• Solving the metaphysical dilemma proposed by Quantum Mechanics
    143 replies, posted
[DISCLAIMER] ITT we talk about Quantum Mechanics in all ways, but mostly the theories explaining the collapse of the wave packet. If you don't understand that, here's a video. [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc[/url] I hope it helps.) I was the epitome of smarked last night when I wrote this, and yet I still stand by it now that I'm sober... What do you all think? (I'm going to assume you know about the lack of explanation of how Quantum Mechanics works metaphysically, otherwise we'll be here all day.) [Part One] Well the dilemma posed by the two-slit experiment can be solved by seeing that for every outcome that could happen it does in fact break off into multi-verses. Our universe is what really happened, and the other ones are imaginary. It COULD go on for infinity, because you could imagine anything. All those other places it COULD have landed (the photon in the slit experiment) still exist, they are everywhere at once like we thought, but those other places it's NOT in that it COULD have been in do not have mass, they can't because they don't really exist. Only one outcome can ACTUALLY exist, the rest are universes created within our own heads. How does it decide where to place it is something I have not thought of yet. It seems to do it by chance... which would make sense why chance is so common in the universe, and yet doesn't explain why everything works with such order. Order and randomness are the same thing. It's like opportunity cost, if you take a day off of work you can't look at it as just getting no money, you have to see what you COULD have made, had you been working. That money isn't physical in any way, it's just representative, you imagine it's there because, in a way, it is. Same principle applies here, it exists, but only in our imagination. [Part Two] I'm not sure how black body radiation works yet, but I think I can explain how the photons can take quantum leaps. They travel faster than the speed of light. It's rather ironic that the light particle is traveling faster than the speed of light itself (plus we don't believe anything CAN travel faster than the speed of light) but if it COULD, think about it. If the photon traveled AT the speed of light, it would look like it happened instantaneously to us, correct (this is over a rather short distance, like the size of a room or warehouse)? Now if it went faster, it would disappear completely, because it's going too fast for light to bounce off of it and reach our eyes and then reappear wherever it ends up, after it has stopped moving, also instantaneously. If it disappears and then reappears, it would look like it made a jump and didn't travel at all, and yet it WOULD be traveling, just so fast we can not measure it and it can't be seen by humans.
[QUOTE=Meader;28670510]I was the epitome of smarked last night when I wrote this, and yet I still stand by it now that I'm sober... What do you all think? (I'm going to assume you know about the lack of explanation of how Quantum Mechanics works metaphysically, otherwise we'll be here all day.) [Part One] Well the dilemma posed by the two-slit experiment can be solved by seeing that for every outcome that could happen it does in fact break off into multi-verses. Our universe is what really happened, and the other ones are imaginary. It COULD go on for infinity, because you could imagine anything. All those other places it COULD have landed (the photon in the slit experiment) still exist, they are everywhere at once like we thought, but those other places it's NOT in that it COULD have been in do not have mass, they can't because they don't really exist. Only one outcome can ACTUALLY exist, the rest are universes created within our own heads. How does it decide where to place it is something I have not thought of yet. It seems to do it by chance... which would make sense why chance is so common in the universe, and yet doesn't explain why everything works with such order. Order and randomness are the same thing. It's like opportunity cost, if you take a day off of work you can't look at it as just getting no money, you have to see what you COULD have made, had you been working. That money isn't physical in any way, it's just representative, you imagine it's there because, in a way, it is. Same principle applies here, it exists, but only in our imagination. [Part Two] I'm not sure how black body radiation works yet, but I think I can explain how the photons can take quantum leaps. They travel faster than the speed of light. It's rather ironic that the light particle is traveling faster than the speed of light itself (plus we don't believe anything CAN travel faster than the speed of light) but if it COULD, think about it. If the photon traveled AT the speed of light, it would look like it happened instantaneously to us, correct (this is over a rather short distance, like the size of a room or warehouse)? Now if it went faster, it would disappear completely, because it's going too fast for light to bounce off of it and reach our eyes and then reappear wherever it ends up, after it has stopped moving, also instantaneously. If it disappears and then reappears, it would look like it made a jump and didn't travel at all, and yet it WOULD be traveling, just so fast we can not measure it and it can't be seen by humans.[/QUOTE] Dude, This is some smart stuff. Send it to a college or a university to see what they think.
