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

Search Forums
Custom Search
Who's Online
2 registered (Kate, newton), 97 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Simon van der Meer (Nobel ) & mass m + motion
by newton
Today at 02:58 PM
Can we lay nothing to rest?
by Bill
Yesterday at 05:27 PM
Global Warming invades the U.S.
by Amaranth Rose II
11/22/14 09:27 PM
Climate Change and Serious errors of design
by Huynh Phu Dat
11/21/14 06:43 AM
Radial Turbine Symetry is BROKEN !!!
by newton
11/20/14 08:06 PM
Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including,
by Revlgking
11/20/14 12:04 PM
Top Posters (30 Days)
newton 29
Bill 24
Bill S. 23
Revlgking 17
Amaranth Rose II 17
Page 6 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >
Topic Options
#39324 - 08/06/11 05:31 AM Re: the mystery of time and light [Re: Bill S.]
gan Offline
Member

Registered: 07/20/10
Posts: 55
but actually we are watching at past... Doesn't we? We watch at our com... the light need time to travel from the com to our eyes. What happened if we look at "now" but not history?

Top
Of Interest?
#39327 - 08/06/11 06:14 AM Re: the mystery of time and light [Re: gan]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 2977
Loc: Essex, UK
Hi Gan, long time no see. smile

You make the point that every thing we see is in the past because it takes a finite time for light to reach us. How can we look at now? Surely "now" is a concept that exists only in the mind of the thinker.

We percieve ourselves as existing in time because we have a view of our existance that is restricted to just 4 dimensions. "Now" may be our only link to infinity outside QM.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#39333 - 08/06/11 05:28 PM Re: the mystery of time and light [Re: Bill S.]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2262
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Bill S:

Intrigued by the thread, "The mystery of time and light", today, I went back and checked what we said to one another last August and September, 2010. I think the thread was started by Gan (tell us more about yourself, Gan). I went back, particularly, to page 3 of this thread.

I do not expect you to recall that this was when I first "intruded" in this thread. However, thanks for your welcome.

Today, I took the time to go back and read, carefully, the very interesting dialogue that we then had about space, time and the cosmos. I found your comments very interesting.

At the time, you spoke of time as a "static entity". Is this what you said? If so, I have two questions:

What is a "static entity"?

I also ask: Is space, for you, also a "static entity"?
_________________________
G~O~D~~Gift of Oneness & Delight. It Generate Organizes & Delivers--ALL good we Will to have.


Top
#39338 - 08/06/11 08:52 PM Re: the mystery of time and light [Re: Revlgking]
gan Offline
Member

Registered: 07/20/10
Posts: 55
I'm just a normal student. And I don't think space is a static entity because I think that space is just a imaginative place. A place where start from nothing and end with nothing.

I used all over my holiday on reading String Theory, GR, SR and QM. I don't agree all of this. We just like an ant, start from an end to the other end. We will never reach the reality if we start like this.

Can you feel that if we start from one real thing, we will just get another real thing? It is wrong because we are just get things that start and end with a finite space. What if we think that all things through space are just imaginative, change when we change, static when we static?

It is just what I think. No offense.

________________________________________________________________
"Every moment of your life is infinitely creative and the Universe is endlessly bountiful. Just put forth a clear enough request, and everything your heart desires must come to you."
written by Shakti Gawain

Top
#39343 - 08/07/11 05:42 AM Re: the mystery of time and light [Re: gan]
redewenur Offline
Megastar

Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 1825
I think I understand what you're saying, gan, but please correct me if I don't:

You think that because science is limited to the study of the physical universe that the knowledge derived from it must be incomplete and therefore wrong.

I agree that one would be in error to suppose that science alone can ever provide a total picture of reality. As Erwin Schrödinger said...

"The sensation of colour cannot be accounted for by the physicist's objective picture of light-waves. Could the physiologist account for it, if he had fuller knowledge than he has of the processes in the retina and the nervous processes set up by them in the optical nerve bundles and in the brain? I do not think so."

