New Law of Physics Could Explain Quantum Mysteries

reply to post by Astyanax


I found it a little difficult to get through the watered down version on that physics forum (your first post). However, I always make a habit of reading the comments that follow.
Very interesting what some of those people are saying. Seems like they understand it much better than you *not a insult* and myself.
I suggest you read through some if you haven't already

Originally posted by OmegaLogos
Disclaimer: I'm a theist but not of the Abrahamic faiths. I have minor biblical scholar and scriptural skills. Also I am not a scientific/legal or medical expert in any field. Beware of my Contagious Memes! & watch out that you don't get cut on my Occams razor.All of this is my personal conjecture and should not be considered the absolute or most definitive state of things as they really are. Use this information at your own risk! I accept no liability if your ideology comes crashing down around you with accompanying consequences!

Explanation: Starred and Flagged!

Personally it doesn't explode the percieved paradoxes but just defines and confines them within this postulated "LAW". This defininition redfines the percieved paradox and in doing so hey presto with the semantic wand waving they are no longer ghostlike apparitions but become instead real reflections in the mirror! Basiscally its a new symantic interpretation on the infinite universe theory which they have added a caveat that states that at any 1 plancks second unit of time being considered, that everything everywhere happens but only a small portion of that happening is able to be squeezed into the subset of existence that is considered "REAL" [i.e. 1 plancks second subset of time] and therefor exhibits phenomena registered as actuality over that entire subset!

Personal Disclosure: IMO:- ALL states EXIST! But only SOME are EXPRESSED!

P.S. Uncle Albert clearly stated "God DOES NOT play dice with the universe!" where as this postulate states that "God DOES play dice with the universe but the dice are LOADED!". They didn't get rid of uncertainty! They just codified HOW the uncertainty is accounted for!

I have done programming and this whole thing sounds like a program to me, hence all variables and CONSTANTS exists but some are used giving the conditions. AM i in the right track or is another season of LOST is coming.

reply to post by badmedia


uhhh? Are you for real Media? This is different because it nowhere tries to imply "god" or some divine being is forming our reality. Where does it say that? That is all you have been telling us though.

As that other poster said. You are trolling here. I understand you want to impress us all so very much, but self-fulfilling acclaim is pretty "petty" if you want to point fingers.
"Time always proves me right"? Come on...why would you even write that.

I agree with SincerelyTwo: I read this to say that the theory of the embedded state-space model is implying an as-yet unverified law to differentiate reality from unreality, and while that appears to be circular (it is unreal because it is outside the invariant set, it is outside the invariant set because it is unreal) I would hope the peer review wouldn't have allowed that and that there will be some testable means to say in advance whether an expected result is inside or outside of the reality set. But that bit about what is inside STAYS inside is interesting, especially when still admitting consciousness as a factor in deciding what is and what ain't in the real set.

from one of the comments on that page.

I admit some of what you said seems to resemble parts of this "theory", but is that coincidence? You are trying to posit some divine being, and you have already decided it exists.
That's why Astyanax explained to you there's no point in her even responding.
From what I read it is similar to string theory. Makes seem interesting connections, but more or less lacks in the "testable" observable predictions category. Speculation at this point, and nothing more.

Originally posted by makinho21
reply to post by badmedia

 

uhhh? Are you for real Media? This is different because it nowhere tries to imply "god" or some divine being is forming our reality. Where does it say that? That is all you have been telling us though.

As that other poster said. You are trolling here. I understand you want to impress us all so very much, but self-fulfilling acclaim is pretty "petty" if you want to point fingers.
"Time always proves me right"? Come on...why would you even write that.

BINGO. Because I included "God" in my understanding, it was all completely rejected. Not on the merits of the idea, but based solely on that 1 single factor.

Of course, what have I said "God" was all along? consciousness. And what is it that collapses all the possibilities that are "unreal" and into the reality we see ourselves?

Has nothing to do with me personally, as it does with the intellectual dishonesty of it all. I was straight up told "You don't understand Quantum Physics" in that thread. That what I said was a bunch of "mumbo jumbo" and so forth. Ridiculed for putting this idea forward, and was not given even the slightest bit of consideration.

The time proves me right line is because it's how it always happens. I try to show people understanding, and I am ridiculed, called names and so forth it. And then eventually it comes out to be known and common knowledge. I don't care about getting "credit" for anything, it's just a matter of how people are so quick to ridicule people who say things, but in the end they never really gave it a chance.

And it's a common theme in the history of science.



