PDA

View Full Version : Personal notes



Beefy
10-09-2007, 01:48 AM
Since this place is more deserted than that Island the Forrest Gump was on, I've decided to put some notes here.

Applying the theory of relativity to the wave/particle duality, is it at least plausible that the particle nature of the entity represents and is shown by the mass end of the equation, and the wave nature is shown by the energy end of the equation?

E=mc2. Mass and energy are equal in value, thus different representtions of the same thing, one and the same. Subatomic particles and their equivelent wave functions are not only equal in value, but they're also one and the same.

Particles as mass and waves as energy. Break it down far enough andthe two do exactly as Relativity says it does, but in a completely different way than Einsteins. Reality is as it is, and contrary to Einsteins reaction to quantum mechans, god "DOES play dice with the universe"! But only so far as we can tell.

Random chance, likelyhood, odds, these are all things we experience in our everyday, classical world. But if you apply classical mechanics to these events, they're not really chance at all. They're actually the culmination of a series of forces acting upon eachother, from casualty theory to electromagnetism. There are no counterintuitive events happening at all.

However, when we go down to the quantum world, energy, position, speed, appearance, tangibility and matter or mass are all in some weird way one and the same. But you can only observe them as one or the others, but never as more than once at the same time. No matter What! It's a law, just like gravity or electricity. The heisenburg uncertainty principle ]is a law od quantum dynamics that says you cannot simultaneously measure a particle's position and momentum at the same time with certainty, ever.

The implication is that this business is inherently incomplte because its not resolved. Einstein believed this, and spent the better part of his last 30 years trying to get around this problem, uncertainty. But he wasn't able to.

Energy, energy is everything, every last portion of the univers ultimately i energy. Life is but a dream.

Damocles
10-09-2007, 07:19 AM
LOL. I guess he really did get high...

:D

Epicurus
10-09-2007, 09:37 AM
LOL. I guess he really did get high...

:D

Ha, I usually just watch the Daily Show when I get stoned. He's considerably more productive.

Beefy
10-10-2007, 12:56 AM
Wheeler sowed a few other oats as well. After the "thought expirement" in which the EPR Paradox was born and later, to Einsteins dismay proven ( Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen had theorized the experiment to disprove the Quantum Theory via the counterintuitive nature of the EPR paradox itself), Wheeler set the stage for himself and other physicists to show a very very counterintuitive, but result driven set of experiments which in 1968 proved the EPR paradox! The very paradox that was set forth the show the inconsistency of quantum theory had been tested and shown to be true!!! This was the final nail in the coffin for the corpse of figuring a grand unified theory using classical phyics! Very exciting shit.

Back to Wheeler. He took the quite a large step in uniting the quantum and macro universe. He looked at the effects of macroscopic forces such as gravity, and applied them to quanta, I.E. photons.

According to quantum theory, time is a variable, not an absolute like in our world. In fact, there have been many experiments in quantum physics where the result is ultimately affected by the observation after the event has actually occurred. In other words, the observation of the event begat its outcome. Now, the time frames are very small in this regard, less than a billionth of a second, but still evident.

Back to Wheeler again. He took a mocroscopic look at the picture the unverse was creating for us. There is a quasar that previously in history looked like 2 quasars about 50,000 lightyears away from eachother in space - over a billion lightyears away.

But it has been since shown that this is actually the same quasar with a galaxy in front of it. This galaxy has enough mass to act as a lens. It bends the space enough that the light from the quasar bends around it, much in the same way that a couple of mirrors would.

Now, take an experiment thay has been done on the quantum level for some time. A single photon, that is quanta of light, which being a single entity is paradoxically a particle and a wave can be split into different directions without losing its potentials or properties. In other words, as long as it is derived from the same source, as a single quanta, it retains equivient properties that equal its spin and properties, no matter how far apart they are. They are in a "superposition", thus they are not a "they", but an "it". For they are one and the same, even if a billion light years part in our classical world. Change the spin on one, and the spin on the other changes immediately, completely slapping relativity in its face. This is known as entanglement, and its been observed in the lab many times.

But what happens if the particles are split billions of years ago by this quasar's gravitational lense? The photons must, by the time they reach the telescope, have been travelling on the same path for the billions of light years it took it to get from the quasar to Earth, right? By the time the photon is intercepted by a man made instrument, it should be able to be determined with total accuracy that it passed either the left or right (or above or below) the gravitational lense galaxy, and when we observe these photons long after the fact, this indeed appears to be the case. But this all changes if we observe, OBSERVE the particlas very shortly after the event! The act of observation affects the outcome, always!

