Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
75 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 74 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,122 Year: 4,234/6,534 Month: 448/900 Week: 154/150 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is "the fabric" of space-time?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 91 of 327 (459056)
03-03-2008 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by randman
03-03-2008 2:25 PM


quote:

Already answered it, PaulK.
Not my fault if you cannot understand it.

No, it wasn't answered. You don't offer any reason to suppose that the fields are not absolutely fundamental - and therefore not composed of anything else. Nor do you offer any valid reason why anything that the field is composed of would be non-physical (since it, too would BE physical reality any such claim would be dubious at best).

quote:

Maybe trying a new tack with you would help. Do you think entangled partices are connected via a field as an explanation for their inseparability or not?

It's certainly not a good explanation. The field does not simply connect the particles - the particles are aspects of the field. Creating a false distinction between the particles and the field is misleading at best.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by randman, posted 03-03-2008 2:25 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by randman, posted 03-03-2008 2:56 PM PaulK has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4131 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 92 of 327 (459059)
03-03-2008 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by PaulK
03-03-2008 2:37 PM


Actually, I fully answered you and you are ignoring the answer.

1. The field is fundamental.

2. It is immaterial since it has no energy, nor matter. If you have a different, provable definition of "material" or "physical", please post it.

3. The field or fields can produce physical effects and so despite not possessing any physical energy, it has energy like properties and my positing non-physical energy.

Now, are you going to answer the question I posed to you?

Are you saying the particles are connected via a field, or not?

Edit to add for more clarity: you say the particles are part of the field.

1. What field?

2. What does it consist of?

3. How does it effect simultaneous collapse over any distances whatsoever?

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by PaulK, posted 03-03-2008 2:37 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by PaulK, posted 03-03-2008 3:21 PM randman has replied
 Message 95 by cavediver, posted 03-03-2008 3:35 PM randman has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 93 of 327 (459067)
03-03-2008 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by randman
03-03-2008 2:56 PM


quote:

Actually, I fully answered you and you are ignoring the answer.

No, you didn't.

quote:

1. The field is fundamental.

As I pointed out in my last post this precludes the field being composed of anything else. Including your "non-physical" energy. Your "answer" does not deal with this point - hence it is no answer at all.

quote:

2. It is immaterial since it has no energy, nor matter. If you have a different, provable definition of "material" or "physical", please post it.

As I have already pointed out the field is physical because it IS physical reality. Matter and energy are aspects of the field. Since the field ultimately is what Physics studies I would have to say that it is clearly physical.

quote:

3. The field or fields can produce physical effects and so despite not possessing any physical energy, it has energy like properties and my positing non-physical energy.

You've not listed any "energy-like" properties. And to describe them as "not possessing energy" when energy is an aspect of the fields seems odd, indeed.

quote:

Now, are you going to answer the question I posed to you?

Are you saying the particles are connected via a field, or not?


I am saying that this is at best a misleading explanation - for the reasons I have given.

quote:

1. What field?

2. What does it consist of?

3. How does it effect simultaneous collapse over any distances whatsoever


1) Ask Cavediver for the details. I beleive it would be the Quantum field.

2) As I - and others - keep telling you it isn't composed of anything but itself. That's what it MEANS to say that it's fundamental. That is the point I've been trying to get through to you.

3) I daresay that Cavediver could dig out the maths that describes the way that the field works, but is that the answer you want ? It would only be an explanation of what happens at the level of the field - because that's the only answer that is possible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by randman, posted 03-03-2008 2:56 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by randman, posted 03-03-2008 3:30 PM PaulK has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4131 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 94 of 327 (459069)
03-03-2008 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by PaulK
03-03-2008 3:21 PM


PaulK, I have answered you repeatedly and you are ignoring those answers.

If the fields are the most fundamental description of the universe then they cannot be made of anything else. If they were composed of something else then THAT would be more fundamental.

We can let cavediver speak for himself but he already stated they had no mass, nor energy, but that these concepts are derived from these fields.

In reality, these fields or whatever you want to call them are more fundamental. That's the point, and they do not conist of mass, nor energy (as defined by physics). I'd argue they do consist of energy, just not physical energy.