Schrodinger was pointing out that the realities we experience, known to philosphers as 'qualia', are beyond the reach of science, even though all the associated physical phenomena may be precisely accounted for.

Is that what you mean? If so, 'incomplete' is true, and 'wrong' is true to that extent, in this context.

Scientific theories can, of course, be wrong or incomplete in other ways - and they most often are found to be incomplete. But the trend is quite evidently toward refinement and an ever greater working knowledge of the physical universe.
_________________________
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler

Top
#39345 - 08/07/11 09:07 AM Re: the mystery of time and light [Re: redewenur]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2262
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Originally Posted By: redewenur
.... As Erwin Schrödinger said...

"The sensation of colour cannot be accounted for by the physicist's objective picture of light-waves. Could the physiologist account for it, if he had fuller knowledge than he has of the processes in the retina and the nervous processes set up by them in the optical nerve bundles and in the brain? I do not think so."

Schrodinger was pointing out that the realities we experience, known to philosphers as 'qualia', are beyond the reach of science, even though all the associated physical phenomena may be precisely accounted for.

Is that what you mean? If so, 'incomplete' is true, and 'wrong' is true to that extent, in this context.

Scientific theories can, of course, be wrong or incomplete in other ways - and they most often are found to be incomplete. But the trend is quite evidently toward refinement and an ever greater working knowledge of the physical universe.
Rede..., thanks for pointing this out to us. To help clarify things may I add the following ABOUT Qualia (From which we probably get our word 'quality')
First published Wed Aug 20, 1997; substantive revision Tue Jul 31, 2007

Feelings and experiences vary widely. For example, I run my fingers over sandpaper, smell a skunk, feel a sharp pain in my finger, seem to see bright purple, become extremely angry. In each of these cases, I am the subject of a mental state with a very distinctive subjective character.

There is something it is like for me to undergo each state, some phenomenology that it has. Philosophers often use the term ‘qualia’ (singular ‘quale’) to refer to the introspectively accessible, phenomenal aspects of our mental lives. In this standard, broad sense of the term, it is difficult to deny that there are qualia.

Disagreement typically centers on which mental states have qualia, whether qualia are intrinsic qualities of their bearers, and how qualia relate to the physical world both inside and outside the head.

The status of qualia is hotly debated in philosophy largely because it is central to a proper understanding of the nature of consciousness. Qualia are at the very heart of the mind-body problem.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/
_________________________
G~O~D~~Gift of Oneness & Delight. It Generate Organizes & Delivers--ALL good we Will to have.


Top
#39352 - 08/07/11 01:52 PM Re: the mystery of time and light [Re: Revlgking]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 2977
Loc: Essex, UK
Rev, I, too, went back to page 3 to remind myself of the context in which I talked of time as a "static entity". I am bringing the appropriate paragraph into this post so as not to have to keep going to and fro.

"With regard to your questions, I would suggest trying to think of time as a static entity, through which we are moving. In that way, time does not have to change from being “frozen” to being variable, any more than space has to change when we start to move about.
Only in the frame of reference of an observer does time appear to change. True, relativity tells us that an observer in motion relative to something else can with equal validity consider herself to be moving, or the “something else” to be moving, but in the case where the “something else” is time that may make no more sense than Einstein’s alleged question: “Does Oxford stop at this train?”"

By a "static entity" I mean nothing more than an indeterminate thing that does not have movement as an essential, diagnostic feature. I was not stating definatively that time, even in my opinion, is a static entity; just suggesting thinking of it that way as a thought experiment.

Obviously, one could apply the same thought experiment to space.