Wheeler showed that by altering the reflecting and refracting guides to the photons nanoseonds after the photon had laready passed through could have an effectual cause on the properties of the photon prior to its passage through the experiment! Photons can be affected by the very near future! Because the universe, when down at the Plank scale, does not exist of the tangibilities that we perceive as our reality. Life is but a dream.

FUCK THE POLICE
10-10-2007, 05:01 AM
All of this makes absolutely no logical sense.

Beefy
10-15-2007, 02:19 AM
Einstein hated the uncertainty principle. He believed that science could be condensed down to the bare bones, and that everythig was capable of being understood wholly, and without exception, if the parameters were right.

But, in his own theory, relativity time becomes subjective. Time itself, one of the fundamental features of life, living, science and measurement, is not what it seems. Is it this variable that ultimately can tie the wave function to the particale nature of quantum mechanics? I doubt it, because I'm merely a retired hot tub salesman and they probably would have thought of this in their more expert capacity, but I do think there must be a relationship there. The Uncertainty Principle as Heisenberg laid it out, says that a particle's position, and momentum cannot be measured accurately at the same time through observation, and that the more accurately you measure position, the less accurately you can measure momentum.

But it is in the reference of time. Time, being relative, and in a certain sense, subjective, especially in the quantum world, is not something that photons, waves, and leptons are terribly concerned with. So maybe, the element of time is the barrier between the wolrd the Einstein hoped for, in that the rules of cassical physics applied to, and the world that Heisenberg discovered. Maybe they haven't looked at time in the correct fashion.

If it is the 4th dimension, as is shown by General Relativity, then it certainly should be treted as such. Has it been though? Has it been respected as a true dimension, and if it were, would the Uncertainty Principle have the same weight?

Battleborne
10-15-2007, 02:18 PM
Beefy needs a real job he has lost it!:nuke: Right Beefy in your world E=Mc2


or three or four or whatever it takes to make it through the night!:cof1:

Beefy
10-16-2007, 02:07 AM
Feynman knew of the wonder, the perplexity, the sheer beauty of the true nature of things, the enigma that is reality.

Full circle beteen the great philosophers and the the great physicists. As it turns out, science is proving things that have been on the table for years.

Damocles
10-16-2007, 07:14 AM
Feynman knew of the wonder, the perplexity, the sheer beauty of the true nature of things, the enigma that is reality.

Full circle beteen the great philosophers and the the great physicists. As it turns out, science is proving things that have been on the table for years.
Just wait, tomorrow, behind that rock right over there, they'll find evidence of God.

FUCK THE POLICE
10-17-2007, 09:23 PM
Einstein hated the uncertainty principle. He believed that science could be condensed down to the bare bones, and that everythig was capable of being understood wholly, and without exception, if the parameters were right.

But, in his own theory, relativity time becomes subjective. Time itself, one of the fundamental features of life, living, science and measurement, is not what it seems. Is it this variable that ultimately can tie the wave function to the particale nature of quantum mechanics? I doubt it, because I'm merely a retired hot tub salesman and they probably would have thought of this in their more expert capacity, but I do think there must be a relationship there. The Uncertainty Principle as Heisenberg laid it out, says that a particle's position, and momentum cannot be measured accurately at the same time through observation, and that the more accurately you measure position, the less accurately you can measure momentum.

But it is in the reference of time. Time, being relative, and in a certain sense, subjective, especially in the quantum world, is not something that photons, waves, and leptons are terribly concerned with. So maybe, the element of time is the barrier between the wolrd the Einstein hoped for, in that the rules of cassical physics applied to, and the world that Heisenberg discovered. Maybe they haven't looked at time in the correct fashion.

If it is the 4th dimension, as is shown by General Relativity, then it certainly should be treted as such. Has it been though? Has it been respected as a true dimension, and if it were, would the Uncertainty Principle have the same weight?

What do you mean?

There is the Einsteinen 4th dimension of time.

And there is also a spatial 4th dimension. Imagine that, as well as there being up down, left right, forward backward, there were another two things name kapa and kata. That would be the 4th spatial dimension.

I don't think any one of them can be considered the "true" 4th dimension. They just are, and that's how it is.

