Infinate Possibilities You Are Everywhere Quantum Physics Time Reversal Symmetry & Super Positioning

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

So at this point I wonder who is a believer of superposition and I am throwing down the Jerry Maguire card who is a believer in the science?

I believe in the experimental results.



Regarding the possible interpretations of those experimental results, I try to keep an open mind since there are many possible interpretations that have not been proven true or false. Particle superpostion as in the Copenhagen theory is one possibility of many.



It doesn't seem logical to me to take any kind of strong position for or against that possibility, or any of the alternatives, until we have some experimental evidence to suggest which is more likely, or perhaps the correct interpretation is one which hasn't occurred to us yet. For people who really believe in science and the scientific method, the most rational approach may be to see where the evidence leads (or conduct your own experiments revealing the truth if you're a researcher in this field).

Well according to the science of superposition where is the BIG BANG in your opinion?

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
Well according to the science of superposition where is the BIG BANG in your opinion?

There is a tense discrepancy with your question:

"where is" = present tense

Big Bang = Past event

At the present time, the CMBR (cosmic microwave background radiation) is relatively uniform in every direction we look, and it's thought to be the remnants of the big bang. The photons that make up the CMBR, like other photons, are subject to interpretation of quantum mechanics theory. So again if the Copenhagen interpretation is right then they are in superposition, but not even half the scientists polled thought that interpretation was correct, and I posted a video for you of a physicist explaining why he thinks it's the least likely interpretation to be correct. If some of the other interpretations are correct, the photons are not in a state of superposition.

By the way that's intended to be summary of the viewpoint of the scientific community as far as I know, rather than my opinion. I don't have any strong opinion as to which interpretation is correct, and the scientific community doesn't know either. Though individuals may prefer one interpretation over another, they admit they don't know if their preferred interpretation is the correct one, like the physicist in the video I posted on the previous page. I try to keep an open mind pending further evidence to show which idea is right.

think about this: we know light oscillates and is both a particle and a frequency. because we know this we also know that a light particle is dark half the time

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

Well according to the science of superposition where is the BIG BANG in your opinion?

There is a tense discrepancy with your question:



"where is" = present tense



Big Bang = Past event



At the present time, the CMBR (cosmic microwave background radiation) is relatively uniform in every direction we look, and it's thought to be the remnants of the big bang. The photons that make up the CMBR, like other photons, are subject to interpretation of quantum mechanics theory. So again if the Copenhagen interpretation is right then they are in superposition, but not even half the scientists polled thought that interpretation was correct, and I posted a video for you of a physicist explaining why he thinks it's the least likely interpretation to be correct. If some of the other interpretations are correct, the photons are not in a state of superposition.



By the way that's intended to be summary of the viewpoint of the scientific community as far as I know, rather than my opinion. I don't have any strong opinion as to which interpretation is correct, and the scientific community doesn't know either. Though individuals may prefer one interpretation over another, they admit they don't know if their preferred interpretation is the correct one, like the physicist in the video I posted on the previous page. I try to keep an open mind pending further evidence to show which idea is right.

Lets not forget the BIG BANG contains all space and time in a point no larger than a particle, soooo yeeaaah that would be everywhere and all time. According to superposition it would be everywhere all the time.

originally posted by: bigx001
think about this: we know light oscillates and is both a particle and a frequency. because we know this we also know that a light particle is dark half the time

If you do a double slit experiment you can get dark bands in the interference pattern, maybe that's what you're thinking of? But that's cause by TWO photons INTERACTING, while a photon by itself is NOT dark half the time.

Your audio speaker oscillates and it's not silent half the time, right?

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
Lets not forget the BIG BANG contains all space and time in a point no larger than a particle, soooo yeeaaah that would be everywhere and all time.

Big Bang

Modern measurements place this moment (Big Bang) at approximately 13.8 billion years ago

13.8 billion years ago means 13.8 billion years ago, not all time. Not a hard concept for most people, but apparently challenging for you.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: bigx001

think about this: we know light oscillates and is both a particle and a frequency. because we know this we also know that a light particle is dark half the time

If you do a double slit experiment you can get dark bands in the interference pattern, maybe that's what you're thinking of? But that's cause by TWO photons INTERACTING, while a photon by itself is NOT dark half the time.



