hoola Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 If the sentient observation of quantum physical reality can influence physical outcomes, that seems to indicate that both the observer and the observed are contained within a closed system of finite mathematical (near) first principles. This infers that any observation is illusory, resulting from an observer's position held within the expressing principles, essentially a component within those principles. I say nearly first principles, as math possibly came from prior states.
swansont Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 What if non-sentient observation has the same effect?
Sensei Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 Classical observation-measurement can also change state of thing we measure. Take for example thermometer. Mercury metal is absorbing energy and changing its volume, what we're reading on scale. Object that we measured lost that energy and mercury will never return it after end of measurement. The more massive object we measure, the smaller disturbance. Measuring temperature of 1 ug of water, will cause different disturbance than measuring 1000 g of water by the same thermometer. To measure mass we have to stop moving thing = then we are losing its momentum and velocity. After stopping it, it's in the same frame of reference as we with our weighting scale.
hoola Posted January 27, 2015 Author Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) sentience seems rather in the minority of overall function of the universe. One might argue for a more overall awareness, but that is different. A flower is aware of the light, a bee is more aware with increased input/output variety. Neither are sentient. Awareness is too limited to make an overall observation, including the self. Non-sentient observation....funny idea... classical observation doesn't have to reduce the temp of the object. Point an infrared detector at it, and that will not (?) affect the drop in temp it would lose to the enviornment. One might argue that the physical presence of the detector will bounce back some of the IR energy that would have passed by, so is actually slowing the drop...which is admittedly, change, but that could be factored out with some measurement of reflected IR amounts.....To measure weight, we have to stop it...isn't that what you meant? To measure mass, speed has to be changed, so could be increased, right? question...couldn't the mass of an object of known size be measured without changing speed? If the object approaches light speed, could changes of physical shape be correlated to mass increase by an observer following closely, or does that frame of reference null any change? I presume so. second question....could the increase in mass as an object approaches light speed be due to the intersection of the object with the virtual particle pairs occuring so quickly, the particles are separated, with the matter particle energy being absorbed into the moving object before it has time to re-combine with it's anti-particle? If particles can be separated by gravity, as in hawking radiation, couldn't the object's velocity interfere with normal particle behavior also? Edited January 27, 2015 by hoola
swansont Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 sentience seems rather in the minority of overall function of the universe. One might argue for a more overall awareness, but that is different. A flower is aware of the light, a bee is more aware with increased input/output variety. Neither are sentient. Awareness is too limited to make an overall observation, including the self. Non-sentient observation....funny idea... In QM, "observation" does not require sentience. second question....could the increase in mass as an object approaches light speed be due to the intersection of the object with the virtual particle pairs occuring so quickly, the particles are separated, with the matter particle energy being absorbed into the moving object before it has time to re-combine with it's anti-particle? If particles can be separated by gravity, as in hawking radiation, couldn't the object's velocity interfere with normal particle behavior also? Mass doesn't increase with speed. Unless you redefine what you mean by mass to be synonymous with total energy, and what's the point of that? Just say total energy. Total energy increases with speed. Nothing earth-shattering with that concept.
hoola Posted January 27, 2015 Author Posted January 27, 2015 my second question involves the precise mechanism of the energy increase with speed, not the fact that it happens. Physical proximity is considered "observation"? In the two slit experiment, if the apparatus is considered to "observe" the proceedings, why would a wave pattern ever emerge?
swansont Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 my second question involves the precise mechanism of the energy increase with speed, not the fact that it happens. You do (positive) work on the object.
hoola Posted January 27, 2015 Author Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) can you be more specific in the mechanism of what seems to be a conversion of kinetic energy into potential energy in the case of high velocity? Is this a correct assessment of the problem? Edited January 27, 2015 by hoola
swansont Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 can you be more specific in the mechanism of what seems to be a conversion of kinetic energy into potential energy? Is this a correct assessment of the problem? Potential energy is a bookkeeping convention for work done by conservative forces. I can't be more specific because you haven't provided any details. Work done changes kinetic energy; work is the dot product of force and displacement. The "mechanism" will depend on the force that has been exerted.
hoola Posted January 27, 2015 Author Posted January 27, 2015 What is the interaction of the object's structure to the environment (regardless of how the object came to high speeds) as regards to the light speed barrier? The object is coasting at near light speed, and any accelerative force has been removed...
swansont Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 What is the interaction of the object's structure to the environment (regardless of how the object came to high speeds) as regards to the light speed barrier? The object is coasting at near light speed, and any accelerative force has been removed... There's no interaction.
hoola Posted January 27, 2015 Author Posted January 27, 2015 so, the speed barrier is the energy required to accelerate to C, not coasting at C, and theoretically could if that were to somehow be arranged.
swansont Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 so, the speed barrier is the energy required to accelerate to C, not coasting at C, and theoretically could if that were to somehow be arranged. It requires no additional energy to maintain speed, only to change it. The speed barrier is a speed (it's c) and is a barrier because it corresponds to infinite energy
hoola Posted January 27, 2015 Author Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) isn't the propagation of light actioned by the rate of change of the EMF from magnetic into electrical, and back again? If so, is C a frequency dependent constant? Edited January 27, 2015 by hoola
swansont Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 isn't the propagation of light actioned by the rate of change of the EMF from magnetic into electrical, and back again? If so, is C a frequency dependent constant? Maxwell's equations tell you that the E and B will induce each other at the same rate, whatever that frequency happens to be. The speed is not frequency dependent.
Sensei Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 (edited) What is the interaction of the object's structure to the environment (regardless of how the object came to high speeds) as regards to the light speed barrier? Do you mean Greisen–Zatsepin–Kuzmin limit? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greisen%E2%80%93Zatsepin%E2%80%93Kuzmin_limit ps. I see no philosophy in this thread. Why it is not in mainstream physics? Edited January 28, 2015 by Sensei
hoola Posted January 28, 2015 Author Posted January 28, 2015 my apologies, I drifted off my original subject of quantum interaction with sentience. I am puzzled with the concept of "non-sentient" observation, presumably along the lines of the interior of a box "observing" the cat, or the apparatus observing the 2 slit experiment. What is the definition of that term, and does it apply to those examples?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now