Anyway, in the end I am just glad that it's actually being discussed. All possibilities existing and being "possible" is a basic requirement for both free will and real intelligence. Intelligence limited is not intelligence at all.

reply to post by makinho21

Makinho21, please don't feed the little furry feller. You know he never gives up.

I really, really, really want to keep this on topic. Anyone who understands the potential importance of the ISP is smart enough to see that Badmedia's ideas aren't even in the ballpark. Leave him alone and let's move on.

reply to post by Astyanax


Why? Because that theory doesn't include a collapse mechanism? That is the only real difference I can see in it. In his theory, he just uses gravity as part of it. Outside that, the general idea of something coming from everything, rather than nothing is the same.

I was hoping you would call me out on the collapse part of my post, as a way of getting some actual conversation going, but I guess I'll do it since you won't address it. The real question here is really how does it go from all possibilities into what we know as reality.

Maybe someday you can get past your hatred for anything that includes "god" and we can start talking about these things outside the context of "time", in which all becomes completely static and without change.

reply to post by oozyism
Disclaimer: As elsewhere!

Explanation: Starred!

Personal Disclosure: I'm gobsmacked by how simply you put that! Thanks heaps for denying that excrement I was pushing as it was way to overblown and convoluted!

reply to post by Astyanax


Agreed...but it's just so hard sometimes. His arrogance and insistence that he is correct in everything is so so very very frustrating. I can't help myself sometimes.
I may have to just bust out the good ol' ignore button pretty quick.

Anyways, from what I read on that forum, it seems that this idea - like String Theory - as yet, does not provide any testable predictions.
Yes the math checks out and it fits nicely into our pre-existing theories, but if it wants to become more than just a hypothesis we will have to be able to observe some prediction it makes.
The common excuse for such a problem is "we don't have the technology to observe these predictions yet".
And yes..."we don't have the technology for time-travel yet". Atleast that's how I feel about it (thus far).

Reminds me of an alternative theory of gravity proposed by this dude in Britain a few years back. His definition of gravity accounted for all the "dark matter" that we have come to understand makes up the majority of our universe.
His gravity did away with this stuff, which we have yet to truly discover (we just know we need it to account for the universal model), but it completely opposed what Einstein said should exist - a gravitational constant.
It also made no predictions beyond getting rid of the dark matter.

I may be wrong in my remembering, but that is more or less how it went I think.

But yes, as soon as "god" comes in to the topic, the discussion loses most of it's worth.

edit: it felt really good pressing ignore

[edit on 19-8-2009 by makinho21]

[edit on 19-8-2009 by makinho21]

Originally posted by makinho21
It seems that this idea - like String Theory - as yet, does not provide any testable predictions.

It's still new. Let's see how things pan out. Can you think of any tests that may be possible?

His gravity did away with this stuff, which we have yet to truly discover (we just know we need it to account for the universal model), but it completely opposed what Einstein said should exist - a gravitational constant.

You may have got this slightly mixed up. Newton postulated the gravitational constant. The term associated with General Relativity is the cosmological constant, the introduction of which Einstein later called 'my biggest mistake'. He dropped it from the GR equations after Edwin Hubble proved the Universe was expanding (its purpose was to prevent such expansion from being implied by the equations). Post Einstein, however, the constant was reintroduced (with a minus sign) when it was found the expansion was accelerating.

It also made no predictions beyond getting rid of the dark matter.

The term 'dark matter' wasn't coined until much later. In Einstein's time it was known as the 'missing mass problem'. It doesn't, as far as I can see, impact GR at all.

As soon as "god" comes in to the topic, the discussion loses most of it's worth.

Certainly when it's this kind of topic, and in the Science & Technology subforum at that!

reply to post by Astyanax


In terms of predictions I don't really know/understand enough to identify what would be a valid testable observation for this concept.

And yes, haha, I was sure my recollection of my story was a little off.
Einstein tried to eliminate the cosmological constant from his work, and spent the remainder of his years trying to form a theory without it *I think* but it has since become an integral piece of modern physics - and the I think it fits into the standard model as well.

This other man's theory of gravity simply eliminated the "stuff" (which, as you said, was only recently titled dark matter), but it could not incorporate a cosmological constant.
Instead, he proposed gravity is not uniform throughout the universe. However, we have not witnessed this.
I will try and find his name and his idea so you can read it properly, and ignore my butchered version (haha

I also wonder what dark energy is supposed to be. The driving force that accelerates our universe, I believe, is the accepted definition.
Again, we have yet to "witness" this energy, besides determining something is driving the acceleration.