OrnotBitwise
10-17-2007, 10:59 PM
Einstein hated the uncertainty principle. He believed that science could be condensed down to the bare bones, and that everythig was capable of being understood wholly, and without exception, if the parameters were right.
True. He was never comfortable with quantum mechanics at all.

If it is the 4th dimension, as is shown by General Relativity, then it certainly should be treted as such. Has it been though? Has it been respected as a true dimension, and if it were, would the Uncertainty Principle have the same weight?Yes, modern physics does treat time as a true dimension. One of the very odd things that many theorists struggle with from time to time is why the temporal dimension is different from the three "normal" spatial dimensions: one can move through it in only one direction. Usually. But let's not go there -- I don't have the math for it anyway. ;)

Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity are still not completely reconciled. M Theory does it but is still very controversial. One thing we know for certain, though, is that the weird effects of uncertainty and quantum mechanics that Einstein so abhorred are quite real: they've been observed and measured repeatedly.

In other words, we can't just toss one or the other, we need both.

FUCK THE POLICE
10-17-2007, 11:20 PM
True. He was never comfortable with quantum mechanics at all.
Yes, modern physics does treat time as a true dimension. One of the very odd things that many theorists struggle with from time to time is why the temporal dimension is different from the three "normal" spatial dimensions: one can move through it in only one direction. Usually. But let's not go there -- I don't have the math for it anyway. ;)

Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity are still not completely reconciled. M Theory does it but is still very controversial. One thing we know for certain, though, is that the weird effects of uncertainty and quantum mechanics that Einstein so abhorred are quite real: they've been observed and measured repeatedly.

In other words, we can't just toss one or the other, we need both.

Why should time be considered a spatial dimension? That doesn't even make sense.

There are infinity possible spatial dimensions and only three present ones. Time is different.

FUCK THE POLICE
10-17-2007, 11:22 PM
I models with only two spatial dimensions, I guess, time could be computed as a third dimension. But you couldn't consider it a spatial "dimension".

OrnotBitwise
10-18-2007, 11:10 AM
Why should time be considered a spatial dimension? That doesn't even make sense.

There are infinity possible spatial dimensions and only three present ones. Time is different.It both is and isn't different. As far as math is concerned, time is just another dimension of spacetime.

Why do you consider spatial dimensions different? That's why the term "spacetime continuum" was coined. The perception that space and time are separate and distinct is an illusion: it's an artifact of our culture, which in turn results from our limited human senses.

The three spatial dimensions with which we're familiar by everyday experience are indeed "special" in that they are distinct from other spatial dimensions. They're bigger, to put it crudely. There's a lot of argument as to how many other very tiny spatial dimensions there are but almost all theorists now agree that there are some. The temporal dimension is also different, primarily because it appears to posses a natural "directionality" that other dimensions do not; normally, particles can move through time in only one direction.

One can always fall back on the notion that relativity, quantum mechanics and other physical theories are just abstractions. They're just mathematical games which don't change the nature of reality itself. In a sense this is quite true but it is also, ultimately, a contrarian cop-out.

The physical effects predicted by both general relativity and quantum mechanics have been measured many times. The effects are real, however counterintuitive they may be. So if you want to dismiss the existing theories as merely abstract games, you're still stuck with replacing them with something better.

FUCK THE POLICE
10-18-2007, 12:49 PM
Time isn't a spatial dimension because it's limited. A fourth spatial dimension would have another dimension in which you could move through.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/55/8-cell-simple.gif/200px-8-cell-simple.gif

That is a four dimensional cube rotating.

Damocles
10-18-2007, 12:50 PM
Time isn't a spatial dimension because it's limited. A fourth spatial dimension would have another dimension in which you could move through.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/55/8-cell-simple.gif/200px-8-cell-simple.gif

That is a four dimensional cube rotating.
We do move through time. Just because we only have the ability to move in one direction through the dimension doesn't mean it isn't possible.

FUCK THE POLICE
10-18-2007, 01:31 PM
It isn't a SPATIAL dimension. There can be different kinds of dimension, can't there?

Damocles
10-18-2007, 01:32 PM
It isn't a SPATIAL dimension. There can be different kinds of dimension, can't there?
I believe that it could be a spacial dimension.

