My Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and The Universe at Large

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Reiku, Apr 27, 2008.

  1. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    So, i'm going to spill all my darkest thoughts on the quantum world of physics

    My View on Quantum Mechanics

    There is so many problems with the big bang. Parallel Universes can answer for this, but each of those universes have the problem of where energy came from. It simply comes out of the nothingness, and the big bang does not merit any pre-existence, from a relativistic viewpoint. But relativity is a classical theory, in that it doesn’t take into account the uncertainty principle.

    But if you do, theories can emerge that could potentially answer for some kind of quantum answer to where the energy we observe today came from t-1 seconds of Big Bang. I’ve known for a while that it has been widely accepted in a parallel universe model, that some universes will be in excited states that will inexorably spill their energies over time.

    With this in mind, I asked, ‘’what about a finite collection of universes spilling energy equally so it reaches the original branch, in a closed-timelike-path, and continue this process of sinusoidal movements into infinity?’’

    For the energy to be caught up in some closed-timelike-path would allow the energy to reach the original branch as fast as it had left, in fact, simultaneous. But to do this, as I mentioned, we needed to allow the uncertainty principle run the game, and even introduce quantum tunneling, because there was one major paradox.

    For it to successfully flow between all the universes, only \(10^{100}\) is needed, it would need to follow a constant pattern of a flow from an excited state universe to a ground, and back again, because if it didn’t follow this accordingly, it wouldn’t work.

    Chronological- Set Principle

    A law which the wave function in the Big Flow Theory, inherent in all matter is described as being a set of statistical outcomes that will be determined amount of universes that will use any of these probabilities. By this standard, the outcomes or probabilities when played out in any one universe, are set in self-contained time, and must abide by a chronological order in time. In other words, each universe when a particles path is determined, it is determined in another universe in a different eigenstate. But the Chronological-Set Principle states that there be two essential conditions:

    1. That there is a finite amount of universes.
    2. And that each universe be self-contained and having self-contained time

    The reason why we need value two is because the Big Flow Theory is in fact a Closed-Timelike Theory, so that it acts analogous to a particle experiencing a closed-timelike-path. This means, it doesn’t matter which universe is currently active with energy, they are totally self-contained, and when in reference to each other, each universe has an energy present and doesn’t simultaneously.

    So how do we envision this? Is energy being distributed evenly along a finite set of universes or not? Because for value two to work, there is no determination between one universe to another, so that they can operate accordingly as a closed-timelike theory. So this is in conflict with having any notion of ‘’flow’’ in the theory. The only way to explain how this is allowed, is by allowing the uncertainty principle run the show in imaginary time. We certainly can’t allow any of this in real time, because it simply wouldn’t work.

    Value one also holds a few notions to account for. In this theory, \(10^100\) universes are suffice to account for the flow, so long as there is an equal distribution of excited and ground state universes. But there is a problem, a paradox if you wish, because the theory needs each universe to be distributed along in a continuous pattern that is from excited state, to ground state… but the conditions in both states of the universes would be uniquely different.

    If a universe begins in a ground state, it has no singularity, and no unique structure or radius. And how can it have a unique energy? Instead of a singularity at its imaginary center and no unique point, it would have a topological opening, a wormhole.

    For an excited state universe, it is very volatile over time, and will eventually spill all of its energy, but if both the states of universes are distributed evenly, so that the energy flows from an excited state into a ground state, then how does the ground state universe spill its energy? The answer is it doesn’t. The process for the energy in this instance is through tunneling, by applying this in imaginary time, or real space. By using the uncertainty principle, you can allow particles to tunnel through barriers. Hawking uses them frequently in allowing particles to tunnel through the gravitational surface of a black hole. The energy would then quite literally, ‘’tunnel’’ through into another universe, ‘’squeezed’’ out of current spacetime and growing into another.

    This would continue on and on, around the universes until it finally reached the original branch, in a ‘’super-closed-timelike path.’’ This way, energy has an explanation to its origin. The big bang cannot tackle such a question so many physicists have in protest against the theory stated the energy came from nowhere, to show how absurd it really is, because how can something come from nothing, because relativity states before big bang, there was absolutely noting. Somehow, nothing was actually something, and the Big Flow Theory tackles this by saying the energy returns back to its original starting point as fast as it left the universe acting forever in a sinusoidal movement, due to the infinite nature of the wave function of matter.

