Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2019 7:41:17 GMT -5
That's a really good point but what we recognize as random may not be random we just might not be able to see enough to extrapolate the pattern. Jusy another thought. Precisely. We can't see deep enough or far enough into the branching (6-D), nor imagine nonlinear hopping (7-D). Might as well be sprinkled fairie dust then.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 24, 2019 9:25:06 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure I stole that from John C Lilly. Your honorable enough to admit it I think that comes from The Center of the Cyclone, but I've read several of his books...way back...
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 24, 2019 9:29:34 GMT -5
Precisely. We can't see deep enough or far enough into the branching (6-D), nor imagine nonlinear hopping (7-D). Might as well be sprinkled fairie dust then. The nonlinear hopping, or ~leaking~, (from one branch to another) is what we call synchronicity, or miracles. I think that's just above fairy dust.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 24, 2019 10:15:00 GMT -5
I looked at the Fields of Color video. The writer says that Quantum Field Theory has been sort of forgotten and he wrote the book to show how QFT solves many problems in quantum mechanics. This contradicts a statement by Sean Carroll I recall in a (long) video I saw maybe a year ago. He said most physicists today think in terms of Quantum Field Theory, but he did say that QFT is little know among lay people. I'd say this is correct because having looked for popular books on QFT, there are virtually none, Fields of Color is one of the few. (There are tons of big lunky text books on QFT). So after looking at the video I've been poking around the internet.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 24, 2019 10:29:29 GMT -5
Another quantum field theory video. He gets to QFT about minute 5.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 24, 2019 10:44:57 GMT -5
Three quantum myths. This guy is very good. On the question of wave particle duality and on the question of the observer.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 24, 2019 11:23:50 GMT -5
Another quantum field theory video. He gets to QFT about minute 5. Joe rocks, he's my go to guy when I wanna' relax. I've never been interested enough to drill down on the topic of quantum computing, but he's got me intrigued with the notion. In contrast, I sat (or rather, reclined) through Carrol's "The Meaning of Life" presentation and just shook my head.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 24, 2019 11:40:54 GMT -5
Three quantum myths. This guy is very good. On the question of wave particle duality and on the question of the observer. Most of what he says is quite clear and correct, but be careful who you elevate to an authority. It's simply incorrect to characterize the nonlinear difference between the wave pattern and the diffraction pattern of the DSE as a purely physical phenomenon. This isn't to say that it's incorrect to say that the Universe doesn't need life to exist, but only, instead, to assert the tautology that no conscious observer can ever confirm the correctness of that statement by an act of observation, and if someone had explained this effect in purely objective, physical terms, it would have been a major milestone in the science of Physics. This is a common misinterpretation that I've run across, and it conflates the uncertainty principle with the observer effect. Not his fault, there's even a version of this in Tipler's textbook that I recall studying. There's a common mirror-image misinterpretation on the other side, as well, by those who would insist that life is necessary for the Universe to exist.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 24, 2019 16:41:46 GMT -5
This is a very short description of Quantum Field Theory.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2019 7:55:07 GMT -5
Might as well be sprinkled fairie dust then. The nonlinear hopping, or ~leaking~, (from one branch to another) is what we call synchronicity, or miracles. I think that's just above fairy dust. See when you go from two dimensions to three, the math just gets more complicated, but trajectory is trajectory whether in two or three dimensions. In QM, this is not the case. There's no such thing. Not discounting the notion yet, just trying to throw down some road blocks that seem obvious to me. I'm actually still working on Dirac's angle on this monster, studying. Probably study it til I die, fascinating. Work out your math and write a book, become famous, sign autographs, get knighted. All that silly stuff.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 25, 2019 10:30:54 GMT -5
The nonlinear hopping, or ~leaking~, (from one branch to another) is what we call synchronicity, or miracles. I think that's just above fairy dust. See when you go from two dimensions to three, the math just gets more complicated, but trajectory is trajectory whether in two or three dimensions. In QM, this is not the case. There's no such thing. Not discounting the notion yet, just trying to throw down some road blocks that seem obvious to me. I'm actually still working on Dirac's angle on this monster, studying. Probably study it til I die, fascinating. Work out your math and write a book, become famous, sign autographs, get knighted. All that silly stuff. Most of these ideas are from (reading) other people, the analogies are usually mine. I combined (linked) superposition to the 6th dimension (mostly from PD Ouspensky) of possibilities, they seem pretty connected. I'm not sure where the tree branching (possibilities) came from, probably not an original idea either. I don't do math. The first D I ever got was in 12th grade Algebra-Trig. The D was probably generous, maybe not, but I still didn't know what I was doing. (I had been used to going through the motions of homework previously (in all classes). This is the first time I had to work and think, emphasis on the work. I am very lazy by nature, didn't work). I dropped all my afternoon classes after first semester and got work release. I made my first F ever in Calculus in college. I had a great teacher, he made calculus beautiful, he was amazing. But again, I didn't work, didn't do the problems like necessary. Because of how he had the grading system set up, I didn't drop the class as I should have, I was too ambitious for my laziness (I didn't know it was laziness at that point, I just called it procrastination). ....I think if one could do the math of higher dimensions, like I'm discussing here (I think not-like a Kaluza-Kline 5th dimension), I'm sure David Bohm would have done it. www.quora.com/What-is-the-5th-dimension-in-the-Kaluza-Klein-theory-Is-it-a-mirror-for-everything-or-something-like-thatSo, I'm quite impressed with your hobby. Have you seen Quantum Mechanics, The Theoretical Minimum by Leonard Susskind? (I think it's like a do it yourself "course"). And have you seen the Dirac biography, The Strangest Man? I mostly think through my fingers...so's why I like posting.... I need to get back to journaling...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2019 11:54:00 GMT -5
