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 (), 301 guests, and 0 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Suppose David Bohm was right and what we observe is the explicate order, which is a partial perception of the underlying implicate order. Time, separation and individuality are subsumed beneath the unity of the implicate order. Everything is everything else. Particles on opposite sides of the Universe are entangled.

This equates well with the concept of an infinite cosmos in which every part is the whole, because there can be no separation, change or movement. Those particles are not just entangled, they are one. What we perceive as reality is a shadow of this underlying infinity.

Consider that QM might give us a transient window into this infinite realm; one through which we can look only obliquely. If we try to look directly; by observation, or measurement; the implicate order vanishes, and we are left with the explicate.

Apply this to the double slit experiment. If not directly observed, the photon (or other quon) is everywhere. The final result is observed, and therefore is explicate, but the unobserved process is implicate; in no way is it influenced by space, or even by time. Thus, it is meaningless to talk of a quon being in two or more places at once; or to talk of retrocausality; they are concepts that have no place in the implicate order.


There never was nothing.
.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Ignoring our polish spammer fool and moving to your question Bill S.

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Suppose David Bohm was right and what we observe is the explicate order, which is a partial perception of the underlying implicate order. Time, separation and individuality are subsumed beneath the unity of the implicate order. Everything is everything else. Particles on opposite sides of the Universe are entangled.

I need to ask you some questions because your response here is a bit vague.

Bohm's idea was sort of a hidden variables theory objects. He created a classical mechanistic model that mimics the internal workings of quantum mechanics but objects were "real" in a classical sense and connected by real waves called "pilot waves". So in that way entanglement experiments are explained by Bohm as communication at faster than the speed of light and infinite speed if need be.

You have been thru class 1 waves in QFT and you know it calls rubbish on that sort of garbage.

So I need you to elaborate are you really going down the Bohm path or are you talking about some general idea under normal standard QM?

Your wording sort of suggests the later to me but the use of Bohm throws me.

Last edited by Orac; 10/31/15 03:53 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Any mention of Bohm tends to generate thoughts of pilot waves, which I understand has been discredited.

His concept of implicate and explicate orders was somewhat different. Some of his book Wholeness and the Implicate Order was a bit like neutrinos; it passed through my head with little reaction.

The (hitch-hiker level) impression with which I was left was that the implicate order represents underlying reality, and is timeless, changeless and spaceless.

The reality we observe equates to the explicate order. This is a partial perception; a sort of shadow; of the implicate order.

The idea of wholeness implies that everything is linked (timelessly and spacelessly) to everything else.


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
His concept of implicate and explicate orders was somewhat different. Some of his book Wholeness and the Implicate Order was a bit like neutrinos; it passed through my head with little reaction.

hehe sometimes it's like that.

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
The (hitch-hiker level) impression with which I was left was that the implicate order represents underlying reality, and is timeless, changeless and spaceless.

The reality we observe equates to the explicate order. This is a partial perception; a sort of shadow; of the implicate order.

Yeah but now you are at the point you might as well invoke GOD because that system can't evolve, so how did it come into being smile

I should say if we are really going to go out to fringe science and into crackpot territory then there are other weird ideas you need to exclude. Lets try one smile

Lets take the idea that there are multiple universes just like ours and hell lets even have them interact in the dark energy sector. Lets go further and now our universe has an orbital around another vastly larger universe in the dark sector. So now can you exclude such a thing?

Is it structurally any different to believing the concept everything has always been here?

You need to be careful when you start down the path of untestable ideas you can end up believing in almost anything laugh

If you need proof of that you only have to look at the posts between ours, I like testable ideas smile

You can however get such things in our guilable science media by just writing a book here is proof
http://phys.org/news/2015-10-physicist-links-dark-dinosaur-extinction.html
The only positive was most of the comments ... my favourite was the Invisible pink unicorn.

Last edited by Orac; 11/01/15 07:08 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
It used to bother me that I sometimes confused Lisa Randell with Jenny Randles, but perhaps theres not so much difference.

You do realise that pink unicorns are pure dark matter? Thats why you never see one. The evidence is conclusive.

Ill be back for a more serious look at this soon I hope.


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
If you ever do decide to take it seriously you need to look at your byline ... "There never was nothing"

If you were a scientist we would be having a discussion about profoundly unsafe theories and science ethics smile

Science ethics is a small class usually tacked into the last year for graduates but it is vitally important they pass it.