OK. Now I have done what so often happens in discussions like this: I have answered both your questions without actually answering either. smile

This is probably as near as I can get to a straight answer: In the present state of my knowledge/understanding, static time makes more sense to me than flowing time. I suspect the same may be true of space, but relativity casts some doubt on that.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#39355 - 08/07/11 05:39 PM Re: the mystery of time and light [Re: Bill S.]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2262
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
BS--I admit I am a joker--perhaps I will stick with, Bill S. smile

Meanwhile, I see you respond with a confession
Quote:
OK. Now I have done what so often happens in discussions like this: I have answered both your questions without actually answering either. smile
Your response being as you describe it to be, prompts me to ask the following questions: Do you have a problem with the questions I asked? If so, how could I have worded my questions to avoid problems?

Is there such a thing as an objectionable--maybe even stupid--question? BTW, I just found this:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/02/what-is-time/

Me? I have always thought of time as somewhat GOD-like. It is something in which I live, move and have my being.


Edited by Revlgking (08/07/11 09:51 PM)
Edit Reason: Always a good idea!
_________________________
G~O~D~~Gift of Oneness & Delight. It Generate Organizes & Delivers--ALL good we Will to have.


Top
#39365 - 08/08/11 12:39 AM Re: the mystery of time and light [Re: Revlgking]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2140
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
There are a number of views lets look at them.

GR Perspective:

From a modern science GR perspective space and time can't be seperated to do so will lead you to anomolies the correct term from Einstein perspective is to talk about spacetime. It is a loaf of bread which exists here and now for all space and all time how you slice it sections your view. It begins at some inflationary point and ends ???? we dont know.

Conceptually the problem becomes that of freedom of choice if all space and all time is already defined then all fate is set in stone.


Enter Quantum mechanics:

Quantum mechanics exists only in time space does not exist for it. You entangle two particles does not matter how far you seperate them they will respond because QM works in a world without space.

Modern thinking is this is important because light has a Quantum side to it even though GR specifies that spacetime exists QM will tell you the nature of light can be changed as required across the spacetime loaf. Thus QM ensure freedom of choice even though the fabric is set. Wheeler's delayed choice quantum erasure experiment done on photons leaving a star billions of years ago means an observation now can reach back billions of years which if you think about it is astounding (http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/basic_delayed_choice.htm).


Our Personal view:

As a number of people above commented we don't see the world as science does we see it as sensory input. The world is definitely a solid 3D construct and time progresses from second to second and we know what is behind us but not what is infront.


If you notice all three views are at odds with each other and that in a nutshell is why there is problems.

For revlgking where does GOD fit in ... wherever a person wants it to fit in. Science is about study of physical observation and facts and if a divine body exists they can make and break whatever science they want. Hence religion lies outside science as even our personal view is somewhat outside science which is causing us so much angst.
_________________________
I hate QM, always wrong, never believe me, sad and broken and now lost credibility and I cry wolf.

Top
#39375 - 08/08/11 08:55 AM Re: the mystery of time and light [Re: Orac]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/30/10
Posts: 1426
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Originally Posted By: Orac

If you notice all three views are at odds with each other and that in a nutshell is why there is problems.

That is a better way to say it than I have been using. Thanks

Originally Posted By: Orac
For revlgking where does GOD fit in ... wherever a person wants it to fit in. Science is about study of physical observation and facts and if a divine body exists they can make and break whatever science they want. Hence religion lies outside science as even our personal view is somewhat outside science which is causing us so much angst.

Another well stated summation of the problem.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#39382 - 08/08/11 04:55 PM Re: the mystery of time and light [Re: Bill]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2262
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Interesting and stimulating response, Orac.

Assuming you are a physicist, I will interject some comments of my own, in [brackets] and within your comments:

Originally Posted By: Orac
There are a number of views lets look at them. GR [By using GR, I assume you mean general relativity, right?] Perspective:

From a modern science and GR--general relative--perspective, space and time can't be separated [This, in my opinion, is a GOD-like quale, or quality. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia] to do so will lead you to anomalies. [Note: I put a period.] The correct term from Einstein perspective is to talk about spacetime.

[Orac, Einstein was, in my opinion, a unitheist. So was Spinoza.

