Silly question about physics and quantum madness [Archive]

View Full Version : Silly question about physics and quantum madness

athon

13th May 2006, 07:44 PM

geni

13th May 2006, 08:05 PM

Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle seems (to me) to imply a certain truly chaotic side of nature, where our expectation according to universal rules seems to falter.

No since:

1)Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle sets hard limits on the uncertianty

2)it only applies to certain conjugate quantities of single particles not to laws.

athon

13th May 2006, 08:09 PM

Oh. Such a simple answer.

I feel decidedly stupid now.

So...if all laws are consistent even on a quantum level, does that mean there is a sort of fate for all actions? Hence knowing the near infinite number of variables in a universe would grant you knowledge of all actions prior to their occurance?

Sorry, getting kind of philosophical. I figured I'd put all my stupid questions into one thread and get it done with.

Athon

Rob Lister

13th May 2006, 08:10 PM

Ryan O'Dine

14th May 2006, 02:51 PM

Ziggurat

14th May 2006, 03:54 PM

So...if all laws are consistent even on a quantum level, does that mean there is a sort of fate for all actions? Hence knowing the near infinite number of variables in a universe would grant you knowledge of all actions prior to their occurance?

As far as we can tell, yes. Provided you knew the laws exactly, which there's no guarantee that we do. For example, Newtonian mechanics is a good approximation to special relativity in the low-velocity limit, and special relativity is a good approximation to general relativity in the low-gravity limit. It's certainly possible that quantum mechanics as we know it now is merely a good approximation to something more complete.

geni

14th May 2006, 07:10 PM

Oh. Such a simple answer.

I feel decidedly stupid now.

So...if all laws are consistent even on a quantum level, does that mean there is a sort of fate for all actions?

We don't know what all the laws are yet (for example we don't have a theory of quantum gravity).

Hence knowing the near infinite number of variables in a universe would grant you knowledge of all actions prior to their occurance?

Only if you knew them to an infinite level of correctness (which you can't). Otherwise chaos thoery kicks in.

Humphreys

15th May 2006, 06:07 AM

Can this mean that on the macro level, the perceived laws are the sum average results of quantum effects? Hence laws are not steadfast and universal, but are a bias within the quantum chaos?

I really hope this isn't a silly question.

I believe this is exactly right. I'm not sure where I read this, it may have even been in The Demon Haunted World, but it was suggested that you may wake up one morning to find out your car has passed straight through your garage door during the night, and appeared on the other side, fully formed.

It was also mentioned that a baseball could pass directly through a catcher's mitt, in theory, because everything is probabilistic at the quantum level, although the chances against are astronomical, obviously.

DanishDynamite

15th May 2006, 01:50 PM

No since:

1)Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle sets hard limits on the uncertianty
Sure it set limits to uncertainty, but the revolutionary bit was that it made uncertainty an integral part of how the Universe functions, not some sort of nuisance due to inadequate technology or inadequate precision instruments. Heisenberg made it clear that no such precision instruments were possible, even in theory. The Universe simply functions with a built-in uncertainty.

Number Six

15th May 2006, 02:50 PM

TobiasTheViking

15th May 2006, 03:01 PM

Yllanes

15th May 2006, 03:25 PM

There's something about the HUP I don't understand. I'll explain things as I understand it and someone can point out my error.

Take momentum and velocity. The HUP says that the product of the errors in measuring those two things must always be larger than some number. The number if very small, but it is greater than 0. If the product must be greater than 0 then the error in measuring both momentum and velocity must also be greater than 0. And yet I hear it said that we can only measure one at a time exactly and not both. How can that be? It seems to me that can't measure either _exactly_ because the product of the errors is greater than 0. What am I missing?
You can measure one of them exactly, but then you know nothing about the other (you could say, and this is quite horrible but maybe easy to understand, that you get an expression of the kind 0 · oo).

The real equation is

http://www.randi.org/latexrender/latex.php?%5Cdisplaystyle%3Cbr%20/%3E%0A%5CDelta_%5Cpsi%20A%20%5Ccdot%20%5CDelta_%5C psi%20B%20%5Cgeq%20%5Cfrac12%20%7C%5Clangle%5Cpsi% 7C%5BA,B%5D%7C%5Cpsi%5Crangle%7C%3Cbr%20/%3E

Where [A,B] = AB - BA is the commutator of the operators A and B (for position and momentum equal to i hbar) and psi is the state. If two operators commute, we say they are compatible and we can know both of them with exact precision at the same time. In QM we want to find a complete system of compatible observables, whose eigenstates (states for which the uncertainty is zero) will form a basis of the space of state vectors.

You can understand this if you know some basic linear algebra. Consider two matrices, A and B. If they satisfy certain properties (as is always the case with observables) we can change bases so that they adopt a diagonal form. Each matrix will have a set of eigenvalues and a set of eigenvectors. Now, if the two matrices commute, their eigenvectors will be the same, so they can be diagonalised with the same change of basis. If they don't commute, they will require different bases and will not be diagonalised at the same time. In QM the matrices are often infinite dimensional, but this reasoning also applies. Now the eigenvectors are the only states with uncertainty zero.

wipeout

15th May 2006, 07:24 PM

Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle seems (to me) to imply a certain truly chaotic side of nature, where our expectation according to universal rules seems to falter. In other words, the laws of the universe nearly always work, but on a quantum level all bets are off.

Can this mean that on the macro level, the perceived laws are the sum average results of quantum effects? Hence laws are not steadfast and universal, but are a bias within the quantum chaos?

Quantum interference between possibilities can sum up and cancel out in many situations. This allows classical behaviour to emerge from the far-from-classical quantum laws.

So you're on the right track with this summing up idea, it's just the quantum laws are always there and consistent, it's the classical laws which are not steadfast and universal.

They're very useful approximations, though. :)

Dilb

15th May 2006, 07:29 PM

There's something about the HUP I don't understand. I'll explain things as I understand it and someone can point out my error.

Take momentum and velocity. The HUP says that the product of the errors in measuring those two things must always be larger than some number.

It's not the errors in the measurement, it's the uncertainties in our description of a particle. To boil it down:

Suppose you have a proton nicely fixed in space (somehow). An electron is bound to the proton. You then measure the position of the electron perfectly accurately (somehow), and put it back. Repeat a hundred times, and you'll measure some average position, and a standard deviation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Deviation). Even though you set up the experiment exactly the same each time, the electron is in a different position. The standard deviation is the uncertainty in where we think the electron is.

Similarly you can measure momentum and find an uncertainty, despite the setup being exactly the same each time.

This will apply in any setup, the uncertainty of some pairs of measurable values will always multiply to a certain value. For example, if you use a uranium nucleus instead of just one proton, the electron will be tightly bound, and will have a smaller uncertainty in position, but it's momentum will have a larger uncertainty. It's true in a crystal, in a liquid, in empty space.

There are no "hidden variables" that were missing, an electron just doesn't have a fixed position. When we describe the electron as fully as possible, we can predict the average position, and the average variance in a measurement of the position. The HUP says that for any complete description of an electron (or other particle), we will predict that the variance* in the position and momentum of an electron will be greater than some value.

*Variance is related to standard deviation, but I want to keep in mind that these are not uncertainties in individual measurements, but statistics which discribe a large number of measurements.

wipeout

15th May 2006, 07:33 PM

So...if all laws are consistent even on a quantum level, does that mean there is a sort of fate for all actions? Hence knowing the near infinite number of variables in a universe would grant you knowledge of all actions prior to their occurance?

Sort of, yeah. As the most extreme example, the initial state of the universe contains all the possibilities for the universe but the chance nature of quantum theory means while we'd know everything which could happen, we wouldn't know what will happen.

As the Nobel laureate Murray Gell-Mann jokes to his friend Jim Hartle about his work with Stephen Hawking on this: "If you know the wave function of the universe, why aren't you rich?" :)

athon

15th May 2006, 08:47 PM

It's not the errors in the measurement, it's the uncertainties in our description of a particle. To boil it down:

Suppose you have a proton nicely fixed in space (somehow). An electron is bound to the proton. You then measure the position of the electron perfectly accurately (somehow), and put it back. Repeat a hundred times, and you'll measure some average position, and a standard deviation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Deviation). Even though you set up the experiment exactly the same each time, the electron is in a different position. The standard deviation is the uncertainty in where we think the electron is.

Sorry to post and run here (I'm researching something at work and probably shouldn't be posting here...but, ah, screw it).

Is the uncertainty the result of being uncertain, or because the particle itself has no certain position? For example, I count the leaves on a tree. I then put them back on, and count them again. There are a certain number of leaves on the tree, and my counting is accurate, however I get a narrow range of numbers. Am I to then assume that there are not a certain number of leaves on the tree? Or am I to assume that my counting has not been as accurate as I would have liked?

I'll get back to some of the other posts later. Thanks for those who replied; I might be able to grasp this yet!

Athon

thaiboxerken

15th May 2006, 08:58 PM

epepke

15th May 2006, 10:25 PM

I hope this question doesn't get me laughed out of the club...

I have a biologist's grasp of physics; in other words, if I can't picture it in my mind I have difficulty understanding it. Obviously I have big problems with quantum mechanics, then.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle seems (to me) to imply a certain truly chaotic side of nature, where our expectation according to universal rules seems to falter.

I wouldn't use the term "chaotic" to describe this, because "chaos" has a particular meaning. It describes extreme sensitivity to initial conditions, even though deterministic systems. The systems have positive feedback and can usually be modeled by coupled differential equations.

In other words, the laws of the universe nearly always work, but on a quantum level all bets are off.

The mathematics at the quantum level are just as solid as any other mathematics, and they're also pretty simple. They're just so different that they can be hard for people to grok.

Can this mean that on the macro level, the perceived laws are the sum average results of quantum effects?

You could say that. The decoherence people, whom I think have a lot of good ideas, say this a lot.

At a macro level, light goes through a vacuum in a straight line (or a geodesic in gravity).

At a quantum level, the highest probability of a photon's path is along amplitudes that are so similar that they reinforce each other, resulting in a path that is a straight line (or a geodesic in gravity).

At a macro level, light slows down when going through glass.

At a less naive macro level, it slaloms around the stuff in the glass, so while it doesn't slow down, it has to take a longer path.

At a quantum level, the amplitudes of the photons interfere with the amplitudes of electrons in such a way that the maximal probability path resembles a slalom (albeit a slalom in many possible directions).

joller

15th May 2006, 11:21 PM

Just a caveat.

