Posted on 05/26/2021 8:19:24 AM PDT by BenLurkin
The quantum world is notoriously weird. Single particles can be in two places at once, for example. Only by making an observation do we force it to 'choose'. Before an observation we can only assign probabilities to the likely outcomes.
Such a picture cannot be reconciled with a smooth, continuous fabric of space-time. According to Einstein, space-time is warped by matter and energy, but quantum physics says matter and energy exist in multiple states simultaneously — they can be both here and over there.
According to Einstein, space-time is like a stage that remains in place whether actors are treading its boards or not —even if there were no stars or planets dancing around, space-time would still be there. However, physicists Laurent Freidel, Robert Leigh, and Djordje Minic think...space-time doesn't exist independently of the objects in it. Space-time is defined by the way objects interact. That would make space-time an artifact of the quantum world itself, not something to be combined with it.
The attraction of this theory — called modular space-time — is that it might help solve another long-standing problem in theoretical physics regarding something called locality, and a notorious phenomenon in quantum physics called entanglement. Physicists can set up a situation whereby they bring two particles together and link their quantum properties. They then separate them by a large distance and find they are still linked. Change the properties of one and the other will change instantly, as if information has traveled from one to the other faster than the speed of light in direct violation of relativity.
Modular space-time theory can accommodate such behavior by redefining what it means to be separated. If space-time emerges from the quantum world, then being closer in a quantum sense is more fundamental than being close in a physical sense.
(Excerpt) Read more at livescience.com ...
I certainly hope not.
We’ve got enough problems already.
Nothing can be measured perfectly, and therefore no experiment is perfectly repeatable, except within the limits of experimental error. Sometimes experiments, or tests, only produce meaningful results as the average of many trials.
Yes. [Lowers head sheepishly in shame...]
Bookmark
We can not even understand infinity or gravity yet we know it exist.
Theories are simplifications, and any simplification of the real world is at best an approximation. So all theories are wrong, but a very small number are useful. The usual proof a new theory is useful is when it results in a new way to kill.
space time for sale
1 sq foot per second for $10.
That's what she said.
Have you just created a new philosophy: Interactionism?
from Wikipedia:
“At present, gravity is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity (proposed by Albert Einstein in 1915), which describes gravity not as a force, but as a consequence of masses moving along geodesic lines in a curved spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass... However, for most applications, gravity is well approximated by Newton’s law of universal gravitation, which describes gravity as a force causing any two bodies to be attracted toward each other, with magnitude proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.”
MASA consulted Newton’s version to get to the moon.
We don’t know that infinity exists. It might exist as a mathematical concept, but even that is dicey. There is no evidence yet, or could ever be, that there is an infinite amount of space, time, matter, or energy.
Listening to physicists these days is similar to visiting a mental institution. Except that the inmates of the institutions generally make more sense.
If God is entangled in all of creation, and being close is more a quantum than spatiotemporal phenomenon, then God can be everywhere without being anywhere.
If I ever ordered a bacon cheeseburger and found that it had broccoli in it where the bacon ought to be I would be sorely disappointed.
Yes, of course. But within parameters testability is key. If I transmit a radio signal on 451.8625 MHz, it won’t be *exactly* that frequency, but close enough to test and measure in a repeatable fashion.
Thus the age-old question: Does a tree falling in the forest make a sound if there is no ear to hear it?
What are you talking about? We all know that Congress has an infinite amount of money to spend.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.