Physicists provide support for retrocausal quantum theory, in which the future influences the past

July 5, 2017 by Lisa Zyga, Phys.org feature

Can Bell correlations be explained by retrocausal influences? Figure shows an influence diagram representing the possible causal influences in a model with no retrocausality. Credit: Leifer and Pusey. ©2017 The Royal Society
(Phys.org)—Although there are many counterintuitive ideas in quantum theory, the idea that influences can travel backwards in time (from the future to the past) is generally not one of them. However, recently some physicists have been looking into this idea, called "retrocausality," because it can potentially resolve some long-standing puzzles in quantum physics. In particular, if retrocausality is allowed, then the famous Bell tests can be interpreted as evidence for retrocausality and not for action-at-a-distance—a result that Einstein and others skeptical of that "spooky" property may have appreciated.

In a new paper published in Proceedings of The Royal Society A, Matthew S. Leifer at Chapman University and Matthew F. Pusey at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics have lent new theoretical support for the argument that, if certain reasonable-sounding assumptions are made, then must be retrocausal.

The appeal of retrocausality

First, to clarify what retrocausality is and isn't: It does not mean that signals can be communicated from the future to the past—such signaling would be forbidden even in a retrocausal due to thermodynamic reasons. Instead, retrocausality means that, when an experimenter chooses the measurement setting with which to measure a particle, that decision can influence the properties of that particle (or another particle) in the past, even before the experimenter made their choice. In other words, a decision made in the present can influence something in the past.

In the original Bell tests, physicists assumed that retrocausal influences could not happen. Consequently, in order to explain their observations that distant particles seem to immediately know what measurement is being made on the other, the only viable explanation was action-at-a-distance. That is, the particles are somehow influencing each other even when separated by large distances, in ways that cannot be explained by any known mechanism. But by allowing for the possibility that the measurement setting for one particle can retrocausally influence the behavior of the other particle, there is no need for action-at-a-distance—only retrocausal influence.

Generalizing retrocausality: with or without a real quantum state

One of the main proponents of retrocausality in theory is Huw Price, a philosophy professor at the University of Cambridge. In 2012, Price laid out an argument suggesting that any quantum theory that assumes that 1) the is real, and 2) the quantum world is time-symmetric (that physical processes can run forwards and backwards while being described by the same physical laws) must allow for retrocausal influences. Understandably, however, the idea of retrocausality has not caught on with physicists in general.

"There is a small group of physicists and philosophers that think this idea is worth pursuing, including Huw Price and Ken Wharton [a physics professor at San José State University]," Leifer told Phys.org. "There is not, to my knowledge, a generally agreed upon interpretation of quantum theory that recovers the whole theory and exploits this idea. It is more of an idea for an interpretation at the moment, so I think that other physicists are rightly skeptical, and the onus is on us to flesh out the idea."

In the new study, Leifer and Pusey attempt to do this by generalizing Price's argument, which perhaps makes it more appealing in light of other recent research. They begin by removing Price's first assumption, so that the argument holds whether the quantum state is real or not—a matter that is still of some debate. A quantum state that is not real would describe physicists' knowledge of a quantum system rather than being a true physical property of the system. Although most research suggests that the quantum state is real, it is difficult to confirm one way or the other, and allowing for retrocausality may provide insight into this question. Allowing for this openness regarding the reality of the quantum state is one of the main motivations for investigating retrocausality in general, Leifer explained.

"The reason I think that retrocausality is worth investigating is that we now have a slew of no-go results about realist interpretations of quantum theory, including Bell's theorem, Kochen-Specker, and recent proofs of the reality of the quantum state," he said. "These say that any interpretation that fits into the standard framework for realist interpretations must have features that I would regard as undesirable. Therefore, the only options seem to be to abandon realism or to break out of the standard realist framework.

"Abandoning realism is quite popular, but I think that this robs science of much of its explanatory power and so it is better to find realist accounts where possible. The other option is to investigate more exotic realist possibilities, which include retrocausality, relationalism, and many-worlds. Aside from many-worlds, these have not been investigated much, so I think it is worth pursuing all of them in more detail. I am not personally committed to the retrocausal solution over and above the others, but it does seem possible to formulate it rigorously and investigate it, and I think that should be done for several of the more exotic possibilities."

Can't have both time symmetry and no-retrocausality

In their paper, Leifer and Pusey also reformulate the usual idea of time symmetry in physics, which is based on reversing a physical process by replacing t with –t in the equations of motion. The physicists develop a stronger concept of time symmetry here in which reversing a process is not only possible but that the probability of occurrence is the same whether the process is going forward or backward.

The physicists' main result is that a quantum theory that assumes both this kind of time symmetry and that retrocausality is not allowed runs into a contradiction. They describe an experiment illustrating this contradiction, in which the time symmetry assumption requires that the forward and backward processes have the same probabilities, but the no-retrocausality assumption requires that they are different.

So ultimately everything boils down to the choice of whether to keep time symmetry or no-retrocausality, as Leifer and Pusey's argument shows that you can't have both. Since time symmetry appears to be a fundamental physical symmetry, they argue that it makes more sense to allow for retrocausality. Doing so would eliminate the need for action-at-a-distance in Bell tests, and it would still be possible to explain why using retrocausality to send information is forbidden.

"The case for embracing retrocausality seems stronger to me for the following reasons," Leifer said. "First, having retrocausality potentially allows us to resolve the issues raised by other no-go theorems, i.e., it enables us to have Bell correlations without action-at-a-distance. So, although we still have to explain why there is no signaling into the past, it seems that we can collapse several puzzles into just one. That would not be the case if we abandon time symmetry instead.

"Second, we know that the existence of an arrow of time already has to be accounted for by thermodynamic arguments, i.e., it is a feature of the special boundary conditions of the universe and not itself a law of physics. Since the ability to send signals only into the future and not into the past is part of the definition of the arrow of time, it seems likely to me that the inability to signal into the past in a retrocausal universe could also come about from special boundary conditions, and does not need to be a law of physics. Time symmetry seems less likely to emerge in this way (in fact, we usually use thermodynamics to explain how the apparent time asymmetry that we observe in nature arises from time-symmetric laws, rather than the other way round)."

As the physicists explain further, the whole idea of retrocausality is so difficult to accept because we don't ever see it anywhere else. The same is true of action-at-a-distance. But that doesn't mean that we can assume that no-retrocausality and no-action-at-a-distance are true of reality in general. In either case, physicists want to explain why one of these properties emerges only in certain situations that are far removed from our everyday observations.

"One way of looking at all the no-go theorems is in terms of fine-tunings," Leifer explained. "You notice a property of the predictions of the theory and you assume that this property is also true of reality. Then you show that this is incompatible with reproducing the predictions of quantum theory and you have a no-go theorem.

"For example, in Bell's Theorem, we notice that we cannot send superluminal signals so we assume there are no superluminal influences in reality, but this gets us into conflict with the experimentally observed predictions. Notice that it is not really superluminal influences per se that are the biggest problem. If we were able to send signals faster than light we would simply say, 'Oh well, Einstein was wrong. Relativity theory is just incorrect.' And then get on with doing physics. But that is not what happened: no signaling still holds on the level of what we observe, it is just that there is a tension between this and what must be going on in reality to reproduce what we observe. If there are superluminal influences, then why can't we observe them directly? This is the puzzle that cries out for explanation."

Implications and questioning assumptions

If retrocausality is a feature of the quantum world, then it would have vast implications for physicists' understanding of the foundations of quantum theory. Perhaps the biggest significance is the implication for the Bell tests, showing that distant particles really cannot influence each other, but rather—as Einstein and others believed—that quantum theory is incomplete. If the new results are true, then retrocausality may be one of the missing pieces that makes quantum theory complete.

"I think that different interpretations [of quantum theory] have different implications for how we might go about generalizing standard quantum theory," Leifer said. "This might be needed to construct the correct theory of quantum gravity, or even to resolve some issues in high-energy physics given that the unification of the other three forces is still up in the air in the light of LHC results. So I think that future theories built on the ideas of existing interpretations are where we might see a difference, but admittedly we are quite far from figuring out how this might work at present.

"Speculatively, if there is retrocausality in the universe, then it might be the case that there are certain eras, perhaps near the big bang, in which there is not a definite arrow of causality. You might imagine that a signature of such an era might show up in cosmological data, such as the cosmic microwave background. However, this is very speculative, and I have no idea what signatures we might expect yet."

The physicists don't have any experiments lined up to test retrocausality—but as the idea is more an interpretation of observations rather than making new observations, what's needed most may not be a test but more theoretical support.

"As far as direct experimental tests of retrocausality go, the status is not much different from other things in the foundations of quantum mechanics," Leifer said. "We never test one assumption in isolation, but always in conjunction with many others, and then we have to decide which one to reject on other grounds. For example, you might think that Bell experiments show that nature is nonlocal, but only if you have first decided to accept other assumptions, such as realism and no-retrocausality. So, you might say that Bell experiments already provide evidence for retrocausality if you are disinclined to reject realism or locality. Similarly, the kind of experiments we describe in our paper provide some evidence for retrocausality, but only if you refuse to reject the other assumptions.

"In fact, the situation is really the same in all scientific experiments. There are a host of assumptions about the workings of the experimental apparatus that you have to accept in order to conclude that the experiment shows the effect you are looking for. It is just that, in the case of quantum foundations, the subject is very controversial, so we are more likely to question basic assumptions than we are in the case of, say, a medical drug trial. However, such assumptions are always there and it is always possible to question them."

Explore further: Proposed test would offer strongest evidence yet that the quantum state is real

More information: Matthew S. Leifer and Matthew F. Pusey. "Is a time symmetric interpretation of quantum theory possible without retrocausality?" Proceedings of The Royal Society A. DOI: 10.1098/rspa.2016.0607 . Also at arXiv:1607.07871 [quant-ph]

Related Stories

Physicists demonstrate new way to violate local causality

April 21, 2017

(Phys.org)—For the first time, physicists have experimentally demonstrated the violation of "bilocal causality"—a concept that is related to the more standard local causality, except that it accounts for the precise way ...

All quantum communication involves nonlocality

April 1, 2016

Researchers of CWI, University of Gdansk, Gdansk University of Technology, Adam Mickiewicz University and the University of Cambridge have proven that quantum communication is based on nonlocality. They show that whenever ...

Researchers explore quantum entanglement

February 8, 2013

Albert Einstein called quantum entanglement—two particles in different locations, even on other sides of the universe, influencing each other—"spooky action at a distance."

Bell correlations measured in half a million atoms

April 17, 2017

(Phys.org)—Physicists have demonstrated Bell correlations in the largest physical system to date—an ensemble of half a million atoms at an ultracold temperature of 25 µK. The presence of Bell correlations indicates that ...

Recommended for you

Magic number colloidal clusters

December 14, 2018

Complexity in nature often results from self-assembly, and is considered particularly robust. Compact clusters of elemental particles can be shown to be of practical relevance, and are found in atomic nuclei, nanoparticles ...

Tangled magnetic fields power cosmic particle accelerators

December 13, 2018

Magnetic field lines tangled like spaghetti in a bowl might be behind the most powerful particle accelerators in the universe. That's the result of a new computational study by researchers from the Department of Energy's ...

271 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

RobertKarlStonjek
3.4 / 5 (7) Jul 05, 2017
Why go to such extremes when there is a perfectly logical explanation for the famous Bell tests. At the speed of light, which is the speed that photons travel, extrapolation of special relativity Lorentz transformations says that the distance between emitter and absorber falls to zero and the interval between emission and absorption also fall to zero. If this is true then the emission and absorption events are, for the photon, the same event as there is no separation of distance or interval.

Thus in the photon's world, the two photons are in physical contact at the time one of them is detected, at some distance by the measure of non-light-speed observers.

Why is special relativity routinely ignored and even absurd theories conjured up to explain what should have been obvious even 112 years ago?
sirdumpalot
2 / 5 (3) Jul 05, 2017
Yet with the relational interpretation you need neither action at a distance nor retrocausality.. just give up the metaphysics of ontological realism.
Gigel
5 / 5 (2) Jul 05, 2017
The special relativity argument may be correct from the point of view of a photon (although I'm not sure about the time interval), but from the point of view of an external observer things look different by the same theory. But there may be an insight there.
Dingbone
Jul 05, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingbone
Jul 05, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingbone
Jul 05, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (6) Jul 05, 2017
jack_sarfatti
3.8 / 5 (4) Jul 05, 2017
Isotherm7
5 / 5 (2) Jul 05, 2017
thanks jack. I am just a retired experimental physicist but I have long puzzled at the almost complete shut-out of retrocausality from possible interpretations of the Bell results.
Dingbone
Jul 05, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
EmceeSquared
4 / 5 (4) Jul 05, 2017
AmritSorli:
this is nonsense.


Why did you post that nonsense? "Scientific Publishing Group" isn't a peer reviewed journal, it's not science, it's a scam:
http://scienceblo...g-group/

Don't post that non-science scam stuff on this science site. Don't post National Enquirer articles here either.
sedumjoy
not rated yet Jul 05, 2017
What experiment is he proposing? His definition says the past if affected but no communication is taking place , that's just the reverse of entanglement so to speak. By definition if the past is changed in anyway then it was never the past to begin with. It's just the definition. The same thing happens with the speed of light violation. Causality within a light cone would be violated. It would be the effect happened before the cause but by definition the cause came before the effect in order for the effect to be an effect. The author is confusing himself , possibly if he can create an experiment where measurements take place that may help him understand the principles better.
Dingbone
Jul 05, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
EmceeSquared
3 / 5 (2) Jul 05, 2017
"[Retrocausality] does not mean that signals can be communicated from the future to the past—such signaling would be forbidden even in a retrocausal theory due to thermodynamic reasons. Instead, retrocausality means that, when an experimenter chooses the measurement setting with which to measure a particle, that decision can influence the properties of that particle (or another particle) in the past, even before the experimenter made their choice. In other words, a decision made in the present can influence something in the past."

How can the decision in the present influence something in the past without signaling the past?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Jul 05, 2017
Most if not all interpretations of QM involve action outside the light cone. Bohm uses pilot waves; Copenhagen has wavefunction collapse; TIQM has Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory, which uses a different kind of pilot wave; Consistent Histories assigns probabilities to events in the past; Many Worlds has interaction between alternative universes; that gives a pretty good overview, I think.

There's something intrinsically odd going on in this area. It's possible that retrocausality is required for any consistent formulation of an interpretation of QM, and if this is so, perhaps the author is right and we should just include it and move on.
Erik
5 / 5 (1) Jul 06, 2017
This article reminds me of Cramer's Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (TIQM). Retrocausality is an essential feature via advanced & retarded psi waves forming a 4D standing wave linking events.

https://en.wikipe...retation
Gigel
5 / 5 (2) Jul 06, 2017
Lorentz transformations says that the distance between emitter and absorber falls to zero and the interval between emission and absorption also fall to zero

I'm not sure what frame you are using there, but shouldn't distance and time interval vary in opposite ways? I think the 4-distance, i.e. c^2 t^2-r^2 should be constant in all frames, but again I'm not very sure what you are referring to.
Gigel
5 / 5 (3) Jul 06, 2017

How can the decision in the present influence something in the past without signaling the past?

As I understand it, the influence manifests on different branches of the same phenomenon, at the same time moment, either the present or the future with respect to the time of measurement, via the past.

E.g.: you entangle 2 particles, then one of them is to be measured. The actual measurement of that particle affects its past down to the entanglement moment, thus affecting the state of the second particle. This is evident when the second particle is measured too, which happens either at the same time or after the measurement of the first particle, but not before it (because then the second particle would become the first). It is a sort of causality at play.

One could think of this in terms of states. Particle state would not be time dependent, but it would be a state for all times, comprising all the states that the particle has at different times.
winthrom
not rated yet Jul 06, 2017
I have a different view on this: Consider that at the instant of entanglement, two (or more) particles are not yet in defined decoherent rest states. That is, a lower energy state where the measurable states of each particle are individuals has not yet been achieved. In this condition the particles separate moving forward in time and away from each other in space. The particles are linked by the space/time(0) point at which they became entangled, and each particle is a forward projection in time and space linked to the entanglement space/time(0) through the fabric of space/time itself. When either particle decoheres at space/time(1) that state of lower energy releases the space/time(0) link to the other particles entanglement space/time(2) point, which allows the second particle to decohere at that space/time(2) point. Locality is preserved at the space/time(0) point and the traveling back in time along the space/time fabric of decoherence completely hides the process to us.
Ojorf
2 / 5 (4) Jul 06, 2017
How can the decision in the present influence something in the past without signaling the past?


In the same way as entanglement. No information can be communicated, but the two particles do influence each other when separated in space.

