Help, please, with quantum physics
- Petrol Head
- Grand Poobah
- Reactions: 71
- Posts: 5770
- Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 1:54 pm
you know who knows about Quantum Physics ? Starkmonster.
Blew my mind last time I got him on the subject.
SM was one of those kids at school that was always in the accelerated mathematics class.
Blew my mind last time I got him on the subject.
SM was one of those kids at school that was always in the accelerated mathematics class.
Haha - my money’s on Playboy
-
- MerkinMaker
- Reactions: 62
- Posts: 3232
- Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 11:04 am
I think the text isn't really about quantum physics, it's about the nature of reality. He seems to be taking the idea of the multiverse which is possible in string theory and then putting forward some ideas that are a long stretch at best, such as consciousness being able to move between those parallel universes.
[Skip next three paragraphs if you are easily bored, the interesting stuff will follow]
There are a few problems with this, the first is that string theory, is just that, a theory. It makes no testable predictions, so therefore although being mathematically sound (or mathematically brilliant), it's closer the the realm of philosophy than science, mathematical philosophy if you like. There's nothing wrong with this, most ground breaking theories begin life in this way, but in time very clever people make testable predictions and even cleverer people invent technology that allows those predictions to be tested. The thing is, string theory has been around since the 60's and that still hasn't happened and doesn't look likely to happen.
The reason string theory has been given so much weight is because the two main theories that all of physics rely on are general relativity that explains the very large (GR) and quantum field theory that explains the very small (QFT) are at odds with each other. Both theories make lots of testable predictions that have since been proven. The holy grail of physics over the last fifty years has been to create a theory of everything (ToE) that unifies GR and QFT. String theory is the best attempt at ToE that's mathematically sound, although it has to do all sorts of mathematical back-flips to achieve that, such as theorizing 10/11 dimensions and making things like parallel universes possible.
The second flaw in his logic is his perception of parallel universes. To say that we exist in those other universes (if string theory were correct and they did exist) is completely incorrect. The parallel universes would be infinite and contain every possible configuration of variables possible at every point in time. Think of the unique chain of events that had to have occurred since the beginning of time to result in you sitting at your keyboard reading this post. Then think what the chances are that you are sitting in that same chair in the next universe over, or you even exist in that universe, or even for the laws of physics as we understand them to exist in that universe.
[Okay people who are easily bored can begin reading again here]
As I said in the first paragraph, the idea presented in the text isn't about quantum physics, it's about the nature of reality. For fun I'm going to share some ideas that are more likely to explain the nature of reality. A far more likely scenario is that we are in fact living in a simulated reality.
Let's start with Steve Bostrom's simulation argument (http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html). He puts forward the case that one of the following must be true:
1. Human civilization is unlikely to reach a level of technological maturity capable of producing simulated realities, or such simulations are physically impossible to construct.
2. A comparable civilization reaching aforementioned technological status will likely not produce a significant number of simulated realities (one that might push the probable existence of digital entities beyond the probable number of "real" entities in a Universe) for any of a number of reasons, such as, diversion of computational processing power for other tasks, ethical considerations of holding entities captive in simulated realities, etc.
3. Any entities with our general set of experiences are almost certainly living in a simulation.
So to sum up, it will either never be possible to create a simulation of our reality. If it is possible an advanced civilization for whatever reason will never create a significant number of such simulations. Or a significant number of such simulations were / have been created and the chances are that we exist in one (as there is only one true reality but n number of simulations).
Now this is pretty far out there as a concept, but surprisingly physics is now moving in this direction. To explain this in a simple way let's pretend that we live in a video game (think a boring version of Grand Theft Auto 5). An entity in the game can only every perceive or measure the reality contained within the game (think of our universe as the game map), it's impossible to observe or measure information beyond that reality when you exist within it.
Entities within the game perceive a physical universe, but in reality the universe is information based, this sounds insane but a lot of what we know about quantum mechanics backs this up. Many physicists are now moving in this direction (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/phys ... ndamental/).
The biggest pieces of evidence we have are found in quantum theory. First let's look at Heisenberg's uncertainty principle made famous by Schrodinger's cat though experiment:
So if this is correct it means that all matter only exists as a wave of possibility until it's observed. Think about how a game like GTA5 works, the machine is only rendering the part of the map that is currently being observed by the player as this conserves computational resources, it won't render other sections of the map until they are observed, those other areas of the game map that aren't being observed exist only as a series of possibilities, it will depend which variables are present when they are observed as to which of those possibilities will be manifested as perceived reality (i.e. the cat being alive or dead).