*This* is the reason weed and psychedelics should be legal. Imagine what our greatest scientists could achieve tripping balls on acid.
[QUOTE=UltraViolent;28672957]*This* is the reason weed and psychedelics should be legal. Imagine what our greatest scientists could achieve tripping balls on acid.[/QUOTE] Probably somthing to do with hampsters, Metal suits and blenders. I like where this is going.
am i the only one that's confused as fuck
Richard Feynman used weed
[img]http://www.picturesofbobmarley.com/pictures/smoking-marijuana-1980.jpg[/img]
[img]http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/8717/moarplslol.png[/img] [editline]18th March 2011[/editline] oh my god i love this macro, i'm gonna use this one till the day i die. my baby :3:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/NrlXM.png[/img] OCD MAN AWAYY
now you fucking ruined it :smithicide: my baby....
I've been thinking about Black Body Radiation... Still not sure about it. I mean, the idea in an example form is that the temperature of something goes from 80 to 85 degrees... without going through 81-84. Now they MUST obviously go through them, right? I can't see any way around that (unless it's really heating up that fast... maybe faster than can be measured). So we're assuming it's going through them, but we can't tell... so it's there but isn't. Not sure how that would work..
[QUOTE=UltraViolent;28672957]*This* is the reason weed and psychedelics should be legal. Imagine what our greatest scientists could achieve tripping balls on acid.[/QUOTE] Carl Sagan was a strong proponent of cannabis use. This, however, is just silly.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;28682977]Carl Sagan was a strong proponent of cannabis use. This, however, is just silly.[/QUOTE] I'm being silly? :'(
HEY MAN WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF I EXPOSED MY BALLS TO TRILLIONS OF NEUTRINOS lol go for it sci-brah, we can see if we can cook these microwaveable burritos with it afterward.
snip
[QUOTE=Meader;28682954]I've been thinking about Black Body Radiation... Still not sure about it. I mean, the idea in an example form is that the temperature of something goes from 80 to 85 degrees... without going through 81-84. Now they MUST obviously go through them, right? I can't see any way around that (unless it's really heating up that fast... maybe faster than can be measured). So we're assuming it's going through them, but we can't tell... so it's there but isn't. Not sure how that would work..[/QUOTE] That's not what blackbody radiation is. Blackbody radiation is a quantum effect whereby an object (a blackbody) which absorbs all electromagnetic radiation that falls on it and traps it indefinitely, radiates energy into its surroundings. [editline]19th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Meader;28682991]I'm being silly? :'([/QUOTE] Well I assume you're high or were high so I don't blame you. [editline]19th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=NeoSeeker;28682996]HEY MAN WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF I EXPOSED MY BALLS TO TRILLIONS OF NEUTRINOS[/QUOTE] Almost certainly nothing. Neutrinos almost never interact with anything else. They could go through a trillion miles of lead and not so much as bump into another particle. [editline]19th March 2011[/editline] Why did I dignify that with a serious answer?
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;28683015] Almost certainly nothing. Neutrinos almost never interact with anything else. They could go through a trillion miles of lead and not so much as bump into another particle.[/QUOTE] [img]http://www.picturesofbobmarley.com/pictures/smoking-marijuana-1980.jpg[/img] hey man if you're going to kill my conjecture you might as well pass the blunt and leave
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;28683015]That's not what blackbody radiation is. Blackbody radiation is a quantum effect whereby an object (a blackbody) which absorbs all electromagnetic radiation that falls on it and traps it indefinitely, radiates energy into its surroundings.[/QUOTE] The way the issue WITH blackbody radiation was told to me involved changing temperatures without going through all the consecutive numbers. I was describing the issue that hasn't been figured out yet, not what it was itself.
How does time work as a dimension? Are there theoretical universes where time, as a dimension, doesn't exist?
[QUOTE=Barblunder;28683078]How does time work as a dimension? Are there theoretical universes where time, as a dimension, doesn't exist?[/QUOTE] Time only exists in our heads.