So although no info can be communicated a particle can influence itself when separated in time.
Dingbone
Jul 06, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingbone
Jul 06, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingbone
Jul 06, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingbone
Jul 06, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingbone
Jul 06, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
taka
1 / 5 (1) Jul 06, 2017
First they made incorrect simplifications - Time is NOT a dimension, physic is NOT time symmetric space is not fundamental but secondary phenomena. And then they start to interpolate world with these erroneous assumptions and get even more "stranger" results.
Dingbone
Jul 06, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
idjyit
4 / 5 (1) Jul 06, 2017
I like the concept, if you can accept the idea that all particle mass including photonic mass is a T=0 construct explaining it's persistence in our universe, and take it one step further and call space at 0 kelvin a T=0 construct, then it's easy to extrapolate the space t=0 construct and the particle T=0 construct actually belonging to the same overall system. i.e. 0 distance so information and energy can pass between them freely.

Bode Einstein condensate, entanglement, The Big Bang all would benefit from this.
Dingbone
Jul 06, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingbone
Jul 06, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingbone
Jul 06, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingbone
Jul 06, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingbone
Jul 06, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Jul 06, 2017
There's something intrinsically odd going on in this area. It's possible that retrocausality is required for any consistent formulation of an interpretation of QM, and if this is so, perhaps the author is right and we should just include it and move on.

The way I read it the various ways of interpretation could be equivalent. It then just becomes a matter of taste which 'intuitive' part of the way we view the universe you wish to drop...Locality, realism, arrow of time, ...
Da Schneib
not rated yet Jul 06, 2017
@antialias, the interpretations all *have to be* equivalent in terms of what they say we'll actually see in an experiment. None of them changes the underlying theory, which is QM, and none of them changes the underlying reality of the outcomes of experiments. If we find a way in which one of them differs from either QM or reality, it must be rejected.
Merrit
5 / 5 (1) Jul 06, 2017
This article makes a great point that every experiment has assumptions involved. In most sciences we can constrain and eliminate most variables and know enough not to make any erroneous assumptions. But, in QM and cosmology I don't think that is necessarily the case. Cosmology in particular suffers from not being able to the kind of controlled experiments other sciences can do and our dark matter and dark energy issues are likely nothing more than compounded erroneous assumptions.
Merrit
5 / 5 (1) Jul 06, 2017
As for the various quantum weirdness we have discovered, it all comes down to minimizing processing power requirements. A wave function is much easier to process than keeping real time position etc. of every particle in the universe. Our reality tries to minimize the times actual values need to be calculated such as when we make a measurement. Entanglement combines the wave equations together rather than calculating the interaction. When we measure one particle it collapses the wave equation which effects the particle it was entangled with. The only explanation I can come up with for why our reality needs to minimize processing power is that our reality is nothing more than a simulation.
theon
1 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2017
This gymnastics in absurdities is not needed once one admits that Bell inequality violation has no consequence what so ever for Nature. The contextuality loophole is a theoretical failure which prevents a proper derivation of Bell ineqalities. It can not be closed otherwise than by abandoning the subject.
Dingbone
Jul 07, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
EmceeSquared
1 / 5 (1) Jul 07, 2017
Ojorf:
How can the decision in the present influence something in the past without signaling the past?


In the same way as entanglement.


By "the same way as entanglement" you mean "predicted mathematically and later demonstrated but not actually explained", and this time violating not "merely" the speed of light limit in relativity but fundamental causality of both intuition and all other understood physics - sure. Not particularly illuminating though.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Jul 07, 2017
@antialias, the interpretations all *have to be* equivalent in terms of what they say we'll actually see in an experiment.

I don't think they have to be, because there may be an (as yet unthought of) experiment that could delineate between the various interpretations. Only if there is no possible experiment then they must be equivalent. (i.e. in that case it must be possible to mathematically transform each interpretation into another. From the above article I think the gist is that this is still an open issue)

By "the same way as entanglement" you mean "predicted mathematically and later demonstrated but not actually explained"

It is explained in QM. the whole thing hinges on the subtle way in which information is defined and how it differs from quantum infomation. What they mean is that classical information cannot be sent back (or at FTL speeds to entangled pairs). QM information - which cannot be used for classical information transmission - can.
EmceeSquared
1 / 5 (1) Jul 07, 2017
antialias_physorg:
QM information - which cannot be used for classical information transmission - can.


Yet the QM info does transmit into classical systems, otherwise we wouldn't be typing the arrived info in the classical system of this webpage.

So are you saying that a QM (not classical) signal is sent from present to past, determining the later results that sent the QM signal back (a perfectly legit yet counterintuitive and extraordinary stable loop)? Isn't that sending a signal to the past, albeit a QM signal? IOW, the article's disclaimer that retrocausality doesn't send a signal to the past simply disclaims a classical signal, not a QM signal?
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Jul 07, 2017
Really? OK, OK, I'll explain, once time has passed, it is gone. You can compute it, but you can't go there, less you in some local loop, also advancing in time; like riding a Merry Go Round. Oh I see mom each loop, I'm seeing the previous? Duh. juz say'n

I don't get it? You can't give a proof of causality with a non-causal tool! A tool, not even a theory. Com'on man!
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2017
There was so much noise and so little signal in this thread, but going down the list I find some sane heads (or at least good reference links) - thanks antialias et cetera - so it is worthwhile to give a reference. I think Huw, Leifer and their classical mechanics take is not going anywhere. The consensus seems to have put the absence of spatial information in entangled systems on par with absence of causal information:

"Walther's group has shown that it is impossible to say in which order these photons pass through a pair of gates as they zip around the lab. It's not that this information gets lost or jumbled — it simply doesn't exist. In Walther's experiments, there is no well-defined order of events."

[ http://www.nature...08_RHBox ]

Einstein may be displeased, but general relativity will not be. =D
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2017
What the "use the calculation apparatus" and the "classical world" scientists agree on is that this temporary lack of classical causality is important to hopefully elucidate quantum physics.

"In everyday language, that sounds nonsensical. But within the mathematical formalism of quantum theory, ambiguity about causation emerges in a perfectly logical and consistent way. And by creating systems that lack a clear flow of cause and effect2, researchers now think they can tap into a rich realm of possibilities. [Boosting quantum computing.]

What's more, thinking about the 'causal structure' of quantum mechanics — which events precede or succeed others — might prove to be more productive, and ultimately more intuitive, than couching it in the typical mind-bending language that describes photons as being both waves and particles, or events as blurred by a haze of uncertainty."
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
3 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2017
Now I too start to look as noise, too much comment. :-/

Just one reflection and response, then:

In retrospect [sic] this - the absence of time information in entangled systems on par with absence of spatial information - is natural. A low energy (linearized) quantum field theory of gravity is perfectly well defined all the way to the event horizon of black holes, quantum physics and general relativity play nice up to Planck energies as much as everything else that can be couched in terms of quantum particle fields does in principle. So spacetime information should be absent entirely in entangled systems.

@Emcee: "Yet the QM info does transmit into classical systems".

Classical information emerges in the classical limit, sure.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Jul 07, 2017
...The periodicity of time dimension...
A dimension is periodic? I don't think time is a dimension anyway. It is a relationship between observed motions. Which observations of course are uncertain, meaning retrocausality would naturally appear as a result of the uncertainty principle.
pepe2907
1 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2017
So, they basically exchange "spooky action at a distance" /without signalling/ in space, for "spooky action at a distance" /without signalling/ in time.
Serious evolution in theory, no doubt. :)
And of course an experiment on this is pretty much theoretically impossible, as there's no signalling. It kind of "just happens" that way. :)
Ojorf
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2017
So are you saying that a QM (not classical) signal is sent from present to past, determining the later results that sent the QM signal back (a perfectly legit yet counterintuitive and extraordinary stable loop)? Isn't that sending a signal to the past, albeit a QM signal? IOW, the article's disclaimer that retrocausality doesn't send a signal to the past simply disclaims a classical signal, not a QM signal?


Entanglement:
A ftl QM signal between two widely separated particles enables them to correlate in some property that can be measured. No classical information is exchanged.

Retrocausality:
A retrocausal QM signal enables two widely separated particles to correlate in some property that can be measured. No classical information is exchanged.
So the retrocausal QM signal enables the particles to exchange information about the measurement while they were still in contact, and before they were separated, explaining how they manage to correlate.

pepe2907
1 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2017
But, actually the two "phenomena" are separated - in time.
And there's no "retrocasual QM signal".
idjyit
1 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2017
Retro causality could be a simple method to resolve a time dilated reaction with the observers non dilated observation window.

A mathematical way of resolving different temporal reference frames.
pepe2907
5 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2017
Even more: if there's no signalling back in time, the only other way is to somehow consider for the particle to have some form of "memory" about it's future state. But in the context of the QM's math aparatus where there's no time "direction" it would be equivalent of "predetermination" /at the moment of entanglement/, as the "resolution" happens in both ends of the time interval meaning the result is kind of allready determined at the time of entanglement, meaning there's no real entanglement, and I think /without being a specialist in QM/, most quantum physicists would strongly disagree.
pepe2907
5 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2017
Actually, correct me if I am wrong, but what they propose means that with or without "signalling", the "resolution" /information about it/ is "available" at both ends of the time interval /as between T1 being the moment of entanglement, and T2 - tat of the "resolution" as returning in a more determined state/ and that means there's no actual entanglement at all.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2017
@antialias, the interpretations all *have to be* equivalent in terms of what they say we'll actually see in an experiment.
I don't think they have to be, because there may be an (as yet unthought of) experiment that could delineate between the various interpretations. Only if there is no possible experiment then they must be equivalent. (i.e. in that case it must be possible to mathematically transform each interpretation into another. From the above article I think the gist is that this is still an open issue)
Hmmmm, I think the QM they describe is all the same QM. There are multiple different mathematical descriptions of it, but these descriptions are all complementary; one of the most important mathematical proofs in physics showed that Heisenberg's matrix mechanics is equivalent to Schroedinger's wave equations.
[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2017
[contd]
And when Feynman formulated the path integral approach he showed that it, too, is mathematically equivalent to both wave equations and the canonical approach taken from matrix mechanics. There is no reason to doubt any of this. They all say the same thing.

Fundamentally, then, all the interpretations must describe the same underlying theory, and that theory has been extensively tested to produce accurate descriptions of experiments. What it does not do is follow classical logic. The exact interpretation of the manner in which it does not is what the differences between the interpretations is all about, and since it cannot be described in classical terms, each interpretation has some point where it "just doesn't seem logical." And this is the natural emergence of the non-classicality of QM; as a result trying to describe it in "logical" terms just doesn't work because QM doesn't follow classical logic.
[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2017
[contd]
Thus, the very nature of QM means that anytime we try to interpret it into classical terms, we're going to run into something that doesn't follow classical logic. So over the years, trying to interpret QM has explored most of the approaches to minimize the amount of disturbance to classical logic. Which particular tenets you violate (there is only one universe, things develop over time/cause and effect, each event has a single history, the observer is not part of the observed) you wind up with an interpretation that defies some element of classical logic.

This is why I don't think there will ever be an experiment that can single out one particular interpretation.
Dingbone
Jul 08, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
pepe2907
5 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2017
Somebody here obviously never heard that time is generally considered a "space" dimension, so exchanging /action at a/ distance through space for distance through time doesn't realy "gain" anithing.
Unles of course you don't really consider something /else, separate from the entangled particles/ carrying a signal back in time and then again forward /in time/ at the exact same spacetime coordinates as the particle itself /or id should also "know" in advance the exact position in spacetime where the second particle should be measured :)// but /still/ somehow separated from that particle /impossible actually accord. QM/, because if the "entangled" particles themselves carry that information /about their different state at the moment T2 - "final" :)/ they are not entangled as they are different while travelling to their separate positions.
Hell, they switch a messy situation /spooky action/ for one which completely kills all the fish. :)
Da Schneib
1 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2017
@torbjorn, great article. This inability to provide a precise time ordering of events is what leads to retrocausality arguments, and also to anti-local-realism. It's also implied by the time-energy Heisenberg uncertainty relation.
Dingbone
Jul 08, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
idjyit
not rated yet Jul 08, 2017
Indeed, people think that Quantum Gravity is a cause not an effect.
If it was a cause then particle colliders would have achieved total energy conversion but they haven't, those particles continue to exist in fragmented forms, well beyond quantum gravitys' ability to achieve persistence.
Dingbone
Jul 08, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
idjyit
not rated yet Jul 08, 2017
No "seeing" something in advance violates the premise of retrocausality.
It only comes into play after the observation by definition.

The human soul is definitely capable of transcending time, I've lived it but can't explain it.
Going back to 0 kelvin being a T=0 state, it implies that space is always in a T=0 state regardless of ambient particle energy states, how our souls interface into that is impossible to explain with current instruments and understanding.

Dingbone
Jul 08, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
idjyit
not rated yet Jul 08, 2017
Prediction is one thing, actual knowledge of the future 40 or 50 years in advance is another.
The same goes for thought conversation, impossible to explain or prove unless you have actually been a party to it. All life forms on earth are capable of it to one degree or another.
Dingbone
Jul 08, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
HarrisonC
5 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2017
The article states: "physicists don't have any experiments lined up to test retrocausality." But doesn't the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment show this? In this experiment, the measurement results for entangled particle A are affected by choices made on the measurement of an entangled partner particle A', even when those choices are made after the results for particle A are recorded (but before they are observed). The effect (the measurement record for A) precedes the cause (measurement of idler particle A'). For these experiments, time is reversible. Time reversibility means that effects can just as easily precede causes. (note: Bell's theorem precludes choices being predetermined by hidden variables)

The conceptual problem for quantum mechanics is that it extrapolates reversibility, which can be deduced for carefully controlled experiments, to all physical processes. The real problem for quantum mechanics is reconciling wave function collapse with time reversibility.
Dingbone
Jul 08, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingbone
Jul 08, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingbone
Jul 08, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingbone
Jul 08, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2017
Huh? Reality: Charge is never created or destroyed. Charge is the field described by Coulomb, Maxwell, and the field is only updated with the motion of charge, wrinkles moves at speed c from center. A media of charge distracts the field with the motion of charge. Light, or wave motion of the existing field, reflects the motion of the originating charge.

Light speed is the original_wavelenght/measured_period, the velocity may be from +/- infinity. Charge is the field and it exist with no beginning or end, only a center, an infinite set of pairs. QM? Again? Juz say'n Wake up!
Seeker2
not rated yet Jul 08, 2017
Reality: Charge is never created or destroyed.
Really. I was thinking maybe lightening? Or leptogenesis?
EmceeSquared
3 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2017
Seeker2:
I don't think time is a dimension anyway.


Well established science proves time is a dimension. Post your peer-reviewed science that disproves that time is a dimension.

Or don't post those anti-science speculations in this science site.
EmceeSquared
3 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2017
taka:
Time is NOT a dimension


Well established science proves time is a dimension. Post your peer-reviewed science that disproves that time is a dimension.

Or don't post those anti-science speculations in this science site.
EmceeSquared
1 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2017
pepe2907:
Somebody here obviously never heard that time is generally considered a "space" dimension, so exchanging /action at a/ distance through space for distance through time doesn't realy "gain" anithing.


I couldn't parse the rest of that post. But though time is a dimension just as space's 3 dimensions are, it's not the same. Time is a fractional dimension, not an integer one like the 3 space dimensions:
http://iopscience...16/9/012

It takes more energy (perhaps infinitely more) to move in the time axis "backwards" direction than in its forwards, which is why time is an "arrow". So indeed trading instantaneous spatial travel for roundtrip time travel seems like no solution at all.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2017
This is why I don't think there will ever be an experiment that can single out one particular interpretation.