A unitheist (I put this word in Wikipedia), or panentheist (also see Wikipedia).

What is clear is this. Neither Spinoza nor Einstein thought of 'god' as an objective being--a 'god' with dimensions.

A 'god' with dimensions is an idol, a work of art, which can be a symbol for good, or evil. To get beyond this limited and simplistic way of thinking is why I use the acronym, GOD, not the noun, God.

By the way, Orac, I assume that you are a physicist.

As such do you acknowledge that there is more to existence than that which we call measurable material? Do you give much thought to philosophy, to theology and the like?
You go on
]:

It is a loaf of bread which exists here and now for all space and all time how you slice it sections your view.

[OK, by saying this, it seems to me that you think and feel, as do I: We are human (spiritual) beings who are continuously creating the reality we have. If so, what a wonderful opportunity there is for us to create what we will have--the future. If this is so, this means that each of us is a GOD-like son or daughter of GOD. Meaning no disrespect to well-trained dogs I add:If we want to be DOG-like beings (dominating, diabolic, over-bearing and growling grinch-like beings we are free to make that choice..

Of course, we are also free--within the laws of nature--to destroy the earth and turn it into the kind of jungle--ruled by the laws of the jungle--that perhaps it was billions of years ago, especially when it was what scientists call pangea--long before the time of air-breathing land creatures. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangaea

Or--again within the laws of nature as we understand them--it could over time--much time of course--become more and more of a mixture of jungle and desert--one unfriendly to air-breathing creatures like us.

THE OPTION I CHOOSE
Or, we also have the option to make it into, not only "a thing of beauty and a joy forever" (Keats) but a beautiful space-ship earth from which our descendants will continue to explore the planets and beyond. When my wife and I were both 39 (1969) we had the privilege of seeing the live TV broadcast of the moon-landing when the astronautic, Neil Armstrong took that first giant step for humanity
]

It begins at some inflationary point and ends ???? we don't know.

Conceptually the problem becomes that of freedom of choice if all space and all time is already defined then all fate is set in stone.

Enter Quantum mechanics:

Quantum mechanics exists only in time space does not exist for it. You entangle two particles does not matter how far you separate them they will respond because QM works in a world without space.

Modern thinking is: this is important because light has a Quantum side to it even though GR specifies that spacetime exists QM will tell you the nature of light can be changed as required across the spacetime loaf. Thus QM ensure freedom of choice even though the fabric is set. Wheeler's delayed choice quantum erasure experiment done on photons leaving a star billions of years ago means an observation now can reach back billions of years which if you think about it is astounding (http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/basic_delayed_choice.htm).

"Our Personal view [Do you mean your personal view?] :

As a number of people above commented we don't see the world as science does we see it as sensory input.

The world is definitely a solid 3D construct and time progresses from second to second and we know what is behind us but not what is in front.

If you notice all three views are at odds with each other and that in a nutshell is why there is problems.

For revlgking where does GOD fit in ... wherever a person wants it to fit in. Science is about the study of physical observation and facts and if a divine body exists they can make and break whatever science they want.

Hence religion lies outside science as even our personal view is somewhat outside science which is causing us so much angst.
_________________________
G~O~D~~Gift of Oneness & Delight. It Generate Organizes & Delivers--ALL good we Will to have.


Top
#39383 - 08/08/11 08:45 PM Re: the mystery of time and light [Re: Revlgking]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 2977
Loc: Essex, UK
Originally Posted By: Rev
Do you have a problem with the questions I asked? If so, how could I have worded my questions to avoid problems?


I have no problem with your questions, which is why I answered them. However, I thought it appropriate to point out that your questions seemed to imply that I had made a statement that I had not made. Far be it from me to neglect an invitation to a little verbal sparring. smile
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#39385 - 08/08/11 10:05 PM Re: the mystery of time and light [Re: Revlgking]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2140
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

They never thought of 'god' as an objective being--one with dimensions. A 'god' with dimensions is an idol, a work of art, which can be a symbol for good, or evil. To get beyond this limited and simplistic way of thinking is why I use the acronym, GOD, not the noun, God.


