The Big Bang and parallel universes

[dstebbins]

It is now considered by physicists that other universes besides our own could exist in a grand multiverse. One thing led to another, and scientists have hypothesized that universes can be created by collisions of the membranes of other universes, causing explosions, which, ultimately, means that we can, one day, create custom universes in a lab, and that custom universe will, in pectoseconds, seperate itself from our universe. It will grow to astronomical sizes, but never take up any space or time in our universe.

 

However, the Big Bang is "big" relevant to what? Of course it's relevent to us, but that rhetorical question was designed to lead to this statement: Anything can be considered "big," as long as the reference point is small enough. If you step on a roach, I'm pretty sure tha roach doesn't consider itself small; it considers you big. This is the same with humans and African elephants. We consider them big, because bigger than us, but they probably consider us very very small.

 

As long as the reference point is small enough, a simple clap on the hands could be considered a "big bang." A mere party-popper can sound like a gunshot from God, if your small enough to think so.

 

Could it be possible that we are creating universes all the time? Clap, and you've caused a Big Bang, and a new universe is created and seperates itself from our universe faster than the eye can see. Stomp your foot, and you've done it again?

 

Hey, weirder stuff has happened in physics before (like parallel universes in the first place), so let's keep an open mind. What do you think?

[GF]

Multi-universes only exist in the thought realm (5th dimension, ether, quantum reality etc. etc.).

 

Multi-universes are hypothetical/virtual but not tangible or incarnate. We know light acts differently dependant upon a gravity fields strength so , in a way, we are all moving at different speeds of light/time... my point is that "time-travel" happens at all times and is a relative thing.

 

I don't believe in time-travel in the classic sense where you can go to a different time/universe and change things around. This can only happen in cyberspace or virtual reality that involves computer programming (like a holodeck from Star Trek for ex.)

 

So, multi-verses or other dimensions/universes can only be seen on paper or mathematically but realistically we cannot leave our dimension except through death (something Newtons first law of Energy Conservation disputes ... that matter can't be created or destroyed...).

 

 

If you know what the Butterfly Effect is then you know how just the most miniscule of action can create an enormous reaction somewhere in reality BUT this whole idea of "creation" is too inconceivable. Only god can create in the sense you are wondering. "Creation" of a painting or creation of an aquarium or creation of a house is one thing .. but creation of another universe/dimension is another. The multi-verse hypothesis is good for explaining things like height, width, length, and time etc. but its only a visual concept that we create in our minds. We use multi-verses to grasp things like the word "eternity" or "infinite" but truly understanding these things, like understanding god, is ofcourse impossible.

[iNow]

Only god can create in the sense you are wondering.

Evidence?

[JillSwift]

What do you think?

I think you're taking the common name for the theory far too literally.

 

The term "big bang" is in fact a disparaging name given to the "initial universal expansion theory" by Fred Hoyle. Hoyle thought the universe existed in a steady state, and had no "beginning" or "end".

[toastywombel]

So, multi-verses or other dimensions/universes can only be seen on paper or mathematically but realistically we cannot leave our dimension except through death (something Newtons first law of Energy Conservation disputes ... that matter can't be created or destroyed...).

 

Actually, one of the experiments proposed could prove the existence of other dimensions. According to most string theories, gravity is suggested to be so weak compared to the other three fundamental forces because it is spread out among the other dimensions.

 

Many proponents of string theories (such as M. Kaku) have suggested that by using Particle Colliders we could produce a graviton and observe it while it dissipates into another dimension. This would provide a degree of observable and tangible evidence in favor of the string-theories.

 

And I am not aware of Newton's First Law of Energy lol. Maybe you are referring to the law of conservation of energy, which was put together by Albert Einstein, but he build upon the work of many other physicists such as Newton. But it was Einstein who first stated it.

 

But remember these don't do well in predicting the aspects of atomic and subatomic particles.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Furthermore this begs another question. If Newton's Laws do not apply to atomic/ subatomic particles are they still Laws, or theories? It would be nice if someone could answer or explain this to me TY .

Edited October 21, 2009 by toastywombel
Consecutive posts merged.

