
Posts
339 
Joined

Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by AbstractDreamer


There was a crowdfunded project for an RnD device called Triton in 2014 from S.Korea. Doubtful it ever worked.
0 
Appreciate the help. I'm not trying to be obtuse. Just this point of observability is bugging me. Seems like it is relative to the object being measured. If its small enough relative to the object being measured it can be ignored. So that kind of contradicts the uncertainty in measuring principle.
That's why i was thinking along the lines of degrees of observation, and degrees of superposition, and some continuous (maybe quantisable) scale.
And what about the Earths magnetic field? Does that not influence the (moving) electron in such a way as to act as an observer, determine its position or momentum, collapse the wave function, and make it behave like a particle?
The two questions are:
How large does an influence have to be in order to count as an observer?
How small does an influence need to be to unable to affect an object enough to make it lose superposition (to any degree).
0 
... wave particle duality and the Heisenburg uncertainty principle has nothing to do with how clever we are in measurement. They are both fundamental aspects of particles in our universe.
Doesn't that mean "very little" and "negligible" are irrelevant?
... gravity on Earth simply has negligible effect on an electron. Gravity is simply too weak to affect individual particles.
We can't even measure interferance due to gravity for an electron or any individual particle... gravity has very little influence at the quantum scale.
Try it take the mass of an electron at 9.1×10^31 and multiply it by 9.8 m/s^2 using f=ma.
You should get [latex] 8.9*10^{30}[/latex] Newtons of force roughlyI thought anything above zero is enough to act as an observer? How large does an influence have to be in order to count as an observer?
0 
If a goat laid a chicken egg, it will hatch into a chicken. The egg is of chickeness, from goatness
If a chicken laid a goat egg, it will hatch into a goat. The egg is of goatness, from chickeness.
conversely
If a chicken egg, laid by a chicken, hatches into a goat. The egg is of goatness, from chickeness.
If a goat egg, laid by goat, hatches into a chicken. The egg is of chickeness, from goatness.
Which one makes the most sense?
0 
How is it that the Earth's gravity field or the Earth's magnetic field do not collapse the wave function the moment the electron is emitted from the source?
That they are not being measured by humans is supposedly irrelevant?
That the electron has an infinitesimally small affect on the Earth's fields and is immeasurable with our technology is also supposedly irrelevant?
How does the electron maintain super position when the Earth is in perpetual observation?
0 
I never implied that.
I know, i just didn't get Moon's point.
What does eggs coming before birds have to do with chickens and chicken eggs?
IMO, the adjective describes what comes out, not who it belongs to.
A chicken egg hatches into a chicken.
A chicken's egg comes from a chicken.
If a goat laid a chicken egg, it will hatch into a chicken. The egg is of chickeness.
If a chicken laid a goat egg, it will hatch into a goat. The egg is of goatness.
0 
AS Moon said: eggs even came before birds
Eggs didn't precede amoeba, bacteria, viruses, self replicating molecules.
0 
edited, cant change your quote though
1 
If an almostchicken laid an almostchicken egg, and the mutation happened within the egg after it was laid, but before it hatched. Then it was an almostchicken egg that turned into a chicken egg >> the chicken egg came first.
On the other hand if what was hatched was an almostchicken that then mutated into a chicken >> the chicken came first.
0 
deleted
0 
But you can limit the probabilities, and reduce the positions right?
if there are no slits, there are no probabilities for the electron to hit the detector.
if there is 1 slit, the probabilities are particle like.
If there are two slits, the probabilities show wave like interference.
So like with observations, as the electron moves through the Earth's gravitic and magnetic fields, the Earth's observations are so tiny they hardly affect the probabilities and the positions of the electron.
But when the experimenter sticks his measuring device at the slit, that observation is significant enough to limit the probability and positions to particlelike behaviour.
By that reasoning, observation is degree of measurement and on a continuous scale (perhaps quantisable) and it similarly affects super position?
So if the experimenter used a really bad measuring device, a very insensitive device, such that he is only 50% sure that the electron has passed through one slit and not the other, would that have any affect on the interference pattern?
Or if the experimenter used a banana to measure the electron at the slits, that would surely not affect the interference the pattern at all?
0 
Is super position a continuous measure? Or is it black and white; "in super position" or "not in superposition"?
If the location of the electron on the detector is a probability function, and if all measurements are inherently uncertain:
Surely observation is degree of observation, super position lost is degree of super position lost?
In other words, the more certain we are of the electron going through one slit, the less interference would be detected?
If its continuous, is this continuity in discreet quanta?
0 
So does retrocausality preserve free will?
But if you extrapolate this idea, the state of today is
determinedinfluenced by choices in the future? Is that not retrosuperdeterminism?Does the alternative actionatadistance imply "magic"?
I'm not sure which is more worrying.