You're probably now thinking WTF, that sounds like some pie in the sky type bollocks. Yes it does, but unfortunately for my psychologist the fact that all matter exists as a wave of possibilities until it is observed can be proven. This proof was many decades in the making, but it started with the two slit experiment which was devised to show us whether light is a wave or a particle which uncovered some very unexpected results:
There has been lots of debate about why this was, why the act of observing a particle (recording information) changed its behaviour. Many argued that it was the the particles that were being used to make the observation that changed the behaviour not the act of observation itself. That was proved to be incorrect by the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment (warning this will give you a headache):
This experiment has now been taken one step further and has been repeated using helium atoms which shows it applies to all matter, not just light: http://phys.org/news/2015-05-quantum-th ... dness.html.
So now we know that just like a video game only the sections of the universe that are being observed are actually being rendered (collapse of the wave function in physics speak). Let's look at how nicely this analogy fits with two of the most well known constants in physics. Using this metaphor you could think of light speed as the frame rate (information cannot be transferred faster than this) and the planck length as the pixel size (http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/1887 ... d-hologram).
Where all of this really starts to get weird (if the above wasn't already weird enough), is where consciousness fits into the picture. Are the players in this game internal or external?
This is where you really start getting onto the fringes of science, science has for so long been at odds with theism that to even suggest our consciousness isn't a manifestation of our perceived physical universe but has its origins form somewhere beyond that reality (other) is scientific blasphemy. If you are willing to explore a little deeper into this heresy, light a joint, pop open a tube of Pringles and use these two videos as a jumping off point:
Want some more, eat a happy herb pizza and read this: http://www.amazon.com/Biocentrism-Consc ... 1935251740
[Skip next three paragraphs if you are easily bored, the interesting stuff will follow]
There are a few problems with this, the first is that string theory, is just that, a theory. It makes no testable predictions, so therefore although being mathematically sound (or mathematically brilliant), it's closer the the realm of philosophy than science, mathematical philosophy if you like. There's nothing wrong with this, most ground breaking theories begin life in this way, but in time very clever people make testable predictions and even cleverer people invent technology that allows those predictions to be tested. The thing is, string theory has been around since the 60's and that still hasn't happened and doesn't look likely to happen.
The reason string theory has been given so much weight is because the two main theories that all of physics rely on are general relativity that explains the very large (GR) and quantum field theory that explains the very small (QFT) are at odds with each other. Both theories make lots of testable predictions that have since been proven. The holy grail of physics over the last fifty years has been to create a theory of everything (ToE) that unifies GR and QFT. String theory is the best attempt at ToE that's mathematically sound, although it has to do all sorts of mathematical back-flips to achieve that, such as theorizing 10/11 dimensions and making things like parallel universes possible.
The second flaw in his logic is his perception of parallel universes. To say that we exist in those other universes (if string theory were correct and they did exist) is completely incorrect. The parallel universes would be infinite and contain every possible configuration of variables possible at every point in time. Think of the unique chain of events that had to have occurred since the beginning of time to result in you sitting at your keyboard reading this post. Then think what the chances are that you are sitting in that same chair in the next universe over, or you even exist in that universe, or even for the laws of physics as we understand them to exist in that universe.
[Okay people who are easily bored can begin reading again here]
As I said in the first paragraph, the idea presented in the text isn't about quantum physics, it's about the nature of reality. For fun I'm going to share some ideas that are more likely to explain the nature of reality. A far more likely scenario is that we are in fact living in a simulated reality.
Let's start with Steve Bostrom's simulation argument (http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html). He puts forward the case that one of the following must be true:
1. Human civilization is unlikely to reach a level of technological maturity capable of producing simulated realities, or such simulations are physically impossible to construct.
2. A comparable civilization reaching aforementioned technological status will likely not produce a significant number of simulated realities (one that might push the probable existence of digital entities beyond the probable number of "real" entities in a Universe) for any of a number of reasons, such as, diversion of computational processing power for other tasks, ethical considerations of holding entities captive in simulated realities, etc.
