The Alcubierre faster than light warp drive

a reply to: Arbitrageur

So, I was observing the electron beam curve in the magnetic field, as in the photo. If everybody left the room and there was no longer anybody observing it, do you really think it would stop doing exactly what it was doing when I was observing it? It's not a double slit experiment, y'know.

Effectively it is the Double Slit . Think about it " Electrons " , Are the Piece of the Puzzle that we inlay with our mind to explain the Quantum Realm . It's the Human Element it's not Electrons .

The Universe is Smarter than Me it's Smarter than you , What you're observing is the Conscious Effect of the Human mind.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow
That electron beam (or as you might call it, "mystery beam") is striking the horizontal surface in the experiment shown previously. That horizontal surface acts an "observer" and it needs no consciousness to "collapse" the "superposition of states" as the Copenhagen interpretation of QM postulates. Nobody needs to be in the room for that to happen, and certainly no consciousness. You could record what it's doing with a video recording, and leave the room, and not watch the video recording until later, which will show it continued doing its thing even after all consciousness left the room. But you may say, a conscious person had to watch the video to see that, but that doesn't matter because those events already transpired in the past.

Anyway it sounds like you've made up your mind to believe what seems to me to be a religious type of viewpoint, and I've learned it's useless to argue with people about their about religious beliefs, so I'll just leave you with this link you probably won't read since you've already made up your mind:

Quantum mechanics needs no consciousness (and the other way around)

It has been suggested that consciousness plays an important role in quantum mechanics as it is necessary for the collapse of wave function during the measurement. Furthermore, this idea has spawned a symmetrical proposal: a possibility that quantum mechanics explains the emergence of consciousness in the brain. Here we formulated several predictions that follow from this hypothetical relationship and that can be empirically tested. Some of the experimental results that are already available suggest falsification of the first hypothesis. Thus, the suggested link between human consciousness and collapse of wave function does not seem viable. We discuss the constraints implied by the existing evidence on the role that the human observer may play for quantum mechanics and the role that quantum mechanics may play in the observer's consciousness.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

actually... by virtue of the electrons interacting with the residual gas in the chamber, making it fluoresce means that it is always technically being observed too.

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow
When it's turned on It is emitting a Certain Frequency and Vibration that Curves the Energy you're Observing and Likely the Curvature happens because you're observing it .

Woah... a sentance for people who don't understand words, definitions or science.

You cannot... curve energy... and as i said in the post above, The residual gas in the chamber is 'observing' the electrons as they are interacting with it and emitting light. Again... like others on this thread, you don't appear to understand the things you are arguing against.

a reply to: ErosA433

. Again... like others on this thread, you don't appear to understand the things you are arguing against.

And you only think you understand things.

I'm not Arguing , I'm admitting Ignorance to things that I understand to be much deeper than any of us will admit. Man Kind relishes in their perceived control of things as Mankind always has.

Perception is only half of the equation. There is a reason mankind is still stuck on Earth and not at one with the Cosmos and this is because we lost something a long time ago , The goal is to relearn what it is we lost.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

a possibility that quantum mechanics explains the emergence of consciousness in the brain.

So what came first the Chicken or the Egg ?

Anyway it sounds like you've made up your mind to believe what seems to me to be a religious type of viewpoint, and I've learned it's useless to argue with people about their about religious beliefs, so I'll just leave you with this link you probably won't read since you've already made up your mind:

Quite the opposite , My mind is always open to new ideas and possibilities and my views are hardly Religious in nature . I adopted Hermeticism many years ago because it spoke to me on a Level that nothing else ever had. I believe in Science , But Science is only a part of the Picture and While Scientist typically consider themselves enlightened in truth they are very close minded .

Mathematics is a beautiful language Much like Music , But Math is Constantly evolving .

“The Answers Have Changed Albert Einstein was once giving an exam paper to his graduating class. It turned out that it was the exact same exam paper he had given them the previous year. His teaching assistant, alarmed at what he saw and thinking it to be the result of the professor’s absentmindedness, alerted Einstein. “Excuse me, sir,” said the shy assistant, not quite sure how to tell the great man about his blunder. “Yes?” said Einstein. “Um, eh, it’s about the test you just handed out.” Einstein waited patiently. “I’m not sure if you realize it, but this is the same test you gave out last year. In fact, it’s identical.” Einstein paused to think for a moment, then said, “Yes, it is the same test but the answers have changed.” Just as the answers in physics change as new discoveries are made, so too do the answers in business and in marketing.”

a reply to: asabuvsobelow
What year did Einstein allegedly say that? I know something of the history of physics and I know Einstein taught in 1909, 1910, 1911, and 1912. If those are the 4 years he taught, that would narrow down the year he said that to either 1910, 1911, or 1912. I can't imagine how that much could have changed in one year from the previous year in any of those three years in the subjects Einstein was teaching. So unless you can provide a reliable source, and the source cites exactly when he said it, I think there's a strong likelihood it's a fictitious quote.

It's certainly not the first one, people love circulating fake quotes supposedly said by Einstein, and I'm sure there are a lot more than 13 fake Einstein quotes:

13 Inspiring Einstein Quotes Never Actually Said by Einstein

Physics textbooks don't change that fast. Just for an example of how changing answers to test questions in physics courses usually takes more than a year, Einstein published his theory of general relativity in 1915. But in 1921, when he got his Nobel prize for his 1905 paper on the photoelectric effect, not only was the Nobel committee still not convinced about general relativity in 1921, but they weren't even completely convinced about the photoelectric effect until 3 years later in 1924 when S. N. Bose derived the Planck spectrum. That was 19 years after Einstein's 1905 paper that finally physicists became convinced about the photoelectric effect.