Quantum randomness is not "pure" chance. There are bell curves of probabilities -- some states being much more likely than others. For this reason, in the macro world, the least likely states tend to wash out.
My understanding is that the underlying random variables are in fact 'pure chance'.
Every random variable is pure chance. it the correlation between the variables etc. that creates the bell curve.
Say for example, if you throw a six sided dice, the chances of each side facing up will be the same (for a theoretical perfect dice, which of course doesnt exist), but if you throw 2 such dice and sum the result, the bell curve will start appearing.
But then again the random variables are just a way to mathematically express certain systems/ processes

Dilb

16th May 2006, 12:10 AM

Sorry to post and run here (I'm researching something at work and probably shouldn't be posting here...but, ah, screw it).

Is the uncertainty the result of being uncertain, or because the particle itself has no certain position? For example, I count the leaves on a tree. I then put them back on, and count them again. There are a certain number of leaves on the tree, and my counting is accurate, however I get a narrow range of numbers. Am I to then assume that there are not a certain number of leaves on the tree? Or am I to assume that my counting has not been as accurate as I would have liked?

I'll get back to some of the other posts later. Thanks for those who replied; I might be able to grasp this yet!

Athon

The deviation of a particle's position is intrinsic to the particle. A measurement can measure a precise position with less error. It's like tossing coins.

If I toss 10 coins, I expect to get heads 5 times. Over many tosses, I expect a deviation of 1.58, so I would say the result is 5 +/- 1.58 heads. But I can toss 10 coins and measure exactly 4.

politas

16th May 2006, 01:43 AM

In other words, the laws of the universe nearly always work, but on a quantum level all bets are off.

More precisely, at a quantum level, the rules are completely different, just as the movement of a body of water obeys different rules to a single H2O molecule. The rules of fluid dynamics depend on the rules describing molecular interactions. Molecular interactions depend on atomic theory. Atomic Theory depends on Quantum Theory. At each level, the laws are different.

athon

16th May 2006, 03:59 AM

The deviation of a particle's position is intrinsic to the particle. A measurement can measure a precise position with less error. It's like tossing coins.

If I toss 10 coins, I expect to get heads 5 times. Over many tosses, I expect a deviation of 1.58, so I would say the result is 5 +/- 1.58 heads. But I can toss 10 coins and measure exactly 4.

Totally lost me there. Flipping coins is a series of relatively random events with probabilities. I can watch a coin, measure it and determine its 'position' (heads or tales). A particle's position (as I picture it classically) at a given moment in time is not a series of events, but a single event.

I'm not disagreeing; I'm just lost.

Athon

athon

16th May 2006, 04:02 AM

More precisely, at a quantum level, the rules are completely different, just as the movement of a body of water obeys different rules to a single H2O molecule. The rules of fluid dynamics depend on the rules describing molecular interactions. Molecular interactions depend on atomic theory. Atomic Theory depends on Quantum Theory. At each level, the laws are different.

But are the laws on a quantum level always consistent? If I knew the full range of variables for a given sub-atomic entity (ignoring the practicalities of whether I can actually do that or not), and knew the rule which accurately dictates what happens to that particle when it encounters a given event, will I know the outcome with certainty as I would in the macro world?

Athon

Roboramma

16th May 2006, 04:10 AM

But are the laws on a quantum level always consistent? If I knew the full range of variables for a given sub-atomic entity (ignoring the practicalities of whether I can actually do that or not), and knew the rule which accurately dictates what happens to that particle when it encounters a given event, will I know the outcome with certainty as I would in the macro world?

Not that I know that much about this, but I don't think it's an either/or.

The laws can be consistent without being deterministic. If they are probabalistic in nature, knowing (with as much accuracy as is theoretically possible) all the variables at the beginning won't necessarily mean that we can calculate them at some future date, because the probabilities are part of the laws.
A law of quantum mechanics might tell me that a certain uranium atom has a 50% chance of decaying in a certain amount of time. I can't be certain of whether or not it will decay in that time, but I can (by looking at many other uranium atoms over similar amounts of time) measure that prediction and find that 50% of the time uranium atoms do decay in that specific amount of time.
The prediction, and the law, holds, and is consistent, but isn't deterministic.

I don't know if that's an accurate description of how quantum theory actually is, but I do think that it makes sense for something to be both consistent and non-deterministic.

athon

16th May 2006, 04:23 AM

geni

16th May 2006, 05:37 AM

Is there any weight behind the claim that "quantum physics shows that consciousness affects reality?"

This lady, with a major in physics, claims that it does.

http://freedomofreligion.myfreeforum.org/sutra507.php#507

We don't need quantum physics to show that. I do certian things because I am conscious thus my consciousness effects reality.

They are probably talking about the stuff around measureing a wave function casesing it to colapse. The area tends to rather the complex side and I don't even pretend to understand it but I belive the problem with the argument is that it doesn't matter what does the measurement.

geni

16th May 2006, 05:40 AM

My main problem, I think, is that I find it hard to let go of macro thinking (can't blame me; I've lived in the macro world for most of my life).

Partly. You are trying to understand it outside maths which tends not to work too well.

wipeout

16th May 2006, 07:01 AM

My main problem, I think, is that I find it hard to let go of macro thinking (can't blame me; I've lived in the macro world for most of my life).

Hey, there were famous physicists who split physics in two, with quantum laws for the very small and classical laws for everything else because of their problems going from the very small upwards.

That's why it breaks down in my head; I find it really hard to make the jump between probability due to unknowns, and probability as part of a law.

There are some physicists which don't like events being down to chance and occuring for no other reason, Einstein being the most famous with his quote about finding it hard to believe God plays dice with the universe.

It usually now comes down to having a choice to believe:

1) One quantum possibility occurs out of many for no known underlying reason. A few people want to find this reason.

2) Every quantum possibility occurs out of many but in seperate realities. No underlying reason is then needed for one to occur if they all do.

Quantum rules are certain but they only supply the probabilities for what will happen. :)

wipeout

16th May 2006, 07:22 AM

Is there any weight behind the claim that "quantum physics shows that consciousness affects reality?"

This lady, with a major in physics, claims that it does.

http://freedomofreligion.myfreeforum.org/sutra507.php#507

Some otherwise great mathematicians and physicists used consciousness as an easy escape to avoid some challenging problems which became apparent during the development of quantum theory, problems which have now been solved by further development without any special place for consciousness.

Almo

16th May 2006, 07:46 AM

Is there any weight behind the claim that "quantum physics shows that consciousness affects reality?"

This lady, with a major in physics, claims that it does.

http://freedomofreligion.myfreeforum.org/sutra507.php#507

This is silly. Truly, and monumentally silly. The Bleep people argue this. They show an experiment being changed by observation. But they show observation as a completely passive action, as if you are affecting it just by thinking about it. But this is NOT the case. To observe something, you must "hit" it with something else and see what happens. For example, you can't know where a particle is until it interacts with something. It is that interaction that changes the state of the system. The Bleep dudes' cartoon shows a scientist just placing an eyeball by the experiment. It implies the eyeball changes the experiment without actually touching it. But an eyeball is useless without photons coming in, and those photons don't give any information about the experiment unless they've bounced off some part of it.

In short: Observing an experiment DOES change its outcome. But by observing an experiment, you are actually messing with it.

thaiboxerken

16th May 2006, 02:26 PM

The psychic replies:

I went and read te forum you posted and was impressed with what was there.
You need to be a little more accurate when you are responding to what I say though, I certainly never posted a position similar to the Bleep people. I believe I explained, or at least tried to explain that the major thrust of the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle is that in observing a system you add energy and change the results. It isn't possible to observe in a totally passive state. And the principle states that you cannot observe ALL of the parameters of a system accurately. In effect, you can get a really accurate position, but then will have a relatively high error in velocity or vice versa.
I also though I had made it clear that the operation of consciousness I have been referring to is in a mechanistic bioelectrical sense. The brain itself creates very small electrical impulses which impact and are impacted by other magnetic and electrical fields.
What I said is that at the micro scale it is not impossible that those small affects could cause real effects.
I like the way Almo refers to "otherwise" great mathematicians and physicists" as taking the easy way out. Having been there for some of the original thinking on this stuff, I can tell you that some of the fellows in the physics department at Princeton and the University of Pennsylvania might find that a little bit snotty. I would like to know what has been published in the last 20 years that invalidates what I have said.
Try and remember that in almost all theoretical situations, physics stop at the point of sufficiency. When an explanation is sufficient, it can be called complete. But that does not mean that it is necessary actually complete. Often physicists do not follow the logical consequences of their theories. That doesn't make them bad, weak or silly (all of which you have called me), it just notes that they have a limited range of interest and little or no interest in looking beyond the immediate scope of their focus. Philosophers are more interested in looking to see what the physics means. I studied physics very seriously so that I could hopefully grasp what it all implied.

Now the funniest part of this whole thing is that the bottom line is a little philosophical stance called modified common sense realism.

No one can PROVE that the external world exists. From a standpoint of pure logic with no unfounded or unprovable assumptions, only the purest existentialism can be defended. But when all is said and done, to believe that one one being (oneself) exists and that the entire external universe is a self-deluding hallucination is sort of silly. The thrust of modified common sense realism is that the external universe probably exists, that it probably is pretty much as we perceive it with the exception of superficial characteristics like paint) and that the strongest weapon in philosophy is common sense.
If you look at what I have said, it follows this rule pretty strictly. Were esp something common and a strong ability, it would be easy to measure and reproduce. If it is something rare and not very strong it would be very difficult. What I have/do is something uncommon and not controllable. I have a noted cerebral anomaly (along with an assortment of orthopedic abnormalities) which appear to be a family syndrome. I also, by the way, have a bunch of paperwork from Mensa, regarding a measured IQ of 186. It seems reasonable when presented with something that is not explanable by ordinary means, that what I have postulated is a fairly simple, common sense explanation. Very very small causes producing small, erratic effects. And remember that the major postulation is that the most likely explanation is some kind of future memory. Small amounts of information remembered from the future. I would welcome rational discourse with anyone who would be willing to discuss this politely, but I really don't understand why you, bangoskank, find it necessary to call names and be nasty. If the idea of not knowing everything as it is upsets you so much, I'd stay away from physicists. Those guys are very prone to haring off into multiverses and extra dimensions.
I have to admit that string theory bothers me. Something about the notion of little particles running around 2 or 5 extra teensy dimensions, creating a probability wave-like nexus for particles in the regular 4D universe just doesn't seemto fit the patterns.
My specialty back when, was noting and describing how different patterns echo and repeat at the different levels of scale. It's not a precise repetition in the fractal mode, but more a mirroring or shadowing somehow. It seems to indicate that there is a number of levels of structure in the universe. You can see it most easily in physics, how Newtonian physics works at the macro level, then relativity as you go up and quantum physics as you go down. Yet each theory is consistent with the others in a certain sense.
Oh hell.
I'm not in a mood to play today. You believe whatever you want bangoskank, you've obviously made up your mind that you know everything and that no one else holds a valid position that conflicts with yours. So take your self-righteousness and wrap up in it. I, at least, am willing to admit that I don't know it all.

rockoon

16th May 2006, 07:23 PM

A quark follows the laws.
An atom follows the same laws.
A planet follows the same laws.
A galaxy follows the same laws.
The universe follows the same laws.

