Demystifying Quantum Physics

[Mr Spinkles]

Can you really wonder if you believe that spooky action at a distance exists, and then mystics grab onto that idea to believe that such force could be harnessed by the mind? One idea is not that farfetched from the other.

To the extent that argument is plausible, the following argument is equally plausible: Can you really wonder if you believe that anything is possible, and then mystics grab onto that idea to believe that this potentiality could be harnessed by the mind? One idea is not that far-fetched from the other.

To the layperson one idea seems to lead naturally to the other. Uncertainty in QM seems to lead to the idea that everything is completely uncertain and everything is equally probable. Nonlocality in QM seems to lead to the idea that everything is completely connected and perfectly nonlocal. Explaining to the layperson why those are indeed far-fetched ideas even in the context of QM is the modest purpose of this thread.

Assuming for the sake of argument that it is technically true that nonlocal effects occur in QM, it is also true that they are extremely fragile, weak, statistical effects on the quantum scale. You can throw two baseballs around in a stadium for an eternity and they simple are not going to become "entangled" in any significant way. We will never find that if we measure the spin of one baseball, it has a nonlocal effect on another distant baseball. In other words, nonlocality (if it exists) is not a significant effect at the level of the everyday macroscopic world, any more than the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Surely you agree with this.

 

[zaybu]

To the extent that argument is plausible, the following argument is equally plausible: Can you really wonder if you believe that anything is possible, and then mystics grab onto that idea to believe that this potentiality could be harnessed by the mind? One idea is not that far-fetched from the other.

To the layperson one idea seems to lead naturally to the other. Uncertainty in QM seems to lead to the idea that everything is completely uncertain and everything is equally probable. Nonlocality in QM seems to lead to the idea that everything is completely connected and perfectly nonlocal. Explaining to the layperson why those are indeed far-fetched ideas even in the context of QM is the modest purpose of this thread.

Assuming for the sake of argument that it is technically true that nonlocal effects occur in QM, it is also true that they are extremely fragile, weak, statistical effects on the quantum scale. You can throw two baseballs around in a stadium for an eternity and they simple are not going to become "entangled" in any significant way. We will never find that if we measure the spin of one baseball, it has a nonlocal effect on another distant baseball. In other words, nonlocality (if it exists) is not a significant effect at the level of the everyday macroscopic world, any more than the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Surely you agree with this.

But you're counting that these people will stop at your baseball analogy and be satisfied with that, but they won't. Many will rationalize: if a spooky action can influence the wavefunction here on planet earth instantaneously a wave on Andromeda, then anything is possible. Now, which one is more farfetched, the Andomeda scenario, or someone claiming the ability to read someone's else mind a few feet away in another room?

 

[idav]

But you're counting that these people will stop at your baseball analogy and be satisfied with that, but they won't. Many will rationalize: if a spooky action can influence the wavefunction here on planet earth instantaneously a wave on Andromeda, then anything is possible. Now, which one is more farfetched, the Andomeda scenario, or someone claiming the ability to read someone's else mind a few feet away in another room?

Particles do these wacky behaviors giving people the idea that thoughts can go through physical barriors yet an extra slit interferes.:sarcastic

 

[godnotgod]

I have a question:

We all know that E=mc2, and that the there are the Conservation Laws of Matter and Energy always at work. The very fact that Matter and Energy are interchangeable implies some underlying principle. What might that principle be?

 

[PolyHedral]

I have a question:

We all know that E=mc2, and that the there are the Conservation Laws of Matter and Energy always at work. The very fact that Matter and Energy are interchangeable implies some underlying principle. What might that principle be?

The principle is that spacetime is four-dimensional and mass and energy are the same quantity expressed in different directions. (Rest mass is time-like momentum.)

 

[godnotgod]

The principle is that spacetime is four-dimensional and mass and energy are the same quantity expressed in different directions. (Rest mass is time-like momentum.)

