Quantum particles and Aether.

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
539
113
Regina, SK
Thanks. from my blog, actually. :lol:

I would argue that string theory allows for, more than suggests, alternate universes based on different string formations.
Well, you know what they say: anything not forbidden is compulsory. :)

Is anything really real in a holographic universe? Are we just manifestations of our own imaginations? Does reality exist if we are not observing it? Can science ever recify the dicotomy of reality with or without an observer?
Quantum theory is fully consistent with an objective reality that exists with or without observers, there's no dichotomy, that's just New Age nonsense.
 

Zipperfish

House Member
Apr 12, 2013
3,688
0
36
Vancouver
Is anything really real in a holographic universe? Are we just manifestations of our own imaginations? Does reality exist if we are not observing it? Can science ever recify the dicotomy of reality with or without an observer?

I would argue that's a philosophical question, as opposed to a scientific one, unless there is some conceivable method of testing the theory.
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
193
63
Nakusp, BC
I would argue that's a philosophical question, as opposed to a scientific one, unless there is some conceivable method of testing the theory.
My favourite pass time is sillyphosical mental masturbation. Science can't go there by it's very self proclaimed fixation on physical reality.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
71
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
It does indeed. Why is there something rather than nothing? Why does the universe go through all this bother of existing?

In the meantime, here we are--apparently--these brief, howling back eddies in the tide of entropy, clinging to the surface of an infinitesimal speck somewhere in the middle of the granddaddy of all explosions and going, "WTF, man? W-T-F?"
Cept me. I sit here and enjoy my paradoxical non-existent existence in a universe that, apparently to some wingnuts shouldn't exist, and the ponderings of wingnuts. Want a beer?
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
539
113
Regina, SK
It doesn't need to be tested, there's no necessary role for an observer in the equations, just as there isn't in Newton's, Maxwell's, or Einstein's equations. Read Victor Stenger on Quantum Quackery.
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
193
63
Nakusp, BC
It doesn't need to be tested, there's no necessary role for an observer in the equations, just as there isn't in Newton's, Maxwell's, or Einstein's equations. Read Victor Stenger on Quantum Quackery.
He must be a very smart man. You agree with him.

All I did was ask some questions that are no sillier than socratus' but it seems to put the science buffs in a tither. This is why I think the scientific mind usually is as narrow as the religious mind - no room for play. Gotta take this stuff seriously, ya know. Not!
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
My favourite pass time is sillyphosical mental masturbation. Science can't go there by it's very self proclaimed fixation on physical reality.

Finally a fact ejaculated into the discussion.
Science today is terminally materialistic they fear the mind.

Finally a fact ejaculated into the discussion.
Science today is terminally materialistic they fear the mind.

Why do we have electric field minds instead of meat calculators?

He must be a very smart man. You agree with him.

All I did was ask some questions that are no sillier than socratus' but it seems to put the science buffs in a tither. This is why I think the scientific mind usually is as narrow as the religious mind - no room for play. Gotta take this stuff seriously, ya know. Not!

That is unfair to better scientific minds. Science is in a difficult period of unsettled ethical considerations. What we have is the all too common submission to gold. Science is not to blame the method is sound and sure it just has a human problem.
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
539
113
Regina, SK
All I did was ask some questions that are no sillier than socratus' but it seems to put the science buffs in a tither.
No, you're quite wrong about that. Socratus beats you all to pieces in the silly questions department, yours are at least readily comprehensible, but you are, like the vast majority of humanity, labouring under some misapprehensions about how we know what's true and what's not. Human perception and cognition are not reliable guides. They will find patterns even where there aren't any, they will imbue those patterns with meaning and significance where there isn't any, and frequently impute agency to them, and then confirmation bias will lead them down the path of noticing only evidence that supports belief in the patterns, meanings, significance, and agency.

Belief precedes analysis, then analysis is used to rationalize the beliefs, and the smarter you are the better you'll be at it, which is why some very bright people believe some very strange things. The only reliable way we've ever found to get out of this infinite loop in the belief engine that drives us all are the methods of science. So when somebody makes an empirical claim about the nature of reality that's scientifically unsupportable, some of us leap to the battlements. Anybody who thinks we create our reality is invited to try the simplest of empirical tests: jump off my roof into the rock garden below and create a reality in which landing doesn't hurt. That idea of observer-created reality comes from a misunderstanding of what's called the measurement problem--not the observer problem--in quantum theory.
 

socratus

socratus
Dec 10, 2008
1,171
19
38
Israel
www.worldnpa.org
Some details
=
Charles' Law was formulated in1787
. . . . .
. . . because gas consist on particles i take this law to the particles.
this is my first heretical -idea.

and because Charles' Law belongs to the temperature of absolute zero T=0K
i take this law to the nothingness - vacuum T=0K
it is my second heretical-idea

and because Charles' Law belongs to the theory of ideal gas
i take this theory to the nothingness- vacuum
this is my third heretical - idea
==,,
 

socratus

socratus
Dec 10, 2008
1,171
19
38
Israel
www.worldnpa.org
From modern physics' point of view "the ideal gas" doesn't exist.
But somehow (using small changes) the ideal gas becomes real gas.
( and according to QT a small change makes big difference and maybe
quantum changes turn ideal particles into real molecules)
From modern physics' point of view vacuum with parameter T=0K
doesn't have meaning.
Book : ‘Dreams of a final theory’
by Steven Weinberg. Page 138.
‘ It is true . . . there is such a thing as absolute zero; we cannot
reach temperatures below absolute zero not because we are not
sufficiently clever but because temperatures below absolute zero
simple have no meaning.’
/ Steven Weinberg. The Nobel Prize in Physics 1979 /
But from the other hand, vacuum is most important conception
in physics because somehow ( through small quantum changes –
vacuum fluctuation ), from this 'no meaning vacuum '
the real particles appear.
Physics is full with many abstractions.
But under these abstractions are hidden true ideas.
=..
 

Zipperfish

House Member
Apr 12, 2013
3,688
0
36
Vancouver
Temperature is a statistical phenomenon, a gross state variable that is a function of the average translational kinetic energy of the molecules (through the Boltzman Equation). You can infer the temperature of a single atom based on it's kinietic energy, but the concept definitely has limited utility at the quantum scale.

Incidnetally a gather some pshysicists last year did indeed lower the temperature of a partilcle down below absolute zero.

A temperature below absolute zero: Atoms at negative absolute temperature are the hottest systems in the world
 

socratus

socratus
Dec 10, 2008
1,171
19
38
Israel
www.worldnpa.org

Conclusion :
according toSRT photon at speed c=1 must be a flat particle.
according tothermodinamics at absolute zero particle doesn't
have volume and must be a flat particle.
=.
Neither point,nor string particle, but flat – circle particle:
c/d=pi=3,14 can explain the initialconditions of existence
=.