[Klaynos]

Other dimensions in physics is not the same as other universes.

[toastywombel]

Off topic, but hey Klanos, I noticed when this forum was moved that it was very hard trying to find it again. I usually just do the advanced search and type my user name in the "search by username" but the post did not come up?

 

Good to point out though that universes are not the same as dimensions. Dimensions exist within a Universe.

[GF]

I actually call it the "big burp" because zero/zeropoint/supersymmetry/true vacuum NEVER OCCURS. Again they are only possible in our minds or on paper theoretically. YES, I already said that before in another thread.

 

I do wonder why this got shoved to Pseudoscience since the topic is legitimate although speculative and theoretical. Maybe because it's implying "time travel" and I do consider that "fantasy".

 

 

As far as dimensions and universes go, well most people discuss them as one and the same but sure we should get technical when discussing these topics since they are so complex.

 

 

I basically said only god can create a "universe" and I strongly believe time travel in the classic sense where "fate is changed" is impossible. Theoretically, there are infinite dimensions and we can comprehend 4 or 5 of them but anything beyond that is impractical since our existance is the sum of all dimensions living in a single eternal universe.

 

Toasty, you asked why Newtonian laws only work macro-cosmically and not micro-cosmically, well they do but theres always exceptions that provoke further theorys and creation of whole new branches of mathematics. Just like how Celsius and Fahrenheit are both accurate measurements of temperature but different systems.Both classical and quantum physics work well on short term observation but since we are perfectionists we are always seeking a "better technique". Do you understand that we have 2 ways of charting astronomical patterns - Geocentricism(universe around the Earth) and Heliocentricism (universe around the Sun) - yet both systems are mathematically EQUAL!

 

Just like Marshal Mclewens famous "medium is the message" ... in math "the equation is the message". Math is paradoxial and contradicting. That's exactly what Nash's Embedding Theorem proved (linear equations are modular) and won him a Nobel and a movie on his life to boot!

 

 

String Theory (quantum physics) can explain how time travel could work theoretically but remember the energy needed to create a "dimension door" would require the same amount of power needed to calculate pi to its final value ... in other words, IT CAN'T BE DONE.

 

Oh, and technically I consider the Higgs bosons, Tachyons, and the Graviton to all be one and the same. In fact, you shouldn't be surprised the very essence and qualities of the Higgs "god particle" that we are seeking are the very same qualities people have discussed for ages with different names such as chi, orgone, quintessence, ether, etc. etc. Same particles, same unanswerable questions. My only problem has ever been with the fantastic claims these people make about what can and cannot be done ... and thankfully philosophy always shows us the way!

Edited October 23, 2009 by GF

[mooeypoo]

GF, the pseudoscience/speculation forum holds BOTH speculations and pseudoscience, as both are non mainstream science. It's not a badge of dishonor, it's just the rightful place to debate this type of speculation.

[GF]

hehehe ok whatever works for you. I'm more amazed I'm not banned yet- do you know what the internet is like!

 

[toastywombel]

Toasty, you asked why Newtonian laws only work macro-cosmically and not micro-cosmically, well they do but theres always exceptions that provoke further theorys and creation of whole new branches of mathematics. Just like how Celsius and Fahrenheit are both accurate measurements of temperature but different systems.Both classical and quantum physics work well on short term observation but since we are perfectionists we are always seeking a "better technique". Do you understand that we have 2 ways of charting astronomical patterns - Geocentricism(universe around the Earth) and Heliocentricism (universe around the Sun) - yet both systems are mathematically EQUAL!

 

Just like Marshal Mclewens famous "medium is the message" ... in math "the equation is the message". Math is paradoxial and contradicting. That's exactly what Nash's Embedding Theorem proved (linear equations are modular) and won him a Nobel and a movie on his life to boot!

 

String Theory (quantum physics) can explain how time travel could work theoretically but remember the energy needed to create a "dimension door" would require the same amount of power needed to calculate pi to its final value ... in other words, IT CAN'T BE DONE.