The ISP could be something like that. We can't, yet, visualize it - but it drives some part of quantum physics, and that would suggest it could be accurate.

Originally posted by badmedia
reply to post by Astyanax

 

Ok, so I ignored what the other guy said. But what I posted is exactly on topic. And it is in fact what I have been talking about in the other thread, which you dismissed as being nuts.

I asked very specifically what is the difference between this(on topic) and what I had been saying in the other thread.

This theory states that from a state of all possibilities, there exists a small portion within it that we call reality. So, reality ends up being a limitation of all possibilities.

What did I say in the other thread? Reality comes from the limitation of that which is limitless, all possibilities, all knowing. And that is exactly what this theory is also stating.

You are just using that other guys post as a way of coping out. This theory is saying the same basic things I was saying in the other thread.

So basically, this 'new' theory simply states in scientific/mathematical terms the same thing Lao Tzu wrote down a couple thousand years ago?

In fact, I can't think of a single seriously aware dude that would take issue with the premise that reality as we experience it is merely a momentary manifestation from the field of all possibility.

Is this really news?

Originally posted by makinho21
He proposed gravity is not uniform throughout the universe. However, we have not witnessed this.

We may have [2]. Early days yet to tell, though. Me, I'm sticking with Uncle Albert (and with dark matter) till we've got a lot more data.

The ISP could be something like that. We can't, yet, visualize it - but it drives some part of quantum physics, and that would suggest it could be accurate.

I don't think one should conceive of the ISP as some kind of fundamental force. It's more analogous to a constant, in that it defines what is possible in the universe and what is not.

reply to post by RogerT

So basically, this 'new' theory simply states in scientific/mathematical terms the same thing Lao Tzu wrote down a couple thousand years ago?

I don't think anyone can respond properly to this question unless you clarify what parallels and similarities, exactly, you see between the ISP and the Tao Te Ching. Care to do that?

Tao and me go back a long tao, so to speak, so I'm certainly interested.

reply to post by Astyanax


I believe he was making a sarcastic point: because of a rather speculative hypothesis - thus far - we can merrily go and decide that means our existence results from a giant alien brain...situated at the center of the universe.

"Oh science has definitely got it all wrong, they think it's just a massive black hole, but time will show them I know the secret...a big green alien brain-thing...."
"I concluded this through my own reasoning, so it must be true"
or that this definitely tells us unicorns do exist: in the "unreality" and yada yada yada.


also I received oral surgery yesterday (4 molars removed) and I'm high on painkillers, so if I don't make much sense...blame it on the drugs


Never mind. I read his post again, I guess he was serious. Well, I blame my painkillers!







[edit on 20-8-2009 by makinho21]

Originally posted by RogerT
So basically, this 'new' theory simply states in scientific/mathematical terms the same thing Lao Tzu wrote down a couple thousand years ago?

In fact, I can't think of a single seriously aware dude that would take issue with the premise that reality as we experience it is merely a momentary manifestation from the field of all possibility.

Is this really news?

Well, I think you answered your own question.

For a "seriously aware dude", no. For the "prove it" based on science crowd - yes.

reply to post by Astyanax


Well verse one pretty much covers it.

The Tao Te Ching translation I used to have talked about "that which can be named is not the Tao", ie. the field of all possibilities, and also about the "10,000 things" ie our perceived reality, manifested through observation and naming.

I found this online translation:

The "Tao" is too great to be described by the name "Tao".
If it could be named so simply, it would not be the eternal Tao.

Heaven and Earth began from the nameless (Tao),
but the multitudes of things around us were created by names.

We desire to understand the world by giving names to the things we see,
but these things are only the effects of something subtle.

When we see beyond the desire to use names,
we can sense the nameless cause of these effects.

The cause and the effects are aspects of the same, one thing.
They are both mysterious and profound.
At their most mysterious and profound point lies the "Gate of the Great Truth".

.... seems obvious, no?

reply to post by badmedia


OK, got it.
Thanks.

reply to post by RogerT


What'd he say this time. I blocked his "contributions" a couple posts ago.

Was I right in you were being sarcastic, or were you being serious, btw.

reply to post by makinho21


Sorry, don't know who you are referring to.
You can take someone off ignore with your member center if you want to see their posts.

I was being serious, I think.

reply to post by RogerT


I was referring to media...but I don't ever intend to take him off ignore.

I thought your comment was sarcasm, but I guess I was wrong