All the quantum "spooky" stuff.. yeah... counter-intuitive and all that.. no local hidden variables.. so maybe FTL, stochastic processes, or maybe an infinite number of universes... yeah... hard to explain.. many "interpretations" that try to "explain"

But what makes it hard isnt in quantum theory.. its in our notions.. the oldschool newtonian view was equally hard to explain.. it made no attempt to explain things but most people don't realize that.

The notion that non-quantum ideas need no explanation but the quantum stuff does is the big stumbling block...

wipeout

16th May 2006, 07:28 PM

Well, the believer in psychic phenomena makes many fair points about science there.

And yeah, I never thought I'd hear myself saying that either. :)

The brain itself creates very small electrical impulses which impact and are impacted by other magnetic and electrical fields. What I said is that at the micro scale it is not impossible that those small affects could cause real effects.

Well, there's obviously medical diagnostic and monitoring equipment for the brain which work along these lines. There's even been experiments which induce hallucinations using extremely powerful magnetic fields. People start seeing strange chessboard-like patterns. They can also pump blood using magnetic effects on the iron in the cells to avoid the damage that mechanical pumps would do so blood flow within the brain would be also affected by powerful magnetic fields. And so on.

However, as is often pointed out, we don't need electromagnetic theory to explain ESP. We need some convincing experiments that show ESP exists first to show there's something which actually needs to be explained.

I like the way Almo refers to "otherwise" great mathematicians and physicists" as taking the easy way out. Having been there for some of the original thinking on this stuff, I can tell you that some of the fellows in the physics department at Princeton and the University of Pennsylvania might find that a little bit snotty. I would like to know what has been published in the last 20 years that invalidates what I have said.

Oh, that was me being snotty there, not Almo. ;)

What's been done in recent decades is work on something called decoherence which originates from the work of various people like Everett, Zeh, Zurek, Gell-Mann, Hartle and others. Heisenberg himself was thinking along similar lines a bit earlier. It's partly about removing external observation and/or measurement from quantum theory so the theory can be applied to the entire universe. Consciousness being invoked in quantum theory originates either partly or completely from related problems.

If we leave external observation or measurement in as being necessary features of quantum theory, then a quantum universe needs something outside of it to observe or measure it. Not only does something outside the universe make no sense from the point of surely a universe would need to include everything to actually be a universe, there's also problems like the "von Neumann chain" pointed out by the great mathematician and mathematical physicist John von Neumann as he and others were founding and developing quantum theory.

Von Neumann noticed that quantum interference spreads from the system under investigation to the observer or measuring device, so you need another observer or measuring device to get anything useful from the theory. But the interference spreads to them too. So you need another observer or measuring device. And another. And another. And then you have an infinity of observers or measuring devices. Which isn't terribly helpful.

So von Neumann invoked consciousness as being somehow "special" and immune to the effects of the spreading quantum interference so this infinity of observers or measuring devices ends at the first conscious observer. Which wasn't terribly helpful either as it's physically vague in the extreme. This is an example of what I mean when I say "otherwise great mathematicians and physicists".

Decoherence is the modern answer to this problem. It comes from quantum theory itself and thus makes adding external observers and measurements and/or consciousness unnecessary. It may also mean the possible existence of an infinity of alternative realities within the universe, however, so we've gone from one kind of infinity spreading outside what we usually call the universe to possibly another spreading within it. Oh well, that's progress for you. :o

Anyhow, while going from the scale at which quantum effects dominates upwards to the scale at which the brain functions still has some mysteries as far as I know, it's mind-boggling challenge to investigate this.

Simple, reliable and repeatable experiments demonstrating the existence of ESP are what people who believe in ESP should concentrate on.

I hope my long ramble here should discourage from venturing into the quantum swamp looking for answers to anything we don't have to. ;)

epepke

16th May 2006, 07:45 PM

My main problem, I think, is that I find it hard to let go of macro thinking (can't blame me; I've lived in the macro world for most of my life).

To me, every effect has a direct cause. Knowing the cause is to know the effect. Probability is what we give to situations where we don't know all of the variables. If I know the full range of variables (force of thrust, the starting position of the coin, the air pressure etc.) for a coin toss, there's no 'probably'. It will be heads, or it will be tales.

That's why it breaks down in my head; I find it really hard to make the jump between probability due to unknowns, and probability as part of a law.

If that probability is essentially due to those quantum rules sometimes being uncertain (again, the universe is the result of probability bias), it makes sense again.

Well, yeah, that can be a problem. Sufficiently long university study is a known cure, and it works in most cases.

Alas, though. The quantum rules are nice, clean, simple, and about as deterministic that you can get. No problem there.

So are the classical rules.

Here's the trouble, though. When you try to translate between the two, you get the probabilistic effects. Some people have interpretations that make them go away. But if you don't make them go away, then what's left is unavoidably, completely random, in the sense that there is no way, even in theory or principle, to make a prediction beyond certain parameters.

wipeout

17th May 2006, 06:14 AM

Thanks to who I assume is thaiboxerken for posting what we're saying over at the other forum. Saves me from joining up. :)

thaiboxerken

17th May 2006, 10:10 PM

Lling the psychic:

all mimsey were the borogroves and the momraths, outgrabe

(hoping that I only toasted my keyboard and not any damage to the machine itself. we had a blond moment last night and dropped about 1/2 cup of drinkatoast into the keyboard. OOOoooh, caramel, sugar, boiled raisins and caffeine. Gonna work real well. The spare keyboard kept throwing /\ by the dozen all over the place so we tried another. If this don't work, I may be gone for a day or so)

Here's the deal. I(me personally) do need a potential rational explanation because I definitely do something that doesn't make a whole lot of sense from the usual standpoint. I don't need to convince you, more than likely even if I floated overhead playing the theme song from close encounters through my bodily orifices you wouldn't be convinced.
I come from a background of hard science, my uncle invented polymerization for Thiokol and is very well known. My father was a mechanical engineer. Practically everybody else are lawyers and between the two, there wasn't a whole lot of room for woowoo anything.
Unfortunately, as I said, we in the maternal line of descent carry a mutation that results in some type of family syndrome. It is undescribed in the literature and according to the geneticists that studied and "care" for my nephew, it seems to be non-dysfunctional resulting in an assortment of orthopedic abnormalities with associated neurological anomalies. Oddly enough one of the corellaries (sic) or associated factors is consistently high tests on the various IQ scales. We range from 150's up to the high 180's and yes, that is substantially over wjat is normally considered genius level.
This is consistent in all descendants and in each generation available for verification so far (4) We just got the first meber of gen 5 but he's only 6 weeks and while Mama, Gramma, Great-gramma and Auntie all think he's brilliant, I expect it's a little soon to tell for sure.
Now I am the only one tested to the limits so to speak - participating in a massive study sponsored by the gov't and administered through Mensa back in the 60's. The aim of this study was to determine whether values of intelligence as measured by IQ tests differ as a measure of speed (CPU speed, if you will) or if at some point genius is qualitatively different from normal. If you find the study you will find that the published results state that up to a certain level, a rather vanishingly small percentage on the order of 1/2 of 1% of the 1/2 of 1% of the highest IQ's, below this it appears to be a simple matter of speed. Smart people think faster than dumber people. When you reach those tinynumbers at the top, a small percentage of that 1/2 of 1% of 1/2 of 1%, about 5-7%, as I recall, something else is happening. Those few do not appear to use the same logic as others, it is some kind of synthetic logic that does not operate in the same kind of linear fashion as normal. In those cases it is felt that regardless of the tested IQ, the results are meaningless. The logic is too different, therefore the map of intelligence to IQ is nullified.
Guess who has paperwork proving she's a freak. Might be a genius, might be retarded, nobody knows.
I could stay in Mensa if I wanted and paid the dues, but never felt like it after that.
Now I could break into some elaborate song and dance involving Native ancestry, punctuated equilibrium and the potential for stress induced speciation pr just postulate some interesting step in human evolution. On the other hand, we could just be defective and will quietly die out.
Don't know.
We're a mildly weird bunch. My sisterinlaw thinks were all Asbergers, but I think she's just tired of us.
Oddly enough, most all of us seem to be able to do some very minor woowoo ****.
It's erratic, unreliable and not very damn useful, but speaking from a personal position as what I would term a secular humanist, it's too f*&^&%$g much to do it once let alone 2 or 3 times a year.
The other day my best friend called and said where were her flipflops.
I immediately said down low, dark and near metal/wire with a sort of like a shoe rack shape - scallopy. BIg Help here. They were under the sofa which has the springs exposed at the bottom. Neither one of thought of that for a long while. She gave up looking for where and just looked. Under the sofa is reasonable for a pair of flat shoes, just because it matches up to what I said didn't do any good. Useless. But bothersome.
How can I possibly know where a stupid pair of rubber flipflops might be. And no, I wasn't there the last time she wore them. The last time she had them was last summer and I've slept way too many times to possibly remember her telling me she put her flips under the sofa. I can't remember what I named the children some days.
Besides, she wouldn't telll me she put her shoes under the sofa. Why would she. So it isn't a memory that floated up.
Now anecdotal evidence doesn't convince you. Okay. You want simple, repeatable experiments. Okay. You get to figure out how to make a simple, repeatable experiment for something I can not control, cannot perform on command, and really have no clue about except it happens to me. Therefore it IS. Whether I like it or not. I had to figure out a rational possiblle explanation because I dislike woowoo **** probably more than you do.
The other option is that I'm seriously delusional. It strikes me as a pretty pecular delusion to periodically hallucinate I am \esping the location\ of odd lost objects\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
=\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\0=0|Keyboard problems more later

thaiboxerken

17th May 2006, 10:13 PM

The problem with people who have high IQ's is that they often think they're too smart to be wrong. I have a few friends in MENSA and they told me about it, I didn't think I'd like it at all because it's not populated with critical thinkers. It's comprised of alot of "smart" people that have woo-ish ideas. Sure, they're good at math, physics, grammar and problem solving, but many believe in absolute bull****. I think this is a big part of the "psychic's" problem.