    So there is not an infinite amount of universes, but each universe continues to have an infinite amount beginnings and ends. Even though I have no where near the mathematical knowledge to even put this down into some calculative thesis, I know by modern physics this theory is completely possible. One problem though, there is absolutely no way to prove this. It’s in the realm of other interpretations to overthrow big bang like Ekpyrotic Theory working in 5-branes that are totally un-experimental, even its counterpart and foundation of string theory. We simply don’t have the technology to fathom the truth, we can only speculate, and bring forward theories.

    My Thoughts on Observer-Dependency

    The universe must be to some extent, observer-dependant. Existence as we know it, is nothing more than how we perceive through the five senses. This is reality, since it is the only existence of reality we ever come to know. If this is the definition of existence is perception alone, then what kind of universe would exist without the observer?

    This is arguably not only an ontologically-based principle, but also a metaphysical interpretation. But we also add to reality detail which is unique. Simple decoherence doesn’t transmit the kind of information into the world like humans do. In a single day we can have up to 6 million thoughts, and observe over 6 billion frames of images, and these build reality up, because it is sending signals into the universe, like waves of information.

    The world of matter seems to come alive in the perception of the mind. Just the way we use photons to ‘hit’ down the location of another particle, the observer ‘hits’ reality by measuring it, we bring the world into view of our perceptions which is very holographic in nature. Somehow, reality is cast into the three-dimensional phenomena, much like a holographic image from a two-dimensional medium.

    But more to this, is that the mind doesn’t exist in space like a photon does, but has unique connections to time. The reality of the mind, cannot exist in any real function of time though. Any notion of time we might come to consider about the mind, must be treated as a second time dimension. This would have unique qualities for the propagation of psychophysical studies.

    The first is relative and cosmological time, given by \(t\). This describes the time that existed before the mind was ever present, which didn’t account for much without the mind. Then there is the ‘’asymptotic time’’ we all experience, described by the \(T\): This is a subliminal time experience and dimension. \(t\) could in fact be described as a relative time dimension, and the \(T\) as an absolute time dimension. This would help explain some strange properties of the mind.

    \(a^{2}+b^{2}+c^{2}+tdi^{2}-Tdi^{2}\)
    Let \(i^{2}=i *k^{2}\)
    Then the real part would be
    \(a^{2}+b^{2}+c^{2}-i^{2}*k^{2}^{2} = 0\)
    which simplifies to:
    \(a^{2}+ b^{2}+c^{2}+ k2^{2}=0\)
    The only solution is \(a=b=c=k^{2}=0\)

    By having a static time dimension for the mind and mind alone, it may act upon the psyche in such a way that we feel as though time is always within our reach. Indeed, we already have notions that make us feel like this. The future is somehow a time which we can’t remember.

    You see, forward directional awareness would mean that we could move from one state to another. Because of this process, we would be able to distinguish a path before. If this pattern is unchanged, then we would be able to create a past time before us, and a continuous path of future before us. Our future exists as a time we cannot remember, but to us, it feels as though we can 'jump' into the future and write a particular path we might take. I ask, is this the work of the shadow of some particular static time dimension?

    However, the only real time we experience is the present time. This must mean that both the past and the future are a collection of statistical probable outcomes: making both the past and the future totally virtual. Now, even though these are all laws, totally within the boundaries of physics, they can be violated.
    They can be violated if the mind collects information about the future and is simultaneously aware of it. Obviously, this would be a premonition of the future. This is us remembering a time which has not yet come to pass - which seems illogical when anyone comes to reconcile this phenomena, because, how can we remember something we have never experienced?
    I believe we can do so, because all-information exists potentially within our beings. And because we have all-information existing within us in a dormant state, and also because our minds can defy certain rules and principles, such as indeterminism, we might be able to defy temporal processes of knowledge, not working in a continuous frame. Instead, from time-to-time, the mind can jump into the future and anticipate an outcome by making it 'real', and i think this collapse ensures that this is the specific way into the most probable future.

