Gravity waves detected for the first time ever

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Plazma Inferno!, Jan 12, 2016.

  1. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    You predict the preferred frame. Not folks who know what they're doing. What you think are fundamental problems is just your opinion. You should try the shut up and think ideology.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,703
    The people who follow the "shut up and calculate" ideology do exactly this - they calculate what can be easily calculated, following the prescriptions of the heroes of the past like Feynman, and shut up about fundamental problems.

    This ideology was, in some sense, quite helpful, because there have been a lot of practical problems in quantum theory, and to solve them the pragmatical Copenhagen rules were sufficient, and a better understanding of the fundamental problems was simply unnecessary. And all this was sufficient to develop one of the greatest theories we have - the standard model of particle physics.

    This does not mean that those who do the computations do not know what the fundamental problems are. Or that there has been no progress at all in these domains. (In fact, with Wilson we have today a much better understanding of renormalization and all this.) Or that there is disagreement between me and the mainstream about what are fundamental problems. There is only some difference in interest - I'm more interested in fundamental problems than the mainstream - and some difference in opinion of how they may be solved.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,703
    Yes, entanglement is part of the foundations of quantum theory and has nothing to do with the Higgs field.

    Just to clarify: If QT would be exact, then every realistic, causal interpretation of it would require an instant causal influence over the whole universe. If there would be, instead, only some causal influence faster than light, but with some large but finite speed, then one would have to see violations of QT if the experiments would be done far away at almost the same time so that no causal influence would be possible between the two events, even with this much faster mechanism. This observable violation would, then, allow to synchronize clocks in a much more accurate way - clocks would be synchronized if experiments done at the same "time" would show this violation of the usual QT prediction. But, once no such violation of QT (which would be a non-violation of Bell's inequality) has been observed, there is also no new method of synchronization.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Yes, it absolutely requires access to both entangled photons to transmit information, which is why one cannot use it to transmit information.
    No, the journal article is excellent and puts it exactly in terms that explain the experiment and the results.

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v526/n7575/full/nature15759.html
     
    danshawen likes this.
  8. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Thanks, but I would never pay to read an article that kicks off a discussion of entanglement with Bell's inequality. The fact that you have speaks volumes however.

    Think of a universe made of pennies, in every direction, and you are unable to travel at less than the speed of a neutrino (so that you can burrow through the pennies, even when they get pretty thick). The pennies appear blue on the side that approaches, red on the obverse.

    You cannot slow yourself down, but you can change the direction in which you propagate. If you go forward, you see arrays of heads and tails, and if you backtrack the same path, you see tails and heads. You have a perfect memory of the entire array of pennies in both directions; a map and a mask of the Lorentz contracted penny universe.

    Some pennies spontaneously flip states, and you notice that. Some appear to be flipping states as you record them, the indeterminate ones. Those are the ones with Bell's "hidden variables"; not the perfectly regular "heads or tails" entangled pennies.

    The states of the entangled pennies are information. The masks of the entangled pennies in a given direction is information, and it even makes sense to talk about an aggregate state of the entire universe restricted to one direction of relative motion.

    There are lots of real pennies in the universe with entangled pairs of electrons in its inner shells. Entanglement, like Higgs bosons, is something that is nether rare nor subtle.

    Don't say I have not accounted for probability in my penny universe. I have.

    Penny for your thoughts.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2016
  9. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Without relativity, our pennies don't even possess two states, and without time and time's arrow, there is no preferred direction for the propagation of unbound energy.

    For bound energy that is matter, there isn't a preferred direction of propagation, nor is there a preferred inertial reference frame. And even though, as far as we know, there is no conservation of angular momentum that applies directly to quantum spin as it does to gyroscopes, evidently spinning at the speed of light does follow certain other rules, such as the fact that there does not seem to be a preferred physical direction that corresponds one to one with a preferred direction of propagation of unbound energy for a spinning body on our scale of things.

    Time and its arrow derives of quantum spin. If you prefer to concentrate on probabilities instead of time, you leave loose ends that manifest as differences in descriptions of nature between time based GR and the probability based descriptions of the SM.

    We live in a universe composed of energy transfer events. If your description of nature is different from that conceptual paradigm, maybe it shouldn't be.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2016
  10. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    That is the article that was discussed in the Daily Mail article that you provided.