Battleborne
10-19-2007, 11:05 AM
When y'all retire ya will forget about time...clocks mean nothing relavent...ya do what ya want when ya want...and just wait for death to sneak up on ya!:cof1:

Damocles
10-19-2007, 12:23 PM
When y'all retire ya will forget about time...clocks mean nothing relavent...ya do what ya want when ya want...and just wait for death to sneak up on ya!:cof1:
I can't imagine that being any fun to me.

Agnosticus_Caesar
10-26-2007, 09:05 AM
I don't recall time ever being referred to as a "spatial" dimension. It is a different type of dimension, inextricably linked to a number of spatial dimensions. Also, it IS possible to move backward through time, according to relativity, it is simply that the amount of energy necessary to even send a light wave backward in time one second is ridiculously prohibitive (something along the lines of the total energetic output of the sun for an entire year).

Relativity only delves into four dimensions, three spatial, one temporal. M-Theory posits many more spatial dimensions, curled up so tightly as to be inaccessible, and probably indemonstrable.

We also speak of time as being "subjective" in Realativity theory, but I don't think that is an accurate description. I think Brian Greene explained it best when he stated (paraphrased) that everyone moves through time/space at exactly the same rate, lightspeed. The faster you move through the spatial dimensions of time/space, the slower you move through the temporal dimension.

Damocles
10-26-2007, 09:28 AM
I don't recall time ever being referred to as a "spatial" dimension. It is a different type of dimension, inextricably linked to a number of spatial dimensions. Also, it IS possible to move backward through time, according to relativity, it is simply that the amount of energy necessary to even send a light wave backward in time one second is ridiculously prohibitive (something along the lines of the total energetic output of the sun for an entire year).

Relativity only delves into four dimensions, three spatial, one temporal. M-Theory posits many more spatial dimensions, curled up so tightly as to be inaccessible, and probably indemonstrable.

We also speak of time as being "subjective" in Realativity theory, but I don't think that is an accurate description. I think Brian Greene explained it best when he stated (paraphrased) that everyone moves through time/space at exactly the same rate, lightspeed. The faster you move through the spatial dimensions of time/space, the slower you move through the temporal dimension.
I said that I believed it could be, not necessarily that it is. What we do not understand about the universe is infinitely more than what we do understand and creating certainty from such a limited view will more often than not simply create mistakes of tremendous magnitude.

Agnosticus_Caesar
10-26-2007, 09:50 PM
Bah, we COULD be close to knowing everything about existence. Pretending that we ever know that we are will always be a joke.

Beefy
11-09-2007, 10:13 PM
I don't recall time ever being referred to as a "spatial" dimension. It is a different type of dimension, inextricably linked to a number of spatial dimensions. Also, it IS possible to move backward through time, according to relativity, it is simply that the amount of energy necessary to even send a light wave backward in time one second is ridiculously prohibitive (something along the lines of the total energetic output of the sun for an entire year).

Relativity only delves into four dimensions, three spatial, one temporal. M-Theory posits many more spatial dimensions, curled up so tightly as to be inaccessible, and probably indemonstrable.

We also speak of time as being "subjective" in Realativity theory, but I don't think that is an accurate description. I think Brian Greene explained it best when he stated (paraphrased) that everyone moves through time/space at exactly the same rate, lightspeed. The faster you move through the spatial dimensions of time/space, the slower you move through the temporal dimension.

M theory and string theory are certainly amazing frontiers in physics, and I think that once the test for 11 dimensions predicted by string theory come to fruititon (which may be relatively soon), that test will bear a shitload of fruit.

That being said, Quantum theory doesn't regard time as a "temporal" dimension and more than it regards other observable realities in classical physics as analagous to the very small. Quantum tunneling, wave/particle duality, superposition and entanglement are all quantifiable, scientific, mathematical quantum truths, all observed, all ideas that can't be explained in any capacity whatsoever by classical physics. Time seems to change from a classical linear instrument into a quantum counter intuitive, non-linear instrument when approaching the Plank scale.

FUCK THE POLICE
11-09-2007, 11:50 PM
Beefy + Pot = Physics

Beefy
11-10-2007, 10:47 PM
Beefy + Pot = Physics

LOL No, only the first post here was I high. I actually have very limited access to weed as I really don't know anybody on this Island. I've stumbled across it a couple of times, but I'm not really a stoner. I smoke weed now maybe once or twice a month, if that.

But I'll tell you this much, once you start to look at the implications of quantum mechanics and the bizarre things that are so counter intuitive and abstract with regard to the fundamental building blocks of everything there is, everything, you start to realize that there are no absolutes, and that reality is not real. Life, matter, time, disconennection, seperation, these are all illusions.

