The universe is motion or transfer of energy.

[Royston]

Basically, while the wave function describes the event, it is the event that must follow conservation laws, not the description of the event (sort of).

 

I could very well be wrong, but I am of the impression that it is the event which follows conservation laws, that the description of the event must take them into account, but that the description wouldn't itself violate conservation.

 

Am I too far off base?

 

Ah right, I see what you mean. Well, the event happens in the Universe (yes I realize that's stating the obvious, but you'll see why I brought this up) and the Universe, as it is, follows the conservation laws...energy, momentum, charge et.c So really it's a given, the collapse of the wave function deals with measurement, we're not interested in what's conserved, just the outcome of the experiment...with my example the position of the electron.

 

It's like saying, when I use my ruler, am I breaking conservation laws...well, no...of course not. Conservation laws don't come into it. You could argue I'm using energy to use my ruler, and energy is conserved, but that's a separate argument entirely, does that make sense ? I could bolt on energy conservation to my use of the ruler, but there's no need, because that's not what I'm interested in.

 

Put it this way, (frantically trying to think of an example) suppose I'm trying to calculate time dilation with a relativity problem, so with this problem I'm only concerned with moving clocks run slow i.e t' is always less than t, and c is constant in all inertial frames, so I use the following equation...

 

[math]t' = t\sqrt{1 - \frac{V^2}{c^2}}[/math]

 

There's no mention of conservation laws in that equation, because that's not what I'm interested in.

 

That's an incredibly long winded way of saying, conservation laws hold, but calculating something that doesn't include them, clearly won't break them

 

Foodchain, sorry if I came across as abrupt in my last post, that wasn't my intention...I've had a sh*tty last few weeks, putting it mildly.

[Klaynos]

I am no physicist so can you tell me, what laws of physics does this website transgress? The theories appear to answer many of the puzzles standard accepted physics does not.

 

It doesn't seem to contain any maths, make any mathematical predictions, it's not science.

[iNow]

It's like saying, when I use my ruler, am I breaking conservation laws...well, no...of course not. Conservation laws don't come into it.

This is almost verbatim the thoughts I had when I read the question. It's too bad I didn't say it as well as you just did. Cheers.

[foodchain]

I'm intrigued to know, why on Earth you think it would.

 

I think its why absolute zero cannot be reached.

 

I guess is just a word use problem, but I don't see how a wave function could collapse, would that not mean issues like quantum tunneling cease to exist?

 

As I understand it, the collapse of the wave function though is to be the end of some specific experiment though right? But quantum behavior pertaining to that experiment did not cease to end on the end of such an experiment, that electron is still stuck doing some kind of a wave function constantly right?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

A wavefunction collapse merely means we go from the particle's properties being very uncertain to being as certain as they can be under the circumstances. It wouldn't stop quantum tunneling, as long as you're not observing the particle in question (and thus collapsing its wavefunction) while it's tunneling.

[bombus]

It doesn't seem to contain any maths, make any mathematical predictions, it's not science.

 

Well, 'a brief history of time' is pretty short on maths! It's the concepts that matter - the maths just backs it up - or not as the case may be.

[insane_alien]

a breif history of time is not a scientific paper. it is a book meant to relay the basic concepts of a scientific theory to the public. the maths needed to prove it would make it incomprehensible to most of the population.

 

the website in question requires maths as it is trying to prove a 'theory'

[bombus]

a breif history of time is not a scientific paper. it is a book meant to relay the basic concepts of a scientific theory to the public. the maths needed to prove it would make it incomprehensible to most of the population.

 

the website in question requires maths as it is trying to prove a 'theory'

 

Yes but this theory does not introduce anything new as such, it just offers a different way of thinking about already existing theories.

 

anyway, he does say this:

 

"The above concepts are precisely mathematically correct. For

more information contact the author."

[insane_alien]

a breif history of time is not a theory. thats why it doesn't introduce anything new.

 

its a bit like saying 'chemistry for dummies' is a crap theory because it doesn't introduce anything new.

 

1/ its not a theory.

2/ its not trying to introduce anything new.

[mooeypoo]

Yes but this theory does not introduce anything new as such, it just offers a different way of thinking about already existing theories.

 

anyway, he does say this:

 

"The above concepts are precisely mathematically correct. For

more information contact the author."

 

When we say "introduce something new" we don't necessarily mean just new information, it can also be new approaches to current theories. That is PART of introducing something new.

 

Einstein, for example, didn't really introduce any "new information", per say, in his General Relativity theory, but rather an entirely new way of approaching the current (his current) theories.

 

He then continued to prove his hypothesis, support it in facts and observations and math, and discover NEW things.

 

'Presenting new approaches', depending wht type of new approaches are presented, are also considered an introduction of 'something new'.

[foodchain]

I have tried to think of something novel mathematically, even while I dont know much about math:eek: The only thing I can think of that I find interesting is fractals. Not in just fractals but that thing of self similarity. I think it would be cool if somehow you could make a program that would make a fractal image on how energy conservation plays out, say for a chemical reaction. Could you model self similarity as in the more self similar it is is statistically the most probable “path” for energy to take?

 

Such as say you had some program that gave you some probable outcomes based from QM, could you transmute those units into something that could read out like a fractal image, where the higher levels of probability correlate to finer self similarity in a fractal? So that similarity in fractals I guess serve to describe a probability gradient for an outcome?

 

*If this idea is someone eases, sorry, I did not know.

[hybrid]

but that the distances between things is getting bigger without them having to move (inertia = 0 and acceleration = 0)..

 

since objects are also points in space, does this mean that objects expands also with space? if so, then there should be no noticeable/measurable expansion, since the ruler is supposed to go longer too in proportion as it measures the expansion of space.

 

if space expands between two non-moving particles, does it mean that the expansion of space is independent from the natural movement of particles in spacetime? since particles are in constant motion relative to space and time.

[Royston]

since objects are also points in space, does this mean that objects expands also with space?

 

Expansion is only observed on massive distances, roughly 100Mpc and up. On shorter scales gravity takes hold, which keeps bodies in orbit et.c and local galaxies pulling towards each other e.g Andromeda and the Milky Way.

 

With objects themselves we have much stronger forces at play e.g the electrostatic force. So the answer's no.

Edited November 19, 2008 by Snail

[throng]

This is a common misconception. A better way of thinking of the expansion of the universe is not to think of it like a balloon blowing up, but that the distances between things is getting bigger without them having to move (inertia = 0 and acceleration = 0).

 

The balloon type analogy is often used because it is easier for people to think of Expansion like that (even though it is incorrect).

 

Because it is just the distance between things that is getting bigger, and not that the Universe is blowing up like a balloon, it doesn't need anything to "expand into".

 

 

I don't quite understand this, if the distance between galaxys is increasing, would that not increase 3D volume?

 

Take four points (tetrahedron), the distance between them increases as they move awat from eachother. So does the volume.