An essay in futility, too long to read :)

  • 2848 Replies
  • 287255 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2400 on: 03/10/2016 18:45:31 »
there is naturally a possibility of bifurcations creating bifurcations, creating bifurcations, creating b.... In that scenario your 'copy' will become another 'copy's original', and as there seems to be no end to 'copy's' becoming 'originals'. Would you want to call that a equivalence to free will?

all of it presumes a arrow though.

But as all paths must be taken in it it also defines a static reality to me, and those are not about free will, unless you find a way to introduce uncertainty into it.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2401 on: 08/10/2016 12:24:22 »
Let's talk about probability. As far as I see it's about collecting statistics foremost, from them defining probabilities to types of events. Uncertainty can here be seen as a result coming from it. Then there is also Heisenberg's uncertainty principle to consider http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec14.html   "once a measurement of the particle is made, a single momentum is observed. But, like fuzzy position, momentum before the observation is intrinsically uncertain. This is what is know as the uncertainty principle, that certain quantities, such as position, energy and time, are unknown, except by probabilities. In its purest form, the uncertainty principle states that accurate knowledge of complementarity pairs is impossible. For example, you can measure the location of an electron, but not its momentum (energy) at the same time....

Notice that this is not the measurement problem in another form, the combination of position, energy (momentum) and time are actually undefined for a quantum particle until a measurement is made (then the wave function collapses)."
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2402 on: 08/10/2016 12:30:35 »
Hup can then be considered to exist before a measurement, and the same goes for probability. what defines the event is time, your local time defining a event as passed. Let's assume a 'field' existing, would you then say that the probability of something happening is related to the fields composition?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2403 on: 08/10/2016 12:33:45 »
If so, where would you set your limits for how this field relate to something falling out? All of it, or part of it?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2404 on: 08/10/2016 12:40:06 »
put another way, is probability something coming from our ignorance of what defined a outcome for 'you', or do you expect it to be as illusive as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, demanding a infinite reach of multitudes also 'falling out' for other 'you', created in that instant?
==

sorry, 'elusive', not illusive. And by 'demanding' I just mean that 'many worlds' start somewhere there in my mind, at HUP. It's a way to fill in all paths of probable outcomes, and before that you meet HUP. You could also see it as HUP disappear there, if now all paths are taken. Which then should mean that any idea of uncertainty as " this is not the measurement problem in another form, the combination of position, energy (momentum) and time are actually undefined for a quantum particle until a measurement is made (then the wave function collapses)" will be wrong. From a 'static' point of view there is no uncertainty anymore. ( All of it disagreeing with me naturally :)

« Last Edit: 10/10/2016 18:14:02 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2405 on: 08/10/2016 12:49:14 »
If it was so that only consciousness defined 'reality', 'collapsing wave functions' Then you would have to ask yourself how this universe ever developed into begetting it, wouldn't you? Or maybe you're of a more mystical disposition :) in which case a answer is ready made,  'divine intervention', although that's not about physics unfortunately, unless you can prove it.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2406 on: 08/10/2016 12:52:47 »
Measurements though, they 'collapse wave functions' splendidly. If a ball hits another ball, did they take each others measurements?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2407 on: 08/10/2016 13:01:01 »
There is also a third alternative. The one in where time 'doesn't exist'. In that version, still presuming many worlds you both find your infinite universe, as well as a infinity of all other 'uncertain' as well as 'possible' universes 'coexisting' from a static perspective. In that one your consciousness is what travels in time. But which 'you' would that be? Maybe you need something more than a local 'you' to define such a thing, as every 'you' bifurcates at all events, leaving each one as a 'sliver' of static reality. A meta 'you' then?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2408 on: 08/10/2016 13:03:05 »
Maybe we all should stay with the idea of man created in the image of a 'creator' :) Although it makes me worry for this creators sanity at times. I wouldn't want to be responsible for the acts of us.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2409 on: 08/10/2016 13:13:27 »
You have to admit it, looking at us. We're pretty stupid. We willingly agree to a game in where only a few of us have access to this worlds assets. the main reason why we do it seems to be because we all believe that we're destined to become one of those few, and the system is set up so that those few are getting fewer and fewer, gaining more and more assets, leaving a majority of this earths population without assets. And it all starts with a birth, and ends with a death,
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2410 on: 08/10/2016 13:15:35 »
Where does that leave this image we're supposedly created in/from?
And to put the last nail in the coffin, the creator isn't even responsible for it. Because of our free will :)
Do we have it?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2411 on: 08/10/2016 13:20:24 »
So, without a free will, you're predestined and none can demand any responsibility from you, you're also no longer a 'mystic' :)