In your layman terminology there are only 3 options to you if we break into black/white (nothing/something)

1.) The never was nothing (something => something)
2.) We actually are still nothing (nothing => nothing)
3.) We started as nothing but now are something (nothing => something)

There is a fourth option but it is actually the same as 3 with the nothing/something definitions reversed
4.) We started as something and now are nothing (something => nothing)

If you got the issue with (4) then you will get that (1) & (2) are actually the same thing just the definition of the constant state is changed. That is what makes them untestable there is no change in state so they can't be tested. One can not say something can not change unless you test everything that could make it change.

A big rock looks like it won't move, but put enough dynamite under it laugh

From a science ethics perspective (1) & (2) can only be proved by excluding every other option.

So as a scientist, ethically I have to start with a belief in (3) because I am going to need to exclude every option here anyhow.

Theoretical physicist Lisa Randall in that article above failed basic science ethics. For a scientist working in solid practical area that might not be a big a problem. However for a theorist to fail science ethics is a death sentence, because it is the only thing that stops you turning things into a religion and believing in pink unicorns.

So we are lucky you aren't a theoretical physicist smile

Last edited by Orac; 11/02/15 03:59 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac

3.) We started as nothing but now are something (nothing => something)


So as a scientist, ethically I have to start with a belief in (3) because I am going to need to exclude every option here anyhow.


You have to start with the belief that nothing becomes something, with nothing to instigate change, and no time in which the change can happen????

That sounds very much like a religious belief to me, but what do I know, I'm just a hitch-hiker? smile


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac

Yeah but now you are at the point you might as well invoke GOD because that system can't evolve, so how did it come into being


It didn't come into being, it's eternal. That is also why it is not evolving, if it is eternal, it would already have evolved infinitely, there would be no more evolving to do, and that, of course, is rubbish. It doesn't need God,just the ability to think rationally. Is that what scientists do?

This is why we experience the explicate order, not the implicate order. We have to be able to make sense of our Universe, or we would never have evolved in it.

Let's get back to basics. I think you were going to show me how something can come from (absolutely) nothing.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
Lets take the idea that there are multiple universes just like ours and hell lets even have them interact in the dark energy sector. Lets go further and now our universe has an orbital around another vastly larger universe in the dark sector. So now can you exclude such a thing?

Is it structurally any different to believing the concept everything has always been here?


When you post things like this, I find myself wondering if you are serious, or just trying to wind me up.

Your multiverse idea does/explains nothing; apart from the fact that the basic idea provides a way of looking at a specific aspect of QM.

The concept that everything has always been here, provides an explanation for how we can be here, without invoking a creator.


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: newton
ORAC can You tell me which colour we see during YOUNG's test

I am sorry Marosz you don't want to know the answer so why ask?

You are still working as a CNC operator and no government or company is remotely interested in your ideas .. sound about right?

You have been at this trash for what 4 or 5 years now?

You could have done night classes or even online classes and actually improved your job prospects while studying something that interests you.

So rather than waste my time discussing science, let me warn you of an upcoming drama in you life which I would like you to think about.

You have children and those children are going to school I assume. The teaching of science these days has improved so much, you have a massive problem coming your way. At some point your children are going to realize just how poor their father is at science. Whilst they will probably deal with the situation I am not sure you will be able to. Unfortunately your science is so bad that I suspect the point will probably be before the children make it to upper school.

So please consider what it looks like when even your own children think you are just some crazy old fool.

So there is some advice to think about.

As for discussing physics with you, sorry that isn't going to happen and address your questions to someone else.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
No Bill S I am not winding you up, I was explaining why I can't go where you are. If it upsets you the lets just drop it.

I sort of get to this issue with Rev K when he sort of wants science to look at religion. The problem is the first thing we then have to do then is put the thing on test which will instantly be offensive. Science is not about being nice and polite, I have my ideas and beliefs put under test everyday. On a couple of occasions I have found out my beliefs were totally wrong, and it isn't a great feeling I can tell you.

Originally Posted By: Bill s
You have to start with the belief that nothing becomes something, with nothing to instigate change, and no time in which the change can happen????

It isn't a want .... I am forced to, it is the only scientifically safe option that exists. I can't test something that doesn't change state, you are telling me the big rock can't be moved based on your gut feel.

Do you agree you have excluded an option out of hand?

Note I haven't excluded your idea but if I can't test it then I can only arrive at it by removing all the alternatives. You may get lucky and be right but it's 50/50 as best I can see.