Yahzi

17th May 2006, 11:09 PM

Is there any weight behind the claim that "quantum physics shows that consciousness affects reality?"
Absolutely not. It is true that the wave-function does not collapse until it is observed, but what the woo-woos forget is that the observer can be an electron.

No consciousness required. Just a faulty understanding of how the word "observed" is used. (I see Almo already covered this.)

As for Mensa, I have met 4 people in that organization. Two of them were geniuses of the most astounding kind, and two of them would have suffocated if they had been trapped in a wet paper bag. I lost interest in the idea after that. (Although in High School I had a gang called the "Militant Mensa" :D )

Yahzi

17th May 2006, 11:14 PM

As for these idiots claiming psi is too weak to measure... last time I went to a trade show, the booth next to me was selling instruments that could count photons - one at a time. The booth next to him could detect individual molecules. The LIGO project can detect (as a side-effect) highway traffic at 50 miles. My own instrument can measure surface roughness to a sub-angstrom level.

Your brain can't detect individual photons, molecules, or sub-angstrom anything.

thaiboxerken

17th May 2006, 11:24 PM

More Llinn:

I've been living with this silly **** all my life. It's irritating because it is so useless. I can't find anything that belongs to me or directly affects me. We won't discuss what happened when my husband's 18v cordless drill got disappeared into a tub of my fabric for about a year. Not one little blip on my woowoo radar. Didn;t put it in there. Don't know how it got there. Got a blasted earful when it disappeared and when IT CAME BACK because it was in my stuff. Useless.
If it worked on a repeatable basis maybe I could figure a way to make MONEY off it. Even if I set up in business as a key psychic. Call me and I'll tell you where your keys are. $3.99 a minute.
JUst every so often, no warning, ask me and I'll know. Nothing useful, don't try and trick me for lottery numbers. Trust me, we've tried every variation of that we can possibly think of and we've come up with more than a few. But I know when IT happens because it's an actual sort of false color, ultrasound, radio wave black and white tinted snapshot. I see something - just for a minute and not very much of the area. About like you focused in on the keys with a polaroid and took a bad snapshot with infrared film or such. Unmistakeable. No concurrent ideas, don't know where "there" is just that stupid image popping upl like the floaties you get when you're falling asleep but at least then your eyes are closed and we know what that **** is.
It isn't normal. It isn't simple and repeatable. I don't particularly appreciate it and would happily have it go away.
Ahem
It's there, I had to figure out what it most likely was or else accept that I was delusional in a very limited and rather peculiar fashion. I prefer to think of myself as sane. Most of us do, I suspect.
I will begin reading about decoherence, but as I say my personal opinion, for what it's worth and from the standpoint of a dilettante, since I cannot manage the math and logic necessary to work in the field and still remember to eat and bathe, is that the thrust of quantum physics has gone too far into navel contemplation with string theory and quantum foam.
Remember the part about modified common sense realism.
I think the answer is goiong to lie in the actual nature of em radiation. We need to go back and think about that. Most of the thought is expended on particles. We keep going deeper and deeper into elemental particles - muons, gluons with characteristics like charm and whimsy (who says physicists are dull)( 3 physicists and a particle accelerator and you have a party baby). We now have extra tiny dimensions for the particles to play in and are trying to explain gravity by bouncing them through their little dimensions causing little tiny warps in the quantum foam.
Meantime we have things like light wandering around, waving itself all over the place, when it isn't waving anything (no medium) and yet it can do work. It can spin the golden leaves of a tiny pinwheel in a vacuum tube.
It can only travel at c (in a vacuum) You can slow it down in water or glass. But if you stop it (rest) it no longer exists.
Now things that are not waves, things that exist when stopped (il.e. rest mass greater than zero) can boogie right along up to .999999c but if they hit c all sorts of metaphorical hell breaks loose. (This is where that pesky business about movement on the tau axis comes in) As the object approaches c, it experiences shortening in the 3D dimensions along the vector of travel and apparent dilation or slowing of passage on the tau axis (graphs are a nice way of showing and explaining an event) Time appears to slow down. If you follow the maths derived from e=mc^2 if something with a rest mass greater than zero actually achieves c, it's mass would theoretically become infinite and subsume the entire universe
Now go back and look at the micro scale. At the atomic level, electrons exist in their probability waves in specific shells. An excited electron jumps from s to p or d without ever crossing the distance. It stops being here and starts being there. It's called the electron tunnel effect and is very well documented.
The nature of reality, as you approach the micro scale seems to become something very different from what we see and know and call common sense.
I think that the correct or proper theory of physics will be more "common sense" than string theory. It just requires me to believe 3 impossible things before breakfast. But I could be very wrong.
I could also be very wrong about what I do. It may not be explained in the manner I have guessed. It seems to be a fairly reasonable, sort of sensible explanation of something that is pretty peculiar.
But I know it is because it happens to me.
Now in order for you to know it is, you get to come up with a simple, repeatable experiment that won't cost me any money because we're going into bankruptcy and selling the house.

TobiasTheViking

18th May 2006, 05:42 AM

Here's the deal. I(me personally) do need a potential rational explanation because I definitely do something that doesn't make a whole lot of sense from the usual standpoint. I don't need to convince you, more than likely even if I floated overhead playing the theme song from close encounters through my bodily orifices you wouldn't be convinced.

I'm glad you agree that you need rational explanation. But you said it wasn't supernatural, untill there is a natural explanation, untill there is a rational explanation, it isn't natural, but supernatural.

As soon as you can find a natural explanation, it will become science, and will no longer be supernautral

I come from a background of hard science, my uncle invented polymerization for Thiokol and is very well known. My father was a mechanical engineer. Practically everybody else are lawyers and between the two, there wasn't a whole lot of room for woowoo anything.
Unfortunately, as I said, we in the maternal line of descent carry a mutation that results in some type of family syndrome. It is undescribed in the literature and according to the geneticists that studied and "care" for my nephew, it seems to be non-dysfunctional resulting in an assortment of orthopedic abnormalities with associated neurological anomalies. Oddly enough one of the corellaries (sic) or associated factors is consistently high tests on the various IQ scales. We range from 150's up to the high 180's and yes, that is substantially over wjat is normally considered genius level.
This is consistent in all descendants and in each generation available for verification so far (4) We just got the first meber of gen 5 but he's only 6 weeks and while Mama, Gramma, Great-gramma and Auntie all think he's brilliant, I expect it's a little soon to tell for sure.
Now I am the only one tested to the limits so to speak - participating in a massive study sponsored by the gov't and administered through Mensa back in the 60's. The aim of this study was to determine whether values of intelligence as measured by IQ tests differ as a measure of speed (CPU speed, if you will) or if at some point genius is qualitatively different from normal. If you find the study you will find that the published results state that up to a certain level, a rather vanishingly small percentage on the order of 1/2 of 1% of the 1/2 of 1% of the highest IQ's, below this it appears to be a simple matter of speed. Smart people think faster than dumber people. When you reach those tinynumbers at the top, a small percentage of that 1/2 of 1% of 1/2 of 1%, about 5-7%, as I recall, something else is happening. Those few do not appear to use the same logic as others, it is some kind of synthetic logic that does not operate in the same kind of linear fashion as normal. In those cases it is felt that regardless of the tested IQ, the results are meaningless. The logic is too different, therefore the map of intelligence to IQ is nullified.
Guess who has paperwork proving she's a freak. Might be a genius, might be retarded, nobody knows.
I could stay in Mensa if I wanted and paid the dues, but never felt like it after that.
Now I could break into some elaborate song and dance involving Native ancestry, punctuated equilibrium and the potential for stress induced speciation pr just postulate some interesting step in human evolution. On the other hand, we could just be defective and will quietly die out.
Don't know.

non sequitur

We're a mildly weird bunch. My sisterinlaw thinks were all Asbergers, but I think she's just tired of us.

aspergers

Oddly enough, most all of us seem to be able to do some very minor woowoo ****.

Most people have something they can't understand occur to them, like knowing where something is, or wanting to call someone and then they call you.

It's erratic, unreliable and not very damn useful, but speaking from a personal position as what I would term a secular humanist, it's too f*&^&%$g much to do it once let alone 2 or 3 times a year.
The other day my best friend called and said where were her flipflops.
I immediately said down low, dark and near metal/wire with a sort of like a shoe rack shape - scallopy. BIg Help here. They were under the sofa which has the springs exposed at the bottom. Neither one of thought of that for a long while. She gave up looking for where and just looked. Under the sofa is reasonable for a pair of flat shoes, just because it matches up to what I said didn't do any good. Useless. But bothersome.
How can I possibly know where a stupid pair of rubber flipflops might be. And no, I wasn't there the last time she wore them. The last time she had them was last summer and I've slept way too many times to possibly remember her telling me she put her flips under the sofa. I can't remember what I named the children some days.
Besides, she wouldn't telll me she put her shoes under the sofa. Why would she. So it isn't a memory that floated up.

And there are many non supernatural explanations for this. Just because you haven't made the link yet, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Now anecdotal evidence doesn't convince you. Okay. You want simple, repeatable experiments. Okay.

Indeed i do

You get to figure out how to make a simple, repeatable experiment for something I can not control, cannot perform on command, and really have no clue about except it happens to me. Therefore it IS.

You are the one with the claim, you are the one that should prove it. Not me.

Whether I like it or not. I had to figure out a rational possiblle explanation because I dislike woowoo **** probably more than you do.

Doubt it.

The other option is that I'm seriously delusional. It strikes me as a pretty pecular delusion to periodically hallucinate I am \esping the location\ of odd lost objects

No, there are other answers besides being delusional or insane. The human brain likes to make connections, and find cause and effect. Even where there are none.

That leads to people thinking certain things that aren't true, it isn't delusions, it is simply the brain making a connection it thinks is logical, but it really isn't

Sincerely
Tobias

TobiasTheViking

18th May 2006, 06:01 AM

I've been living with this silly **** all my life. It's irritating because it is so useless. I can't find anything that belongs to me or directly affects me. We won't discuss what happened when my husband's 18v cordless drill got disappeared into a tub of my fabric for about a year. Not one little blip on my woowoo radar. Didn;t put it in there. Don't know how it got there. Got a blasted earful when it disappeared and when IT CAME BACK because it was in my stuff. Useless.

Not surprising, And i don't for one second believe that your other experiences are anything other than subconcious hints and the brain finding logical connections where there are none.

If it worked on a repeatable basis maybe I could figure a way to make MONEY off it. Even if I set up in business as a key psychic. Call me and I'll tell you where your keys are. $3.99 a minute.
JUst every so often, no warning, ask me and I'll know. Nothing useful
I have a friend, he will start asking me a question, and as soon as his first word (or rather my name) has left his lips, i interrupt him and say "YES" or "NO", without having heard his question.
I've done this for years, many years, does that mean i know what he is going to ask? Is it proof that i can look into the future?