And that is entirely possible our universe appears to be a construct and there does appear to be things outside it which I would believe is the current mainstream view.

If you like I am telling you explicitly Big bang nor any other physics can deny the existance of god because our world is not as hard and set as our human mind percieves and that is the personal view I was talking about.

It is only layman understanding that pits Big bang against God because the layman thinks the Big Bang is the start as a physicist it's just an event just like our sun will blow up one day.

Hmmmm ... never thought about that I guess layman would consider that the end of the universe because there world ends which of coarse it is not from a physics point of view the universe would tick along quite happily without our solar system.


Edited by Orac (08/08/11 10:06 PM)
_________________________
I hate QM, always wrong, never believe me, sad and broken and now lost credibility and I cry wolf.

Top
#39391 - 08/09/11 12:00 PM Re: the mystery of time and light [Re: Bill]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2262
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Originally Posted By: Bill G
...
Originally Posted By: Orac
For revlgking where does GOD fit in ... wherever a person wants it to fit in.

Science is about study of physical observation and facts and if a divine body exists they can make and break whatever science they want. Hence religion lies outside science as even our personal view is somewhat outside science which is causing us so much angst.
Another well stated summation of the problem. Bill Gill
Bill G, I suspect that when Orac says--and correct me if I am wrong, Orac--that religion, which is a very person-based phenomenon, and our personal opinions are somewhat outside science, he does not mean that they must be enemies of one another. All he is doing is stating it as a fact. I think that the way we personally perceive what is going on, physically, is a challenging and interesting problem--one looking for a solution. Working on and finding a solution could help us have to less angst.

Orac--again I say, correct me if I am wrong--as an example of what it means to have a personal point of view, here is how I heard what you said to me. Here is my personal perception, in my words + your words, of your recent post:
Quote:
It is entirely possible that our universe is a construct, and there does appear to be things--beyond our current ability to detect--outside it, which I would believe is the current mainstream view.

I hear you say: I am telling you explicitly: Neither the Big bang, nor any other phenomenon of physics, can neither deny, nor affirm, the existence of god.

Why do I say this? because our world is not as hard-wired and set as our human mind perceives. Personally speaking, that is what I was talking about.

PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS--are valuable, but can differ
EXPERT OPINIONS--again, valuable, but can differ
LAY OPINIONS--same as the above
COMMONSENSE OPINIONS--not always held in common
LAWS--are opinions codified
ABOVE ALL--misunderstanding and miscommunication--can happen in all categories, and can lead to serious conflict.

Interestingly, our word 'laity' comes from the Greek word, laos. It means the people, the mob, the crowd, the community in general).

For example, professional astro-physicists accept the Big-bang phenomenon of the creation of the universe, as we know it, as a confirmed theory. Lay people--often armed with ignorance--who know little about science and theology, will often jump to the conclusion that all scientists reject the value of religion and vice versa. Not true. As in all fields, wise people usually, and with an agape-based attitude, leave their options open.

Few educated religionists believe that there is a one true 'god'--like the one we read about in the first two chapters of Genesis--one who created the universe, as we know it, in six literal days, and rested on the seventh. Again, some do, and some don't. There is no such thing as one true theology. As the following quote makes clear, there is great flexibility, especially among those well-educated in the Bible as literature, in science and in theology.
Quote:
The Big Bang hypothesis is widely known in popular thought as the best explanation for how the universe came to be.

However, very few people know that a Catholic Christian priest formulated this theory in the late 1920s. Reverend Monsignor Georges Lemaître, a Belgian scientist, challenged the conventional thinking of his colleagues, including Albert Einstein, and rejected the static universe hypothesis for a dynamic model. In the course of carrying out his research, he confronted illogical thinking that pitted faith against reason, and science against the Church. His legacy extends beyond cosmology, to the nature of truth itself.
You see, the BIG Bang theory was actually proposed by a Christian priest--Father Georges Lemaitre http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8847 Read more of his story in Wikipedia.

THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE--Of course there were and are atheist and agnostic thinkers, but the history of religion is also replete with the stories of great religionist thinkers from all faiths--Jewish, the great Eastern Religions, Christians, Muslims and others, who contributed--and are still doing so--so much to the growing body of knowledge (our philosophies, sciences and the arts) on which we base the laws of by which we live day to day.
Orac, you conclude your post with comments about the Big Bang and future of our Sun and its children, the
Planets: In reality, it was just an another event in space. just like
Quote:
our sun will blow up one day.

Hmmmm ... never thought about it that way before. I guess that for layman that would be the end of the universe, because the world as they know it would end. But from point of view of professional physicists the universe, as a whole, would go ticking along quite happily without our puny little solar system.
_________________________
G~O~D~~Gift of Oneness & Delight. It Generate Organizes & Delivers--ALL good we Will to have.


Top
#39401 - 08/09/11 10:26 PM Re: the mystery of time and light [Re: Revlgking]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2140
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Correct revlgking I am happy with that.

Reality is very personal like religion physics is far starker than that ... and I am not sure stark is the right word.

The best I can use is Plato's and socrates cave story (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave)

Quote:

In the dialogue, Socrates describes a group of people who have lived chained to the wall of a cave all of their lives, facing a blank wall. The people watch shadows projected on the wall by things passing in front of a fire behind them, and begin to ascribe forms to these shadows. According to Socrates, the shadows are as close as the prisoners get to viewing reality. He then explains how the philosopher is like a prisoner who is freed from the cave and comes to understand that the shadows on the wall do not make up reality at all, as he can perceive the true form of reality rather than the mere shadows seen by the prisoners.


Reality is defined by what one senses not by the reality of physics.
_________________________
I hate QM, always wrong, never believe me, sad and broken and now lost credibility and I cry wolf.

Top
#39410 - 08/10/11 10:54 PM Re: the mystery of time and light [Re: Orac]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2262
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Stark? Did you mean "rigid" ?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stark?show=0&t=1313033761

Which poses all kinds of questions like: Is reality an absolute? Or is it something which each individual creates for itself?

Do human beings (conscious and otherwise), animal beings, insects, vegetables, whatever all experience the same reality?
_________________________
G~O~D~~Gift of Oneness & Delight. It Generate Organizes & Delivers--ALL good we Will to have.


Top
#39412 - 08/11/11 02:08 AM Re: the mystery of time and light [Re: Revlgking]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2140
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: Revlgking


Yes thats better sorry I struggle with english :-)

Originally Posted By: Revlgking

Which poses all kinds of questions like: Is reality an absolute? Or is it something which each individual creates for itself?


QM answers that definitely via a law called Bell's Inequality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem)

Quote:

The violations of Bell's inequalities, due to quantum entanglement, just provide the definite demonstration of something that was already strongly suspected, that quantum physics cannot be represented by any version of the classical picture of physics.


Many who believe in a one real physical world interpretation like Einstein were horrified by this and science has spent nearly 100 years trying to fight it.

We usually call our two observers Alice and Bob (A & B I know novel) and QM will proove they never experience the same reality it's not possible for them to unless there are hidden variables behind the scenes which we can show don't exist again via classic test that is EPR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox). This may be simpler to understand (http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/why_...ould_have-81602)

Quote:

Einstein struggled to the end of his life for a theory that could better comply with causality, protesting against the view that there exists no objective physical reality other than that which is revealed through measurement interpreted in terms of quantum mechanical formalism.


Einstein really disliked QM :-)

I must admit when I first moved from GR to QM studies it was hard but it grows on you. It's not that it's really mind blowing just different to how you experience the world.

