DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Lanya on November 13, 2008, 08:38:56 PM
-
Parallel Universes: Are They More than a Figment of Our Imagination?
Multiverse_2 "The multiverse is no longer a model, it is a consequence of our models.”
~Aurelien Barrau, particle physicist at CERN
The Hollywood blockbuster, The Golden Compass, adapted from the first volume of Pullman's classic sci-fi trilogy, "His Dark Materials" portrays various universes as only one reality among many, but how realistic is this kind of classic sci-fi plot? While it hasn’t been proven yet, many highly respected and credible scientists are now saying there’s reason to believe that parallel dimensions could very well be more than figments of our imaginations.
"The idea of multiple universes is more than a fantastic invention—it appears naturally within several scientific theories, and deserves to be taken seriously," stated Aurelien Barrau, a French particle physicist at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN).
There are a variety of competing theories based on the idea of parallel universes, but the most basic idea is that if the universe is infinite, then everything that could possibly occur has happened, is happening, or will happen.
According to quantum mechanics, nothing at the subatomic scale can really be said to exist until it is observed. Until then, particles occupy uncertain "superposition" states, in which they can have simultaneous "up" and "down" spins, or appear to be in different places at the same time. The mere act of observing somehow appears to "nail down" a particular state of reality. Scientists don’t yet have a perfect explanation for how it occurs, but that hasn’t changed the fact that the phenomenon does occur.
Unobserved particles are described by "wave functions" representing a set of multiple "probable" states. When an observer makes a measurement, the particle then settles down into one of these multiple options, which is somewhat how the multiple universe theory can be explained.
The existence of such a parallel universe "does not even assume speculative modern physics, merely that space is infinite and rather uniformly filled with matter as indicated by recent astronomical observations," Max Tegmark, a cosmologist at MIT in Boston, Massachusetts concluded in a study of parallel universes published by Cambridge University.
Mathematician Hugh Everett published landmark paper in 1957 while still a graduate student at Princeton University. In this paper he showed how quantum theory predicts that a single classical reality will gradually split into separate, but simultaneously existing realms.
"This is simply a way of trusting strictly the fundamental equations of quantum mechanics," says Barrau. "The worlds are not spatially separated, but exist as kinds of 'parallel' universes."
Partly because the idea is so uncomfortably strange, it’s dismissed as sci-fi by many critics. But there are also many credible, respected proponents of the theory—a group that is continuously gaining new adherents as new research unveils new evidence. Some Oxford research—for the first time—recently found a mathematical answer that sweeps away one of the key objections to the controversial idea. Their research shows that Everett was indeed on the right track when he came up with his multiverse theory. The Oxford team, led by Dr David Deutsch, showed mathematically that the bush-like branching structure created by the universe splitting into parallel versions of itself can explain the probabilistic nature of quantum outcomes.
The work has another strange implication. The idea of parallel universes would apparently side-step one of the key complaints with time travel. Every since it was given serious credibility in 1949 by the great logician Kurt Godel, many eminent physicists have argued against time travel because it undermines ideas of cause and effect. An example would be the famous “grandfather paradox” where a time traveler goes back to kill his grandfather so that he is never born in the first place.
But if parallel worlds do exist, there is a way around these troublesome paradoxes. Deutsch argues that time travel shifts happen between different branches of reality. The mathematical breakthrough bolsters his claim that quantum theory does not forbid time travel. "It does sidestep it. You go into another universe," he said. But he admits that there will be a lot of work to do before we can manipulate space-time in a way that makes “hops” possible. While it may sound fanciful, Deutsch says that scientific research is continually making the theory more believable.
"Many sci-fi authors suggested time travel paradoxes would be solved by parallel universes but in my work, that conclusion is deduced from quantum theory itself."
The borderline between physics and metaphysics is not defined by whether an entity can be observed, but whether it is testable, insists Tegmark.
He points to phenomena such as black holes, curved space, the slowing of time at high speeds, even a round Earth, which were all once rejected as scientific heresy before being proven through experimentation, even though some remain beyond the grasp of observation. It is likely, Tegmark concludes that multiverse models grounded in modern physics will eventually be empirically testable, predictive and disprovable.