    Even though we sense the psychological arrow of time as going in one direction (I call this 'linear knowledge'), it would still be best to imagine it as being non-linear. Whether or not it may seem to have a directionality about it, it is existing in a world in which it encapsulates its field on four dimensional freedom. Thus, real time is like a squiggly surface, usually portrayed as being the surface of an expanding balloon; thus the time we sense is an illusion, but is in opposition, an extremely valuable way to distinguish the evolution of time, including it's boundaries of past, present and future.

    The Three Laws of Time Evolution (Expectant, Uncertain and Certainty)

    The Pathology and Arrangement of Knowledge –

    -- is probably one of my most better achievments in making a model for consciousness.
    There are three main principles, that worked differential roles against the flow of time. It highlights possible relations with the uncertainty principle in a whole, and explains why nothing at the subatomic level can be applied to mere cause and effect. In principle, they explain why we have the knowledge we have… the qualia of existence… the fountain of matter and energy, and even the ethereal mixture of consciousness. If we exist in the present time, the only ever real time, then the past, according to both the expectancy and certainty role, combined with uncertainty, says that the past is:
    1. The past is ruled by certain and UNCERTAIN rules.
    This means that we can be certain about past events, but we can also be uncertain, as a past event could and does hold incomplete knowledge from time-to-time. During the present, we don’t tend to ‘’expect’’ anything from the past, so it doesn’t play a role.
    The rules in the present are all functional:
    2. We can be certain, UNCERTAIN, and expect outcomes during the present time.
    Here, we can see that we can be certain of the present, and also be uncertain of it. So many examples could be said to how we could be uncertain during the present time: It might occur very frequent in your life… and we expect more during the present… If mind is time, and time is mind, then we always expect more… a future, this is what we always expect.
    Then the future has aligned for it:
    3. We can be UNCERTAIN about the future and we can be Expectant of it.
    It seems that axiom no.3 is the only principled axiom that cannot allow any certainty. Uncertainty forbids this… which is strange, because the past is not effected by such a conduct. There, certainty and uncertainty arise side-by-side, and this is caused by Entropy of knowledge, which I called in my last book, ‘’linear knowledge,’’ meaning that knowledge has a linear realization to the human being. It presents itself, and unfolds its memory to us as the arrow of times shows us a directionality to that unfolding. In fact, since there is no arrow representing this, instead of some interpretations of the ‘Psychological Arrow of Time’, I shall call the ‘Informational Arrow of Time,’ to represent the linear nature of human knowledge. It’s more specific.
    So here we have it. The rules of consciousness has just been displayed out according to the boundaries of living in the present.
    This can all be linked to the Binding Principle of Neurophysics, since the mind is binding time together with knowledge. The Binding Problem can be answered for though, as I have explained, I think everything is predetermined. Because of this, space and time has a memory. We seem to ‘’seep’’ out of this memory, out of space and time, and it created this thing we call consciousness. No other configuration could perform this work, and has stunning probabilistic arguments for the Anthropic Principle of QM.
    From Big Bang… My questions, my thoughts…

    It began with a tremendous spill of energy and gas...

    … energy and gas...

    The universe grew quite old before any energy appeared in the cosmos, but the universe at this time was extremely hot, though, it wasn't until this 'gas of light' began to cool down, and it broke into the most basic fundamental particles known: The proton, the neutron and the electron. Then came helium, and the birth of stars had integrated... and their mass' contained just around 1% of all of the space it was an inhabitant of. This was indeed a miraculous time...

    Then, over millions of years, certain stars began to collapse, and become supernovae. These massive bright stars then shrank down to the size of any average-sized large planet, leaving behind the massive ''spit'' of mass around it. This mass slowly formated into the first planets and asteroids, due to their attractive forces (namely gravity) and a slow process called secretion.

    8 billion-odd years on, and the universe was still a violent place. Our galaxy was still formating; hence our planet had not formed, and was still gathering up the star-dust, like some massive snowball. A further 2 billion years later, collisions from near asteroid impacts would have gradually calmed down, and for the first time, life, in its simplest form, which are Prokaryotes - single celled life.