No it isn't. Some people would think they had some special ability, which i of course haven't.

I can also do it with less of a success rate with other people.

, don't try and trick me for lottery numbers. Trust me, we've tried every variation of that we can possibly think of and we've come up with more than a few. But I know when IT happens because it's an actual sort of false color, ultrasound, radio wave black and white tinted snapshot. I see something - just for a minute and not very much of the area. About like you focused in on the keys with a polaroid and took a bad snapshot with infrared film or such. Unmistakeable. No concurrent ideas, don't know where "there" is just that stupid image popping upl like the floaties you get when you're falling asleep but at least then your eyes are closed and we know what that **** is.
It isn't normal. It isn't simple and repeatable. I don't particularly appreciate it and would happily have it go away.
Ahem

Have you tried keeping a record of all the times that has happened? are you sure your hit rate is 100%. as i have stated a few times by now, the human brain has a tendency to fool itself, like people KNOWING that the plain they were on would crash, even before it crashed.

Of course they forget that the KNEW it would crash the dusin other times they flew as well, where it didn't crash.

The human brain fooling itself(and i will admit that that may very well be the case with my story of my friend, though i don't think it is, but i wouldn't, would i?)

It's there, I had to figure out what it most likely was or else accept that I was delusional in a very limited and rather peculiar fashion. I prefer to think of myself as sane. Most of us do, I suspect.
I will begin reading about decoherence, but as I say my personal opinion, for what it's worth and from the standpoint of a dilettante, since I cannot manage the math and logic necessary to work in the field and still remember to eat and bathe, is that the thrust of quantum physics has gone too far into navel contemplation with string theory and quantum foam.

You have yet to make the link between your experiences and any physics. Your prior attempts haven't been consistent with the science.

Remember the part about modified common sense realism.
I think the answer is goiong to lie in the actual nature of em radiation. We need to go back and think about that. Most of the thought is expended on particles. We keep going deeper and deeper into elemental particles - muons, gluons with characteristics like charm and whimsy (who says physicists are dull)( 3 physicists and a particle accelerator and you have a party baby).
Your explanation still doesn't agree with the science you are quoting.

We now have extra tiny dimensions for the particles to play in and are trying to explain gravity by bouncing them through their little dimensions causing little tiny warps in the quantum foam.
Ehm, no we don't, there still has been no prediction or expiremnt of String Theory. String Theory is NOT science, not yet, i hope it will be, but it isn't yet.

Meantime we have things like light wandering around, waving itself all over the place, when it isn't waving anything (no medium) and yet it can do work. It can spin the golden leaves of a tiny pinwheel in a vacuum tube.
It can only travel at c (in a vacuum) You can slow it down in water or glass.
Actually, the photon(or wave) is still moving at C, it is just doing a slalom course that makes it appear slower.
But if you stop it (rest) it no longer exists.
Besides for smashing the photon into some other particle, i know of no way to stop it. So i'm not sure what you are trying to say here. If you stop the photon it's energy will be turned into something else.

Now things that are not waves, things that exist when stopped (il.e. rest mass greater than zero) can boogie right along up to .999999c but if they hit c all sorts of metaphorical hell breaks loose.
Sorry? what? Everything is waves... everything.
And nothing with a mass can move at c. I don't know what kind of hell would break loose, but i don't really think that it matters sine it is impossible for anything with a mass to reach c.

I would assume, just an idea, that nothing would really happen, except that when it colides with something it is gonna produce a lot of energery. And also that the atom would never change(no time is passing at c).

(This is where that pesky business about movement on the tau axis comes in) As the object approaches c, it experiences shortening in the 3D dimensions along the vector of travel and apparent dilation or slowing of passage on the tau axis (graphs are a nice way of showing and explaining an event) Time appears to slow down. If you follow the maths derived from e=mc^2 if something with a rest mass greater than zero actually achieves c, it's mass would theoretically become infinite and subsume the entire universe

Been over this, what you are saying isn't consistent with the science.

Now go back and look at the micro scale. At the atomic level, electrons exist in their probability waves in specific shells. An excited electron jumps from s to p or d without ever crossing the distance. It stops being here and starts being there. It's called the electron tunnel effect and is very well documented.

Indeed, what are you trying to say?

The nature of reality, as you approach the micro scale seems to become something very different from what we see and know and call common sense.
I think that the correct or proper theory of physics will be more "common sense" than string theory. It just requires me to believe 3 impossible things before breakfast. But I could be very wrong.

non sequitor

I could also be very wrong about what I do. It may not be explained in the manner I have guessed. It seems to be a fairly reasonable, sort of sensible explanation of something that is pretty peculiar.
But I know it is because it happens to me.
Now in order for you to know it is, you get to come up with a simple, repeatable experiment that won't cost me any money because we're going into bankruptcy and selling the house.
No, you get to come up with a simple repeatable experiment if you claim this is science and/or a real effect and not something your mind is making you believe.

Sincerely
Tobias

Beth

18th May 2006, 10:01 AM

Tobias - who are you quoting here and where is it from?

thaiboxerken

18th May 2006, 10:25 AM

He's quoting me, of course. Ok, he's quoting a person that I'm quoting.

Lling from http://freedomofreligion.myfreeforum.org/sutra575.php#575

I am writing or posting one last time.
You, bangoskank, are beyond obnoxious.
What's worse is that you are apparently being deliberately obtuse, or else you're too dumb to live.
I told that story to indicate that esp doesn't work on anything connected directly to myself. You chose to interpret it as evidence of esp (which you INSIST on defining as a superpower). You go out and bring in outsiders to comment on my posts and guess what, they show respect and aare "reluctantly" impressed. You just constantly keep repeating the same mantra of BS. You don't believe, you won't believe. You sound like a 3 year old.
I have been very patient. Other than maintaining the right to refuse to be called a liar, I have answered every point as well as I can and to great extent.
You resort to mockery.
We're finished. I will no longer respond to any post by bangoskank.

I'm bangoskank, by the way. She doesn't like me for some reason.

TobiasTheViking

18th May 2006, 12:30 PM

He's quoting me, of course. Ok, he's quoting a person that I'm quoting.

Lling from http://freedomofreligion.myfreeforum.org/sutra575.php#575

I'm bangoskank, by the way. She doesn't like me for some reason.
Oh well, it was fun while it lasted :D

thaiboxerken

18th May 2006, 12:43 PM

It does seem to always end the same way. The bleever accusing skeptics of being closed minded, etc.

thaiboxerken

19th May 2006, 04:26 PM

More from Llinn the psychic:

having major computer problems, dumped fluid into the keyboard and caused problems with the actual machine. Electricity transmission can be a right bitch. May have to buy a new machine and that ain;'t going to happen until the house is sold. If I'm gone most of the time it's not totally sulking.
Try and remember my basic objection to bangoskank is not just the attitude, but the interesting tendency to ignore what I actually said.
I don't claim anything super, I believe it is a natural sense, physiologically related to the smaller cerebellum found in me and my relatives, and explainable by simple, logical reference to the laws of physics. Just because someone keeps going no, no, no doesn't make what they are saying true.
Demanding that they themselves be convinced does not negate the premise and since I KNOW what happens-as I'm the one it happens to, the only thing I have to do is come up with a reasonable explanation. I know evolution is a fact also. There's a million (or so) fundamentalists who believe in a literal Bible who deny the fact of evolution absolutely and with as much conviction as our lovely poster. Just because bangoskank keeps repeating that what they believe in is SCIENCE doesn't demand that all bow to thisr's
{new suggestion for unknown gender pronoun thisr for his/her, thes for he/she}
interpretation of science. A rational, scientific mindset can include premises or theories that are not yet absolutely proven and some theories can only be proven by an absence of evidence of a conflicting theory.
Now reducing what I have stated to a misleading claim that I stumble on lost objects and use that as proof of superhuman powers is insulting. That attitude is what I primarily object too, and whether this board wishes to be all embracing of various viewpoints or not, I would hope that everyone would at least consider a genuine respect for personal honesty.
I SAID that sometimes I SEE a picture of the lost object and the immediate vicinity where it resides. When the object is found, my description of the location is accurate 70-80% of the time--not 100%. Because there is no perspective and because there is no sense of location in space/time we still have to look for the thing. My brain is not forcing me (although that line of reasoning requires a really interesting duality between consciousness and the brain that opens another whole can of worms) to see links or patterns where there is none. Several times a year something anomalous happens, there is a definite visual effect, it generally turns out to be an accurate representation of a real place and it is neither controllable or easily repeatable.
Now, since my testimony is not sufficient for some, then they-if they wish-are welcome to attempt to contrive an experimental method to verify. I've already done most of the Rhine type stuff with cards, that's not my ability and most of the time I test absolutely normal. I tried years back to have people hide things. I tried shell games with peas and cups where you would be able to expect a certain number of hits by chance -there, oddly enough, I tested totally negative--never right. This can be theorized by some to indicate more potential than slight positive results would. However, the specific visual phenomena with the knowing or feeling that says the bump is working never happens.
For heavens sakes, I was a philosophy and physics major. Woowoo and magyck is not on my personal list. I do however, know a lot of people who believe absolutely in some stuff I find very difficult to swallow (this includes people who believe in a literal Bible and an immanent God) The logical extensions of physics I have delineated briefly explains a lot of otherwise inexplicable phenomena, some of which are extremely well documented.
By the way, time dilation has been demonstrated conclusively by the simple act of using a matched pair of atomic clocks, leaving one on the ground and putting the second in an airplane flying as fast as humans could manage at the time for as long as they could. Turns out the clock that was travelling "faster" than the clock that was standing"still" lost what amounted to 1/2 second in 1000 years (app. it's been a long time since I knew for sure). Not very much, but still there and proof that special relativity is an accurate representation at macro scale.
I really, really do resent the fact that bangoskank is allowed to mislead and flat out lie about what I said. I don't care for thisr nasty attitude, but I will not tolerate being misrepresented.

TobiasTheViking

21st May 2006, 06:18 AM

having major computer problems, dumped fluid into the keyboard and caused problems with the actual machine. Electricity transmission can be a right bitch. May have to buy a new machine and that ain;'t going to happen until the house is sold. If I'm gone most of the time it's not totally sulking.
Non Sequitur

Try and remember my basic objection to bangoskank is not just the attitude, but the interesting tendency to ignore what I actually said.
You have ignored much of what i have said. So i don't think you can put yourself on a higher pedistal than bangoskan when it comes to that.