Time is an illusion.

"People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."
-Albert Einstein

Seperation is an illusion. Bells theorem paved the way for scientific testing to demonstrate the phenomenon known as entanglement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

Elementary particles are not really point particles, or little peices of mass, but particles and waves, depending on how you look at them.

http://www.hotquanta.com/wpd.html

All of this leads to the contemplative nature of science, and what means what. Our reality, our being, our very nature itself, is highly illusory.

Beefy
12-12-2007, 02:48 AM
In fact, nature is almost purely illusory. We can only, as regular people, observe a thin slice of reality, the reality that we can see, feel, touch, visualize, empirically understand.... This reality is very real to our field of observation, and thus, we are compelled as people to embrace it is all there is. But that fallacious at the ground scale.

At the ground scale, there are no certainties, there are no absolutes, there are no empirically inherent facts, there's only chances. And the human race is not fond of "chances". We desire absolutes. And in that respect, as well as a multitude of others, we are imperfect.

Perfections, absolution, casualty, distinction, these are all things that classical physics relied upon. Cause and effect, everything is a reaction...

Quantum mechanics shows that there is an inherent randomness to the universe once you near the Planck scale. Things don't need to have a cause to have an effect. Atoms can decay spontaneuosly for no apparent reason. Electrons, alpha particles, muons, nutrinos, even 60 atom lattices can behave in ways that defy common knowledge, common sense, and any classical physics that we know.

Richard Feynman, one of the most brilliant minds of all time, a great ambassador to the sciences, a professer at CalTech, and an author of the best selling physics lectures of all time, Feynman often quoted Wheeler when he said "If you claim to understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."

There is a great divide between what we can understand, and what we can only try to understand. But the attempt at understanding the unimaginable is proving to be the most fascinating, mind churning process of all time.

Are we getting close to understanding the universe? Are we close to unifying the Em,s,w and G forces? I think not. I think it is maybe an effort in which we don't understand the true goal yet.

Diuretic
12-12-2007, 03:18 AM
I get condemned as Nihilist when I say things like that Beefy. Well not quite like that but sort of along those lines. About reality not being reality, just a subjective sharing enabled through our sense (all of us are limited by our stunted shared perceptions).

Nice point about scientists and philosophers coming together (again).

Beefy
12-12-2007, 03:40 AM
I get condemned as Nihilist when I say things like that Beefy. Well not quite like that but sort of along those lines. About reality not being reality, just a subjective sharing enabled through our sense (all of us are limited by our stunted shared perceptions).

Nice point about scientists and philosophers coming together (again).

When you apply philosophy and quantum physics, Nihilsm is only a rudimentary conclusion. Nihilsm precludes the bueaty and profound intelligence that make quntum studies what it is. That is not to say that physics means there is a god, or diety, or whatever Western name one wishes to apply to the unknown, nor does it mean there is not a diety.

It simply says that this universe that we all live in and know, this beautiful gift that we couldn't exist without, is beyond wonder, and trying to solve the puzzle as to how it works is a fascinating feat, wheter or not it is a puzzle we can ultimately understand.

Diuretic
12-12-2007, 04:41 AM
I was driving in the city earlier today, behind a bus. It was going slowly and I just pottered along behind it, no hurry. I stopped at a red traffic light, the bus had gone through the intersection on a green light but I was held back by the red light. People were walking on the crosswalk. I remember thinking, "why invent a God?" Why invent an easy answer to the big question? It takes all the wonder out of it. "

I suppose inventing a God makes us humans feel special. The God who made the entire universe (whatever that is) is looking down on us and is interested in every single one of us and what we do and what we think and how we're going. Every single one of us.

In this whole universe a God knows that I need to clip that bloody toenail on my left foot and I'll probably do so after I have a shower because it's a bit easier. And God knows right now if I'll have a shower and clip my toenail before I go to bed or if I'll just have a shower and go to bed without my clipping my toenail. I don't know but God knows. And He knows exactly what's going everywhere else in the universe as well. He knows if an ant is going to break its leg before the ant does. He knows every single ant in the world.

From time to time I also have this cartoon strip running through my head. A bunch of boffins in white coats sitting dejectedly around a large table. They're looking worn out but also a bit jaded and somehow disappointed. No-one is looking at each other, they're just staring at the empty table, not really looking at it of course. One of them speaks.

