1

New Theories / Re: Consciousness/identity

« on: 04/12/2020 20:14:52 »

Link to your minutes-old post on quora removed.
If you have an argument to make, do it here. The purpose of this site is not to draw traffic to one's personal blog.

Some people claim that after you are gone, it may be possible by chance to be reborn again if for example multiple universes exist or there is a series of Big Bangs and collapses.

This statement is too vague to be meaningful. What exactly is 'reborn'?  How is some other life the same identity as the one you have now?  It is indeed a question of identity.  Suppose you now are a 'reactivation' (as you put it) of 'Bob', 300 years ago, Earth. How is that meaningfully different than you and Bob not being the same person?

This idea reminds me of the 5 minute hypothesis  which of course it’s not true

Also known as Last-Tuesdayism.  It seem to have nothing to do with reincarnation.

says the Universe began 5minutes ago within a simulation and you have all the memories of the past in it.

It says the universe has all these memories. Memory is a physical thing. Information (physical) cannot be destroyed, so if the universe is young, all the current state that comprises its memory must be put into place.

If a new identity or consciousness is born with all the memories, you don’t actually realize you,  as a conscious mind, were just born maybe a few minutes or days ago.

Even if it was, it doesn't seem to be a reactivation of some prior identity, which is why I don't think the 5-minute thing is relevant to the question initially asked.

2

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Conspiracy theory: How do the oceans ignore centrifugal force?

« on: 16/02/2020 13:34:25 »

A centrifuge force is stronger than the weaker force of gravity !

Yes, but only because it spins very fast.

A centrifuge that only spun at one revolution per day wouldn't achieve much.

1 revolution per 24 hrs that is spinning very fast , ~1000mph !

Yes, OK 1000 mph is pretty fast.
But it isn't speed that relates to force. What gives rise to fcre is acceleration, and that's the rate of  change of speed.

So, let's have a think about how fast the speed of something at the surface of the Earth changes.
A point on the equator is doing about 1600 km/hr
And 12 hours later it will have gone halfway round the world and be traveling in the opposite direction at 1600 km/hr
So the change is 3200 km/hr
And it takes 12 hr to make that change so the rate of change is 3200/12 km/hr/hr
Putting tat into more conventional units
32000 km/hr is about 8900 m/s
12 hrs is 43200 sec
So the acceleration is about about 0.2 m/s/s (I say "about", because the precise calculation is a bit different, it takes account of the fact that the acceleration is in 2 dimensions, rather than 1 but it doesn't make much difference. Kryptid gave the accurate formula, but it's not obvious where that comes from.)
But the acceleration due to gravity is about 10 m/s/s
So you hardly notice the effect of centrifugal force.

I take it you don't think that the 1000 MPH is fake, and I guess you accept that there are 24 hrs in a day.
Those are the only numbers I needed.
Now you can see roughly how to calculate the acceleration I hope you can see there's no need for "fakery".

3

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does quantum entanglement allow instantaneous information transfer?

« on: 23/04/2018 15:13:36 »

As part of the original OP I stated that a photon does not experience time or distance. Could all points in space be connected via another unfolded dimension. When asking this I am very loosely drawing on M theories membrane of space which all the strings are connected to, foreshortening of distance suggested by relativity, various Quantum theories, and a few wild ideas. I may be drawing the wrong conclusions.

Possibly we don’t need extra dimensions.  Could it be that David Bohm was there way ahead of us? In his reasoning about the “implicate order”, a quon on one side of the Universe is the quon on the other side, and is everything in between as well. 

The entanglement we perceive, and the apparent transfer of information, equates to an interpretation of Bohm’s “explicate order”.  It is the 3+1-dimensional shadow of the underlying infinite reality.
   
Viewed in this context, "spooky action at a distance" is no longer either “spooky” nor is it “action at a distance”.           

A measurement is simply the translation of infinite quantum reality, which we cannot see directly, into our limited perception of reality. 

Is it surprising that it looks weird?

Yes, I think that it is very important to remember that the whole universe is connected. It is much easier for us mere mortals to consider small, simple, self-contained (closed) systems, with well-defined boundaries (both in space and time). But this is not an accurate depiction of reality. All experiments "on QM systems" must be understood not just as the system of interest, but also including all of the setup, surrounding apparatus etc. and really the whole universe.