I don't claim anything super, I believe it is a natural sense, physiologically related to the smaller cerebellum found in me and my relatives, and explainable by simple, logical reference to the laws of physics. Just because someone keeps going no, no, no doesn't make what they are saying true.
Yes you do, your claim is not consistent with science, which i have stated many times.

Demanding that they themselves be convinced does not negate the premise and since I KNOW what happens-as I'm the one it happens to, the only thing I have to do is come up with a reasonable explanation. I know evolution is a fact also. There's a million (or so) fundamentalists who believe in a literal Bible who deny the fact of evolution absolutely and with as much conviction as our lovely poster. Just because bangoskank keeps repeating that what they believe in is SCIENCE doesn't demand that all bow to thisr's
{new suggestion for unknown gender pronoun thisr for his/her, thes for he/she}
interpretation of science. A rational, scientific mindset can include premises or theories that are not yet absolutely proven and some theories can only be proven by an absence of evidence of a conflicting theory.
A ratienal, scientific mindset shouldn't belive a theory that has NO EVIDENCE what so ever. String Theory is so far a no no. People don't use it yet, because we don't know if it is accurate.

Now reducing what I have stated to a misleading claim that I stumble on lost objects and use that as proof of superhuman powers is insulting. That attitude is what I primarily object too, and whether this board wishes to be all embracing of various viewpoints or not, I would hope that everyone would at least consider a genuine respect for personal honesty.
I never claimed that, i said the MIND may fool YOU. I never said you were in any way aware of such a thing happening, nor did i insinuate anything like that. I went to great length to say that the human mind often fools itself. I did not insult you.

I SAID that sometimes I SEE a picture of the lost object and the immediate vicinity where it resides. When the object is found, my description of the location is accurate 70-80% of the time--not 100%. Because there is no perspective and because there is no sense of location in space/time we still have to look for the thing. My brain is not forcing me (although that line of reasoning requires a really interesting duality between consciousness and the brain that opens another whole can of worms) to see links or patterns where there is none. Several times a year something anomalous happens, there is a definite visual effect, it generally turns out to be an accurate representation of a real place and it is neither controllable or easily repeatable.
There are many ways one can get 70-80% that doesn't conflict with science, and has solely to do with the way the human mind works.

Now, since my testimony is not sufficient for some, then they-if they wish-are welcome to attempt to contrive an experimental method to verify. I've already done most of the Rhine type stuff with cards, that's not my ability and most of the time I test absolutely normal. I tried years back to have people hide things. I tried shell games with peas and cups where you would be able to expect a certain number of hits by chance -there, oddly enough, I tested totally negative--never right. This can be theorized by some to indicate more potential than slight positive results would. However, the specific visual phenomena with the knowing or feeling that says the bump is working never happens.
Personally, i don't really care whether or not your claim is proven or not. All i want is to show that your claim is supernatural, and not consistent with science. That is my only goal.

For heavens sakes, I was a philosophy and physics major. Woowoo and magyck is not on my personal list. I do however, know a lot of people who believe absolutely in some stuff I find very difficult to swallow (this includes people who believe in a literal Bible and an immanent God) The logical extensions of physics I have delineated briefly explains a lot of otherwise inexplicable phenomena, some of which are extremely well documented.
Non Sequitur

By the way, time dilation has been demonstrated conclusively by the simple act of using a matched pair of atomic clocks, leaving one on the ground and putting the second in an airplane flying as fast as humans could manage at the time for as long as they could. Turns out the clock that was travelling "faster" than the clock that was standing"still" lost what amounted to 1/2 second in 1000 years (app. it's been a long time since I knew for sure). Not very much, but still there and proof that special relativity is an accurate representation at macro scale.
Yes. I know, i already agreed that time ilation is true.
Now you are being misleading, which you just claimed i was. I have NEVER stated that special relativity doesn't work on the macro scale.
It does work on the macro scale, i never stated otherwise.

I'll try to state this once more, even though you have, so far, ignored it when i have said it, and now misrepresnted what i said. Something you have claimed i have done.

Quantum Mechanics doesn't work on the macro scale in the way you try to make it work.
The uncertainty principle does NOT work on the macro scale.
Schrodingers Cat does NOT work on the macro scale.
Electromagnetic waves from the human brain can NOT be stored in quarks and then later read.

You have still not shown how your claim is consistent with science. My only purpose is to show that your claim isn't consistent with science, i'm not interested in finding out whether or not it is true.

I really, really do resent the fact that bangoskank is allowed to mislead and flat out lie about what I said. I don't care for thisr nasty attitude, but I will not tolerate being misrepresented.
Granted, you write that about bangoskan and not me. But still, why throw rocks in a glass house when what you claim he did(i don't know, and i won't pass judgement one way or the other) is EXACTLY what you have done to me, many times over.

Please, i have been patient, i have not been demeaning, i have not been insulting, i have not lied, i have not misrepresented what you stated, i have not mislead.

All this time i have been decent and fair. I have stated a good argument without resorting to namecalling or falacies(that is not to say that you have done that).

I have not stated other people have been mean or insulting till this message(whereas you have done that many times).

So please. Answer my questions.

How is your claim consistent with science?

And if your claim isn't consistent with science, then it is, per definition, supernatural.
Your claim may, or may not, be true, and if it is, some theories must be created to encompas your claim, but untill that happen, your claim is supernatural, and not consistent with science.

All i want, is for you to tell me how it is consistent with science, that is all, no proof that it is true, no proof that it works, no tests necesarry, just tell me how it is consistent with science. That is all.

And i've asked that now many times, and your replies have either ignored my questions(which i think is mean of you) or made claims about what the science says that is wrong(which i don't blame you for, it is human to error, and everyone can't know everything).

So, how is your claim consistent with science, so that it isn't supernatural. Please

Sincerely
Tobias

thaiboxerken

25th May 2006, 02:46 AM

To Tobias
sorry for ignoring you, I wasn't aware you were part of this forum. As far as I knew bangoskank was transporting my posts to the JREF forum to be picked apart. I responded to him and to what he did. If in doing this, I ignored you, I apologize.
You are commiting the same logical error as bangoskank, you simply keep repeating the same denial of what I have said as if constant repetition proves your point. O
Now if you wish to drag the level of proof up for the existance of a critter up to the capture of a live or dead exemplar, you may. But the giant squid is hardly in the same class as that blood sucking goat thing from the caribbean. There were numerous examples of sucker wounds on whales and parts of giant squids found in the digestive tract of whales before a live one was observed. Trust me, there weren't a lot of marine biologists who didn't believe. The level of proof available was adequate to a high probability of existence with a possibility of error.
A rational, scientific mindset can include premises that are not yet proven as you say and I say that my scientific mindset does in fact, fiven the points I have previously made concerning relativity and quantum theory, and with certain logical extensions that involve the "shadowing" or echoing of patterns found in the subatomic realm into the macro universe ( by the way Hawking was working on a variation of this to theoretically allow for FTL travel) Now I am not saying that things are precisely mirrored at different levels but that the patterns are reminiscent of each other (and boy do I wish I still had my math. Talking about this in English is a real bitch)
A rational, scientific mindset can consider that a theory like string theory is most likely or probably accurate and operate as if they believe. It would be fair to say that relativity's description of gravity is tough to buy, but one ignores the predictions it makes about the behavior of a system at one's peril. People are working in string theory. I don't know what you mean about not "using" it. People are certainly talking about it, looking for ways to experimentally prove or disprove it or parts of it, no body "uses" special relativity either as we don't have anything that goes nearly fast enough to be overly concerned about. Although, have you heard about the Pioneer Anomaly. I had totally missed that. I read about it for the first time today and am soooooooo psyched.
I also spotted a dear little bit in a recent Scientific American that points out that they have built a quantum computer that works accurately about one third of the time when it is TURNED OFF> So much for quantum effects in the macro universe. We get the information.

There are many ways one can get 70-80% that doesn't conflict with science, and has solely to do with the way the human mind works.

How is that then. Please explain precisely how I visualize the location of an object that does not belong to me, that I never touched and which is not in my house or under my control, with my mind fooling me into this. Obviously we are capable of envisioning things - through concentration or day dreaming or any of several means. What I perceive seems different. Now certainly I could be deluded, but unless you wish to postulate an extreme mind/body duality to think that I am somehow fooled by my own mind without my knowledge or consent, well, that's getting way too Jungian for me.
Even one of your members admitted I made some good points when it comes to physics, you keep repeating that what I have postulated is wrong, but you don't explain why it is wrong. Just repeating that something is or is not so does not make it true.
Science is not an absolute in the sense in which you seem to interpret it. Science is the PROCESS of coming to the truth.
Now again, you claim I have repeatedly ignored me. Where are you registered on this board. I wasn't aware that I was expected to respond to postings from a different forum. Had you expected me to respond through bangoskank as a conduit, it would have been simpler to tell me you expected same. I apologize again.
Read bangoskank's postings on this board. You will see what I mean about misrepresentation.
Please note that after some of your board treated what I said with respect, thes suddenly appeared to apprehend that what I was stating happened was something else, something utterly trivial which entitled thisr to mock me as much as much as thes desired. Whatever. I find this behavior reprehensible and am responding now only because you, Tobias, are presenting yourself as a different person.

TobiasTheViking

25th May 2006, 03:44 AM

To Tobias
sorry for ignoring you, I wasn't aware you were part of this forum. As far as I knew bangoskank was transporting my posts to the JREF forum to be picked apart. I responded to him and to what he did. If in doing this, I ignored you, I apologize.
I assumed bangoskank had pointed out that it was a poster from jref. Oh well, no harm done.

You are commiting the same logical error as bangoskank, you simply keep repeating the same denial of what I have said as if constant repetition proves your point. O
When you have a made a claim that is demonstratedly false, what can i do but deny it is true.

I must admit i can't remember all your claims anymore, but i'll do the ones i can remember.

Your claims:
1) Any particle without a mass can only travel at c. Any particle with mass can travel at more than c.
2) Something moving faster than c will move backwards in time, and because you can see that particle you can see the future(sometimes). I am not sure if this was your claim, but i think it was, please correct me if i'm wrong.
3) Electromagnetic fields from the brain and body can be "saved" in quarks around us, and can later be "viewed"
4) The uncertainty principle works on the macro scale(can't remember how that was relevant)

1) Any particle without a mass can only travel at c. Any particle with mass can travel at more than c.

To accelerate an object of non-zero rest mass to c would require infinite time with any finite acceleration, or infinite acceleration for a finite amount of time
Either way, such acceleration requires infinite energy. Going beyond the speed of light in a homogeneous space would hence require more than infinite energy, which is not a sensible notion.

Your claim that something with non-zero mass can travel faster than c is false.

