Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9071 total)
78 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 77 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 892,997 Year: 4,109/6,534 Month: 323/900 Week: 29/150 Day: 2/27 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is "the fabric" of space-time?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17166
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 73 of 327 (458774)
03-02-2008 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by randman
03-02-2008 12:39 AM


I think that the problem is that you're not comprehending what cavediver is saying. 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.

Given that, the only way to describe the fields is in terms of their behaviour - which is described mathematically.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by randman, posted 03-02-2008 12:39 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by randman, posted 03-03-2008 1:44 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17166
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 86 of 327 (459050)
03-03-2008 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by randman
03-03-2008 1:44 PM


quote:

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).


That's the problem. You aren't fully taking into account the point that the fields are more fundamental. In short the fields ARE physical reality.

quote:

I'd argue they do consist of energy, just not physical energy.

Strictly speaking that argument is self-contradictory. Presumably you mean some hypothetical non-physical thing that you call "energy" (even though it isn't). But what possible basis can you have for such a claim ?

By the way entanglement cannot be used to transmit useful information faster than light. That suggests that it isn't quite what you think.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by randman, posted 03-03-2008 1:44 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by randman, posted 03-03-2008 2:07 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17166
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 89 of 327 (459054)
03-03-2008 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by randman
03-03-2008 2:07 PM


quote:

No, I am taking that into account. In fact, that's my point. The fields, realms, whatever we call them are fundamental and physical properties such as energy and matter are derived, secondary properties, which is why the universe is fundamentally immaterial.

So you accept that the fields are physical and that it is foolish to ask what they are composed of ?

quote:

It's pretty simple really when you think about it. It's a non-physical realm with the potential for physical mass and energy. So it has properties similar or analogous in some respects to energy.....it has physical effects.

If it's so simple then why don't you answer the question ? What reason DO you have for supposing that the fields are composed of this hypothetical non-physical thing that is somehow vaguely like energy ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by randman, posted 03-03-2008 2:07 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by randman, posted 03-03-2008 2:25 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17166
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


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

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17166
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


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

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17166
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


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

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17166
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 107 of 327 (459119)
03-04-2008 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by randman
03-03-2008 9:18 PM


quote:

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

But it's not your "non-physical" energy. And it means that it doesn't make any sense to ask what the fields consist of.

The properties of the fields are described mathematically. I'm sure that Cavediver would give you the mathematics if you asked. I don't think that either of us would really understand that, though.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by randman, posted 03-03-2008 9:18 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by randman, posted 03-04-2008 10:45 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17166
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 116 of 327 (459175)
03-04-2008 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by randman
03-04-2008 10:45 AM


Re: Unanswered Questions
Despite the title there is no mention of unanswered questions in the text.

Now there should be no doubt that I accept entanglement. I don't disagree with mainstream QM. Just your ideas.

quote:

Now, you can define as cavediver wishes to something physical as anything whatsoever if it's in the universe, but that doesn't change the fact it has no physical properties under what is normally thought of as physical. Whatever word you wish to use, we have a field, or a connection or whatever, that is not strictly within space and time, or not only within space and time, and in reality, when you dig further than this little example, we see energy, mass, time and space are just products of whatever this is.

So lemme ask you something as an aise: step back for a minute and ask yourself where else you have heard that there are realms outside of time and space, where else you have heard that are non-physical (from a layman's understanding) realms?

What we have here are properties of a system, but a large part of that system is not confined to physical properties such as space, time, energy and mass.


I think that this illustrates your problem. You are still stuck in the thinking of classical physics. Because QM comes up with ideas that are strange to that you take it as essentially something supernatural. But that's wrong. QM isn't non-physical - it's a deeper insight into the nature of the physical. What is "commonly thought of as physical" is classical physics. But it is absolutely wrong to limit the physical to that and to exclude the deeper understanding offered by QM.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by randman, posted 03-04-2008 10:45 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by randman, posted 03-04-2008 2:48 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17166
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 118 of 327 (459190)
03-04-2008 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by randman
03-04-2008 2:48 PM


Re: Unanswered Questions
quote:

When have I stated the process is supernatural?

That seems to be what you're getting at.

quote:

t's clear that entangled particles act as one system, but whatever the connection that causes that is "outside time and space" as Zeilinger put it, and there is a reason he and other quantum physicists say that. Physical things have properties such as location (time and space), energy and matter. If you want to quibble with that, go ahead, but at least address the picture here.

I am addressing the picture. You are restricting "physical" to classical physics. And that's wrong. That isn't a quibble - it is a serious problem that invalidates your argument.

quote:

You say, well, the field connects it. Ok, let's go with that. Why is the action instant?