So, that example should give you some idea of why textbooks and exam questions take a while to change. New ideas take time to verify and become accepted, and become incorporated into textbooks.

I'll give you an even more dramatic example. When people ask for recommendations on textbooks to learn physics at an undergraduate level, I still recommend the Feynman Lectures which Richard Feynman made/wrote from 1961 to 1963 or so. Guess what? Most of the answers are still pretty much the same today, 60 years later, in 2023, as they were in 1961 to 1963.

Sure we have made some advances. Feynman's lectures comment that we had QED (in 1963) but needed something like it to apply to the nucleus so the (then current) 1963 theories were incomplete since they didn't have that yet. About a decade later, the QCD theory that applied to the nucleus was developed. So the answer to the question of what model to apply to the nucleus in 1963 was something like "our models are currently incomplete but people are working on it", then a decade later "we now have the QCD model for the nucleus". But that's an exception, and even in that case you don't really get a "wrong" answer about QCD, just that we didn't know because it didn't exist yet.

So, this is some background on why I'm so skeptical of that Einstein quote, I doubt it's true that the answers changed that much in one year, when at least in the Feynman lectures, they've hardly changed in 60 years.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

a reply to: asabuvsobelow What year did Einstein allegedly say that? I know something of the history of physics and I know Einstein taught in 1909, 1910, 1911, and 1912. If those are the 4 years he taught, that would narrow down the year he said that to either 1910, 1911, or 1912. I can't imagine how that much could have changed in one year from the previous year in any of those three years in the subjects Einstein was teaching. So unless you can provide a reliable source, and the source cites exactly when he said it, I think there's a strong likelihood it's a fictitious quote.

So you can't even wrap your mind around the Laws of Physics and Mathematics changing .....?

Yes you and I have reached an impasse.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow
Scientists have done searches to see if nature itself is changing over time, for example there was a claim the fine structure constant was changing, but that wasn't ultimately confirmed, and all we can do is put limits on how much it's changing. If it's changing, it's not very much.

A search for varying fundamental constants using hertz-level frequency measurements of cold CH molecules

Many modern theories predict that the fundamental constants depend on time, position or the local density of matter. Here we develop a spectroscopic method for pulsed beams of cold molecules, and use it to measure the frequencies of microwave transitions in CH with accuracy down to 3 Hz. By comparing these frequencies with those measured from sources of CH in the Milky Way, we test the hypothesis that fundamental constants may differ between the high- and low-density environments of the Earth and the interstellar medium.

So far I'm not aware of any confirmed changes in nature itself though that paper linked above infers that we can't rule out nature could be changing within the limits stated, I think it's something like 3 parts in 10 million for the fine structure constant. Don't forget we have sort of a time machime in the cosmos where we can look back and see things that happened thousands or millions or billions of years ago and compare them to things that happen today. So if the laws of nature were really changing, conceivably the "time machine" of the light received from distant stars and galaxies might allow us to discover that and we've looked, and the constants seem rather constant so far.

But do the laws of nature itself change? We have looked for such things and I wouldn't rule it out completely. It's not so much that I can't wrap my mind around it, but rather that the evidence so far has not supported that. I'm always open to new evidence, and the James Webb telescope is providing some, maybe it will provide evidence to show the laws of nature have changed, or maybe it won't.

Now let's change the subject to a different topic, more relevant to your quote about what Einstein was teaching, about human-created models of how the universe works. When Einstein developed general relativity, the actual laws of physics in nature hadn't changed at all. What changed was the human model of how nature operates in situations which up to that point had not been part of the normal experience of humans (relativistic speeds and such). Outside of such extreme conditions, neither the laws of nature itself, nor the human models for how nature works had changed. Even now, we still use Newton's model when we don't need to worry about relativistic effects and such, and it still works.

So after Einstein developed relativity, nature still worked the same way it did before. Nature doesn't care about our human models, it will keep doing what it's doing whether we understand it or not and whether we have errors or unknowns in our models or not.

One of the biggest mysteries now is "dark matter". We have evidence for it but don't know what it is. Physicists like ErosA433 have been involved in looking for it, but the search continues until we find it or some other explanation for the evidence. I think someday we'll figure it out, but that won't change the way nature operates, we'll just have a more clear understanding of how it works.

Anyway if you think the laws of nature are changing on a yearly basis, I've seen no evidence for that. Human understanding of nature changes, but one year is a very short time frame for that to happen, and other than the addition of QCD in the 1970s, the human understanding of basic physics covered in Feynman's lectures in three volumes from 1963 is relatively unchanged in 60 years. If we figure out what dark matter is, we'll have something else to add, but I suspect the future changes will be things like that where we transition from saying "I don't know (what QCD or dark matter is, or whatever)" to saying "we figured it out, now we have QCD, and a new explanation for dark matter observations". It doesn't seem likely that we will conclude everything we modeled before is completely wrong, because we have so much evidence to support the models, and the evidence is the evidence. But sure I expect the models to evolve based on new evidence, and I expect we will eventually figure out things we don't understand today, like dark matter.