The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An essay in futility, too long to read :)  (Read 281185 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1000 on: 19/04/2013 17:29:51 »
I don't know how one would define a quantum consciousness? As it contain all 'paths' that ever can be, those realized as well as those never realized, observed from a linear arrow as we do normally. You might want to call it all there is, and then some, but if you accept the idea of us already being there, becoming more of a higher order theoretical construct, finding a linear reality, then we newer left it. We're still there.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1001 on: 19/04/2013 17:38:54 »
And the thing here is that it all can be related to a super position, containing it all. How you then want to define that in form of fields or waves or particles doesn't matter to me. The important point is that it will be a superposition, and that the universe we have need outcomes. Life is a game of trust, defined from a superposition, using a arrow to give us outcomes. We don't die, we change, that's all.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1002 on: 19/04/2013 17:42:13 »
And ethics becomes extremely important, as that is what will differ the universe we unfold. In a superposition it's meaningless discussing good and bad, but in a linear reality where your actions unfold into outcomes, it is the most important thing you ever will think of.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1003 on: 19/04/2013 18:20:55 »
I don't know how one would define a quantum consciousness?

It would necessitate total entanglement. Entanglement is being seriously studied with respect to quantum computing as we speak. My thoughts on entanglement are these:

Because we've seen evidence for entanglement, I would suggest that not only can photons in the slit experiment be joined to one reality, I can see reason for all photons being entangled at yet undiscovered intersections. And not only photons, but all carriers of force and information.

Result: Quantum sharing of information.

This is of course, just my opinion.
« Last Edit: 19/04/2013 18:23:08 by Ethos_ »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1004 on: 19/04/2013 20:46:34 »
Don't know Ethos :)

A entanglement won't change, for example, due to one part disappearing in black hole, although you then can define that part as 'lost' to our universe, (main stream definition). If a entanglement is caused by some hidden parameter setting it then, another thing I don't know? Also, information is this case demands for us to prove that there is a information possible to transfer between the entanglement other than its spin, faster than light in a vacuum. and that one has not been proved yet, and as I see it, would destroy 'c' as the force and informations carriers.

It depends on what we will learn about entanglements in the future, but so far the definition for information is 'c'.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1005 on: 19/04/2013 20:53:01 »
A superposition don't need entanglements, as I expect. To me that is a question of probability, and the superposition will in this case be the state something is in before a outcome. And to get that outcome you need a arrow as I expect. So something in that immediate state, representing possibilities, do not use a arrow. and all will be the same to it, it will not differentiate. That is us instead, using statistics over outcomes, from that finding a probability. And there it will be our constants, defining those, all as I think.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1006 on: 19/04/2013 21:02:03 »
Or maybe you can see it as entangled? I think you might have a point there, although I'm not sure, from considering it as waves? But that doesn't state 'information', although you might find the 'spins' to represent a pattern, imagining something outside a arrow to have it :) that pattern should stay static, otherwise one will have to introduce hidden parameters again. and any change will also need to assume a arrow, which then should break the superposition down into a 'outcome'
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1007 on: 19/04/2013 21:04:20 »
I don't know how to describe that one as a consciousness. Reminds me of those emptying their thoughts, meditating. Maybe I would like to call it a 'awareness' myself, but without action.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1008 on: 19/04/2013 21:12:51 »
You might be able to define particles from a idea of there being one state of superposition existing, particles, 'breaking down' into outcomes, defined by the local arrow(s), and their relations relative each other? also remembering that all arrows are the same, locally defined, in my definition.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1009 on: 19/04/2013 21:24:15 »
Then there is one possibility more. That one depends on how 'real' we are. If we would be 'constructs' from, and on, some theoretical plane, then what we represent is no more than a pattern, although one that can change itself (free will). Maybe there are more constructs, and patterns to be found. And maybe a superposition use them all? But for what I do not know, and neither would I know how. But we do exist.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1010 on: 20/04/2013 10:26:00 »
And those last posts would make a nice SF, wouldn't they. They are all speculations, nothing more. But scales are important in their own. They becomes a cone, involving more and more interactions as you scale them up, but from Planck scale they, in my eyes, as I connect that to a arrow and 'c', becomes without linear time.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1011 on: 20/04/2013 10:31:07 »
You could imagine a entanglement consisting of two parts. One part representing a hidden parameter, set at the passage from one photon to two. Another part related to probability, meaning that you still won't 'know' what spin it choose. Then the spins are set at the manipulation, although still related to a probability.
=

