Get to the point

[sheever]

Yes Roger. Perfectly point on what issue need to be solved to unify physics

[studiot]

Duh??????????????

 

The video is 25 minutes long. so what is your point?

[Unity+]

You present evidence without even addressing a speculation. Please specify what your speculation is.

[sheever]

It addresses contradictions In physics can't explain just like regardless how you try to avoid your own effect as observer in the measurement because it impossible. As long as you have any information interest with the subject you collapse the wavefunction while you trying to put yourself out of the measurement as independent.. nonsense!!! Schrodinger case shows all wavefunction collapse and not in the same time depends on what you decide to observe but because the competition stays in entanglement all other possibilities also still applies for another observation. Simplify it everything is is measured from certain reference frame which is effect not only the information itself but all interaction or following measurement. He point on this perfectly.

 

"The EPR paper, written in 1935, was intended to illustrate that this explanation is inadequate. It considered two entangled particles, referred to as A and B, and pointed out that measuring a quantity of a particle A will cause the conjugated quantity of particle B to become undetermined, even if there was no contact, no classical disturbance.
Heisenberg's principle was an attempt to provide a classical explanation of a quantum effect sometimes called non-locality. According to EPR there were two possible explanations. Either there was some interaction between the particles, even though they were separated, or the information about the outcome of all possible measurements was already present in both particles.
The EPR authors preferred the second explanation according to which that information was encoded in some 'hidden parameters'. The first explanation, that an effect propagated instantly, across a distance, is in conflict with the theory of relativity."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox

 

save yourself some time watch the last 6 minutes.

Edited August 23, 2013 by sheever

[Unity+]

It addresses contradictions In physics can't explain just like regardless how you try to avoid your own effect as observer in the measurement because it impossible. As long as you have any information interest with the subject you collapse the wavefunction while you trying to put yourself out of the measurement as independent.. nonsense!!! Schrodinger case shows all wavefunction collapse and not in the same time depends on what you decide to observe but because the competition stays in entanglement all other possibilities also still applies for another observation. Simplify it everything is is measured from certain reference frame which is effect not only the information itself but all interaction or following measurement. He point on this perfectly.

 

"The EPR paper, written in 1935, was intended to illustrate that this explanation is inadequate. It considered two entangled particles, referred to as A and B, and pointed out that measuring a quantity of a particle A will cause the conjugated quantity of particle B to become undetermined, even if there was no contact, no classical disturbance.

Heisenberg's principle was an attempt to provide a classical explanation of a quantum effect sometimes called non-locality. According to EPR there were two possible explanations. Either there was some interaction between the particles, even though they were separated, or the information about the outcome of all possible measurements was already present in both particles.

The EPR authors preferred the second explanation according to which that information was encoded in some 'hidden parameters'. The first explanation, that an effect propagated instantly, across a distance, is in conflict with the theory of relativity."

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

Paradoxes are not contradictions, if that paradox is what you are bringing up.

 

 

 

A paradox is an argument that produces an inconsistency, typically within logic or common sense. Most logical paradoxes are known to be invalid arguments but are still valuable in promoting critical thinking.

Edited August 23, 2013 by Unity+

[imatfaal]

Unfortunately for those who cling to classical explanations the EPR paradox is not really in play any more other than in very fringe / non-scientific areas. Bell States, Bell Inequalities, and the CHSH game (which is a physical rather than gedanken experiment) show that quantum mechanical effects - especially the entanglement of particles - is not reproducible with classical effects, even with mysterious hidden (local or otherwise) variables. Hidden variables just cannot explain the results of a CHSH game in which a quantum mechanical approach with entangled particles will produce actual results significantly different than could ever be even envisaged using the flightiest of speculations within classical theory.

[studiot]

So what about it?

 

You still have to provide a point for discussion.

[sheever]

In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle known as complementary variables, such as position x and momentum p, can be known simultaneously.

 

this is forexample absolute basic common sense no need to be at quantum level because its happen in every second as we percieve.

I can easily illustrate.

 

"It must be emphasized that measurement does not mean only a process in which a physicist-observer takes part, but rather any interaction between classical and quantum objects regardless of any observer.^[8]"

 

MAJOR point!

So what about it?

 

You still have to provide a point for discussion.

Penrose says much better as my english doesnt reach standard level.