OK, but as I understand it from something I previously came across, the four dimensions also had their origin in some kind of singularity.

Also, prior to the Big Bang, space-time did not exist, correct?

The fact that space-time are also inextricably tied together also implies an underlying principle.

 

[PolyHedral]

OK, but as I understand it from something I previously came across, the four dimensions also had their origin in some kind of singularity.

Also, prior to the Big Bang, space-time did not exist, correct?

Mu.

The fact that space-time are also inextricably tied together also implies an underlying principle.

That is the underlying principle - that all of space and time together take place in one unified geometry.

 

[zaybu]

I have a question:

We all know that E=mc2, and that the there are the Conservation Laws of Matter and Energy always at work. The very fact that Matter and Energy are interchangeable implies some underlying principle. What might that principle be?

Matter and energy are equivalent due to Lorentz invariance. What it means is if you perform a spacetime rotation using the Lorentz transformation, the resulting equations are invariant.

OK, but as I understand it from something I previously came across, the four dimensions also had their origin in some kind of singularity.

A singularity is a mathematical point. It's not a real thing. If a theory has one, it is a red flag that either the theory is incorrect in that regime, or new concepts are needed to get rid of that singularity.

Also, prior to the Big Bang, space-time did not exist, correct?

In GR, spacetime is a dynamical feature of the universe. You can't have one without the other.

The fact that space-time are also inextricably tied together also implies an underlying principle.

You would have to look at the Lorentz transformation law:

t1 = γ{ t- x(v/c^2)}
x1 = γ( x - vt)

Where γ is ( 1 - [v/c]^2)^(-1/2), c= speed of light, v= relative speed between two observers.

You can see that changing t → t1, x is involved. Also changing x → x1, involves the time t. What you have is that time and space are mixed together. IOW, you can't just change time without affecting space, and vice-versa.

 

[godnotgod]

Mu.

So you circumvent the question by invoking 'Mu', eh?

That is the underlying principle - that all of space and time together take place in one unified geometry.

Yes? And what is that 'unified geometry'?

 

[PolyHedral]

So you circumvent the question by invoking 'Mu', eh?

There is nowhere before the big bang, so asking anything about it is nonsense.

Yes? And what is that 'unified geometry'?

4D Minkowski spacetime.

 

[godnotgod]

Matter and energy are equivalent due to Lorentz invariance. What it means is if you perform a spacetime rotation using the Lorentz transformation, the resulting equations are invariant.

Right. But that is only saying that E=mc2, correct? It does not tell me what underlies that equation. Lorentz invariance is only the mechanics of the equation. I want to know what the underlying principle actually is.

A singularity is a mathematical point. It's not a real thing. If a theory has one, it is a red flag that either the theory is incorrect in that regime, or new concepts are needed to get rid of that singularity.

I knew I should not have used that term, and was hoping the gist would be understood. Let's just say that the four dimensions Poly mentioned have a singular source. Yes?

In GR, spacetime is a dynamical feature of the universe. You can't have one without the other.

Yes, of course. But the question is whether they existed prior to the Big Bang, although 'prior' implies linear Time, which would have been non-existent. Being non-existent, there was no past or future. There could only have been the Present Moment in which the Big Bang occurred. If that is actually the case, Time, Space, and Causation are merely conceptual grids superimposed over Reality .

You would have to look at the Lorentz transformation law:

t1 = γ{ t- x(v/c^2)}
x1 = γ( x - vt)

Where γ is ( 1 - [v/c]^2)^(-1/2), c= speed of light, v= relative speed between two observers.

You can see that changing t → t1, x is involved. Also changing x → x1, involves the time t. What you have is that time and space are mixed together. IOW, you can't just change time without affecting space, and vice-versa.

Tell me: did the Lorentz transformation law come about as a consequence of space-time already having existed?

 

[PolyHedral]

I knew I should not have used that term, and was hoping the gist would be understood. Let's just say that the four dimensions Poly mentioned have a singular source. Yes?