I was more thinking along the lines of when we get to a theory of quantum garvity. There has to be some addition to the theory that will change it (probably in a very subtle way as the rest of it works so well). Maybe then one of the interpretations will make a little more 'sense' than the others. but you're right, if the various formulations can really be already turned into one another then there's currently no 'favorite' way of looking at it and it just boils down to a matter of taste.
Dingbone
Jul 08, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
winthrom
not rated yet Jul 08, 2017
I believe a detailed read of:

https://en.wikipe...opagator

will explain this matter to everyone's satisfaction.
Dingbone
Jul 08, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2017
...This model also naturally explains, why time has a direction (arrow) like any other entropy density gradient - whereas the space hasn't.
Not so sure, @Dingbone. Space only expands, apparently, which may be why we see the time arrow as we do. @emc*2 Sorry about those anti-science speculations, whatever they might be.
Dingbone
Jul 08, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2017
...our Universe is shrinking instead by its gravity and whole the notion of Universe expansion and contraction is just wavelength dependent effect centered around wavelength of CMB radiation (~ 1.063 mm).
Ergo the big bang is a myth, along with leptogenesis and baryogenesis? Just checking. @emc*2 Would you have some feeling of anti-science speculation coming on?
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2017
...our Universe is shrinking instead by its gravity...
Well @Dingbone I can understand your misconceptions about gravity. I don't know of any real good peer-reviewed references to just what gravity is, with the possible exception of entropic gravity (probably not peer-reviewed either). So let's start with the expansion of spacetime. I know it's counter-intuitive but it seems there are several of these kinds of ideas being blandished around here.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2017
@anti:
I was more thinking along the lines of when we get to a theory of quantum garvity. There has to be some addition to the theory that will change it (probably in a very subtle way as the rest of it works so well). Maybe then one of the interpretations will make a little more 'sense' than the others.
I think that's possible but unlikely. The thing about quantum gravity is, since we haven't needed it so far it's only important in the limit of extremely high energies/short distances. I don't think that will affect quantum effects like entanglement.

but you're right, if the various formulations can really be already turned into one another then there's currently no 'favorite' way of looking at it and it just boils down to a matter of taste.
Actually, more a matter of utility. I think when we get better at understanding this, we'll find an overarching interpretation that makes use of all the others. But we've got a lot of math to do between now and then.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2017
Dingbone:
Time is NOT a dimension

Well established science proves time is a dimension. Post your peer-reviewed science that disproves that time is a dimension. Or don't post those anti-science speculations in this science site


What is ideology - insisting on peer-reviewed science? Yeah, it's the ideology that values fact over silly handwaving. Without peer review of them, correct assertions are indistinguishable from silly handwaving. So without peer review, it all might as well be silly handwaving. While if it's correct, it might take longer but it will be supported by peer review.

With perhaps a very few instances where the real world, human practice of peer review fails to consider and support a novel correct statement. But the alternative is that statement remains indistinguishable from silly handwaving. And so peer review it is.

There is no other better "ideology" for this, and there is no infrastructure without at least that ideology.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2017
Food for thought: if time is not a dimension, how come you can convert it to one in Special Relativity Theory? Says so right there in the Lorentz Transform:

x' = x-vt/β
y' = y
z' = z
t' = (t-(vx/c²))/β

Here we see x turning into t and vice versa. If t is something different than x, how can x' equal x-vt times an expression? It would be like subtracting oranges from apples. Nonsense.

And remember, SRT works; we have to compensate for SRT effects when we use GPS, and the Deep Space Network we use to communicate with missions to Jupiter, Saturn, and Pluto has to compensate for it as well. Frequency shifts, don'cha know.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2017
One of the important things to remember about science is consilience. This means that the same results come from completely disconnected lines of inquiry. For a good really cross-discipline example, molecular biology draws on the same physics as condensed matter physics does.

We have three completely separate lines of investigation for QM: Shroedinger wave equations, Heisenberg matrix mechanics, and Feynman path integrals. Each derived ab initio, and each later proven to be mathematically equivalent to the others. At this point, denying QM is a long, grueling walk to the top of the mountain. Bring high hard boots and a lunch. Good luck.

Same with SRT. This isn't some sort of esoteric theory; it's been proven time and again over millions of experiments. Once again, long walk, boots, lunch, good luck.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2017
No awareness of reality is very dangerous!
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2017
@Hyper, you're correct: ignoring the results of experiments is the path to doom. The annals of science are filled with the downfalls (some spectacular) of those who did, and with the final success of those who did not.

For a great example, check out Galileo and the moons of Jupiter, and the impact on the Copernican hypothesis and the Ptolemaic hypothesis. The Catholic Church has still not lived that one down. "Eppur si muove." They recently started apologizing; when they apologize for burning Giordano Bruno alive, I might start listening.

Repeatable experiment is one of the foundations of science. The truth will out.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2017
For another example, how about Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier? The French Revolution put him to the guillotine during the Terror. When informed of his death, Lagrange (discoverer of the Lagrangian, a fundamental principle of both QM and relativity) said, "It took them only an instant to cut off this head, and one hundred years might not suffice to reproduce its like." Eventually his work on measures had its effect on the SI system of units we still use today, and his work on the conservation of mass remains to this day definitive in its findings. The French are still trying to live it down.
Dingbone
Jul 08, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingbone
Jul 08, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2017
Success? Thought we were talking about physics, not belief, and philosophy. From where I sit, all of it is flawed. No philosophy without respect, no success without logic or a set of fools driven by gain! Success? Give me a break!
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Jul 08, 2017
@dingbat, there isn't any "stationary space" in cosmology or SRT. This is known as the "strawman fallacy," where you make up arguments for your opposition and oppose what they never said. Not to mention, SRT doesn't describe all spacetime, only that which is not changing due to the cosmological constant.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2017
@Hyper:
Thought we were talking about physics, not belief, and philosophy.
You're the one talking about philosophy. Provide accepted peer reviewed papers if you argue otherwise.

Success against experiment is the ultimate acid test. If you have no explanation for why your conjectures fail against experiment they must be dismissed as unphysical. Get over it.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Jul 08, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@dingbat, there isn't any "stationary space" in cosmology or SRT. This is known as the "strawman fallacy," where you make up arguments for your opposition and oppose what they never said. Not to mention, SRT doesn't describe all spacetime, only that which is not changing due to the cosmological constant.
Careful. Your response to Dingbone is parroting increasingly questionable 'interpretations' from maths/geom theoretical Relativity abstract construct, not reality as such irrespective of scientist's analytical/interpretational 'abstract constructs' developed for 'blind calculation/prediction' of 'observable effects' rather than providing actual physical explanations of 'effective mechanisms' causing those effects observed/analyzed via our abstract construct 'tools'.

Your response demonstrates how GIGO results whenever conflating/confusing 'map' with 'territory'.

Fundamentally, a universal frame revealed as 'static reference' by 'spinning body' cases.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2017
@RC, no chance I'm going to respond to your typical FUD.

Get over it.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jul 08, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@RC, no chance I'm going to respond to your typical FUD.

Get over it.
That's your loss not mine, mate. :) You have done this too often; ignoring/evading/insulting etc, and hence missing out on scientific/logical enlightenment in areas/issues where you sorely needed it, because you either were not up to date or just parroting flawed beliefs rather than actual real science/comprehension based on reality not assumptions from incomplete theory/interpretations re observed reality. But that is your choice: One can take a horse to water but one can't make it drink. Another saying also comes to mind: Casting pearls before swine. Either way, it's become your and that 'gangs' signature MO; in lieu of fairminded and objective science/logic discourse as demanded by the true scientific method principles, all of which your above 'response' just betrayed because your ego is stronger than your curiosity to know/learn irrespective of person/source. Too bad.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2017
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am just fine and dandy, thanks for asking.

Looks like the troll/mod/mafia caught up with you again. How did that happen, eh?

Laissez les bons temps rouler Skippy. (That's coonass for: How you like me now Skippy? I did try to warn you.)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2017
Got those pretty little straps around your ankles
Got those shiny little chains around your heart.
You got to have your independence
but you don't know just where to start.

Desperation in the singles bars
all those jerkoffs in their fancy cars,
you can't believe your reviews.

Oh, no, you can't do that,
once you started wearin' those shoes.

Henley really gets it sometimes.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (4) Jul 08, 2017
RealityCheck:
Your response to Dingbone is parroting increasingly questionable 'interpretations' from maths/geom theoretical Relativity abstract construct, not reality as such irrespective of scientist's analytical/interpretational 'abstract constructs' developed for 'blind calculation/prediction' of 'observable effects' rather than providing actual physical explanations of 'effective mechanisms' causing those effects observed/analyzed via our abstract construct 'tools'.


Please post the peer-reviewed articles that increasingly disprove relativity as conflicting with reality through experiment. Or else drop the trolling.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Jul 09, 2017
...SRT doesn't describe all spacetime, only that which is not changing due to the cosmological constant.
Which, as I understand, does change. Like about 10% or so as you go back in time. Sorry I don't have a precise peer-reviewed link on hand right now. So what is it about the cosmological constant that affects the speed of light? Since that's what SRT uses to describe spacetime. Is it the expansion rate or the energy density of spacetime? Or are the two equivalent? Which raises an important distinction between space and spacetime - namely the possible dependence of spatial characteristics on time.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Jul 09, 2017
cont
It would appear, sorry only un-peer-reviewed speculation, that the speed of light doesn't depend on the energy density of spacetime. At least we think gamma rays propagate at the same speed as microwaves so the speed of light would not depend on the energy density of spacetime. Only its frequency would. That would be consistent with experimental results indicating no trend in changes of the cosmological constant at earlier times. The important conclusion, I believe here, is that the big bang occurred as an excitation of a pre-existing structure of spacetime.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Jul 09, 2017
...SRT doesn't describe all spacetime, only that which is not changing due to the cosmological constant.
Which, as I understand, does change.
Ummmm, that's GRT if you're talking about spacetime changing. SRT applies in flat spacetime, no acceleration no gravity. As far as we can tell the effects of gravity on QM are minimal to nonexistent on the distance and time scales of low energy QM, so it's an excellent approximation of reality as we see it on the surface of the Earth in our labs.

If you need a peer reviewed link for relativity you probably shouldn't be posting on the physics site. You're very close to becoming irrelevant and being put on ignore. I'm willing to correct you when (not if) you stray from real physics, but this kind of arrogance doesn't impress me and looks a lot like trolling.
Dingbone
Jul 09, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingbone
Jul 09, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingbone
Jul 09, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingbone
Jul 09, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingbone
Jul 09, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Jul 09, 2017
...SRT doesn't describe all spacetime, only that which is not changing due to the cosmological constant.
Which, as I understand, does change.
Ummmm, that's GRT if you're talking about spacetime changing.
Well I was but now considering the possibility that GRT applies to the distribution of energy density in spacetime, not the actual structure of spacetime.
SRT applies in flat spacetime, no acceleration no gravity.
Which, as I understand, is flat overall within 1%.
As far as we can tell the effects of gravity on QM are minimal to nonexistent on the distance and time scales of low energy QM, so it's an excellent approximation of reality as we see it on the surface of the Earth in our labs.
No problem here as far as I can see.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Jul 09, 2017
Cosmological constant changes over billions of years if at all, at least in conditions like we can see anywhere in the universe. We conjecture that it might have changed very quickly at the beginning of the universe, but we can see it hasn't changed quickly since then. In fact we aren't sure it's changed at all since the end of the Dark Ages, 13 billion years ago.

Well I was but now considering the possibility that GRT applies to the distribution of energy density in spacetime, not the actual structure of spacetime.
Spacetime tells mass/energy how to move; mass/energy tells spacetime how to curve. That's what the Einstein Field Equations tell us. Quite unambiguously, too.

Which, as I understand, is flat overall within 1%.
It's flat enough that we can't measure it except over tens of millions of light years, except for gravity. This is not something that affects QM.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Jul 09, 2017
@Uncle Ira.
Looks like the troll/mod/mafia caught up with you again. How did that happen, eh?
What are you driveling about now, Ira?
Until you turned up, with your usual bot-voting ignoramus trolling drivel 'contribution', the science/logic discussion has been better than usual. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 09, 2017
@EmceeSquared.
Your response to Dingbone is parroting increasingly questionable 'interpretations' from maths/geom theoretical Relativity abstract construct, not reality as such irrespective of scientist's analytical/interpretational 'abstract constructs' developed for 'blind calculation/prediction' of 'observable effects' rather than providing actual physical explanations of 'effective mechanisms' causing those effects observed/analyzed via our abstract construct 'tools'.
Please post the peer-reviewed articles that increasingly disprove relativity as conflicting with reality through experiment.
You misunderstand me, and what I have been pointing out for years now, mate; probably because you've been influenced by that 'gang' bot-downvoting/censoring attempts which affect what one 'sees' due to filter settings.

But I am heartened by your recent comments acknowledging serious flaws in peer review process, so will spend a few precious minutes more on you.

continued
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (2) Jul 09, 2017
so will spend a few precious minutes more on you.


Oh boy, here we go again. Laissez les bons temps rouler Cher. (That's coonass for: Don't leave out the part about "correct all along",)

RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 09, 2017
@EmceeSquared continued.

Regarding Einstein's Relativity and its "SpaceTIME" construct: Please first go read Einstein's Leyden Address. He expressly states that his 'spacetime' construct was abstraction from physical world, not real mechanistic representation of what's actually physically happening/involved. Hence anyone still parroting others (like Da Schneib did above): "Spacetime tells mass/energy how to move; mass/energy tells spacetime how to curve", is still missing all the important real things, and settling for maths/geom abstraction without comprehension of actual real physical entities/mechanisms underlying that simplistic 'abstract view/model'.

Note: I am pointing out that Einstein's Relativity is an abstract construct, hence INCOMPLETE and hence misleading as to interpretations of reality (not 'wrong' as such, much as Newton's Gravity was incomplete rather than wrong as such).

That is where Cosmology (and QM) theory is still 'stuck' at: Abstractions. Ok? :)
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 09, 2017
@Uncle Ira.
Don't leave out the part about "correct all along",
Seems like that readily and oft-demonstrated bit of reality has finally sunk in, Ira. There may be hope for you yet. :)
betterexists
1 / 5 (3) Jul 09, 2017
Simple to imagine. YES. Need in the Future influences the past. We go to school when parents are still living for the sake of future. We do many things for the sake of future. Ex: Driving to work place to work! We have not yet done certain things, though. We have left vast areas of sand in deserts UNUSED. Find some Cheap Glue, Spray over at a mass scale, scoop up the cake, ship and use it in the future. More of the Hills are already felled to the ground. Leaving out Colarado mountains etc., Blast Away all Hills with Dynamite, so that when need arises, all stones can be put to use.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (3) Jul 09, 2017
RealityCheck:
Einstein's Relativity is an abstract construct, hence INCOMPLETE and hence misleading as to interpretations of reality ([...] Newton's Gravity was incomplete [...]).


Of course it's an abstract construct. What else would it be? A parallel universe in 1:1 scale built by Einstein to explain the original one?

Of course it's incomplete. Nobody says it's complete - by now we all expect to develop another model as different from Einstein's as Einstein's was from Newton's. QM might be the bridge to it, especially insofar as it conflict's with relativity. Scientists are never so excited as when there's a valid sign of "new physics" in peer-reviewed theory or experiments. Besides, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem strongly implies any theory must be incomplete.

So no peer-reviewed articles that increasingly disprove relativity as conflicting with reality through experiment.

Please save your "precious time" and refrain from posting that other stuff.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (4) Jul 09, 2017
betterexists:
Simple to imagine. YES. Need in the Future influences the past. We go to school when parents are still living for the sake of future. We do many things for the sake of future. Ex: Driving to work place to work! We have not yet done certain things, though. We have left vast areas of sand in deserts UNUSED. Find some Cheap Glue, Spray over at a mass scale, scoop up the cake, ship and use it in the future. More of the Hills are already felled to the ground. Leaving out Colarado mountains etc., Blast Away all Hills with Dynamite, so that when need arises, all stones can be put to use.


The only part of that which made sense was where you found some cheap glue, and presumably huffed it.
winthrom
1 / 5 (2) Jul 09, 2017
I suggest an experiment:

(1) Let us run a standard photon entanglement experiment. Ensure that the photons involved travel a long distance in space and time, but are still entangled when observation takes place.

(2) Now run a second standard photon entanglement experiment such that its observation takes place before observation of the first experiment, but back in time from both experiments conclusion and furthermore interferes with the first experiment (in progress) after the first is started and before the observation required in the first experiment.

We then will see if the second experiment changes the first experiment's outcome or if their "back through time" results are independent. By the paper we read above, the results should vary significantly for experiment #1 when experiment #2 is run because #2 will influence a #1 event in progress back in time.

Some such experiment is needed. I assume some of the commenters can and will devise and also run this test.
betterexists
1 / 5 (1) Jul 09, 2017
Simple to imagine. YES. Need in the Future influences the past.
If we need to do shopping, We go the Mall. If you need to eat, We go to the Restaurant. Funny, Right ? It is like that Dead OR Alive Cat inside that Box.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (3) Jul 09, 2017
betterexists:
Simple to imagine. YES. Need in the Future influences the past.
If we need to do shopping, We go the Mall. If you need to eat, We go to the Restaurant. Funny, Right ? It is like that Dead OR Alive Cat inside that Box.


