Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is "the fabric" of space-time?
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 151 of 327 (459314)
03-05-2008 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by cavediver
03-05-2008 7:07 PM


When I have time, I will peruse some of his papers and of course, as I already answered, I think I've shown his views already.
But on your question on local realism. I have argued local realism is violated here at EvC and have been severely ridiculed for it (despite being correct on that point), even having some claim you have "told me" that to claim such is nonsense, or at least that's what I recall.
Just for the record and I asked this on another post just a minute ago, but you do agree that local realism is violated in quantum mechanics?
You going on record stating that would be helpful to move the discussion forward so I am not harangued by folks insisting I am wrong to suggest that.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by cavediver, posted 03-05-2008 7:07 PM cavediver has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 152 of 327 (459315)
03-05-2008 8:13 PM


Cavediver: determinism
I could be wrong, but I thought I recalled you asking somewhere on the thread where you ever said QM or the universe was deterministic. If I am mistaken, I apologize in advance and could be confusing you with someone else.
Be that as it may, I do note your comment on another thread.
But QM is totally deterministic.
Message 107 on the following thread.
http://EvC Forum: What is Time and Space -->EvC Forum: What is Time and Space
Obviously, in his interview, Zeilinger derides the concept that QM is deterministic.
But you seem to think it is?
You explain your comment further:
The evolution of a wave-function is purely a function of its initial conditions. It is only a "measurement" of the wave-function that introduces any sense of probability or uncertainty.
But it's also the observation or measurement that gives a particle a definite position and location within space-time, right? That's why local realism is violated because it does not exist independently according to Zeilinger....is that how you read him?
You continue:
Furthermore, QM is totally causal
But on this thread you state:
Why would we care that QM breaks causality - it is not a relativistic theory!!! What the f'k do you expect? Why are you not pointing out that Newtonian Theory breaks causality? And who cares about Local Realism? That was abandoned long ago.
So are you saying QM breaks causality or not? Sure, I expect QM to break causality, but you had prior insisted "QM is totally causal". So of course, I thought you denied causality was violated and based on your comments about QM being wholly deterministic, I would have thought you disagreed about QM violating local realism as well.
Since I knew quantum physicists do think local realism was violated, and that some think causality is violated which I think is correct, when you would say things suggesting you disagreed with that, why shouldn't have I taken issue with you? Your appeal to your education didn't hold water because it appeared you were disagreeing with mainstream QM all the while telling me I was essentially ignorant.
I hope you can see that someone viewing your comments would react as I did, assuming they thought you were insisting it was nonsense to say local realism and causality were being violated.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by cavediver, posted 03-05-2008 8:27 PM randman has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 153 of 327 (459316)
03-05-2008 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by randman
03-05-2008 7:25 PM


Re: Local realism
What do you think he is saying when he says entanglement violates local realism, cavediver?
He's saying that entanglement seems to violate local realism. Given that very few hold to local realism, this is not even an issue worth discussing. I have spent most of this thread talking about quantum field theory, and QFT is not built on local realism, so why should I even care? Unfortunately, you seem intent on concepts that abandon locality, where-as those of us who actually work or have worked on this simply give up realism.
Zeilinger writes:
Entanglement is definitely a feature going beyond any space-time description
Yes, and this is not stating that "entanglement is a process outside time and space". The difference should be blatently obvious. He is saying that it is not a process where some sort of space-time communication is occuring, and he is entirely correct in this. You will continue to be utterly confused by this until you actually start to understand the nature of entanglement. You seem to have this bizarre idea that Zeilinger is bringing anything new to qunatum theory... he's building great experiments to demonstrate standard quantum mechanics. There is nothing surprising here to those who work woth quantum theory - nothing surprising at all. Entanglement has been around for decades longer than Zeilinger's experiments.
we are dealing with a process of something becoming within space-time from a place without any location (outside space and time).
Pseudo-scientific bullshit
Anything within space and time has location.
Wrong, as any 2nd year physics student could tell you.
you choose to just claim I am somehow misunderstanding the issue
No, I'm not claiming... I'm stating. I think anyone reading these threads can see that although I remain anonymous here, for some reason I do have some sort of clue about these subjects. And you do not. Parading around trying to claim you understand this just makes you look like an idiot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by randman, posted 03-05-2008 7:25 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by randman, posted 03-05-2008 9:05 PM cavediver has not replied
 Message 161 by Admin, posted 03-05-2008 9:47 PM cavediver has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 154 of 327 (459317)
03-05-2008 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by randman
03-05-2008 8:13 PM


