|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A Proposed Proof That The Origin of The Universe Cannot Be Scientifically Explained | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 39 days) Posts: 3998 From: Liverpool Joined: |
So you are saying position affects decay rates.
That's interesting: could you briefly provide some evidence to support this? The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 2712 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Inadequate, your tirade against the cat is all very well but you still confuse the nurse with all your randomness and probabilities talk. He is asking what do you mean exactly by fully caused and fully undetermined? What is the difference between an effect that is perfectly determined and the one that is perfectly not? He is a very considerate nurse so is asking you whether or not you would love your undetermined quantum world be given a separate bed in a separated ward from the ordinary fully determined one. Should the random fellow be placed in a padded room?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4010 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
This post is just reqesting clarification of the particular example you've given. I don't fully understand what people mean when they use this example and just have a few questions.
I may be using the wrong terminology, so I'll try to define my use of the term "particle" by using "ping-pong balls" as a visualization. Onto my questions... 1. A particle running into a "wall of particles (one particle-thick)" is kind of like a ping-pong ball being thrown at a wall of ping-pong balls if the wall of ping-pong balls had large spaces in between them representing the distance that particles are from each other due to all the forces that holds things together and keep things being "mostly empty space." 2. Going "through the wall" is considered just making it across? If 2.a) is "correct"... then I understand the idea. If 2.b) can actually "happen"... then I need to do some more learnin'. I really don't know which is correct, and would appreciate an answer. "Me needing some more learnin'" is certainly a perfectly acceptable answer and I don't proclaim to have much knowledge on the subject. That is, the way I understand it... even though the possibility of you running into a brick wall and making it through the other side can be calculated and is extremely small... such an idea involves all the "particles" that make you up getting through to the other side... but they are no longer in such an order as to identify "you" in the sense we all know and love. And, as long as the bonds between particles that make up "you" are strong enough not to disperse when they come up agains the brick wall (and all it's bonds and forces...) ...then you really don't have much to worry about at all. Or not?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
He's also trying to claim that Pauli's exclusion principle applies to bosons (e.g. alpha particles and U238 nuclei). And all this time I was thinking the principle was applicable to fermions. Alfred's participation in every group he has posted to recently is to claim that the entire discussion is meaningless because there is no real way to talk about the past. Therefore there is no origin for life, the universe, no reasonable way to talk about death or anything happening before anything else. All because some nuclei are separated by a few Angstroms or because Tom and Mary are separated by a few meters. And what is his technique for convincing us? Well so far it seems to consists of being wrong about physics, giving concepts he does not like funny names, and mangling the posting handles in rib tickling ways. All this while referring to himself in the third person as a cat. I think we all agree that participation in these discussion is not worth the time of someone who knows better. I don't intend to waste any more of AMs time. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. Well, you may still have time to register to vote. Even North Carolinians can still register for early voting. State Registration Deadlines
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
You cannot understand tunneling using this kind of analogy. Attempt to model particles as ping pong balls is likely to fail to describe quantum mechanical behavior, because it is the wave nature of matter that is being investigated. Passing through spaces in a wall is entirely the wrong way to look at things. I would suggest looking at the wikipedia article on Quantum tunneling. Some of the articles that show up in a google search for the term may also be helpful. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. Well, you may still have time to register to vote. Even North Carolinians can still register for early voting. State Registration Deadlines
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4010 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Thanks for that, I found it very helpful. So, in taking the "guy running into a brick wall and coming out the other side" example to the absurd lengths I'm talking about... what we would really end up with is a half-a-guy on the far side of the wall and the other half-a-guy bouncing back as normal. Because of conservation of energy. Closer?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Much closer. But you aren't applying conservation the proper way. The amplitude "wave" in quantum theory is related to the probability of finding the particle in one location or the other rather than to the energy of a transmitted or reflected beam of light. A low transmission probability through the brick wall corresponds to a low probability of finding the particle on the other side rather than a 100% probability of finding a tiny part of the particle on the other side of the wall. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. Well, you may still have time to register to vote. Even North Carolinians can still register for early voting. State Registration Deadlines
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 2712 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
You don't get it, Nuke. The cat does not steal your personal arrow of time, silly. No way. You can keep it for personal use. Just don't project it on the universe. That's all.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 182 days) Posts: 1814 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
Thanks for the replies all.
