1

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Did the Big Bang happen where Earth now is?

« on: 23/02/2018 16:08:40 »

Correct on all points Sir.

A Big Bang must originate wherever one is, the proof of that is teleporting yourself to the origin of first light, then look back at the place you 'just left' :) It will now become your 'new' origin of 'first light'.

=

Is there a global setting for turning of those idiotic yellow half moons, once and for all?
Sorry, meant just moons, don't know why I thought of it as 'half moons'?
Poor eyesight?

2

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Can kinetic energy be distributed?

« on: 22/12/2017 09:24:41 »

http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/action/negative-temperature.cfm

3

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is 'time' fundamental?

« on: 12/12/2017 16:23:46 »

No Demalk, it's a simple thing I'm directing you too. The main reason for a quantuum entanglement being so mysterious is the fact that in a simplest case the probability for a spin to be up or down is 50/50.  But the 'other side' of a down converted photon, into two, will always 'know' the outcome of the other. And the main thing here isn't even that :) It's the probability itself that should be interesting. You might even want to argue that both things coexist in this case. 'Free will', as well as a deterministic outcome for the 'other part'.

And HUP is HUP

4

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is 'time' fundamental?

« on: 10/12/2017 11:21:13 »

What one need to see is that modern physics is a paradigm change. In the Victorian era (as well as some people before) we thought that everything could be calculated, but that's no longer true. Everything becomes 'fuzzy' given enough time. We still have those principles laws and properties though, and we presume those to hold locally where ever we are, which is amazing enough I think, considering the 'fuzzy ness' you meet extrapolating into the future by iterations for example.

Thinking of it 'time' seems to be a very local constant.

5

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is 'time' fundamental?

« on: 10/12/2017 11:05:13 »

You also write " If the quantum dice are rolled by something that is contained within our universe and behaves according to its laws, i.e. background energy, isn't it then fundamentally knowable how the dice will land, i.e. isn't the information to calculate it present in the universe, and isn't it then only due to our inability to calculate it that it seems fundamentally probabilistic? "

No, we can't even predict a planetary orbit if we calculate far away enough into the future. It's not just about us missing 'information', it's more of a principle. This universe are built on principles, 'properties' and 'laws', and physics are just the tool(s) we use to understand it. That's what a probability is, a statistical tool for defining possibilities, created from experiences of outcomes and educated guesses finding their proof in reproducibility. To me that thinking belongs to the Victorian era preferring everything to be deterministic but that one, I would say, is already passed.

6

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is 'time' fundamental?

« on: 09/12/2017 22:35:24 »

You have to be wrong there Demalk, either that or the physics we define :)
So, wanting to prove that idea will involve overthrowing physics, which is a slightly bigger task than convincing me.

7

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is 'time' fundamental?

« on: 09/12/2017 22:23:19 »

Demalk, that's definitely wrong "In that statement you acknowledge my definition of randomness: that it is the absence of information. "

If you think of entanglement you will see why.
And HUP.

It's not about a absence of information, it's what modern physics builds on, probabilities. And 'free will' could be seen as an 'conscious' extension of those principles.

8

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is 'time' fundamental?

« on: 30/11/2017 07:14:35 »

I would like to address the question "Is 'time' fundamental?" once more.

In quantum mechanics time is a necessity, in General Relativity not so.
Have a read.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_time

And as I said, in Relativity it depends on what you think is more correct. A generalized 'universe' or a 'local universe'. Einstein saw it as a 'whole universe', then 'time' becomes a 'global variable' definable from your local wristwatch, as well as relative motion and mass. If you treat it locally though, it's no longer a variable, instead it becomes a constant 'time evolution', just as thought in quantum mechanics.
=

What one have to see here is that using your wristwatch as some golden standard stops making sense as soon as you accept the idea of time being a chimera. It actually includes that wristwatch you're using too, if so.

Do you die?

9

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is 'time' fundamental?