One way to illustrate this basic immaterial aspect of the universe is the phenomenon of entanglement or non-locality. Note: this is not making an argument based on quantum uncertainty as some have suggested though the same basic QM principles demonstrate quantum uncertainty and so that is related. It's an argument based on observed, repeatable science first predicted by quantum theory. Einstein didn't like those predictions, deriding it as spooky action at a distance, but Einstein turned out to be wrong as entanglement has been amply demonstrated just as it was amply predicted.

For anyone not knowing what it is, the short version is that 2 distant particles that became entangled at some point act as one system. Depending on how one observes or how a particle is observed (we can discuss that later on a different thread), the particle becomes either more wave-like or particle-like with specific characteristics within the physical universe. If we can determine it's path, it propagates in our perspective/universe in one path as if it was a particle along one path. If this information is not determinable by the way we observe it, then it propagates like a wave on all paths. The dominant interpretation of quantum physics is that until one of these observation events takes place, it doesn't exist in any discrete physical form at all, but exists as a potential for form (physicality). This process has often been referred to as collapsing the wave function, which used to be thought of as irreversible, but not necessarily now due to lab experiments.

Well, grasping that takes some effort the first few times one ponders it......the next part involves the fact that how one particle collapses or becomes discrete (aka as a physical form with definite, observable properties) the other entangled particle must take on specific properties as a counterpart. That's even if the other particle is on the other side of the universe. That's why Einstein called it "spooky" because there is no observed physical connection between the entangled particles, and it's not considered possible for there to be some superluminal (faster than light speed) particle to communicate and even if there was, which is not considered possible, it would have to vary it's speed to make the collapse of both particles instant.

So in summary, we have evidence that somehow differently spaced partices are connected and act as one system, but we also have strong evidence there can be no physical connection between the particles. Informationally and behaviourally, they are connected and act as one system, but physically they are separated with no ability we know of for them to be connected by another particle.

What does this show?

This shows that the connection is immaterial or non-physical and that it is an informational connection outside space and time.

Please either address my points or retract your statements claiming I have no answered you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by PaulK, posted 03-03-2008 3:21 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Admin, posted 03-03-2008 3:46 PM randman has taken no action
 Message 99 by PaulK, posted 03-03-2008 4:09 PM randman has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 95 of 327 (459071)
03-03-2008 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by randman
03-03-2008 2:56 PM


Now, are you going to answer the question I posed to you?

Are you saying the particles are connected via a field, or not?

Edit to add for more clarity: you say the particles are part of the field.

1. What field?

2. What does it consist of?

PaulK has a very good understanding of what I was saying - you do not, as is abundantly clear by what I am quoting here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by randman, posted 03-03-2008 2:56 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by randman, posted 03-03-2008 3:44 PM cavediver has replied
 Message 98 by randman, posted 03-03-2008 3:47 PM cavediver has taken no action

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4131 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 96 of 327 (459072)
03-03-2008 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by cavediver
03-03-2008 3:35 PM


Interesting that despite asking you specific questions and respones, you chose to not respond and then weigh in now.

So since you are listening again.....what connects entangled particles?

How do you define physical? PaulK seems to define physical in such a manner that anything, even God, must a priori be physical?

Can something physical have no mass or energy?

I asked similar questions awhile back and got no response, and then when you do respond, you don't answer specifics but just say something like "you are wrong." Different thread you did the same thing, insisting everything was deterministic.

Well, it'd be nice to hear some real answers to the questions raised. Specifically, how can a massless field lacking energy be physical?

And of course, we know that it has energy and mass as derived properties but you already admitted those are secondary things.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by cavediver, posted 03-03-2008 3:35 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by cavediver, posted 03-04-2008 7:17 AM randman has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12788
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 97 of 327 (459073)
03-03-2008 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by randman
03-03-2008 3:30 PM


randman writes:

Please either address my points or retract your statements claiming I have not answered you.

We really don't need this style of participation. If you want to work constructively toward a mutual understanding with others like PaulK and Cavediver, I will hold everyone to the same standards. If you insist on taking an adversarial approach with those you disagree with, the same approach that has disrupted so many threads in the past, then I will suspend you again.

Please, no replies to this message.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by randman, posted 03-03-2008 3:30 PM randman has taken no action

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4131 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 98 of 327 (459074)
03-03-2008 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by cavediver
03-03-2008 3:35 PM


btw, those questions were for PaulK. They were no rhetorical but to see where he was at.