Posted by Rebecca Sato
Parallel Universes: Are They More than a Figment of Our Imagination?
Multiverse_2 "The multiverse is no longer a model, it is a consequence of our models.”
~Aurelien Barrau, particle physicist at CERN
The Hollywood blockbuster, The Golden Compass, adapted from the first volume of Pullman's classic sci-fi trilogy, "His Dark Materials" portrays various universes as only one reality among many, but how realistic is this kind of classic sci-fi plot? While it hasn’t been proven yet, many highly respected and credible scientists are now saying there’s reason to believe that parallel dimensions could very well be more than figments of our imaginations.
"The idea of multiple universes is more than a fantastic invention—it appears naturally within several scientific theories, and deserves to be taken seriously," stated Aurelien Barrau, a French particle physicist at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN).
There are a variety of competing theories based on the idea of parallel universes, but the most basic idea is that if the universe is infinite, then everything that could possibly occur has happened, is happening, or will happen.
According to quantum mechanics, nothing at the subatomic scale can really be said to exist until it is observed. Until then, particles occupy uncertain "superposition" states, in which they can have simultaneous "up" and "down" spins, or appear to be in different places at the same time. The mere act of observing somehow appears to "nail down" a particular state of reality. Scientists don’t yet have a perfect explanation for how it occurs, but that hasn’t changed the fact that the phenomenon does occur.
Unobserved particles are described by "wave functions" representing a set of multiple "probable" states. When an observer makes a measurement, the particle then settles down into one of these multiple options, which is somewhat how the multiple universe theory can be explained.
The existence of such a parallel universe "does not even assume speculative modern physics, merely that space is infinite and rather uniformly filled with matter as indicated by recent astronomical observations," Max Tegmark, a cosmologist at MIT in Boston, Massachusetts concluded in a study of parallel universes published by Cambridge University.
Mathematician Hugh Everett published landmark paper in 1957 while still a graduate student at Princeton University. In this paper he showed how quantum theory predicts that a single classical reality will gradually split into separate, but simultaneously existing realms.
"This is simply a way of trusting strictly the fundamental equations of quantum mechanics," says Barrau. "The worlds are not spatially separated, but exist as kinds of 'parallel' universes."
Partly because the idea is so uncomfortably strange, it’s dismissed as sci-fi by many critics. But there are also many credible, respected proponents of the theory—a group that is continuously gaining new adherents as new research unveils new evidence. Some Oxford research—for the first time—recently found a mathematical answer that sweeps away one of the key objections to the controversial idea. Their research shows that Everett was indeed on the right track when he came up with his multiverse theory. The Oxford team, led by Dr David Deutsch, showed mathematically that the bush-like branching structure created by the universe splitting into parallel versions of itself can explain the probabilistic nature of quantum outcomes.
The work has another strange implication. The idea of parallel universes would apparently side-step one of the key complaints with time travel. Every since it was given serious credibility in 1949 by the great logician Kurt Godel, many eminent physicists have argued against time travel because it undermines ideas of cause and effect. An example would be the famous “grandfather paradox” where a time traveler goes back to kill his grandfather so that he is never born in the first place.
But if parallel worlds do exist, there is a way around these troublesome paradoxes. Deutsch argues that time travel shifts happen between different branches of reality. The mathematical breakthrough bolsters his claim that quantum theory does not forbid time travel. "It does sidestep it. You go into another universe," he said. But he admits that there will be a lot of work to do before we can manipulate space-time in a way that makes “hops” possible. While it may sound fanciful, Deutsch says that scientific research is continually making the theory more believable.
"Many sci-fi authors suggested time travel paradoxes would be solved by parallel universes but in my work, that conclusion is deduced from quantum theory itself."
The borderline between physics and metaphysics is not defined by whether an entity can be observed, but whether it is testable, insists Tegmark.
He points to phenomena such as black holes, curved space, the slowing of time at high speeds, even a round Earth, which were all once rejected as scientific heresy before being proven through experimentation, even though some remain beyond the grasp of observation. It is likely, Tegmark concludes that multiverse models grounded in modern physics will eventually be empirically testable, predictive and disprovable.
