Demystifying Quantum Physics

[godnotgod]

Don't feel sorry for interjecting. You make some interesting contributions.

Considering that some scientists suggest that our world is a huge hologram (don't ask me to argue for it or explain it, it's above my pay grade), it could be related to this idea. Everything is connected. Everything is one. (Didn't you and I discuss that some time ago?)

In referring to all things being interconnected, let us not forget the background against, by, and within which they are so connected. We see this clearly in the atom, where most is empty space, without which, the atom could not function as it does. As Alan Watts and Lao tzu tell us, 'this nothingness is really powerful stuff!' In fact, it is so powerful, that mystics tell us everything comes out of it; everything is dependent upon it. Now we have science warming up to the idea, one of the main proponents of a universe coming out of nothing being Lawrence Kraus, theoretical physicist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZiXC8Yh4T0

 

[Ouroboros]

Is it possible that all the interactions between "quanta" subsume or consist of all of that which is? Yes. And are there physicists like Brian Cox who write about the philosophical implications of this, or at least delve into metaphor rather than formalism? Yes. Nor is Cox alone. The Nonlocal Universe and many other texts intended for the general reader either put forth highly controversial interpretations, or define certain things using common parlance to make the claims sound more extravagant than they are. In the end, whatever connections exist (or do not) between all matter are not usually the same as the kind of connections usually described in more esoteric sources.

I wasn't originally thinking of it on an esoteric level, so thank you for the answer. At least I know my pondering wasn't too far off.

 

[PolyHedral]

My question is that if all subsystems were part of one point (super-hot state before big bang), is it possible that all (or many) particles (quarks?) are entangled throughout the universe right now? Basically, the question is, could it be that all, most, or at least some of the matter in the universe is acting "spookely" (just invented that word) right now?

I understand that entanglement only works once - once you measure one half of the pair, any further changes made to it are not reflected in the other one. That's one of the reasons you can't use it to send a signal FTL.

Considering that some scientists suggest that our world is a huge hologram (don't ask me to argue for it or explain it, it's above my pay grade), it could be related to this idea. Everything is connected. Everything is one. (Didn't you and I discuss that some time ago?)

The speed of light still holds. You're only connected to your past light cone.

Is it possible that all the interactions between "quanta" subsume or consist of all of that which is? Yes. And are there physicists like Brian Cox who write about the philosophical implications of this, or at least delve into metaphor rather than formalism?

Wait, what? If this is the same Brian Cox, I thought he was quite realistic about what QM does and does not say. Got a link?

 

[Ouroboros]

I understand that entanglement only works once - once you measure one half of the pair, any further changes made to it are not reflected in the other one. That's one of the reasons you can't use it to send a signal FTL.

Sure. But it's an area of research that's not completely understood yet. Maybe quarks are entangled in a chaotic organization that's beyond our current knowledge. It's fun stuff though.

The speed of light still holds. You're only connected to your past light cone.

Yeah. My thought wasn't really about FTL or that part, nor time travel. But it would be interesting if all matter in the universe is connected and interacts on a "sub-quark" level.

Wait, what? If this is the same Brian Cox, I thought he was quite realistic about what QM does and does not say. Got a link?

I think he's great in the TV show. It's the same guy, right? He's very enthusiastic about science.

 

[George-ananda]

Parrots can be trained to speak, authenticity is another animal altogether.

I don't disagree with your statement but I think you missed my point.

I was just trying to point out that when we get into these debates it seems like there is basically two opposing paradigms causing the disagreement.

For lack of perfect terms, I called one atheist-materialist/physicalist (matter is primary) and the other eastern/Hindu/Vedic (consciousness is primary).

Another point I was making is that it's not very important here that we debate which of the many proponents of each paradigm are greater or lesser than the others. They all support the same basic message. I just think this QM debate is getting too sidetracked by a hate-fest on Chopra who, as only an individual, does not matter in the big picture.

 

[godnotgod]

I just think this QM debate is getting too sidetracked by a hate-fest on Chopra who, as only an individual, does not matter in the big picture.

I think you are exactly right, and Chopra himself would most likely agree. Chopra points to the moon, and his pointing finger is attacked instead of paying attention to that which is pointed out. Many have difficulty seeing beyond a personal view, to which they have become attached, and have a tendency to respond, knee-jerk fashion, out of their emotional center.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Wait, what? If this is the same Brian Cox, I thought he was quite realistic about what QM does and does not say. Got a link?

Cox, B., & Forshaw, J. R. (2011). The Quantum Universe: Everything that can happen does happen. DaCapro Press.