"Well that's it then. We know everything now." And he sighs gently.

One by one they get up, slowly, lethargically and troop towards the door. The first one opens the door and walks out, others follow, the penultimate leaves the door open because the boffin who spoke is still sitting at the table. The last boffin gets up and walks over to the door, he turns and looks at the room still with a dejected look on his face. He reaches for the light switch and flicks it off and the room is dark. Silently he wallks through the door and closes it gently behind him.

How bloody bored is God eh?

Beefy
12-12-2007, 08:55 PM
"God" has been hijacked and used as a political tool by large institutions for thousands of years.

My "God"? Everything - the whole universe is "god". Its the only thing that makes sense to me. Some grumpy old jackass with too much time on his hands condemning people to hell for pissing him off, testing his subjects through torture, and reigning pestilence on mankind? I don't want that kind of god. He seems like a dick.

My god's kick-back; he couldn't care less about whether I'm picking my nose or not.

Diuretic
12-12-2007, 10:49 PM
Sometimes when I'm travelling in the outback and it's a clear night it's great to get outside and go and lie down in the scrub and look up at the stars. It's good to lie down because usually if it's night-time and I'm somewhere in the outback I've been drinking beer all night and I lie down before I fall down, looking at the stars.

But it's incredible, the sky is literally littered with stars. And I lay there and think, look at those stars, look at those suns, they must have planets and those planets must have some form of intelligent life on them....and then I think, what if they don't have intelligent life..or any life at all? What if out there in that stupendously-sized universe there's nothing but rock and gas? What if this is it? What if this is the only planet with any life on it?

It's about then it all gets too much for me so I get up and go in and drink more beer and then go to bed.

Battleborne
12-13-2007, 12:23 PM
"God" has been hijacked and used as a political tool by large institutions for thousands of years.

My "God"? Everything - the whole universe is "god". Its the only thing that makes sense to me. Some grumpy old jackass with too much time on his hands condemning people to hell for pissing him off, testing his subjects through torture, and reigning pestilence on mankind? I don't want that kind of god. He seems like a dick.

My god's kick-back; he couldn't care less about whether I'm picking my nose or not.



That is why he gave man the intelligence to invent Kleenex!:cool:

FUCK THE POLICE
12-13-2007, 04:40 PM
"God" has been hijacked and used as a political tool by large institutions for thousands of years.

My "God"? Everything - the whole universe is "god". Its the only thing that makes sense to me. Some grumpy old jackass with too much time on his hands condemning people to hell for pissing him off, testing his subjects through torture, and reigning pestilence on mankind? I don't want that kind of god. He seems like a dick.

My god's kick-back; he couldn't care less about whether I'm picking my nose or not.

*was picking nose as this was read*

FUCK THE POLICE
12-13-2007, 04:48 PM
I was thinking the other day about teleportation technology, and how that would work. It would have to rip every molecule out of an area, throw it to another area, and then create an exact replica of you at that other area. Then I got to thinking, wouldn't you have been literally destroyed in that process? So, basically, you'd be dead, there would be no continuance of your thoughts, except there would be another object far off that would act exactly like you would.

Then again, maybe every moment in our lifetime is like that. You exist for a moment, and in another moment everything is copied and goes on and theres another thing that goes and does what you were planning to do. Over and over again. No true continuance, just a bunch of frames in which more things happen. So you've really been destroyed and recreated an infinite amount of times since birth, and you simply have an illusion every moment that this is a continuance of the last moment.

In fact, there is a time in physics, plank time. You can't measure anything below that. Maybe that's the frames reality is divided into, with everything being recreated again every new planck time?

uscitizen
12-13-2007, 05:53 PM
Thoughts are merely patterns of bioelectric energy...

Beefy
12-13-2007, 06:10 PM
I was thinking the other day about teleportation technology, and how that would work. It would have to rip every molecule out of an area, throw it to another area, and then create an exact replica of you at that other area. Then I got to thinking, wouldn't you have been literally destroyed in that process? So, basically, you'd be dead, there would be no continuance of your thoughts, except there would be another object far off that would act exactly like you would.

Then again, maybe every moment in our lifetime is like that. You exist for a moment, and in another moment everything is copied and goes on and theres another thing that goes and does what you were planning to do. Over and over again. No true continuance, just a bunch of frames in which more things happen. So you've really been destroyed and recreated an infinite amount of times since birth, and you simply have an illusion every moment that this is a continuance of the last moment.