 

Oh, and technically I consider the Higgs bosons, Tachyons, and the Graviton to all be one and the same. In fact, you shouldn't be surprised the very essence and qualities of the Higgs "god particle" that we are seeking are the very same qualities people have discussed for ages with different names such as chi, orgone, quintessence, ether, etc. etc. Same particles, same unanswerable questions. My only problem has ever been with the fantastic claims these people make about what can and cannot be done ... and thankfully philosophy always shows us the way!

 

A) Newtons Laws do not work on the atomic level at all. If that were true we would be able to calculate all the physical properties of the particles, but because of the Uncertainty Principle we cannot. It is because simply observing these particles can change there velocity, frequency, and position. Furthermore these particles can assume multiple positions at one time, that is totally contradictory to Newtonian Physics.

 

B) You equate string theory to quantum physics. String Theory is one aspect of quantum physics. Thats is kinda misleading, String theory is one small aspect of quantum physics. Furthermore, there is not one string theory there is: string theory, super string theory, m-theory, f-theory and others.

 

C) If you consider the Higgs Boson, Tachyons, and Gravitation the same that is also not a good way of looking at it.

 

Higgs Boson- Is the theoretical particle that would give an object resting mass.

Tachyons- Another theoretical particle, that would have no resting mass and travel faster than light, essentially moving backward through time.

 

How could those two theoretical particles be the same? They are not.

 

Even if the Higgs Boson was discovered Gravity would be the effect caused by the Higgs Boson, not the same as the Higgs Boson.

 

D) We have more than one way of charting astronomical observations. To observe distant bodies in distant solar systems we formulate the coordinate plane around the largest body of mass in the distant bodies respective solar system. But you are correct they are mathematically equal, but quantum physics and Newtonian physics are not comparable to that. They are not mathematically equal. This is from wikipedia.

 

"The ray approximation of classical mechanics breaks down when the de Broglie wavelength is not much smaller than other dimensions of the system. For non-relativistic particles, this wavelength is where h is Planck's constant and p is the momentum. Again, this happens with electrons before it happens with heavier particles. For example, the electrons used by Clinton Davisson and Lester Germer in 1927, accelerated by 54 volts, had a wave length of 0.167 nm, which was long enough to exhibit a single diffraction side lobe when reflecting from the face of a nickel crystal with atomic spacing of 0.215 nm. With a larger vacuum chamber, it would seem relatively easy to increase the angular resolution from around a radian to a milliradian and see quantum diffraction from the periodic patterns of integrated circuit computer memory.

 

More practical examples of the failure of classical mechanics on an engineering scale are conduction by quantum tunneling in tunnel diodes and very narrow transistor gates in integrated circuits.

 

Classical mechanics is the same extreme high frequency approximation as geometric optics. It is more often accurate because it describes particles and bodies with rest mass. These have more momentum and therefore shorter De Broglie wavelengths than massless particles, such as light, with the same kinetic energies."

 

Classical mechanics is used to study an objects position, velocity, force, etc at a given time. In quantum mechanics the objects position, velocity, force, etc are directly effected by our simple observation. Furthermore, classical mechanics assumes that an object has an exact position and velocity at a given time. In quantum mechanics there can be multiple possible values for position and velocity at a given time. They are not mathematically equal.

[GF]

Wow, you left lots for me to clear up.

 

I'm going to guess you are a young person and new to physics since you aren't stepping back and seeing the relativity to these things and plus you are relying on Wikipedia to debate me.

 

 

1st to start:

 

 

"A disciple asked, "What is the difference between the enlightened and the unenlightened man?"

 

The Master replied, "The unenlightened man sees a difference, but the enlightened man does not." "

 

 

2nd:

 

 

You do know what the Heisenburg Uncertainty principle is right?? The Heisenburg Uncertainty principle states that NOTHING can be measured 100% accurately because the measurer effects whats being measured. 100% ACCURACY IS IMPOSSIBLE. CAN'T BE DONE SO GRASP THIS BEFORE YOU START THINKING THERES SOME MAGIC MATHEMATICAL SYSTEM.

 

 

A. Did you know that Einstein hated quantum physics? Odd how one of the most brilliant mathematical minds ever DIDN'T EVEN CONSIDER QUANTUM PHYSICS LEGITIMATE.

