In a new paper published in Proceedings of The Royal Society A, physicists 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 quantum theory 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 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.
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 quantum 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 quantum state 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]
RobertKarlStonjek
3.4 / 5 (7) Jul 05, 2017Thus 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, 2017Gigel
5 / 5 (2) Jul 05, 2017Dingbone
Jul 05, 2017Dingbone
Jul 05, 2017Dingbone
Jul 05, 2017AmritSorli
1 / 5 (6) Jul 05, 2017jack_sarfatti
3.8 / 5 (4) Jul 05, 2017http://aip.scitat...ded=1841
http://aip.scitat....4982779
Isotherm7
5 / 5 (2) Jul 05, 2017Dingbone
Jul 05, 2017EmceeSquared
4 / 5 (4) Jul 05, 2017Why 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, 2017Dingbone
Jul 05, 2017EmceeSquared
3 / 5 (2) Jul 05, 2017How can the decision in the present influence something in the past without signaling the past?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Jul 05, 2017There'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, 2017https://en.wikipe...retation
Gigel
5 / 5 (2) Jul 06, 2017I'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, 2017As 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, 2017Ojorf
2 / 5 (4) Jul 06, 2017In 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, 2017Dingbone
Jul 06, 2017Dingbone
Jul 06, 2017Dingbone
Jul 06, 2017Dingbone
Jul 06, 2017taka
1 / 5 (1) Jul 06, 2017Dingbone
Jul 06, 2017idjyit
4 / 5 (1) Jul 06, 2017Bode Einstein condensate, entanglement, The Big Bang all would benefit from this.
Dingbone
Jul 06, 2017Dingbone
Jul 06, 2017Dingbone
Jul 06, 2017Dingbone
Jul 06, 2017Dingbone
Jul 06, 2017antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Jul 06, 2017The 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, 2017Merrit
5 / 5 (1) Jul 06, 2017Merrit
5 / 5 (1) Jul 06, 2017theon
1 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2017Dingbone
Jul 07, 2017EmceeSquared
1 / 5 (1) Jul 07, 2017By "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, 2017I 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)
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, 2017Yet 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, 2017I 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"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"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, 2017Just 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, 2017pepe2907
1 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2017Serious 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, 2017Entanglement:
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, 2017And there's no "retrocasual QM signal".
idjyit
1 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2017A mathematical way of resolving different temporal reference frames.
pepe2907
5 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2017pepe2907
5 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2017Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2017[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2017And 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, 2017Thus, 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, 2017pepe2907
5 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2017Unles 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, 2017Dingbone
Jul 08, 2017idjyit
not rated yet Jul 08, 2017If 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, 2017idjyit
not rated yet Jul 08, 2017It 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, 2017idjyit
not rated yet Jul 08, 2017The 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, 2017HarrisonC
5 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2017The 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, 2017Dingbone
Jul 08, 2017Dingbone
Jul 08, 2017Dingbone
Jul 08, 2017Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2017Light 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, 2017EmceeSquared
3 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2017Well 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, 2017Well 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, 2017I 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, 2017I 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, 2017winthrom
not rated yet Jul 08, 2017https://en.wikipe...opagator
will explain this matter to everyone's satisfaction.
Dingbone
Jul 08, 2017Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2017Dingbone
Jul 08, 2017Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2017Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2017Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2017Actually, 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, 2017What 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, 2017x' = 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, 2017We 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, 2017Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2017For 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, 2017Dingbone
Jul 08, 2017Dingbone
Jul 08, 2017Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2017Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Jul 08, 2017Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2017Success 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
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2017Your 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, 2017Get over it.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2017Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2017Looks 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, 2017Got 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, 2017Please 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, 2017Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Jul 09, 2017It 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, 2017If 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, 2017Dingbone
Jul 09, 2017Dingbone
Jul 09, 2017Dingbone
Jul 09, 2017Dingbone
Jul 09, 2017Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Jul 09, 2017Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Jul 09, 2017Spacetime 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.
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
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 09, 2017Until 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, 2017But 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, 2017Oh 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
3 / 5 (4) Jul 09, 2017Regarding 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
3 / 5 (4) Jul 09, 2017betterexists
1 / 5 (3) Jul 09, 2017EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (3) Jul 09, 2017Of 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, 2017The 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(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, 2017EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (3) Jul 09, 2017What do these people whose brains are broken get out of spamming the comments of this science blog?
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Jul 09, 2017Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Jul 09, 2017the 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, 2017Why?
There is no "doer;" it simply is.