See when you go from two dimensions to three, the math just gets more complicated, but trajectory is trajectory whether in two or three dimensions. In QM, this is not the case. There's no such thing. Not discounting the notion yet, just trying to throw down some road blocks that seem obvious to me. I'm actually still working on Dirac's angle on this monster, studying. Probably study it til I die, fascinating. Work out your math and write a book, become famous, sign autographs, get knighted. All that silly stuff. Most of these ideas are from (reading) other people, the analogies are usually mine. I combined (linked) superposition to the 6th dimension (mostly from PD Ouspensky) of possibilities, they seem pretty connected. I'm not sure where the tree branching (possibilities) came from, probably not an original idea either. I don't do math. The first D I ever got was in 12th grade Algebra-Trig. The D was probably generous, maybe not, but I still didn't know what I was doing. (I had been used to going through the motions of homework previously (in all classes). This is the first time I had to work and think, emphasis on the work. I am very lazy by nature, didn't work). I dropped all my afternoon classes after first semester and got work release. I made my first F ever in Calculus in college. I had a great teacher, he made calculus beautiful, he was amazing. But again, I didn't work, didn't do the problems like necessary. Because of how he had the grading system set up, I didn't drop the class as I should have, I was too ambitious for my laziness (I didn't know it was laziness at that point, I just called it procrastination). ....I think if one could do the math of higher dimensions, like I'm discussing here (I think not-like a Kaluza-Kline 5th dimension), I'm sure David Bohm would have done it. So, I'm quite impressed with your hobby. Have you seen Quantum Mechanics, The Theoretical Minimum by Leonard Susskind? (I think it's like a do it yourself "course"). And have you seen the Dirac biography, The Strangest Man? I mostly think through my fingers...so's why I like posting.... I need to get back to journaling... Calculus is turned into some mystical threshhold of intelligence. It's just a clever trick to get a formula for the slope of a curve at any point or the area under a curve. There are some rules to follow. I got a C in my first Calculus class because I was interested in girls more. Had a girlfriend the next time around so I aced the class. I enjoy just trying to figure out this stuff. Yes. I have Susskind's books and have viewed his lectures. My favorite online Physics teacher is a less famous guy. Brant Carlson, great vids. Journaling is a great way to get a respite and gain some insight.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 26, 2019 12:04:32 GMT -5
The Back Door, SOCI and the formation of the world so as to remain hidden, the quantum enigma. This will be a gigantic leap for many if not most here on ST's forums, but I thought I'd share it anyway... Speculative Some years ago I was considering determinism in relation to quantum mechanics, basically Einstein's problem with God playing dice with the universe. Now, granted first, there is no independent way to verify the existence of God, a Supreme, Ordering, Conscious, Intelligence. Enigman called this a personal God, which always seemed quite pejorative (I'm sure he meant it so), but be that as it may...whatever...don't let it be a reason to discontinue reading. But, if there is a transcendental Intelligence that operates in the world, how does He/It do so and how does He/It remain hidden? SOCI formed the universe quite purposefully, that is, with meaning. So SOCI deliberately formulated the quantum mechanical structure of the universe, that is, based the foundation on the principle of randomness. By doing so SOCI left a back door of entry into the physical universe. Say SOCI wanted to influence events. SOCI could put His finger on the scales, by thousands of times *determining* a quantum outcome, determining that which FAIAP looks completely random, is accepted as random. And so SOCI leaves no footprint, leaves no trace, remains completely hidden. Now, shortly after my invention/discovery I investigated. Turns out at least two others arrived at the same theory, philosopher/theologians Nancy Murphy and John Russell. fullerstudio.fuller.edu/science-theology-mapping-relationship/ Scroll down to Quantum Physics and Divine ActionSo yes, laughter, my "quantum soup can" explanation is a kind-of hidden variable theory, but not in any sense provable from *this* side of the quantum "gap". The universe is deliberately designed to make my theory (SOCI) unprovable. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ However, exploring quantum field theory further, I think I could say that there are 17 (from one of the short videos) "quantum soup cans", that is, quantum fields are the common factor which allow, depending upon how the experiment is set up, for either particles or waves to derive from one source. That is, there are not two (waves and particles), but only One, source.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2019 8:11:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 18, 2019 16:25:27 GMT -5
I found this while browsing. Sean Carroll discusses different interpretations of QM. He says it's embarrassing that after 80 years physicists cannot agree on an interpretation. From a survey in 2011 among physicists the Copenhagen Interpretation leads with 42% favoring it. But Carroll considers this is due to the fact that most physicists do not think deeply about interpretations.
|
|