Re: Cavediver: determinism
But it's also the observation or measurement that gives a particle a definite position and location within space-time, right? That's why local realism is violated because it does not exist independently according to Zeilinger....is that how you read him?
I don't have to 'read' Zeilinger, this is basic quantum mechanics.
You continue:
cavediver writes:
Furthermore, QM is totally causal
Yes, I should have stressed *relativistic* QM. Given that the Universe is relativistic, non-relativistic QM is not really that relevant for my uses.
So are you saying QM breaks causality or not?
Standard QM breaks causality because it is not relativistc. It is therefore unrealistic and cannot be used in relativistic situations, not can it explain concepts such as particle creation and annihilation. That is why relativistic QM was developed, finally becoming quantum field theory.
Sure, I expect QM to break causality
That is because you have no clue. Nor any evidence whatsoever.
Since I knew quantum physicists do think local realism was violated, and that some think causality is violated which I think is correct,
No, only idiots think causality is violated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by randman, posted 03-05-2008 8:13 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by randman, posted 03-05-2008 9:00 PM cavediver has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 155 of 327 (459322)
03-05-2008 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by cavediver
03-05-2008 8:27 PM


Re: Cavediver: determinism
You say:
Standard QM breaks causality
Then...
only idiots think causality is violated
Hmmmm...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by cavediver, posted 03-05-2008 8:27 PM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Percy, posted 03-05-2008 10:01 PM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 156 of 327 (459323)
03-05-2008 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by cavediver
03-05-2008 8:17 PM


Re: Local realism
You will continue to be utterly confused by this until you actually start to understand the nature of entanglement.
I understand the nature of entanglement, cavediver, and so does Zeilinger and anyone with an interest in QM. Zeilinger says it's a process outside time and space. His words, not mine. You have shwn absolutely nothing to counter that.
He reiterates the same thing in different ways, as I have quoted, showing the effect occurs independent of space-time separation.
And no, I don't think any of this is new. It's standard QM, been around for 80s years, which you seem to have trouble discussing. All you do is go on and on about how I don't understand it while all the time failing to detail and substantiate any of your claims.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by cavediver, posted 03-05-2008 8:17 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 157 of 327 (459324)
03-05-2008 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by randman
03-05-2008 7:25 PM


Re: Local realism
randman writes:
It seems rather than deal with the facts of what he is saying, you choose to just claim I am somehow misunderstanding the issue.
I mentioned what would happen if there was even a hint of accusations of dishonesty. 24 hours.
Please, no replies or even indirect references to this message.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by randman, posted 03-05-2008 7:25 PM randman has not replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 158 of 327 (459326)
03-05-2008 9:24 PM


Please keep this discussion going, it's very informative. Randman, it seems some of your questions cannot be answered conclusively by physics at this time. Let it go...