    That you are now trying to back away from it is just another sign of how morally bankrupt you are in addition to being intellectually bankrupt.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  11. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Bell's theorem is sometimes used to argue that spaces between atoms or relativistic spaceships following each other does not Lorentz contract. DOUBLE bullocks based on a mistaken premise that light travel time between the spaceships following each other does not dilate. In proper time and length, perhaps the spaces appear unchanged. NOT so in the frame at rest relative to the FoR in which they started. Those "spaces" comprised of light travel time Doppler shift the same way everything else does. This is an application of the concept you asked me to demonstrate earlier.

    Good luck noodling this out using Minkowski 4D rotation.
     
  12. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Nonsense. I am awash with cash I didn't spend on subscriptions to Nature, or learning some of the worthless crap between covers of its issues.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2016
  13. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Nonetheless, you posted a link to the Daily Mail, and the article discussed in the Daily Mail is the very same article that you praised, in the very same journal that you praised.

    Here are your comments again:
    I expect this kind of crass lying from "The God". It is sad that this is where your anger at physics takes you.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  14. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    It just came out, and you hadn't yet read it either. I only linked to it to demonstrate, the science isn't settled, other than for you, that is. It is you who insists on using basically anything to support another Ad Hominiem tirade. I'm not the problem. You remind me of my 86 year old very demented mother, frankly. Insults everyone she meets. How does that feel? I understand, here you believe you are not alone. I do get it.
     
  15. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    I am sorry about your mother.

    This does not change the fact that you relied on an article in Nature for support, work you highly praised, only to reject it when you then discover that it had nothing to do with your position.

    Please, read a textbook on this stuff.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  16. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Thanks. May you fare better when it's your turn, assuming you are not an orphan.

    And if you really believe that everything you will ever need to know can be found in textbooks, you will be needing your mother also. That was not intended as a compliment.

    I've bought enough expensive textbooks, some of them with mistakes literally on every page (my Optics physics text, by Klein), corrected by our instructor as we needed them. Why he chose a textbook so mucked up, I haven't a clue, but I sold it to the used bookstore at a loss the very second the course was over. Even the rather lengthy (but very important) aberration equation was typeset wrong.

    The textbooks that are valuable, I kept, and some of them are still used for teaching physics, in later editions.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2016
  17. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    And still
     
  18. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    And still nothing apologizing for the choice of article from the Daily Mail. It's a sad day when someone chooses the Daily Mail over physics textbooks for physics knowledge.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  19. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    It was a link to a prestigious journal I don't have a subscription to. I don't generally read the Daily Mail, or the science equivalent of this:

    http://www.nationalenquirer.com

    if that's what you are implying.
     
  20. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    And, as rarely happens here, something we can both agree on.
     
  21. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    That's not what I'm implying, I'm implying that you have absolutely no standards for scientific publication other than whether or not an article agrees with, or seems to agree with, your previously held position.

    You are a joke.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  22. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    You mean "preferences", not "standards".

    Imply that all you like, but I have read plenty of science literature that has changed my mind about a few things, and quite recently, and I'm not talking about reading the Daily Mail. I know the hierarchy of august peer-reviewed science publications. I re-read it again recently, but I had read it before over 20 years ago.

    When was the last time something like this happened to you, or has it EVER happened? Why do you suppose that is? You wouldn't be stubborn at all yourself, would you?

    Well, don't be, because I like that.

    If I am a joke, I don't think I'm even supposed to get it, and I'm not sorry I don't. If you do, by all means enjoy yourself and have another laugh on me.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2016
  23. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    For those interested in a more technical discussion about quantum entanglement communications similar to the one in the Nature article, and that PhysBang and I have been discussing, see:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:No-communication_theorem

    The matter is anything but settled in terms of the basic science, even if the quantum mathematics community considers it an open and shut case, even and especially on the pages of Wikipedia. One Wikipedia editor has suggested removal of the entire article on the "No communication theorem, based on the lack of a certified and credentialed authority on the subject that doesn't have an conflict of interest based on involvement with the current experiments. Still others in the talk section have issues with both the math and the tone of the article. As Wikipedia has a hard rule both restricting and sanctioning immediate removal of material that is similar to that of a forum, or even and especially any original research, it is not likely you will find anything more helpful there to decide the matter, and this situation also speaks volumes and volumes.

    These days, that's about as authoritative a reference, even in science, as it is possible to provide.
     

Share This Page