What do these people whose brains are broken get out of spamming the comments of this science blog?
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Jul 09, 2017
Spacetime tells mass/energy how to move;
More specifically, energy density gradients in spacetime tells mass/energy how to move.
mass/energy tells spacetime how to curve.
Right as long as you keep that curve symmetrical. Not sure how you would do that though. Best to say quantized mass/energy stretches or twists the energy density of spacetime. Hope that helps. Hope against all odds, I suppose. But hope springs eternal, I heard somewhere.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Jul 09, 2017
@EmceeSquared
What do these people whose brains are broken get out of spamming the comments of this science blog?
depends upon the person, but the typical troll simply wants attention and to piss someone off

the problem isn't the typical troll, however, as they're easy to spot: shooty, antigorical, etc

with certain other types its about ideology and belief
IOW - it's more like a religious fanaticism than anything else
you can't teach them reality without destroying their current reality (which is a delusion wrapped in faith based proselytizing)

they gain "points" in their deluded minds for standing against the tide
(see eu adherents for this one as it's the best example, then compare their actions to the fundamentalist creationists. the difference is the specific belief details only)

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jul 10, 2017
Spacetime tells mass/energy how to move;
More specifically, energy density gradients in spacetime tells mass/energy how to move.
No, spacetime itself does. Things move along geodesics. When spacetime is curved, things move along the curve. It's called "gravity." I don't know what you mean by "energy density gradients" here; energy is something that exists in and of itself, separate from spacetime, and vice versa.

mass/energy tells spacetime how to curve.
Right as long as you keep that curve symmetrical.
Why?

Not sure how you would do that though.
There is no "doer;" it simply is.

Best to say quantized mass/energy stretches or twists the energy density of spacetime.
Best to say mass and energy curve spacetime and leave it at that.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Jul 10, 2017
@winthrom, seems to me you're pretty much describing the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiment. Unfortunately it didn't clear anything up; the results can be interpreted in terms of retrocausality, or in terms of entangled action at a distance, and come out the same either way.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Jul 10, 2017
energy is something that exists in and of itself, separate from spacetime, and vice versa.
Black magic physics?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jul 10, 2017
Ummm, whut? Oranges are not wrenches; spacetime is not energy. What's "black magic" got to do with it?
winthrom
not rated yet Jul 10, 2017
@Da Schneib,

interesting

wihipedia says:
"While delayed choice experiments have confirmed the seeming ability of measurements made on photons in the present to alter events occurring in the past, this requires a non-standard view of quantum mechanics. If a photon in flight is interpreted as being in a so-called "superposition of states", i.e. if it is interpreted as something that has the potentiality to manifest as a particle or wave, but during its time in flight is neither, then there is no time paradox. This is the standard view, and recent experiments have supported it."
https://en.wikipe...m_eraser

The experiment I proposed does not distinguish a wave vs. particle requirement. It proposes interference that occurs during Exp #1 causes by Exp#2 via retrocausial quantum means. If Exp #2 can interfere with Exp#1 in the past we have a proof of retrocausality.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (3) Jul 10, 2017
Captain Stumpy:
@EmceeSquared
What do these people whose brains are broken get out of spamming the comments of this science blog?
depends upon the person, but the typical troll simply wants attention and to piss someone off
[...]
with certain other types its about ideology and belief
[...]
you can't teach them reality without destroying their current reality (which is a delusion wrapped in faith based proselytizing)

they gain "points" in their deluded minds for standing against the tide


The Phys.org staff is irresponsible for not banning these confirmed trolls and their sockpuppets quicker. The discussion software sucks in many ways, but the lack of metamoderation or any evidence of consequences from low ratings to user accounts is a fatal flaw.

Trolling to destroy science and the world it studies is now well established, with even scientists becoming activists against it. How do we get Phys.org to get its own hands out of its pockets and fight?
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Jul 10, 2017
Allow it. This record of insanity is instructive. This is really funny, we can go backwards in time. OK, we already know what happened? What did you say? You have a theory that can prove that a non causal theory, where one randomizes outcomes, applies real physics to this nonsense, computes the results, and retroactively define causality!

Try, with truth one can define it all, control it all, prove it all, logically, without an illogical premise! However, I admire magicians.
TimLong2001
Jul 10, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Jul 10, 2017
@EmceeSquared
How do we get Phys.org to get its own hands out of its pockets and fight?
there is only one way to address this with a company: it must affect their bottom line ($$)

as it stands right now they make money off the trolls by them having individual log-in's, and those with multiple socks simply create "interest" for the sake of advertising dollars, then they make money off of the perceived interest shown by the fanatic flooding the site with posts (unless one reads the post, which is not usually done)

then there is the cost of change

considering i (and a few others) have given the site plans to not only moderate, but create a science discourse site, for minimal financial output (mostly free- the cost of admin changing the permissions of a few users) and the site has not only *refused it*, but is actively getting worse and allowing the trolls to overtake the site... then one wonders
EmceeSquared
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 10, 2017
Lex Talonis:
since when is your IQ higher than your arsehole?


Like most healthy humans, I keep my intelligence higher than my arsehole. You evidently colocate yours.

Really, what kind of stupid question is that? What kind of masochist asks a stupid question like that, which just begs to get flipped on you. It's like the rest of your posts, which just scream "I'm a sick loser, please tell me that so I can be more miserable". Why don't you just type your garbage into an email and send it to yourself? Nobody else thinks anything of you other than that you're a goopy worm.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 10, 2017
@EmceeSquared.

Glad we agree re abstract constructs. Do you also agree about "misleading" potential of such abstract constructs, especially since "incomplete" theory is inevitable outcome of such? Latter starkly demonstrable, ie: mainstream theory not yet complete even after hundred years of Relativity/QM abstract constructs, interpretations etc.
Of course it's incomplete. Nobody says it's complete.
Glad we agree on that too. A good point for all here to keep in mind; to hopefully minimize 'attacks' by some here who 'still believe' mainstream theory is 'automatically' the 'exemplar of correctness' in order to label all (even correct) alternatives as 'crank'.
QM might be the bridge to it.
In case you haven't noticed, I've been doing that "bridging" with my reality-based ToE/Maths work/insights.
Godel's Incompleteness Theorem [GIT]
That applies ONLY to abstract constructs. My ToE/Maths based on objective REALITY, which is COMPLETE, not subject to [GIT]. Ok? :)
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 10, 2017
@winthrom:
The experiment I proposed does not distinguish a wave vs. particle requirement. It proposes interference that occurs during Exp #1 causes by Exp#2 via retrocausial quantum means. If Exp #2 can interfere with Exp#1 in the past we have a proof of retrocausality.
For starters, I reviewed that Wikipedia page and it's not very good. Yes, in one sense there is a "wave vs. particle" aspect to the DCQE, but it's quite esoteric and this makes the explanation difficult to follow. In that sense, in fact, your proposed experiment *does* distinguish waves and particles, but I'm not going to waste everyone's time explaining how when I can just explain the DCQE and let it go at that.

The DCQE uses a Spontaneous Parametric Down-Converter to split each incoming photon in two: a "signal" photon which will go to the measurement area and either participate in or not participate in interference; and an "idler" photon that goes to a coincidence detector.
[contd]
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 10, 2017
[contd]
You will find the SPDC referred to as a "BBO," which is a crystal of beta barium borate. The signal and idler photons are entangled.

In the measurement area, initially no interference is visible. However, once a set of idler photons is selected (the coincidence detector is actually twin; there is a "left" and a "right" detector), then this allows coincidence measurements to identify the signal photons associated with particular idlers and when this is done then an interference pattern becomes apparent. It is not apparent until then because the photons in the measurement area actually make two interference patterns which are 180 degrees out of phase and therefore the light and dark bands 100% overlap which hides the interference.

[contd]
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 10, 2017
[contd]
Thus, neither the signal nor the idler "knows" whether interference will occur; without both, it's impossible to tell. Only after *both* have been detected, and related to one another by their timing, can it be determined if there was interference or not.

And thus with your experiment. You cannot tell the outcome until you have all the data in hand; and as a result, you can't tell whether what you're looking for occurred or not until after the end of both experiments. You can't see the retrocausality directly; and it can always be interpreted as entanglement, not retrocausality, because you always have to retrodict what happened.

Does that make sense?
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (4) Jul 10, 2017
RealityCheck:
Glad we agree re abstract constructs.


We do not, because you clearly don't even agree with yourself:
That applies ONLY to abstract constructs. My ToE/Maths based on objective REALITY, which is COMPLETE, not subject to [GIT]. Ok? :)


"Based on"? Even there, for one lucid moment, you admit that your "ToE/maths" is *not* objective reality, but only *based on* objective reality. "Based on" means "abstracted from", means "abstract".

Whatever gibberish you've strung together under your covers with a flashlight, it's not "objective reality", but just some *ABSTRACT CONSTRUCT*.

It's a much smaller matter that any abstract construct that doesn't violate Principia Mathematica is necessarily incomplete as per Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem, so yours either is incomplete or (far more likely) simply violates Principia Mathematica. But it's worth mentioning, because it's one of conjecturally infinite examples demonstrating that YOU'RE A RAVING LUNATIC.
EmceeSquared
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 10, 2017
RealityCheck:
A good point for all here to keep in mind; to hopefully minimize 'attacks' by some here who 'still believe' mainstream theory is 'automatically' the 'exemplar of correctness' in order to label all (even correct) alternatives as 'crank'. QM might be the bridge to it.In case you haven't noticed, I've been doing that "bridging" with my reality-based ToE/Maths work/insights. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem [GIT]
That applies ONLY to abstract constructs. My ToE/Maths based on objective REALITY, which is COMPLETE, not subject to [GIT].

These yammering pseudoscience cranks have finally changed my mind and made me a believer. Not in their lunatic fringe pseudoscience of course, no. I now must admit that...
EmceeSquared
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 10, 2017
...

MAD SCIENTISTS, the villains of so many crude sci-fi/horror stories, really do exist. They blurt out their crazy master plans, cackling with glee, while their laser moves towards Superman. That's all they've got of course, no science. But those pathetic characters are real, alive in these pages.

What kind of horrible childhood leads them to identify with the deranged losers at the bottom of those trite stories? Why do they toil with crude obsession at "theories" that don't pass any experimental test, that they never even try to submit to peers for review - preferring instead to believe that all of science is a conspiracy against their singular genius?

Who cares. The only question that matters is how to get them to stop gumming up interesting science discussions with their deluded fantasies. Maybe lightning?
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 11, 2017
@EmceeSquared.

Calm down!

You're letting your emotions/personal prejudices and pre-conceived (but wrong) impressions/attitudes get the better of (what should at all times be) your dispassionate objective scientific engagement with the facts as presented. To wit:

- Godel's Incompleteness Theorem applies to ABSTRACT axiomatic constructs, but NOT to the REALITY ITSELF. Hence my work in a STRICTLY REALITY-based postulates/axioms construct for modeling that reality (something which conventional UNREAL axioms/postulates ABSTRACT theory/maths constructs have been INCAPABLE of for 100 YEARS). Got that straight?

- My known/novel science/logic insights posted over the years have EFFECTIVELY BEEN 'peer reviewed' by MAINSTREAM all along (and recent mainstream discovery/review HAS been confirming me CORRECT all along). Got that straight?

- And I AM working to publish my COMPLETE reality-based ToE/Maths WORK for FORMAL peer review, IN TOTO. Got that straight?

Relax and enjoy. :)
EmceeSquared
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 11, 2017
RealityCheck:
- And I AM working to publish my COMPLETE reality-based ToE/Maths WORK for FORMAL peer review, IN TOTO. Got that straight?


I just easily proved that you are a complete lunatic, attacking science for being "abstract constructs" while praising your own *abstract constructs*.

Don't bother us with your mad science. When you've been published in a peer-reviewed journal, then come back to enlighten us all with your innovations. While you're gone we'll labor in ignorance without really caring.
EmceeSquared
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 11, 2017
Hat1208:
The ignore button, and I am sure you have probably heard this before.


Yes, but that doesn't stop the larger scale undermining of science and its public confidence. Some of these trolls are paid, by oil/gas/nuke corps and their PR ilk, to spread FUD as part of their existential defense from their consequences finally catching up with them. Legal consequences anyway - they're doing their damnedest to accelerate the actual damage.

I appreciate your effort [...]. I post these thanks and platitudes because that really pisses them off.


Thanks for saying so. Nothing like killing a few minutes while calling trolls what they are. Keeps the fallacy detector sharp and the juices flowing. And at least points out the trolls to others, and maybe drives some off. We're all in it together - unity in sanity destroys the false equivalence of trolls to sincere and sane participants.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Jul 11, 2017
Very imaginative; but completely irrational. Pity, man thinks he can think. Since the creation of money, only seeks riches no matter what they say, a world of lies. Support only what money says is true without logic!
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 11, 2017
The ignore button
@Hat
but that only actually works for the trolls (see above)
that never works for fanatics

this is most obviously demonstrated by the eu and rc... now, it can "limit" the amount of BS being presented, but only to you

the problem with that is: it spreads false information to those who wish to learn science or simply don't know (this site is often read by those who are either just learning and or ignorant of a lot of science)

and therein lies the problem: how do you address the details without jamming the thread with nonsensical regurgitation of still-unproven assertions by said fanatics?

there is only one method that works, and rc proved that one at sciforums: moderation
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Jul 11, 2017
all:
Discussing this is of what purpose? Why not display our logical errors, discuss these. Simply ignore all that are not logical. The nonsense is not the problem. This has existed since the beginning of time. However, history points that logic typically applies after we dismissed religion. Modern theory; however, has reached a new era of "Belief" in nonsense? It too shall be dismissed!
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Jul 11, 2017
Think, simply concentrate upon charge. It cannot be dismissed. Coulomb show a measure from it's center proportional to the reciprocal of our measure of distance squared.

What's in the center?

Wow, a neutron splits into a + and a - charge and does this little dance as one or both charges fly away. This is an oscillation of charge. All radiation is due to an isolation of charge. The fields only effect charge centers! Hmmm. Odd, but it's empirical. This! Everything? Nothing in the center. The field does not affect the field, only the centers. The centers are just like the field, why, would there be something else there. If that were correct a neutron could not exist. Hmmm.

Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Jul 11, 2017
Only the field. Oh, I get it it! This is a space that allows my existence. An empty space allows nothing, duh.

Wow! Newton's Field! Maxwells Field! It's already been tabulated. Can't write a paper that discredits all papers; However, I can state an axiom; but, I think it has already been done.

Charge, never created or destroyed. Axiom!
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (3) Jul 11, 2017
Hyperfuzzy:
Can't write a paper that discredits all papers; However, I can state an axiom; but, I think it has already been done.


Any fool can state an axiom. None of that matters, except as pure ego masturbation.

Only when someone proves some other statement false, or tests their own statement exhaustively without disproving it, does that actually matter even to the researcher. But that's not enough, since even that product cannot be distinguished from mere stated axioms.

That's why we have peer review: the only system we've found that lets us weed out all the statements that aren't worth bothering with, so we can concentrate on the ones that are worth the bother.

Just shooting statements into a discussion leaves no advantage to the statements that are correct. Only peer review gives the better statements their earned advantage.

But yeah, if all you want is masturbation to your own homemade science porn, keep just posting it here. And collect the earned scorn.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Jul 11, 2017
Axiom: Charge, is never created or destroyed:
Lema: Only the field centers are affected by the field, i.e. charge centers.
Tautology: Charge is the charge's field!

Therefore, there is nothing else!

Maxwell, QED!
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Jul 11, 2017
Hyperfuzzy: Can't write a paper that discredits all papers; However, I can state an axiom; but, I think it has already been done.


Any stated axiom may be disproved by demonstrating, with the same logic as absurd with logical false based upon the same logic. That is an argument reductio ad absurdum.

Or you may exhibit an existence proof. But I reject your argument on the basis of logic, does not fit any logical argument, Formal logic, that is.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Jul 11, 2017
EMC^2 thinks one needs to be recognized and published. I get this.

However, it is not a necessity for proof, or a comment.

So statements that can be shown to be necessary and sufficient, are the ones worth applying.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (3) Jul 11, 2017
Hyperfuzzy:
EMC^2 thinks one needs to be recognized and published. I get this.

However, it is not a necessity for proof, or a comment.

So statements that can be shown to be necessary and sufficient, are the ones worth applying.


Wrong. one does not need to be recognized and published, if one doesn't care about 1> their own ego gratification or 2> other people distinguishing one's research from the oceans of meaningless drivel.

Publication in a peer-reviewed journal isn't important to anyone else except so we can tell the difference between meaningless drivel and valid results.

It's an intractable load of work to disprove mountains of drivel even with trivial disproofs. The burden of proof is on the person making the statement.

You are ignoring that same message clearly explained to you over and over. It's perfectly clear that you are posting solely to gratify your own ego. You're masturbating in public.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Jul 11, 2017
Hyperfuzzy:
EMC^2 thinks one needs to be recognized and published. I get this.

However, it is not a necessity for proof, or a comment.

So statements that can be shown to be necessary and sufficient, are the ones worth applying.


Wrong. one does not need to be recognized and published, if one doesn't care about 1> their own ego gratification or 2> other people distinguishing one's research from the oceans of meaningless drivel.