Originally Posted By: Bill
It didn't come into being, it's eternal. That is also why it is not evolving, if it is eternal, it would already have evolved infinitely, there would be no more evolving to do, and that, of course, is rubbish.

You are still left with the sticky problem of how does something eternal come it being, it is no better or more logical than the nothing option surely you see that?

Originally Posted By: Bill
It doesn't need God,just the ability to think rationally. Is that what scientists do?

As a scientist I have never seen something perpetual pop into existence ... NOT EVER.
I also have never seen something suddenly created from nothing ... NOT EVER.
So both are equally bad or good choices to me take your pick.

So referring to your sentence above explain to me as a scientist why I should prefer one over the other logically?

Originally Posted By: Bill S
When you post things like this, I find myself wondering if you are serious, or just trying to wind me up.

As I explained it wasn't about winding you up it is explaining the ethics of why I can't go there. I can easily create situations which can not be tested that are equally likely to look like your idea. I was simply trying to give you a sort of topical example to show you the problem.

As I said I would need to remove all these sorts of ideas to be able to come to your conclusion.

Originally Posted By: Bill S
Your multiverse idea does/explains nothing;

There is definitely no multiverse in anything we discussed. You can in fact falsify the Everett type multiverse idea just some haven't caught up with the background experiments.

Originally Posted By: Bill S
apart from the fact that the basic idea provides a way of looking at a specific aspect of QM.

Correct and that is all I can do look at the results. What we can say with certainty is time is every bit as real and the same as space, because QM can encode into it equally well.

In GR/SR some people struggle with timelike events and casuality but I was just showing you that it is actually on very solid science ground. This idea that space is more real than time is just another of those wrong turns classic physics takes you down. Technically the entire universe could encode into one point in space, whats more strange from a QM perspective is why does space exist at all. See the similarity here classic physics asks does time exist as something real and QM asks does space exist as something real?

It one of those funny jokes you get in QM, when you drag everything back to the big bang, is why do we need this space stuff why aren't we still a point. Be careful who you have that joke with smile

Last edited by Orac; 11/03/15 06:16 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
As a scientist I have never seen something perpetual pop into existence ... NOT EVER.
I also have never seen something suddenly created from nothing ... NOT EVER.
So both are equally bad or good choices to me take your pick.


If by "perpetual" you mean eternal, then of course you haven't seen it "pop into existence". Suggesting that something eternal might have a beginning is a contradiction in terms. In the five years or so I have been on this forum I don't think I have labelled anyone else's ideas as rubbish, and I am certainly not breaking that record now. Near thing, though. smile

I'm not surprised that you have never seen something suddenly created from nothing; to equate that with never having seen the beginning of eternity is perplexing.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
There is definitely no multiverse in anything we discussed. You can in fact falsify the Everett type multiverse idea just some haven't caught up with the background experiments.


I have not caught up with that either. A pointer would be appreciated.


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
I'm not surprised that you have never seen something suddenly created from nothing; to equate that with never having seen the beginning of eternity is perplexing

Ok I had to check the definitions, I can't even deal with eternal that is a religious or metaphysical definition.

I was thinking you meant like perpetual but you clearly mean like it has no start version.

All I will say is take a look at any dictionary that form has an alternative meaning you objected to when I stated it.

Never seen an eternal thing and can't test for it so I will leave it at that. Not something that can be scientifically tested and falls into Rev K problems.

Last edited by Orac; 11/04/15 05:43 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
I have not caught up with that either. A pointer would be appreciated.

The background to the problem has been known by theorist for a very long time that making the intermediate states of MWI "real" would create problems with interference results of QM. QM demands that results are the SUM OF ALL PROBABILITIES and if you make intermediates real how can that work.

It was largely an technical argument with MWI supporters doing a lot of hand waving. Lubos in his usual aggressive style used to refer to MWI as pseudoscience and you can follow he explains the technical problem if you make the intermediate states real.

http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2014/07/many-worlds-pseudoscience-again.html

The issue was largely just theoretical stuff like people arguing about the Higgs pre it's discovery.

However in May this year the issue was settled like the Higgs discovery settled things
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150527103110.htm
Full paper: http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v11/n7/full/nphys3343.html

A team in Australia did a remarkable job to setup our good old Wheeler's delayed-choice experiment on atoms not light. That is stuff everybody would consider "real" and classical.

You can not construct intermediate "real" states in that experiment the atoms would have gone to another reality in MWI and would not be capable of the delayed choice result.

In other words atoms and the "real world" don't exist until you measure them. People can kick and scream and refuse to believe all they like experiments don't lie. The only choice now is to find an error in the experiment.

