Entanglement Shows Space Doesn't Exist!

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


Dear LesMIsangthrope,

Really, the double slit experiment does not show that observing something changes the outcome. What is it about the act of observation that effects the outcome or do you believe that something else is going on?

Originally posted by Kashai

Originally posted by ubeenhad
reply to post by Kashai

 

Everything you just said is speculative.

Everything related to science is statistical and also therefore speculative. Though as meantioned above, in recent response, and has been observed to curve space-time. Nonetheless, concluding that observation is speculative does not in and of itself, prove it is.


"String theory is not a standard lol so neither is 10 dimensions of space and 1 of time. "

According to Einstein space and time are synonymous.

Standards are in the eye of the beholder take gravity for example? We can only state, that as far as we can observe, gravity seems to act a certain way. We do not have access to all reality and its intricacies, therefore the idea that gravity works the same way everywhere is not a truth ( by any real definition of the term).

There are those of course who insist that there is no other possible way, this is a beleif.

Science is more about ruling out things as answers. So, if one believes reality is an illusion, one should start by trying to prove it is real.

Any thoughts?

edit on 27-9-2012 by Kashai because: Modified content

Science has standards. Like trying to get a 5 sigma proof of the Higgs Boson at ATLAS. String theory just hasnt met any predictions so it doesn't have the standing that things like the standard model do. We have proof of 3 spatial dimensions and to go on any other assumption other than to professionally pursue a prospective theory is NOT SCIENCE.

Im saying that there are maybe 1000 people in the world qualified to talk about 7 extra spatial dimension with any certainty. The rest need to stick to 3, especially in the context you were "providing" the information.

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by rtyfx
reply to post by john_bmth

 

In all fairness, you have to admit, scientists and historians often must eat their words years and decades later when they are proven wrong.

Scientists love being "proven wrong", it's what pushes the limits of human understanding forwards. Your insinuation that the scientific community is somehow stuck in their ways and narrow minded is completely false.

And who "proves them wrong"? Other scientists.

edit on 26-9-2012 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)

They love being proven wrong so their funding and career is taken away from them ?

Don't you see why they lie now ? To keep their job.

When SC1 is trying to proved A is true, and SC2 comes along and proves B is true and A is false, SC! won't be getting funding to research A anymore, hence he will be out of a job.

^ That is the only problem with science.

Originally posted by ubeenhad
One thing that is never mentioned. Scientists are like little kids. Especially Physicists. #, string theory predicts 10 dimensions of space, and multiple universes, etc. We are not afraid of crazy, abstract ideas anymore. The crazyer the better. So all this talk of science suppressing aliens, and being too blind to see the "obvious" is crazy. We want to find this #, just as much as you do. We just dont have the luxory of ignorance and we have to go were ALL the data lies, not just the convenient stuff.

edit on 27-9-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by ubeenhad

Originally posted by Kashai

Originally posted by ubeenhad
reply to post by Kashai

 

Everything you just said is speculative.

Everything related to science is statistical and also therefore speculative. Though as meantioned above, in recent response, and has been observed to curve space-time. Nonetheless, concluding that observation is speculative does not in and of itself, prove it is.


"String theory is not a standard lol so neither is 10 dimensions of space and 1 of time. "

According to Einstein space and time are synonymous.

Standards are in the eye of the beholder take gravity for example? We can only state, that as far as we can observe, gravity seems to act a certain way. We do not have access to all reality and its intricacies, therefore the idea that gravity works the same way everywhere is not a truth ( by any real definition of the term).

There are those of course who insist that there is no other possible way, this is a beleif.

Science is more about ruling out things as answers. So, if one believes reality is an illusion, one should start by trying to prove it is real.

Any thoughts?

edit on 27-9-2012 by Kashai because: Modified content

Science has standards. Like trying to get a 5 sigma proof of the Higgs Boson at ATLAS. String theory just hasnt met any predictions so it doesn't have the standing that things like the standard model do. We have proof of 3 spatial dimensions and to go on any other assumption other than to professionally pursue a prospective theory is NOT SCIENCE.

Im saying that there are maybe 1000 people in the world qualified to talk about 7 extra spatial dimension with any certainty. The rest need to stick to 3, especially in the context you were "providing" the information.

edit on 27-9-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-9-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)

Actually if you consider, it a reason we began looking into quanta is because we realized something.

Dimensions are curved by what?





Proving a theory means to rule out any possible alternative and that is impossible today, in relation to such lofty considerations.

reply to post by Kashai


I dont think i explained my point well.

To look for extra dimensions is all good and dandy. Physicts are doing it all over the world.
Fewer are making theories that rely on extra dimensions, simply because they have not been discovered. If they were, then every fundemental theory of matter would need to encorporate them.

To start theories of consiousness, or other pseudoscience branches based off the idea of 11 dimesnions is nonsensical. Until they are discovered. There is plenty that we do know, that invokes curiosity. This whole, seeing an idea that fits ideologically, and running with it is what psuedoscience is all about

reply to post by ubeenhad

We propose a six dimensional Universal Extra Dimensions (UED) model compactified on a real projective plane $RP^2$, a two-sphere with its antipodal points being identified. We utilize the Randjbar-Daemi-Salam-Strathdee spontaneous sphere compactification with a monopole configuration of an extra $U(1)_X$ gauge field that leads to a spontaneous radius stabilization. Unlike the sphere and the so-called $S^2/Z_2$ compactifications, the massless $U(1)_X$ gauge boson is safely projected out. We show how a compactification on a non-orientable manifold results in a chiral four dimensional gauge theory by utilizing 6D chiral gauge and Yukawa interactions. The resultant Kaluza-Klein mass spectra are distinct from the ordinary UED models compactified on torus. We briefly comment on the anomaly cancellation and also on a possible dark matter candidate in our model.

arxiv.org...