Publication in a peer-reviewed journal isn't important to anyone else except so we can tell the difference between meaningless drivel and valid results.

It's an intractable load of work to disprove mountains of drivel even with trivial disproofs. The burden of proof is on the person making the statement.

You are ignoring that same message clearly explained to you over and over. It's perfectly clear that you are posting solely to gratify your own ego. You're masturbating in public.

QED
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (3) Jul 11, 2017
Hyperfuzzy:
QED


Only an idiot thinks posting "QED" without a proof actually proves anything - except that they're an idiot. Of course, this idiot also thinks that posting "axioms" without anything else makes them axioms, or anything else but idiocy.

You're a hopeless idiot.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Jul 11, 2017
EMC^2 thinks one needs to be recognized and published. I get this.

However, it is not a necessity for proof, or a comment
@hyper
wrong
it is absolutely necessary for "proof" as it is considerably more reliable than a random comment

then there is the argument of validation
in order to have a reliable means of validation there have to be constraints

this is why the scientific principle is so powerful - it doesn't allow random comments to be considered equal to validated studies, let alone singular studies

whereas commentary doesn't actually require published studies... SCIENCE does

and therein lies the problem so many have spotting the pseudoscience as well
this is why pseudoscience is so prevalent, especially in societies where there are laws regarding what can be considered "truth"

having an opinion is great
but having an opinion, regardless of your education level, means you have an opinion - not science
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Jul 11, 2017

having an opinion is great
but having an opinion, regardless of your education level, means you have an opinion - not science

MSEE, Axiom, Argument and support for acceptance of no acceptance. Logic, not opinion or belief, exactly, without mumbo jumbo, what is a particle? What is a particle's boundary conditions? How can it exist within an object that can exist from zero to infinity. Proof: A neutron is a containment of a proton and an electron. It falls apart in any field, polarized, time varying, ... charge always respond to the field, even downto variations within a bound state. There exist a threshold, accumulated, or impulse response, whereas these centers part. Calling a neutrino a particle, or calling a neutron a particle, with no definition of a particle, is without logic.

Not an opinion, a criticism, profoundly based and unbiased.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (3) Jul 11, 2017
I think that these meta discussions of the value of peer review and the nature of valid science are very important and interesting. Perhaps more interesting in their aggregate among this community than the individual articles in whose threads we're discussing them.

And certainly far more interesting than even the wildest mad science posted here by trolls or actual mad scientists. Because mad science can't really grab your imagination like real science: truth is stranger than fiction. And it certainly can't explain reality, because it's too unreliable without rigor and review.

So mad scientist windmills, go ahead and make my day. Or stay out of my way and let me just talk science instead of your crude public fantasizing.
Seeker2
not rated yet Jul 11, 2017
I think that these meta discussions of the value of peer review and the nature of valid science are very important and interesting.
If you're into valid science, whatever you think that is, topics of this type might not be your thing. I'll go for plausibility. Stick to peer reviewed science and you're assured to be how far behind the latest? I'd rather be seeking fresh ideas as long they're plausible.
Seeker2
not rated yet Jul 11, 2017
cont
OBTW plausibility doesn't include fairy dust physics.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jul 11, 2017
Anyway, back to the original subject of this thread:

I have considered this and I think that there is no experiment that can be performed that can differentiate between retrocausality and entanglement; in fact, I think they are the same thing. One is spacelike entanglement; the other is timelike entanglement. Because relativity changes space into time and vice versa, I think that for different observers, entanglement is spacelike for some observers and timelike for others, just like simultaneity is and for the same reasons.

Discuss.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (3) Jul 11, 2017
Seeker2:
If you're into valid science, whatever you think that is, topics of this type might not be your thing. I'll go for plausibility. Stick to peer reviewed science and you're assured to be how far behind the latest? I'd rather be seeking fresh ideas as long they're plausible.


Whatever I think that is? Valid science is science that has been peer reviewed and published. That is the universal standard. Everyone knows that.

What's the difference between "fairy dust physics" and "plausible physics" when neither is peer reviewed? There is no distinguishable difference. The standard in science is not determined by whether it "feels right", but whether it's been tested enough to *be* right.

No. It is you who should go elsewhere. Go somewhere "plausibility" is the standard. Some creative writing site. There are many. This is for science. Not for you.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (3) Jul 11, 2017
Da Schneib:
I have considered this and I think that there is no experiment that can be performed that can differentiate between retrocausality and entanglement; in fact, I think they are the same thing. One is spacelike entanglement; the other is timelike entanglement. Because relativity changes space into time and vice versa, I think that for different observers, entanglement is spacelike for some observers and timelike for others, just like simultaneity is and for the same reasons.


I think some experiments should be able to distinguish between spatial and temporal dimensions, after all we do that all the time in other phenomena. Time differs from a spatial dimension because it's not an integer dimension, so movement in one direction in time consumes more energy than in the other direction, perhaps infinitely more.

This experiment evidently can't distinguish between different orders of events, so it's insufficient. But that doesn't mean no experiment can.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (3) Jul 11, 2017
Seeker2:
OBTW plausibility doesn't include fairy dust physics.


That is the very definition of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Congratulations, your fundamental ideology of science is a fallacy.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jul 11, 2017
@Emcee, I think we have a different view of time.

Time is different from space in that it has a different geometric relation to the space dimensions than they have to one another; but it is not intrinsically different because we can see the Lorentz Transform turn space into time and vice versa in SRT as I pointed out above. Search this thread on x-vt and you'll find the post. You can compare this with other articles on the 'Net on the Lorentz Transform(ation), including peer-reviewed papers. References available on request; I think you already know about this stuff.

Given this I think that it will be impossible to create an experiment that will resolve this for all observers.

As for moving in the opposite direction in time, Feynman argued very plausibly and with peer reviewed science that has not been refuted that antimatter is made of matter particles with a reversed time direction.
[cont]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jul 11, 2017
[cont]
This is supported by the Poincare symmetry of SRT, which shows that charge, parity, and time are essentially interrelated elements that can be shown to be symmetrically related in such a manner that a reversal of any two is equivalent to a reversal of the third. Thus, a reversal of charge and parity (which is exactly the difference between matter and antimatter) is equivalent to a reversal of time. You can verify this by verifying that the difference between neutrinos and antineutrinos is their difference in parity (handedness) in the weak nuclear force. It's also very indicative that neutrons are always the same parity, and antineutrons the opposite parity. In both cases they cannot be opposite in charge since their charge is zero.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (3) Jul 11, 2017
Da Schneib:
@Emcee, I think we have a different view of time.

Time is different from space in that it has a different geometric relation to the space dimensions than they have to one another; but it is not intrinsically different because we can see the Lorentz Transform turn space into time and vice versa in SRT as I pointed out above.


Perhaps we do. My view of time is informed by the work of Garnet Ord and other mathematical physicists who demonstrated that time's dimension is non-integer, therefore a fractal, therefore demonstrating scale relativity:
https://en.wikipe...lativity
http://aip.scitat...1.526285

It's not well known, but it's peer reviewed, and revolutionary. One insight is that since the time axis is not of scale "1", the energy to move one unit in that axis differs depending the direction, which would result in least-energy action along a time arrow. This is markedly different than dynamics along spatial dimensions.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jul 11, 2017
Da Schneib:
@Emcee, I think we have a different view of time.
Perhaps we do. My view of time is informed by the work of Garnet Ord and other mathematical physicists who demonstrated that time's dimension is non-integer, therefore a fractal, therefore demonstrating scale relativity:
https://en.wikipe...lativity
Hmmmm, I think this is equivalent to standard relativity. Here's why:
It's not well known, but it's peer reviewed, and revolutionary. One insight is that since the time axis is not of scale "1", the energy to move one unit in that axis differs depending the direction, which would result in least-energy action along a time arrow. This is markedly different than dynamics along spatial dimensions.
Actually it's quite obvious because the time axis is hyperbolic.
[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Jul 11, 2017
[contd]
As a result, if you rotate a vector with respect to the time axis, its length changes. This is what makes it a fractal dimension. That's what you mean when you say, "the time axis is not of scale '1.'" The space dimensions are of scale 1 because they interconvert between one another without a scale change.

What's interesting about Ord's work is pointing out that this makes rotations that include the time dimension (which those of SRT do) explicitly fractal. It's an important insight.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Jul 11, 2017
@EmceeSquared.:
I just easily proved that you are a complete lunatic, attacking science for being "abstract constructs" while praising your own *abstract constructs*.
All you've "proven" is your obtuseness and/or dishonesty, EmcS; because you ignored the following part of my post...
Godel's Incompleteness Theorem applies to ABSTRACT axiomatic constructs, but NOT to the REALITY ITSELF. Hence my work in a STRICTLY REALITY-based postulates/axioms construct for modeling that reality (something which conventional UNREAL axioms/postulates ABSTRACT theory/maths constructs have been INCAPABLE of for 100 YEARS).
...which clearly points to the COMPLETE MODELING CAPACITY of my REALITY-based postulates/axioms, as compared to the INCOMPLETENESS INEVITABILITY of the UNREAL (metaphysical/philosophical) postulates/axioms of existing theory/maths. Latter's INCAPACITY to COMPLETELY 'model' REALITY entities/processes starkly demonstrated by incompleteness despite a CENTURY of latter.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Jul 11, 2017
PS @EmceeSquared.
Don't bother us with your mad science. When you've been published in a peer-reviewed journal, then come back to enlighten us all with your innovations. While you're gone we'll labor in ignorance without really caring.
Now you presume to tell members of PO to NOT discuss the science here? You are obviously following that 'gangs' MO, in trolling, censoring, burying and otherwise sabotaging discussion, for your own ego-tripping and emotional/subjective 'needs' to control/attack others. Why do it? You are missing out on many correct insights that way (which is what has happened to that 'gang' for years now). Don't be the same as them, mate. They ignored and evaded and insulted while being incorrect all along and me correct all along.

Anyway, what's your beef with me posting correct insights and reminders in this DISCUSSION/COMMENTS section? That's what it is here FOR. Not for bot-voting/insulting trolls who ego-trip and try to censor others. Relax. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Jul 11, 2017
@RC, you're sunk, man. @Emcee just showed you lying again: you claimed your abstract system isn't abstract. In fact he got you twice: he also showed you're claiming you either have math that isn't subject to Godel incompleteness, or math that isn't supported by the Principia Mathematica by Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead. Dude this is fifty to a hundred year old math. What barber college did you go to, the Fred Flintstone academy? Boneheads'R'Us? The School of Hard Knocks? For that matter, where did you go to grade school, because in every country on Earth they start teaching this stuff when you're about eight.

Go learn some math before you make yourself look any more risible.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Jul 11, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@RC, you're sunk, man. @Emcee just showed you lying again: you claimed your abstract system isn't abstract. In fact he got you twice: he also showed you're claiming you either have math that isn't subject to Godel incompleteness, or math that isn't supported by the Principia Mathematica by Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead. Dude this is fifty to a hundred year old math. What barber college did you go to, the Fred Flintstone academy? Boneheads'R'Us? The School of Hard Knocks? For that matter, where did you go to grade school, because in every country on Earth they start teaching this stuff when you're about eight.

Go learn some math before you make yourself look any more risible.
You're living in your own world, DS. If you HAD read MY responses, you would have noted EmceeSquared had the wrong end of the stick. But you just read what you wanted to read, and just assumed he was correct when he was demonstrably not. You betray scientific method, DS.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Jul 11, 2017
Seeker2: OBTW plausibility doesn't include fairy dust physics.
That is the very definition of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Congratulations, your fundamental ideology of science is a fallacy.
So you're into fairy dust physics? I didn't know. Or maybe you could come up with another fallacy. Make that the fairy dust fallacy?
Seeker2
not rated yet Jul 11, 2017
Time is different from space in that it has a different geometric relation to the space dimensions than they have to one another;
Well, yes. Time is related geometrically to all the space dimensions simultaneously.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Jul 11, 2017
@EmceeSquared.
Hat1208:
The ignore button, and I am sure you have probably heard this before.
Yes, but that doesn't stop the larger scale undermining of science and its public confidence. Some of these trolls are paid, by oil/gas/nuke corps and their PR ilk
I appreciate your effort.... I post these thanks and platitudes because that really pisses them off.
Thanks for saying so. Nothing like killing a few minutes while calling trolls what they are.
You're being 'groomed' with blandishments by that bot-voting troll 'gang', EmcS! They don't care about science, only their gang control/sabotage of sites. Want proof? Go to my feedback page, and see where they downvote my Climate Change posts against deniers/trolls. Would YOU have downvoted my Climate Change posts like that? Can YOU discern anything in my posts which deserved '1' from Captain Stumpy and Uncle Ira trolls? See? They don't care about science! Take care to identify ALL the trolls, mate. Good luck. :)
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (5) Jul 11, 2017
RealityCheck:
You're living in your own world, DS. If you HAD read MY responses, you would have noted EmceeSquared had the wrong end of the stick. But you just read what you wanted to read, and just assumed he was correct when he was demonstrably not. You betray scientific method, DS.


You claimed your work is not abstract, and also claimed it was abstract. While attacking all science as abstract. There's no wrong end of that stick. That stick is you're a pathological liar.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (5) Jul 11, 2017
RealityCheck:
You're being 'groomed' with blandishments by that bot-voting troll 'gang', EmcS! They don't care about science, only their gang control/sabotage of sites.


No, you're a paranoid - not just a pathological liar. Completely deluded. Just because I appreciate someone recognizing the value of my calling trolls like you trolls doesn't mean I would agree with them on anything else - or disagree. Neither does their downrating you mean anything except that your posts are garbage, because you're a raving lunatic. Just because you (maybe - you're a pathological liar after all) post possibly reasonable messages confronting climate change deniers doesn't mean these other posts of yours aren't just craziness.

We're not gangs here, though collusion among trolls, like climate change denier trolls, is entirely likely, especially if they're paid.

You want to post without being attacked or downrated, try sticking to just peer-reviewed science. Maybe you'll build respect.
Seeker2
not rated yet Jul 11, 2017
time's dimension is non-integer, therefore a fractal, therefore demonstrating scale relativity:
Time is a fractional relationship (like a ratio) between different motions. Does a fraction have a dimension? More fairy tale physics? OBTW note if we were all traveling in the same direction at the same speed and nothing else changed there would be no time because there is no change in spatial configurations, i.e., all points in spacetime are equivalent because their relationship with other points never changes.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (5) Jul 11, 2017
Seeker2:
So you're into fairy dust physics? I didn't know. Or maybe you could come up with another fallacy. Make that the fairy dust fallacy?


You've descended into psychosis like a dog chasing its own tail. You know nothing about science - you can't distinguish between "true" and "plausible". You can't even recognize a fallacy you're wallowing in when it's shoved in your face by name. Your blathering belongs on a kindergarten playground, not in a science site.

Go back to your rubber pants and let adults talk about science you can't even recognize, let alone understand.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (4) Jul 11, 2017
Seeker2:[qTime is a fractional relationship (like a ratio) between different motions.

No it is not. I offered a peer-reviewed paper from an actual scientist, not a word salad from a psycho like you. You're like a dog "shaking hands": it's not really shaking hands, it doesn't really know what shaking hands means. It just thinks going through the motions makes it a person.

You're not a person. You're a dog.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Jul 11, 2017
@EmceeSquared.
You're living in your own world, DS. If you HAD read MY responses, you would have noted EmceeSquared had the wrong end of the stick. But you just read what you wanted to read, and just assumed he was correct when he was demonstrably not. You betray scientific method, DS.
You claimed your work is not abstract, and also claimed it was abstract. While attacking all science as abstract. There's no wrong end of that stick. That stick is you're a pathological liar.
No. That's your own construction on what I've been pointing out. :)

Did you by any chance see my recent exchanges with DS, ZergSurfer, re the patently UNREAL (metaphysical/philosophical) axioms/concept infesting conventional maths; which perforce always ends up hitting singularity/infinity/undefined etc 'brick walls' always arising when trying to use conventional UNREALITY-based maths to 'model' a REAL UNIVERSE? I even gave an example/explanation of the UNREAL flaw. It's subtle, mate. Ok? :)
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (5) Jul 11, 2017
RealityCheck:
No. That's your own construction on what I've been pointing out.


No. You're the one who "constructed" this big reveal that you're talking out of both sides of your mouth:
That applies ONLY to abstract constructs. My ToE/Maths based on objective REALITY, which is COMPLETE, not subject to [GIT].


Right there is your innermost core of nothing. Your "ToeE/Maths" is *based on* "objective reality" (or your daydream lint), making it an *abstract construct*. Yet you disclaim all abstract constructs because it's not "real".

That's a load of garbage. It's slop for hogs. It's nihilism to keep showing your face in this discussion after saying something like that and having it shoved back in your face.

