Hugh Mughnus Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox#Implications_for_quantum_mechanics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 ^ ok why is that? If you have one part of the entangled particle and I have the other, and you act upon yours, doesn't mine instantly change state with it...? me so dumb 1) you can't transmit useful information 2) there is still the question of whether anything is even being transmitted at all, or whether entanglement is more akin to Newcomb's Paradox (which I think it might be) or the old 'mismatched socks' analogy (where as soon as you know what the first one is, it 'determines' what the other is, although nothing has actually changed or been transmitted) Newcomb's Paradox, like Quantum Entanglement, makes people think retro-causality must be a factor...whereas in reality the mechanism is simple...it's just one of those things that's permanently un-intuitive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwmbrancity Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Caze, if yer not working in 16+ education, you fuckin should be spent the last few years trying to self educate with physics due to generally poor science education at school and, even though its hugely interesting, things like quantum entanglement seriously boggle the little mammalian mind i can get around the core principles, but as soon as the equations come out tiny brain computer says noooooo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Mughnus Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Caze, if yer not working in 16+ education, you fuckin should be Agreed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterE Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 isnt the reason you cant transmit info with entanglement because you need a 'quantum coincidence counter/circuit' (whatever that is) between point a and point b, to ensure that the two particles are in fact entangled? and the circuit can only ensure such a thing at however fast a circuit can transmit info. and by 'isn't' i mean, i think it is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 isnt the reason you cant transmit info with entanglement because you need a 'quantum coincidence counter/circuit' (whatever that is) between point a and point b, to ensure that the two particles are in fact entangled? and the circuit can only ensure such a thing at however fast a circuit can transmit info. and by 'isn't' i mean, i think it is The problem is more fundamental than that First, to reiterate, it's not clear that anything is even being transmitted to begin with. But beyond that, there appears to be no conceivable way to use entanglement to communicate useful information. It always appears to require EXTRA information to make the entangled information meaningful (the former being constrained by good ol' speed of light). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 I asked my friend (he is an actual experimental particle physicist who's done work at CERN) for a simple explanation and he pointed me in the direction of this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/opinion/sunday/finding-beauty-in-the-darkness.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klopjob Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 wow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caze Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 Caze, if yer not working in 16+ education, you fuckin should be spent the last few years trying to self educate with physics due to generally poor science education at school and, even though its hugely interesting, things like quantum entanglement seriously boggle the little mammalian mind i can get around the core principles, but as soon as the equations come out tiny brain computer says noooooo I'm basically in the same position, my understanding here is really at a pretty superficial level. In order to properly understand this stuff you need to know the maths, and I don't. I've just read a lot of popular science books and stuff on the internet. I actually wanted to do theoretical physics in university, but I got nowhere near enough points for the course, only got a C in honours maths, did better in applied maths, but you really want to be getting As in both of them before considering that kind of thing as a career. I probably could've done a lot better if I hadn't spent so much time smoking hash and doing pills ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
misc Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Caze, if yer not working in 16+ education, you fuckin should be spent the last few years trying to self educate with physics due to generally poor science education at school and, even though its hugely interesting, things like quantum entanglement seriously boggle the little mammalian mind i can get around the core principles, but as soon as the equations come out tiny brain computer says noooooo I'm basically in the same position, my understanding here is really at a pretty superficial level. In order to properly understand this stuff you need to know the maths, and I don't. I've just read a lot of popular science books and stuff on the internet. I actually wanted to do theoretical physics in university, but I got nowhere near enough points for the course, only got a C in honours maths, did better in applied maths, but you really want to be getting As in both of them before considering that kind of thing as a career. I probably could've done a lot better if I hadn't spent so much time smoking hash and doing pills ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ lol i'm in second year theoretical physics at the moment and was lapping your posts up presuming you were working in some sort of physics field. They live streamed the announcement for this in a lecture theatre at my uni and everyone piled in to watch. Was fucking awesome to see everyone so pumped up about it, even though it is the physics department so i guess you'd expect that. One of our lecturers decided to do a lecture on grav waves today as well. She'd been part of the search for 20 years and you could tell how fucking chuffed she was. Kept having to correct herself from saying things like 'the detectors would show...' to 'the detectors have shown...'. Fucking inspiring stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delet... Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Refutation of the 'discovery'. Please, if you are going to reply, try to watch the whole video before you do so, it's not very long and will in part counter most of your problems with me posting this. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azatoth Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Yeah, no. It's the basic tinfoil hat stuff. Everyone else is wrong, but I know the TRUTH. So have the EU proponents made any predictions or made experiments to substantiate their claims? Or would stuff like experiments and observational evidence be too much like the mainstream science, so they don't bother with that stuff and instead make fancy websites. I know Australia don't have much to offer the world, but I am sure they have something better than this tinfoil timecube type nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KovalainenFanBoy Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 after solving migration, terrorism, and global politics, the WATMM masterminds try to solve the problem of quantum physics, with arguably the same results Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 try to watch the whole video before you do so, it's not very long 14 minutes, are you kidding that is a very long video Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke viia Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Yeah, no. It's the basic tinfoil hat stuff. Everyone else is wrong, but I know the TRUTH. So have the EU proponents made any predictions or made experiments to substantiate their claims? Or would stuff like experiments and observational evidence be too much like the mainstream science, so they don't bother with that stuff and instead make fancy websites. I know Australia don't have much to offer the world, but I am sure they have something better than this tinfoil timecube type nonsense. QFT electric universe/thunderbolts project is bunk, BUNK I SAY! but then I'm probably just part of the giant conspiracy that believes in general relativity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auxien Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Refutation of the 'discovery'. https://youtu.be/J3Hoax81rkI Please, if you are going to reply, try to watch the whole video before you do so, it's not very long and will in part counter most of your problems with me posting this. Cheers. I watched it all. Even if you put all of the facts aside and look at how he is presenting his case, he's making a terrible argument. All he says is basically Einstein is wrong across the board and we've all been fed lies by the status quo of scientists, who seemingly worship Einstein/general relativity, for 100 years. That is outright false as you can find hundreds upon thousands of studies and scientists and hypothesis that have tried to discredit Einstein who have largely failed; key point here though, LOTS of them have succeeded in going 'against the status quo' but were accepted...because they were provable. There are tons of GR points that were changed from the original outline laid out by Einstein. The video spends about 45 seconds 'explaining' what they think is correct (which is undeniably vague and as far as is stated based on zero experiments) and the other 15 minutes saying "everything you know is wrong!" This is absolute bunk, I'd guess that everything on Thunderbolts is also bunk. sent using magic space waves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kloffy Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Refutation of the 'discovery'. https://youtu.be/J3Hoax81rkI Please, if you are going to reply, try to watch the whole video before you do so, it's not very long and will in part counter most of your problems with me posting this. Cheers. Nothing quite like watching delusional "researchers" whose "theories" led them a bit too far down the rabbit hole... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caze Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Refutation of the 'discovery'. Please, if you are going to reply, try to watch the whole video before you do so, it's not very long and will in part counter most of your problems with me posting this. Cheers. His 'refutation' is based on a couple of assumptions, that the speed of light is not a universal speed limit, and that gravity operates much faster than this, and also that our understanding of light is wrong because physicists don't model light as travelling through any medium. He is of course completely wrong on both points. First, the only evidence he provides to back his assumption that c is not a universal limit is what he says about unstable orbits, but that is not the case in general relativity, his argument is circular. He talks about what Newtonian Gravity demands, but apparently fails to realise that Newtonian gravity is only an accurate model within experimental and observational limits we have long since passed (e.g. orbit of mercury, time dilation wrt caesium clocks in orbit). He seems to completely fail to understand how general relativity works, I don't even understand it properly but I know that gravitational effects are felt instantaneously and not in a way that is in any way a threat to the speed of light as a universal limit. This is due to the curvature of spacetime (the mass of a body deforms spacetime), so that for the Sun for example the orbit of the Earth is simply the Earth moving in a straight line through a spacetime curved by the mass of the Sun, there is no need for information to travel anywhere because it is already encoded in every point of space (that's what a field is). Gravity waves themselves are only caused when massive bodies accelerate, the force of gravity doesn't pull at things with any speed, it just exists as a field in which all matter exists (this is the same for all fields, QED and QCD as well). Second, according to Quantum Field Theory light exists when observed (or when it interacts with something else to be more precise) as a quantum of energy known as the photon, and when un-observed as a vibration in the universal electromagnetic field. There is no such thing as empty space in quantum theory, all matter and energy in the universe is expressed as vibrations in the various quantum fields (the universe is these quantum fields in QFT), all of these fields have a value of zero in empty space when viewed at large scales (with the exception of the higgs field, which is by default non-zero at every point in space - giving rise to mass in particles that interact with that field), but when you zoom in and examine them at the scales where quantum effects become apparent then you see that all of the fields in empty space are actually not sitting perfectly at their rest levels, but instead random quantum fluctuations are constantly creating and destroying pairs of equal but opposite particles (e.g. an electron and a positron) - these quantum fluctuations average out to zero over time (because they are equal and opposite), but they are enough to be experimentally detectable (e.g. the Casimir effect, and even now with Hawking Radiation there is some experimental evidence). The problem with the electric universe is that it isn't an actual scientific theory, it doesn't have any formal theoretical structure - either in total, or even at the 'toy model' level for specific processes (e.g. stellar formation, solar system formation, etc.), and it doesn't make any experimental predictions (and he has the cheek to call modern physics 'pseudoscience', lol). It has no answer to Olbler's paradox (because EU proponents seem to insist on an infinitely vast and old universe for some unknown reason). It also cannot explain why objects with different electric charge experience the same force of gravity (if gravity operates even partially due to electromagnetic effects then surely the charge of an object must have some effect, but this is clearly not the case experimentally, mass is the only relevant property when it comes to gravitation). At the end he talks about humility, but this is just more ridiculously ironic bulshit. Physicists do not claim to have anything close to perfect knowledge about the universe, they are completely up front about the paradoxes and unanswered questions in their theories (dark energy, dark matter, EPR paradox, Black Hole Firewalls, etc.), and there are plenty of non-crank alternative theories you can look into if you want (e.g. MOND). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Refutation of the 'discovery'. https://youtu.be/J3Hoax81rkI Please, if you are going to reply, try to watch the whole video before you do so, it's not very long and will in part counter most of your problems with me posting this. Cheers. His 'refutation' is based on a couple of assumptions, that the speed of light is not a universal speed limit, and that gravity operates much faster than this, and also that our understanding of light is wrong because physicists don't model light as travelling through any medium. He is of course completely wrong on both points. First, the only evidence he provides to back his assumption that c is not a universal limit is what he says about unstable orbits, but that is not the case in general relativity, his argument is circular. He talks about what Newtonian Gravity demands, but apparently fails to realise that Newtonian gravity is only an accurate model within experimental and observational limits we have long since passed (e.g. orbit of mercury, time dilation wrt caesium clocks in orbit). He seems to completely fail to understand how general relativity works, I don't even understand it properly but I know that gravitational effects are felt instantaneously and not in a way that is in any way a threat to the speed of light as a universal limit. This is due to the curvature of spacetime (the mass of a body deforms spacetime), so that for the Sun for example the orbit of the Earth is simply the Earth moving in a straight line through a spacetime curved by the mass of the Sun, there is no need for information to travel anywhere because it is already encoded in every point of space (that's what a field is). Gravity waves themselves are only caused when massive bodies accelerate, the force of gravity doesn't pull at things with any speed, it just exists as a field in which all matter exists (this is the same for all fields, QED and QCD as well). Second, according to Quantum Field Theory light exists when observed (or when it interacts with something else to be more precise) as a quantum of energy known as the photon, and when un-observed as a vibration in the universal electromagnetic field. There is no such thing as empty space in quantum theory, all matter and energy in the universe is expressed as vibrations in the various quantum fields (the universe is these quantum fields in QFT), all of these fields have a value of zero in empty space when viewed at large scales (with the exception of the higgs field, which is by default non-zero at every point in space - giving rise to mass in particles that interact with that field), but when you zoom in and examine them at the scales where quantum effects become apparent then you see that all of the fields in empty space are actually not sitting perfectly at their rest levels, but instead random quantum fluctuations are constantly creating and destroying pairs of equal but opposite particles (e.g. an electron and a positron) - these quantum fluctuations average out to zero over time (because they are equal and opposite), but they are enough to be experimentally detectable (e.g. the Casimir effect, and even now with Hawking Radiation there is some experimental evidence). The problem with the electric universe is that it isn't an actual scientific theory, it doesn't have any formal theoretical structure - either in total, or even at the 'toy model' level for specific processes (e.g. stellar formation, solar system formation, etc.), and it doesn't make any experimental predictions (and he has the cheek to call modern physics 'pseudoscience', lol). It has no answer to Olbler's paradox (because EU proponents seem to insist on an infinitely vast and old universe for some unknown reason). It also cannot explain why objects with different electric charge experience the same force of gravity (if gravity operates even partially due to electromagnetic effects then surely the charge of an object must have some effect, but this is clearly not the case experimentally, mass is the only relevant property when it comes to gravitation). At the end he talks about humility, but this is just more ridiculously ironic bulshit. Physicists do not claim to have anything close to perfect knowledge about the universe, they are completely up front about the paradoxes and unanswered questions in their theories (dark energy, dark matter, EPR paradox, Black Hole Firewalls, etc.), and there are plenty of non-crank alternative theories you can look into if you want (e.g. MOND). Gravitation effects are not instantaneous. Gravity acts at the speed of light. For instance, if the sun exploded, it would take 7 minutes before it affected earth's orbit. But yeah. As with Evolution, I've never encountered someone who understood Relativity who didn't believe in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caze Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Gravitation effects are not instantaneous. Gravity acts at the speed of light. For instance, if the sun exploded, it would take 7 minutes before it affected earth's orbit. But yeah. As with Evolution, I've never encountered someone who understood Relativity who didn't believe in it. Change in gravitational effects are not instantaneous (and they propagate at c), but the 'force' of gravity is fixed and instantaneous and due to the presence of certain values in the gravitational field throughout space. In a fixed two body system the gravitational force between the two bodies is fixed, the effect of gravity is not the result of some some force moving out from those bodies at a certain speed, it is due to the curvature of spacetime. It's the same with the electromagnetic field, the magnetic force between two charged particles is not mediated by some process which moves throughout space, it is merely a property of the electromagnetic field both particles exist in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caze Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 http://motherboard.vice.com/read/electric-universe-theory-thunderbolts-project-wallace-thornhill ^ good overview of EU crankery for those who've never heard of it before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Ah, it all started with that 'comparative mythology' cosmology dude. It all makes sense now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caze Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 hey robbie, how are things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.