I don't have a link. Nor do I care much for the book. But this is the Brian Cox you were thinking of. If you don't find his publication realistic, perhaps you should actually determine how closely your views are consistent with those in the physics community, and how different literature intended for the public differs from that intended for specialists.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I think you are exactly right, and Chopra himself would most likely agree. Chopra points to the moon, and his pointing finger is attacked instead of paying attention to that which is pointed out. Many have difficulty seeing beyond a personal view, to which they have become attached, and have a tendency to respond, knee-jerk fashion, out of their emotional center.

Chopra points to the moon, and people who have no idea what QM involves somehow can make statements about it. And when others whose knowledge isn't based on the "source itself" (i.e., the internet) demonstrate how this is inaccurate, it doesn't matter. Because the "source itself" (the internet) has revealed the truth (just so long as you don't know physics, don't read scientific literature, and don't really have any idea what you are talking about).

Chopra has a degree. Whatever presentation of physics he provides, at least he has some experience with physics. Others rely on the "source itself", or a selective use of internet search engines.

 

[godnotgod]

....people who have no idea what QM involves somehow can make statements about it..... the "source itself" (the internet) has revealed the truth (just so long as you don't know physics, don't read scientific literature, and don't really have any idea what you are talking about).

Well, you don't have any idea what Reality is, yet still push ahead with making statements about QM, which is a feature of Reality! You still want to 'understand' the music by dismantling the piano! You continue to harp on your 'Special Knowledge' of QM. What for? So others can understand as little as you do about it? Better to get a handle on the true nature of things first, and THEN maybe QM can be seen in the correct context. That is precisely what Goswami and Chopra present to us. Too bad you have all that baggage in the way, obstructing your view! Go conference with your QiGong instructor. He'll point you in the right direction, because I can tell you that he'll say, without even knowing him, that the breath is consciousness itself, and that it is with this consciousness that you will see things as they are.

I don't believe I've seen any real agreement on the details of Quantum Physics, let alone what it actually is, amongst the scientifically-oriented here. You all have your own differing views, so it cannot be said that any of you really know what you're talking about. On the other hand, I see a great deal of agreement amongst those who see how consciousness and QM are integrally tied together. What this indicates to me is that a universal, unconditioned mind is at work and coming up with the same view, more or less, as compared to minds that are conditioned by their specific particulars and preferences. Yours are fragmented views of Reality; the view of Goswami, Chopra, and others is a unified view. Again, as Windwalker pointed out, you can't see the forest for the trees.

No, the internet is not the source I was referring to, but it is a valuable resource, one that I will continue using both for myself, and for the benefit of others who wish to take a look. My suggestion for you is that you simply ignore such posts and move on with your brilliant revelations of Special Knowledge that give us all the facts, but tell us absolutely nothing. Unfortunately, you cannot even agree on what is factual or not. Perhaps if you all used the same magnifying glass.....:biglaugh:

Your math has failed you on the microscopic level (Planck) and the macroscopic level. Science is reaching the limits of Reason. Even Michio Kaku admits that 'nature is smarter than we are':

Don't watch this video:


Science v's God : Its The Collapse Of Physics As We Know it - YouTube

 

[darkendless]

Well, you don't have any idea what Reality is, yet still push ahead with making statements about QM!

Good lord, could you be any more self-righteous.

 

[godnotgod]

Good lord, could you be any more self-righteous.

I'm not the one making authoritative statements about QM under the color of scientific authority, statements that are inconclusive as to what QM actually is. Now, if I had some doctrine to push, I would agree with your assessment of any self-righteousness, but since I have none, there is nothing I can see that I am self-righteous about.

 

[darkendless]

I'm not the one making authoritative statements about QM under the color of scientific authority, statements that are inconclusive as to what QM actually is. Now, if I had some doctrine to push, I would agree with your assessment of any self-righteousness, but since I have none, there is nothing I can see that I am self-righteous about.

There you go again.

I do enjoy you sitting back and cherry-picking against science.

 

[YmirGF]

There you go again.

I do enjoy you sitting back and cherry-picking against science.

It is an object lesson for me. He illustrates, almost perfectly, how I never wish to come across to the reader.

 

[zaybu]

Don't watch this video:


[youtube]wHHz4mB9GKY[/youtube]
Science v's God : Its The Collapse Of Physics As We Know it - YouTube

LOL. Using reverse psychology was probability discovered during the Stone Age, and the funny part is that it still works.

Anyhow, I did watch it, and the number of things wrong in that video are so many that I wouldn't know where to start. But I did jot down a few remarks, which I will share not only with you but with those who are following this thread.

1) Well, it was Mark Twain who once said, "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated." Honestly, the collapse of physics? a video posted by Irresponsible Atheism?? That gave me a few chukles.


