Since the days of its invent we know Physics has evolved tremendously. The vaccum no more remains observer independent.And it is known to be a major issue in the Unification.
However we have consistently ignored probing of two major assumptions:
1.A point of Observation can be translated without affecting the System under observation.
In thermodynamics any work which gets done has its own limited efficiency.Suddenly for some very strange reasons we have concluded inapplicability in reference frame transaltion.
2.First we saw everything as Observer independent.Then we saw it as observer dependent.
Well now we should get mature and ask some more interesting questions like "Are the physical observations dependent on the number of Observers involved?" Well this question in my opinion is very important because as I see it the defintion of Truth (and its corresponding equivalence) allows multiple yet equivalent(for the purpose of using it) interpretations. Therefore the new age Quantum Mecahnics must allow multiple and consistent opinions of real world.(making it little surreal but honest)

dvk wrote:
"Therefore the new age Quantum Mecahnics must allow multiple and consistent opinions of real world."

It already does. You are roughly 50-60 years behind the times. Essentially your entire lifetime.

Blood Music, Greg Bear, 1985.

Any observation empirically instantaneously collapses the virutal wavefunction superposition into a consistent observable without regard to spatial separation of its entangled components. Multiple serial observations would give the expected statistical distribution of possible outcomes. Parallel observations must be consistent - the universe does not tolerate paradox.

That leaves nothing consistent with more than a half-century of professional observation for you to discover.

Any observation empirically instantaneously collapses the virutal wavefunction superposition into a consistent observable without regard to spatial separation of its entangled components. Multiple serial observations would give the expected statistical distribution of possible outcomes. Parallel observations must be consistent - the universe does not tolerate paradox
REP:Yes parallel observations must be consistent to the extent of means of communication employed.
For example a dog and a bird can not communicate using any common language.Humans can observe in a consistent way to extent of technology employed.Here also not all humans are priviledged to do so.
Role of observers are central to the entire Physics and not only Quantum Mechanics.Without observer there is no Physics and there is no Maths.But Who is the Observer ? Lets choose humans as we wish to assume that they are the only capable observers.
Communication which gets fired by Neurons mixes both Digital and Analog components.
Digital communication works on the principle of all or none(either you understand the basic component completely or you discard it) where as Analog works on the principle of all or some.
Now the question is which way the Universe works.
There is ample of evidence to show that it uses both.Statistical answer no way replaces analog methodology.The question I asked is very profound because the Digital answers derived directly leads to exact answer.. it gives a sense of absoluteness of knowledge in the information space. Whereas analog leaves scope of residual 'misunderstanding'.Acceptance of impure understanding is not prohibited.Well from information point of view it is very tempting to believe in sacred Unity of Understanding.But we know Life as a whole or humans(our observers) doesnt really use the digital machine always.It uses both the digital and analog approach.
So we ask why has Universe in principle allowed this confusion to exist in the first place.
If we believe in the Universal nature of Truth then there are two explanations:
First: All creatures learn to become to digital in their thought processing so they evolve to become digital.
Second: Repeated Observations are accepted as truth because it is the Truth for that moment!!True independence of Truth.It gets accepted by observer.Note that the observation can later be proved to be inferior or superior(i.e true or false) with increased mental capacity and research.
First option has not given us any new ideas in the quest of understanding since the days of Heisenberg.What we have obtained is half baked Turths or multiple answers.
Second options is clearly the right winner as it allows Integrity of the moment.Old answers simply decay in presence of new observations or knowledge.The decay is not necessarily the final full stop as the Observer and collected information has a life time attached to it.
We are proud of the Absoluteness to the extent of ability to read books or longevity of the concept or some insurance against natural calamity.In India and China many books were burned or were lost. Long before Computers arrived some civilizations were on the same path before they lost it all.
Many concepts rebounded from lost glory.
Therefore the Observer in principle can not obtain the absolute answer and keep it forever.
I am looking at the entire lifespan of collected Absolute Truths.
Now what I am trying to say is this :
If so much is observer dependent then the obviously the life of truth depends on the number of Observers invovled.
Greater the number of involved population greater the credibility and stability of what we have learned.
The question is how much the reality changes when the Numbers are increased or decreased.
Infact what we "know" should be a function of this number as well.
=======================================
That leaves nothing consistent with more than a half-century of professional observation for you to discover.
REP: I am sure I am discussing this concept for the first time and I did it without actually cheating from a book.Yes I have lot to say and learn but honestly the debate was intended to focus the questions I raised.