 

What you are saying is that if we find some property of matter that can't be explained by Classical Mechanics then there must be something wrong with Classical Mechanics .... well no IT SIMPLY MEANS WE HAVEN'T UNDERSTOOD ALL THE PROPERTYS OF MATTER YET WITH CLASSICAL MECHANICS.

 

You use Quantum Tunnelling as an example (very similiar to the Casimir Effect) - both effects require A 100% PURE VACUMM BUT HOW ODD WHEN I'VE SAID OVER AND OVER THAT THERES NO SUCH THING AS A 100% VACUUM. You people don't realize that the addition of "ZERO" or a "vacuum state" causes errors in the calculations. This is, by the way, one of those things I meant to clear up some day but have yet to officially put it in writing.

 

Newtons Laws apply to both macrocosmic and microcosmic particles. There are some exceptions that ARE YET TO BE IRONED OUT. My point is I believe we can use one math to understand all matter. If you don't think that's possible then you must not have a very open mind.

 

 

 

 

B. What a waste of an argument

 

 

C. It happens to be EXACTLY how you need to see those particles for you to make progress. The Higgs boson ("god particle") is the most speculated particle ever theorized. You shouldn't refer to it as something completely understood yet. You are believing things before they are proven.

 

 

D. Quantum physics deals with "waves and probability" while Newtonian Classical physics deals with "particles". BOTH CAN BE USED TO PREDICT SPEED AND TRAJECTORY. BOTH ARE EQUALLY AS ACCURATE AND BOTH CANNOT BE PROVEN TO BE ANY LESS ACCURATE THAN THE OTHER. APPLES AND ORANGES. The fact you don't even know this tells us lots about you wasting my time making me respond to your posts.

 

 

 

I recommend you grasp the Heisenburg Uncertainty principle (a staple fundamental item to be learned for any wannabe philosopher next to the words relative, esoteric, and existential).

Edited October 23, 2009 by GF
Consecutive posts merged.

[swansont]

You do know what the Heisenburg Uncertainty principle is right?? The Heisenburg Uncertainty principle states that NOTHING can be measured 100% accurately because the measurer effects whats being measured. 100% ACCURACY IS IMPOSSIBLE. CAN'T BE DONE SO GRASP THIS BEFORE YOU START THINKING THERES SOME MAGIC MATHEMATICAL SYSTEM.

 

Actually, that's a separate issue — the observer effect. The HUP states that the conjugate variables are not simultaneously knowable, period. If you take an ensemble of identical particles, and measure the position of one half of them, and the momentum of the other half, you will still have uncertainty in each which follows the HUP. Since you did not do measurements of both, this is not due to the act of observing.

 

A. Did you know that Einstein hated quantum physics? Odd how one of the most brilliant mathematical minds ever DIDN'T EVEN CONSIDER QUANTUM PHYSICS LEGITIMATE.

 

Not relevant — this is simply argument from authority. Einstein was wrong. It happens to great minds, just a little less often than for the rest of us.

 

 

What you are saying is that if we find some property of matter that can't be explained by Classical Mechanics then there must be something wrong with Classical Mechanics .... well no IT SIMPLY MEANS WE HAVEN'T UNDERSTOOD ALL THE PROPERTYS OF MATTER YET WITH CLASSICAL MECHANICS.

 

No. Bell's theorem shows this to be untrue.

 

 

 

 

B. What a waste of an argument

 

This approach to discussion isn't going to fly

 

 

 

D. Quantum physics deals with "waves and probability" while Newtonian Classical physics deals with "particles". BOTH CAN BE USED TO PREDICT SPEED AND TRAJECTORY. BOTH ARE EQUALLY AS ACCURATE AND BOTH CANNOT BE PROVEN TO BE ANY LESS ACCURATE THAN THE OTHER. APPLES AND ORANGES. The fact you don't even know this tells us lots about you wasting my time making me respond to your posts.

 

Classical physics breaks down at small scales, and QM shows that "so-called particles travel multiple paths, so the whole concept of a trajectory is lost. deBroglie shows that everything is a wave.