On the other tentacle, believing that free will exist?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2412 on: 08/10/2016 13:22:08 »
What predestination does is to make you without worth, as well as me. It really doesn't matter what you do.
==

You can't both eat the cake and keep it, not if the cake is your free will. Presuming that you did both in different 'world lines' makes very little sense.

« Last Edit: 08/10/2016 13:24:43 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2413 on: 10/10/2016 17:46:15 »
Take a coin, flip it. It now will have a 50 % probability of either landing head or tail. But it's also so that the coin doesn't have a memory of what it did before, therefore it's perfectly alright for this coin to land head as much as it want. would you call this type of probability the same as the one in where one use statistics to define the chances (probability) of something happening?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2414 on: 10/10/2016 17:48:58 »
Now define how many throws we will need to prove this 50/50 disposition of the coin.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2415 on: 10/10/2016 17:57:17 »
It is logic, (assuming a perfect coin and perfect throws though) two sides give us two possibilities, both as plausible. Could one express it so that logic gives one definition of probability, statistics another? You can always argue that what statistics presents to you will become a logic of its own though, although not always so straight forward.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2416 on: 10/10/2016 18:29:05 »
There is a problem inherent in the statements I made before, at least to me. Either probability contain this coins 'loss of memory', or it sometimes doesn't? Can you imagine a universe in where coins always lands tail? Or a 'perfect universe' in where coins constantly follow pure probability's logic to give us this 50/50 outcome, no matter how few, or many, throws one make. Both universes would make me nervous I think :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2417 on: 10/10/2016 18:31:02 »
We have neither of them, and we also have HUP.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2418 on: 10/10/2016 18:49:00 »
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is such a perfect equivalence to a 'free will' to me, you might alternatively think of it as a mirror, describing some type of pure state, before a decision is made. But then we have statistics, and whatever probabilities we find coming from them. If they are correct they speak about rules of conduct to me, of order. So not only uncertainty, also a net of rules defining a logic from where we exist.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2419 on: 10/10/2016 19:23:05 »
You set up the experiment, you define the way you will measure, then you try to sort out the result in meaningful terms. Sometimes that leads you to very strange answers, as superpositions for example.

" an NIST group confined a charged beryllium atom in a tiny electromagnetic cage and then cooled it with a laser to its lowest energy state. In this state the position of the atom and its "spin" (a quantum property that is only metaphorically analogous to spin in the ordinary sense) could be ascertained to within a very high degree of accuracy, limited by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

The workers then stimulated the atom with a laser just enough to change its wave function; according to the new wave function of the atom, it now had a 50 percent probability of being in a "spin-up" state in its initial position and an equal probability of being in a "spin-down" state in a position as much as 80 nanometers away, a vast distance indeed for the atomic realm. In effect, the atom was in two different places, as well as two different spin states, at the same time--an atomic analog of a cat both living and dead.

The clinching evidence that the NIST researchers had achieved their goal came from their observation of an interference pattern; that phenomenon is a telltale sign that a single beryllium atom produced two distinct wave functions that interfered with each other.

The modern view of quantum mechanics states that Schrodinger's cat, or any macroscopic object, does not exist as superpositions of existence due to decoherence. A pristine wave function is coherent, i.e. undisturbed by observation. But Schrodinger's cat is not a pristine wave function, its is constantly interacting with other objects, such as air molecules in the box, or the box itself. Thus a macroscopic object becomes decoherent by many atomic interactions with its surrounding environment."