Originally Posted By: Revlgking

Do human beings (conscious and otherwise), animal beings, insects, vegetables, whatever all experience the same reality?


For the same reasons above no two humans would experience the same "physics reality".

I would say animals etc even more so because there sensory inputs are so different for example they can hear much higher up the audio spectrum.

Reality seems to be about the observer much more than the world is one of the main things QM teaches us.


Edited by Orac (08/11/11 02:41 AM)
_________________________
I hate QM, always wrong, never believe me, sad and broken and now lost credibility and I cry wolf.

Top
#39419 - 08/11/11 09:00 AM Re: the mystery of time and light [Re: Orac]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/30/10
Posts: 1426
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Originally Posted By: Orac
Einstein really disliked QM :-)

Very true, which is especially strange when you consider that he was one of the pioneers of QM. One of the first stages of the development of QM was his explanation of the photoelectric effect, which is what he got his Nobel Prize for. And of course he was one of the main contributors to the EPR (Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen) paper about quantum entanglement (he didn't really believe in it) but it is one of the most quoted papers about entanglement.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#39428 - 08/11/11 03:42 PM Re: the mystery of time and light [Re: Bill]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2262
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Originally Posted By: Bill
Originally Posted By: Orac
Einstein really disliked QM :-)
... And of course he was one of the main contributors to the EPR (Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen) paper about quantum entanglement (he didn't really believe in it) but it is one of the most quoted papers about entanglement. Bill Gill
BG: Does the following, from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, mean that some modern physicists are actually catching up to what some philosophers, theologians and pneumatologists have been saying all along? In Hamlet (Act 1, scene V) Shakespeare puts the following words in the mouth of Hamlet: There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/

Quote:
2. Exploiting Entanglement: Quantum Teleportation: Quantum Teleportation
Consider again Schrödinger's realization that an entangled state could be used to steer a distant particle into one of a set of states, with a certain probability. In fact, this possibility of ‘remote steering’ is even more dramatic than Schrödinger demonstrated.

Suppose Alice and Bob share an entangled state of the sort considered by Bell, say two photons in an entangled state of polarization. That is, Alice has in her possession one of the entangled photons, and Bob the other. Suppose that Alice has an additional photon in an unknown state of polarization |u>, where the notation ‘|&#8201;>’ denotes a quantum state.

It is possible for Alice to perform an operation on the two photons in her possession that will transform Bob's photon into one of four states, depending on the four possible (random) outcomes of Alice's operation: either the state |u>, or a state that is related to |u> in a definite way. Alice's operation entangles the two photons in her possession, and disentangles Bob's photon, steering it into a state |u*>.

After Alice communicates the outcome of her operation to Bob, Bob knows either that |u*> = |u>, or how to transform |u*> to |u> by a local operation. This phenomenon is known as ‘quantum teleportation.’

What is extraordinary about this phenomenon is that Alice and Bob have managed to use their shared entangled state as a quantum communication channel to destroy the state |u> of a photon in Alice's part of the universe and recreate it in Bob's part of the universe.
_________________________
G~O~D~~Gift of Oneness & Delight. It Generate Organizes & Delivers--ALL good we Will to have.


Top
#39431 - 08/11/11 04:34 PM Re: the mystery of time and light [Re: Revlgking]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 2977
Loc: Essex, UK
Quote:
What is extraordinary about this phenomenon is that Alice and Bob have managed to use their shared entangled state as a quantum communication channel to destroy the state |u> of a photon in Alice's part of the universe and recreate it in Bob's part of the universe.


However, since neither Alice nor Bob could know this until they were able to communicate conventionally, this rather fanciful pseudo-teleportation, is of somewhat limited value.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
Page 6 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >



Moderator:  Amaranth Rose II, Kate, Mike Kremer 
Newest Members
Charles, 4567891011121314, Tracy319, lalabetsy, teacher
719 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

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

Copyright © 1998 - 2013 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.