Your audio speaker oscillates and it's not silent half the time, right?

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

Lets not forget the BIG BANG contains all space and time in a point no larger than a particle, soooo yeeaaah that would be everywhere and all time.

Big Bang

Modern measurements place this moment (Big Bang) at approximately 13.8 billion years ago

13.8 billion years ago means 13.8 billion years ago, not all time. Not a hard concept for most people, but apparently challenging for you.

You see its superposition we are talking about, so our perception of time influences what we and our models see. If we incorporated superposition into the models its easier to see all time is actually one time. However back to the BIG BANG which is supposed to have all space and time in it which I thought was a well known aspect of it, guess not. Anyways yes the BIG BANG contains all space and time in a single point no larger than a particle known as the singularity.

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

"...Anyways yes the BIG BANG contains all space and time in a single point no larger than a particle known as the singularity. "

for something to be at some point, one need space, there was no space they say... so there was no certain point.

BB also didn't contained all space and time, it created it !

that's what they say....

but... there is no black hole, no singularity and no begin

Consider that the world is a simulation, wouldnt that explain superposition perfectly?

Oh I found this Yoda Remix that is just awesome!

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

Lets not forget the BIG BANG contains all space and time in a point no larger than a particle, soooo yeeaaah that would be everywhere and all time. According to superposition it would be everywhere all the time.

No that isn't the Big Bang, that is the singularity that existed before the Big Bang happened. The Big Bang is the event where the singularity started expanding and is considered the start of the standard model of space/time in physics. You really need to learn your terminology better. You are interchanging phrases that aren't interchangeable.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord



Lets not forget the BIG BANG contains all space and time in a point no larger than a particle, soooo yeeaaah that would be everywhere and all time. According to superposition it would be everywhere all the time.

No that isn't the Big Bang, that is the singularity that existed before the Big Bang happened. The Big Bang is the event where the singularity started expanding and is considered the start of the standard model of space/time in physics. You really need to learn your terminology better. You are interchanging phrases that aren't interchangeable.

We are talking about superposition, in relation to the BIG BANG does that make any sense to you? I suggest you look at the OP vid and then the BIG BANG.

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

I suggest you go and seriously study superposition instead of listening to what youtube videos have to say about it.

Think of the ten dimentions with superposition FTW!

originally posted by: Skaffa
a reply to: scghst1

It hasn't, and What The Bleep Do We Know is full of BS assumptions.

Although super positioning has been proven to some extent.

It's also funny how everyone misinterprets Schrödinger's cat, he stated it as a sarcastic remark.. He wasn't trying to prove it could actually happen to larger things like cats.

Who knows, it could still be functioning at a larger scale, but it won't be easy to prove.

The field that deals with super positioning (of photons at least) is Quantum Electrodynamics. Feynman showed that rather than going in one straight line photons have to explore all possible paths which end up canceling each other out except for the most probable. It seems redundant but it changes the math enough that they can make certain predictions out to more decimal points than any theory ever invented. The predictions have been confirmed.

A further study can be found in QED, The Strange Theory of Light by Feynman.

Quantum objects have fuzzy behavior because their wavefunction is much larger than the object itself. For large things like cats and humans we are billions of times larger than our collective wave and cannot produce quantum behavior in any reasonable amount of time.

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: Skaffa

a reply to: scghst1



It hasn't, and What The Bleep Do We Know is full of BS assumptions.



Although super positioning has been proven to some extent.



It's also funny how everyone misinterprets Schrödinger's cat, he stated it as a sarcastic remark.. He wasn't trying to prove it could actually happen to larger things like cats.



Who knows, it could still be functioning at a larger scale, but it won't be easy to prove.

The field that deals with super positioning (of photons at least) is Quantum Electrodynamics. Feynman showed that rather than going in one straight line photons have to explore all possible paths which end up canceling each other out except for the most probable. It seems redundant but it changes the math enough that they can make certain predictions out to more decimal points than any theory ever invented. The predictions have been confirmed.