You lose. You gave away your demented game. You know nothing, you know nobody, everything you say makes the universe dumber. Shut up already.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (4) Jul 11, 2017
Da Schneib:
As a result, if you rotate a vector with respect to the time axis, its length changes. This is what makes it a fractal dimension.


Well, that's another way that the time dimension is different from spatial dimensions. It seems like that could be exploited by an experiment to distinguish between them.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 11, 2017
@EmceeSquared.

Ok, ok, mate. Calm down! Anything you say! Just calm down, ok? :)

Anyway, I can see you are a lost cause to objective, dispassionate scientific discourse on the merits rather than the prejudices which you/gang have obviously inculcated yourselves with. Your problem, not mine. No skin off my nose, mate, if you are so prejudiced and bent on attacking rather than actually reading/understanding correct science when it's presented to you by someone who is increasingly being confirmed correct all along on many fronts by MAINSTREAM astro/cosmo/QM observations/researchers discovery/review recently and ongoing. :)

How can you possibly be 'scientific' if you are so emotionally invested in your own 'battle against the trolls' that you fail to discern WHO the trolls actually ARE and who are NOT. I gave you every opportunity to demonstrate your objectivity and comprehension at the scientific level, but you have failed yourself and science. You are naive/wrong. Pity.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Jul 12, 2017
@pos lying pseudoscience fundie rc
Captain Stumpy and Uncle Ira trolls
part of science is being able to actually prove yourself with evidence

for instance, as of July 11, 2017, 11:30 pm (per po) you have made 6.876 posts while still never once being able to point out the 4 fatal flaws of BICEP per your claim, let alone all 8 flaws you said to have spotted

my evidence is also easily checked by simply counting your posts since your initial claim

of course, there is also the problem of your numerous deleted posts since then, but that is easily checked as well two ways:
1- by reading posts that were quoted by others who refuted you
2- by requesting a total post count by the site ADMIN

so, i've put in a lot of work tracking your posts since then and counting them

anyone who wants can also do the same and will get the same result (actually, a higher one as i gave you the benefit of the doubt more than once)

the evidence (science) proves you're a liar
period
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Jul 12, 2017
Time is different from space in that it has a different geometric relation to the space dimensions than they have to one another;
Well, yes. Time is related geometrically to all the space dimensions simultaneously.
The space dimensions are all related geometrically to one another too; I don't think you're quite getting this. The difference is the space dimensions are all related to one another circularly; the time dimension is related to them all hyperbolically. That's what makes time different. It's the relationship, not the character of the dimension itself.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Jul 12, 2017
@Captain Stumpy.

Been there; done that; you ignored, didn't read or just lied, insulted and buried it, CS. Your loss, not mine. You/gang keep pretending your Bicep2 fiasco 'never happened'; but you were all found to be unscientific 'believers of crap', just because it was crapped by your 'preferred source'. I on the other hand have been objective and tried to warn you about it. You failed then and still fail now, CS. You betray all scientific principles as well as humanity ethics of fairness and honesty. Your ongoing bot-voting, irrespective of whether a poster is correct or not, demonstrates your trolling status and intent. That you can stand there and call me a "fundie" despite knowing I am Atheist Scientist and scrupulously objective and independent researcher/commentator, says it all about what YOU 'stand for', CS. It's not science or truth, that's obvious to all by now. Will you go to your grave leaving a legacy of bot-voting ignoramus trolling malignancy, CS? Pity.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Jul 12, 2017
Da Schneib:
As a result, if you rotate a vector with respect to the time axis, its length changes. This is what makes it a fractal dimension.
Well, that's another way that the time dimension is different from spatial dimensions. It seems like that could be exploited by an experiment to distinguish between them.
No, see, the whole point of fractals is they describe fractional dimensions; that is, dimensions where distances are scale-invariant. You have to describe time that way because if you increase your velocity (which is a rotation in 3+1 spacetime) the length of the vector doesn't vary linearly as the rotation angle; however, if you change your 3-space rotation, the length of the vector does vary linearly as the rotation angle. IOW, the space dimensions are all related in the same way geometrically, but the time dimension is related to all of them differently. This is the reason Ord's observation is pertinent.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Jul 12, 2017
@Emcee, the point here is the difference between ordinary trigonometric functions and hyperbolic trigonometric functions. For space-to-space-dimension relations you use ordinary trigonometric functions, sin cos tan cot sec csc; for hyperbolic trigonometric functions you use sinh cosh tanh coth sech csch. They behave differently but once you understand them you'll see how time is different from the spatial dimensions. And after you mess with it a while you'll see why Ord says time is a fractional dimension. Some relativists would say it's trivial, but I think this is actually a profound insight.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Jul 12, 2017
@RC, I see little point in reading anything you write because you lie. I don't choose to waste mindspace on lies. I will yet again post proof of your lies, and I will be adding this thread to the list:
Thread where @RC lies about current research into cosmic voids and gets caught: https://phys.org/...ies.html
Thread where @RC makes conflicting claims within ten posts and gets caught: https://phys.org/...ome.html
Thread where @RC claims there is "REAL/PHYSICAL UNIVERSAL 'infinity'" and gets caught: https://phys.org/...rgy.html
Thread where @RC claims Rubin said galaxies will implode with out DM and confuses Zwicky with Rubin:
https://phys.org/...zzy.html
New one:
Thread where @RC claims his "non math" approach is both abstract and non-abstract, and both is and is not math: https://phys.org/...ure.html
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Jul 12, 2017
@Da Schneib, @EmceeSquared.

Your 'discussion' has been had for decades, and nothing has come of it since it was first couched in those term. That is because it has hit a brick wall, due to unreal/abstract maths/geometry based discussion which leads nowhere sensible (ie, only to GIGO assumptions/interpretations but no real advance from the initial early days of SRT 'spacetime' maths construct). Without more REAL input/construct which actually makes REALITY sense, the discussion remains much like the old theologians' discussion about "How many angels can fit on the head of a pin"; also totally UNREAL concepts and constructs underlying discussion. These advance nothing; only produce more verbiage, parroting of jargon, interpretations etc which make no self-consistent sense for 'modeling' the REAL UNIVERSAL PHENOMENA. Such discussion based on unreal maths/geom jargon, relations/equations has NOT WORKED for a century in completing the theory. Look/Go beyond such, to Reality. :)
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Jul 12, 2017
@Seeker, I give you a lot of leeway, but I won't argue with @Emcee to protect you. You're on your own man; @Emcee is right, you push a lot of FUD. You've gotten more and more aggressive over time and it's not justified by your demonstrated level of competence. I suggest you pull in your horns. You already got dinged by me once in this thread; you really need to start paying attention to real physics if you're intending to participate in discussion with people who actually know what's going on. I think others may already have you on ignore, and you remain very close to it with me. Plain and straight, stop being arrogant. You don't have the chops for it.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 12, 2017
PS @Da Schneib.

I see you have added yet another lie to your spam list. Are you so desperate and devoid of honor that you again default to ignore, deny and lie, rather than face the reality of your own errors? Pity.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Jul 12, 2017
@RC, seriously man, you're sorrier than a broke dick dog. If you think that recommends you to anyone but other trolls, you're dumber than a bag of hammers. Why anyone would bother to ever read anything you write is a complete mystery, unless they're reading it for laughs. Pull your buttocks off your shoulders and join the human race.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Jul 12, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@RC, seriously man, you're sorrier than a broke dick dog. If you think that recommends you to anyone but other trolls, you're dumber than a bag of hammers. Why anyone would bother to ever read anything you write is a complete mystery, unless they're reading it for laughs. Pull your buttocks off your shoulders and join the human race.
You're still in denial, mate. Your (long time) problem, not mine. Get better soon. :)
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Jul 12, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@RC, seriously man, you're sorrier than a broke dick dog. If you think that recommends you to anyone but other trolls, you're dumber than a bag of hammers. Why anyone would bother to ever read anything you write is a complete mystery, unless they're reading it for laughs. Pull your buttocks off your shoulders and join the human race.
You're still in denial, mate. Your (long time) problem, not mine. Get better soon. :)

Let me apologize for being so anal. Yes it is possible. Not sure what these guys are doing. Identify as many sets that can be viewed forward or backward and the end points are the same. This of course define a finite time, and a finite space, and something QM should be able to master. But think about it, you would have to prepare. 'cause you must relate the inference of sets, or simply put the possibility; however, no reverse causality, only a possibility unless infinite resolution. So I will back of my contempt of QM;
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Jul 12, 2017
We must teach Quantum Mechanical Engineers how to see causality, i.e. what's going on with Heisenberg, why can't the error be learned or inferred, or resolved? In other words, who said the error is real jus 'cause your instrumentation is uncalibrated?
Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 12, 2017
Go to my feedback page, and see where they downvote my Climate Change posts against deniers/trolls. Would YOU have downvoted my Climate Change posts like that?


Here you go whining about votes again Cher.

Can YOU discern anything in my posts which deserved '1' from and Uncle Ira trolls? See?


I don't know if he can, but I can. It is simple Cher. If you was not an objectionable diligence not doing atheist pretending to be a scientist, you could disconcern it too. Your posts to the climate trolls sounds just like you posts to the peoples who really know about science like you don't over here. Those posts are just as mealy mouthed and preachy as these are. Simple, eh Cher?

Now why you don't take your self over there in the corner with your silly looking pointy cap and suck on some eggs like you say you know how to do real good.
EmceeSquared
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 12, 2017
RealityCheck:
Such discussion based on unreal maths/geom jargon, relations/equations has NOT WORKED for a century in completing the theory. Look/Go beyond such, to Reality. :)


Your own work is, as you confessed, math that's derived from reality - just as any other description of reality must necessarily be. You are nothing but a pathological liar. And when confronted with a list of your accumulated lies, you just lie about it.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 12, 2017
@EmceeSquared.
Such discussion based on unreal maths/geom jargon, relations/equations has NOT WORKED for a century in completing the theory. Look/Go beyond such, to Reality.
Your own work is, as you confessed, math that's derived from reality - just as any other description of reality must necessarily be. You are nothing but a pathological liar. And when confronted with a list of your accumulated lies, you just lie about it.
Please concentrate. It's subtle.

Consider, calmly:

Current theory/maths constructs based on UNREAL POSTULATES/AXIOMS, so are DOOMED to REMAIN 'abstractions' constructs which lead nowhere, and NEVER will be capable of COMPLETELY modeling REALITY.

That's the point.

MY POSTULATES/AXIOMS are REALITY-REFERENTIAL DIRECTLY, NOT mere metaphysical/philosophical 'abstractions' which underpin current theory/maths construct, eg, 'spacetime' and 'dimensionless point' concepts underpinning the current theory/maths.

Think about it all, calmly. Ok? :)
winthrom
5 / 5 (1) Jul 12, 2017
@Da Schneib
Sorry to see thetroll convention in this discussion space. I did understand your explanation regards my "Experiment" and have long believed (without proof) that entanglement operates much as a Retrocausial effect. Thus I agree they are probably the same. My experiment was essentially looking for a plausible way to provide locality to entanglement. I take it you understand the physics math in the paper (subject the article above) whereas my math was strictly a basic undergrad math degree. The paper does not provide a test: "The physicists don't have any experiments lined up to test retrocausality—but as the idea is more an interpretation of observations rather than making new observations, what's needed most may not be a test but more theoretical support." My effort just exposed my gut feel theory. A kind of mind picture attempting to expose a retro time track in spacetime. If we use this as an axiom, what happens?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jul 12, 2017
time's dimension is non-integer, therefore a fractal, therefore demonstrating scale relativity:
Time is a fractional relationship (like a ratio) between different motions. Does a fraction have a dimension? More fairy tale physics?

Did you mean - fractal?
OBTW note if we were all traveling in the same direction at the same speed and nothing else changed there would be no time because there is no change in spatial configurations

But - we're not, so....
, i.e., all points in spacetime are equivalent because their relationship with other points never changes.
they aren't either...
OBTW - I go away for a few days and return to find RC continues to waste thread space by diverting discussions to all about him and his vast store of "knowledge"...
Some things DO never change...:-)
Seeker2
not rated yet Jul 13, 2017
Time is a fractional relationship (like a ratio) between different motions. Does a fraction have a dimension? More fairy tale physics?
Did you mean - fractal?
Not really but whatever it is isn't a dimension.
OBTW note if we were all traveling in the same direction at the same speed and nothing else changed there would be no time because there is no change in spatial configurations
But - we're not, so....
So we have time to think about it.

i.e., all points in spacetime are equivalent because their relationship with other points never changes.
they aren't either...
Again, giving us time to think about it.
OBTW - I go away for a few days and return to find RC continues to waste thread space by diverting discussions to all about him and his vast store of "knowledge"...
Some things DO never change...:-)
Good point.
Seeker2
not rated yet Jul 13, 2017
One more time please - Time is a fractional relationship (like a ratio) between different motions. Does a fraction have a dimension? More fairy tale physics?
Did you mean - fractal?
Not really but whatever it is it isn't a dimension.

OBTW note if we were all traveling in the same direction at the same speed and nothing else changed there would be no time because there is no change in spatial configurations
But - we're not, so....
So we have time to think about it.

i.e., all points in spacetime are equivalent because their relationship with other points never changes.
they aren't either...
Again, giving us time to think about it.
OBTW - I go away for a few days and return to find RC continues to waste thread space by diverting discussions to all about him and his vast store of "knowledge"...
Some things DO never change...:-)
Good point.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 13, 2017
@Whyde.
I go away for a few days and return to find RC continues to waste thread space by diverting discussions to all about him and his vast store of "knowledge"...
Some things DO never change...:-)
Your absence did not improve your comprehension skills, mate. I already pointed out that I respond to attacks by posters who are incorrect while they insult me who has been correct all along. Would you not defend against such trolls, Whyde? :)

And anyway, Whyde, I started out pointing to the flaws in THEIR parroted assumptions/interpretations. That's SCIENCE DISCOURSE, Whyde, not just blowing my own 'knowledge' horn.

I even just proposed an experiment to TEST 'expansion hypothesis' and especially whether it occurs within our galaxy or not. Go and read it in thread:

https://phys.org/...ark.html

Its MUCH easier/cheaper to implement/run than the Gravity-Probe-B experiment, that's for sure! May I have your thoughts on it, Whyde? :)
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (3) Jul 13, 2017
Da Schneib:[qthe point here is the difference between ordinary trigonometric functions and hyperbolic trigonometric functions.
[...]
And after you mess with it a while you'll see why Ord says time is a fractional dimension. Some relativists would say it's trivial, but I think this is actually a profound insight.

I'm reviewing Ord's (and others') publications (after quite a few years) to see if there's more to the fractal dimension than just a hyperbolic scale. I think the fractality does mean that it costs more energy to move backwards in time than forwards, which is categorically different than simply a hyperbolic scale, with implications that would distinguish movement in time from movement in space by experiment.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (3) Jul 13, 2017
Reali
@Whyde.
I go away for a few days and return to find RC continues to waste thread space by diverting discussions to all about him and his vast store of "knowledge"...
Some things DO never change...:-)
Your absence did not improve your comprehension skills, mate. I already pointed out that I respond to attacks by posters who are incorrect while they insult me who has been correct all along. Would you not defend against such trolls, Whyde? :)

And anyway, Whyde, I started out pointing to the flaws in THEIR parroted assumptions/interpretations. That's SCIENCE DISCOURSE, Whyde, not just blowing my own 'knowledge' horn.


You're a pathological liar, and an idiot to boot, as has been exhaustively proved in this thread. As it had been in other threads before. It's a repeatable experiment, though it does require a fume hood.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Jul 13, 2017
@EmceeSquared.
Reality
@Whyde.Your absence did not improve your comprehension skills, mate. I already pointed out that I respond to attacks by posters who are incorrect while they insult me who has been correct all along. Would you not defend against such trolls, Whyde? :)

And anyway, Whyde, I started out pointing to the flaws in THEIR parroted assumptions/interpretations. That's SCIENCE DISCOURSE, Whyde, not just blowing my own 'knowledge' horn.
You're a pathological liar, and an idiot to boot, as has been exhaustively proved in this thread.
It is this sort of self-deluded arrogance in your responses, and making claims not supported by the facts, that got the Bicep2 'team' into such strife (were you one of that 'team'?). Anyhow, if yours is 'the new norm' substitute for 'dispassionate scientific objectivity', no wonder 'peer review' was corrupted for so long. Penrose/Steinhardt/Other mainstream researchers doing REAL OBJECTIVE science are calling you out, EmcS. :)
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (3) Jul 13, 2017
RealityCheck:
It is this sort of self-deluded arrogance in your responses, and making claims not supported by the facts, that got the Bicep2 'team' into such strife (were you one of that 'team'?)


