A New Theory of the Universe

by BurnTheShips 57 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Caedes

  http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mot.html#motcon

  So none of the equations in the link above apply any more? That is the implication for the arrow's velocity being zero. Falsifying Newton's laws must be worth a Nobel prize at the least, assuming the author has some empirical evidence to back up his claims.

  To measure the position precisely at any given instant is to lock in on one static frame, to put the movie on pause, so to speak.

  Catbert,

  I don't think there is any problem with my understanding of the part I quoted, the problem is the authors understanding of high school physics. Quantum effects and the uncertainty principle simple do not apply to Newtonian mechanics as used in the examples quoted.
• 

  zensim

  Re observing or not observing.

  Thanks for everyone's examples and clarification. It makes a lot more sense to me now that I understand a bit more of the process of observation.

  Maybe it is because I tend to approach things from the level of consciousness. But my understanding has always been that the intent or expectation of the scientist is enough to affect outcome? Isn't that often why so many theories of same data can come out with different results - depending on the slant of theory or how heavily attached one is to an expected result?

  And, getting back to some of the premises of the begining of this discussion. If we are creating this multi-verse in our minds, then surely, whether or not one is physically in the room, no matter how much we try to remove anything physical (even at the smallest micro-particle level - sorry, I lack scientific jargon, but I really want to understand this) the simple fact that we are 'observing', in even the remotest sense, can still affect the results?

  I think I will go back and join the 'belief in nothing' thread Maybe I am asking too many simplistic q's. But I really want to know how scientists can ever assume they are coming from a completely neutral base or is it just readily accepted that there is no such thing, but they try and get as close as possible?

  Awakened 07: I re-read your initial post and in a different mind space. It seemed to me that you made a lot of 'chicken or egg?' analogies in your response. I understand what you are saying in relation to Lanza's article and you have a lot of valid points (some of them mirrored my own response to reading Lanza's dissertion). Nevertheless, I see a tendency in a lot of scientific rebuttals (or, to the same degree, philosophical circles) to just throw questions back - which effectively create doubt about the person/theory they are disagreeing with, but provides just as little 'proof' as they are accusing the other of. And then, in the end, all we are left with is the 'tree in the woods?'.

  Is it just me, or is all of this a simple continual process of learning and unlearning? (oops, there's another question - lol).
• 

  Narkissos

  From the "epistemological" bank where I stand (and which is not overcrowded so far), I perceive the (popularised) scientific talk about quantum physics as a limit (horizon) to knowledge. Of course it is, also, an element of knowledge -- the shore is land as well as the end of land. But knowledge at the limit of knowledge is not any kind of knowledge. It cannot become be "moved" to center scene and magically become the cornerstone of a new paradigm. I can go to the shore, bathe and swim -- drown perhaps. But I cannot build a city around it.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  From the "epistemological" bank where I stand (and which is not overcrowded so far), I perceive the (popularised) scientific talk about quantum physics as a limit (horizon) to knowledge. Of course it is, also, an element of knowledge -- the shore is land as well as the end of land. But knowledge at the limit of knowledge is not any kind of knowledge. It cannot become be "moved" to center scene and magically become the cornerstone of a new paradigm. I can go to the shore, bathe and swim -- drown perhaps. But I cannot build a city around it.

  So in other words quantum indeterminacy is a bad place to start building a philosophy. These apparent limits of knowledge are horribly irksome. BTS
• 

  zensim

  I perceive the (popularised) scientific talk about quantum physics as a limit (horizon) to knowledge.

  Nark: How have you arrived at that conclusion? What is the basis for your perception?
• 

  Narkissos

  quantum indeterminacy is a bad place to start building a philosophy

  but a good incentive to keep on refining the old ones.

  Thanks for the feedback.
• 

  Narkissos

  zensim,

  I am no scientist, and posters like Awakened or Caedes might correct or explain it better: but, from what I have gathered, quantum mechanics deal with a quantitative fringe of Newtonian physics, which cannot be extrapolated beyond their area of validity -- even though everything is made of extremely small particles to which quantum mechanics apply, quantum mechanics doesn't apply to the constructs, precisely because the construct is always more (or something else) than the sum of its "elements". Even surprising and counter-intuitive "knowledge" of the behaviour or subatomic particles doesn't question the core of Newtonian physics (only its quantitative limits). The leap from partial knowledge of the infra-structure of "matter" to super-constructs as "mind" or "consciousness" (implying a questionable reification of the latter, btw) is not, afaik, scientifically warranted so far.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  but, from what I have gathered, quantum mechanics deal with a quantitative fringe of Newtonian physics,

  I am not certain that this is correct, quantum physics is a domain (rather than a fringe) of general physics, but not a Newtonian one. Newtonian physics does not deal with things on the quantum scale-it can't. Maybe I misunderstand. Your French mind gives your English a wonderful richness.

  even though everything is made of extremely small particles to which quantum mechanics apply, quantum mechanics doesn't apply to the constructs, precisely because the construct is always more (or something else) than the sum of its "elements".