"I am looking at the entire lifespan of collected Absolute Truths."
Illucid. You compress the smallest thoughts into the largest texts. Be a prolix ass elsewhere.

Science is a predictive mathematical model of reality that survives empirical falsification. Religion is about "truth" and glories in contradiction - tests of faith The two are orthogonal.

Two faiths are orthogonal by defintion and defintions are superficial.The love and trust which is found in religion goes missing in science.
The hard wired structure of Science fails to give reasonable explanation of totality..totality which involves faith and emotions.
The harmonal secretion of anger against faith is triggered by false and limited understanding of world itself. Science is indeed necessary and scientific achievements commands respect but it is still a subset of totality..
The question is whether you want understand Universe or you wish understand some model.
Too much in faith in Model leaves you heavily dependent on accessories invented to improve understanding.Just like the glasses which helps someone with poor eyesight , science helps those with a limited knowledge of real world.
Bypassing the sacred and holistic understanding brings confusion which never gets settled by any linearized method.However if you desire to understand the Universe truly you must learn to respect the subtle signatures of God floating in logic and thought.
Model is just a model nothing more and nothing less.
Who is trying to give empirical falsification?
I am putting things in the most simplistic and logical fashion for the common crowd.
Come up solid reasoning against my arguments..
Trying to save Science and disrespecting the reality is like asking for best architecture for your house but forgetting to live in with your soul. Come on .. we are all mature enough to understand the argument.
I request all to participate because we all wish to learn the knowledge of tomorrow.
Debate should held in good spirit without use of censorship or some sadistic remark..

DKV, you're out in left field again. Please try to stick to one topic instead of rambling on about:

"I request all to participate because we all wish to learn the knowledge of tomorrow.
Debate should held in good spirit without use of censorship or some sadistic remark.."

Anyone who is foolish enough to debate with you deserves what they get in answer.

Don't feed the trolls.

"Amaranth"
Moderator

Rose ... please ... dvk is not capable of focus. Just use the hedge trimmer and improve the neighborhood.

I am asking a simple question.
What is so empirical about my observations?
I was not discussing any religion anyways ..and the comment was not from my side.
Feel free to ask me logical questions.
Knowledge is accumulated through re-search as if something was lost.. Thus there is atleast one known Universe where Knowledge is understood to be incomplete or lost.

dvk wrote:
"Feel free to ask me logical questions."

Ok.

Above you wrote:
"Knowledge is accumulated through re-search as if something was lost.. Thus there is atleast one known Universe where Knowledge is understood to be incomplete or lost."

Your statement is nonsensical.

Why dont you try this time?
I mean your non sensical arguments only makes me wonder at the maturity level tolerated within the group.
Once and for all try and settle down what is wrong : I am wrong , Theory is wrong or You are wrong.
Since I have survived with my discourse I think the last option is a valid statement which suggests lack of Yogic felixibility in your
Wisdom.Keep repeating the same words without logic and we will make good progress in Universal understanding and brotherhood.
Well save your highly appreciated effort for some other topic.

how about getting back to the initial topic? Your illogical, illucid communications only serve to clutter up the forum.

Folks, don't feed the trolls.

Amaranth

Rose wrote:
"don't feed the trolls."

Moderators. How about use a weed whacker on the trolls?

Hi DKV:

Topic: Evolution of Physics :A debate

It appears you got some of the debate you sought.

Not being very sharp on many of the new issues I am still bewildered as to how we can observe all of nature in real time with no apparent effect on nature as a result of our observations and yet in Quantom (sic) studies our observations effect the behaviour of the particles or the results.

Possibly it is due to the nature of the equipment required to nake the observations. Then, on a more casual approach, can we describe the changes our observation makes on the procedure as favorable or unfavorably, good or bad?

This is not just for you dkv but it's your topic.
jjw

Science: Believe what you see.

Religion: Believe what we tell you, not what you see.

What remains of physical reality after empirical reality is deleted? Hallucination and politics decorated with lethal hatred.

"The world holds two classes of men - intelligent men without religion, and religious men without intelligence."
~ Abu'l-Ala-Al-Ma'arri (973-1057)

The way to see by Faith is to shut the eyes of Reason.
~ Benjamin Franklin / Poor Richard 1758

Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable.
~ H.L. Mencken / Prejudices (1922)

Faith is believing something you know ain't true.
~ Samuel Clemens aka Mark Twain

Faith is an absolutely marvelous tool. With faith there is no question too big for even the smallest mind.
~ Rev. Donald Morgan

that depends on what you have faith in.

faith in the sun rising in the east every morning does not require you do accept something illogical.

faith in christ being the son of god.... well, lets just say that depends on what you mean by son of god. the one and only son of god, that takes a leap of faith, with no reason accepted. if were all sons and daughters of the creator, christ would just be one more child. no blind faith needed. (at least not in him)

Dehammer wrote:
"Faith in the sun rising in the east every morning does not require you do accept something illogical."

