Expansion of Space

[swansont]

12 minutes ago, interested said:

Previously you stated under the Quantum entanglement ? thread I started information was transmitted instantly Qoute "There is no evidence of information being transferred. Whatever effect is happening, it is instantaneous (as far as we can tell), but there is no way to exploit this to communicate with anyone. Think of this example: you flip a coin. As soon as you see what one side it (heads) you instantly know what the other side is (tails). Does that require the transfer of information? Now imagine the coin is 1 light-second wide.  

Entanglement lasts until some interaction removes it, called decoherence. Anything that measures the state that's entangled removes it. "

Can you explain the discrepancy in your answer ref the speed information is transmitted or are you just making it up as you go along.

Do you see the disconnect between "information is transferred instantaneously" and "no information is transferred"?

[interested]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

Do you see the disconnect between "information is transferred instantaneously" and "no information is transferred"?

No. Perhaps this should be followed up under the quantum entanglement thread I started, so as not to detract from this thread.

[AbnormallyHonest]

12 hours ago, swansont said:

Quantum physics makes predictions and experiment matches up with the theory, so it's hardly fair to call it conjecture, much less pure conjecture.

What experiment shows that space volume or expansion is quantized?

Well, I would predict that quantum fluctuation would cause the fractal expansion of space... and does space expand? Not only that, but if you believe that our perception of space is in fact expanding as a three dimensional fractal, and you believe in Einstein's General Relativity, then you would have to logically have to believe in quantization of space. Think of a bed sheet, if spacetime is really fluid, try to spread a bed sheet evenly from the center of a bed. You run into some issues like bunching or overlapping that make it difficult to apply this type of model to fractal expansion. Now if you divide space up between the fluctuation, statistically, the fluctuation would cause space to evolve in one direction. That space that is growing in our perception of it, would also have that quantum fluctuation built into it. Therefore, not all space needs to expand at the same rate, but fractal expansion is still possible.

[AbnormallyHonest]

12 hours ago, Lord Antares said:

I can get behind this. I would have phrased it like this as well.

Well, no. Math demonstrates that it's true. If we have a mathematical model of how objects will freefall under different circumstances and it's shown to be correct every single time, it proves that it's true, or at least applicable, not just ''logical''.

What is the point in this? Data is a concept by definition, however a much more useful and straightforward one than what you were saying here. If you're suggesting that data which can be universally agreed upon is as valid as your speculative ideas, then you are dead wrong.

Math demonstrates that the "Data" can be explained in a logical way. I could prove that free fall would adhere to a different set of principles, or differing constants, and it would be just as logical, but it wouldn't match the "Data".

The data is a concept, because we cannot experience Ultraviolet light, but we can design instruments to measure it, in a way that we understand it's relationship to the light we can see. We can even translate the data and display it within the range of color we see. But it's existence is purely a concept to us because we cannot "see" it.

[AbnormallyHonest]

12 hours ago, Lord Antares said:

What? What are you on about now? Expansion of space is well established by data and observations. It has been addressed for years. Seeing how you said nothing concrete with no evidence, there is nothing to address.

Yes, but I've have never heard anything that addresses the mechanism to that expansion and connects it to quantum mechanics.

[AbnormallyHonest]

11 hours ago, interested said:

Can I disagree? Math demonstrates the effect, it does not demonstrate a truism. Given a certain set of circumstances a mathematical theory can predict an outcome. If the theory is reasonably accurate, it gives a correct or close approximation to the outcome. The theory need not take into account the actual cause. God created everything is a theory, it is likely not based on the truth, but many argue it to be the case.

All math demonstrates is a theory that can explain a certain outcome, it does not definitely take into account all the effects. Probability is used where all the variables cant be taken into account or are not fully understood. Quantum mechanics is assumed to give accurate predictions, but does not describe the underlying cause.

Quantum Mechanics assumes an absolute time, it does not allow for time dilation in relativity. Which concept of time is correct. Work on unifying quantum theory and relativity is underway, the theories can't be assumed to be complete until they are either unified or one is shown to be an approximation and replace the other.

Quantum Entanglement transmits information instantly between points A and B, giving the appearance of exceeding light speed. The route taken for the information may not be via normal space, ie the space may not exist between points A and B in another dimension. Likewise in the Quantum world particles or information moves from A to B instantly, does this mean the space the particles or information existed in moved or the distance between where they started and finished suddenly disappeared. "Very generally" current understanding puts forward models based on mathematical probability. The mathematical probability explains the outcome not the effect.

Space is grainy at the quantum level, and may not operate exactly according to current mathematical models, included in the standard model today. 

I disagree with your statement ref mathematical truth, am I correct?

