Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 5 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 56
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 56
Quote:
The danger is ending up trying to find evidence to justify an idea, rather than just looking at the evidence dispassionately.



You say dispassionately as if we had no input, but the fact is we are always going to be part of any experiment. It is absolutely impossible to completely separate observer from that which is observed; I'd go as far as to say it is an unwritten law.

.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted By: abacus9900
...the fact is we are always going to be part of any experiment. It is absolutely impossible to completely separate observer from that which is observed; I'd go as far as to say it is an unwritten law.

Sure, the experimenter/observer is part of the experimental process, and we've already covered some ground regarding the double-slit and its variations. But those are quantum events. Lets take a specific macro event: what, precisely, does observing a pot of boiling water reveal about "the relationships between life and non-life"?


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: redewenur
what, precisely, does observing a pot of boiling water reveal about "the relationships between life and non-life"?


It has been argued that in order for water to change from non-boiling to boiling it must undergo a phase change, and that a phase change is a quantum action which requires superposition. It would follow that this would not take place if the water was being observed; hence the old saying that a watched pot never boils.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Well I'll be phased! That explains why the milk boils over as soon as you take your eyes off it.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Joking aside, abacus, it would be helpful if you could support the idea with an explanation of exactly what is revealed, and how - preferably using the example I proposed, to keep things simple.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 56
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 56
Quote:

Sure, the experimenter/observer is part of the experimental process, and we've already covered some ground regarding the double-slit and its variations. But those are quantum events. Lets take a specific macro event: what, precisely, does observing a pot of boiling water reveal about "the relationships between life and non-life"?



What I am saying is that whether quantum events are being considered or macro events, it's all a question of interpretation . The one thing that all such 'events' have in common is that an interpretation is attached to all of them which is mediated through human consciousness. Personally, it is my view that the level of quantum 'events' has forced us to confront our input in relation to the 'experiences' we 'manufacture' in terms of scientific experiments. This is the reason why quantum mechanics has proved so elusive so far - because the impact of our 'interference' with the micro-world has a much larger effect than with ordinary, everyday objects. With the macro-world, our interrelationships do not appear to affect, to any significant degree, our relationships with them because everything seems stable and predictable; not so with the quantum world where making a measurement actually defines where a particular quantum object will probably appear. This happens on the large scale as well but because it is a much more predictable process than the sub-atomic world, we take it for granted that our relationships with big objects have no special significance. The everyday world of ordinary experience is also made of quantum objects, something we need to remember, and therefore, there exists a deep and mysterious 'connection' between the 'outer' world of familiar objects and an 'inner' world of our thoughts and ideas which are all mediated by the 'quantum connection' but how exactly, still remains a profound mystery. The discovery of the quantum world has changed that view drastically and shown us appearances are simply wrong.

Last edited by abacus9900; 09/25/10 06:26 PM.
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 56
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 56
Quote:
Joking aside, abacus, it would be helpful if you could support the idea with an explanation of exactly what is revealed, and how - preferably using the example I proposed, to keep things simple.



The problem is, we are increasingly finding, through scientific methods, that things are far from simple and I think the real answer is that the universe is far more subtle than we used to think.

Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 56
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 56
[quote]
Originally Posted By: redewenur


It has been argued that in order for water to change from non-boiling to boiling it must undergo a phase change, and that a phase change is a quantum action which requires superposition. It would follow that this would not take place if the water was being observed; hence the old saying that a watched pot never boils.



Well, let's say the water changed from non-boiling to boiling in the absence of any observers of any complexity. What agency would be there to interpret such a process? Interpretation is everything because interpretation is the means by which change can occur so no processes would be possible anywhere in the universe without interpretation.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Okay, I'm mulling over those interesting comments. By the way, the quote above was Bill. I disagree with your response though. I don't see any grounds for certainty that, in the absence of an interpreting entity, there are no processes (that nothing happens/nothing exists). I see that as philosophical speculation. I'm not saying it must be false. It might be true. By all means say something to convince me.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 56
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 56
Quote:
I don't see any grounds for certainty that, in the absence of an interpreting entity, there are no processes (that nothing happens/nothing exists). I see that as philosophical speculation.