« on: 27/11/2017 06:24:26 »

Interesting read Jeffrey, and I agree Evan, from where and what can they stipulate a 'outside'? I don't consider time to be 'relative' in relativity as suggested in that text though. Your clock, the 'wristwatch' you use won't give you a longer (or for that sake 'shorter') lifespan, whatever trick you try, unless you find a way to freeze yourself down to then revive you. Doing that won't allow you to consciously enjoy those days passed in a frozen condition though, and according to everything we know time still pass even when you don't know it.

Time is a local constant, just as 'c' is one.
=

Using my analogy, now try to make time a result of entropy :)
=

The text is based on general assumptions about how and what a universe 'is', sort of like you watching a 'whole universe' through a telescope. Doing so you then define 'islands of time' slower and faster than your wristwatch, but locally measured, aka in a same frame of reference, all clocks 'ticks' alike. It's not relativity that is wrong, it's just our presumptions about what a universe is.

Actually, what is important here is the stipulation that ones 'lifespan', locally measured, never will change, no matter what speed, mass, etc etc you find yourself to be in/at. It's simple, time is a local constant and one proof of it is being in a same frame of reference.

Btw: so is 'c' :)

A local constant I mean, every constant is, or has its base from local observations. 'repeatable experiments' (observations) creates them,  those all being of a local nature. It's just us lifting them up to a global representation

10

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Observation = Information = Quantum Entanglement?

« on: 15/11/2017 10:58:36 »

Ok

There are some things I wonder about reading you

How do you consider 'time', 'illusionary' or 'real'
Or better perhaps, what is it (time) to you?

And information, there's this example I'm sure you've seen, writing a formula on a block of ice. Does that information still exist as the ice is gone?
==

Btw: I will reread you and hopefully find some more questions

11

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Observation = Information = Quantum Entanglement?

« on: 13/11/2017 02:36:13 »

Then we come to information. This is where you will need to explain as good as you can what you see that as. Otherwise we will be lost in a quagmire.

12

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Observation = Information = Quantum Entanglement?

« on: 13/11/2017 01:50:30 »

You're thinking of the Copenhagen interpretation I suspect? When I'm talking about 'observers' I do have a wider definition, just as you think. I don't lock it to consciousness, because that would exclude most of the natural world around us. What I think you are referring to is the idea of a 'free will', meaning making a conscious choice, somehow changing the way the universe present itself. Doesn't that taste of hubris to you? It does to me.
==

And rereading you, I'm not discussing 'free will' when I refer to 'observers'. I'm just stating that a 'bump' will make a change just as good as any human observer. Maybe it's not the Copenhagen interpretation you're referring to though, as I also see you write

" Not a coincidence, a very unavoidable consequence of evolution on earth. The role of consciousness in the double slit experiment, i.e. the role of consciousness in particle-wave duality is a mistake. The observer doesn't need to be conscious at all."

That confuses me slightly as you later say

"Since we only find the observer effect when we deliberately create it, we can reasonably conclude that there is a distinction to be made there."

In fact I do agree to them, there is a distinction to be made between consciousness and free will versus 'dead matter' and I do expect physical laws, properties and principles to be the same for everything existing

13

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Observation = Information = Quantum Entanglement?

« on: 12/11/2017 16:09:17 »

Then we're agreeing to disagree I think :)

I would define everything as observing each other. Something 'bumps' into something else creating a entanglement, no consciousnesses needed for that one. And the 'bump' change things in its interaction. As for whether information needs to be stored? I would have to understand how you think there to answer.

Let 's put it this way then. The universe is a 'storage mechanism', and I don't expect it to need consciousness for doing so, any more than I would expect my harddrive to need it. What I find interesting is 'free will', but that's not about storing information, although it involves it naturally, in making choices. Your definition is different though, isn't it?
=

"
    'We're all observers as well as observables, but where do we set the limit? Is a 'photon' a observable? Its outcome is but the 'entity' itself is nothing we can observe other than through its effects.'