    Then Eukaryotes came about, multi-cellular life, and it was just about this time, the earth came under a massive extinction. Millions of years passed, until the first plant life and insects emerged, only to be wiped out by a second great extinction.

    Plants insisted to have their place on earth, then there was evolving, insects... though they where wiped out in a third and forth mass extinction. Then reptiles became independent of the sea, along with the first birds and mammals, though, again, to be wiped out by a fifth great extinction. Then, only 100,000 years ago, man... homosapians appear.

    It all came from a single cell, and since then we have been a tireless force against nature. Who or what ignited that original spark? Who or what shocked the first organic materials of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon-based life into living things that made the sea roar?

    These questions are tackled by science… the age old questions which religion and metaphysics tackled first, but somehow science tends to shy away from such questions now. Why? Because they are questions too difficult to answer, especially when they move into realms which cannot be experimented on.

    If this was the main case, then the secret policies of physics have been lying to us from the beginning, because there is no way we can experimentally test half of our theories, because they involve the universe on scales we can never reach. So to save us from insanity, we continue to look up to the sky, and believe there is something out there… an answer. A revelation, telling us that this strange aloof, and yet darkened stage of the universe will eventually spill its secrets.
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2008
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. pharaohmoan The illusion is you, let go. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    308
    Wow, there's so much brilliant information here. I've been mentally practicing many of the pysical notions you mention here and reached a place where the universes start to react to each other and exchange energy. The exchange becomes a kind of signal with odd time properties almost a transcendence of time itself. Maintaining the signal seems to bring with it knowledge, a knowldge which seems to fit in very well with what you have described above.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    Thank you, that's kind. I was essentially worried that i might not have explained the exchange of energy accordingly for the reader.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    By the way... i meant accretion... not secretion. Terrible mistake of words

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    I noted in the OP, that i believed we somehow had all information that we will ever come to know, dorment in our psyche. This next essay with explain how this works.

    Dormant Information Theory (DIT)

    Spacetime is a busy highway. Just because we cannot see the ''information highway'' of spacetime, doesn't mean that information waves don't wiz past our heads faster-than-light... Yes! Faster-than-light. It was proposed that quantum waves of information needed to travel at superluminal speeds, because of the results found from the 'Aspect Experiment.' Einstein did however dismiss that information could travel faster-than-light.

    It was in 1935, Einstein developed a thought experiment, which was dubbed the EPR Paradox, and proclaimed the results would prove quantum theory to be obsolete. However, the technology to perform the experiment only became available 50 years later, and was performed by Alain Aspect from the University of Paris (and his colleagues). They discovered that two photons produced from a single source stayed in instantaneous contact with each other. For instance, if you measured the state of one photon, such as it's spin, with a spin up, the spin state of the other photon is instantly determined (a down spin).

    It was at first, physicists thought that somehow everything was predetermined; some scientists still believe in such a theory. However Aspect demonstrated that those correlations between such particles could only be described as being quantum entangled. Einstein himself had dismissed such an idea, calling it ''spooky.'' Well, if only he knew how quantum theory had turned out, eh?

    Thus, such instantaneous effects could only happen if information was moving through time and space faster-than-light. Now... This might not be so with all types of information... But as far as we know, we cannot dismiss such a postulate.

    Now, two types of information waves are involved in this model. According to John G. Cramers 'Transactional Interpretation' of quantum physics, an information wave comes from the past, called an 'offer wave' - this is a quantum wave that travels forward in time - and another wave comes from the future, called an 'echo wave' - this is a quantum wave that travels backwards through time. The two waves meet up in the present time, and they multiply. When they do so, the 'transaction' is complete, and viola, the ''thing'' is created! The transaction is the equivalence to a collapse in the quantum wave function.

