Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Or not, and just leave the magic out of the equation entirely. No need to posit "spirit" at all, as antecedent or consequent.
Unfortunately, whether something sounds optimistic has no bearing on whether it is true. While people may often base their religious views on what sounds pleasant, science and philosophy don't really have that luxury- truth is the concern, not peace of mind.
Actually, I was referencing my limited understanding of "red shift."
So either we have "everything came from nothing" or "God made it".
Both sound incredible to me...
So either we have "everything came from nothing" or "God made it".
Both sound incredible to me...
That's not how you use whereas and I'm quite aware of the most basic experiments in QM there are. I've even explained them in some detail, as well as going over more complicated stuff. For example, :
Focus on the line drawn from the gun to the travelling electron. And let's say we fire one at a time, all arriving as localized spots, and we get the interference pattern.
Like the line drawn above, you are asserting that there is another line after the electron hits the splitting screen. That is, there is a definite path/trajectory.
Imagine, for a moment, that we're firing pellets (an analogy I've made before, but this time with a visual aid). We expect that most of them will follow a line from the gun, through a slit, and land in the two expected locations. Some might bounce, some might never go through, but if we shoot thousands of these we will continually see that most of them follow a line through one of the slits and arrive at the expected locations.
The reason for the motel analogy is because no matter how hard we try, doing this with electrons instead of pellets means never hitting those places but hitting a totally different set of line. Moreover, if we treat them as waves going through both slits, we can draw new "expected locations" lines. The one place we won't draw lines, however, is where they are now.
Let's say we run 10,000 experiments and each time we fire a trillion electrons. How can we say there is a definite trajectory when we never see the "spots" form lines in the non-quantum expected locations? And how are we able to account for the new lines by factoring in the fact that the electron when through both slits as a wave?
That's why QM is like the motel analogy and the other one I made about rooms. If we treat the particles as having trajectories, it's like always trying to go through door 100 and never, ever, ever getting there.
If there is anything to be salvaged from this quantum card game, it will necessarily involve some issues with dimensions, spaces, bases, and functions.
There are, it seems to me, a few central problems.
1) What a vector space or subspace is (what conditions must be met to make something such a space)
2) What "infinite-dimensional" means and how it relates to dimensional spaces
3) What eigenvectors and eigenvalues are.
The 2nd is the easiest because it narrows (infinitely, actually) what we have to deal with..
The answer is easy. You don't do that. Because Hilbert space isn't a function over an infinite space, nor do we think of vectors as built out of squared integrable functions, but rather that these constitute an infinite number of functions on or over a space. They're a metric imposing mathematical structure extending Euclidean space.
The right question is, "what is the field of square integrable functions?" The answer:
Take any function f. If f satisfies the following:
then f qualifies as a square integrable function. Basically, it means that a function defined anywhere on the number line s.t. it is itself squared qualifies. To qualify as a Hilbert space, we need only ensure there is an inner product defined for any two function f and g and the we have the necessary metric or measure mu:
All fascinating stuff, and a very scary was of saying that Hilbert space is similar to the space we seem to move around in (3D Euclidean space), only it has a few extra properties and it is infinite dimensional.
Let's say we really were working in a 52-dimensional space. How much larger is that space than a 4-dimensional space? Well, you can get pretty technical here or just realize that both spaces are infinitely dense and extend infinitely in all directions. The main difference is just the number of "directions" in which the space can extend infinitely.
The point, however, as that a 52-dimensional space is not an infinite dimensional space. So any worry we might have about functions dealing with infinite dimensional spaces is needless.
So now we are back in good ol' 52-dimensional space. Specifically, a linear finite Hilbert space. What do we do with it? Well, if we're interested at understanding how to approach this space using vectors, we figure out what vectors in this space would look like. In R2, a point is defined by two coordinates (x, y). The same is true here, only we have 52 coordinates. A vector in R2 corresponds to some point (x, y) but it has a direction, or represents an increment. The differences in physics are usually pretty clear, but in mathematics in general it is rather arbitrary. The temperature of a room a some time t is a point in 1D space. Same with the temperature of the room at some time t + 1 hour. Both are points. However, the increment or change from the first to the second has a direction and magnitude (the temperature change is a certain amount in a certain direction). That gives us a vector.
Once again, it is pretty much exactly the same in 52D. A vector is nothing more than a list of 52 entries that correspond to a point in 52D space, but from some direction to that point. Some vectors, however, are more important than others. Because if I take the linear combination of certain 52-D vectors (for each vector, I can multiply it by a scalar, including 0), I can "hit" any point anywhere in the entire infinitely extending and infinitely dense 52D space. And if, by removing any one of these vectors, I can no longer do this, then I have basis vectors for that space.
The only real problem left is this german Eigen-whats it. THE equation in linear algebra is Ax=b. A is a matrix. However, a matrix is not just a group of numbers but a function (more than that actually). Specifically, we call it a linear transformation that takes the vector x and transforms it into b. Both vectors, in 52D space, have 52 entries. The matrix A must, therefore, have as many columns as the vector does rows (52). The equation we need to get both an eigenvalue and eigenvector is Ax=λx. The reason this is a lot more important than it looks is because the linear transformation takes the vector x and maps it onto some multiple of itself. The eigenvalue is the scalar that can do what the matrix A does, and it corresponds to the eigenvector that is mapped to a multiple of itself. Things do get a little more complicated when we have an eigenvalue i or -i, because for every coordinate we have both a "real" and an "imaginary" or complex part, but as this doesn't actually change anything for a quantum shuffle, we don't have to worry about calculating something that can't be calculated.
It's not movement. It's not movement because we cannot define what moves or where it moves to.
Ok, if it is true, then surely this isn't unique to one "research cosmologist".
It doesn't. Take a look at black hole thermodynamics or black hole field equations and compare them to models in standard cosmology for the big bang. Black holes are stellar bodies. There is all the difference in the world between a comparison the serves as a conceptual crutch, such as that between the formation of black holes and running the clock back on the evolution of the universe, and equating two distinct things (like black holes and the universe at any point of it's evolution).
Your posts inaccurately described certain modern theories.
Mostly more and more uncertainty.
Somewhat. It seems a more mystically-inclined version of the big bang offered by those like Gerald Schroeder (in The Hidden Face of God, except as he's Jewish the logos doctrine isn't there) or some stuff by Polkinghorne, at least in terms of the "void" that existed "before" the universe. The connection between the hortatory "let there be light" and sight to a declaration of existence I'm less certain of. Namely, are you deliberately connecting your "seeing" with a sight enabled by a command for there to be light (required for one to see) and linking the creation therefore of sight and light with existence?