Posted by Rebecca Sato
Parallel Universes: Are They More than a Figment of Our Imagination?
Multiverse_2 "The multiverse is no longer a model, it is a consequence of our models.”
~Aurelien Barrau, particle physicist at CERN
The Hollywood blockbuster, The Golden Compass, adapted from the first volume of Pullman's classic sci-fi trilogy, "His Dark Materials" portrays various universes as only one reality among many, but how realistic is this kind of classic sci-fi plot? While it hasn’t been proven yet, many highly respected and credible scientists are now saying there’s reason to believe that parallel dimensions could very well be more than figments of our imaginations.
"The idea of multiple universes is more than a fantastic invention—it appears naturally within several scientific theories, and deserves to be taken seriously," stated Aurelien Barrau, a French particle physicist at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN).
There are a variety of competing theories based on the idea of parallel universes, but the most basic idea is that if the universe is infinite, then everything that could possibly occur has happened, is happening, or will happen.
According to quantum mechanics, nothing at the subatomic scale can really be said to exist until it is observed. Until then, particles occupy uncertain "superposition" states, in which they can have simultaneous "up" and "down" spins, or appear to be in different places at the same time. The mere act of observing somehow appears to "nail down" a particular state of reality. Scientists don’t yet have a perfect explanation for how it occurs, but that hasn’t changed the fact that the phenomenon does occur.
Unobserved particles are described by "wave functions" representing a set of multiple "probable" states. When an observer makes a measurement, the particle then settles down into one of these multiple options, which is somewhat how the multiple universe theory can be explained.
The existence of such a parallel universe "does not even assume speculative modern physics, merely that space is infinite and rather uniformly filled with matter as indicated by recent astronomical observations," Max Tegmark, a cosmologist at MIT in Boston, Massachusetts concluded in a study of parallel universes published by Cambridge University.
Mathematician Hugh Everett published landmark paper in 1957 while still a graduate student at Princeton University. In this paper he showed how quantum theory predicts that a single classical reality will gradually split into separate, but simultaneously existing realms.
"This is simply a way of trusting strictly the fundamental equations of quantum mechanics," says Barrau. "The worlds are not spatially separated, but exist as kinds of 'parallel' universes."
Partly because the idea is so uncomfortably strange, it’s dismissed as sci-fi by many critics. But there are also many credible, respected proponents of the theory—a group that is continuously gaining new adherents as new research unveils new evidence. Some Oxford research—for the first time—recently found a mathematical answer that sweeps away one of the key objections to the controversial idea. Their research shows that Everett was indeed on the right track when he came up with his multiverse theory. The Oxford team, led by Dr David Deutsch, showed mathematically that the bush-like branching structure created by the universe splitting into parallel versions of itself can explain the probabilistic nature of quantum outcomes.
The work has another strange implication. The idea of parallel universes would apparently side-step one of the key complaints with time travel. Every since it was given serious credibility in 1949 by the great logician Kurt Godel, many eminent physicists have argued against time travel because it undermines ideas of cause and effect. An example would be the famous “grandfather paradox” where a time traveler goes back to kill his grandfather so that he is never born in the first place.
But if parallel worlds do exist, there is a way around these troublesome paradoxes. Deutsch argues that time travel shifts happen between different branches of reality. The mathematical breakthrough bolsters his claim that quantum theory does not forbid time travel. "It does sidestep it. You go into another universe," he said. But he admits that there will be a lot of work to do before we can manipulate space-time in a way that makes “hops” possible. While it may sound fanciful, Deutsch says that scientific research is continually making the theory more believable.
"Many sci-fi authors suggested time travel paradoxes would be solved by parallel universes but in my work, that conclusion is deduced from quantum theory itself."
The borderline between physics and metaphysics is not defined by whether an entity can be observed, but whether it is testable, insists Tegmark.
He points to phenomena such as black holes, curved space, the slowing of time at high speeds, even a round Earth, which were all once rejected as scientific heresy before being proven through experimentation, even though some remain beyond the grasp of observation. It is likely, Tegmark concludes that multiverse models grounded in modern physics will eventually be empirically testable, predictive and disprovable.