    The wave function runs the show in quantum physics. It determines the probabilities of any outcome. Thus, we can say that everything in nature is built up on a wave of probabilities that, when an observer comes to measure it's system, the probabilities describing that system will suddenly collapse into a single value - the collapse is thus said to make the thing real. Some physicists believe that consciousness itself indicates the presence of a collapse in the wave function, and it is here, in the subjective world of thought and knowledge, I want to explore the human’s ability to become aware of an outcome.

    How do we come to know something?
    We tend to say that we gain information, just by analyzing a particular event, and by thus processing it in our neural networks. However, where does this information come from? Does it come from the outside? In fact, the last question is taken seriously by physicists that the very information we gain flows into our beings from the outside. But what if it doesn't?
    I've always had a problem accepting the idea that information comes into our beings. I'm not exactly sure why. I have always thought of the human being, as being a gigantic memory unit, storing all information in a potential mixed state. Indeed, such an idea shouldn't be difficult to understand, based on two premises:

    1. That entropy, causing the distinction of past and future, makes our perception of the future as something we move towards, and when we do, it seems as though the future is already apart of our memories. For this reason, one must suspect that somehow thought and wishes exists beyond the observer.

    2. That information or knowledge about a system instantly becomes known to the observer upon measurement.

    Now, if we take premise one seriously, thought and memory exists beyond the observer. As much as this might just be a psychological illusory of the mind, we might even consider taking such an idea seriously. For instance, the human observer exists in the present, and we can have memory about the past. However, whenever we come to remember the past, we do no such thing as jumping backwards in time and recollecting the memory being asked for. Instead, we reevaluate an experience we had, and recreate the past in the present as memory. Thus, the real question is, when we do come to experience the future (in the present), how is it that the future already exists as memory? Does thought and wishes exist beyond the observer?

    I think so - but perhaps not in the way I’ve been making out. You see, one might think that the mind jumps into the future, and this is how thoughts can exist beyond the observer... memories of the future. However, as we have seen, the mind is bound to the present time [1]. The only other way to explain this, is if we have a complete record of future events in our beings, just as we have a record of the past; but the record of the future must be seen as a record we can potentially remember, but cannot, because experience must activate these memories (just as the experience of the past activates our memories of a past event).

    It turns out, I believe, that both the past and the future is made up of conscious experience, which in turn, exists in the present time as a record of memory - one real and the other potentially real. We must be the perfect machines capable of storing these records, as one exists as memory, and the other is unfolded to us as memory.

    If we take the second premise seriously, then we might ask how we come to process information [almost] as instant as we come to measure something. One example, is how we come to analyze written language, and know it almost just as quickly? In fact, how can blind people touch brail, and equally know it just as fast? How do we bind optical and other sensory perceptions into the phenomena of knowing about it almost just as quick?

    Indeed - let us put forth another mystery concerning consciousness. How can written text seen by the eyes, contain [almost] the same information as when heard by the ears? How does this information vary and fluctuate? Indeed, the 'binding problem' holds also many questions; the most prominent being, how do we crystallize existence in a continuous flow of perception, rather than discontinuous flashes?
    The only way (I believe) consciousness can perform such tasks, is by saying that we do in fact have a record of all-information about spacetime... Thus, when push comes to shove, consciousness can process the knowledge of a system, because that information is already contained within us. Indeed, such psychic phenomena such as 'Deja Vu' might be explainable, if certain sensory perceptions are abnormal, and certainty get's mixed up with the uncertain realms of knowledge. In fact, psychic predictions of the future might be explainable, if we do indeed have a record of the future in embedded in our consciousness!

    Is this so hard to believe? Haven't we heard from many great physicists that everything is in fact predetermined in the universe? Even Einstein once said that everything plays to a mystical pipers tune. But to believe in such an idea, means that we must abandon certain psychologies. If we have every piece of information that [we] will ever come to know in a lifetime, why does it unravel its knowledge’s to us in the way it does?