What does it mean for an unchanging, static object to have a source?

Yes, of course. But the question is whether they existed prior to the Big Bang, although 'prior' implies linear Time, which would have been non-existent. Being non-existent, there was no past or future. There could only have been the Present Moment in which the Big Bang occurred. If that is actually the case, Time, Space, and Causation are merely conceptual grids superimposed over Reality .

All sections of time always exist. At the point of the big bang, the future and past exist, but there is merely no space which qualifies as "the past." The rest of the universe is either in the present, or the future.

 

[godnotgod]

There is nowhere before the big bang, so asking anything about it is nonsense.

But if it is indeed 'nonsense', then answering the question is equally so. But since you have done so, do you realize that you cannot have a concept of 'nowhere' without also having one of 'somewhere'? If there was no 'somewhere', then even 'nowhere' was non-existent. In effect, there was Absolute Nothingness, the negation of all negation. Also, see my answer re: 'before' Big Bang.

4D Minkowski spacetime.

I'l take a look.

 

[godnotgod]

What does it mean for an unchanging, static object to have a source?

Please clarify: are you saying that the four dimensions you referred to are an 'unchanging static object'?

All sections of time always exist. At the point of the big bang, the future and past exist, but there is merely no space which qualifies as "the past." The rest of the universe is either in the present, or the future.

What do you mean 'the rest of the universe'? There is no such thing, the universe being one entity, having come about altogether at the point of the BB.

Are you saying that, at some point, space and time were separate? This would be contrary to the previous statement that space-time are inseparable.

For you to even think of 'present' or 'future' implies 'past', with the understanding that there are two kinds of 'present': one that is embedded in a linear concept of Time, and the other that is Timelessness itself, ie 'Eternity'. Do you see that?

 

[PolyHedral]

But if it is indeed 'nonsense', then answering the question is equally so. But since you have done so, do you realize that you cannot have a concept of 'nowhere' without also having one of 'somewhere'? If there was no 'somewhere', then even 'nowhere' was non-existent.

At all moments in time, there exists a somewhere - the universe. There is no before the Big Bang to ask, no more than there is a more southerly place than the South Pole.

Please clarify: are you saying that the four dimensions you referred to are an 'unchanging static object'?

Yes - spacetime, as a whole, does not and cannot change.

What do you mean 'the rest of the universe'? There is no such thing, the universe being one entity, having come about altogether at the point of the BB.

You misunderstand the concept of the Big Bang - it is a location within spacetime, not outside of it. The universe did not come into existance at all - it cannot do so, because time is a component of the universe - and the Big Bang is its most past-wards corner.

 

[zaybu]

Right. But that is only saying that E=mc2, correct? It does not tell me what underlies that equation. Lorentz invariance is only the mechanics of the equation. I want to know what the underlying principle actually is.
I knew I should not have used that term, and was hoping the gist would be understood. Let's just say that the four dimensions Poly mentioned have a singular source. Yes? Yes, of course. But the question is whether they existed prior to the Big Bang, although 'prior' implies linear Time, which would have been non-existent. Being non-existent, there was no past or future. There could only have been the Present Moment in which the Big Bang occurred. If that is actually the case, Time, Space, and Causation are merely conceptual grids superimposed over Reality .
Tell me: did the Lorentz transformation law come about as a consequence of space-time already having existed?

We risk of going into circular reasoning, so I will try to avoid that pitfall: spacetime get mixed up because of Lorentz transformation, which gives us the bonus that E=mc^2, we need Lorentz transformation because the speed of light is constant in all inertial frames.You could read this in reverse.

What's the underlying principle? We know that Lorentz invariance is a must, and when you couple that principle to QM, you get QFT. Is there another underlying principle, who knows, but if we find one, we risk falling into any infinite series, What's the underlying principle under that one?

Can we say that time existed before the universe existed? GR says no. You can't have one without the other.