Also does space have an infinitely precise grid of co-ordinates or is there a base unit? Particle movement - how does it work? Can a particle that moves from one place to another be said to be the exact same particle or just the same type of particle existing in a new place as a result of the "movement" of the original particle?
[QUOTE=Barblunder;28683008]I don't think any of us are scientists and can actually verify whether or not this is valid and new.... but from my experience with Stephen Hawking books I can say that part 2 sounds pretty good to me. I don't know so much about part 1. And hey, isn't quantum mechanics actually just a system we use because it's impossible for us to measure the location of a particle perfectly accurately? Like we can't definitively say that a particle is in an exact location moving at an exact speed, but that's just due to the limitations of the smallest wavelength of light. It doesn't mean that the particle doesn't have those precise qualities. Is that all correct? How can we say that a particle has a chance of taking any one of infinite paths to get from one place to another? I just don't even[/QUOTE] It's not due to the wavelength of light and it does mean that the particle doesn't have those precise qualities. Measuring those properties forces the creation of uncertainty. You can explain it via fourier analysis as well. Measuring something in one domain with a given accuracy increases the size of the transformed domain. If you want to know x property, you have to have a whole bunch of y to measure over, but it creates uncertainty in y. Also, each path can have an infinitesimal probability and when you integrate over all their probabilities you get unity.
hahaha, not those kind of heads [editline]19th March 2011[/editline] god damn it why does everyone have to be so fucking technical all the time. personally i think you're as dumb as the rest of us if you can't make sense to a normal person
[QUOTE=Meader;28683087]Time only exists in our heads.[/QUOTE] If that's true then why does matter interact in a linear cause-and-effect sequence? I thought it was just the movement of time that existed in our heads, but time was still very much a real dimension
[QUOTE=Barblunder;28683108]Also does space have an infinitely precise grid of co-ordinates or is there a base unit? Particle movement - how does it work? Can a particle that moves from one place to another be said to be the exact same particle or just the same type of particle existing in a new place as a result of the "movement" of the original particle?[/QUOTE] It's been posited that the structure of the universe is discrete, and the Planck length is the smallest possible distance. [QUOTE=Meader;28683075]The way the issue WITH blackbody radiation was told to me involved changing temperatures without going through all the consecutive numbers. I was describing the issue that hasn't been figured out yet, not what it was itself.[/QUOTE] What is the issue? I am confused. [QUOTE=Meader;28683087]Time only exists in our heads.[/QUOTE] Almost certainly not. [editline]19th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=NeoSeeker;28683110]hahaha, not those kind of heads [editline]19th March 2011[/editline] god damn it why does everyone have to be so fucking technical all the time. personally i think you're as dumb as the rest of us if you can't make sense to a normal person[/QUOTE] Sorry. Einstein said the same thing but I was just trying to be thorough in my explanation. Imagine you have a particle and you want to find where it is. To observe it you have to look at it. To see it, photons have to bounce off of it and go back to your eye. The act of bouncing photons off the particle gives it some momentum you don't know.
here put this box over your head and write SCIENCE GUY on all sides
Inertia is a property of matter.
[QUOTE=Barblunder;28683134]If that's true then why does matter interact in a linear cause-and-effect sequence? I thought it was just the movement of time that existed in our heads, but time was still very much a real dimension[/QUOTE] Well I meant more the concept of time that humans use. If we didn't remember the past, and since we don't know the future, we would have no concept of time moving "forward". I feel like it'd be a lot easier to concentrate on what was happening at that moment.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;28683109]It's not due to the wavelength of light and it does mean that the particle doesn't have those precise qualities. Measuring those properties forces the creation of uncertainty. You can explain it via fourier analysis as well. Measuring something in one domain with a given accuracy increases the size of the transformed domain. If you want to know x property, you have to have a whole bunch of y to measure over, but it creates uncertainty in y. Also, each path can have an infinitesimal probability and when you integrate over all their probabilities you get unity.[/QUOTE] Ultimately, is there a chance that any given path may be taken, regardless of how small? Or is there a maximum amount of variance from the path?
[QUOTE=Barblunder;28683207]Ultimately, is there a chance that any given path may be taken, regardless of how small? Or is there a maximum amount of variance from the path?[/QUOTE] Yes, any given path has some probability.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.