Though there is one(1) postulated particle that can only travel faster than c, and that has mass.
That is the tachyon ( as i have stated before ).
So far, it is just an artifact of special relativity, since we don't know if it exists.
If it exists and we can't measure it, can't see it, can't expirement with it, then it might as well not exist.

Now the fundamental fact of relativity is that E2 - p2 = m2. (Let's take c=1 for the rest of the discussion.) For any non-zero value of m (mass), this is a hyperbola with branches in the timelike regions. It passes through the point (p,E) = (0,m), where the particle is at rest. Any particle with mass m is constrained to move on the upper branch of this hyperbola. (Otherwise, it is "off-shell", a term you hear in association with virtual particles - but that's another topic.) For massless particles, E2 = p2, and the particle moves on the light-cone.

These two cases are given the names tardyon (or bradyon in more modern usage) and luxon, for "slow particle" and "light particle". Tachyon is the name given to the supposed "fast particle" which would move with v>c. (Tachyons were first introduced into physics by Gerald Feinberg, in his seminal paper "On the possibility of faster-than-light particles" [Phys.Rev. v.159, pp.1089--1105 (1967)]).

Now another familiar relativistic equation is E = m*[1-(v/c)2]-1/2. Tachyons (if they exist) have v > c. This means that E is imaginary! Well, what if we take the rest mass m, and take it to be imaginary? Then E is negative real, and E2 - p2 = m2 < 0. Or, p2 - E2 = M2, where M is real. This is a hyperbola with branches in the spacelike region of spacetime. The energy and momentum of a tachyon must satisfy this relation.

Now, IF, and lets make an assumption here. The tachyon is real, you wouldn't be able to see it because it would be too small to see with light.

The wavelength of light is simply too big to see it. So any notion of seeing a tachyon with nothing but big science equipment(most likely involving tachyon coliding with electrons) is not doable.

2) Something moving faster than c will move backwards in time, and because you can see that particle you can see the future(sometimes). I am not sure if this was your claim, but i think it was, please correct me if i'm wrong.

Observers with relative motion will disagree which occurs first of any two events that are separated by a space-like interval. In other words, any travel that is faster-than-light in any inertial frame of reference will be travel backwards in time in other, equally valid, frames of reference.

Your claim that it would travel backwards in time is true.

But you would still not be able to get any data from these particles, if they existed, without some pretty big equipment, and maybe not even then.

3) Electromagnetic fields from the brain and body can be "saved" in quarks around us, and can later be "viewed"

While the EM field generated by our brain may or may not be stored in particles around us(i honestly don't know if that is possible). The strength of the EM fields created by our brain would mean that it could only really be stored in matter right next to us. That is, it could, possibly, be stored in the fluid in our brain. But that it would be stored, if at all possible, in our cranium seems a bit of a stretch. And going to a wall, or the air around us. Is just way too improbable to even think about, imo.

4) The uncertainty principle works on the macro scale(can't remember how that was relevant)
Ok, i'll have to admit here that yet, quantum mechanics does work on all scales. And humans really can do quantum mechanic tricks like walking through walls, be two places at once, and be at work before you arrive there.

But if you do the calculations to see the probability you will see that it takes nearly an eternity for it to happen.

For instance, the chances of me going out and buying one(1) lottery ticket now, and winning, are around a billion^billion^billion^billion^billion times more likely than anything the size of a quarter have done any of the things i stated above, through the entire existance of the universe so far.

And to be honest, the billion^billion^billion^billion^billion is way too small, but i got tired of writting more ^billion's.

So yes, theoreticly, it is doable on the macro scale, but it is just so unlikely that you might just as well state it doesn't work on the macro scale.

Think about it, the chance that something the size of quarter have been two places at once during the existince of this universe is smaller than.
1:100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000

If your argument would be correct, then that would totally shatter quantum mechanics.

Now if you wish to drag the level of proof up for the existance of a critter up to the capture of a live or dead exemplar, you may. But the giant squid is hardly in the same class as that blood sucking goat thing from the caribbean. There were numerous examples of sucker wounds on whales and parts of giant squids found in the digestive tract of whales before a live one was observed. Trust me, there weren't a lot of marine biologists who didn't believe. The level of proof available was adequate to a high probability of existence with a possibility of error.
Non Sequitur

A rational, scientific mindset can include premises that are not yet proven as you say and I say that my scientific mindset does in fact, fiven the points I have previously made concerning relativity and quantum theory, and with certain logical extensions that involve the "shadowing" or echoing of patterns found in the subatomic realm into the macro universe ( by the way Hawking was working on a variation of this to theoretically allow for FTL travel) Now I am not saying that things are precisely mirrored at different levels but that the patterns are reminiscent of each other (and boy do I wish I still had my math. Talking about this in English is a real bitch)
Yes, one can include premises that are not yet proven, and scientist do that, but the result of such a thought experiment can be nothing more than philosophy untill the premise is moved from a hypothesis to a theory.

A rational, scientific mindset can consider that a theory like string theory is most likely or probably accurate and operate as if they believe.
As Steven Weinberg correctly says, Physics is an experimental science. And as long as String Theory can make no predictions for an experiment or an observation it isn't science, it is philosophy.

Personally i really want String Theory, or rather M-Theory, to be true, but, for now, it is simply a philosophy.

It would be fair to say that relativity's description of gravity is tough to buy, but one ignores the predictions it makes about the behavior of a system at one's peril. People are working in string theory. I don't know what you mean about not "using" it. People are certainly talking about it, looking for ways to experimentally prove or disprove it or parts of it, no body "uses" special relativity either as we don't have anything that goes nearly fast enough to be overly concerned about.
By using it i mean, using the gramma and syntax of the theory to learn more about our universe. We do that all the time, still, with Quantum Mechanics, and with Special Relativity.

For instance, the twin problem was tested with atomic clocks on planes, that is "using" special relativity to understand something about the world, as well as it is agreeing with a prediction of special relativity, thus making the theory even more stable.

Untill String Theory advances from a hypothesis to a theory we can't be certain if it descripes the real world, if it is just fancy mathematics. So untill it can make a prediction, or an observation, that agrees with String Theory, we can't know of sure if it has anything, at all, to do with the real world.

The scientists are looking, and i hope that in the next 5 years we will begin to see evidence of Super Symmetry, which is consistent with String Theory. Mind, i don't know if finding Super Symmetry is enough to advance String Theory to a theory.

But using String Theory as an explanation for something is just not valid yet, because we have no idea if it is true, or accurate.

Although, have you heard about the Pioneer Anomaly. I had totally missed that. I read about it for the first time today and am soooooooo psyched.
Yes, MOND is trying to explain that.

I also spotted a dear little bit in a recent Scientific American that points out that they have built a quantum computer that works accurately about one third of the time when it is TURNED OFF> So much for quantum effects in the macro universe. We get the information.
Ehm, what are you trying to say here?
Ok, if i make an experiment in QM and i make an experiment of Schrödingers Cat, i can do that.
Now if i have equipment that can see this, and then show it on a computer screen, that doesn't make Schrödingers Cat work on the macro scale. It is just the computer and our equipment enhancing what is happening.

The same with the quantum computer.

A quantum effect in the macro world would be something like walking through a wall. Or being two places at once. Or arriving somewhere before you arrived there.

As in, arriving to work before you have gone out of bed.

That is QM on the macro level, and it doesn't happen.

How is that then. Please explain precisely how I visualize the location of an object that does not belong to me, that I never touched and which is not in my house or under my control, with my mind fooling me into this. Obviously we are capable of envisioning things - through concentration or day dreaming or any of several means. What I perceive seems different. Now certainly I could be deluded, but unless you wish to postulate an extreme mind/body duality to think that I am somehow fooled by my own mind without my knowledge or consent, well, that's getting way too Jungian for me.
I am not THAT good with psychology, sadly. The best i can do is give an example(which i may have already given, not sure) of what i think can be the cause.

Person A is scared of flying.
Person A boards a plane, deadly afraid that it will crash
Plane crashes, and Person A claims (s)he predicted it.
Person A have forgotten the 10 times in the last year (s)he traveled on a plane and had the exact same feeling, and it didn't crash.

That is not Person A being delusional. That is not Person A lying or being dishonest. That is Person A's brain fooling Person A into thinking something that isn't true, because our brain is hardwired to make connections of cause and effect, and it often makes mistakes.

One way it COULD happen for you(and i'm not saying this is it, but a possible explanation).
Friend A lost slippers.
Friend A asks you where the slippers are, you don't know
Friend A finds slippers under couch
Friend A tells you.
You forget (your brain doesn't see it is relevant).
Friend A looses slippers again
Friend A asks you where the slippers are.
You say "under the couch" even though you don't know, because you have forgotten. But your subconcious is feeding you the information, without your knowledge.
Friend A finds them under the couch.
You think you have a special ability.

That is way what you can experience can happen. I am not saying that is what is happening. I am just saying that is one way it COULD happen.

Even one of your members admitted I made some good points when it comes to physics, you keep repeating that what I have postulated is wrong, but you don't explain why it is wrong. Just repeating that something is or is not so does not make it true.
Not to be evil, but you are doing that just as much as i am. I am repeating that you haven't properly shown that your experience is consistent with science. And you are repeating that it is. And for the last many posts neither of us have expanded on it.

Science is not an absolute in the sense in which you seem to interpret it. Science is the PROCESS of coming to the truth.
True.

Now again, you claim I have repeatedly ignored me. Where are you registered on this board. I wasn't aware that I was expected to respond to postings from a different forum. Had you expected me to respond through bangoskank as a conduit, it would have been simpler to tell me you expected same. I apologize again.
Sorry, i thought he had explained matters. My fault.

Read bangoskank's postings on this board. You will see what I mean about misrepresentation.
Please note that after some of your board treated what I said with respect, thes suddenly appeared to apprehend that what I was stating happened was something else, something utterly trivial which entitled thisr to mock me as much as much as thes desired. Whatever. I find this behavior reprehensible and am responding now only because you, Tobias, are presenting yourself as a different person.
Thanks. :)

Ok, i think this time i have properly stated my case instead of just denying your argument(though i believe i did more than just deny your argument in the first posts i made, oh well.)

So, that is why your explanation is inconsistent with science. I'm sure there are more, but i can't remember all your arguments.

Oh, and remember, i'm not trying to say that your experience is or isn't happening. I'm not trying to get you to prove it is happening. All i'm interested in is showing that if this is happening, it isn't consistent with the science as we knows it today.

Then, if you want to, and can find a proper way to test it, you may be able to change science forever. But that entirely up to you, and not really interesting for me. My intention here is solely to show that the mechanism you have explained is not consistent with science, and thus, that your claim is supernatural.

