TakenItSeriously

Senior Members
  • Content count

    442
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

About TakenItSeriously

  • Rank
    Molecule
  • Birthday 03/12/1964

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Silicon Valley
  • Interests
    Problem Solving, Poker, Physics, Engineering, Digital Security
  • College Major/Degree
    autodidact
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Physics
  • Biography
    Learned SR, GR, & QM at age 7. Resolved myself to altruism over religion the age of 17. Solved EMI issues for Gigabit Ethernet which had blocked its rollout for two years.
  • Occupation
    Retired

Recent Profile Visitors

6775 profile views
  1. The Derivation of Relativity Theory from Twins Paradox

    OK, fair enough. I actually have proven how to explain the time paradox portion. In fact it’s another case of treating them as complimentary pairs as in: X vs ~X. I just didnt include it here because I didnt want to create multiple lines of debate. which In my view would be off topic to the op since his topic was based on the consequences of the TP not the solution. If I can find the time to squeeze it in, I will prepare an argurment and post it in a seperate thread so that this thread is not hijacked. if you dont see it in the next couple days, Ill try and post it after I move but I predict many complications in my near future, that has me feeling uncomfortable about it. Meaning I cant make any promises.
  2. The Derivation of Relativity Theory from Twins Paradox

    I’m not familiar with the example your citing, but logic and math can work hand in hand based on their complimentary property, in that they can cross validate each other. For example, we think up a new method for solving two unknowns using two equations, which by virtue of its origionality and its informal application is still logic.. next we formalize it applying logical properties and make it deterministic, so now its math based on logical premise, Now if we find an intuitive paradox. we can check its validity using deterministic math to prove or disprove the paradox by finding consistently correct results Since by definition, they are complimentary, they always must approach a problem from different vectors that make their cross validation possible. does any of the above explain your example? The formal logic I speak of was based on validity and falicy of a spoken language which in turn was the basis of greek philosophy.
  3. Are Humans better Designers than Nature / Evolution !

    Over enough time they should converge to both be optimal designs. Take the human brain which is about as complex a design of nature your going to get and the modern PC, the analogies were probably terrible with the first PCs, but as the PC improves its efficiency, the analogies work better and better.
  4. Is there any reason this Quantum Telegraph couldn’t work?

    Look again, its not obvious, but the blue is one slit and the red is the other slit
  5. The Derivation of Relativity Theory from Twins Paradox

    And by the way, since I wrote that reply on a local editor and cut and pasted that reply without typeing it in the editor, there was no way you could have read it in the two seconds it took from both downvotes. What are you guys trolls from Russia or something?
  6. Is there any reason this Quantum Telegraph couldn’t work?

    For the QT, its the simplest possible setup where we are essentially running two dual slit experiments back to back with a shared entangled source. So the setup should be trivial. If its about aligning the slits to the beams properly, since they are beams I would imagine the slits would be moved infront of the beams until they produced the interference pattern on both ends as preperations. Hmm, I think I am correlating the experiments correctly. With D3 & D4 they are only getting particles from one slit each, thats true. But thats the assumption with copenhegan interpretation, when observed its assumed the photons when slowed down to one photon at a time only goes through one slit at a time, not both. With D1 & D2, they are probably setup to make sure the any Δd = nλ such that the wave is always in phase, so in both cases, they are reading patterns from a superposition of both slits.
  7. Is there any reason this Quantum Telegraph couldn’t work?

    What kind of arguement is that? I never said anything about the geometries of the dual slits. It’s assumed that they are the proper size in this thought experiment. I disagree, the conclusion of the quantum eraser experiment done in 1999 is that it is knowledge of the path that changes the distribution pattern on both sides of the entangled pairs. When the particles hit either D3 or D4 they create a dual distribution with D0 due to the fact that the path is known. When the particles hit either D1 or D2 they create an interference pattern with D0 due to the fact that the path is not known.
  8. The Derivation of Relativity Theory from Twins Paradox