3. Any entities with our general set of experiences are almost certainly living in a simulation.
So to sum up, it will either never be possible to create a simulation of our reality. If it is possible an advanced civilization for whatever reason will never create a significant number of such simulations. Or a significant number of such simulations were / have been created and the chances are that we exist in one (as there is only one true reality but n number of simulations).
Now this is pretty far out there as a concept, but surprisingly physics is now moving in this direction. To explain this in a simple way let's pretend that we live in a video game (think a boring version of Grand Theft Auto 5). An entity in the game can only every perceive or measure the reality contained within the game (think of our universe as the game map), it's impossible to observe or measure information beyond that reality when you exist within it.
Entities within the game perceive a physical universe, but in reality the universe is information based, this sounds insane but a lot of what we know about quantum mechanics backs this up. Many physicists are now moving in this direction (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/phys ... ndamental/).
The biggest pieces of evidence we have are found in quantum theory. First let's look at Heisenberg's uncertainty principle made famous by Schrodinger's cat though experiment:
So if this is correct it means that all matter only exists as a wave of possibility until it's observed. Think about how a game like GTA5 works, the machine is only rendering the part of the map that is currently being observed by the player as this conserves computational resources, it won't render other sections of the map until they are observed, those other areas of the game map that aren't being observed exist only as a series of possibilities, it will depend which variables are present when they are observed as to which of those possibilities will be manifested as perceived reality (i.e. the cat being alive or dead).
You're probably now thinking WTF, that sounds like some pie in the sky type bollocks. Yes it does, but unfortunately for my psychologist the fact that all matter exists as a wave of possibilities until it is observed can be proven. This proof was many decades in the making, but it started with the two slit experiment which was devised to show us whether light is a wave or a particle which uncovered some very unexpected results:
There has been lots of debate about why this was, why the act of observing a particle (recording information) changed its behaviour. Many argued that it was the the particles that were being used to make the observation that changed the behaviour not the act of observation itself. That was proved to be incorrect by the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment (warning this will give you a headache):
This experiment has now been taken one step further and has been repeated using helium atoms which shows it applies to all matter, not just light: http://phys.org/news/2015-05-quantum-th ... dness.html.
So now we know that just like a video game only the sections of the universe that are being observed are actually being rendered (collapse of the wave function in physics speak). Let's look at how nicely this analogy fits with two of the most well known constants in physics. Using this metaphor you could think of light speed as the frame rate (information cannot be transferred faster than this) and the planck length as the pixel size (http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/1887 ... d-hologram).
Where all of this really starts to get weird (if the above wasn't already weird enough), is where consciousness fits into the picture. Are the players in this game internal or external?
This is where you really start getting onto the fringes of science, science has for so long been at odds with theism that to even suggest our consciousness isn't a manifestation of our perceived physical universe but has its origins form somewhere beyond that reality (other) is scientific blasphemy. If you are willing to explore a little deeper into this heresy, light a joint, pop open a tube of Pringles and use these two videos as a jumping off point:
Want some more, eat a happy herb pizza and read this: http://www.amazon.com/Biocentrism-Consc ... 1935251740
Last edited by starkmonster on Tue Nov 10, 2015 9:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
If you don't like it, go somewhere else.
"That was probably Londo...He is always shitty." - Marvin
-
- Damn, I just saw my Internet Bill !
- Reactions: 4
- Posts: 4384
- Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2014 5:46 am
Hah, that no joke Howard was on about something like that the other day.starkmonster wrote:I think the text isn't really about quantum physics, it's about the nature of reality. He seems to be taking the idea of the multiverse which is possible in string theory and then putting forward some ideas that are a long stretch at best, such as consciousness being able to move between those parallel universes.
[Skip next three paragraphs if you are easily bored, the interesting stuff will follow]
There are a few problems with this, the first is that string theory, is just that, a theory. It makes no testable predictions, so therefore although being mathematically sound (or mathematically brilliant), it's closer the the realm of philosophy than science, mathematical philosophy if you like. There's nothing wrong with this, most ground breaking theories begin life in this way, but in time very clever people make testable predictions and even cleverer people invent technology that allows those predictions to be tested. The thing is, string theory has been around since the 60's and that still hasn't happened and doesn't look likely to happen.