 

 

(And, again I'll note the attitude which needs to be curtailed)

[GF]

How is the Heisenburg Uncertainty principle a seperate issue lol??? The HUP clearly tells us that no mathematical system is perfect and therefore my point is Quantum mechanics is not perfect and therefore it's no more better than Classical mechanics. You still haven't grasped what the word RELATIVE means.

 

 

 

- Einstein wasn't wrong at all.

 

- DeBroglie didn't destroy the particle nature of matter you newbie (its simply a LENGTH of wave easier seen in smaller particles).

 

- It seems theres lots of vagueness to Bell's Theorem and its only technicalities that determine whether Bell Inequalities are seen:

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

 

"The insight that quantum mechanics does not yield an objective description of microscopic reality but that measurement plays an ineradicable role is probably the most telling characteristic of the Copenhagen interpretation."

 

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bells_Theorem

 

"There have been two loopholes found in the earlier of these experiments, the detection loophole[1] and the communication loophole[1] with associated experiments to close these loopholes."

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism

 

 

"Superdeterminism is a theoretical escape route from Bell's theorem(which states that a local hidden variable theory cannot reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics).

 

Since the types of measurements at each detector can be known in advance, the results at one detector can be affected by the type of measurement done at the other without any need for information to travel faster than the speed of light."

 

 

 

Recap:

 

- you were redundant in stating something we already knew about the Heisenburg Uncertainty principle

- you told us String Theory is part of Quantum Mechanics for who knows what pointless reason

- you told us by some incomprehensible example that Classical mechanics and Quantum mechanics aren't equal YET EVERYONE KNOWS THEY ARE JUST 2 DIFFERENT SYSTEMS THAT CAN'T BE PROVEN ANY BETTER THAN THE OTHER.

 

 

 

So, you trolled me and said that my explanation "was not a good way of looking at it" and you said nothing other than your attempt at telling us Quantum mechanics is better than Classical mechanics which even philosophically can't be proven.

 

 

Please make better points and don't troll.

 

 

and this is my relative link of the day;

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-go_theorem

Edited October 24, 2009 by GF

[mooeypoo]

GF, your arguments aside, this attitude needs to change. For one, you will be much more effective conveying your ideas without being obnoxious towards others. And, of course, there's the issue of following our rules and etiquette.

 

When swansont wrote to you in his blue font, he spoke to you in his capacity as a moderator. It was his (and the staff's) way of giving you a chance to get rid of that attitude.

 

If you don't stop ridiculing and putting down others, then you will be out of this forum, and it won't have anything to do with the content of what you're saying.

 

Please take that into advisement.

~moo

[GF]

if a person says "that is not a good way of looking at it" to you then you haveto correct him I'm sorry.

 

If you prove me wrong then hey I am pleased but people get hasty and tell us we are wrong and so you haveto repeat the facts.

 

 

my forum life is just kid mods having to use their commands and the best threads are killed

[mooeypoo]

"This theory is silly" is one thing. "You are silly" is quite another.

The first encourages debate, the latter encourages a fight.

 

In any case, we're not going to debate the rules with you.

 

If this thread is "killed", it will be for nothing other than your attitude. Arguing with me (or any other staff member) won't change that. In that aspect, GF, the future of this thread is in your hands.

 

Argue the claims, avoid being personal, be nice. Seriously, it's not rocket science, and it's not some new demand this forum alone makes. It's not that hard.

 

~moo

[GF]

well you missed that he started it but you want to mess with me whatever...

[ajb]

.

Oh, and technically I consider the Higgs bosons, Tachyons, and the Graviton to all be one and the same.

 

Higgs spin 0

 

Graviton spin 2

 

Care to explain this?

[swansont]

How is the Heisenburg Uncertainty principle a seperate issue lol??? The HUP clearly tells us that no mathematical system is perfect and therefore my point is Quantum mechanics is not perfect and therefore it's no more better than Classical mechanics. You still haven't grasped what the word RELATIVE means.

 

The HUP is not the same as the observer effect. You equated the two in your previous post, and they are separate things.