Best to say mass and energy curve spacetime and leave it at that.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Jul 10, 2017Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Jul 10, 2017Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jul 10, 2017winthrom
not rated yet Jul 10, 2017interesting
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, 2017The 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, 2017Try, 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, 2017Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Jul 10, 2017as 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, 2017Like 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
2 / 5 (4) Jul 10, 2017Glad 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.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'.In case you haven't noticed, I've been doing that "bridging" with my reality-based ToE/Maths work/insights.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, 2017The 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, 2017You 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, 2017Thus, 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, 2017We do not, because you clearly don't even agree with yourself:
"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, 2017These 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, 2017MAD 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
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 11, 2017Calm 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, 2017I 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, 2017Yes, 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.
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, 2017Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 11, 2017but 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, 2017Discussing 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, 2017What'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, 2017Wow! 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, 2017Any 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, 2017Lema: 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, 2017Any 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, 2017However, 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, 2017Wrong. 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, 2017QED
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (3) Jul 11, 2017Only 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, 2017wrong
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, 2017MSEE, 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, 2017And 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, 2017Seeker2
not rated yet Jul 11, 2017OBTW plausibility doesn't include fairy dust physics.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jul 11, 2017I 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, 2017Whatever 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, 2017I 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, 2017That 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, 2017Time 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, 2017This 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, 2017Perhaps 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, 2017Actually it's quite obvious because the time axis is hyperbolic.
[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Jul 11, 2017As 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
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 11, 2017RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 11, 2017Anyway, 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, 2017Go learn some math before you make yourself look any more risible.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Jul 11, 2017Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Jul 11, 2017Seeker2
not rated yet Jul 11, 2017RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 11, 2017EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (5) Jul 11, 2017You 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, 2017No, 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, 2017EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (5) Jul 11, 2017You'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, 2017No 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
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 11, 2017Did 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, 2017No. You're the one who "constructed" this big reveal that you're talking out of both sides of your mouth:
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, 2017Well, 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
3 / 5 (4) Jul 11, 2017Ok, 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, 2017for 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, 2017RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 12, 2017Been 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, 2017Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Jul 12, 2017Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Jul 12, 2017Thread 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
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 12, 2017Your '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, 2017RealityCheck
3 / 5 (4) Jul 12, 2017I 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, 2017RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 12, 2017You're still in denial, mate. Your (long time) problem, not mine. Get better soon. :)
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Jul 12, 2017Let 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, 2017Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 12, 2017Here you go whining about votes again Cher.
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, 2017Your 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
3 / 5 (4) Jul 12, 2017Consider, 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, 2017Sorry 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, 2017Did you mean - fractal?
But - we're not, so....
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, 2017Seeker2
not rated yet Jul 13, 2017OBTW 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 configurationsSo we have time to think about it.
i.e., all points in spacetime are equivalent because their relationship with other points never changes.
Again, giving us time to think about it.Good point.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2017And 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[...]
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, 2017You'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
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 13, 2017EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (3) Jul 13, 2017No. 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
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 13, 2017Go 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, 2017Oh, *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, 2017I 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, 2017Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jul 14, 2017Seeker2
not rated yet Jul 14, 2017Seeker2
not rated yet Jul 14, 2017Or, you might say, ignorance as a means of punishing insubordination. Really?
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2017EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2017Oh, 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
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2017Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Jul 17, 2017In 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, 2017sorry
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
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2017Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 17, 2017:)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
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2017Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 17, 2017:)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
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2017EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2017That'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
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2017EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2017My "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, 2017RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2017RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2017Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Jul 17, 2017Thanks
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (3) Jul 17, 2017RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2017EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (3) Jul 18, 2017In 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, 2017No, 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, 2017Please 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, 2017scientists tend to call people like that idiots because they're denying the science (or science deniers, which essentially means the same thing)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?huh
http://strangenot...rus1.jpg
PS- before you try to mention the bible: https://bobbiblog.../god.jpg
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, 2017EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (2) Jul 18, 2017I'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, 2017Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (1) Jul 18, 2017the 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?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 allwhen 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, 2017i 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, 2017You're welcome, sorry I treated you like a troll when you're evidently not.
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, 2017Phenomena 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, 2017Why 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, 2017Science 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, 2017Well, *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
3 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2017Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (1) Jul 18, 2017this 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, 2017that 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 )the science *is* interesting - so why drag a deity of unknown origin and plagiarized history into it?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, 2017this 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, 2017The Pharaoh was God; However, a lot was lost in translation.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jul 21, 2017[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jul 21, 2017The 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, 2017Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Jul 22, 2017Yeah, 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, 2017Well, 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, 2017I 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, 2017I'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, 2017Da Schneib
not rated yet Jul 24, 2017EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (2) Jul 24, 2017Oh 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, 2017Ok. 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, 2017Seeker2
not rated yet Sep 05, 2017Seeker2
not rated yet Sep 05, 2017