But, they are no longer 'magically' communicating a spin.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1012 on: 20/04/2013 10:39:38 »
I think that one makes most sense to me macroscopically :) Because probabilities exist, relations exist, but 'c' regulates the SpaceTime we see. Then again, if you use the cone and scale it down, also agreeing on that no point in (4D) SpaceTime are further away than any other, scale-wise. Then you can see what we have as a projection, including all 'Dimensions', only being locally definable. and then each Plank sized point represent that universe, locally. So you get something extremely 'small' containing a representation of a 'whole 'common' universe'.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1013 on: 20/04/2013 10:46:42 »
Or you can use the second proposition but introduce frames of reference in it. Each Planck Scale point representing some few constants, with us sharing a common projection, defined from those constants and some parameter, in this case 'c', able to communicate 'between' them. To do that you will need to stop thinking of light as propagating though, at least as I think.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1014 on: 20/04/2013 10:47:20 »
And no, I'm not using a holographic principle for it.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1015 on: 20/04/2013 10:55:13 »
Using my definitions it becomes quite easy too see why we mix change with the arrow. Just consider that cone, and probabilities. Also I assume that even though you can state that with more relations possible the probabilities of different outcomes increase, scaling something up, the opposite must be true too. The relations defining and setting a outcome. You can think of that in terms of pressure possibly? Or stress?
« Last Edit: 20/04/2013 10:58:23 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1016 on: 20/04/2013 11:01:22 »
And if you stop thinking of light propagating, the 'dimensions' must disappear, instead replaced by patterns, using a clock defined by 'c' to light up a universe.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1017 on: 20/04/2013 11:04:04 »
Or paths?

Which one seems most reasonable there?
Or both?

:) Awwwhhhh...
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1018 on: 20/04/2013 11:27:44 »
If entanglements are correctly defined we have a 'point like' existence in my mind. Then the second proposition makes most sense for me, and propagation must go. If we have probability and some hidden parameter then? Don't know, I prefer a universe without propagation myself. And we can still keep it so, as I think?

Take a look here, and follow the links.
Einstein on the Completeness of Quantum Theory.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1019 on: 21/04/2013 20:21:45 »
a weird thought :) As if I had any other ::))

Think of a space. define it as full of 'equally distributed energy', as 'waves' possibly. Now introduce relative motion relative those waves. would you expect the energy measured from waves meeting your detector to be a example of different energies, or a constantly same energy (globally defined)?

Then take uniform motion as in relative motion. Can you define that as a real motion, or is it a apparent motion?

If it is no motion, locally defined, and the energy you measure is a 'constant one', why would it differ?
« Last Edit: 21/04/2013 20:28:23 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1020 on: 21/04/2013 20:36:17 »
Another one, assume a inflation, then a expansion. Assume it to expand in all points (equally widening as some spherical shape of 'space')

Now fill this universe with waves, equally distributed in all points, new as old.
what are their vectors? Would they be as ripples from a stone into a pond?
Spherically leaving each point?

The only energy we measure is the ones we relate to Suns, and the CBR, as I remember for now? (Cosmic Background Radiation) And that one is thought to represent EM remains of the universe, from a early stage. So how does the CBR fit? Can we define it as expressing itself concentrically and spherically?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1021 on: 21/04/2013 20:43:06 »
A third view.

Think of a red and blue shift. Then consider the wave definition of it 'stretching out' in a expansion. That gives the waves a definite vector, relative the sun and you. But the CBR? What is its 'source' relative you? Also, if I assume space to grow concentrically (spherically), which seems reasonable to me as space is defined to be isotropic and homogeneous. then shouldn't all waves 'stretch spherically' too? ( I need to think about that one for a while :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1022 on: 21/04/2013 21:01:51 »
Those three are all discussed for a 'common universe', not locality though. I don't see how I would relate a local 'Planck scale' point of locality to a vector? Relative what?
=

maybe it is possible? We have a common universe, with observer dependencies, but it doesn't mean that a direction change due to it, although a vacuum and matter becomes plastic. But the velocity implied in a vector must be related to the observers definition. And there you can't use some 'ideal common universe' to define that vector, only a local definition. A vector does not speak about a defined distance, unless you use local definitions. Which then would be a local arrow, becoming a clock, becoming 'c'. And a ruler, locally of a same size at all times.
« Last Edit: 21/04/2013 21:07:46 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1023 on: 21/04/2013 22:25:13 »
and a last one, sort of destroying all vectors for me. How do we define a direction, and a speed, or velocity?
How would you define a direction from Planck Scale?

I can define a 'cone', from that 'cone' widening I will be able to define vectors, and spheres. But not before, as it seems to me? But I'm not sure, using a local definition we still have a 'clock', although not 'ticking' measurably at Planck scale, and if we define a length it should exist too, again not measurable though.

It's weird. You have both the clock and length, but the 'clock stop'. You can refer your inability to measure to the 'clock' as I think, because that is what you need to find it.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1024 on: 21/04/2013 22:29:23 »
And that's a reason why we can measure Planck scale at all, as I think. You're not using its local clock, you're using yours. Whenever you measure you're involving 'frames of reference' in my definitions, unless we go up to a mathematical space defining ideal properties and constants. Except when measuring light, as that becomes a non propagating clock. And I know, this is just as weird thinking as any other hypothesis. But at least I'm relating it to some simple principles.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1024 on: 21/04/2013 22:29:23 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums