Jump to content

AbstractDreamer

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    236
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

13 Neutral

About AbstractDreamer

  • Rank
    Atom

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    Theoretical physics

Recent Profile Visitors

3287 profile views
  1. So which processes have the most advanced predictions, the least systematic errors, but still a high degree of randomness? How far can quantum randomness extend to the macro scale?
  2. But do these functions only describe processes and their behaviour over time statistically? For the next singular quantum event, are they still unpredicatable?
  3. Actually I asked for the closest thing to true random, as I had assumed a definitive answer would be improbable. I was hoping for a variety of examples that exist in the quantum world, because ultimately that's where I again assumed any randomness will originate from. I was rather disappointed at there only being one answer (atomic decay), as I thought there would be more interesting situations where randomness is exhibited. On the other hand, rather than looking at the randomness on the smallest scale, and look instead at randomness on the largest scale, such as the observable universe and how the different interpretations affect randomness on that scale. Under Copenhagen interpretation, if the micro scale is not deterministic, then perhaps on the large scale there is greater non-determinism. Just like one set of infinities can be greater than other sets of infinities. Under Bohm, even if the quantum world is deterministic, can it be proved that this determinism is carried over through all the scales, despite being practically impossible to measure? All it would take is one non-deterministic event to occur somewhere in the Bohm universe, and the deterministic nature of its quantum world would essentially be irrelevant in a volume that included such an event, and perhaps all "connected" volumes too.
  4. Ok, lets look at atomic decay. I don't know, lets choose alpha decay. We don't know when the nucleus will next produce an emission and decay, though statistically over time we can predict how much emission it will produce over time. So we say the time of next emission is random but is that because of our limited knowledge and/or detection apparatus? @studiot If I wanted to choose 1 object at random from a set of objects, my definition of randomness is that nothing in the universe can predict which choice that would be. That is my layman's definition. Another query i have is how time plays a role in randomness. For example if an atomic nucleus decays at time t. If we "rewound" time and passed through time t again, would that nucleus decay at exactly the same time? If so, then it event was always deterministic, and not random, despite being seemingly random to us. A truly random emission would be time independent. Going back to my example of choosing 1 object at random.... then replaying that random choice process through time would produce either the same or a different result, but still unpredictable nevertherless. PS. I thought bell theorem's only disproves local hidden variables?
  5. Not sure if this is in the right topic of Quantum Theory. But what is the closest thing to true randomness? As I understand, computer generated numbers are deterministic at the core; dice do not have even mass distribution; hidden variable theory suggests there is an underlying deterministic function to the probabilistic nature of the quantum world. On the other hand, if there is no determinism in quantum probabilities, can true randomness be attained therein?
  6. There is speculation that the next new particle discovered will be called the ALB particle. It's properties are best described in terms of colors. Predictions are already abound for the existence of an anti-ALB particle called the ALBino. It is colorless.
  7. Given observers in an Minkowskian volume of empty space, are there any limits to how large this volume is or how much time this volume exists for before one of the three restrictions that define such a space is violated? What if this volume of space was so large such that observers on opposite sides of this volume are moving away from each other at superluminal speeds due to expansion? What if this volume of space is not so large, but over eons grew via expansion to such a size that observers on opposite sides of this volume are moving away from each other at superluminal speeds? How does volume or time limit the range of Minkowskian geometry around such observers?
  8. Based on an understanding the laws of physics don't apply beyond the EH. By definition invariance in only select cases, albeit most cases, is not invariance. Your answer belies your bias in affecting your critical thinking. It could find invariance, make different predictions and still be more complete, because it could make predictions on relationships not addressed with SR. It could find variance, make the same predictions and still be more complete, because it might include unknown unknowns. Well if its a disadvantage, its not plagiarism. With the nature of responses i have received, I think most would agree its a disadvantage. What is relevant is that you stay on topic. If you want to preach about manners, you can open your own thread.
  9. I'm trying to find where the local limitation between inertial frames of reference are stated. The only thing i can find is that as long as any frame is not accelerating then c will be invariant Thanks for the oklo info, showing c has been constant for 2 billion years.
  10. Anywhere within a BH is not empty free space and therefore not a valid spatial frame of reference to test invariance of c, irrespective of whether or not the theory is valid. Only at the EH and outside can there be empty space between which light can pass at invariant c for the 2nd postulate to hold and for it still to be a valid frame of reference, and also a point where the theory fails. Your first post was about time dilation as evidence that c must be invariant. Now you're saying of course its an approximation. Had you actually read my #1 post and listened, we could have saved 3 pages of missing the point. Given that there a limits at where GR/SR fails, is it not scientifically valid to question the postulates as the reason why it fails? Must any future validated QGT also specify that c must be invariant? No that's not the full meaning of plagiarism. You are missing the key concept of benefit to the plagiator. How have you interpreted that as a refusal to accept an answer? I'm not refusing to accept that alpha readings show invariant c? I'm contesting a point about the measured observable. Can you really not see the difference?
  11. Wrong. Please quote me where i refused to accept such differences. Simply continuing a line of questions does not imply a refusal to accept. My point remains valid on the measurement of the observable. Just because I'm arguing one position, doesn't mean I am refusing to accept the opposite position. My point was to show there might be lots of opportunities for unknown physics be operating in, and to highlight the fallibility of such answers NOT to refuse to accept them. There is a difference between critical thinking and opinion. I quoted something that was so mainstream popular and accepted, i thought it would be easily familiar with people that i expected that could answer my question and who could readily correct me, such as someone else who has told me its not actually the second postulate. I didn't think it needed a quote. Why would i re-work a postulate of the most well known theory and then ask questions on my own work?
  12. Its not that I don't suppose we need an alternative. Its that I cannot offer one. I do not have the grasp of all the mathematical concepts, equations and relationships that is required. For me to give an alternative would be just so you can laugh at me, why would waste your time with a baseless alternative? I have already stated my evidence. There are spatial frames of reference around black hole event horizons where GR is incomplete. There are frame of reference over time, when t=10^-43 seconds where GR is incomplete. Those were my thoughts recently after maybe watching something on youtube or reading something somewhere or talking to someone i cant remember. I looked up both GR and SR on wiki to understand further. I examined the postulates i thought i found. I looked for anything that might explain where the limits of SR might be and found none in the postulates. I proceeded to this forum to ask further questions. THAT is my agenda. I would take his opinion because I'm not looking to understand medicine, I just want to live. Here, i'm not looking to practice science, i want to understand it. The analogy is incompatible. There is a difference between being a student and being a patient.
  13. Well its from wiki and it looked more mathematical than the postulate that was purely in English at the top of the page, so i figured it would be more accurate. I have since read a few things on how Einstein initially was toying with the idea of variable c, but couldn't get the equations to fit. Then something about reconciling with gravity. My conclusion then is he put contraints and assumptions on GR and SR to make it work, which then turned out to fit empirical evidence. I'm more interested into what thought processes he had and what made him initially modelled c as variable.
  14. Well that is your error of judgement then. What answer have i refused to accept? What is this agenda you think i have? You think I'm here to antagonise by questioning a cornerstone of accepted science? Then why even post a comment on my thread if you believe i have an agenda? Are you sure this agenda you're speaking of is not yours? Are you sure you're not on an agenda to antagonise me? What answers have i rejected? What answers have i not accepted?
  15. You mean "no knowledge", and that is wrong, i do have some knowledge just not very much. What answers have i refused to accept ?- or are you assuming Im refusing to except them simply because i continue to ask questions? One answer cannot answer all the questions i have. I will refuse to accept answers such as "its not science", or "my ideas are random". I can go on wiki and and read the facts if i wanted to just accept current science with no understanding. The reason people come on a forum to ask questions is to get more than a 1 sentence answer and a link to something that the linker hopes will go way over their head and will shut the person up. Its complete cop out statement saying we need to learn it ourselves. Its basically saying you don't know how or cant be bothered to explain it in laymans terms. If you don't want to give an explanation fine, but don't make the comment of saying i just need to accept it or learn it myself. If nobody here wants to teach, Ill go somewhere else. Tell me, how do you think someone who is asking questions and trying to learn going to possibly PROPOSE AN ALTERNATIVE? You want the student to come up with an alternative, while you expect them to accept your answers on faith? I can accept this answer, because I have already suspected as such from even before my original post. But my curiosity wants to know some examples of these places and combinations, or some numerical examples to show why a tweak would be impossible, to get my thought processes going. How can i possibly learn it myself if i don't know where to look? I want to get some kind of idea how impossible it is. The evidence is that we know that GR and SR are incomplete. Isn't that enough? I really would have thought anyone who could answer my questions, would not need to be shown the postulates to know them and what the typical questions such as those that im asking might be, and not actually need them to provide the same answer they have no doubt given many times before, or even asked themselves when they were students. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postulates_of_special_relativity
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.