There is only one interpretation of QM that survives that test or you have to believe in retrocausality.

I guess the true MWI zealots can try and float that the world splits and then later on when we do the delayed choice the atom suddenly jumps back to our universe because it is needed. Not sure how we write a wave equation to cover that but I am sure they will try to somehow construct a saviour. Hey look on the bright side you may be needed in another universe and off you will jump if we have retrocasual MWI.

For my part I think I will go with the intermediate states don't really exist it makes everything cause and effect a little more consistent smile

The postscript to that story is groups are setting up to to do it with a few mm's of diamond. There is some criticism of the cost of these experiments as any scientist already knows the answer all you are doing is playing wow factor to a layman audience and "look the diamond went thru two slits at the same time". At a time in which funding is falling and limited it is hard to justify the costs. One of the objections suggested they should have to do it with a cat as that is ultimately the audience you are playing to.

Last edited by Orac; 11/04/15 06:19 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
One of the problems with using "lay-person" type dictionaries for scientific purposes is that they tend not to be very scientific.

Eternity provides a good example. It is often defined as "infinite time". In fact, eternity is no more a period of time than infinity is a number.

Where would you find a definition like: "That aspect of (the rational perception of) infinity that satisfies the need of finite rationality to ascribe duration to infinity"?


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
As a scientist I have never seen something perpetual pop into existence ... NOT EVER.
I also have never seen something suddenly created from nothing ... NOT EVER.
So both are equally bad or good choices to me take your pick.


Do you need to reword this before we have another go at it?


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
No its okay I get the problem now, I really hadn't run across Eternal used like that before.

Well maybe someone had and I completely misunderstood what they meant like with you, always that risk.

Passing an English exam does not guarantee I always get it right smile

I much prefer science terms they are so much easier to deal with and one does not get blindsides by double meanings. There are still two possibilities I need to understand which you mean so I can close the system for QM.

This goes back to an earlier problem QM can only work in a fully defined system or it wouldn't work at all. Remember we can't let you destroy information either or it breaks down. So if you wanted to use a sort of naive version that there is infinite time before us and infinite time after us that concept is brutally falsified because QM is working here and now. You want to use that naive definition as in the dictionary you are in religion domain and inconsistent with science.

What we can sort of allow QM to work here and now and open up time in two distinct ways

1.) We can allow time to loop back on itself and our universe becomes a closed timelike curve (CTC).

2.) We can allow time to run outside space but we then need a boundary condition (something like a cauchy horizon).

So they are your two options which do you want?

Of coarse the start point for the QM time we know will be the big bang, end point unknown.

I am not sure if you get what we have really done in that is make our time relative to something you would call "universal time" but be careful they aren't necessarily the same. It is a bit like space and time are the same to QM it encodes in either but they aren't the same to us. They may also be somewhat the same I have no data to say one way or other.

What you did in all that was allowed QM to close in the relative time section (so we match experiments today) and you can have some concept of absolute time outside that.

Does that describe what you want to do?

EDIT: Ok so I decided I better let you on the nasty setup this is creating. You won't realize it at all but if you take either of the two options you are going into the different major versions of string theory. That is how string theory keeps consistency with QM and I warned you about the encoding looking nothing like what we see.

I was going to see if I could get you to believe in string theory because you are basically there as a layman you just don't recognize it.

So Bill S string theory or religion where we going?

Last edited by Orac; 11/05/15 06:16 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
Passing an English exam does not guarantee I always get it right


No worries; there are plenty of native English speakers who do worse things to the language than you do. smile


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
So if you wanted to use a sort of naive version that there is infinite time before us and infinite time after us that concept is brutally falsified because QM is working here and now.


Absolutely not infinite time! Infinity is not a number, so it cannot be a length of time. I suspect that scientists (with the exception of Barbour) are reluctant to recognise timeless eternity/infinity because God might lurk there, but there is really no such threat, unless one wants it.

Lets start by looking at the two options.

1. CTCs can be fun, but there are so many problems, I tend to discount any possibility that they might be a part of the physical world. Im willing to keep an open mind, but need some solid evidence.

2. Ive not really got my head round cauchy horizons, but as far as the idea of time running outside space goes, I see little more reason to go for that than for multiple universes.

This seems to require a third option. You point out that if you take either of the two options you are going into the different major versions of string theory. This must imply that if these are the only two options, string theory must be right! Are you saying that?


There never was nothing.
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4

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 UsokW
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