It is interesting to note that several QM properties are completely independent of space or spatial factors. For instance spin (which is often the crux of entanglement-related thought experiments/real experiments). This website ( http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/qmech/Quantum/node88.html ) discusses the notion of "spin space" which is completely independent from "location space". It is very technical (sorry), but perhaps of interest for some of the readers.

4

New Theories / Re: What is space?

« on: 14/04/2018 10:12:18 »

Why relative motion is not necessary?

I think you are forgetting gravitational effects. I know you know, because we’ve discussed before.

Here is a different point of view, with more details:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/387/a-list-of-inconveniences-between-quantum-mechanics-and-general-relativity

As it says in the link “None of this is really a contradiction between general relativity and quantum mechanics. ”

5

New Theories / Re: What is space?

« on: 13/04/2018 09:37:05 »

However, we know that a particle has higher energy when the associated wavelength is smaller. ......, therefore higher wavelength apear only if there is relative motion between the observer and the particle.

Relative motion is not necessary.

We are dealing now with effects on quantum fields, which GR cannot handle,

I don’t understand what you are saying here. GR can handle quantum fields, but the 2 work at different scales. You wouldn’t use a micrometer to measure a football field.

6

New Theories / Re: Quantum entanglement communication

« on: 12/04/2018 21:26:22 »

Yes, you are right. I thought that if you start with a polarized beam, let it go through the BBO crystal the entangled particles will have the initial polarization. But entangled particles always have opposite spin upon measurement. I don't see how this can work.

Quantum spin isn't the same as light polarization though, so I don't see how this is a problem.

7

New Theories / Re: Quantum entanglement communication

« on: 12/04/2018 20:56:00 »

If you have set the experiment up so that both beams are definitely known to be vertically-polarized, I'm not sure why you think putting one of the beams through a filter would change that fact for either beam. It seems more likely that the filter would simply break the entanglement. You can't force entangled particles to be in one state or another.

8

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does quantum entanglement allow instantaneous information transfer?

« on: 12/04/2018 14:47:16 »

Or is it more accurate to state that the state of neither photon is known until one is observed, and once one is observed then you instantly know the state of the other photon, regardless of separation distance.

I think you are getting close to the crux of this question, because the above is certainly true.
Looking at the article you quote:

Edit: https://www.livescience.com/28550-how-quantum-entanglement-works-infographic.html (The transfer of state from photon A to Photon B takes place at a speed at least 10000 times faster than the speed of light)
Qouting from the above link
In quantum physics, entangled particles remain connected so that actions performed on one affect the other, even when separated by great distances. The phenomenon so riled Albert Einstein he called it "spooky action at a distance."

In there they say:
“The rules of quantum physics state that an unobserved photon exists in all possible states simultaneously but, when observed or measured, exhibits only one state.”
If you believe the above, then you must also believe that both photons exist in all possible states until measured, and when one is measured then somehow the other one must be informed of that measurement.
If, on the other hand you believe that entanglement puts two photons into related states such that measuring one reveals the state of the other, then no communication is necessary.
If you stick to strict QM rules then you must believe the former, and use that terminology.
However, QM does not pretend to deal with an underlying reality, it has a set of rules and terminology for handling wavefunctions and probabilities in such a way as to predict the behaviour of quantum systems, that is all. The terminology can lead to a number of paradoxes.

Feynman once said to his students, shut up and calculate

9

New Theories / Re: Matter-antimatter asymmetry

« on: 18/10/2017 00:47:40 »

What does quantum mechanics have to say about this aspect?
Matter usually differs by antimatter having opposite charge.

I’m not an authority on this, so here is a wiki that confirms the part of what you say about opposite charges, and goes on into more detail about annihilations of matter and antimatter.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter

It is said that the Universe in the early stages should have created equal amounts of matter and antimatter.


The total charge is conserved no matter the interactions and if we go back in time indefinitely the universe has always been neutral. If in the early stages the universe was all EM radiation, the total charge had to be zero. This is also means a charge symmetry which feels a more natural course. But [can] the can reason we don't have matter-antimatter symmetry have do with the randomness of nature[?]. A classical universe would have evolves perfectly symmetrical. The whole Universe would've been a perfect sphere growing ( it doesn't matter how you model it, it remains classical). But in quantum terms, if we restarted the universe like 1000 times, would  it go ~50% of times with more matter and ~50% times more antimatter? If this is the case it is extremely unlikely to be go equal parts. Can we apply this principle?


