What came before the Big Bang?

[godnotgod]

Communication of information between two distant objects takes always a finite , bigger than zero time. Because information cannot travel faster than light.

If you could prove otherwise, you would be very famous, because you have proved that it is possible to send information in the past, which would lead to a whole series of paradoxes.

So, if you use science to prove your point, then use it consistently instead of cherry-picking only the parts you like.

Instantaneous communication of information is impossible according to quantum physics and relativity. Period.

Ciao

- viole

"...in 1982, a group of physicists under the leadership of Alain Aspect experimentally demonstrated the difference between transcendent and immanent domains. In the immanent domain, all communications and interaction between objects require signals. But in the transcendent domain, Aspect’s experiment showed communication is signal-less. The signal-less communications are called nonlocal...."

Signal-less non-local communication is outside of Time and Space, so there is no violation/restriction of the light speed laws. In fact, the Big Bang had to have occurred outside of Time or Space, since neither existed at the moment of its inception. This event was a transformation of consciousness into what we call the universe:

'The universe is the Absolute as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation'
Vivikenanda

(heh heh....I keep posting this relentlessly. Someday, someone here is actually going to get it.)

 

[Desert Snake]

Think neither God, nor not-God.

Then you'll be free.

I'm not trapped in false thought dude. I've read some of your posts, no disagreement that I can think of, you're quite advanced.

 

[godnotgod]

If you could prove otherwise, you would be very famous, because you have proved that it is possible to send information in the past, which would lead to a whole series of paradoxes.

No. the information is not sent in any such 'past'. The information is signal-less and instantaneous, outside of time and space.

I doubt I would be famous. Mavericks are always initially frowned upon.

Ha! 'Lead to a whole series of paradoxes'? There are no paradoxes. That is just a problem of the rational mind which is attempting to 'make sense' of nature, which is non-rational.

 

[viole]

"...in 1982, a group of physicists under the leadership of Alain Aspect experimentally demonstrated the difference between transcendent and immanent domains. In the immanent domain, all communications and interaction between objects require signals. But in the transcendent domain, Aspect’s experiment showed communication is signal-less. The signal-less communications are called nonlocal...."

Signal-less non-local communication is outside of Time and Space, so there is no violation/restriction of the light speed laws. In fact, the Big Bang had to have occurred outside of Time or Space, since neither existed at the moment of its inception. This event was a transformation of consciousness into what we call the universe:

'The universe is the Absolute as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation'
Vivikenanda

(heh heh....I keep posting this relentlessly. Someday, someone here is actually going to get it.)

Aspect's experiment does not prove you can send information faster than light.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Aspect:
"
However, these experiments do not allow faster-than-light communication, as the events themselves appear to be inherently random.
"

So, the no-communication theorem still holds, and could not be otherwise since it is a mathematical consequence from the axioms of quantum mechanics.

So, no matter how mystical QM might seem to you, it still entails that information travels at a maximum finite speed.

Ciao

- viole

 

[godnotgod]

Aspect's experiment does not prove you can send information faster than light.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Aspect:
"
However, these experiments do not allow faster-than-light communication, as the events themselves appear to be inherently random.
"

So, the no-communication theorem still holds, and could not be otherwise since it is a mathematical consequence from the axioms of quantum mechanics.

So, no matter how mystical QM might seem to you, it still entails that information travels at a maximum finite speed.

Ciao

- viole

'Mystical' simply means 'divine union'. Nothing spooky or weird. QM behavior is included in that union.

"in the quantum world, despite what Einstein had established about the speed of light being the maximum speed for anything in the universe, instantaneous action or transfer of information does appear to be possible. This is in direct contravention of the "principle of locality" (or what Einstein called the "principle of local action"), the idea that distant objects cannot have direct influence on one another, and that an object is directly influenced only by its immediate surroundings, an idea on which almost all of physics is predicated.


... if a pair of electrons are created together, one will have clockwise spin and the other will have anticlockwise spin (spin is a particular property of particles whose details need not concern us here, the salient point being that there are two possible states and that the total spin of a quantum system must always cancel out to zero). However, under quantum theory, a superposition is also possible, so that the two electrons can be considered to simultaneously have spins of clockwise-anticlockwise and anticlockwise-clockwise respectively. If the pair are then separated by any distance (without observing and thereby decohering them) and then later checked, the second particle can be seen to instantaneously take the opposite spin to the first, so that the pair maintains its zero total spin, no matter how far apart they may be, and in total violation of the speed of light law."

Nonlocality and Entanglement - Quantum Theory and the Uncertainty Principle - The Physics of the Universe

 

[godnotgod]

Aspect's experiment does not prove you can send information faster than light.

No. That is not what the experiment demonstrated. It simply demonstrated the validity of non-locality and signal-less communication. I don't think you have a handle on what the implications of these two phenomena actually are.

 

[godnotgod]

gng slightly off topic, did you notice an instant physical 'nay-say manifestation at the '(off-topic) point of realization?

Just a yes or no, then i'm going to delete this post.

Ya..

 

[viole]

'Mystical' simply means 'divine union'. Nothing spooky or weird. QM behavior is included in that union.

"in the quantum world, despite what Einstein had established about the speed of light being the maximum speed for anything in the universe, instantaneous action or transfer of information does appear to be possible. This is in direct contravention of the "principle of locality" (or what Einstein called the "principle of local action"), the idea that distant objects cannot have direct influence on one another, and that an object is directly influenced only by its immediate surroundings, an idea on which almost all of physics is predicated.