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 159 of 327 (459327)
03-05-2008 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by randman
03-05-2008 7:35 PM


randman writes:
The quantum world is not the physical world of everyday experience writ in miniature. It's something completely different.
Isn't that exactly what I have been saying and trying to get you guys to discuss the properties which indicate it is "completely different."
I don't think that viewpoint is shared by anyone but you. To everyone else you seem to be confusing classical and quantum descriptions of reality.
You can call something "completely different" physical if you wish, but it's completely different than what is thought of as physical.
But we're not calling the quantum world physical in the classical sense. In our most accurate model to date, the quantum model, the foundation of reality is the quantum field. The objects in the macro world that appear so substantial and so real to us are actually just manifestations of the quantum field.
It's description actually fits better with what men in the past have called "spiritual"...
Well, to repeat, if you want to make the case for the "spiritual" deserving scientific status, you should probably propose a new thread.
And as has been said several times now, I think most of us would agree with you that descriptions of the quantum world directed at laypeople have a very spiritual quality to them. Gazing upon the foundation of our universe, be it at the level of the quantum field or at the macro level of star nurseries and the background radiation of the Big Bang, brings out spiritual feelings in us all. It's what makes us human. But you won't find spiritual claims in the math or the technical papers.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by randman, posted 03-05-2008 7:35 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by randman, posted 03-09-2008 4:35 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 160 of 327 (459329)
03-05-2008 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by randman
03-05-2008 7:38 PM


randman writes:
The way I look at this discussion is I am trying to get you guys to abandon your old worldview and accept the implications and facts of QM.
Uh, okay. Meanwhile, back here on planet Earth you'll find that the views of quantum theory expressed here by Cavediver and Son Goku are pretty widely shared throughout physics and cosmological circles.
No, he's doing more than that. He's actually pointing out that entanglement is a process outside time and space because it occurs independent of space-time separation.
As I said before, entanglement does not operate outside of space/time. After all, entanglement was predicted by the mathematics of quantum theory, our current most fundamental model of space/time. How could entanglement be operating outside the theory that predicted it?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by randman, posted 03-05-2008 7:38 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Silent H, posted 03-05-2008 10:06 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 169 by randman, posted 03-09-2008 4:19 PM Percy has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 161 of 327 (459330)
03-05-2008 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by cavediver
03-05-2008 8:17 PM


Re: Local realism
cavediver writes:
Parading around trying to claim you understand this just makes you look like an idiot.
I have to enforce the Forum Guidelines evenly and fairly. That means I'd suspend Santa Claus if he stepped too far out of line. Please focus on the topic and let moderators take care of moderation issues. It isn't like I've been shy lately. If you are experiencing problems that aren't being addressed, please post to Windsor castle.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by cavediver, posted 03-05-2008 8:17 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 162 of 327 (459331)
03-05-2008 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by randman
03-05-2008 9:00 PM


Re: Cavediver: determinism
randman replying to Cavediver writes:
You say:
Standard QM breaks causality
You needed to read on. The full context is:
cavediver in Message 154 writes:
Standard QM breaks causality because it is not relativistic. It is therefore unrealistic and cannot be used in relativistic situations, not can it explain concepts such as particle creation and annihilation. That is why relativistic QM was developed, finally becoming quantum field theory.
In other words, Standard QM is not causal, and that isn't its only shortcoming. The more accurate and useful quantum field theory *is* relativistic (special theory only, I believe) and addresses many of Standard QM's shortcomings, including the lack of causality. It is definitely not an accepted view within the field of quantum physics that causality is violated.
Son Goku's Message 119 did a great job of putting things in context vis--vis the various stages of progress in the development of quantum theory.
Any errors or mistakes are my own. As always on this particular topic, I defer to Cavediver and Son Goku if I've misunderstood or misexplained anything. I'm trying to help understanding, not get in the way.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by randman, posted 03-05-2008 9:00 PM randman has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 163 of 327 (459332)
03-05-2008 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Percy
03-05-2008 9:38 PM


The great irony in randman's statement...
The way I look at this discussion is I am trying to get you guys to abandon your old worldview and accept the implications and facts of QM.
...is that the very same could be said by the scientists studying QM. Classic mechanics is the old world view and it is hard to shake in order to accept the implications and facts of QM (and also relativity). And Classic mechanics was a replacement for the rather ancient world view of action by supernatural agency.
It appears we have come full circle.
Edited by Silent H, : -re