    I’m sorry to say that I proved your first premise wrong not that long ago. There is a logical explaination for the deviation in time between the twins: Starting with the paradox of symmetry vs time deviation: Ok, so we can agree that the TP says that the twins respective views of their brothers time are symmetrical for the entire trip, so how do they each experience different amounts of time. There are several valid mathematical solutions that all claim something a little different as to the sources that cause the time deviation, such as relativistic redshift, or gravity or frame jumping, or the turn around, but none of which really explain how the paradox is physically resolved. So they are valid in proving that there is no pardox, but not definitive in explaining why there is no paradox. For this you need to use a logical model. To understand why, I will first provide the logical model that definitively explains the solution. Then I will provide the logical reasoning why math is not a reliable model for explaining a problem. The Definitive Solution: To find the solution using logic, we must find the assymetry to the problem keeping in mind that the solution wont be intuitive because its still in the relativistic domain. So if time is symmetrical, and velocity is invariant, then that leaves only distance. Now, if we look at the two inertial reference frames: in the traveling twins inertial reference frame we only have the ship In the Earth twins inertial reference frame, we have the Earth, the destination system, and the distance inbetween. Therein lies the assymetry! The Earth twin only sees the ship contract, the traveling twin sees the distance to the destination contract. Note that its only the dimension in front of the moving object that gets length contracted in the effectively static frame. So, because the traveling twin is only traveling 60% of the distance, the trip only takes 60% of the time. It seems amaazingly trivial in hind site right? But that’s what logic does, It simplifies the problem through convergence, which goes hand in hand with why it clarifies a problem. But the logical explanation isn’t the complete answer either! Thats because we can’t prove anything using logic, we can only explain things. To prove there is no paradox we need to do the math which has already been done... repeatedly. Which is why math is not the best at providing an explaination of the problem. Thats because if there is no paradox, then all mathematical models will balance out by virtue of their being deterministic regardless of what source your testing. They will all be seen as being the source, because the gap in time is always in the math.. Quod erat demonstrandum To sum up: By defining math as being deterministic, we can prove that their is no paradox. If it were a paradox the math shouldnt balance out, ergo, showing the math balances out proves their is no paradox. Then by defining the logic to being all valid thinking that’s not math, we may solve the intuitive falacy in order to find the logical explanation. Or as I’ve said many times before math quantifies, and logic clarifies. or more importantly, logic and math are complimentary opposites. But the consequences of how we define math and logic are even more profound than solving physics.What makes them opposites, is basically that math is deterministic and logic is not, for example: we can only invalidate the logical models. we can only validate the mathematical models. we can use the mathematical models to Quantify the problem we can use the logical models to clarify the problem The fact math is deterministically defined is why we can apply mathematical methodology to disprove the paradox. The fact logic is not deterministically defined means we must use logic to find a logical model for the problem, which in this case involves deductive logic. Why logic is prone to falicy of intuitive premise Why math is prone to falicy of intuitive conclusions Therefore, since logic and math are opposites, that’s a very good reason why we should not define logic as a type of math. So would the two down votes that appeared at the instant of the post care to explain your preminitions of an angruement?
  9. Is there any reason this Quantum Telegraph couldn’t work?

    You’re both right of course. I mis-wrote my example. I meant to say that it was the light beam equivalent of an electron positron symmetry that was just easier to represent. Never the less, the point is that their positions are correlated, i.e. Alice knows the relative positions of both particles. therefore it must produce a dual distribution pattern on both sides.
  10. Is there any reason this Quantum Telegraph couldn’t work?

    Entangled particles are the equal opposites of each other. It would be the light beam equivalent of this: (not to scale) So detection of a particle going through one slit defines particles through (or not through) any other slit. Detecting either case causes a particle pattern.
  11. Is there any reason this Quantum Telegraph couldn’t work?

    You claim that there is no correlation between the patterns that are registered between Bob and Alice But according to the Copenhagen interpretation there should be correlation. example: If an entangled particle is detected passing through Alice's right slit. This is a measurement of position in the horrizontal axes. Therefore its entangled partner should be passing through Bob’s left slit.
  12. Is there any reason this Quantum Telegraph couldn’t work?

    For entangled particles, the entanglement is inclusive to all properties. All that’s required is how the entanglement is prepared.This describes the ways that entangled particles can be prepared. https://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2017/02/28/how-do-you-create-quantum-entanglement/ Also look up how quantum erasers work. They are all very complicated setups but at their core its a dual slit and entangled light beams. Again its the inverse opposite of this setup.
  13. Is there any reason this Quantum Telegraph couldn’t work?

    I wouldnt know whats technically impossible. If someone were to describe the GPS system, I would have thought it was impossible. Or if it was for the sensitiveity for LIGO same thing. In fact I recall when one of my brothers was asking me about a super sensitive time synchronization project, or how I would solve it, which for all I know, it might have actually been for LIGO. I told him the most sensitive timing in electronics would be for the allignment of differential signals creating something called jitter if misalligned. Of cours visible light has a much higher frequency so essentially the diffrential aspect scales to any scale. Ironically, I don’t think he took my idea that seriously, thinking it was too different in terms of scale.
  14. Is there any reason this Quantum Telegraph couldn’t work?

    Its just the classic dual slit experiment. So the easy way would be to use lasers that went through a beam splitter and to create entangled phase rotations. So when the light passes through dual slits at Bob’s location, detectors at Alices location are switched on/off to send a message. bob sees either an intrference pattern i.e. a wave state, or a dual normal distribution, i.e. a particle Of course the problem would be technically difficult, but you would rely on line of site communication. So you might need to have a series of satelites orbiting the sun for relay stations. By LOS, I mean entangled communication where the probes are both the entangled sources and the transmitting or receiving stations. i.e. every other probe would switch rolls.
  15. Is there any reason this Quantum Telegraph couldn’t work?

    Sure once the quantum application is verified, current technology can do anything we want with enough money, I could imagine a serries of space probes relaying live remote control of bots on mars for example