A further study can be found in QED, The Strange Theory of Light by Feynman.



Quantum objects have fuzzy behavior because their wavefunction is much larger than the object itself. For large things like cats and humans we are billions of times larger than our collective wave and cannot produce quantum behavior in any reasonable amount of time.

Soooo considering the BIG BANG was/is at some point in time the size of a particle keeping what we know of Quantum Electrodynamics and super position in perspective wouldnt the BIG BANG as a particle be everywhere FTW!(FTW=FOR THE WIN!)

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord


Soooo considering the BIG BANG was/is at some point in time the size of a particle keeping what we know of Quantum Electrodynamics and super position in perspective wouldnt the BIG BANG as a particle be everywhere FTW!(FTW=FOR THE WIN!)

Well, first superposition doesn't apply to every particle that exists. Large groups of particles, like our bodies, are "collapsed" to a definite location by decoherence. We see quantum behavior in single or smaller groups of quantum objects, up to a few thousand maybe.
What QED shows is that when the universe was quantum size it evolved in all possible ways while it was very small and ended up taking the most probable path. That is the path we see if we look into the past by viewing distant objects.

It's no different then when a photon leaves a lamp and hit's your eye, it took every possible path in the weird quantum world and in the math world. But to consider that photon to be "everywhere" is meaningless. If it is in some abstract sense still everywhere, then so would every quantum object still be everywhere. But they are not because if you accept the theory of QED, which you just did, you can't just throw out half of the theory at whim - the part where they all get cancelled out.

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord


Soooo considering the BIG BANG was/is at some point in time the size of a particle keeping what we know of Quantum Electrodynamics and super position in perspective wouldnt the BIG BANG as a particle be everywhere FTW!(FTW=FOR THE WIN!)

Well, first superposition doesn't apply to every particle that exists. Large groups of particles, like our bodies, are "collapsed" to a definite location by decoherence. We see quantum behavior in single or smaller groups of quantum objects, up to a few thousand maybe.

What QED shows is that when the universe was quantum size it evolved in all possible ways while it was very small and ended up taking the most probable path. That is the path we see if we look into the past by viewing distant objects.

It's no different then when a photon leaves a lamp and hit's your eye, it took every possible path in the weird quantum world and in the math world. But to consider that photon to be "everywhere" is meaningless. If it is in some abstract sense still everywhere, then so would every quantum object still be everywhere. But they are not because if you accept the theory of QED, which you just did, you can't just throw out half of the theory at whim - the part where they all get cancelled out.

Looks to me like your saying the exact opposite of the video in the OP, kinda like saying superposition doesnt really exist. Your also not thinking of the BIG BANG or singularity when explaining your theory. BIG BANG plus superposition = everywhere.

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

Looks to me like your saying the exact opposite of the video in the OP, kinda like saying superposition doesnt really exist. Your also not thinking of the BIG BANG or singularity when explaining your theory. BIG BANG plus superposition = everywhere.

Well the big bang is everywhere right?
When it was quantum size there were many probable versions but once it evolves
it becomes a single macro-sized thing.

If you say because it was once a quantum object it's still in every possible superposition then that would mean every quantum object ever is still in every possible superposition. That doesn't seem to be the case.

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord



Looks to me like your saying the exact opposite of the video in the OP, kinda like saying superposition doesnt really exist. Your also not thinking of the BIG BANG or singularity when explaining your theory. BIG BANG plus superposition = everywhere.

Well the big bang is everywhere right?

When it was quantum size there were many probable versions but once it evolves

it becomes a single macro-sized thing.



If you say because it was once a quantum object it's still in every possible superposition then that would mean every quantum object ever is still in every possible superposition. That doesn't seem to be the case.

The BIG BANG was/is a quantum object because it is all time and space contained within itself and is/was the size of a particle. Only our limited perception gives us the illusion of time and space, when in fact everything is infinate.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I thin I am an ice cube and not a gas.