No. It's dispassionate facts. You just think it's something else because you're a pathological liar. It's pathological. Get a doctor to help you with it. In the meantime you're just jabbering lunacy, like your BICEP2 hobby horse that shows you've also got a persecution complex.

The way you go on, like a lunatic, is what makes you a MAD PSEUDOSCIENTIST. Seek help. Elsewhere, where you won't bother people just talking about science.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Jul 13, 2017
@EmceeSquared.
It is this sort of self-deluded arrogance in your responses, and making claims not supported by the facts, that got the Bicep2 'team' into such strife (were you one of that 'team'?)
No. It's dispassionate facts. You just think it's something else because you're a pathological liar. It's pathological. Get a doctor to help you with it. In the meantime you're just jabbering lunacy, like your BICEP2 hobby horse that shows you've also got a persecution complex.

The way you go on, like a lunatic, is what makes you a MAD PSEUDOSCIENTIST. Seek help. Elsewhere, where you won't bother people just talking about science.
Oh come on, mate. You're in denial. :)

Go read your own posts for the last week.See the emotionality and insults which drip from them? You're being about as 'dispassionate' as Climate Change deniers delude themselves THEY are! Or about as 'objective' as Bicep2 'team' claimed THEY were! Calling ME "liar" because I'm correct is just silly. :)
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (3) Jul 13, 2017
RealityCheck:
Go read your own posts for the last week.See the emotionality and insults which drip from them? You're being about as 'dispassionate' as Climate Change deniers delude themselves THEY are! Or about as 'objective' as Bicep2 'team' claimed THEY were! Calling ME "liar" because I'm correct is just silly. :)


Oh, *I* am not dispassionate. The facts are dispassionate. You go on about how mainstream science is broken because it's just "abstract constructs". Then you go on about your superior science, "maths based on" reality - just like the science you attack (except yours is pseudoscience anyway, not even actual science).

Then you swirl around howling about this or that, anything but your lies about your crazy little hobby.

There's more lies in there too, more pseudoscience, but what I just cited is plenty.

You're a pathological liar, so you can't even remember the simple contradiction you're living. You're sick. Take it out one others somewhere else.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jul 13, 2017
I'm reviewing Ord's (and others') publications (after quite a few years) to see if there's more to the fractal dimension than just a hyperbolic scale. I think the fractality does mean that it costs more energy to move backwards in time than forwards, which is categorically different than simply a hyperbolic scale, with implications that would distinguish movement in time from movement in space by experiment.
This is a popular pastime; in the end what you're speculating on are the Sakharov Criteria. I've been down this road a fair way myself. Ever since they found the CP anomaly in the neutral kaon decays, there has been a hint of an outside chance that there is such an imbalance between the two limbs of the hyperbolic curve of time.

I keep an eye on the neutrino sector; eventually there may be enough imbalance there to explain the matter dominance of the universe. I'd write more but I'm lazy. Maybe we can chat about it.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jul 13, 2017
@Emcee, I looked over my post and realized I forgot to mention the neutral D meson decay CP violation and the hint (not yet 5 sigma) of CP violation in the decays of B mesons as well. Ultimately the imbalance you speak of may manifest in both the lepton and meson sectors. I think you'll find research and pondering (in case you haven't been following these experiments) quite interesting.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jul 14, 2017
@winthrom, yeah, that's pretty much where it stands. For a debate over an interpretation, you don't really need to get into the math; it's not the theory, it's an interpretation of the theory. Not only that, but it's an interpretation of a theory that is known to be non-classical into classical logic. There're bound to be some bits that don't seem to fit.
Seeker2
not rated yet Jul 14, 2017
...You're very close to becoming irrelevant and being put on ignore. I'm willing to correct you when (not if) you stray from real physics, but this kind of arrogance doesn't impress me and looks a lot like trolling.
Putting on ignore - great idea for the unhappy campers. Keeps them from getting carried away when somebody below their pay grade or otherwise unqualified comes up with something plausible.
Seeker2
not rated yet Jul 14, 2017
cont
Or, you might say, ignorance as a means of punishing insubordination. Really?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 16, 2017
@EmceeSqu
Go read your own posts for the last week.See the emotionality and insults which drip from them? You're being about as 'dispassionate' as Climate Change deniers delude themselves THEY are! Or about as 'objective' as Bicep2 'team' claimed THEY were! Calling ME "liar" because I'm correct is just silly.
Oh, *I* am not dispassionate. The facts are dispassionate.
You are so NOT dispassionate that you probably don't realize you are making rationalizations to excuse your patently obvious personal emotional/insulting tactics and biases which explains why you ignore the point that I've been correct all along and you/gang incorrect.
You go on about how mainstream science is broken because it's just "abstract constructs". Then you go on about your superior science, "maths based on" reality - just like the science you attack (except yours is pseudoscience anyway, not even actual science).
You strawman/misconstrue on purpose. Try being objective/dispassionate. :)
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2017
RealityCheck:
You strawman/misconstrue on purpose. Try being objective/dispassionate.


Oh, right - tell me more about your maths based on reality that aren't an abstract construct but are instead reality itself. Tell me more about your maths that aren't subject to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem because they're not maths, they're the actual direct reality, not an abstract construct.

No, don't. You are objectively an argle-bargler who confuses your bellybutton lint for the ultimate concrete reality, then accuses everyone else of ganging up on you when they aren't as deluded as you are.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2017
@EmceeSquared.
RealityCheck:
You strawman/misconstrue on purpose. Try being objective/dispassionate.


Oh, right - tell me more about your maths based on reality that aren't an abstract construct but are instead reality itself. Tell me more about your maths that aren't subject to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem because they're not maths, they're the actual direct reality, not an abstract construct.

No, don't. You are objectively an argle-bargler who confuses your bellybutton lint for the ultimate concrete reality, then accuses everyone else of ganging up on you when they aren't as deluded as you are.
See? You DON'T WANT to comprehend; you pretend to ask for info while in the same breath PREsume that info is not forthcoming and/or incorrect, your emotional/subjective biases/blinkers denying it before you even get/understand it. See your problem, mate? That's not the way to learn science; that's using tactics/insults to 'win' arguments in denial. Not good, EcS.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Jul 17, 2017
Peer review is defined by a strict logic. Any peer review without concise fit to Formal Logic is not a review, it's a circle jerk!

In either, you may have whomever and whatever. Do you understand what you accept as a valid paper for publish, refs, etc., even Nobels?
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 17, 2017
@idiot chronic lying pseudoscience troll sam
... while in the same breath PREsume that info is not forthcoming and/or incorrect
nope
sorry

he isn't making a presumption in this case

you have yet to be able to produce any maths in any form to check, let alone produce proofs of said maths for validation

more to the point, you claim that your maths are based on reality but that is also impossible considering:
1- https://en.oxford...hematics

2- you can't produce evidence that your maths describe any reality

3- you have claimed your maths are different than current math (in this case, applied math, as in physics), but you can't prove it with results or proofs

considering your history (6,904 with no 4 fatal flaws), you have no intention of producing mathematical anything

it's why you can't even link proof of your claims about 4 fatal flaws: it doesn't exist
it's a delusion only you believe in
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2017
@Captain Stumpy.
@idiot chronic lying pseudoscience troll sam
nope
sorry
he isn't making a presumption in this case
you have yet to be able to produce any maths in any form to check, let alone produce proofs of said maths for validation
more to the point, you claim that your maths are based on reality but that is also impossible considering:
1- https://en.oxford...hematics
2- you can't produce evidence that your maths describe any reality
3- you have claimed your maths are different than current math (in this case, applied math, as in physics), but you can't prove it with results or proofs
considering your history (6,904 with no 4 fatal flaws), you have no intention of producing mathematical anything
it's why you can't even link proof of your claims about 4 fatal flaws: it doesn't exist
it's a delusion only you believe in
You're still in denial, and still insulting. What created such poisonous lying character in you, CS? Get better soon. :)
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 17, 2017
@idiot chronic lying pseudoscience troll sam
:)
You're still in denial, and still insulting
it's not insulting if it's factual

you're still incapable of producing evidence for your claims, contrary to the scientific principle you claim to adhere to

if you can prove i'm lying, then link it here: show everyone where you've posted the 4 fatal flaws of BICEP2

while you are at it, please show where you've posted your maths and proofs that can be checked

by all means, demonstrate to the english speaking world that i'm a liar

it's called a "no contest" argument: if you can provide the evidence i will have to capitulate to the facts

however, the reciprocal is also true: if you can't provide the evidence it's validation of my established facts

i'll wait...

https://www.youtu...2di5phM0

:-)
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2017
@Captain Stumpy.
@idiot chronic lying pseudoscience troll sam
it's not insulting if it's factual
you're still incapable of producing evidence for your claims, contrary to the scientific principle you claim to adhere to
if you can prove i'm lying, then link it here: show everyone where you've posted the 4 fatal flaws of BICEP2
while you are at it, please show where you've posted your maths and proofs that can be checked
by all means, demonstrate to the english speaking world that i'm a liar
it's called a "no contest" argument: if you can provide the evidence i will have to capitulate to the facts
however, the reciprocal is also true: if you can't provide the evidence it's validation of my established facts
i'll wait...
https://www.youtu...2di5phM0
No further need to, CS; you have been self-demonstrating your poisonous lying denying bot-voting trolling character via your posts for years now. Even your 'mates' have tired of your malice, CS. Get better.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 17, 2017
@idiot chronic lying pseudoscience troll sam
:)
No further need to
thank you for validating me

you cannot provide links because they do not exist ...on PO or any other site you've been banned from

this is validating what i've been saying for 6,906 posts

thanks for that epic win

:)

PS- feel free to continue your denigration, but unless you can provide evidence, nothing you say will be able to make up for this epic failure of yours

and i'll likely ignore it because i don't need to prove you are a failure
you just did that for me

win-win!
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2017
@Captain Stumpy.
@idiot chronic lying pseudoscience troll sam

thank you for validating me
you cannot provide links because they do not exist ...on PO or any other site you've been banned from
this is validating what i've been saying for 6,906 posts
thanks for that epic win

PS- feel free to continue your denigration, but unless you can provide evidence, nothing you say will be able to make up for this epic failure of yours
and i'll likely ignore it because i don't need to prove you are a failure
you just did that for me
win-win!
Been there; done that, CS; but you just ignored/denied away, as is your well-honed MO. Your denial is so strong that you even delude yourself that your malicious, undignified, unscientific nastiness is a "win-win"! The forum can see your malicious, undignified and unscientific MO in the feedback pages where you and your bot-voting 'twin' self-demonstrate your malice and character self-destruction. Get better soon, CS.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2017
@EmceeSquared.
your maths based on reality that aren't an abstract construct but are instead reality itself. Tell me more about your maths that aren't subject to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem because they're not maths, they're the actual direct reality, not an abstract construct.
See? You DON'T WANT to comprehend; you pretend to ask for info while in the same breath PREsume that info is not forthcoming and/or incorrect


That's not pretending to ask for info - that's MOCKING YOU for spouting obvious nonsense. It's a rhetorical question about nonsense.

The proof: Instead of telling me how your obvious nonsense is really logical, you just whine about my closed mind. If you'd posted something meaningful you'd have made a point. Instead you proved mine.

Of course I don't want to "comprehend" your obvious nonsense. Because it's obvious nonsense. You're an argle-bargler, pathologically incapable of seeing that you're spouting nothing but gibberish.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2017
@EmceeSquared.
That's not pretending to ask for info - that's MOCKING YOU for spouting obvious nonsense. It's a rhetorical question about nonsense.

The proof: Instead of telling me how your obvious nonsense is really logical, you just whine about my closed mind. If you'd posted something meaningful you'd have made a point. Instead you proved mine.

Of course I don't want to "comprehend" your obvious nonsense. Because it's obvious nonsense. You're an argle-bargler, pathologically incapable of seeing that you're spouting nothing but gibberish.
That's even worse! Your pre-conclusionary biases/emotional 'needs', make you unfit to assess anything dispassionately/objectively. You're not fully informed, yet presume to 'mock' what you do not know/do not understand properly; as you keep kneejerking instead of thinking clearly and researching fairly to ascertain ALL the facts that have been posted over years! I have been correct all along; you are in denial, EcS. Rethink it. :)
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2017
RealityCheck:
Your pre-conclusionary biases/emotional 'needs', make you unfit to assess anything dispassionately/objectively.


My "needs" are not "pre-conclusionary", "biases" or "emotional". I need *coherence*. When you tell the world your maths are better than peer reviewed science because your maths are direct reality instead of science's abstract concepts, but your maths are "based on reality" therefore *abstract concepts*, you're incoherent. There's more, as I've mentioned several times, but that's enough.

You are stark raving mad. And too stupid to quit. Give it up already, you're starting to actually smell even through a Web page.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Jul 17, 2017
Back to reality, retro-causality is impossible! It's "over" already before you apply a cause, no words can make it true!
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 17, 2017
@EmceeSquared.
Your pre-conclusionary biases/emotional 'needs', make you unfit to assess anything dispassionately/objectively
My "needs" are not "pre-conclusionary", "biases" or "emotional".
Your posts 'dripping' with such, EcS.
I need *coherence*.
Objectivity first. Achieve that and you're on the way to achieving consistency.
When you tell the world your maths are better than peer reviewed science because your maths are direct reality instead of science's abstract concepts, but your maths are "based on reality" therefore *abstract concepts*, you're incoherent. There's more, as I've mentioned several times, but that's enough.
No. I have posted explanations/examples. You seem to not have understood or missed their import, because you are patently not objective/dispassionate, and hence biased to 'believe' I cannot be correct. But mainstream is increasingly confirming me correct (as many here who previously attacked me are slowly coming to realize). :)
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2017
@Hyperfuzzy.
Back to reality, retro-causality is impossible! It's "over" already before you apply a cause, no words can make it true!
Actually, that is the most succinct summation of reality 'event flow' that I have seen here so far. And it brings the UN-reality of the above article author's QM 'retrocausality' premise into stark relief. Well observed, Hyper, on both counts. :)
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Jul 17, 2017
@Hyperfuzzy.
Back to reality, retro-causality is impossible! It's "over" already before you apply a cause, no words can make it true!
Actually, that is the most succinct summation of reality 'event flow' that I have seen here so far. And it brings the UN-reality of the above article author's QM 'retrocausality' premise into stark relief. Well observed, Hyper, on both counts. :)

Thanks
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (3) Jul 17, 2017
@EmceeSquared.
I need *coherence*.
Objectivity first. Achieve that and you're on the way to achieving consistency.


No, you broken fool, I need *coherence* when people tell me things. You are *incoherent*. Your maths that are not an abstract construct, that's *incoherent*. You have posted no explanations of that because incoherence like that is *inexplicable*.

It's not up to me to achieve coherence, because everything I've posted has been coherent. It's up to you to be coherent. It's evidently impossible for you. Because you're a mad pseudoscientist.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2017
@EmceeSquared.
I need *coherence*.
Objectivity first. Achieve that and you're on the way to achieving consistency.
No, you broken fool, I need *coherence* when people tell me things. You are *incoherent*. Your maths that are not an abstract construct, that's *incoherent*. You have posted no explanations of that because incoherence like that is *inexplicable*.It's not up to me to achieve coherence, because everything I've posted has been coherent. It's up to you to be coherent. It's evidently impossible for you. Because you're a mad pseudoscientist.
It's consistency with reality that is THE goal of objective/dispassionate science/discourse. YOU 'labeling' me/my correct consistent explanations/examples "incoherent" just highlights your incapacity to listen/comprehend objectively/dispassionately. If you had spent as much effort on being objective/dispassionate as you do on biased/emotional kneejerking insults, you might have learned a lot by now, EcS. Too bad.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (3) Jul 18, 2017
Er
@EmceeSquared.
Your maths that are not an abstract construct, that's *incoherent*.
YOU 'labeling' me/my correct consistent explanations/examples "incoherent" just highlights your incapacity to listen/comprehend objectively/dispassionately.


In REALITY all maths are abstract constructs, abstracted from reality. Maths are not themselves reality, they are a description of reality.

So when you claim your maths are superior to some other, because your maths are not an abstract construct, when they necessarily must be an abstract concept because they're maths, then you are *incoherent*. The content of your maths is irrelevant to that absolutely fundamental point.

Which I have explained to you over and over again. You insist on turning the disagreement to some other level where you think you're in charge of the interpretation, because the OBJECTIVE REALITY of your fundamental incoherence threatens your entire mad pseudoscience scam.

You're sick.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (3) Jul 18, 2017
InteligentDesign:
climate change denier is a political label, not scientific and those using it are not true scientists. There are scientists on both sides of the question of what, and to what degree, human activity is the root cause of our claimate on our planet. My position is that we are incredibly arrogant to assume we humans cause or control huricanes. This second conversation = relative causational effects. And, no, I am not a scientist.