 

- Einstein wasn't wrong at all.

 

You need to actually demonstrate this, rather than assert it. QM works, i.e. it is a valid model of the phenomena it describes.

 

 

 

The Copenhagen interpretation is just that — an interpretation. Models explain how nature behaves, not how nature is.

 

you newbie

you trolled me

Please make better points and don't troll.

 

For the record, it is comments like this that are getting you in trouble, not your objections to aspects of science. If you can't be civil when you post, then don't post.

[GF]

Duuuuuude Swansont, I guess me mentioning TWICE now that once the guy said "that is not a good way of looking at it" I didn't appreciate the attitude so I responded in kind. PLEASE READ THE THREAD AND UNDERSTAND WHAT HAPPENED FIRST TY

 

 

 

- sorry you need to demonstrate that Einstein was wrong. If QM was perfect we'd all be using it wouldn't we but the unfortunate folks of this forum have now found 2 people in this thread that completely missed my point THAT WHEN USING QUANTUM MATH VS CLASSICAL, ONE IS NOT ANY BETTER OR WORSE THAN THE OTHER (see Heisenburg Uncertainty principle)

 

 

 

 

-speaking of the Heisenburg Uncertainty principle;

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

 

 

"According to the uncertainty principle, it is, for instance, impossible to measure simultaneously both position and velocity of a microscopic particle with any degree of accuracy or certainty."

 

 

 

FUNNY BUT I KNOW I SAID "MEASURER" AND NOT "OBSERVER" BUT ARE YOU JUST GRASPING FOR ANY IRRELEVANT POINT JUST TO WASTE OUR TIME?

 

 

 

 

Higgs spin 0

 

Graviton spin 2

 

Care to explain this?

 

 

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton

 

 

"In physics' date=' the graviton is a hypothetical elementary particle that mediates the force of gravity in the framework of quantum field theory."

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

 

 

"Experimental detection of the Higgs boson would help explain the origin of MASS in the universe.

 

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_neutral_particle

 

 

"In physics, a real neutral particle is a particle that is its own antiparticle. Examples are the photon, the Z boson, the neutral pion, the hypothetical Higgs boson, the hypothetical neutralino, hypothetical sterile neutrinos, and the hypothetical graviton."

 

 

 

THATS HOW I EXPLAIN IT

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Copenhagen interpretation is just that — an interpretation. Models explain how nature behaves, not how nature is.

 

 

Anyone have any clue what he just said?

 

 

 

For the record, I've read lots of posters here who can handle a mature intellectual conversation. Yet, unfortunately its too easy to find the token couple *&() disturbers who will do anything to disrupt a thread.

Edited October 24, 2009 by GF

[ajb]

Sorry GF, I know what gravitons and the Higgs' field are. You do not seem to have answered my question. How do you propose we identify the two? (Then you need to explain why they are tachyons.)

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

Anyone have any clue what he just said?

 

 

The point being raised here is that an interpretation is just that. It is an intuitive description of some mathematical construction or calculation. Thus, it is impossible to say if an interpretation is correct and difficult to define what you mean by one interpretation being better than another.

 

I would be very cautious about trying to derive statements purely from an interpretation. It is possible and often the case, that the interpretation leads to further ideas. However, the bottom line is that a calculation needs to be done.

[swansont]

Duuuuuude Swansont, I guess me mentioning TWICE now that once the guy said "that is not a good way of looking at it" I didn't appreciate the attitude so I responded in kind. PLEASE READ THE THREAD AND UNDERSTAND WHAT HAPPENED FIRST TY

 

And what I am trying to convey to you is that "responding in kind" to some perceived slight is not the path to travel.

 

 

 

- sorry you need to demonstrate that Einstein was wrong. If QM was perfect we'd all be using it wouldn't we but the unfortunate folks of this forum have now found 2 people in this thread that completely missed my point THAT WHEN USING QUANTUM MATH VS CLASSICAL, ONE IS NOT ANY BETTER OR WORSE THAN THE OTHER (see Heisenburg Uncertainty principle)

 

That's simply not true. The HUP is an inherent limit to measurement, while classical physics breaks down, i.e. it is wrong, when applied at small scales. I would think it's obvious that the theory that gives the wrong answer is worse one.