    This question is a good question. It was first posited to me by my friend Brian. The only way I can explain this, is by saying we need additional information from another 'information carrier,' after all, that is what we are. We are information carriers, which we learned from our parents, the internet, the T.V., whatever source we learn this information from.
    Thus, one can say that information can exist within us in a dormant state, and becomes ''excited'' whenever we have an experience - here, we must recognize that information isn't only obtained from others, but we can piece together our own analysis of a situation - and because of this, there are two ways to obtain information. After all, there must have been a way for our ancestors to obtain knowledge without anybody there to tell them about this original knowledge. Keep this thought for a moment. Another problem is solved by saying that all information we will ever come to know is stored inside of us. How does self-obtained knowledge come about? By saying we have potential information contained within us, would allow us to understand even the most alien knowledge. But this knowledge must compliment our existences; and something inside of the mind can ''pop'' the question and the answer is excited within us.

    Ok... Here is an analogy. Computer systems can have blank spaces ready to contain knowledge. However, for this blank system to record information, there must be someone there to press the button, so-to-say. Who presses the button for us? Is this God? In fact, I believe this. I believe God is our programmer, allowing us to know absolutely anything we will ever come to know! But for this to happen, the space inside us, needs to be [programmed] exactly to contain this information. For instance, imagine a computer program needing 100 bits to process a certain flow of information. If this information requires 200 bits to process the information, how can it operate the function asked for?

    As far as I know, no one has made such a postulate, as to say we have information contained within us. Such information would answer not only everyday phenomena, but also the phenomena of the unknown. I'll leave you with one last thought. We can have any information about a future event, so long as the mind can jump into this record with quite an extent, considering how unconscious the mind is. The more unconscious the mind is, the more it can excite a time and event that has not yet come to pass. In fact, if consciousness actually means we are mostly unconscious, then we may be able to have such psychic experiences while we are awake! The only problem is for us to recognize when such a phenomenon is occurring.

    [1] - However, i also speculate that perhaps when the mind is not completely aware or distracted by reality, it can oscillate past the present time barrier, so might we, when dreaming, be picking up on signals that have yet come to pass?
     
  9. YinyangDK Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    209
    "Thus, such instantaneous effects could only happen if information was moving through time and space faster-than-light."

    What if we call information; Potential.
    and "faster-than-light"; Now.


    for every potential action there is an potential reaction.
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2008
  10. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    Why do you spend your time writing these? If you want to do a degree in physics, none of this will give you any help. You need to be reading maths books, learning things like group theory, linear algebra, vector calculus, differential equations. Without them you simply cannot do quantum mechanics or relativity.

    Reading a bunch of pop science books is interesting and the basic concepts provided will at least give you an idea of the general framework of physics but you will not be able to do physics any more than watching Star Trek allows you to do physics.
     
  11. YinyangDK Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    209
    First of all ... I Like it!

    (1) We do have "information" contained within, but let me say it with other words; we are every potential we have reached.
    This information is coded in zero´s and one´s.
    every time a potential is fulfilled we grow, extending the programming.

    (2) What it depends on is not how unconscious the mind is but how conscious you are at an unconscious level.
    If you are unconscious at an unconscious level you are not able to precive anything.
    If you are conscious at an unconscious level, then you are able to precive what is potential.
    There is no future, there is no past there is only now.
    The furure is only in the mind.
    We expect something to happen, we expect some potential.
    If the curcumstances are fulfilled, it happens.
    We konw, because of our memory, how long it take for a fetus to grow into a baby.
    We also know that the curcumstances has to be right or it will not happen. (future will not happen)
    If we change the curcumstances for the fetus it will either live or die dependen on what we change.
     
  12. YinyangDK Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    209
    Well you are right..... If I want to build a house, I should first learn how to use the tools commonly used to build houses with.

    But it is possible to build a house using my own tools, We might be able to bulid a house using tools no one have thought about yet.(well except us ofcause)


    "Without them you simply cannot do quantum mechanics or relativity."

    you cannot draw a strait line whitout using a ruler.
    But if you are good enough you can.
     