I agree with this as well. I also believe that delayed choice would demonstrate that spatial continuity takes precedence over chronological continuity, if you could prove that the information is actually transferred retroactively. Time dilation would cause the light's perspective to fall out of the passage of time. The entire existence of light is only one moment, and only one place in space. It is energy inseparable from space. The information is not "retroactive" it is on simultaneous throughout the entire displacement. The same I believe is true for quantum entanglement. The two particles are just simultaneous, unified so to speak. The distance that they separate does not happen at a rate that exceeds our interpretation of light speed, and if it were it would most probably break the entanglement. The entanglement never displaces faster than light, but as they are entangled, their existence is simultaneous... this does not violate Relativity.

[AbnormallyHonest]

10 hours ago, swansont said:

No, it's not. It's an assertion.

No, its actually conjecture, and it is based on the data that was available to the people of the time that the idea of God was recorded. Science believes mathematics is God, wouldn't you say? So what if one day, we find that our interpretation of mathematics is as limiting in our understanding as our vision is into understanding the electromagnetic spectrum. It would seem logical that within the boundaries of our reality, at the extremes, things become very chaotic and irrational, because we try to explain them in terms that exist within that boundary. It's like trying to explain that you believe light exists outside of what we see, but without the underlying mechanism of waveform and frequency. Mathematics just may be our interpretation of the "color" of the Universe.

[swansont]

25 minutes ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

Well, I would predict that quantum fluctuation would cause the fractal expansion of space... and does space expand? Not only that, but if you believe that our perception of space is in fact expanding as a three dimensional fractal, and you believe in Einstein's General Relativity, then you would have to logically have to believe in quantization of space. Think of a bed sheet, if spacetime is really fluid, try to spread a bed sheet evenly from the center of a bed. You run into some issues like bunching or overlapping that make it difficult to apply this type of model to fractal expansion. Now if you divide space up between the fluctuation, statistically, the fluctuation would cause space to evolve in one direction. That space that is growing in our perception of it, would also have that quantum fluctuation built into it. Therefore, not all space needs to expand at the same rate, but fractal expansion is still possible.

GR is a classical theory, so there is no logical connection with quantization.

spacetime isn't a fluid.

how would you test to see if expansion is fractal?

[beecee]

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence then does knowledge:

[AbnormallyHonest]

11 hours ago, swansont said:

Relativistic QM exists.

Did it exist before or after humans came up with a concept of how to describe it?

[AbnormallyHonest]

11 hours ago, swansont said:

No, it doesn't.

I agree.

[Lord Antares]

17 minutes ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

Math demonstrates that the "Data" can be explained in a logical way. 

No, it really doesn't. Math demonstrates that a theory is correct or at least applicable if you don't like using ''correct''. Newton's inverse square law, for example, tells you exactly how much weight an object will have at a certain distance from another object (given that the masses are known). There is no logical explanation which accompanies it. It is literally correct in every experiment shown so far and is a method of calculation. It has nothing to do with concepts.

21 minutes ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

I could prove that free fall would adhere to a different set of principles, or differing constants, and it would be just as logical, but it wouldn't match the "Data".

Then it would be wrong, and hence, illogical. So it would be useless and unlike a theory supported by math.

21 minutes ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

Yes, but I've have never heard anything that addresses the mechanism to that expansion and connects it to quantum mechanics.

Quantum mechanics is largely incomplete. That doesn't mean that anything you say is a substitution.

3 minutes ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

Science believes mathematics is God, wouldn't you say? 

That is a stupid way of saying that math is useful. It is certainly supported by much more evidence and use than god.

[AbnormallyHonest]

10 hours ago, Lord Antares said:

I don't think you're necessarily wrong in your main point, it's just that out posts are at cross purposes. You're talking along the lines of philosophy. Does truth exist? Are things which are shown to be functional true or a re they approximations? Is math the truth or a model etc etc.

This is not what I am talking about. I am saying that math is essential for science and only with math are you able to ''prove'' your theories and experiments. Math is how we can replicate and standardize how we handle the theory and how we apply it. Whether it is ''the truth'' or not is irrelevant to me as long as it serves its exact intended purpose.

I bring this up only because I have a feeling he's saying that his speculative models are as plausible as the ones supported by math. If you read through what he says, he states that (I paraphrase) quantum mechanics is largely unsupported by evidence and it's just an abstract model rather than something functional. He then states that math is not a proof of anything, it's just a concept which is secondary to a theory (that's wrong). Then he exclaims how no one has refuted his philosophical thoughts. That leads me to conclude that he thinks that his ramblings are as legitimate as some other theories which are actually supported by math. This could not be farther from the truth. Math is THE ultimate way to a theory's success.

So I suppose that 5th degree polynomials do not exist, unless you've figured out quintic function. Also, Einstein once said that if you can't explain it to a 12 year old, the problem isn't with the 12 year old. I would say, that if this makes sense to a 12 year old, but not to bunch of mathematical geniuses, the problem is not with the 12 year old. What's the point of demonstrating it logically with math if the logic of the concept is rejected. It would seem like trying to find the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.