Posted by Rebecca Sato
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/11/parallel-univer.html (http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/11/parallel-univer.html)
-
SO there really could be an evil Mr. Spock?
(http://www.davelgil.com/korea/spock.jpg)
-
Check out "brames".
-
I picked this up on the RSS Feed for the Daily Galaxy yesterday. I love this stuff, and I am frustrated that the Large Hadron Collider at CERN is down until Spring now. On the previous time plan, we would already have been getting some results by that time. :-\
-
I occasionally run a game where the players are "I-Cops" - officers of the Infinity Patrol - who make sure that the bad guys don't change history in other dimensions.
-
Parallel universes and opposites (evil twins, evil Spock, evil Kirk, etc.) are like "I woke up and it was all a dream!" bits: a useful plot alternative in writing fiction. In real life, these are very unlikely.
-
In real life, these are very unlikely.
Only if you don't believe in modern physics - which predicts them.
But one quote from the article - "Mathematician Hugh Everett published landmark paper in 1957 while still a graduate student at Princeton University. In this paper he showed how quantum theory predicts that a single classical reality will gradually split into separate, but simultaneously existing realms."
There are several more in a similar vein, all leading to the conclusion that it is likely.
-
In a universe that is for all practical purposes, infinite, it is very likely that everything that can exist according to the laws of physics, does exist.
On the other hand, in a universe that is infinite, the probabilities of finding an alternate universe are also infinitely few.
The good twin/evil twin bit is probably against at least a few of the laws of physics.
-
The good twin/evil twin bit is probably against at least a few of the laws of physics.
No it's not. Feel free to correct me, by providing sources that it is.
-
Have you any examples of any pair of such twins? The best way to prove that something is possible would be to point out that it has actually occurred.
===================================
The problem is the way in which "opposite" is interpreted. What is the opposite of an ability to speak English?I think most would say this would be the inability to speak English. What, then is the opposite of the ability to speak? I see no other definition than that of mutism.
What is good and what is evil vary rather a lot between one human society and another, in the first place, so the issue of morality/ immorality is difficult per se. When you get into opposites of other aspects, it becomes a much more difficult issue than that of morality.
The opposite of an ability to see? The opposite of an ability to fly?
Does this mean that if Good Twin Bob cannot fly, but can see, his Evil Twin Obo can fly, but is blind?
Again, Evil Spock and Evil Kirk battling Good Klingons is good entertainment. But this sort of thing is quite unlikely.
I think the Flying Nun easily defies the laws of physics.
For the duality of Good Spock/Evil Spock to exist, Good Spock is essential at the very least.
-
Have you any examples of any pair of such twins? The best way to prove that something is possible would be to point out that it has actually occurred.
Not needed. Your claim is that it violates the laws of physics; please tell us which laws of physics it violates and why.
-
Good luck trying to squeeze water out of that rock
-
well
evil twin is not exactly impossible
if you got a-hole parents who can`t give equal attention thier kids
evil twin is totally viable
sibling rivalry can be a scarey thing
-
I'm fascinated with this whole subject, and I'd never heard of the Daily Galaxy before. I'll try to remember to look at it now.
Just the guy's name, Aurelien Barrau, is too cool for words. If you were writing a sci-fi book could you come up with a more evocative name than that? Maybe one of you could, but I sure couldn't.
-
It is conceivable that if one twin were raised in a completely different milieu, such as among a family of brigands, with the other raised in among Mennonite farmers, they could be seen as "opposites".
On the other hand, for them to be truly opposite, as a negative proton vs a positive one, a positive electron vs a negative one, matter vs antimatter, and for them to STILL BE TWINS with the same parents, well, that would seem to defy the laws of physics. At least one law, probably more.
When Good Bob meets Evil Obo, they take an immediate dislike to one another. Or maybe, not. In any case, this woud not violate any law of physics.
But when Bob meets Anti-Bob, there is a huge flash of energy, devastating everything in the vicinity, and no Bob or Anti-Bob left, then that would be different from the first scenario. Anti-Bob, or course, is a Bob made of antimatter. I suggest that a matter Bob and an antimatter Bob being born to the same mother would defy the laws of physics. Perhaps the laws of biology as well.