I question Relativity in this term and would like any of your answer of the reason why classic physics ignore QM for the sake of saving its ass.

cheers

[swansont]

In [/size]quantum mechanics, the [/size]uncertainty principle is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle known as complementary variables, such as [/size]position [/size]x and [/size]momentum [/size]p, can be known simultaneously.[/size]

 

this is forexample absolute basic common sense no need to be at quantum level because its happen in every second as we percieve.

I can easily illustrate.

 

"It must be emphasized that [/size]measurement does not mean only a process in which a physicist-observer takes part, but rather any interaction between classical and quantum objects regardless of any observer.[/size]^%5B8%5D"

 

MAJOR point!

 

Penrose says much better as my english doesnt reach standard level.

It is most decidedly a quantum effect. If you are claiming it is classical it is likely you have misunderstood something. I can't tell what this is from your quote.

 

 

I question Relativity in this term and would like any of your answer of the reason why classic physics ignore QM for the sake of saving its ass.

Mot enough information here to comment on. You mention relativity and then point to some supposed conflict between classical and QM. Classical physics "ignores" QM in the same way that Charlemagne ignored 20th century politicians. It came first, and was therefore unaware of what was to come afterward.

 

What ass-saving is purportedly going on? Classical physics works in the proper regime. People went to the moon using classical physics calculations.

[sheever]

thanks for your answer,

during my research I found countless problems and yet not found any explanation.

the uncertainity principle is very easyily demonstrated here:

 

Lets look at a MAP.you are the subject on the map.I make a measurement of your position.then leave you alone for a while.any point later i measure your position again while you do all your daily buisiness (if you move at all but another probability factor) it seemed wherever you are you poped out from nothing since i couldnt measure the route you took.hardly predictible.

another case when i measure you for a specific period of time and see you moving but not known your starting nor the ending location.

now convert this to the quantum level where no route and nothing else give me basicly any reliable point to refer to then the situation perfectly make sense.

 

there are two fundamental elements requires to create circumstances measure at all can be taken.

1. any form of information

2.any type of interaction.

one reference to the other and actually in a sense is the same thing.

 

these two driven by a force not yet taken on account.because there is a COMPETITION running in the background to create any condition.

as Penrose said atom is instable and the entanglement is also applicable at any level in any second.entanglement is an instabil situation but what i suggest it doesnt require self collapse as Penrose pointed out as well because even each or any observation collapse any wave function it STILL REMAIN IN ENTANGLEMENT.

Crucial to understand this detail because it drive and effect every other interaction and drive much more competition.thats where from probability comes and while the information doesnt necessary give straight forward result PREDICTION requires to reduce the possibilities of the combination.

 

a single apple contains the whole universe as long as the information accessable to trace back its origin.so the information altough HIDDEN still remain in superposition for later measurement.

when you start specify your apple not by size but where from it came you can go back to its seed also it grew on earth and earth contains the information of the universe.but in all cases requires the interaction.

just like when you drive home and lets say i slice up your journey to small frames if i change one single frame for blank you never get home.because the route indictaes all the information required to observe in detail or depth.

I suggest any sense we measure with its the exact same observation.in 2 dimensional image yes allows not having space nor time as doesnt requires any dimension at all.its also explain while your reference frame always the same.

 

 

Math and equations are AGREED form of a language which is created by our OWN MEASUREMENT to explain effect and DENY its origin and shout that out its the universal language.

measuring something by your own favour is NOTHING but represent your own level of understanding.just as miles convertible to kilometres based on a favour towards just the sake of difference and you can call sausage rolad or however you wanna call as long as you can find a converter between any form of information or integrate one into the other.

so conculsionary scientific language altough great to not being totally Dumb whats going around us but can be wrong and fool who taken everything as fact without question its origin and the cause but rather looking the effect only and trying to pretend thats nothing but the truth.

 

this problem has serious consequences in all further scientific growth as rely on agreements bu still used the same choosen language but shows the working equations are simply rejected because compatibility problems while seriously point IT SHOULDNT BE ANY CONFLICT IF THE STRUCTURE SO RELIABLE IN ITSELF.

 

sorry for my english

Edited August 23, 2013 by sheever

[studiot]

 

a single apple contains the whole universe as long as the information accessable to trace back its origin.so the information altough HIDDEN still remain in superposition for later measurement.