Edited August 11, 2017 by AbnormallyHonest

[AbnormallyHonest]

7 hours ago, interested said:

Previously you stated under the Quantum entanglement ? thread I started information was transmitted instantly Qoute "There is no evidence of information being transferred. Whatever effect is happening, it is instantaneous (as far as we can tell), but there is no way to exploit this to communicate with anyone. Think of this example: you flip a coin. As soon as you see what one side it (heads) you instantly know what the other side is (tails). Does that require the transfer of information? Now imagine the coin is 1 light-second wide.  

Entanglement lasts until some interaction removes it, called decoherence. Anything that measures the state that's entangled removes it. "

Can you explain the discrepancy in your answer ref the speed information is transmitted or are you just making it up as you go along.

Because changing the state of existence would be the transfer of information. We can only measure its properties by "shaking" them gently as not to disturb their entanglement, but then we have use the old fashioned light speed to cross check these measurements to demonstrate that the entanglement still persists.

[AbnormallyHonest]

7 hours ago, interested said:

OK simplifying a model is only as good as the information that goes into it. Had Einstein observed dark matter he would have included it in his model. Dark matter has been inferred to exist, but not actually detected. This suggests the model is so good it predicts something that we cant detect, that exists or that the model is wrong in that it predicts something that does not exist.  Quantum mechanics gives extremely reliable results, and is undeniably very accurate, it is however based on probability. Einstein himself I think stated "god does not play dice with the universe", again he may well have been mathematically wrong.

Quantum mechanics gives extremely reliable results because the entire field is based on the results. God doesn't play dice with the universe, we do.

[Lord Antares]

8 minutes ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

So I suppose that 5th degree polynomials do not exist, unless you've figured out quintic function. Also, Einstein once said that if you can't explain it to a 12 year old, the problem isn't with the 12 year old. I would say, that if this makes sense to a 12 year old, but not to bunch of mathematical geniuses, the problem is not with the 12 year old. What's the point of demonstrating it logically with math if the logic of the concept is rejected. It would seem like trying to find the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.

What are you on about? Seriously. As I said, the point of math is not to demonstrate anything ''logically''. It is to give correct, quantifiable results, as far as proving and standardizing theories goes. You're writing too many words with too little meaning. 

[AbnormallyHonest]

16 minutes ago, swansont said:

GR is a classical theory, so there is no logical connection with quantization.

spacetime isn't a fluid.

how would you test to see if expansion is fractal?

It does, because it predicts "Red Shift" and the bending of light. These have to do with the warping of spacetime. Einstein's model of the universe creates a fluid dynamic existence of spacetime that exists differently at different locations. Time does not flow the same for everyone. The Universe may be much younger to differing perspective or much older even. If we have two perspectives in space, that do not exist within the same gravitational system, and both those locations prove to be the center of that perspective, that's pretty clear validation. Space expands from every point, it can't do that without division.

[AbnormallyHonest]

25 minutes ago, Lord Antares said:

No, it really doesn't. Math demonstrates that a theory is correct or at least applicable if you don't like using ''correct''. Newton's inverse square law, for example, tells you exactly how much weight an object will have at a certain distance from another object (given that the masses are known). There is no logical explanation which accompanies it. It is literally correct in every experiment shown so far and is a method of calculation. It has nothing to do with concepts.

Newton's laws are a logical way to describe motion in space within the boundaries of our reality. Once we push the limits of that reality, things become more and more illogical, because we are pushing our perception outside the limits of reality, where our ideas of math and science or mathematics may not even apply in the same way. From beyond those limits, our reality would probably seem just as illogical and irrational if the perception were pushed the other way.

Weight is really just concept based on a constant which really only exists at a mean distance from the gravitational center. It doesn't really have any basis in science that is useful unless you're trying to draw a comparison to how something might "feel" from our experience of it.

The law of squares isn't just about gravity, it's actually quite logical. The surface of a sphere is the square of the change in radius. The equation is composed of all constants, the only variable is the radius, so however much you increase the radius is directly related to the area of its surface (inversely only depends on what you're trying to describe, if it's energy or gravity, it would diffuse that concentration, but if it's area, it would be larger).

Edited August 11, 2017 by AbnormallyHonest

[Strange]

23 hours ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

Could you please tell me how the conclusions of quantum physics are proven... or could it just be a model based on conjecture of the statistical analysis of data from destroying stuff we can't discretely measure?

They are not "proven". Nothing in science is proven.

But the theory is consistent with experiment. To a very high degree of accuracy.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

Yes, but I've have never heard anything that addresses the mechanism to that expansion and connects it to quantum mechanics.