Actually it does. I do not believe the sun will rise every morning as an article of faith. As I know, for a fact, that some day it will not.

dehammer wrote:
"well, lets just say that depends on what you mean by son of god."

And Bill Clinton said "depends on what you mean by the word 'is'." Two statements ... equal value.

Sounds like much of the last 50 - 60 years mentioned earlier is Religion rather than Science.

We are told to believe in Zero point Energy, Quantum Superposition, etc, without any experimantal evidence to support them.

Zero Point Energy is a prediction based on extrapolation of a formulae below the Plank limit. So far I have not come across any experimental evidence that directly supports it. Maybe the original Formulae is incomplete, or maybe its impossible to get below the Plank limit.
Despite all the other hypotheses that ZPE links in with, until we get clear evidence to support it, we can't elevate ZPE above being a hypothesis.

Quantum Superposition is an interpretation based on Schrodingers Wave equation, but there does not seem to be any way to actually test it. When you try to observe a Quantum State in Superposition it collapses back to a single state.
One thing they don't talk about is how QS fits with the Matrix equations, which have been proven to be equivalent to the Wave equation. Matrices suggest simultaneous equations rather than Superposition.
Another thing which is not unexplained is how Conservation of Information can be consistant with Quantum Superposition. With entangled photons/particles, information has to jump around faster than the speed of light.

I agree with Uncle Al
- Science: "Believe what you see"
- Religion/ideology: "Beleive what we tell you, not what you see".

by the time that it stop rising in the morning, our descendants (if they are still alive and on earth) will not be anything we recognize as human. they will likely not be interested in faith. you are right that someday there will not be a sunrise, but then there might not be a sun or earth by that time either. for the life time of even your great great grand kids (scary thought, you having grand kids), it will not take an article of faith to expect the sun to rise in the east.

not even close. bill was trying to dance around the truth, as he was political. something that you seem to have a good understanding of.

my statement meant that different ppl see him as different. personally i see him as a great teacher. if your viewpoint is that you are a child of god, then you are equal to him. those of us that believe that spiritually we are all children of god, have no problem with him being called a son of god without having to defy him

Peter wrote:
"We are told to believe in Zero point Energy, Quantum Superposition, etc, without any experimantal evidence to support them."

Nonsense Peter. No one has ever told you to believe in ZPE or Darwin or Einstein or the melting point of water.

You are told that experimental evidence coincides with theory and supports the proposition that objective reality can be explained by the proposition of ZPE or Special Relativity.

Science is not about faith or belief. Never has been. Never will be!

Science is not about faith... agree.
It is not a matter of faith who understands its process.
It has an unshakable process..
It tells you what to expect given the initial conditions and the method.
Interesting....so far.
But there is a limit to its Architectural Stability.. One day it gets replaced by radically new Concept ... Making all the previous experience an act of Child ... who is yet to born.
There are many more things to discover... therefore the seeker should remain humble.

Science is not without its "mistakes" just as Religion as its own set of failures...

There are very few who can play with both.
I am not one of those.
But such people when they come to earth they create miracles everyday.
They are not Einsteins, Newtons, nor me nor you... They are the Gods.
Every age produces its own set of question and in every age he comes to answer again.
Helps to reinterprets the text book of faith to keep up with the times.

dvk wrote:
"Science is not without its "mistakes" just as Religion as its own set of failures..."

I disagree. Science has never made a mistake: Ever!

Scientists make mistakes.

The same can not be said of religion no matter how tortured your thinking. Religion is based upon false premises. Theologians may or may not make mistakes when acting within that framework. A framework that is a lie can hardly be confused with the scientific method.

DKV:
Please stick to Science and Science related topics. Go play guru somewhere else.

This is disgusting Rose.
I am not playing guru...
let us leave this topic ... if it hurts...
Bye and take care
Wish all the best in quest for knowledge..
Stephan Hawking Sir will help all of us very soon.. as he is the Guru of our new faith.

DKV:
Science is not faith and Stephen Hawking is no guru. He doesn't need to be taken on faith and worshipped in any way. He puts forth logical ideas and well thought out arguements based on logic and reason. Quit polluting this forum with you wated pixels.

Amaranth
Moderator