=========================================
I have, in my vast collection of yard sale VCR tapes, a rare edition of Willian Shatner in White Comanche, in which
William Shatner plays two roles: cowboy Johnny Moon and his ruthless Indian half-brother, Notah. Notah likes peyote and gets the crazy idea that he's the Comanche messiah sent to lead the Comanche nation against the white man but more specifically the dusty desert town of Rio Hondo. Moon, estranged from his brother, decides to stop Notah either by words or by bullets.
Comanche blanco (1968) (IMDb Pro) »
It does not defy the laws of physics, but it does defy every concept of what makes for a good film. Guess who dies tragically at the end.
Shatner is possibly one of the least Indian-looking White guys on the Planet. The dialogue is horrible, and I suspect that real peyote might have been used, because this film came out about the time Shatner recorded "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds".
-
I thought johnny moon was also raised indian but somehow he ended up a cowboy and the only difference is thier eyes
I have a recall of most movie I`ve seen before i got a vcr but somehow it fragmented when i got the damn thing.
I remember the doberman gang
that`s good entertainment
-
On the other hand, for them to be truly opposite, as a negative proton vs a positive one, a positive electron vs a negative one, matter vs antimatter, and for them to STILL BE TWINS with the same parents, well, that would seem to defy the laws of physics. At least one law, probably more.
And which law of physics would that be? And why does it violate it?
-
I beg to differ, but I think that the point of the entire article was that they are very likely. And as Ami is saying further up in the thread, predicted.
But with any luck this argument will soon be moot - when the LHC is up and running at full power.
Parallel universes and opposites (evil twins, evil Spock, evil Kirk, etc.) are like "I woke up and it was all a dream!" bits: a useful plot alternative in writing fiction. In real life, these are very unlikely.
-
But with any luck this argument will soon be moot - when the LHC is up and running at full power.
Well, the LHC does not provide direct evidence that this is true. It will, however, provide evidence that the current models are correct, which is indirect evidence for the existence of multiple dimensions, each with a separate universe.
-
Actually, the more relevant (to the masses of humanity) result of the LHC experiments - provided they show the expected model to be be correct - is that mass (and hence gravity) is governed by a separate particle. This makes contra gravity a potential end result, with all that implies...
If you can remove the "mass" from an object, even temporarily, space flight becomes cheap.
-
But with any luck this argument will soon be moot - when the LHC is up and running at full power.
Well, the LHC does not provide direct evidence that this is true. It will, however, provide evidence that the current models are correct, which is indirect evidence for the existence of multiple dimensions, each with a separate universe.
OK - good enough. :D
-
It will, however, provide evidence that the current models are correct, which is indirect evidence for the existence of multiple dimensions, each with a separate universe.
--------------------------------------------
In our universe, we seem have three spatial dimensions (width, height, depth) and one tewmporal one (time).
Won't every universe have the same number, or at least a multiplicity of dimensions?
-
If you can remove the "mass" from an object, even temporarily, space flight becomes cheap.
------------------------
What remains of the object once you remove the mass?
-
It seems like a violation of the conservation of Mass and energy , conservation of momentum seems to be offended somewhat and the Heisenburg principle is totally pissed off about it.
Perhaps "empty space is filled with pairs of particles being created and annialateing each other in a constant froth of quantum activity , but what seaparation could there be that frees us from the new gravity of the new world?
If an event occurs that has six possible outcomes would there be six worlds created? What if there were eighty happenings simultainously that each has large numbers of possible outcomes? Would there be created an extreme number of worlds all over the place?
Since people are makeing decisions with flipped coins all of the time and we have not thereby becme a black hole , there must be a seaparation of each new world from the old one that is totally impervious to gravity.
What if there are only a few worlds in a few universes ?
Could the diffrent worlds occupy near space or would they have to occupy the interstices in our space?
This could explain "dark Matter " as long as there were not a lot of "Brames " , but unless there was a real insulation against gravity there could still be an occasional collision of massive objects.
-
If you can remove the "mass" from an object, even temporarily, space flight becomes cheap.