 

 

"According to the uncertainty principle, it is, for instance, impossible to measure simultaneously both position and velocity of a microscopic particle with any degree of accuracy or certainty."

 

 

 

FUNNY BUT I KNOW I SAID "MEASURER" AND NOT "OBSERVER" BUT ARE YOU JUST GRASPING FOR ANY IRRELEVANT POINT JUST TO WASTE OUR TIME?

 

On the contrary, I thought would be useful to point out that what is being described here is not the observer effect (the measurer affects whats being measured), as you had stated. That's very, very relevant.

 

No need to SHOUT, either.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

For the record, I've read lots of posters here who can handle a mature intellectual conversation. Yet, unfortunately its too easy to find the token couple *&() disturbers who will do anything to disrupt a thread.

 

Please. Realize that you are talking to two actual physicists (swansont and ajb) who know very well what they are talking about. Perhaps they are mistaken about something, or perhaps you are; in either case, the best way to solve the problem is not repeating yourself and making your font bigger but answering questions and presenting good evidence.

 

swansont and ajb raise valid questions about your points. They're being perfectly civil in doing so. Please, stay civil yourself; if you don't, I'll have to close this thread. This kind of behavior is not welcome on SFN.

[GF]

well being told by 2 people now that I need to watch what I say AFTER SOMEONE GAVE ME ATTITUDE THAT I WAS RESPONDING BACK TO and yet he wasn't warned at all is kind of a double standard don't you think? Again, PEOPLE PLEASE READ WHATS BEEN SAID BEFORE RESPONDING.

 

 

 

ajb and the guy who made this thread are the only people actually discussing the topic so far

 

 

 

 

That's simply not true. The HUP is an inherent limit to measurement, while classical physics breaks down, i.e. it is wrong, when applied at small scales. I would think it's obvious that the theory that gives the wrong answer is worse one.

 

Did you know that quantum theorys don't apply to macrocosmic observations perfectly? If you say yes they do THEN YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT PHYSICS. So, since BOTH Quantum mechanics AND Classical mechanics don't work both for macrocosmic and microcosic solutions .... then you are saying that just Classical mechanics is wrong?? LOOOOLL amigo do you realize people are reading what you are saying and they are going to evaluate your education on what you said lol? I really don't get why me proving by using the Copenhagen Interpretation that Quantum physics has not solved the Bell Inequalities and therefore is still no better than Classical mechanics AND THUS PROVING MY POINT THAT BOTH SYSTEMS ARE NOT ANY BETTER OR WORSE THAN EACH OTHER STILL HASN'T BEEN GRASPED BY YOU

 

 

 

 

 

 

On the contrary, I thought would be useful to point out that what is being described here is not the observer effect (the measurer affects whats being measured), as you had stated. That's very, very relevant.

 

In the wiki on Heisenburg Uncertainty principle it says the HUD and Observer Effect are mixed up all the time because OBVIOUSLY they are so similiar in wording. We know everyone but you knew I was referring to the HUD since it clearly is about how ALL math systems can't be perfect which was obviously my point but I'm glad you needed to argue some technicality that had no bearing on the topic whatsoever.

 

 

 

ajp - I could explain how the Higgs, Graviton, and Tachyon are all the same USING CLASSICAL MECHANICS but that would be an enormous task and require a few pages (not that I'm not up for the challenge). I thought maybe you would see very clearly all the similiarities in those particles by my THREE links showing this but you do need to be able to simplify (good 'ol Occams Razor - another philosophers staple) and think relatively. *hint - they all equal zero.

 

I really think its possible but sorry I'm not in the mood today to solve all of maths toughest paradoxs... but I will try eventually soon!

 

 

 

 

Hey Swansont, sorry for the caps. I'm sure the soldier in Iraq with a bayonet getting stuffed up his a$$ feels sorry for you that you haveto read caps .... I'm not so anal you'll discover.

Edited October 25, 2009 by GF