  I think it does apply on the macro scale. Quantum effects, en masse, explain many of the macro structures we observe. Really, the macro cannot exist without the micro. And there is such a thing as magnification, where a quantum activity can have a macro effect such as the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment:

  One can even set up quite ridiculous cases. A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a Geiger counter there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small, that perhaps in the course of the hour one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges and through a relay releases a hammer which shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid. If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The psi-function of the entire system would express this by having in it the living and dead cat (pardon the expression) mixed or smeared out in equal parts.

  It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally restricted to the atomic domain becomes transformed into macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation. That prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a "blurred model" for representing reality. In itself it would not embody anything unclear or contradictory. There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks.

  BTS
• 

  Narkissos

  BTS,

  I guess it's a question of conventional definition. Inasmuch as Newtonian physics, afaik, do not envision the imponderable (0-weight particles), you can construe its connection with QM differently I suppose.

  Btw I would be glad to see the broader context of your quote (about the "cat experiment"), because I can't tell if the author is advocatingthe idea of the cat being "both dead and alive" or actually dismissing it as a wrong representation of the epistemological problem (due to extrapolation from the micro to the macro part).

  Edit: seems like my suspicion was warranted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat
• 

  Awakened07

  My previous post was not accurate at all unfortunately, although it's hard to be in this field. But I managed to mix a few things in my hurry to jot things down in ten minutes before I had to go to work.

  Actually, I mixed what's called "observer effect" and "collapse of the wave function (probability wave)", which would be wrong and a little confusing. "Observer effect" is when we use a particle (a photon, say) to measure another particle; they 'bounce' off of each other affecting the result. "Collapsing wave function" is what we see when we do the 'double slit experiment' for a particle (or rather a stream of particles one at a time), and the probability of how the particle will behave (where it will end up) 'collapses' into a definite answer when we observe. When scientists "do not observe", or rather measure, what happens in the double slit experiment, they simply check the distribution of the particles on the screen behind the double slit after the experiment is done. When they do this (don't measure or 'observe' the particles), the distribution of particles will display a wave diffraction pattern on the screen. If they do measure or 'observe' at the slit(s), the diffraction pattern is gone and the particles have behaved like - well, particles. Better to see this visually somewhere on the web to understand it. Other than that, my above comments weren't completely off the mark I think.

  Some links I found helpful:

  http://skepticsplay.blogspot.com/2008/02/quantum-mechanics-double-slit.html <---page 1.

  http://skepticsplay.blogspot.com/2008/03/intro-to-quantum-measurement-problem.html <--- page 2. This is a rather easily understood explanation.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#Quantum_version_of_experiment :

  The Copenhagen interpretation is similar to the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics provided by Richard Feynman. (Feynman stresses that his formulation is merely a mathematical description, not an attempt to describe some "real" process that we cannot see.) In the path integral formulation, a particle such as a photon takes every possible path through space-time to get from point A to point B. In the double-slit experiment, point A might be the emitter, and point B the screen upon which the interference pattern appears, and a particle takes every possible path, including paths through both slits at once, to get from A to B. When a detector is placed at one of the slits, the situation changes, and we now have a different point B. Point B is now at the detector, and a new path proceeds from the detector to the screen. In this eventuality there is only empty space between (B =) A' and the new terminus B', no double slit in the way, and so an interference pattern no longer appears.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrodinger_cat

  http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Quantum/QuantumConsciousness.pdf <--- a more reductionist view than is popular today.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics <--- many interpretations exist.

  I would like to clarify also my other point in that post, so I'll rewrite it here:

  If we are creating reality as we observe it, this would mean we couldn't make any predictions of the behavior of nature using science, or compare our realities, because all our "consciousnesses" would create their own, separate reality.

  If the reason we are able to do so is because the 'framework' of reality has been created by God (like a computer model in code not yet made into a 3D form), and we're just re-creating reality off of that informational 'framework', it means God (or another, higher entity) has created a 'framework' that includes evidence of how the universe came to be via a "big bang" (background radiation, redshift etc. that we find).

  But if God created this 'framework' and we're only re-creating reality based on that as we observe, it means He never created the universe physically in the first place (only the "data"), because we are then continuously creating it off of the 'framework'. If God created an informational 'framework' that - when we create a "3D model" of it by observing it - show us that the universe had a beginning via a big bang, when that actually was not the case because he created the universe more or less as a 'computer model', this would be deceptive of God.

  Sorry, I can't seem to make that point any clearer - maybe I just made it harder to understand... And I also don't have the time left over for an in-depth discussion right now, 'cause I'm in the process of moving house.