------------------------
What remains of the object once you remove the mass?
information
-
http://chronillogical.com/2008/08/22/a-very-tidy-apocalypse/ (http://chronillogical.com/2008/08/22/a-very-tidy-apocalypse/)
(http://chronillogical.com/wonkothesane/2008-08-22-a-very-tidy-apocalypse.png)
(http://chronillogical.com/wonkothesane/2008-10-14-tragedy-illustrated.gif)
-
In our universe, we seem have three spatial dimensions (width, height, depth) and one tewmporal one (time).
Our universe contains (at a minimum) 13 dimensions. Unless quantum mechanics is wrong (which is the whole basis of modern physics).
-
What remains of the object once you remove the mass?
If mass can be removed, the object will no longer be subject to gravitation attraction (it won't fall to the earth). The rest of the object would remain. You realize that most objects are virtually all empty space filled with field vectors, right?
-
In our universe, we seem have three spatial dimensions (width, height, depth) and one temporal one (time).
Our universe contains (at a minimum) 13 dimensions. Unless quantum mechanics is wrong (which is the whole basis of modern physics).
=======================================
What would the other ten dimensions be, assuming that the three given are correct?
-
What would the other ten dimensions be, assuming that the three given are correct?
You listed four. Three space-like dimensions and one time-like dimension. The remainder are only perceivable at the subatomic level, and they are all space-like. Some theories predict as many as 26 total dimensions.
And I was incorrect in my original post, there is a minimum of 10 dimensions, with the most likely number being 11 - not 13.
-
In our universe, we seem have three spatial dimensions (width, height, depth) and one tewmporal one (time).
Our universe contains (at a minimum) 13 dimensions. Unless quantum mechanics is wrong (which is the whole basis of modern physics).
Classic String / M Theory predicts 11. Two-time version predicts 13.
Ami, I am not trying to challenge anything you're writing as our resident super-smart guy. I was just geeked that I knew that! ;D
-
Ami, I am not trying to challenge anything you're writing as our resident super-smart guy. I was just geeked that I knew that! ;D
Yeah, I know. I corrected myself later.
I blame having watched Quantum of Solace yesterday before that post. Addled my brain. ;-)
-
Why are four dimensions insufficient?
Are calculations more accurate if we include ten or eleven dimensions?
Will our lives be ruined in some way if we assume that there are only four?
-
Why are four dimensions insufficient?
We're talking reality, not sufficiency.
You may find 4 dimensions sufficient, however, the universe exists with at least 10.
-
Why are four dimensions insufficient?
We're talking reality, not sufficiency.
*snicker*....and you're talking to Xo, not Miss Henny ;)
-
Why are four dimensions insufficient?
Are calculations more accurate if we include ten or eleven dimensions?
Will our lives be ruined in some way if we assume that there are only four?
Quantum mechanics is peculiar , you could totally ignore it and plan a rockets path to Pluto , but a Scanning tunnelling microscope uses it to image individual atoms.
Very tiny particles and energies seem to have minimum sizes to exist , thus the term "Quantum" because tiny masses and energies tend to be found in particular quantities and multiples of these.
When a single quanta of mass or energy is being studied ,Heisenberg tells us , it is impossible to get a measurement of its position and its velocity , you have to settle for either learning its position or its velocity. This is because it requires a quantum of energy to report the fact and the impingement of the reporting quantum changes the state of the single quantum under study reporting one fact and destroying the other. You don't notice this effect on a baseball , a baseball can be impinged by billions of photons with no perceptible effect on its position and velocity , so many facts can be learned by watching a baseball as it passes , but observing an electron as it passes means the electron is necessarily interacting with energies or masses that have profound effect on its direction and speed. It is as if the only way to observe a baseball was to bounce a tennis ball off of it.
The position of an electron in quantum mechanics is described in terms of odds. There is an envelope of possible positions and a range of possible speeds , energy states , spins etc. the electron is considered to be 50% in the position and state it is 50% likely to be AND (not or) 25% in the position and state it is 25% likely to be AND (not or) 15% in the position and state it is 15% likely to be. An electron viewed in this way seems to be a cloud with thin and thick bands. Not so much a particle at all, if a measurement is taken of the electrons position it will seem like a particle that left a single track , but if a measurement is taken of the electrons energy state, its wavelike effects will predominate. If allowed to pass through two slots an electron can pass through both of them , or a single one of them depending on how you measure the electron as it passes .