You seem to be disputing quantum mechanics as it contradicts the concepts behind the space time continum.

See attached...

10 Real-world Applications of Quantum Mechanics

Any thoughts?

lol wat?

Before i read the whole paper on the arvix server(points for the peer reviewed source) please explain what it has to do with wat we are discussing?

Im still talking about using theoretical concpets like "the bulk", "extra dimensions" etc in the context you did to explain ideological ideas.

Originally posted by Kashai
See attached...

10 Real-world Applications of Quantum Mechanics

Any thoughts?

Um, my computer which is right infront of me is a real world application. show me a real world application of 11 dimensional spacetime.

Originally posted by ubeenhad
lol wat?

Before i read the whole paper on the arvix server(points for the peer reviewed source) please explain what it has to do with wat we are discussing?

Im still talking about using theoretical concpets like "the bulk", "extra dimensions" etc in the context you did to explain ideological ideas.

I just added a response related to 10 real applications with respect to quantum mechanics. above your last response

So how do you know this doesn't happen? Until you are able to partake in your friends perception, you cannot be sure what a mile is to them. Further, can you be certain that a mile is always a mile to you? Have you ever not had the perception that it was taking longer than it should for that next interstate exit to come up? For that matter, can you be certain that you have this "friend"? Sure, you may have recollection of interacting with them....but so have countless other patients that were in a mental hospital i worked at back in the 90's. Reality, despite all our attempts to defy it, is purely perceptive. 10 eye witnesses will all tell a different story. Can we be certain that there is a constant "reality" that exists outside of our perception?

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan



How many steps will it take to get me to the corner? If my friend has the same stride as mine, then our steps will verify that the distance to the corner is the same for both us, that there is, indeed, space to walk through.

If 10 people can verify that my friend exists, who am I to argue?

Does a constant reality exist outside our perception? If I hold my cellphone up and take a picture of what's behind me, without me looking, and I show this picture to ten people, will they all see the same wall? Or, will one see the ocean, another, a lion in Africa, another, a nude pic of Angelina Jolie?

reply to post by jiggerj


Those 10 people....do they exist outside of what your brain is telling you is a perception of them?

It would follow that if you are in a position to stand with an ocean at your back, then those who interact with you would be in general agreement.

There are a lot of questions here, honestly. One example would be the prior example of 10 different people having 10 different stories when eye witnessing an event. Is this due to differences in perception? Or could there actually be subtle differences in the experience because they all arrived at the same point via a different methodology (i.e., different timeline)?

Not saying I buy any of this. Just that it is what I think about when I am thinking about things.

Entanglement shows space-time does exist.

Any thoughts?

reply to post by Ajax84


That's what qigong masters say also -- podcast link

reply to post by jiggerj


Its not that mysterious. Everything you guys are mentioning about "10" different observers experiencing different things has been debated since the "copenhagen" interpretation of quantum mechanics was first introduced. The brightest minds in science have debated the meaning of what quantum mechanics tells us about philososphy and reality itself. Please read everything that goes into the copenhagen interpertation and then realize nothing your saying is new.

Originally posted by Kashai
Entanglement shows space-time does exist.

Any thoughts?

Lol. I like the thought. It honestly makes more sense in the grand scheme than "entalgment proves there is no space" lol. Non-locality is so wierd, it doesnt makes sense. It is the basis of entaglment and i think it was schrodienger that said "Entaglment/non-locality IS the wierdness of quantum mechanics"

It irks me when people misinterpret the observer effect. Even high-school kids get it. It especially irks me when people attribute the observer effect to conscious awareness, when that isn't the case at all. The wall behind you does not disappear because you aren't looking at it, just like the galaxy millions of light-years away does not disappear because you stop looking at it. Observer effect = a measurement effect, and I thought this was already thoroughly explained. At the quantum level, even the slightest change in temperature can botch/skew the results of an experiment. When taken to the quantum level, many experiments have had the luxury of having skewed results because of a certain unmeasured or unintended independent variable.

The wall behind you is still there even if no one is looking at it, but the observer effect is in a completely different branch than the universe being aware of / calculating itself. This is why quantum mechanics is a bit misleading in it's concepts. That, or people just lack full understanding of it.

Very interesting theory, but I don't believe for one second..So If i don't look at the moon it's not there? Why do the earths oceans have tides then? I'm not looking at the sun right now ( it's 3 am) but im pretty sure it's shining away on the other side of the planet..How about all the novae and super novae that occur out there?..We are not looking directly at them , but we still see them when they occur

Originally posted by TheLonewolf
Very interesting theory, but I don't believe for one second..So If i don't look at the moon it's not there? Why do the earths oceans have tides then? I'm not looking at the sun right now ( it's 3 am) but im pretty sure it's shining away on the other side of the planet..How about all the novae and super novae that occur out there?..We are not looking directly at them , but we still see them when they occur

Dangerous reasoning. There is alot of evidence for the copenhagen interpretation. Some of the smartest minds ever put into it. But most modern physicts have the moto "shut up and calculate" what we know works, nothing has ever underminded the standard model, and our human minds are just not "wired" as Leonard Susskind would put it, to understand stuff we dont experience.