For example we flip a coin for like

Code: [Select]

10^{20} times. We will get a ~50/50 ratio. However, in absolute values we can have something like

Code: [Select]

5.000001•10^{19} tails and

Code: [Select]

4.999999•10^{19} heads. But

Code: [Select]

0.000001 • 10^{19} is very large and would be equivalent to the matter left in the Universe.[/font]

Needless to say, the question of “where is all the antimatter” is a major unsolved problem of physics, and your proposal might be aimed at addressing that problem. If so, a simple response to the question you pose …

… if we restarted the universe like 1000 times, would  it go ~50% of times with more matter and ~50% times more antimatter? If this is the case it is extremely unlikely to be go equal parts. Can we apply this principle?

…is yes we can apply that principle, if you are invoking an interpretation of quantum mechanics that allows for some randomness in the matter/antimatter split at the moment of symmetry breaking. That randomness then might very wall net out to 50/50 over the long run of many trials. Cautiously though, it seems presumptuous to say that if there was only one symmetry breaking event at the beginning of our universe, that it is only by chance that the split came out like it did. There is no support for the laws of quantum mechanics being in play at the moment of the initial event.




 

10

New Theories / Re: On energy and momentum

« on: 10/05/2017 14:48:24 »

Although relativistic mass is not commonly discussed anymore, ...

That's a common misconception. Its not only found in many recently published physics texts but its also taught at MIT. For example, please watch this: http://www.newenglandphysics.org/common_misconceptions/Alan_Guth_01.mp4

11

New Theories / Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?

« on: 07/05/2017 14:45:49 »

We also need to make the maths believable.

Absolutely Colin...................I suspect the only help I can provide for timey is assistance in understanding and navigating through the math with her. This is the very reason I have asked for us to progress at a pace which will allow her to understand the math. Without the ability to grasp what the math is telling us, I think timey will fail to understand the complexity of the difficult task which stands before us. As you have noted, the math must also be believable and that believability is only achieved through the experience offered us by experiment and the confirmation we achieve when repeatability of those experiments are recorded.

12

New Theories / Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?

« on: 26/04/2017 08:23:38 »

Anyone could, but no physicist would. We are far too pedantic and bound to the truth. You might get someone to state that

"When observed from  a given point, electromagnetic waves and time pulses emitted from a higher gravitational potential appear to have a higher frequency than those generated by the same process  locally. When observed from the same gravitational potential as the source, there is no difference, regardless of the mechanism of the source or the reference, or the gravitational potential at that point. Therefore time is affected by gravitational potential. A mathematical model based on this hypothesis has predicted every experimental result to date."   

Anything less would have omitted important and relevant facts and conditions.

13

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Interesting finding about PI and scientific constants

« on: 20/04/2017 22:05:13 »

From here I realized that it included many scientific constants.

Did you check to see how many sequences are not scientific constants?

14

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Interesting finding about PI and scientific constants

« on: 20/04/2017 21:17:15 »

For an infinite string of digits that never repeats itself, you should eventually find any numerical sequence imaginable in it.

15

General Science / Re: Should we ban pit bulls?

« on: 16/04/2017 17:05:06 »

Definition of a dog: an animal that can bite your arm off, but generally choses not to.

I'm all in favour of the reintroduction of dog licenses, which were compulsory in the UK in my youth. An irresponsible owner could have his licence revoked, and with the advent of compulsory chipping, any dog not chipped or whose chip was not traceable to a licensed owner would be eligible for adoption or destruction.

No compunction about destruction of any demonstrably dangerous dog, regardless of breed, unless its licensed owner was  a police or military unit and the animal was under control until deployed as a legitimate weapon. Anyone else attempting to buy a potentially lethal dog or gun must declare on his licence application who he intends to kill with it. Ban the intentional breeding of deformed or unstable animals.

I've always had dogs around as companions, or as a puppy walker for a guide dog, but always dog-shaped (long nose, deep chest, long legs) mongrels or "working" gundogs. Anything else is surely a sad statement of the owner's psychological  problems. And despite selecting calm pups and socialising them according to the guide dog and gun dog training manuals, I've never left a dog of any age or size alone with a child under 10 years old.     

16

New Theories / Re: What causes motion?