0 
But there is still [math] r^2 [/math] to consider.
[Math] F=G\frac{m_1m_2}{r^2} [/math]
So moving from mass from one object to another also changes the center of gravity for both objects.
But Newton's Theory of Gravity is only an approximation I think. Its good enough in nonrelativistic situations.
0 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrocausality
"Feynman, and earlier Stueckelberg, proposed an interpretation of the positron as an electron moving backward in time,^{[16]} reinterpreting the negativeenergy solutions of the Dirac equation. Electrons moving backward in time would have a positive electric charge. "
"The backwards in time point of view is nowadays accepted as completely equivalent to other pictures"
im guessing the other pictures include Dirac's Hole Theory
This is like antitime i was referring to in #50. Only previously it was a baseless assertion! There is support now!
Does antitime flow "backwards"?
0 
Measure a yard stick, It's three feet
How are you measuring the yard stick?
stand a block away and measure it again
Its now a block away.
it's quarter inch from your personal perspective in relative space time. Simple.
Close my eyes and it no longer exists, from my perspective.
0 
when a=0
PX=PCr
Can you get this solution from case 1?
1 
The only solar system we know about in the level of detail that you need is our own. Even still, apparently there is still a 9th planet we haven't discovered yet!
0 
If geometry is positive:
Would it be correct to say the universe is bounded and finite at any moment in time? That is, the surface of a (hyper)sphere is finite.
But due to expansion over time, it is unbounded and could be infinite in size? That is, the volume of the (hyper)sphere can inflate to any size.
0 
In layman's terms, what is retrocausality?
0 
@Scotty99
So what exactly can you tell me about this God of yours?
0 
What if we detect the momentum of the electron very close to emission source (therefore we can figure out which slit it will go through, but have lost super position). Then leave it to bounce off a series of perfect mirrors for a relatively long time and therefore long distance. This distance needs to be as significant as the electrons mass and charge is insignificant compared gravitationally and magnetically to the earth. Due to this distance, the electron should be able to regain super position. We can then experimentally shorten that distance until we reach a point precisely where super position is lost to find out the exact "scale factor of observability for distance" which i will call [math] F_d(E) [/math] and will be a function of its energy. Just like [math] F_g(M) [/math] could be the scale factor of observability for gravition which could be a function of mass, and [math] F_{em}(Q) [/math] could be the scale factor of observability for electromagnetism a function of its charge
Alternatively, if we detect the position of the electron close to emission source but far from either slit, does uncertainly principle allow the electron to maintain super position wrt momentum? If we can control the observation of the electron in such a way as maintain super position even as it goes through either slit, then we can adjust that "angle of observation" to see if there is a relationship between angle of observation and observability.
What if the beam intensity is increased so its a steady flow of electrons, close enough to interact and lose each other's super position? Is the interference still apparent?
0 
Well if you're writing novel or series, with the intention of making money, you have to consider your target audience and market niche.
Writing ultra realistic stories that impress the scientific world, you would probably find it hard to get published. Fire breathing dragons, time warping blackholes, hordes of buglike nanoassimilating hivemind aliens with acid for blood whose sole intention is to terrify before killing to the beat of a soundtrack.... these things sell. You don't have to worry about how much biomass is needed to sustain a single dragon, or how cool graphics makes time travel work, or how a noncarbon based lifeforms with such predisposition for violence might actually have evolved to conquer space.
Explaining how your complex binary star system, with multiple eliptical planets on biplanar orbits and hyperbolic asteroid trajectories is an entirely realistic possibility doesn't really appeal to the masses usually.
1 
Is that the sole observations/reason behind the conclusion that planet 9 exists with some mass M and a radius R from the Sun? Like some tilting? or the way the 8 planets orbits?
Is planet 9 the only solution to explain these observations?
Instead of a single planet 9, could there not be multiple planets of different sizes and different masses that might equally account for such observations?
Is it possible for objects the size of planets to be made of dark matter?
0
An Observer
in Quantum Theory
Posted
Right so if i understood just the tiniest bit: decoherence over time from the noisy environment eventually causes superposition of many states to "decay" to just one state.
I wonder if the mechanism is through elimination of certain probabilities, or adjusting the global set of states so that fewer states become more probable, and many states become less probable?
So when the double slit experimenter sticks his measuring device at the slits, he essentially introduces a large influence on the electron and forces it into pretty much one state/location. But even before then, the electron is gradually decohering due to the environment (probably mostly air molecules, other em radiation).
So observation is like: the more something is affected, the fewer states/positions it will likely assume. Or the more something is measured, the more definite it becomes. But if we measure it gently enough (like from the environment  probably not enough to glean anything useful) it might not lose all its states. So like uncertainty, if we measure a location of a particle very gently, we only know a very rough estimate of location, but we don't disturb its momentum as much.
I hope I'm making sense.