I believe the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment disproves that statement.
                  "

How?

14

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Observation = Information = Quantum Entanglement?

« on: 12/11/2017 14:06:09 »

At a first glance.
Seems possible to me. The main importance might be what you deem to be 'real' in this context, the outcomes or what exist before one. We're all observers as well as observables, but where do we set the limit? Is a 'photon' a observable? Its outcome is but the 'entity' itself is nothing we can observe other than through its effects.
=

Although calling it a quantum computer would place us where?
Catalysts maybe?

The point may be that if everything becomes entangled, able to 'act' and be 'acted on' then what place does consciousness have in such a universe? Why the need for it? A coincidence :)
=
" If by 'observing' we are enforcing an act of quantum entanglement onto an entangled system, wouldn't we expect to mess up said system? " Well, that depends on how you think of it. Are you defining consciousness as the only thing able to interact for 'change'? Otherwise it's a mess already, as everything that can interact already interacts. Don't need humans for that one unless you apply some anthropic principle on the universes existence.

15

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What does "time-like" mean in the following sentence?

« on: 27/10/2017 21:08:53 »

By Neutrino
"
    If two events are time-like separated, then an object can travel from the first event to the second event with a velocity v<c.

    Events separated by a time-like interval are always arranged in the same order in time. That is, if an observer O deduces that event A happens before B, then another observer O', moving relative to O, will also come to the same conclusion. There is a before and after. And there is a possibility that that event A will influence event B. (Cause and Effect.)

    In a space-like interval, an object can be present at both events only if it travels at a velocity v>c. Since no object with mass can travel at such a speed, the two events are not causally connected. Also, there is no particular order between A and B(in time) if they are space-like separated.

    On a spacetime diagram, for time-like events A and B, B will be within the light-cone of A and vice-versa. For space-like intervals, one event is outside the light-cone of the other.  "

And light propagate at 'c', which is a definition made by a ruler and a clock

16

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Were Michelson and Morley wrong in their predictions?

« on: 20/09/2017 02:38:34 »

Here. http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/michelson.html

Read it carefully and I think you will see how it worked. It's detailed and rather nice.

17

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Why is the structure of an atom depicted as spherical?

« on: 19/08/2017 08:55:54 »

Spheres are interesting. For example, is a 'point' spherical? And it is a very special figure of geometry in that you can't define a 'start', nor an 'end' to it. At a quantum level they lose their definitions though.
=

Actually it might have to do with classical thoughts of existence and geometry. We always stand on others shoulders

18

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How could we measure speed in deep space?

« on: 29/07/2017 20:03:47 »

You might presume that the universe has a common uniform motion, without defining that as a 'speed'. That won't tell you your own 'speed' though as the universe is expanding at the same time. The best thing might be to use your own sun as some standard of being 'still', and measure your new relative motion relative that.

I've been wondering about that one too Jeffrey, and the point seems to be that it's accelerating that change your motion, and there 'c' can't be reached. It's like you have two states, one is uniform motion the other is acceleration.  There is no real definition of what 'speed' is in a uniform motion, and neither would I say, in a acceleration.

There is a trick some use though. Picking a very distant star that 'doesn't move' as some reference of being 'still' and define it from there.

19

Just Chat! / Re: Dealing with stress and hate!!!!

« on: 02/02/2017 15:31:53 »

I don't know. Money?
F* that.

Use your mind

20

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does Newton's shell theorem account for tidal forces?

« on: 02/01/2017 09:21:25 »

Heh, should have read the whole link I gave there. But it seemed quite obvious to me that Newton wouldn't have considered tidal forces. But I was wrooonnng The mathematics was good enough to allow for tidal forces too it seems.
=

II shall hereby atone for my mistake with a humble offering to the Gods, and anyone interested

Isaac Newton and the Laws of Motion and Gravitation 1 
Isaac Newton and the Laws of Motion and Gravitation 2