  13. pharaohmoan The illusion is you, let go. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    308
    Again I can can back up your threory with practical experience as a kind of shaman in the field. It's seems that grasping the flow of information that comes about accessing these streams of information you talk about happens in what i call 'the language of movement' IOW after a while the prepared mind can start to understand movement and sound as a language. Now I don't know if I am perceiving future events they seem more like timeless events where consciousness plays both a small and large part. A small part individually but a large part collectivelly. It does seem as though by my actions I am contributing to the collective, in fact as a side issue the act of communication with these streams of information which I beleive may be stored in the universe hollographically seems to bring about a feeling of anscient connection as though we are building systems within sytems. My gut instinct as to why our minds can't easily access said information is 1) Our mind cannot easily detach from the present and 2) That as humans we could easily damage the systems already in place in the multiverse/higher dimensions.

    Regarding deja vu I recall a dream I had as a nine year old kid playing on something which 20 years later turned out to be a gameboy. 20 years later I bassically lived out the day I dreamt as a kid, it was exactly as I remembered it. For me I am convinced that information travelled back in time from the future possibly through a wormhole created either by the energy around me or my mind, who knows!
     
  14. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Mine is ...What the hell !

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    And you think the first post is developing his own mathematical tools?
    Physics is more than "Throw a ball up and it comes down", it's about realising and computing where and when and how fast it comes down. Without precision you cannot make proper predictions.

    Newtonian gravity predicts light bending and the precession of Mercury. But unless you do the details you don't realise it doesn't predict the right amount. It was the difference in the details which allowed relativity to surpass it. Without maths you cannot do those details.

    Do you honestly think that physics can be done properly without doing any maths? I suggest you open an actual physics textbook aimed at anyone beyond high school and notice the plethora of maths in it. Reiku hasn't done this yet.

    But what would I know about that...
     
  16. YinyangDK Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    209
    So what you are saying is that we (Reiku and myself) cannot understand it, unless we use the same language as you?

    "Without precision you cannot make proper predictions."
    predictions..... what are you .... a fortune teller?
    "Throw a ball up and it comes down".....
    Throw it high enough and it does not come down again.
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2008
  17. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    (crap, Opera ate a post!)

    You can understand the vague broad concepts, by reading Wiki or pop science books but you rely on other people to explain the concepts to you. Wordy explainations can be easier to 'twist' or misunderstand.

    It's easy to say "I know what the Uncertainty Principle is. It's the fact you cannot know the position and the momentum of a particle perfectly at any given moment" but why? Can you derive it? Can you show it comes from the distinct quantum nature of the theory? Nope. Not without knowing a little something about statistics and operators. Or the Schrodinger equation. How can you describe even the simplest quantum system, such as Hydrogen emission spectra, if you don't know how to derive and deal with the Schrodinger equation?

    Half the QM students I have have seen loads of science documentaries and read books by Gribbin or Greene or Hawking. That doesn't mean they ace even their intro course to QM.

    There's a difference between waffling about concepts and doing quantum mechanics. Reiku says he can do quantum mechanics. We've yet to see that. He says he plans to do quantum mechanics, even to a PhD! So why is he avoiding doing quantum mechanics? I've a bunch of lecture notes from various univerisities for intro QM courses if he wants them. Google can find them too. So why isn't he?
    So you think physicists and engineers don't predict the future effect of systems? I guess planes just take off every time by pure luck. Nothing to do with the huge work put into describing air flow, testing their predictions with models and test planes and then being so confident in their prediction that a 747's engines can put a plane with hundreds of people into the air that it's now a commercial business.

    That's how models are tested. They predict something, the prediction is tested and the model vindicated or discarded.
    How high? How fast? What if you include air resistance? Is the air resistance constant? If not, why not? What's it's behaviour? Does the shape of the object matter? What if it has some of it's own thrust? What does it take to get into orbit?

    Do you think NASA puts things into orbit without doing a few calculations?
     
  18. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238

    I am doing all these things alphanumeric. But i need to write this shit down, because i have a vivid imagination, and that's what scientists do. They write things down so its not lost to time. Try doing the same thing, if you have any original thoughts.:bugeye:
     
  19. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    For some reason, he is under the impression that i don't get math books at college, or even an education at all. What i do with my spare time should be of no concern of his. Notice however he likes to complain, but has had no real thing to say about the work itself?
     
  20. YinyangDK Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    209
    First of all.... I do not read WIki or pop science books...
    First of all I use logic.
    If you deny that one can use logic to understand quantum mechanics, then you might as well deny that you use math.