The questions I asked of you are:

What I am getting at is that whatever this is, it isn't nothing. It's nothing physical, sure. But it does give rise to the physical aspects of the universe, right?

Call it information if you want. Call it X. It doesn't matter because I am just trying to get at what we do know about it. I think we know it's not physical, not matter and energy, but that it is potential.

How would you describe it?

Cavediver, they exist as something, right? Let's go with no energy and no mass, right? But they exist as something since they can be mathematically described, right?
How would you characterize that something? As mathematical principles and design?

Still waiting for your response.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by cavediver, posted 03-03-2008 3:35 PM cavediver has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 99 of 327 (459077)
03-03-2008 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by randman
03-03-2008 3:30 PM


quote:

PaulK, I have answered you repeatedly and you are ignoring those answers.

I'm afraid that isn't true. As I keep pointing out, if the fields are fundamental then they consist of nothing but themselves. You have offered no reason to think that the fields consist of some other thing at all. Yet you keep assuming that they do, even while paying lip service to the idea that the fields are fundamental. Why ?

quote:

Please either address my points or retract your statements claiming I have no answered you.

I already have addressed your points.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by randman, posted 03-03-2008 3:30 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by randman, posted 03-03-2008 9:18 PM PaulK has replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2280 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 100 of 327 (459079)
03-03-2008 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by New Cat's Eye
03-03-2008 1:53 PM


Then, with numbers, prove God exists

http://members.tripod.com/conifer.co/pyramid_scripture.htm

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-03-2008 1:53 PM New Cat's Eye has taken no action

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2280 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 101 of 327 (459080)
03-03-2008 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by randman
03-03-2008 1:30 PM


Yea, but it'd still be interesting to see how someone can define something with no energy and no mass as "material" or "physical."

I think the point was alluding to detectable existence, if so then it is classified as physical or material, like gravity?

Ray

Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by randman, posted 03-03-2008 1:30 PM randman has taken no action

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4824 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 102 of 327 (459083)
03-03-2008 6:38 PM


Mathematical Proof of God!!!!!!!!
If your looking for mathematical proof for the existence of God. Answers in Genesis mathematical evidence like starting with the first hebrew letter tav then counting 49 letters to the next letter and it repeats till you have written the word Torah.

Then in the same text every fiftieth letter spells out Torah in the text. Not getting into all the other codes just the Word Torah being ecoded within the Torah is mathematical evidence not even including that at the same numerical spacing some of the other books of the Torah have encoded the word Torah.

P.S. The odds of this happening by chance in not one but 4 of the 5 books of the Torah is mathematical proof of the existence of God.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

As they studied this pattern the scientists discovered that many of the coded words described future events and personalities in human history, from ancient times until today. When they looked at the string of Hebrew letters in Genesis 1:1, they counted forward forty-nine letters from the letter , the first letter (tav) of the Hebrew word Torah and found the second letter in the word. Skipping forward another forty-nine letters they found the third letter of the word Torah. Incredibly, the Hebrew word Torah was spelled out using every fiftieth letter in the text.

http://www.direct.ca/trinity/code.html


Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Admin, posted 03-03-2008 7:18 PM johnfolton has taken no action

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4824 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 103 of 327 (459089)
03-03-2008 7:16 PM


Quantum entanglement?
It sure sounds like string theory too me? I mean if light can not go faster and is part of the fabric we call space then something is causing the position and velocity to change as observed by quantum entanglement.

Itzhak Bars on two dimensions to time velocity time and positional time, etc... ?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

USC College theoretical physicist Itzhak Bars has pioneered efforts to discern how a second dimension of time could help physicists better explain the laws of nature.

http://www.physorg.com/news98468776.html


  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12788
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 104 of 327 (459091)
03-03-2008 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by johnfolton
03-03-2008 6:38 PM


Johnfolton Suspended for 24 Hours
You're not even pretending to address the topic, see you tomorrow.

What's going on lately - is there a full moon or something?


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by johnfolton, posted 03-03-2008 6:38 PM johnfolton has taken no action

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4131 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 105 of 327 (459100)
03-03-2008 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by PaulK
03-03-2008 4:09 PM


"nothing but themselves" is still something PaulK. If matter and energy are derived properties from the field, what are the properties of the field?

It's a pretty simple and straightforward question.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by PaulK, posted 03-03-2008 4:09 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by PaulK, posted 03-04-2008 1:18 AM randman has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022