The reason string theory has been given so much weight is because the two main theories that all of physics rely on are general relativity that explains the very large (GR) and quantum field theory that explains the very small (QFT) are at odds with each other. Both theories make lots of testable predictions that have since been proven. The holy grail of physics over the last fifty years has been to create a theory of everything (ToE) that unifies GR and QFT. String theory is the best attempt at ToE that's mathematically sound, although it has to do all sorts of mathematical back-flips to achieve that, such as theorizing 10/11 dimensions and making things like parallel universes possible.
The second flaw in his logic is his perception of parallel universes. To say that we exist in those other universes (if string theory were correct and they did exist) is completely incorrect. The parallel universes would be infinite and contain every possible configuration of variables possible at every point in time. Think of the unique chain of events that had to have occurred since the beginning of time to result in you sitting at your keyboard reading this post. Then think what the chances are that you are sitting in that same chair in the next universe over, or you even exist in that universe, or even for the laws of physics as we understand them to exist in that universe.
[Okay people who are easily bored can begin reading again here]
As I said in the first paragraph, the idea presented in the text isn't about quantum physics, it's about the nature of reality. For fun I'm going to share some ideas that are more likely to explain the nature of reality. A far more likely scenario is that we are in fact living in a simulated reality.
Let's start with Steve Bostrom's simulation argument (http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html). He puts forward the case that one of the following must be true:
1. Human civilization is unlikely to reach a level of technological maturity capable of producing simulated realities, or such simulations are physically impossible to construct.
2. A comparable civilization reaching aforementioned technological status will likely not produce a significant number of simulated realities (one that might push the probable existence of digital entities beyond the probable number of "real" entities in a Universe) for any of a number of reasons, such as, diversion of computational processing power for other tasks, ethical considerations of holding entities captive in simulated realities, etc.
3. Any entities with our general set of experiences are almost certainly living in a simulation.
So to sum up, it will either never be possible to create a simulation of our reality. If it is possible an advanced civilization for whatever reason will never create a significant number of such simulations. Or a significant number of such simulations were / have been created and the chances are that we exist in one (as there is only one true reality but n number of simulations).
Now this is pretty far out there as a concept, but surprisingly physics is now moving in this direction. To explain this in a simple way let's pretend that we live in a video game (think a boring version of Grand Theft Auto 5). An entity in the game can only every perceive or measure the reality contained within the game (think of our universe as the game map), it's impossible to observe or measure information beyond that reality when you exist within it.
Entities within the game perceive a physical universe, but in reality the universe is information based, this sounds insane but a lot of what we know about quantum mechanics backs this up. Many physicists are now moving in this direction (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/phys ... ndamental/).
The biggest pieces of evidence we have are found in quantum theory. First let's look at Heisenberg's uncertainty principle made famous by Schrodinger's cat though experiment:
So if this is correct it means that all matter only exists as a wave of possibility until it's observed. Think about how a game like GTA5 works, the machine is only rendering the part of the map that is currently being observed by the player as this conserves computational resources, it won't render other sections of the map until they are observed, those other areas of the game map that aren't being observed exist only as a series of possibilities, it will depend which variables are present when they are observed as to which of those possibilities will be manifested as perceived reality (i.e. the cat being alive or dead).
You're probably now thinking WTF, that sounds like some pie in the sky type bollocks. Yes it does, but unfortunately for my psychologist the fact that all matter exists as a wave of possibilities until it is observed can be proven. This proof was many decades in the making, but it started with the two slit experiment which was devised to show us whether light is a wave or a particle which uncovered some very unexpected results:
There has been lots of debate about why this was, why the act of observing a particle (recording information) changed its behaviour. Many argued that it was the the particles that were being used to make the observation that changed the behaviour not the act of observation itself. That was proved to be incorrect by the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment (warning this will give you a headache):
This experiment has now been taken one step further and has been repeated using helium atoms which shows it applies to all matter, not just light: http://phys.org/news/2015-05-quantum-th ... dness.html.
So now we know that just like a video game only the sections of the universe that are being observed are actually being rendered (collapse of the wave function in physics speak). Let's look at how nicely this analogy fits with two of the most well known contents in physics. Using this metaphor you could think of light speed as the frame rate (information cannot be transferred faster than this) and the planck length as the pixel size (http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/1887 ... d-hologram).
Where all of this really starts to get weird (if the above wasn't already weird enough), is where consciousness fits into the picture. Are the players in this game internal or external?