In fact, there is a time in physics, plank time. You can't measure anything below that. Maybe that's the frames reality is divided into, with everything being recreated again every new planck time?

Planck time, Planck energy, Planck space, quanta... All very interesting topics.

Time is an illusion. Smoke some pot and think about it.

Diuretic
12-13-2007, 06:19 PM
Thoughts are merely patterns of bioelectric energy...

That's how it works but it's still quite remarkable isn't it?

uscitizen
12-13-2007, 07:19 PM
That's how it works but it's still quite remarkable isn't it?

Yes it is that.

BRUTALITOPS
12-13-2007, 11:35 PM
Time isn't an illusion but it's not an objective construct, it's subjective, relative and to be manipulated.

FUCK THE POLICE
12-14-2007, 12:52 AM
Time cannot be deliberately manipulated.

Diuretic
12-14-2007, 02:15 AM
But it can be traded.

Beefy
12-14-2007, 03:56 AM
Time cannot be deliberately manipulated.

Not yet anyhow. But the EPR experiments have shown that it has loopholes that relativity cannot ascribe to. Time is an illusion, in the sense that past and future are not real. They're not physical constructs of this universe, they're only creations of the present time manufactured for understanding thisgs better.

Theoretically, time can be manipulated, but the energy associated with it is prohibitive.

Diuretic
12-14-2007, 03:59 AM
So someone could go back in time (theoretically) but everything would be dead because living things are subject to time?

Beefy
12-14-2007, 04:10 AM
So someone could go back in time (theoretically) but everything would be dead because living things are subject to time?

Theoretically, its classically impossible to go back in time. Its only possible to slow time down from your perspective (or speed it up from another's perspective). But as a body starts to slow his own time down to a sufficient degree, the energy required to advance such a phenomenon becomes exponential, because it requires high velocities to do such, or intense gravitational fields. There is a cosmic speed limit, and infinity being unreachable, precludes one from reachin that limit.

But its also an interesting thought that one can get infinitely closer to the speed of light without reaching it, thus infinity becomes a mite subjective. This is a gross oversimplification, but a grand portion of Relativity. Everything is relative, even infinity, infinite energy, infinite mass.

To the observer travelling at close to te speed of light, he is travelling faster than the speed of light merely because his time has changed. So an observer can see him moving at 185,950 miles per second, but the dude in the space ship sees himself moving much faster than that because one of his seconse is like 10 of the observers minutes, and it gets infinitely longer the closer he gets to his speed limit.

But I digress.

In the qunatum mechanical world, particles don't really give a hoot as to what classical mechanics has been saying for the last 400 or so year, and particles will, and do, at a small scale, disregard time. In other words, they behave in ways that defy classical mechanics, and act as though time is spatial in the classical senst, to a small degree anyhow.

Diuretic
12-14-2007, 04:22 AM
So I can't go back in time and kick my high school science teacher in the nuts? Fuck it, I hated the bastard.

Beefy
12-14-2007, 04:25 AM
So I can't go back in time and kick my high school science teacher in the nuts? Fuck it, I hated the bastard.

Well, you can kick him in the nuts now, and tomorrow, that will have been in the past. But that's the best modern physics can do.

Diuretic
12-14-2007, 04:59 AM
Well, you can kick him in the nuts now, and tomorrow, that will have been in the past. But that's the best modern physics can do.

Can't. I'll have to either get all religious and ask for a Lazarus Effect or get onto George Romero for a zombie thing. I won't get religious and I don't have Romero's cell phone number handy.

Fuck science, it's so disappointing.

Beefy
12-14-2007, 05:09 AM
Can't. I'll have to either get all religious and ask for a Lazarus Effect or get onto George Romero for a zombie thing. I won't get religious and I don't have Romero's cell phone number handy.

Fuck science, it's so disappointing.

Blasphemy. Utter unholy blasphemy.

Diuretic
12-14-2007, 05:12 AM
Blasphemy. Utter unholy blasphemy.

Sorry, I'm just frustrated at the limits of human knowledge.

I may have to find God, He'd let me go back and kick that fucker in the nuts.

uscitizen
12-14-2007, 11:16 AM
Speaking of the limits of human knowledge....