You see, in the absence of an interpreting entity, how can any process express itself? Once again, I come back to the falling tree in a forest. How can the changes that take place in the tree (changing position, changing acceleration, making sounds, etc.) be fully interpreted outside of an observing agency? Ok, you could say the air pressure and the energy involved in the acceleration of the tree falling and hitting the ground are in a sense 'observed' by the surrounding environment and the tree itself in registering changes in its state via its internal structures, but is that the same as the abstract idea of a tree falling in a forest? I think not, because any changes registered by the 'environment' are all unconnected so that the continuous process whereby a tree falls is not interpreted . It is the abstraction of changes (which is just another word for 'interpretation') that makes sense of reality so, ultimately, it it meaningless to insist on any test that will demonstrate this idea since any test must involve some kind of complex 'observer' in the first place. It's a kind of 'Catch 22' scenario. So, what I am arguing is that without intelligent observers, reality just consists of small, discrete unconnected changes that have no significance in relation to one one another. A kettle boiling can be thought of as a chain of small changes from cold to boiling water but remain a series of unconnected changes unless there is 'someone' or 'something' present to make an interpretation. We should also bear in mind that the scientific approach itself is founded on a particular philosophical approach, so there is no way you can exclude philosophical considerations from any form of human enquiry.

Last edited by abacus9900; 09/26/10 09:25 AM.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: abacus9900
tree falling in a forest? I think not, because any changes registered by the 'environment' are all unconnected so that the continuous process whereby a tree falls is not interpreted . It is the [i]abstraction


At first that all sounded silly, but it makes a whole lot of sense! We only call it a tree in the first place because we love to categorize things. Really each molecule is just going about its own motion, with a bit of gravity, a bit of forces from the neighbors, and not a care in the world if it's part of a falling tree or a sailing ship.

Similarly what motions of air particles count as sound? Thermal motion? We like to exclude that because it's not coherent, but sometimes it will be on very small scales.

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: K
Similarly what motions of air particles count as sound?


Surely, motions of air particles are just motions of air particles. "Sound" is simply a label we stick on after the appropriate waves have been processed by auditory organs.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Yep, it's that simple. To save myself the trouble of thinking it out again, I'll past my earlier post:

Certain ranges of frequencies of compression and sheer waves, occurring in various transmitting media, can be detected by the auditory apparatus of living organisms. We call these waves 'sound waves' simply because when they are thus detected, they create a sensation that we call 'sound'. In the absence of suitable detection apparatus there is, of course, no perceived sound. In other words, in the absence of ears, or the equivalent, there is no sound, since sound is the subjective sensory interpretation of sound waves, not the actual waves themselves.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: abacus
Well, let's say the water changed from non-boiling to boiling in the absence of any observers of any complexity. What agency would be there to interpret such a process? Interpretation is everything because interpretation is the means by which change can occur so no processes would be possible anywhere in the universe without interpretation.


I am not happy with the assertion that “no processes would be possible anywhere in the universe without interpretation.” If no interpreter is present, there is no way of knowing what form the actual event might have taken, or whether or not it has occurred. The water might have changed from non-boiling to boiling in the absence of any observers, but if someone had observed the non-boiling water at an earlier point, then later observed the water boiling; then the process could only be inferred. Are you saying that the process of change would actually be different because there was no observer present?


There never was nothing.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
S
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
Originally Posted By: redewenur
Originally Posted By: socratus

Euclidean space is two dimensions space

That's misleading.
Both 2D and 3D spaces can be Euclidean.
3D Euclidean space is the most useful way of modelling
the world as we experience it, even though
pseudo-Euclidean spaces (Minkowski space, in the case of SRT)
provide scientists with a better understanding of the
large scale universe.