    "but you rely on other people to explain the concepts to you."
    What do you rely on?
    are you saying that you know, what you know, and that nobody have explaint any concepts to you?
     
  21. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    Thank you Pharoe and Yinyang for your thoughts. Its always helpful.

    Pharoe

    As for these thoughts, i am only speculating. I have had a few paranormal activities in my life, and i need to come to explain them through physics, with an acceptable model. Even though i believe not every crevice of the mind will ever be known, i am still a believer we will make a definate model that will become universal over time. But because of the strange nature of the mind, and the paranormal activities, some of these theories need to be quite strange. One of the stranger theories i have shown and you and yingyang have picked up, is the potential layout of information embedded in the pysche..
     
  22. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    How would you know what scientists do? Do you read their published work?

    What lecture notes are you reading at the moment? What mathematical methods are you learning? What homework questions did you do this week?
    I do, but if I described it to you you'd not understand. In the last 21 days, since coming back from Madrid for collaberative work and a 3 day string conference in Liverpool*, I've derived a way of constructing infinite variable parameterisations of non-geometric fluxes in orbifolds and how to guarentee S duality in such constructs. Entirely new. It'll become the main backbone of my thesis. I have dozens of pages of work, showing my derivations and thought processes. I have dozens of pages of pdfs typed up. I have MBs of Mathematica files which put my constructions into practice and prove it's viability.

    *I'm going to the US one in Philadelphia in the summer. Witten is attending.

    I have been repeatedly experiencing those moments of clarity where my mind just clicks and the method becomes clear. Walking to the department, lying in bed, having a shower.

    Oh I've had original thoughts but they amount to something. Simply wazing lyrical about some BS Wolfe's output doesn't mean you've done something viable. Stoners watching Donnie Darko think they've 'explained the universe' all the time.
    You have no idea the level of mathematics used in theoretical physics. In Quarkhead's discussion on fibre bundles you thought you didn't know it because your course is 'doing something else'. No, you don't know it because it'll be, at best, 5 more years before you have been taught enough to be at the point of understanding bundles.

    You say that you're doing quadratics and sometimes polynomials. I cannot convey how remedial that is. Friends and I keep forgetting people, in general, don't know what a metric is. My father has a PhD in fluid mechanics and 30 years of research (he's a professor) under his belt and he doesn't know what a metric is.
    I see no viable science in your work. Whenever you do something which involves maths like this I completely dismantle you and you (in your words) 'throw an eppy'.

    Maybe when you post something which doesn't read like the work of a stoner whose just watched 'What the bleep do we know?" I'll have something specific to say. Until then it's like trying to nail diarrhoea to the wall. It's hard to do but that doesn't detract from the fact it's still ****.
    Where did I say that?

    If you use logic, when what postulates are you working with? From what are you deriving, using logic, any results from quantum theory? Give me an example of a result you rigorously derive sans maths.
    I didn't say that either. I said that you can understand the general concepts but you cannot do quantum mechanics without actually working knowledge of maths. I knew about the UP long before I sat a QM course. But I didn't claim to know it's derivation or to be able to do QM. But now I can derive the UP from baser statements about operators and commutation relations. Can you? Let's see you use logic to do that. Solid logic.

    When I say "I can do the basic workings of black holes" I don't mean I watched a documentary on Hawking. I mean that I know how to derive the Einstein Fields Equations, then to solve them for a point mass, then to derive the equations of motion for objects falling into the black hole and to then derive physical predictions from said equations of motion. Infact, if you go via string theory, I can go from the statement "String theory is the first field quantisation of a 1 dimesional oscillator in a relativistic background" all the way through the string theory derivation of the existence of gravitons, the Einstein Field Equations and then through to the equations of motion for objects around black holes. I don't have to accept anyone's word for it, I can actually show it works as I say it does.

    That's doing string theory. There's very few people on these forums doing any kind of physics beyond high school level. There's plenty more who think they are but aren't. But then what would I know, eh?
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2008
  23. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    Stop spamming my posts, alphanumeric, or i will report you.
     

Share This Page