have to move the same way, but I mean the speed of light is universal even though you can measure different frequencies of light, why can't other things be universal?

How do you get multi-verse theory from the specific annihilation of a probability wave? We aren't "cooling it", it's just suddenly existing as a sudden measurement of something which has no K since it is not moving it all and has no energy to generate wave mechanics during the time it is measured.

Well no energy means no wave, and when we measure something we are making it have no wave, which technically means that for the time we are measuring it we are making it have no energy. I guess it might be some kind of extra-dimensional frame-of-reference where to us how we measure it is as if it has 0K for the time we observe it even though the particle itself continues to act like a wave.

But if it was unperturbed then it would still just act like a normal wave function. Basically, he's just seeing where things turn out as points and based on that he's building a wave?

If nothing is at rest, how do you explain the measurement of a point? Plus I thought quantum mechanics and general relativity were different anyway.

So in other words, because he's not actually collapsing the ave function of a photon, he's merely seeing where it's likely to go after a specific perturbation?

So is the answer that the standard model doesn't actually know?

Well, what I was saying wasn't really "neo" anything, it's just the relativity of morals. Anyway, what your saying now is different that what you had said originally. At first you said consciousness was a complete fraud, an illusion, and that it was a bunch of deterministic mechanisms, now your just repeating how normal evolution already works to make it seem as though I disagree with Darwin's theories, I don't get what's going on exactly. I can agree DNA code for a complex mechanism which releases hormones in response to something and can cause compulsions or "suggestions", and that's it, consciousness itself doesn't belong in evolution at this point in our understanding of life, let alone science at all. I don't even think that mechanism can code for "better" or "worse" thoughts because that doesn't really make sense. Perhaps learning ability and memory, but it doesn't make sense that someone's thoughts are "better" or "superior" to someone else's, it's just like saying an opinion is right or wrong, and there's not really a way to determine if a acting or not acting upon a thought will ultimately lead to something good or bad. Maybe someone wants to commit suicide but then other people recognize that and try to help that person, and so that person get's a job from someone, or wins the lottery or w/e, or he/she dies. Maybe that person doesn't want to commit suicide so he/she goes about his/her normal life and just lives a decent life, or maybe that person doesn't commit suicide and ends up having a heart attack later.

I think matter is both a particle AND a wave, that's why I don't think he can actually be observing just one path of one point, it must just be how he's explaining it.

Well, I don't know what to tell you guys. The electron you measure isn't a wave, it's a point, and since we are not getting infinitely continuous measurements of the point, we can not observe that the point is moving any distance over time or that it has any momentum or kinetic energy, so I guess if time stops, what is it relative to? Well, I wouldn't agree with that, it's not nonsense because they still have degrees in science and no one has at least knowingly reached absolute 0, so what happens at 0K is anyone's game. Well then what do you call "the fabric of space-time"? Einstein called space and time a single entity, so... Well we can't measure space and time continuously even if things like time do actually flow continuously. Well, I don't know what to tell you guys. The electron or proton or whatever piece of matter you measure isn't a wave, it's a point, and since we are not getting infinitely continuous measurements of the point, we can not observe that the point is moving any distance over time or that the point has any momentum or kinetic energy, so I guess if time stops, what is it relative to? Or I guess, can anyone think of a better explanation for what happens when we observe something as a point and.or what happens at 0K?

I don't even remember what theory, I think it just might have been something I heard from a high school teacher for an either physics or chemistry class, but I guess there isn't much that actually happens at absolute 0. But basically, the logic is that since everything is always moving in some way, if something didn't move at all in any way, it would have to mean time has stopped. Your eyes still pick up the information to suggest its moving, you just don't notice it because it's so small. In fact, your eyes are even picking up information right now to suggest that atoms have wave-like properties, but the properties are happening over such a small distance that we don't notice. Not only that, but the rock is rotating as the earth is rotating and is also rotating around the sun, galaxy, local cluster and Virgo super-cluster. Space at least in general relativity IS time, so wherever we go in space, there is time, and in the new standard model, space may be consisting of incredibly small strands of energy. There's also those virtual particle pairs that keep appearing and dis-appearing. Does the measurement of a point of a particle go along continuously through time? I don't think so...that would imply we know what path it takes.

Right, but he's saying he knows the path of a specific photon when it's in a wave form or still traveling, but I don't think it' could be the entire photon, I think it's just one possible path of the measurement of a photon based on my understanding.

Higg's bosons crown around an object more which in tern increases the distortion in the fabric of space? Like maybe 1 higgs boson = .001 degrees of space curvature? I can't imagine some hasn't though of that already, so I don't get why exactly gravity can't be explained in the standard model.

Higg's bosons crown around an object more which in tern increases the distortion in the fabric of space? I can't imagine some hasn't though of that already, so I don't get why exactly gravity can't be explained.

Everything else. Pick an object in the universe...it has some kinetic energy. If it did have 0K, it would be at absolute 0. But I guess if you don't like the notion of time stopping, perhaps the act of measuring technically makes something have absolute 0 for the measurement because we can't continuously measure that the measurement is moving (unless we have infinitely continuous photon telling us information which we don't), we can only measure that a measurement is a single point at a single time, which means no distance over time and no monentum to generate a wave governed by wave mechanics, which technically means means no kinetic energy and that the measurement has absolute 0.

Something about this doesn't make sense to me, because by the mere inherent nature of a wave even in the macroscopic world, it can't exist in a single finite location, so I think he is somehow viewing the "possible paths" of a measurement of an undefined photon, which I don't see much a difference with now, because if you shoot a photon, you still have places it's most likely to show up and not show up, or he is in somehow only "temporarily" collapsing a wave-function, perhaps "weak-measurement"="weak collapse", but this is semi-new to me. Maybe just the wave he's describing it doesn't make sense, or perhaps by running a photon through a piece of calcite he is actually collapsing it's wave function. It would help if some expert could explain it better.