 

 

Looks more like metaphysical preaching to me.

 

I still haven't understood what you are trying to tell or ask me.

 

Please just state your question or issue in not more than 15 words.

[sheever]

because I refer to the holographic principle and to an information based structure.

if you dont understand then i am sorry.cant express any better.

if someone understand hopefully will comment on.

Edited August 23, 2013 by sheever

[swansont]

thanks for your answer,

during my research I found countless problems and yet not found any explanation.

the uncertainity principle is very easyily demonstrated here:

 

Lets look at a MAP.you are the subject on the map.I make a measurement of your position.then leave you alone for a while.any point later i measure your position again while you do all your daily buisiness (if you move at all but another probability factor) it seemed wherever you are you poped out from nothing since i couldnt measure the route you took.hardly predictible.

another case when i measure you for a specific period of time and see you moving but not known your starting nor the ending location.

now convert this to the quantum level where no route and nothing else give me basicly any reliable point to refer to then the situation perfectly make sense.

There is a fundamental difference, though. In a classical case, you could, in principle, know what path I took, and not materially change the outcome of where I end up. If, for example, you put up a wall with two doors in it, you could detect which door I went through, and I could go to the same final destination. That's not true in the quantum case. If you don't detect the path, there is interference, and there are a number of different destinations possible.

 

IOW, there is a difference between not knowing and not being able to know.

 

In terms of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, be aware that the uncertainty you have is not the measurement effect.

 

Unfortunately, I can't figure out what your point is for the rest of your post.

[sheever]

"There is a fundamental difference, though. In a classical case, you could, in principle, know what path I took, and not materially change the outcome of where I end up. If, for example, you put up a wall with two doors in it, you could detect which door I went through, and I could go to the same final destination. That's not true in the quantum case. If you don't detect the path, there is interference, and there are a number of different destinations possible."

 

absolutely there is obvious difference between the example and what the principle but the uncertainity present in the case i provided as well even on a daily basis.my example represent the problem of what observation can be taken fully legit as you see without certain amount of information.

so observation or any type of mesurement to be precise requires certain amount of information.I am not saying it doesnt show a temporary result or even more measurement can provide similar results but as the science proven what they got not the answer but more question.thats also a straight forward consequence of information-interaction-entanglement situation.simply because there is never less information can be created trough interaction than was before .

 

thanks for your thought Swansont.sorry about my english again,anyway if you have time the last 6 minutes on this Penrose lecture just nail what i try to express here.

Edited August 23, 2013 by sheever

[studiot]

Consider what is meant by your statement

 

"Know the path"

 

That implies either an absolute coordinate system that we know does not exist or that you can breach the uncertainty principle to specify any path that accurately.

[sheever]

basic principle how i see is interaction and information.everything else can be anything but may not what you percieve and especially not fundamentally.so altough yes its one of the most important thing to making progress to find answers but addressed problems need to be taken serious but not ignored

Edited August 23, 2013 by sheever

[studiot]

You do not need to apologise for your English. It is plenty good enough.

It is your thinking I am having trouble following.

 

What do you mean by "information" and "interaction".

 

If you are going to complain base your argument on exactitude you need to offer exactly precise definitions

[sheever]

information is any kind of reference but holographic principle according to the format as "bits" if you wish in mathematical description..

in a general base any kind of information is reference to your frame or to your measurement.

interaction is any kind of communication form.

 

yes i guess the precise definitions is the hard case for me.

thats why i meant to attach the video as reference because its precise enough.it contains the problem I have a trouble with and see nothing but contradictions and oppositions between classical physics and quantum physics.

I think physics in general need a revolution and even suggest to define a "momentary first law of nature" which is has enough freedom to fitt things into without trouble and may define as effect as the present situation not surely make the picture cleaner but causing more opposition or scrumble.in my oppinion the smaller scale dictates the large regarless what our perception is.QM need more attention and to be more accepted.

Edited August 23, 2013 by sheever

[studiot]

 

I have a trouble with and see nothing but contradictions and oppositions between classical physics and quantum physics.

 

But in general they don't contradict, one or the other ( or even both) is just misapplied.

 

Science is a developing subject. Developing in the light of new facts, observations, information.

 

Here is a short story from the past.

 

In the 1880s and 1890s scientists used the best physics available to calculate the age of the earth.