No, the reality is that climate change is established by thousands of actual scientists for years, on Greenhouse science understood and demonstrated for over a century. There are not climate scientists on "the other side of the question"; there are just paid deniers and non climate scientists denying the fully established science. Just like there are idiots denying the earth is a globe. It is not a "question", it is a scientific answer.

People denying the science are deniers. Saying its political is what's political.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (3) Jul 18, 2017
InteligentDesign:
This link is really interesting, at least to me. Although the article doesn't suggest it, It helps me understand the concept of how God works, knowing what will happen before it does, retro causing everything to begin with.


Please post peer-reviewed science supporting a theory of this "god" with material evidence.

Also, learn how to spell "intelligent". Doesn't Creationist homeschooling include spelling?
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Jul 18, 2017
@not-so-intelligent
climate change denier is a political label, not scientific
true
scientists tend to call people like that idiots because they're denying the science (or science deniers, which essentially means the same thing)
It helps me understand the concept of how God works
how does a factual evidence based scientific paper that can be replicated help you understand how a magical invisible being that can't be proven to exist except through an intentionally misrepresented author book that plagiarized other cultures mythos?
how He knows everything before it happens
huh
http://strangenot...rus1.jpg

PS- before you try to mention the bible: https://bobbiblog.../god.jpg

no, I am not a scientist.
yes, we can tell
you're also not aware of what science is, nor how it applies to reality
(there is a potential argument for not being aware of reality as well)
Seeker2
not rated yet Jul 18, 2017
...My position is that we are incredibly arrogant to assume we humans cause or control huricanes.
Does your pc or whatever have a spell checker? You really don't have to be a scientist to figure out how to use it. Anyway we don't cause hurricanes but that's no reason why we should make them worse than necessary. Every molecule of pollutants put into the atmosphere does that as I understand the science. Why make life harder than necessary?
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (2) Jul 18, 2017
InteligentDesign:
God is not purported to be science so of course there is no journal to reference. I just think its cool, but don't see the need for insults.
Our vehemence says more about us than those we project it on to. Nope, no peer reviews on that, just an opinion based on personal observation, and I may be totally wrong. But thanks for responding.


I'orry for coming on too strong. Your personal metaphysics are your own business.

But we've got a major problem in this science site's discussions, as in far too much of public discussion of science, and in far too much control of the public's business. We've got conquistador theocrats and just plain blundering believers polluting the discussions with metaphysical agendas that interfere with actual scientific discussions. My vehemence says about me that I have no tolerance for those disruptive fools.

If you accept that proof overrules faith, then I've got no problem with you. My apologies.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Jul 18, 2017
Start with Ancient Hieroglyphics and the presence of God before money. Note the delusion of those who were first to enter Egypt. God lived and was a man!
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (1) Jul 18, 2017
I am not a creationist
and how do you justify this according to your faith?
but I believe God is responsible for selective differentiation discover by Darwin
and again, i refer you to the following: http://strangenot...rus1.jpg

the question isn't why do you believe in god...
It's why do you believe your god interfered with humans/life when the belief system specifically stated he will not interfere, all while also hypocritically directly interfering with everything for the chosen?
but don't see the need for insults
yet you chose to specifically share your religious beliefs in a scientific topic?
that is insulting to anyone who has a methodical logical mind and seeks answers, isn't it?
the topic isn't how religion relates to science, after all
Our vehemence says
when you intentionally disrupt a topic of science with pseudoscience or belief, it is considered in poor manners
expect challenge
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (1) Jul 18, 2017
@EmceeSquared
I'orry for coming on too strong. Your personal metaphysics are your own business
[sic]

i disagree
when it is publicly shared in a science thread then it is presented for a reason, regardless if that reason is known to the poster or not (like a subconscious need for approval)

it's disruptive and it's hostile to the topic as it's diametrically opposed to the topic

science is based upon evidence and replication, whereas religion is entirely subjective to the person and requires a suspension of logic

they're irreconcilable

and considering the overwhelming flood of interjections on pseudoscience alone, a diversion into religion in a science topic is like pissing in your kool-aid to stir it up - it makes no sense at all and it's (likely) offensive to just about everyone who wants kool-aid
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (2) Jul 18, 2017
InteligentDesign:
I don't know what else to say, except thanks MC. It's just only when we are respectful of one another do we see what we can agree on that we can accomplish together, which is what we need.


You're welcome, sorry I treated you like a troll when you're evidently not.

just a joke
...I'll pray for you
So don't stone me.


Praying for me is fine, when it's private. When it's public it's more than just communing with your god, it's directed at the public and at the subject of the prayer. Jokes of course are fine - when they're funny. Otherwise they're not jokes, and usually whatever they actually are is not fine either.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (2) Jul 18, 2017
InteligentDesign:
I don't think it makes sense for me to stick around here much--it is, or isn't, a scientific phenomenon, retro causality, though pretty murkily so. Can it ever be completely accepted by physicists?


It seemed kind of out there to me


Phenomena can't be "not scientific": science is the study of phenomena. It's metaphysics that's not scientific. The difference is whether statements about something could be tested and proven false (even if they do pass they test, failing must be possible in the terms of the test). Falsifiable statements are scientific, but non falsifiable statements are metaphysical and not scientific.

Retrocausality is a subject for science: statements about it can be tested and proved wrong (or not proved wrong, eligible for further testing). The scientists this article reports on made and tested scientific statements. This discussion has challenges that either disprove scientific statements, or just raise substantial doubt.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (3) Jul 18, 2017
InteligentDesign:
IntelligentDesign was already taken.


Why are you so committed to naming yourself after "Intelligent Design" that you'll use a misspelling of it? Intelligent Design is a mask that Creationism wears in theocrats' conspiracy to subvert science education. It sure makes you look like a Creationist.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (2) Jul 18, 2017
InteligentDesign:
To me, my internal debate-- and this is just me, and not an analysis of any specifc science-- is if it is science fitting into theology, or theology fitting into science. It kills me when Christians have to hold onto things that are, as someone said earlier, as silly as the earth being flat. I want to thank you for the chance to discuss this, and I apologize to those who prefer it kept scientific.


Science and metaphysics (of which theology is a subset) don't conflict, when they each abide by the falsifiability boundary. Proof destroys faith, and once falsifiability appears it's science's ball. Before falsifiablity appears it's metaphysics, and any understanding of it is highly unreliable, basically guessing. Sure, metaphysical questions like omnipotent being and transcendent eternal life are important, maybe more important than, say, chemistry, but impossible to be sure and so actually know something about it.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (3) Jul 18, 2017
i disagree
when it is publicly shared in a science thread then it is presented for a reason, regardless if that reason is known to the poster or not (like a subconscious need for approval)

it's disruptive and it's hostile to the topic as it's diametrically opposed to the topic


Well, *personal* metaphysics is certainly one's own business. Posting them publicly, as I also commented on, is something else. But though this is a science site, the discussions are just a colloquial conversation. Someone mentioning it reminds them of their god, or of a fairy tale their mother used to sing to them, doesn't necessarily deserve slamming. It does probably deserve a mention that their god talk isn't science, but politely, or at worst sarcastic, to keep the conversation from devolving into folderol.

It's hard to tell at first glance, but not all believers are theocrats or delusional. Most just haven't thought through the implications of their beliefs and public mentions of them.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 18, 2017
@EmceeSquared.
In REALITY all maths are abstract constructs, abstracted from reality. Maths are not themselves reality, they are a description of reality
I'll try again one last time, mate. There is real model and then there is unreal model. The difference is whether the 'abstraction' (via axioms/concepts) into maths/geom terms/construct is based on REAL things or UNREAL things. I gave examples where unreal things infest current maths; eg, 'dimensionless point' etc which leads to undefined/unreal 'results/interpretations' brick walls of nonsense (like above article's premise) when attempting to model the universal reality. In my recent discussion with ZergSurfer/Da Schneib I gave an example of how current maths/geom 'abstractions based on unreal axioms/concepts is constitutionally incapable of modeling the real universe. And over years I have posted here/elsewhere other examples/arguments which go to that issue of deficiencies in current maths/geom 'abstractions'. Ok? :)
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (1) Jul 18, 2017
@EmceeSquared
the discussions are just a colloquial conversation. Someone mentioning it ...doesn't necessarily deserve slamming
i'm not so sure
this really depends upon the intent of the user

*religious* people of certain current beliefs are encouraged to "spread the word", regardless of situation

so when you get a forum of science, and it's not relevant, the first thing you should do is consider the implications of intent (why make a religious or even a faith based statement in scientific discourse when it's OT?)

faith intent may well be benign, however *religion* is a malignant organization

i draw a line segregating religion from a faith
a faith is simply a belief without evidence (like the idiot sam fedora, AKA rc above)

whereas a religion is a codified set of rules, typically built around a faith, specifically designed for judgement, segregation and worse

so why was it brought up, really?
keyword - *intent*
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (1) Jul 19, 2017
Hey Stumpy (what is that referring to anyway?)
nickname given to me by my fellow firefighters because i was squared off from working out all the time
What was the intent of their conversation?
that is called news (NBC)
that isn't science
articles (including news) are a persons opinion with a story of what they believe is supporting evidence, which may or may not even be factual (or even true - see: https://en.wikipe...ht_Fever )
My only *intent* was
the science *is* interesting - so why drag a deity of unknown origin and plagiarized history into it?
Slamming is neither scientific or professional, not to mention, of course, decent or nice
introducing religion into a science discourse is neither scientific nor professional, not to mention, of course, decent or nice

and if there is insult, it is because you take it personal
if you take it personal, it's because you have seen yourself as the problem because it's factual
TBCtd
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (1) Jul 19, 2017
You might want to stick to hard science, rather than speculating on what you know not of nor the ability to grasp
and what makes you think i don't grasp the subtleties of religious fanaticism or the psychological indicators you've displayed, like your need for attention and your overly defensive posture because you were caught?
Trading insults will get you nowhere, scientifically or in life
actually, you're wrong
this really does depend on what you're doing in life

what you perceive as "trading insults" is also called "stimulation"
any psych major can look at your responses and learn far, far more about you than you think... which is the intent

because you're a nooB, i was actually far more polite than i typically am

which brings us back to the point:
it's ok to have personal beliefs of faith
it's not ok to interject them into scientific discourse where it is not relevant
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Jul 19, 2017
Start with Ancient Hieroglyphics and the presence of God before money. Note the delusion of those who were first to enter Egypt. God lived and was a man!

The Pharaoh was God; However, a lot was lost in translation.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jul 21, 2017
Retrocausality is a subject for science: statements about it can be tested and proved wrong (or not proved wrong, eligible for further testing). The scientists this article reports on made and tested scientific statements. This discussion has challenges that either disprove scientific statements, or just raise substantial doubt.
In the sense it is used here, in QM, @Emcee, it's not at all clear that retrocausality can be disproven. This is because of Bell's Theorem. Bell's Theorem shows that quantum reality cannot be both local and realistic; that is, either nonlocal (i.e. superluminal, though not capable of transmitting information superluminally) interactions, or the reality of the Born Rule (i.e. superposition of a state is a real state, not just a mathematical conundrum), must be true. Both of these are flat impossible for classical states; they only hold true of quantum states.
[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jul 21, 2017
[contd]
The really interesting part involves the Fluctuation Theorem, which predicted experimental results in which the 2LOT was locally violated at the boundary between classical and quantum states in an experiment. What the underlying meaning of the FT is, is that these nonclassical quantum states are in fact necessary to provide the underpinning for the classical states; that is, either the nonlocality or the nonrealism of quantum states is a *necessary precursor* to the existence of locally real states in classical mechanics. This seems like a conundrum, but in fact the mathematics of the FT are not a theory, but a theorem, which is susceptible to mathematical proof.

Physicists are still wrestling with this. It seems self-contradictory when stated in natural (i.e. classically consistent) language and logic; in fact, mathematically, it is proven (QED, is how that's put generally).

We might have an interesting conversation about this if you like.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jul 21, 2017
I just realized I didn't show how nonlocality can violate causality; it's because it violates speed of light constraints. Once you've broken the light cone, you've broken causality. And retrocausality becomes possible once you can show that's so.
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Jul 22, 2017
Back to reality, retro-causality is impossible! It's "over" already before you apply a cause, no words can make it true!

Yeah, but...
The very nature of "feedback" means there is, at least, a minimal amount of information returned to before the cause...
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (4) Jul 22, 2017
Da Schneib:
In the sense it is used here, in QM, @Emcee, it's not at all clear that retrocausality can be disproven. [...] Bell's Theorem shows that quantum reality cannot be both local and realistic


Well, I don't think it's proven that nonlocal/nonrealistic QM phenomena cannot ever be proven, at best that's a current conjecture. My conjecture is that the intractability of retrocausality derives from our methods, not from either the nature of existence or from human ability to know it. Analogously H's Uncertainty Principle has been loopholed recently with partial, discardable measurements that allow knowledge well beyond what once seemed hopeless under the UP. I don't see the possibility of clever experiments ruled out for retrocausality.

It's early: retrocausality isn't even totally convincing as a hypothesis for a few observed results. More experiments will reveal more structural details, in which chances for falsifiability might be found.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jul 22, 2017
@Emcee, my tendency is to go with the very well experimentally supported Bell tests. And Bell's Theorem in turn shows that because we can only prove that *either* non-locality *or* non-realism can be demonstrated in QM, we cannot distinguish between them. Experiments that either show non-locality or non-realism are common. It is therefore a lemma that since either but not both can be shown in real experiments, and only one can be true at a time, that there cannot be an experiment to differentiate between them.

I don't think based on Bell's Theorem, the outcomes of Bell tests, and the outcomes of other experiments that both show locality is preserved, and realism is preserved, but not in the same experiment, that there remains any uncertainty in stating that it will not be possible to distinguish between retrocausality and its lack, since experiments can always be interpreted either way.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (2) Jul 22, 2017
Da Schneib:
I don't think based on Bell's Theorem, the outcomes of Bell tests, and the outcomes of other experiments that both show locality is preserved, and realism is preserved, but not in the same experiment, that there remains any uncertainty in stating that it will not be possible to distinguish between retrocausality and its lack, since experiments can always be interpreted either way.


I'll have to accept that reasoning and redefine my "conjecture" into "wish" :).

Do you think there's any new insights into the mechanical basis of Bell's Theorem shed by these experiments being explained by retrocausality?
Seeker2
not rated yet Jul 23, 2017
I don't see the possibility of clever experiments ruled out for retrocausality.
Or, for what might appear to be retrocausality inside the uncertainty principle. I don't think causality has any physical meaning inside the UP but if you go ahead and test for it anyway you should find either causality or retrocausality at roughly the same frequency. You would do just as well to flip a coin.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Jul 24, 2017
@Emcee, I think that the fact that either retrocausality or nonlocality can lead to a valid interpretation shows an important difference between classical and quantum logic. I think this is a conundrum that we have faced since we performed Bell test experiments and they came out as we see.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (2) Jul 24, 2017
Da Schneib:
either retrocausality or nonlocality can lead to a valid interpretation shows an important difference between classical and quantum logic.


Oh yes. I just wonder whether this new experiment, or others with a valid retrocausality explanation, shed any new light on the mechanics of what underlies Bell's Theorem.

We also have news of an experiment closing the local realism experimental loopholes to a prohibitively small possibility:
"Probability that the quantum world obeys local realism is less than one in a billion, experiment shows"
https://phys.org/...ism.html

Poking around at these tiny QM phenomena have given more insight into their detailed mechanics, after the "top-down" theory enables the poking. It's the classic science dialectic that reveals more distinctions and eventually sometimes shows that looking at phenomena with different tools gets past once "impossible" barriers.
Seeker2
not rated yet Jul 24, 2017
" If there are superluminal influences, then why can't we observe them directly? This is the puzzle that cries out for explanation."

Ok. What about the speed of gravity? If it was limited by the speed of light the sun's gravitational force on the earth would be pointing to where it was 8 seconds previously. And then the earth would be receiving that force vector after another 8 seconds. The earth and all objects would eventually fall out of orbit. Or so it seems.
Surajsaxsena
not rated yet Sep 02, 2017
As we know the famous Double Slit experiment that was carried out. It shows us that the particle is present at two places at the same time. But when we observe it, it becomes either a wave or a particle. It is the limitation of scope from the point of view of an observer that the universe arranges itself. If not observed, everything (past, present and future) remains in the same space and time and a change in any of these periods will effect a change in other.
Seeker2
not rated yet Sep 05, 2017
Everything in this U is entangled. Trick is in the quantum world you can only observe it when there are two wave functions involved. At least up to the present.
Seeker2
not rated yet Sep 05, 2017
Actually you can observe multiple entangled wave functions with a grating.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.