Here's another nice description of the meaning of decoherence http://www.physics.drexel.edu/~tim/open/main/node2.html
=

You really should read the link too, and then reread it :)
« Last Edit: 10/10/2016 19:26:11 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2420 on: 13/10/2016 15:02:56 »
So we have something in a superposition. That one is defined by us not looking. As NIST presented their experiments I will now assume that they used what is called as 'weak observations/measurements", That's a kind of observation in where people, that put their trust in it, expect it not to interfere with the experimental setup, leaving it in a 'pure state' at the same time as they then 'know' the reaction to what exist before the measurement. In essence a form of 'fooling' the wave function, making it think that we still don't know :)

Do you notice what this kind of reasoning leads you to?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2421 on: 13/10/2016 15:03:45 »
It's not thought out.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2422 on: 13/10/2016 15:05:01 »
Either you have a 'pure wave function' or you don't. Can't both eat the cake and keep it, can you?
Can you?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2423 on: 13/10/2016 15:07:45 »
Some folks think you can :)
And the reason is probably similar to the idea of superpositions, the idea that something can be several 'things', coexisting before that measurement.
If that's true, why not be able to look at something without 'disturbing' it?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2424 on: 13/10/2016 15:11:12 »
The measurement problem has two sides. One is 'classical', the idea of that when you measure something you will have to touch it, even if it is just by light. The other is different, it belongs to Quantum mechanics and in there a 'wave function' is uncertain by its nature. There is no classical counterpart to it.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2425 on: 13/10/2016 15:15:52 »
It also connects to the question of what you think a 'field' should be. A 'whole'? or 'parts', where is your cutoff, your borders of measurement? Further more it connects to Mach and the question of what interacts with what.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2426 on: 13/10/2016 15:21:49 »
Let's discuss mathematics, just for a short while. There are some ideas of what mathematics 'is'. One is that it is the world, the universe, and all. In that vision mathematics become the universe, it's the tool set that 'creates' it. Another vision is that Nature don't use mathematics, we do. A third, which I lean to, is that mathematics even then still will be the tool set that can 'explain' it, as a logic :)

What it hinges on is not mathematics per se, it's about us being able to find a logic.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2427 on: 13/10/2016 15:23:29 »
The logic is not our macroscopic definition, or it is :) But it is also any other definition you can come up with fitting the experiments.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2428 on: 13/10/2016 15:37:03 »
So, accepting 'superpositions', which I do, and 'probabilities' which I do, and HUP, which I do, doesn't logically lead me the same way as 'many worlds', or 'weak measurements'. When I look at those I get the feeling of us still wanting to set ourselves as the focus of the universe, keeping the Newtonian view of the universe. The one in where we can leave tings to be 'touchable' even when they refuse.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2429 on: 13/10/2016 15:40:53 »
Tell me, is a 'field' observer dependent?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2430 on: 13/10/2016 15:42:16 »
And the observer dependency, is that the same thing as "collapsing a wave function".
Two different things actually.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2431 on: 13/10/2016 15:43:36 »
Or?

Maybe not :)

=
spelling

« Last Edit: 13/10/2016 19:00:54 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2432 on: 13/10/2016 19:03:57 »
If the macroscopic 'reality' you measure is observer dependent, as you then scale it down. Can you let go of the observer dependency?

Why?

You measuring something, no matter its scale, isn't that the definition of 'collapsing a wave function'?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2433 on: 14/10/2016 19:36:23 »
Let's take a raincheck here and look over what a 'observer dependency' means, for me then :)
The best description is the one using 'c' as a measuring rod. 'c' is strictly local meaning that everyone measuring it will say that it never change, relative ones local clock as well as other measurements you may think up. 'c' is also a perfect clock, according to my gospel :) one that measures your local 'time', your life span as it is, and tells you that no matter where you are (mass), or how fast you define yourself moving (speed), that life span is in local terms set.

'c' is also what guarantee your ruler, and as we measure using clocks and rulers, 'c' is what guarantee your constants.