The mechanism is the same one that causes gravity; as described by the Einstein Field Equations.

There is no connection to quantum theory (yet).

[Strange]

38 minutes ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

Space expands from every point, it can't do that without division.

What does that mean? Division of what?

Can two cars not move apart without "division"? 

The "expansion of space" just means that the distance between things increases over time. You seem to be reading more into it than that. 

[beecee]

1 hour ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

Newton's laws are a logical way to describe motion in space within the boundaries of our reality. Once we push the limits of that reality, things become more and more illogical, because we are pushing our perception outside the limits of reality, where our ideas of math and science or mathematics may not even apply in the same way. From beyond those limits, our reality would probably seem just as illogical and irrational if the perception were pushed the other way.

Weight is really just concept based on a constant which really only exists at a mean distance from the gravitational center. It doesn't really have any basis in science that is useful unless you're trying to draw a comparison to how something might "feel" from our experience of it.

The law of squares isn't just about gravity, it's actually quite logical. The surface of a sphere is the square of the change in radius. The equation is composed of all constants, the only variable is the radius, so however much you increase the radius is directly related to the area of its surface (inversely only depends on what you're trying to describe, if it's energy or gravity, it would diffuse that concentration, but if it's area, it would be larger).

I made the comment previously....."Ignorance more frequently begets confidence then does knowledge" At times your posts [to me at least] seem to be a conglomeration of ramblings, without too much thought and an ignorance in that which you appear to be criticising. Let me count the ways....You often refer to space, when you should be referring to spacetime...You seem unaware of what a scientific theory actually is....you see the need to want to  "prove" and what science does not prove, is impetus for  your philosophical ramblings and baseless assumptions...Your ignorance seems to encompass the expansion of spacetime, noting that the expansion is observed over large scales, while at smaller scales such as our local group of galaxies, and other similar local groups, that expansion is overcome by the effects of gravity...you confuse and mix the products of GR with quantum theory...and finally you dismiss the importance of maths, the language of physics and the foundation stone of all validated scientific theories.

My suggestion from one lay person to another, is to research deeply that which you are criticising, and be aware that your philosophical musings and other baseless hypothesising are just that.....no more, no less.

Edited August 12, 2017 by beecee

[AbnormallyHonest]

1 hour ago, Lord Antares said:

What are you on about? Seriously. As I said, the point of math is not to demonstrate anything ''logically''. It is to give correct, quantifiable results, as far as proving and standardizing theories goes. You're writing too many words with too little meaning. 

Do you know what a porabola is? Do you know what the law of squares is? Do you know what maxima and minima are? Do you know what inverse relationships are?

The expansion of space is a parabola, it has a minimum value, and once we reach that minimum, we must inverse the parabola to continue, only negative squares move in the same direction. So statistically speaking, if the graph represented the volume of space (every dimension being squared) statistically speaking, how would space evolve?

The quantum fluctuation are the negative values, but space still moves the same way.

Edited August 12, 2017 by AbnormallyHonest

[AbnormallyHonest]

18 minutes ago, beecee said:

I made the comment previously....."Ignorance more frequently begets confidence then does knowledge" At times your posts [to me at least] seem to be a conglomeration of ramblings, without too much thought and an ignorance in that which you appear to be criticising. Let me count the ways....You often refer to space, when you should be referring to spacetime...You seem unaware of what a scientific theory actually is....you see the need to want to  "prove" and what science does not prove, is impetus for  your philosophical ramblings and baseless assumptions...Your ignorance seems to encompass the expansion of spacetime, noting that the expansion is observed over large scales, while at smaller scales such as our local group of galaxies, and other similar local groups, that expansion is overcome by the effects of gravity...you confuse and mix the products of GR with quantum theory...and finally you dismiss the importance of maths, the language of physics and the foundation stone of all validated scientific theories.

My suggestion from one lay person to another, is to research deeply that which you are criticising, and be aware that your philosophical musings and other baseless hypothesising are just that.....no more, no less.

2...2...4 Could you prove to me using mathematics what that progression, beyond a reasonable doubt, demonstrates?

[beecee]

43 minutes ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

2...2...4 Could you prove to me using mathematics what that progression, beyond a reasonable doubt, demonstrates?

Again, you show your ignorance of science and scientific theories. Quickly glancing through this thread, all your questions and ramblings have been answered and shown to be invalid at best and speculative nonsense at worst. Again, as you have been informed, nothing is really "proven"  in science. A scientific theory best describes a set of observations and makes successful predictions as per GR. As those theories continue to make successful  predictions and as they continue to describe accurately our observations, they grow in certainty over time. Theories such as the BB, SR, GR, Evolution are very near certain. Theories are never quite 100% proven...But it only takes one observation or experiment that contradicts the theory, to show it is wrong.

Edited August 12, 2017 by beecee