Singularity in the Big Bang Theory is a red flag signalling that GR is invalid at the Planck scale.

In regard to causation: Roger Penrose believes that causality trumps all other principles in GR, (Google Penrose diagrams).

 

[PolyHedral]

E=mc^2

This is only valid for an object at rest. A moving object is described by

 

[godnotgod]

At all moments in time, there exists a somewhere - the universe. There is no before the Big Bang to ask, no more than there is a more southerly place than the South Pole.

But, you see, in order to even conceive of 'somewhere', there must be a reference point. What is that reference point? If you say 'anywhere', that is the same thing as saying 'nowhere'. If you say 'here', then 'somewhere' is relative, and that cannot be, since the universe, which you describe as being 'somewhere', is Absolute. That is to say, it has no 'other' to compare it to, it being 'uni-versal'. Therefore, the universe, contrary to what you claim, cannot be 'somewhere'. To cut to the chase, it exists outside of Time and Space, but because you overlay these concepts onto it, you see it as being 'somewhere'.

You seem to contradict general opinion that time and space came into being at the precise moment of the BB.

Yes - spacetime, as a whole, does not and cannot change.

OK. So your 'four dimensions' cannot really be 'four', since that would imply a change from 'one' to 'four'. Then are these four dimensions simply four aspects of the same phenomena, and if so, what is that singular phenomena? And don't give me no 'Mu!'.

You misunderstand the concept of the Big Bang - it is a location within spacetime, not outside of it. The universe did not come into existance at all - it cannot do so, because time is a component of the universe - and the Big Bang is its most past-wards corner.

OK. So if, as you say, the universe did not come into existence at all, that means it has always existed, but in a state of non-manifestation prior to the BB, as potential, sort of like switching on a light bulb in a darkened room. But even if that were the case, or because of it, how could time have always existed, since there was nothing against which to measure it? (We do agree, do we not, that time is a measurement of something?)

 

[Mr Spinkles]

But you're counting that these people will stop at your baseball analogy and be satisfied with that, but they won't.

We shall see. That is the purpose of this thread. I would be happy to extend the discussion of the baseball analogy, if/when it is challenged by "these people".

Many will rationalize: if a spooky action can influence the wavefunction here on planet earth instantaneously a wave on Andromeda, then anything is possible. Now, which one is more farfetched, the Andomeda scenario, or someone claiming the ability to read someone's else mind a few feet away in another room?

The former is superficially more far-fetched because it involves a larger distance. But of course according to quantum mechanics the latter is actually more far-fetched, because it involves two macroscopic systems constantly interacting with their surroundings, thereby breaking any delicate quantum entanglements (or rendering them insignificant at the level of everyday macroscopic experience). It would be impossible under natural conditions, and extremely difficult even under controlled conditions, to get even ONE electron into one brain and preserve its entanglement with a second electron in another brain. Furthermore, even if you could do this, your mind operates on the basis of neurons firing; the firing of neurons involves an incredible number of atoms traversing cell membranes to create voltages, it doesn't depend on whether a single valence electron, in a single chlorine ion, was spin up or down! So the effect of that on your mind is effectively zero. Even if we really let our imaginations run wild and imagine you could create entangled electrons, separate them, and then construct two brains completely using these entangled electrons while preserving all that entanglement (!), whatever happened to one brain STILL probably wouldn't affect the mind of the other brain. Because, again, the firing of a neuron doesn't depend on any particular electron, it's the concerted (essentially classical) motion of ions in response to voltages across cell membranes that matters. You could switch the spins of electrons or even switch electrons or entire atoms, you could do this for every atom in your brain, your computer, or your grandfather clock, and it would likely make no significant difference to its operation. (I realize there are other parameters besides spin which could be entangled in principle, but the same basic argument applies generally.)

But you agree with me here, and you meant that as a rhetorical question, right?

 

[zaybu]

This is only valid for an object at rest. A moving object is described by

Correct. I was quoting the equation most people are familiar with.