... if a pair of electrons are created together, one will have clockwise spin and the other will have anticlockwise spin (spin is a particular property of particles whose details need not concern us here, the salient point being that there are two possible states and that the total spin of a quantum system must always cancel out to zero). However, under quantum theory, a superposition is also possible, so that the two electrons can be considered to simultaneously have spins of clockwise-anticlockwise and anticlockwise-clockwise respectively. If the pair are then separated by any distance (without observing and thereby decohering them) and then later checked, the second particle can be seen to instantaneously take the opposite spin to the first, so that the pair maintains its zero total spin, no matter how far apart they may be, and in total violation of the speed of light law."

Nonlocality and Entanglement - Quantum Theory and the Uncertainty Principle - The Physics of the Universe

Yes, but still no information can be sent instantaneously. These entangled measurements cannot be used to send any useful information whatsoever.

Why? Because even if the two observers will "instantaneously" agree about the outcome of the experiment, they will agree on something whose outcome was inherently random to start with, as Aspect showed.

Therefore, your analogy of coherent thoughts reaching our brains instantaneously so that they are computed does not make sense within QM. It could make some sense only if the thought is inherently random. Which would make your cosmic source of consciousness a perfect generator of random events.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Desert Snake]

Ya..

Heh.....

 

[viole]

Duplicate post

 

[viole]

No. That is not what the experiment demonstrated. It simply demonstrated the validity of non-locality and signal-less communication. I don't think you have a handle on what the implications of these two phenomena actually are.

The consequences is that you can only instantaneously agree on inherently random events, once you measure them.

The no-communication theorem addresses exactly that. that there cannot be possibly immediate transfer of not-random information, even under the assumption of not-local entanglement.

"
In physics, the no-communication theorem is a no-go theorem from quantum information theory, which states that, during measurement of an entangled quantum state, it is not possible for one observer, making a measurement of a subsystem of the total state, to communicate information to another observer. The theorem is important because, in quantum mechanics, quantum entanglement is an effect by which certain widely separated events can be correlated in ways that suggest the possibility of instantaneous communication.
"
Unless, you see a loophole in the demonstration of the theorem.

Ciao

- viole

 

[atanu]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Aspect:
"
However, these experiments do not allow faster-than-light communication, as the events themselves appear to be inherently random.

- viole

Can you please explain what you mean by ' inherently random events', in relation to the paired photon experiments?

 

[viole]

Can you please explain what you mean by ' inherently random events', in relation to the paired photon experiments?

Sure.

The outcome of throwing a coin or a round of roulette are NOT inherently random events. If we knew the exact physical state (initial momentum, air resistance, friction, etc.) we could predict the outcome. Therefore, their apparent randomness is a consequence of our ignorance about the detailed physical state.

Inherently random events are not like that. They cannot be anticipated whatsoever, not even in principle.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Thief]

Random is suppose to have reference to events of an unpredictable scheme.
But the results can be known.

No one can plot the flight path of a dandelion seed.

We know the results.....more dandelions.

 

[atanu]

Sure.

Inherently random events are not like that. They cannot be anticipated whatsoever, not even in principle.

But is that the focus of the paired photon experiments?

 

[viole]

But is that the focus of the paired photon experiments?

Well, when you entangle two particles (e.g. photons) their physical properties will become correlated, albeit still unpredictable. The only thing you know is that when we measure the properties of one, you will know the properties of the other.

They will become like one thing, so to speak.

Ciao

- viole

 

[godnotgod]

Well, when you entangle two particles (e.g. photons) their physical properties will become correlated, albeit still unpredictable. The only thing you know is that when we measure the properties of one, you will know the properties of the other.

They will become like one thing, so to speak.

Ciao

- viole

So, returning to the brain experiment, in which subject A and subject B's brains were conditioned and then separated, can we not predict that whatever response you elicit from A's brain will result in the same response in B's brain? Because that is exactly what occurred.

 

[Bunyip]

Well if the brain can receive input from another brain across space, then why not thought, especially if you think that thought originates in the brain. Thought is just another form of energy.

The experiment in question is not about sensory input. That has been isolated. Brain B is directly receiving input from Brain A, without sensory input (!) IOW, there is a direct transmission across space from one brain to the other, and even without the recipient knowing it has occurred.

A computer has a processor, but we still don't say it thinks.

Our western notion is that mind is created by the brain, and mind is who we are, as "I", which thinks. But that is only an assumption.

However, beyond mind is consciousness, which is non-local, and it is consciousness that is the origin of thought. "I" merely latches onto it as 'MY' thought. Watch thought as it arises. It is not necessarily 'yours', if consciousness is paying attention. It is just arising and subsiding. IOW, there is no thinker of thought; there is only thinking.

Saying, 'well it does this_____, so why not thought?'

Is evidence of nothing.

 

[atanu]

Well, when you entangle two particles (e.g. photons) their physical properties will become correlated, albeit still unpredictable. The only thing you know is that when we measure the properties of one, you will know the properties of the other.

They will become like one thing, so to speak.

Ciao

- viole

Why so to speak?

 

[godnotgod]

Saying, 'well it does this_____, so why not thought?'

Is evidence of nothing.

I think it definitely is. Let's put thought aside for the moment. How can the scientifically documented transmission of stimuli from one brain to another across space be accounted for? This alone is evidence that cannot be denied.