They were able to estimate the temperature of the sun reasonably accurately and also the size of the earth.

Using thermodynamic laws of cooling which were well established by then they worked out how long it would take for an earth sized chunk of stellar material to cool to the temperature of the earth.

 

They came up with 4000 years.

 

This caused great controversy at the time.

 

They had no knowledge of any other source of heat for the earth so they applied perfectly good theory inappropriately and came up with a wildly inaccurate answer.

 

We know today that radioactivity has kept the earth's temperature as it is for around a million times as long.

 

 

As regards classical v quantum mechanics.

 

Do not make the same mistake trying to consider applying classical mechanics to 'particles' that obey the same laws as billiard balls.

 

Quantum mechanics is our best model to date of how they actually operate, but it is incomplete and will one day be replaced by better in areas where it has difficulty.

[imatfaal]

 

But in general they don't contradict, one or the other ( or even both) is just misapplied.

 

Science is a developing subject. Developing in the light of new facts, observations, information.

 

Here is a short story from the past.

 

In the 1880s and 1890s scientists used the best physics available to calculate the age of the earth.

They were able to estimate the temperature of the sun reasonably accurately and also the size of the earth.

Using thermodynamic laws of cooling which were well established by then they worked out how long it would take for an earth sized chunk of stellar material to cool to the temperature of the earth.

 

They came up with 4000 years.

 

This caused great controversy at the time.

 

They had no knowledge of any other source of heat for the earth so they applied perfectly good theory inappropriately and came up with a wildly inaccurate answer.

 

We know today that radioactivity has kept the earth's temperature as it is for around a million times as long.

 

 

As regards classical v quantum mechanics.

 

Do not make the same mistake trying to consider applying classical mechanics to 'particles' that obey the same laws as billiard balls.

 

Quantum mechanics is our best model to date of how they actually operate, but it is incomplete and will one day be replaced by better in areas where it has difficulty.

 

I understand your point and agree with it - but just for the sake of accuracy and to avoid anyone going away with a really erroneous take home message

 

 

In 1862, the physicist William Thomson (who later became Lord Kelvin) of Glasgow published calculations that fixed the age of Earth at between 20 million and 400 million years.^[15][16] He assumed that Earth had formed as a completely molten object, and determined the amount of time it would take for the near-surface to cool to its present temperature. His calculations did not account for heat produced via radioactive decay (a process then unknown to science) or convection inside the Earth, which allows more heat to escape from the interior to warm rocks near the surface.^[15]

 

Geologists had trouble accepting such a short age for Earth. Biologists could accept that Earth might have a finite age, but even 100 million years seemed much too short to be plausible. Charles Darwin, who had studied Lyell's work, had proposed his theory of the evolution of organisms by natural selection, a process whose combination of random heritable variation and cumulative selection implies great expanses of time. (Geneticists have subsequently measured the rate of genetic divergence of species, using the molecular clock, to date the last universal ancestor of all living organisms no later than 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago).

 

 

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

 

The 4000 years figure is normal that of an Irish Bishop (Bishop Usher rings a distant and probably incorrect bell)

[sheever]

Thanks for your answer I think you just described the issues I pointed.

May I ask how would you think would be effected our general physic in a case would occur as there is no dimensions nor geometry? Thanks

Edited August 23, 2013 by sheever

[studiot]

Thank you for the correction on timing, imatfaal.

 

 

May I ask how would you think would be effected our general physic in a case would occur as there is no dimensions nor geometry

 

But we do have geometry and we do have dimensions, though some argue about how many; and others worry about the (apparent) granularity of reality. Granularity is a real issue and addresses the difference between a quantised or discrete view of reality and the mathematics of continuity and continuous functions. Professor Shan Majid has written a book about this.

[sheever]

Dimensions can be run on 2 D Surface. It doesn't mean it's 3 D. Even tough is a model of the perception. Categorical space and time is just a concept with no real existence. We already ponder this. Just wonder just imaging what could be achievable using another form to fit into physics . may take away hidden boundaries just as qm was able to evolve so rapidly compare to classical physics

Edited August 23, 2013 by sheever

[studiot]

 

Dimensions can be run on 2 D Surface. It doesn't mean it's 3 D.

 

Please explain.

[sheever]

you know exactly.