No, I don't say that. And I've told you why I don't say that. The quantum field doesn't respect your idea of locality.

Just a suggestion, but perhaps you should try considering how entanglement might work in the many-world model of QM ? I have.

quote:

Think of a wave, say an ocean wave. When someone down the beach dives into the wave, the wave miles away doesn't instantly change, does it? Any measurable change would have to travel via physical mechanisms which take time.

ANd that's classical physics again. QM doesn't work like that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by randman, posted 03-04-2008 2:48 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by randman, posted 03-04-2008 3:41 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 121 by randman, posted 03-04-2008 3:50 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17166
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 122 of 327 (459197)
03-04-2008 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by randman
03-04-2008 3:41 PM


Re: Unanswered Questions
I can think of a better place to start. With you actually coming to terms with the points I've already made.

Such as: The unified field is what physical reality is. It is very much a part of the science of physics. On those grounds it seems absurd to call it anything other than physical.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by randman, posted 03-04-2008 3:41 PM randman has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17166
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 123 of 327 (459198)
03-04-2008 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by randman
03-04-2008 3:50 PM


Many worlds
quote:

The reason I use entanglement to illustrate this point is my point here is the same in the many-worlds interpretation and the Pilot Wave theory. It's still action at a distance. In the Many-Worlds, it's an instant mechanism to create consistency between the 2 particles.

That isn't the conclusion I came to. My conclusion is that "which universe you are in" is a universal "hidden variable". When you make the measurement you gain some information about that variable - which gives you information about the entangled particle. There is no need for information to be transmitted to the other particle at all !


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by randman, posted 03-04-2008 3:50 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by randman, posted 03-05-2008 12:02 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17166
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 130 of 327 (459252)
03-05-2008 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by randman
03-05-2008 12:02 AM


Re: Many worlds
quote:

PaulK, but the particle's form is dependant on what can be known of it, meaning what's asked of it so to speak. It takes a form based on the observation event. So it's not preexisting in that form.

This simply doesn't address anything I said in the post you are responding to.

quote:

The entangled particle then is affected by that same event.

My point is that the "event" - the measurement - effects the whole universe by forcing a "split" in reality.

quote:

As far as information being transmitted, you can discuss this in a lot of ways but what has been verified is that the 2 particles act as one system. That's just as much true in the Many Worlds theory as any other. Just the idea that another universe is created so that the particle appears differently in the other universe doesn't explain why or how the entangled particle would appear consistent within the same universe.

The laws of physics say that the particles must be in a consistent state. However they do not fully dictate what that state is. In the many-world interpretation all the possible states are real - but each exists in another universe.

So the question of how the other particle "knows" what state it should be in is solved - not by super-luminal "communication". It is solved by the split in the universe. Whichever universe you end up in, the particles will necessarily be in a consistent state. Thus the universe amounts to a universal "hidden variable".

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by randman, posted 03-05-2008 12:02 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by randman, posted 03-05-2008 11:04 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17166
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 142 of 327 (459299)
03-05-2008 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by randman
03-05-2008 11:04 AM


Re: Many worlds
quote:

Is that really germane to the argument here?

It's the point of this side-branch which you chose to follow up on.

quote:

Think about it. How does the entangled particle know what universe which particle should be in?

It's in all the universes generated by the split of course. If you think about it, it would have to be. The different universes correspond to the possible states of the system before the measurement - and the particles exist in all of them.

quote:

But which specific laws? The laws at work here are the principles of quantum mechanics. That's the only law or rule I know of dictating that an entangled particle acts as one system with the particle it's entangled with. So once again, the Many Worlds idea doesn't change anything when it comes to entanglement except that if there is a split in the universe, there are 2 entangled particles in the other universe as well

And in saying that you completely ignore the point. The point is that in this interpretation there is no communication between the particles. QM rules out states where the particles are not in consistent states so there are no such universes. (They correspond to possible states - impossible states are excluded)

quote:

The entangled particle becomes discrete not randomly but rather dictated by what happens with the other particle. That same action occurs even if there is a split in the universe.

But it does not do so because of any communication from the other particle. That is the point.

quote:

So either way, you get action at a distance in a process outside time and space. Heck, if the universe as a whole could sense what needs to happen instantly across time and space within itself so it makes all things come out consistently, or if there is some hidden mechanism making that happen, it's still the same point I am making.

It isn't any of those. The universe doesn't "sense" what needs to happen. It doesn't do anything to the particles. It just splits based on the possibilities.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by randman, posted 03-05-2008 11:04 AM randman has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022