I guess that I have to conclude that QM is simply beyond my capacity to understand. When reading about the KS theorem nearly every sentence requires 3 more pages of reading. It is like falling down a fractal well and after about 2 iterations I forget what the hell it was that I was trying to understand. Is it fair to say that the issue has not actually been resolved and that there are some people who understand this stuff and who support the idea that the universe is deterministic all the way down? Or is there a consensus?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
No, those are probability waves. The higher the amplitude the higher the odds that the particle will be found in that spot.
That just shows that there's a small chance that the particle will tunnel through the barrier, its not a portion of the particle making it through.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4010 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
I think I understand that part.
Right. I wasn't thinking of that *.gif, I was thinking of this one:
quote: I thought that one represented the actual electrons? Or no?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
That's just looking at the same graph from the top down. The amplitute is the brightness of the white part. The portion of the dim white part that makes it through is the probability of the electron being found in that spot. There's a small chance of the electron tunneling through, but that is not a portion of the election tunneling through.
Edit: Oh, that's for a wave packet so we're talking multiple electrons. But its still the same for just one. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Member Posts: 1164 From: Ireland Joined:
|
I think you're selling yourself short, I really think most people can understand the main facts about quantum mechanics, the only problem might be us experts providing poor explanations, so if there are any questions please ask. ![]()
That's natural, a lot of the concepts build on other concepts. Eventually you make it through though.
I would say there is near universal consensus that we cannot recover our old picture of the world and that only something very bizarre like quantum mechanics can accurately describe experimental results. There are several theorems to this effect. What the particular brand of weirdness needs to be though is a little more debatable. The Kochen-Specker theorem combined with Bell's theorem tell you that to match experimental results, under certain assumptions, a theory has to break either:
So, either (a) or (b) have to go. Quantum Mechanics chooses (a). People have designed theories where you get rid of (b), but they are full of problems. First of all, what if the second electron was located in Andromeda. To learn about the context of that electron, the first electron would have to send a faster-than-light signal to Andromeda. So if you drop (b) and keep (a) your theory has faster-than-light communication. In order not to break relativity, this communication must be undetectable physically, it's only used to access information without any influence. Secondly, any particle being measured will not just require information on a single other particle. Particles are constantly interacting, which counts as being measured, all over the universe. These all count as information the particle requires to know its "context". Hence the particle must be interacting with every other particle in the universe faster-than-light in order to have this information. These interactions are themselves physical properties of the particle and it turns out there are infinitely many of them, hence any particle has an infinite numbers of properties. This is Hardy's excess ontological baggage theorem. So either, under the assumptions of the theorems: (1) Objects do not possess definite properties. (2) They do, but it involves every particle in the universe communicating with every other faster than light, causing every particle to contain an infinite amount of information. That was the position we were in until 2011, when a major new paper showed that (2) is just flat out impossible. So with the assumptions of the theorems (Bell/Kochen Specker), only (1) is possible. So the only questions now are: The assumptions assume no retrocausal influence or relational properties. What about the meaning of (1)? Particles might have no definite properties for only two reasons: To sum up, there are only four possibilities consistent with the mathematics and experimental support of quantum mechanics. The world is either:
The only debate is which of the above is the physical picture underneath the mathematics, but it can only be these four. Take your pick.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4010 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Okay. Let me try again. If we have only one electron (or "particle")... there is a probability distribution for whether or not it will tunnel through a potential barrier. Now, if we have a wave packet (a bunch of electrons/particles)... and they come across a potential barrier... then there is a probability distribution predicting the result, as shown in the *.gif. And, the example of the dude going through the brick wall is the same as the wave packet, right? That is, because the barrier is so thick, and the "wave packet" is so large (the dude). The probability of even *any* electrons/particles tunneling through is very small. The probability of *all* the electrons/particles going through is still calculable (if you can estimate how many electrons are in the guy?)... but that's even incredibly smaller still. How's that? Edited by Stile, : "with" to "will" as pointed out below. Typo is kind of a funny word... because it contains "po" which is close to "poo". And poo is always a funny word. Always!!!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
No, I thinks its as in "a possible barrier", not electrical potential.
Fixed it for ya, but yeah.
If you send a packet, I don't think its possible that most of the electrons will tunnel through. You'll only get a minority of them tunneling through, and the odds of the ones that do get through are given by that probability wave. I may be wrong.
I thought the dude was represented by a single particle, not a packet of them. Perhaps I'm not getting it either.
That's not how I thought it was supposed to go, but now you're having me doubt myself!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021