Tunnelling is an effect of Quantum Mechanics that is getting a lot of use , it is very likely that you own a device that incorporates a tunnelling diode , these are pretty common. Tunnelling is finding an electron in a place that it has no business being , it takes a certain amount of energy for an electron to pass the barrier of a Diode , but at lower energies than this a certain number of electrons show up on the other side of the barrier as if they had dug a tunnel through the barrier. This is amazing ,but dependable ,and produces a device of very great sensitivity . Without the quantum mechanical understanding of this effect it might be hard to build your cell phone . But how exactly is there a 2% chance that an electron will appear on the wrong side of a barrier that should be electron proof? Why does it seem as if each electron is 2% there? I am reaching the limits of my ability to elucidate because my understanding peters out here.
The existence of extra dimensions helps explain the porosity of tiny barriers and the behavior of tiny particles , but this is never observed on a large scale , it is as if any dimension above the main three spacial ones have no stability over a long range and fold themselves into small packages unnoticeable at the scale we live in , and temporal dimentions about the same.
I read about this stuff now and then it is fun and good exercise , whatever I manage to get my mind around successfully seems like an accomplishment, but the really advanced stuff is always a good bit in frount of what I grock.
-
View Full Version : Don't talk about Heisenberg if you're not certain...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bartl11-08-2006, 07:52 PM
Small but important correction. It was well-known that observing a phenomenon changed it (and it's not magical; in order to observe something, you need to add or remove energy from it. If that amount of energy is significant compared to what is being observed, it will change the phenomenon significantly). What Heisenberg did was figured out a way to measure, with great accuracy, the margin of error (essentially, the margin of error). When measuring a very large number of particles simultaneously, it gives very accurate results, which is why it's so important. In other words, he didn't just say that the more accurately you measure the position of a particle, the less accurately you can measure its momentum; he figured out how to calculate HOW MUCH less accurately.
http://forums.comicbookresources.com/archive/index.php/t-151372.html (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/archive/index.php/t-151372.html)
http://www.myconfinedspace.com/2007/06/22/confound-you-heisenberg/ (http://www.myconfinedspace.com/2007/06/22/confound-you-heisenberg/)
http://dresdencodak.com/cartoons/dc_archive.htm (http://dresdencodak.com/cartoons/dc_archive.htm)
(http://dresdencodak.com/cartoons/a_heisenberg.jpg)
-
I suggest that four dimensions are entirely accurate for nearly everyone, but ten or eleven or whatever should be considered when one is doing particle physics.
Einstein's Theory of Relativity does not apply for any conveyance currently available to the population. We might age .00002% less while in flight in a commercial jetliner, but this is so negligible as to be ignored with impunity.
-
Einstein's Theory of Relativity does not apply for any conveyance currently available to the population.
You know, I don't pick on many of your incorrect details, but your constant need to pick on spelling makes me reconsider.
Many people use GPS systems daily. These need to have a relativistic time shift applied because of the difference in speed between the satellite constellation and your ground speed. So, yes, many people use it (even if they don't realize it) on a daily basis.
-
Many people use GPS systems daily. These need to have a relativistic time shift applied because of the difference in speed between the satellite constellation and your ground speed. So, yes, many people use it (even if they don't realize it) on a daily basis.
=================================================
I agree that people use GPS systems a lot. I have one in my car. But if the GPS compensates for speed, it isn't by much, and people don't need to use more than four dimensions in any conscious way. I agree that if one is planning a space voyage, then Einstein's discoveries need to be taken in account.
I am not sure what you mean by "satellite constellation". Does a GPS take any reference from the stars? I had the impression that it simply uses a triangulation between the satellite, the GPS location and the destination. Do GPS units make use of the position of any stars? Polaris, perhaps?
Does one need to know about more than four dimensions for such calculations?