=
words
« Last Edit: 14/10/2016 19:52:14 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2434 on: 14/10/2016 19:37:53 »
That's a 'observer dependency'
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2435 on: 14/10/2016 19:46:43 »
Introducing accelerations/decelerations we get some other effects, locally measured, as 'gravity' and 'inertia'. Inertia is here the ' body's ' tendency to keep a 'uniform motion' going unless acted on by a 'force'. 'Gravity' is the equivalence to a constant uniformly accelerating force at, for example, one constant 'gravity'.

And that is also a local description.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2436 on: 15/10/2016 08:34:29 »
Now, how can you avoid the observer dependency going down in scale? One way reminds me very much of so called 'weak measurements', presuming as that you scale it down those effects more or less disappear, possibly a (opposite) mirror to decoherence too. another more interesting question is the one if you think there is some discrete limit to what can exist? Everything 'dissolves' into a 'field' at some scale, but thus this 'field' still contain discrete, for lack of words, 'quanta'? And those quanta, are they then uniquely 'global' entities, as contrasted to all other measurements we do?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2437 on: 15/10/2016 08:38:35 »
I don't think so myself, what defines a measurement is 'observer dependencies', and I don't expect those to disappear. the 'globalization' of constants and rules we observe are all a result of local measurements, 'collapsing wave functions' and done under 'observer dependencies'. The 'globalization' is just a result of those local descriptions fitting each other.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2438 on: 15/10/2016 08:41:41 »
So if you look for a 'objective global' definition you won't find it. If you instead look for local descriptions, equivalent to each other, you will. Seems that everything that construct this global description of a universe comes to be locally, even gravity.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2439 on: 15/10/2016 08:51:59 »
Assuming it to be so collapsing a wave function should become a observer dependency. It's subtle, one need to consider what a local measurement is, in terms of both relativity and QM. It's easy to stop at a surface level thinking 'what's new with that'? We all measure locally, and when we all agree on what we observe we call it a global rule. That would all be correct if there wasn't observer dependencies, but there is. Different mass and different speeds.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2440 on: 15/10/2016 08:53:18 »
What's called 'local' after relativity is not what we thought it to be before it.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2441 on: 15/10/2016 09:01:57 »
How does the universe beget those dimensions we exist in? Length, width, height and 'time', or your local arrow. It's not even correct to describe that local arrow as 'time'. Time is a relic from an earlier age, the one where Newton and absolute time ruled.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2442 on: 15/10/2016 09:04:59 »
If we now assume that everything locally can be 'shrunk' into 'quanta', of some discreet limit. Then 'time' also should be so. I mean, it's a measurement, isn't it? just as defining some smallest 'length'. One of four 'dimensions' as we call them.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2443 on: 15/10/2016 09:08:10 »
Accepting 'locality' time is translated. It's still the same for us all, as locally measured relative our wristwatches, but the 'global representation' we used to expect, this 'absolute time' of the 'universe' we see, no longer exist. Relativity changed all that.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2444 on: 15/10/2016 09:11:23 »
But it's equivalent :) As long as we are at rest with each other, approximately, as here on Earth. Mass speed accelerations (including decelerations) and the elusive 'energy'.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2445 on: 15/10/2016 09:14:40 »
The equivalence we find gives a new definition to reality. A local 'sameness' making 'quanta' equivalently the same, locally measured. With the global representation we think us see becoming a illusion of sorts.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2446 on: 15/10/2016 09:17:34 »
It's 'c' that communicates with you, then again, macroscopically we have other effects communicating too, chemical, electrical etc. But over a 'whole universe' 'c' or 'light' is what tells you what exists.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2447 on: 15/10/2016 09:26:26 »
You see, there isn't that big a difference between 'collapsing the wave function' and relativity's 'observer dependencies'. Both of them are strictly local definitions and when you set them together the question becomes, what 'universe' got 'collapsed' here? Because your view of the universe is unique for you, relatively speaking :), and so must then the representation of that 'wave function' that you collapsed, by observing, be.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2448 on: 15/10/2016 09:27:58 »
So why involve 'many worlds' in it? It's complicated enough already.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #2449 on: 15/10/2016 09:29:31 »
I prefer to simplify it myself, as far as possible.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."