Sincerely
Tobias

Hellbound

25th May 2006, 08:07 AM

Tobias:

Just wanted to add a comment about tachyons.

They aren't really an artifact of GR. Well, I suppose they are, but that seems to be a misleading term, implying somehow that they are an integral part of the theory.

You probably understand this, but I wanted to make clear that nothing in GR requires tachyons to exist. It just doesn't specifically deny their existence. Exotic matter (mass with a negative energy density), wormholes, and some other things fall into this category as well.

thaiboxerken

25th May 2006, 03:42 PM

Llinn: I never said a particle with a rest mass greater than zero can travel faster than c. I said the possibility is not excluded. In general what SR?GR states is that a particle with a rest mass greater than zero cannot travel AT c. It is potentially possible for a particle of any size to travel faster than c if in fact it can approach c and then somehow skip over the limiting velocity without crossing it. (Please bear in mind that discussing all this in english is not terribly accurate) Math or logic would be way better, but I don't do that anymore and have lost most of it. I gave the example of the electron tunnel effect in order to demonstrate that it is theoretically possible for a particle with a rest mass greater than zero to travel from one space (the s shell) to a different location in space (the p shell) without crossing the intervening space.
This theoretically allows for FTL travel if you postulate that c defines a limiting velocity which is the equivalent of the s shell. And that the space or velocities greater than c are not so limited. There may be another limiting velocity or specific velocities that correspond to distinct energy levels which for some as yet unknown reason simply are not feasible due to some underlying nature of the universe.
Never said that energy fields could be saved in quarks and viewed later. I have no idea how you got that idea. What I said was that the potential energy levels of atomic and subatomic particles are so small that it might be possible to create an effect with the level of bioeletrical energy create by chemical activity in the brain. One of the JDRF posters acknowledged that strong magnetic fields and electrical fields can directly affect brain activity causing hallucinations or visual disturbances if you prefer.
I understand that while theoretically possible, the likelihood of quantum effects at a gross macro scale involving all the molecules of air in a room suddenly "deciding" to be in one corner or the molecules in a wall all harmonizing so that a human could walk through is vanishingly small. You didn't need to type all those zeros. Just use the term "googol" I'm familiar with those numbers or use exponential notation, it's simpler.
What is relevant is that if quantum effects on a subatomic scale can produce massless effects in the macro world, i.e. knowledge. This is why I brought up the quantum computer. While obeying all the known laws of quantum physics it still managed to create an effect in the macro universe. The information was passed to the observers.
Now I keep going back to the post from Tobias and there are two quotes about storing EM energy in the fluid in our brain and one about relative motion separated by a space like interval--those are not mine. I didn't write either of the two quotes and don't actually agree precisely with either.
However, to state that the backward in time particle would require "pretty big equipment" in order to "see" it is not necessarily true. Certainly building a detector out of technological stuff would require something that might surpass the cave full of fluid used for picking up some neutrons, but that is not an absolute. It may be that the EM fields generated in the human brain might be "tuned" to the proper frequencies and pick up information from disturbances or interference patterns caused by the passage of backward moving tachyons in the "ether". (Yes, I know all about the ether don't exist, but some recent thought says maybe it does and we just don't understand it= might be tied up with dark matter and dark energy)
If you wish to dismiss everything I have postulated as philosophy, fine.
It truly doesn't matter to me. But you need to understand that most theoretical physicists do consider themselves to be scientists and you might be irritating to someone like Stephen Hawking.
What I am stating is quite simply that quantum effects can have an impact in the macro universe by transmitting information without requiring macro quantum "activity". I actually think the quantum computer reported in SA proves my case. It worked when turned off. The scientists who created it got accurate information at their scale from something operating in a quantum scale.
I postulate that quantum effects can lead to information not otherwise explanable.
Point proven.

Lin

PS I'm semi-brain dead these days. I don't do physics and philosophy anymore, I have a different life now. But even I am not nearly dumb enough to forget someone told me where their shoes were and then forget and think I psychically "find" the shoes some time later.
I wish I could "change" the world as we know it, but I'm afraid that I'd expend a lot more time and energy trying to make people understand that they are doing a superb job of crapping up the planet and as yet we don't have anywhere else to go.

Ziggurat

25th May 2006, 04:47 PM

I gave the example of the electron tunnel effect in order to demonstrate that it is theoretically possible for a particle with a rest mass greater than zero to travel from one space (the s shell) to a different location in space (the p shell) without crossing the intervening space. This theoretically allows for FTL travel if you postulate that c defines a limiting velocity which is the equivalent of the s shell.

What do you mean by this? Electron "shells" are not really shells at all. They are particular wave functions, and they overlap each other. There is no "intervening space" to talk about here. That, plus the fact that the transition between states is not actually instantaneous (nor can it be, actually). So if you want to try to assign a velocity to this transition, the only way in which it makes sense is in terms of some expectation position, and how fast that expectation position moves. But it doesn't "jump" over anything, and it doesn't do so instantaneously, so you've got to actually put forward some numbers if you want to try to argue that it's happening faster than c.

What I said was that the potential energy levels of atomic and subatomic particles are so small that it might be possible to create an effect with the level of bioeletrical energy create by chemical activity in the brain.

But they AREN'T small. Energy scales for non-electron sub-atomic particles are HUGE compared to energy scales of electrons. And we know that rather obviously to be so because they do not contribute to the heat capacity of objects. If they did have internal degrees of freedom with small energy scales, then they would become thermally excited and play a role in heat capacity. But they don't, because their energy scales are simply too large.

One of the JDRF posters acknowledged that strong magnetic fields and electrical fields can directly affect brain activity causing hallucinations or visual disturbances if you prefer.

What's your point? A swinging sledgehammer can have a very large effect on my brain activity. My brain activity will not have a corresponding effect on that swinging sledgehammer, unless that activity involves sending signals to my muscles.

This is why I brought up the quantum computer. While obeying all the known laws of quantum physics it still managed to create an effect in the macro universe.

This has essentially nothing to do with what a brain is capable of doing. Quantum computing depends on maintaining quantum coherence effects. That simply isn't possible at room temperatures unless you deal with HUGE energy scales, but there are no huge energy scales in biological systems. It's like ripping out the innards of your computer, throughing them into a furnace and melting the whole mess, and then asking why you can't still use the resulting puddle to run your favorite games.

Certainly building a detector out of technological stuff would require something that might surpass the cave full of fluid used for picking up some neutrons, but that is not an absolute.

I presume you mean neutrinos, not neutrons. Neutrons are not that hard to detect.

talldave

26th May 2006, 04:12 PM

To address the original question: No, it isn't silly to not understand quantum mechanics. The philosophy surrounding quantum mechanics is most probably incomplete, and so in a certain very specific sense, no one understand quantum mechanics.

If you are serious about begining to under quantum mechanics on a popular level, I highly recommend Feynman's book, QED: The strange theory of light and matter.

If you want to find out about some of the mind blowing aspects of quantum I recommend looking up the article "quantum seeing in the dark".

http://research.physics.uiuc.edu/QI/Photonics/papers/kwiat-sciam-1996-nov.pdf

rocketdodger

26th May 2006, 04:32 PM

So it is everyone's consensus that free will doesn't exist then? I would like to think it does but I cannot find such a scenario..

Hellbound

26th May 2006, 04:48 PM

So it is everyone's consensus that free will doesn't exist then? I would like to think it does but I cannot find such a scenario..

My question is, does it matter?

For all intents and purposes, we appear to have free will. Regardless of whether or not it exists ideally, we must act as if it does for there to be any sort of structure or order to society.

It's a sort of meaningless question, IMO. Kind of like "what if the world were really created 5 seconds ago and everything I remember was implanted?" type thing.

thaiboxerken

26th May 2006, 08:59 PM

I don't believe freewill exists, but it's a good working model to base our laws and ethics off of.

jpowell

27th May 2006, 04:47 AM

Hmm, I'm a physicist and I believe in free will. Ultimately it's a philosophical question, so science cannot say anything about it. I choose to believe in free will because it's philosophically more palatable for me.

epepke

27th May 2006, 04:51 AM

Llinn: I never said a particle with a rest mass greater than zero can travel faster than c. I said the possibility is not excluded.

But you're still wrong. If there were a particle (tachyon) that went faster than c, it would have an imaginary mass, because the square of the Minkowskian norm of the energy/momentum vector would be negative. Imaginary numbers do not have an ordering relationship with the reals, so you can't say that the mass is greater than zero. All you can say is that it is not zero. The real component of the rest mass, of course, would be zero.

TobiasTheViking

28th May 2006, 12:03 PM

Ok, i read the reply from Llinn, and saw that she yet again misrepresented what i said, ignored other things i said, and didn't give anything to support her stance.

I see now that you don't want to even understand this.

I am sorry about the tone of this reply, it will be my last as you don't really want to learn.

The tone in this reply is caused by my frustration. And again, i appologize, you may stop reading now if you want.

IF Llinn had tried to actually do what i asked for, instead of letting me do a lot of hard work while she just sits back and gives me more unsubstantiated claims, i might have made the effort to go back and find quotes from Llinn where she says the opposite of what she says in this message. But, when she doesn't try to make the effort, and when she doesn't want to learn, i fail to see the point.

Llinn: I never said a particle with a rest mass greater than zero can travel faster than c.
Yes, you did.
I said the possibility is not excluded. In general what SR?GR states is that a particle with a rest mass greater than zero cannot travel AT c. It is potentially possible for a particle of any size to travel faster than c if in fact it can approach c and then somehow skip over the limiting velocity without crossing it. (Please bear in mind that discussing all this in english is not terribly accurate) Math or logic would be way better, but I don't do that anymore and have lost most of it. I gave the example of the electron tunnel effect in order to demonstrate that it is theoretically possible for a particle with a rest mass greater than zero to travel from one space (the s shell) to a different location in space (the p shell) without crossing the intervening space.
This is not what you stated, and i have already covered this.

This theoretically allows for FTL travel if you postulate that c defines a limiting velocity which is the equivalent of the s shell. And that the space or velocities greater than c are not so limited. There may be another limiting velocity or specific velocities that correspond to distinct energy levels which for some as yet unknown reason simply are not feasible due to some underlying nature of the universe.
non sequitur

Never said that energy fields could be saved in quarks and viewed later. I have no idea how you got that idea. What I said was that the potential energy levels of atomic and subatomic particles are so small that it might be possible to create an effect with the level of bioeletrical energy create by chemical activity in the brain. One of the JDRF posters acknowledged that strong magnetic fields and electrical fields can directly affect brain activity causing hallucinations or visual disturbances if you prefer.
Y