Astronomers Deal Blow To Quantum Theories Of Time, Space, Gravity

Space Daily ^ | Huntsville - Mar 28, 2003 | Editorial Staff

[Windcatcher]

Open box --> collapse wavefunction --> change cat's state.

Of course, collapsing the wavefunction means a Fourier transform...so the transform *itself* is the source of the uncertainty? What I would have given to understand that when I was in grad school...man, I knew I should have double-majored in Physics and Math.

[patton]

Ah, but my perception of the state ot the cat IS the state of the cat.

Unless you are the cat, of course.

[kcar]

"I'm still trying to understand quantum checkbook balancing."

Debits are no longer matched by credits, meaning that what's left is possibly not right at all. But also look for uneven charges which might not be matched by right-side entries, which might be wrong. If the world is still unequal, divide the difference by nine. I hope that helps.
If it doesn't, check out www.Clarkhoward.com.

[AMDG&BVMH]

Re: "Open box --> collapse wavefunction --> change cat's state"

That is Schroedinger's point: opening the box does NOT change the cat's state. The cat is not IN a wavefunction half alive and half dead.

QM works as a predictive model. But it does not tell us what is happening to the individual particle.

[patton]

LaPlace transforms always simplify things...shockingly.

[Doctor Stochastic]

But how about a cat and a ball of twine? They could exist in an entangled state.

A cat is so large as to be decohairballent.

[Windcatcher]

Okay, this is now obligatory...

http://www.jokemonster.com/c/flash/flash_138862.html

[Windcatcher]

Agreed.

[patton]

Well, you pinged me...

[AMDG&BVMH]

Re: "Ah, but my perception of the state ot the cat IS the state of the cat."

That statement is pregnant with metaphysical implications.

Schroedinger certainly believed the state of the cat existed in reality, whether he or you or anyone else knew it or not. I.E. the cat's existence is independent of you and whether you look in the box or not. Unless you are the one who feeds it or dispatches it ;).

[Capitalism2003]

10^-27*(m1*m2)/d^2

did I remember this right? the attraction between two bodies in space =

10^-27*(m1*m2)/d^2

We need a science board on FR. I like these sort of conversations cuz I'm a geek. ;)

[patton]

Or changes the dang cat litter.

[boris]

"I keep reading suppositions that denote time a quality when it is no more than an observance."

Have you read Julian Barbour's The End of Time?

I read it twice and still don't understand it.

One of my interests is the question of time, its nature.

I 'convinced' myself via a somewhat difficult-to-follow internal debate that "the passage of time is an illusion."

Rudy Rucker once asked Kurt Godel 'what causes the illusion of the flow of time?' Godel answered obliquely, but did not reject the question as nonsensical.

The more I 'study' time, the more confused I become. There is a deep mystery here. I wonder if humans can ever discover the true nature of time.

--Boris

[AMDG&BVMH]

"They could exist in an entangled state.

A cat is so large as to be decohairballent."

Ah, what a tangled web we weave . . .

The cat is large, but the premise was a photon or something triggering the event, nicht Wahr?

[dogbyte12]

All we are in dust in the wind dude--- "Ted" Theodore Logan.

[TheLion]

Now....that was funny! I will have to research and refresh myself on this subject before I can make any since out of it. Will get back to you.

[AMDG&BVMH]

"Or changes the dang cat litter."

Now that is a decidely unpleasant aspect. Take, instead, rabbits. Rabbit "output" is beneficial to the environment and gardeners love it.

[Windcatcher]

LOL I haven't been in Physics in ten years. It looks right, but I can't speak for the constant. It's essentially G * m1 * m2/r^2, but I don't remember what G is (we usually just looked it up).

In the case of bending light, however, the classical calculation really isn't the point. We're really talking about general relativity. Mass bends spacetime. The light is still moving in a straight line, it's just that spacetime becomes curved in the vicinity of an object with mass. If light passes by an electron-positron pair (or any other pair) of virtual particles that arose from spacetime's "frothiness", the mass of the particle pair will warp space and cause the light's trajectory to change.

Of course, we're talking about "virtual" particles. No one ever really explained this to me satisfactorily, but my impression is that it means that space is curved ("frothy") in such a way that it has the same effect as if there were particles with mass present. Of course, I could be totally off base there...

[boris]

"Some mathematician saw it and decided to work out the general theory with 4 space dimensions and one time dimension. He played around with the equations he generated and POOF!. Out popped Maxwells field theories."

Kaluza/Klein.

Maxwell's 'field theories' are actually equations, and they did pop out of Kaluza/Klein. I am unaware of any conflict betweek Kaluza/Klein and Special or General Relativity. In fact, numerous modern theories posit that there are many 'hidden' dimensions. String, superstring, and 'm-brane' theories all seem to imply multiple hidden dimensions.

Were I a betting man, I would bet on the 'reality' (whatever that means) of higher spatial dimensions unaccessible to us.

--Boris

[boris]

"Your declaration might have been true if time was a constant, but, like all physical quantities, it is variable. Electricity is not simply a "measurement," even though the units we use to measure electricity are arbitrary and our measurements usually are only of a difference in electrical potential (just like time is measured in differences). Read up on space-time theory and relativity theory and you will see that you are quite mistaken. Time is a quality all its own..."

Minkowski says time is a coordinate, which is quite a different thing from a 'variable'. Coordinate axes do not 'flow'. If one was born on a smoothly-moving train which never accelerated or decelerated, and grew up on that train, one would 'conclude' that the 'x-axis' of space flows. No evidence to the contrary; just look out the window!

--Boris