This is where you really start getting onto the fringes of science, science has for so long been at odds with theism that to even suggest our consciousness isn't a manifestation of our perceived physical universe but has its origins form somewhere beyond that reality (other) is scientific blasphemy. If you are willing to explore a little deeper into this heresy, light a joint, pop open a tube of Pringles and use these two videos as a jumping off point:
Want some more, eat a happy herb pizza and read this: http://www.amazon.com/Biocentrism-Consc ... 1935251740
-
- MerkinMaker
- Reactions: 62
- Posts: 3232
- Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 11:04 am
LOL, if we needed proof, then he is it. He's definitely living in an alternate reality.
- springrain
- I'm on 3000; na na, na na na
- Reactions: 48
- Posts: 3023
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 3:25 pm
Starkmonster, Petrol Head, G&T, Londo (I don't want to leave anyone out!) thanks a million for your input, chaps! So much is told in so few pictures & quips! I've been looking at the Sumerian Tablets - so much is told in those, you know.
'History is a set of lies agreed upon.'
Attributed to Napoleon
Attributed to Napoleon
-
- Damn, I just saw my Internet Bill !
- Reactions: 4
- Posts: 4384
- Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2014 5:46 am
Doesn't matter if you left anyone out. You will have acknowledged then in an alternate universe...springrain wrote:Starkmonster, Petrol Head, G&T, Londo (I don't want to leave anyone out!) thanks a million for your input, chaps! So much is told in so few pictures & quips!
- Jacked Camry
- Is the World Outside still there ?
- Reactions: 2
- Posts: 5674
- Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 2:53 pm
From the point of view of science, it's gibberish. He just takes unsubstantiated opinions and extrapolates random conclusions from them. I didn't even make it to the aliens and lizards part, don't know how you could do so without falling asleep or throwing the book in the trash.
- springrain
- I'm on 3000; na na, na na na
- Reactions: 48
- Posts: 3023
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 3:25 pm
Thanks for your input, JC. Somehow, I knew you would say that. Never mind, I asked for your opinion and I got it. But without the aliens & lizards part, would there be any credibility in the 'parallel universe' conjecture?
'History is a set of lies agreed upon.'
Attributed to Napoleon
Attributed to Napoleon
-
- 20,000 Posts; I need professional help !
- Reactions: 2
- Posts: 22651
- Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 2:31 pm
- Location: Space, maaaan
springrain wrote:Thanks for your input, JC. Somehow, I knew you would say that. Never mind, I asked for your opinion and I got it. But without the aliens & lizards part, would there be any credibility in the 'parallel universe' conjecture?
It's unfalsifiable; therefore, from a Logical Positive point of view it has no credibility at all. Then again, LP is arguably an out-moded philosophical position (contra R Dawkins).
I came, I argued, I'm out
- springrain
- I'm on 3000; na na, na na na
- Reactions: 48
- Posts: 3023
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 3:25 pm
No doubt, Andy. But is any more credibility deserved of a World as described by Leibniz? Or even Aquinas, Aristotle, Plato, The Upanishads or any other (of which there are many)?
'History is a set of lies agreed upon.'
Attributed to Napoleon
Attributed to Napoleon
-
- 20,000 Posts; I need professional help !
- Reactions: 2
- Posts: 22651
- Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 2:31 pm
- Location: Space, maaaan
springrain wrote:No doubt, Andy. But is any more credibility deserved of a World as described by Leibniz? Or even Aquinas, Aristotle, Plato, The Upanishads or any other (of which there are many)?
My view is that stating that nothing is certain is not the equivalent of accepting that everything is equally uncertain.
I came, I argued, I'm out
- springrain
- I'm on 3000; na na, na na na
- Reactions: 48
- Posts: 3023
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 3:25 pm
Nor should it be - how can anything be 'equally uncertain'?
'History is a set of lies agreed upon.'
Attributed to Napoleon
Attributed to Napoleon
-
- 20,000 Posts; I need professional help !
- Reactions: 2
- Posts: 22651
- Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 2:31 pm
- Location: Space, maaaan
springrain wrote:Nor should it be - how can anything be 'equally uncertain'?
I mean the relativist fallacy; for example since we cannot ultimately prove that you and I exist, it doesn't make believing in fairies at the bottom of the garden equally valid. I fought this logical battle with New-Agers for decades.
I came, I argued, I'm out