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Percy, posted 03-05-2008 9:38 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by randman, posted 03-09-2008 4:50 PM Silent H has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 164 of 327 (459374)
03-06-2008 1:43 PM


I thought this interesting that the particle is appearing to some reputable scientists fronted by Hawkins as being tiny bits of vibrating cosmic strings and that they are theorizing to have lines of pure mass-energy.
Like how is the atom not a particle consisting of energy and mass and does this mass-energy of an atom not exist going forward and back in time?
Is not the part of the atom existing in present time not made up of pure mass-energy. For time to exists would not this mass-energy have to travel both forward and back through a dimension we call time in agreement with this new theory of say a particle is just a tiny bits of a vibrating string?
If they are right (not saying they are) then strings include mass and energy just like the atom. However unlike the atom or particle in present time which which we all seem to agree can not move faster than lightspeed however is its mass-energy able to move faster than light. If the particle is made up of strings mass-energy that the mass-energy appears to be mass moving faster than lightspeed which appears to be violating Special relativity?
Because quantum entanglement happens faster than the speedlimit of light thus if mass is responsible that Special Relativity has been violated. While the particles existence in present time can not move faster than light might not mean that the particle can not affect another particle across the universe faster than the speedlimit of light "if" the particles existence is emitting strings of mass-energy that stretches across the entire universe in near present time.
That is if string mass-energy is responsible of quantum entanglement happening in present time instantly. It kinda makes sense for the atom to exist in the past present and the future kinda like quantum entanglement in theory like change the past and the future instantly changes, etc...
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A team of physicists and astronomers from the University of Sussex and Imperial College London have uncovered hints that there may be cosmic strings - lines of pure mass-energy - stretching across the entire Universe
This is based on the idea that particles are not just little points, but tiny vibrating bits of string Cosmic strings are predicted to have extraordinary amounts of mass -
The four-person team are members of COSMOS, the UK's world-leading cosmology supercomputing consortium fronted by Stephen Hawking.
Dr Hindmarsh said that better data is required before the existence of cosmic strings can be confirmed. He hopes this will be produced by the European Space Agency's Planck Satellite mission (due for launch this year).
The results are published in Physical Review Letters on 18 January, 2008.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2008/01/080120182315.htm
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5521 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 165 of 327 (459431)
03-07-2008 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by Silent H
03-05-2008 7:20 PM


Re: the gravity of general relativity
Looks like your post went unoticed (Most likely due to the barrage of non-sense produced by randman). I just want to point a couple of (commom) missconceptions.
Am I wrong in thinking that much of Feynman's work (or at least QED's explanatory power) would be undercut by the current direction of physics? He seemed to have a purely statistical concept driven by particle behavior (or theoretical behaviors) rather than fields.
Yes, you are wrong. Feynmann's work in QED is one of the greatest achievements of Quantum Field Theory (QFT). QFT is older then you think. Don't let Feynman Diagrams give you the false impression that QED is not a field theory. Feynman diagrams are merely mnemonics for expressions that can only be properly interpreted within QFT.
I did believe that mass and energy can be converted, and so where once you had no mass, suddenly you would have it. I did think that was happening in high energy collision experiments. Even if
mass is energy in a volume, isn't there a point where energy in an area moves from something that does not exert a gravitational force (aka warps space-time) to something that does? Perhaps an explanation of how mass -energy conversion occurs as it relates to "gravity" would be the best bet.
Wrong again. The Equation E=mc^2 is not an equation for converting mass into energy in the sense that one disapears when the other appears. It's a conversion factor between two different units for the same physical quantity, as when you convert inches into centimeters 1 in = 2.54 cm. c^2 is the conversion factor. Energy warps space-time. So does pressure, force, and stress. theese are all aspects of the same physical quantity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Silent H, posted 03-05-2008 7:20 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024