Yep just give up on science and have faith ;)

BRUTALITOPS
12-14-2007, 11:16 AM
Time cannot be deliberately manipulated.

from your own perspective it can. that's relativity.

there is no universal clock watermark.

FUCK THE POLICE
12-14-2007, 11:15 PM
from your own perspective it can. that's relativity.

there is no universal clock watermark.

By travelling very fast a person can go forward in time but never backwards in time.

Beefy
12-14-2007, 11:35 PM
By travelling very fast a person can go forward in time but never backwards in time.

No, they can't go forward in time either, they can simply have a different perspective on time, and change their perception of it. But people aren't the entire universe either.

Richard Feynman and John Wheeler showed that subatomic particles and photons can indeed have a past that is influenced by its future, in other words, time is non linear to these particular building blocks.

Beefy
12-16-2007, 12:13 AM
Excellent site on the wave/particle nature of reality via the electron:

http://www.glafreniere.com/sa_electron.htm

Hermes Thoth
12-18-2007, 07:53 AM
God gives people hope. Control freaks hate hope, as it empowers people to defy them, even they may be in no position to do so, from a purely rational perspective. Control freaks will either use organized religions to their own purpose or be atheists, denying god, again for their own purposes.

uscitizen
12-18-2007, 10:16 AM
God gives people hope. Control freaks hate hope, as it empowers people to defy them, even they may be in no position to do so, from a purely rational perspective. Control freaks will either use organized religions to their own purpose or be atheists, denying god, again for their own purposes.

Many Control Freaks use "God" to control others.

Beefy
12-18-2007, 03:53 PM
Many Control Freaks use "God" to control others.

He already said that.

uscitizen
12-18-2007, 04:05 PM
He already said that.

So sue me!

LadyT
07-09-2008, 02:04 PM
How do we start one of these?

a11n
07-09-2008, 10:58 PM
I've had enough of God.

Time to bring the rheins of history back in the hands of man.

uscitizen
07-10-2008, 12:42 PM
I've had enough of God.

Time to bring the rheins of history back in the hands of man.

No difference.

Cancel5
07-10-2008, 03:49 PM
How about letting women have a try at ruling the world? Can't get any worse than what man has done so far!

Just my sweet little ole opinion!

uscitizen
07-10-2008, 08:37 PM
How about letting women have a try at ruling the world? Can't get any worse than what man has done so far!

Just my sweet little ole opinion!

I thought they ruled the western world now ? From behind the scenes of course.

Beefy
07-11-2008, 12:03 AM
How about letting women have a try at ruling the world? Can't get any worse than what man has done so far!

Just my sweet little ole opinion!

Women have the power to override men They just need take the reigns and do it already.

Men are total, egomaniacal, unconscious idiot morons until we are 80+, at which point we become harmless, sweet, funny caricatures. Women need to shut men down more often.

Cancel7
07-11-2008, 07:11 AM
Women have the power to override men They just need take the reigns and do it already.

Men are total, egomaniacal, unconscious idiot morons until we are 80+, at which point we become harmless, sweet, funny caricatures. Women need to shut men down more often.

I know that I get up every morning and do my part.

But I can’t do it alone.

Damocles
07-11-2008, 07:12 AM
I know that I get up every morning and do my part.

But I can’t do it alone.
It's like Congress. They actually have to work together to exercise the power of their branch of government.

Lysistrata is a great example of how it can be done....

;)

Cancel3
07-11-2008, 12:00 PM
Getting religion out and women in power would be a great thing. Or at least we could give it a shot. Its not like women could possibly screw things up any worse than we did.


But just as an FYI guys, "rein" is whats on a horse. So you "rein" something in. "Reign" is how long a king is in power.


Sorry, my Mom should have been an english teacher.

BRUTALITOPS
07-18-2008, 09:40 PM
pseudo intellectualism at it's finest, ladies and gentlemen. Lets give all of ourselves a pat on the back.

FUCK THE POLICE
07-19-2008, 02:44 AM
pseudo intellectualism at it's finest, ladies and gentlemen. Lets give all of ourselves a pat in the back.

I'd really like to get a PH.D. Physicist to read this thread sometime just to watch the contortions on his face.

Beefy
07-20-2008, 01:09 AM
pseudo intellectualism at it's finest, ladies and gentlemen. Lets give all of ourselves a pat on the back.

Pfft. This is a great thread. Nothing said on this thread is pseudo jack. Its all the bf* fascinating bf* truth.












































* ButtFucking