-
I am not sure what you mean by "satellite constellation". Does a GPS take any reference from the stars? I had the impression that it simply uses a triangulation between the satellite, the GPS location and the destination. Do GPS units make use of the position of any stars? Polaris, perhaps?
There is a large group of satellites that are used for GPS - the group as a whole is known as a "satellite constellation". And the calculations require signals from at least 4 satellites (though more signals give a more accurate location). The speed difference between you on the ground and the various orbits of the satellites require relativistic compensation - the clocks on the satellites are marking time at a different rate than that in your GPS unit. Without the compensation, the position calculations (based on using a very accurate time measurement) would drift by a large margin.
Here's a pretty cool animation of the GPS satellite constellation:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/ConstellationGPS.gif)
-
Thanks for the information. I do find it absolutely amazing that a gizmo I bought for $99.95 and plug into my cigarette lighter can announce "you have arrived!" within 20 feet of an address in Coral Gables when we go to yard sales. Prior to that, the Gables was a real headache, because there is no system at all to the street names. In the rest of the county, the streets and avenues are mostly numbered.
Coral Gables is ideal to shop in Yard sales, because lots of rich people live there in rather small houses. Rich people have yard sales because they need room, and sell for a lot less than poorer people, who sell stuff because they need money. Plus people with college degrees have a lot neater stuff and better taste. I find I have little need for Chinese porcelain cupids, Disney souvenirs, Jehovah's Witless books, romances, Van Damme films and get rich selling real estate books.
My cheapo Magellan GPS is just great.
I am not so sure about the factory-installed gizmos. We went to the Auto Show and this Latin woman was trying to show us how utterly clever the OnStar was. It was sad, because she only managed to get a call in to the base to unlock the doors. The stereo system is integrated, and all input is by voice only, and the schlubs had not had her voice and accent programmed into the system, so it kept asking her to repeat. And she did, again and again and again. It was the first day of the show.
Car salesmen are generally more clueless than one might expect. I imagine they are best at figuring out commissions. I have only bought one car from a dealer in my life. I bought a Renault R10 from a Chevy dealer in Fairmont, WV.The salesman was unaware the motor was in the rear. It was the only thing foreign on the lot. I'm pretty sure that they didn't have much in it, because they sold it about $300 below the Blue Book.
As I see it, I carry a spare key in my billfold, I have a suction-cup GPS and I have everything OnStar could give me, and should it stop working, I can fix it for $99.95 or less. I imagine that any repairs to OnStar would leave me with no car for a week and after the warranty ran out, I'd be paying $500 or more to fix it.
-
As I see it, I carry a spare key in my billfold, I have a suction-cup GPS and I have everything OnStar could give me, and should it stop working, I can fix it for $99.95 or less. I imagine that any repairs to OnStar would leave me with no car for a week and after the warranty ran out, I'd be paying $500 or more to fix it.
OnStar also provides a hands-free cellular phone and a reservation service. But it costs too much, IMO, for what they provide.
-
That was the other objection I had: the fool thing requires a rather hefty monthly payment in addition to another for the satellite radio. You would be making payments every month forever. As for reservations, most places who accept them are the most expensive of all.
-
History Channel's "The Universe" series did a pretty good show about parallel universes:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAhCUtkFA2A[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruf9TEPzVNE[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zh-hCCKTamw[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTTF-eODNEI[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrexjpsNhC0[/youtube]
-
Nice video.
It is appealing to think of an infinate number of petri dishes on the infinate shelves of Gods lab, where many very simular things are tried with small variations.
The idea of an infanite space in which infanite things occur seems to argue against the Big bang theroy, even thought the big bang was ever so big it would have been a finite event that would not produce an infinate amount of materiel.
The notion of universes separated by dimention but not by space is even stranger, if they exist and are not distant then how would we be insulated form their gravity?
-
(http://www.goats.com/store/images/preview_universe2.png)
http://www.goats.com/ (http://www.goats.com/)
There's a new Small, Self-Centered Universe shirt up for pre-order. Order it this week and you'll have it in time to give it to your favorite egotist for Christmas. (And yes, it glows in the dark OF COURSE.)