Dimensions ! ?
==.
Euclidean space is a flat two dimensions space without
conception of time .
Put negative time ( -t ) into Euclidean flat two dimensions
space and it will be ‘Pseudo – Euclidean space’
Put negative time ( -t ) into Euclidean/ Descartes three
dimensions space and it will be ‘negative Minkowski
4D spacetime’
Add to (-4D) a new D and it will be Kaluza 5D space.
Add to 5D a new D and it will be 6D space.
Etc …11D . . Etc …26D . . . . to . . . .higher – super –
- extra dimensions. ( !)
The problem.
Every new dimension was taken from the heaven. (!)
Every new D needs new ‘ list of constants, which
were freely specifiable’ / The trouble with physics.
Page 119. Lee Smolin./, needs new ‘ extra particles –
- particles not seen in nature, / The trouble with physics.
Page 121. Lee Smolin / , needs new parameters.
#
What is next step?
a) some D must be freeze or hidden.
The real mechanism of the freeze is unknown.
‘ Unless there is some mysterious mechanism that
freezes the geometry of the extra dimensions . . . ‘
/Page 123. Lee Smolin /
b) some D must be wrapped or curled and ‘ there are
many different ways to curl them up’ / page 51, 119.
Lee Smolin / . But the real force (s ? ) of this process is
unknown.
#
What is result?
‘When you added more dimensions, or more twists
to the geometry, thing always got worse, not better’
/ page 52. Lee Smolin /
Why?
‘Indeed, the more dimensions you include, the higher
the price you pay for freezing their geometry.’
/ page 51. Lee Smolin /
( and also the higher the price you pay for curling
their geometry. My opinion.)
#
What is the situation?
‘ In fact, neither theory nor experiment offers any evidence
at all that extra dimensions exist’.
/ page XVI. Lee Smolin./
I think the higher – super – extra – dimensions are only
good mathematical toys, it is good mathematical training..
So.
Pecking order of the sciences:
Biologists answer only to Chemists.
Chemists answer only to Physicists.
Physicists answer only to Mathematicians.
Mathematicians answer only to God.
#
‘ I knew many physicists who were sure that supersymmetry
and the extra dimensions were there, waiting to be discovered’
/ Page 125. Lee Smolin./
Why?
My opinion.
/ Page 234./
‘ It was discovered in the 1980s that quantum gravity can be
precisely defined in a world with only two spatial dimensions.
We call this 2 + 1 quantum gravity, for two dimensions of space
and one of time’. / Lee Smolin./
#
So, what did they do?
At first they added one D and then one D more and more D
and later they began to hide these D and as conclusion (!)
we need only two D ( only 2D - !) and time (!) to explain
quantum gravity. (! ? !? )
I have no words.
====.
P.S.
What is ( 2D+ t) ?
In my peasant opinion ( 2D+ t ) is Euclidean flat two dimensions
space with positive time . Putting mass and electric charge
in this space we make step to understand the gravity.
===.
Israel Soctatus.
========================..

Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 56
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 56
Quote:
Are you saying that the process of change would actually be different because there was no observer present?



Exactly. The really tricky question, however, is: what constitutes an observer?

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Socratus
It was discovered in the 1980s that quantum gravity can be precisely defined in a world with only two spatial dimensions.


As Smolin also points out: "We don't know whether it describes nature".

We experience 4D spacetime, and are physically restricted to that. Suggesting more, or even less! dimensions may be valuable mathematical expedients, but that is all they can be. It might make just as much sense to suggest that we live in an infinite cosmos, with one infinite dimension, and that our perception of differentiated dimensions is nothing other than the result of our strictly limited perspective. (Oh no! Here comes Bill with infinity again).


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: redewenur
I'll past my earlier post:


I recall your post, I remember thinking it was an eloquent expansion of my own "No ears, no sound". Whoever asked the original question about the tree has a lot to answer for.

Originally Posted By: abacus
what constitutes an observer?


This can lead to all kinds of speculation. Can a worm in a thunder storm be said to be an observer of the storm? Are members of a visiting school party in a Lab really observers of an experiment, even if they do not understand what they are looking at? Etc, etc.

Then again, what constitutes an observation?


There never was nothing.
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 56
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 56
Quote:


This can lead to all kinds of speculation. Can a worm in a thunder storm be said to be an observer of the storm? Are members of a visiting school party in a Lab really observers of an experiment, even if they do not understand what they are looking at? Etc, etc.

Then again, what constitutes an observation?



Doesn't this all tell us that an observation is in the eye of the beholder and by implication, reality?

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
S
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 415
Comment by leonardomenderes :
==.
Dimensions are interesting.
When you think about it, x,y, z
are interchangeable, depending on
your orientation. x, y, and z can
be replaced by a radius and two angles.

The "fourth dimension", time,
is completely different. It cannot
be traded with the others at all.

It seems that "extra dimensions" just
mean "things we cannot see", and are
mainly a mathematical convenience.
/ leonardomenderes /
#
Comment by Jonathan
==.
Well, how does one hope to create a true picture
of a tree from a shadow? Adding these supposed
hidden dimensions is an exercise in guessing.

The more you reduce the dimensionality
the less it has to do with reality
/ Jonathan /

====.

Page 5 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5