2) GR predicted the existence of Black Holes, but it says very little about their composition, or what happens inside of them, the reason being that it was developped to take into account that photons are affected by gravity. Newton's theory was silent on that, and so was incorrect. So it is not a failure of GR that as it is portrayed in that video. What is clear is that we need a theory that would gives a clue of what's happening inside Black Holes. The importance of developping such a theory is greatly exaggerated.


3) Singularity are mathematical entities, not real things. If they pop out of a theory, it is a red flag that either the theory is misapplied or incorrect in that regime. Again, saying that this signifies the collapse of physics is greatly exaggerated.

4) Then Michio Kaku goes over the fact that using GR in QM will give you infinities. Fine, but infinities have appeared regularly in physics. In QFT, they were handled by such concepts as Renormalization, Regularization, Gauge Invariance, to name a few. Granted, we haven't been able to rid of them in the case of GR, but all one can conclude is that GR might never be quantized. Perhaps, Nature never made that order.

5) Another remark done in the movie is that GR and QM don't talk to each other. Well, that is no surprise as the two theories were developped along two different mathematical frameworks, responding to different concerns.

Perhaps, I will come back to more of the obvious wrongs in that movie, but then again, that video is not worth it.

 

[godnotgod]

It is an object lesson for me. He illustrates, almost perfectly, how I never wish to come across to the reader.

I'm only responding in kind to someone who claims I know nothing of the music when he claims exclusive knowledge of it via analyzing the parts of a piano, and when none of the other certified inspectors can agree amongst themselves. Many of the officially-held theories about the music have been discarded when found to be flawed. That is what is occurring as we speak, and yet I am told (scolded) that I need to study so I can gain 'knowledge'. and: "What's wrong with you? Don't you know anything?" kind of brow-beating.

 

[godnotgod]

Honestly, the collapse of physics? a video posted by Irresponsible Atheism?? That gave me a few chukles.

Did I forget to say: "Ignore the part about 'God' in the title"? Kaku himself is the one who talks about physics having a 'nervous breakdown', at least a couple of times.

Another remark done in the movie is that GR and QM don't talk to each other. Well, that is no surprise as the two theories were developped along two different mathematical frameworks, responding to different concerns.

Isn't the idea that, behind the curtain, there should be a consistent logic between the two?

Does the video make sense to you in terms of physics not making sense if we just look at the inconsistency of GR alone without attempting to incorporate QM? Because that is exactly what Kaku does first, and finds GR wanting.

 

[godnotgod]

There you go again.

I do enjoy you sitting back and cherry-picking against science.

It's not all it's cracked up to be, that's all. It needs to be brought into the proper context. A little adjustment of the lighting is called for.

 

[godnotgod]

[youtube]XXi_ldNRNtM[/youtube]
Prickles & Goo: Alan Watts Trey Parker Matt Stone South Park - YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4s_FMyuTTjg

 

[zaybu]

Did I forget to say: "Ignore the part about 'God' in the title"? Kaku himself is the one who talks about physics having a 'nervous breakdown', at least a couple of times.

Kaku needs to take a vacation. A little rest & relaxation would do him good. OTOH, he is on the lecture circuit, which brings the kind of renumeration academia can't compete with. It's the kind of place a little of sensationalism often muddles the water.

Isn't the idea that, behind the curtain, there should be a consistent logic between the two?

I don't recall Mother Nature knocking on the door, reminding us that there is a unified logic that rules over all things. If there is, it's missing in action.

Does the video make sense to you in terms of physics not making sense if we just look at the inconsistency of GR alone without attempting to incorporate QM? Because that is exactly what Kaku does first, and finds GR wanting.

GR is not inconsistent. The problem is of a different kind. It's only if you plug in the Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian into QFT that you get infinities that no one has been able to get rid off. And the main reason would be that this equation is non-linear: in terms of the physics, it means that gravitons will interact with each other, producing more gravitons, which in turn produce more gravitons, and so on... IOW, you get a runaway process to infinity.

 

[PolyHedral]

Cox, B., & Forshaw, J. R. (2011). The Quantum Universe: Everything that can happen does happen. DaCapro Press.

I don't have a link. Nor do I care much for the book. But this is the Brian Cox you were thinking of. If you don't find his publication realistic, perhaps you should actually determine how closely your views are consistent with those in the physics community, and how different literature intended for the public differs from that intended for specialists.

Oh, right. (Gasp, I've atually read one of the sources you're citing. ) I got the impression from your post that the claim was unbelievable for some reason, but the idea of "Everything is really quantum" seems entirely reasonable.