« on: 15/04/2017 13:36:53 »

How can the Big Bang survive its failure with Black Holes? In our universe there are BH's larger than 30,000 AU.

I know that the evidence is that you don't really care about the actual content of physics or empirical evidence, but what is your source for that claim? Your claim about the size of black holes is at least one order of magnitude larger than the Schwartzchild radius of the largest recorded black hole.

I do care about the content of physics. And I did make a mistake by a factor of about 100. 17 billion solar units. This would be around 314 AU. But you are avoiding the point by your insult. How could the universe be only 13.6 billion years old with a BH of 17 billion suns?

This would put red shift in the realm of GR dilation and not SR expansion.

Again, for those people who actually care about physics: cosmological expansion is entirely a GR phenomenon, SR is not a factor of cosmological redshift.

GR is gravity red shift and SR is vector red shift. GR red shift does not necessary mean anything is moving away. Explain your GR version of the expansion of the universe.

13.6 billion years has become a faith no longer following our observed reality. After all it was a Catholic Priest who coined the phrase Big Bang.

Actually, it was an atheist who coined the term "Big Bang". He did it in order to attempt to smear the theory because he couldn't produce definitive evidence in favor of his own theory. Time and further data collection did not side with him.

History of the Big Bang theory - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Big_Bang_theory
The history of the Big Bang theory began with the Big Bang's development from observations ... In 1927, the Belgian Catholic priest Georges Lemaître proposed an ... who coined the name of Lemaître's theory, referring to it as "this 'big bang' idea" ... Hoyle repeated the term in further broadcasts in early 1950, as part of a ...

Insults rather than correcting my term coined the term BB? It was a Catholic Priest who proposed the BB but Hoyle did coin the phrase.

Physbang you are not a very generous person are you? You can be precise without being accurate and you can be accurate without being precise.

What is the possibility of a 13.6 billion year universe with a 17 billion solar BH? Our suns lifespan is about 10 billion years. Do you have an opinion or is you thoughts only in the form of insults.

17

New Theories / Re: Is there a linear vector space that can be used with gravitational fields?

« on: 06/04/2017 01:24:31 »

The problem with the gravity of gravity arise because of increasing relativistic mass. If a test particle approaches a black hole from infinity and its instantaneous velocity gets very near to light speed then its relativistic mass tends towards infinite. This means that it surpasses the strength of the central mass. In this situation even a single particle could generate a field capable of canceling that of the black hole and effectively move the black hole. If mass were in falling from all directions this should destroy the black hole by negating its field.

18

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Should we take a small aspirin everyday?

« on: 30/03/2017 21:44:30 »

Aspirin deactivates platelets, one of the pathways leading to blood clotting; so (as tkadm30 says), it can lead to increased bleeding in the brain (causing a stroke), in ulcers, injuries or surgery.

However, some heart conditions can lead to excess formation of blood clots, which could pass to the brain and also cause a stroke or heart attack.

So it is a tradeoff of risks, and different studies have come out on one side or the other. If you have a known risk of excess blood clot formation, then your doctor can discuss the advantages and disadvantages for your individual case.
See: https://www.cdc.gov/dhdsp/data_statistics/fact_sheets/docs/fs_aa.pdf

If you take aspirin regularly, it can damage the stomach lining and cause ulcers. Aspirin intended for regular use comes in smaller doses (70-100mg) and has a coating that doesn't dissolve until after the aspirin has passed through the stomach. In contrast, normal aspirin for pain relief aims for rapid action, and doesn't have this delayed-action coating.

Naturally, if you were planning surgery, you would need to discuss the fact that you are taking aspirin.

19

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Was the very early Universe massless?

« on: 16/12/2016 20:42:10 »

Imagine that a particle has absolute zero kinetic energy. It will be at absolute zero temperature. How then does it express its mass? The question is how do we define mass? We can only weigh an object when it experiences the force of gravity. If we take away all the kinetic energy does mass have a meaning? Most of the mass of a proton is not composed of its constituent's rest masses. So what exactly bestows this extra mass? It is worth investigating this point. You gain some interesting insights.

20

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Was the very early Universe massless?

« on: 16/12/2016 15:58:57 »

I think you got it Bill
You just want it put in black and white.

'c' may be a constant, observer dependent, but you can 'slow it down'. At least the way I see it, so 'matter' handle it 'differently', although it depends on definitions.