
Posts
334 
Joined

Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by AbstractDreamer


Methane from water and carbon dioxide? Cool!
You would have 2O_{2 }left over i think. And you would need something to "make it happen"
0 
At first I would like to ask if i understand this topic.
ref: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87347whyhiddenvariablesdontwork/
So Bell's Theorem essentially claims to disprove the existence of hidden local variables in entangled photons/electrons; and it concludes that actionatadistance is present (or superdeterminism, global variables). Per experiment, by "repeating the procedure over and over" (4:38) and considering the expected unequal distribution of frequencies (6:31) as if there were hidden variables (Bell's inequalities) or "hidden plans" (5:00), and comparing them to the actual recorded distribution of results that are obtained (6:37), these results show that Bell's inequalities are violated. Experimentally, these actual distributions consistently violate Bell's inequalities and also consistently follow Quantum Mechanics "action at a distance".
So my problem is with how these hidden variables are modeled (and thus seemingly always in disagreement with results). They seem to be modeled classically, as if there is some explicit agreement between entangled pairs to precisely (classical precision) what values to hold. That is, for instance, electronA "plans" with electronB: "if we are measured like <such and such>..." (in particular, explicit but different directions) "..then I will show definitely UP and you will show definitely UP" or another plan such as "if we are measured in the same direction, then I will show definitely UP and you will show definitely DOWN". Then the experimenter exposes these plans through frequency analysis of all the possible explicit combinations of hidden variables (6:08), and finds that no such plans can exist.
But these electrons are modeled classically as if their hidden variables must explicitly and definitively describe one state or other in a certain measurement. If there is anything I have learnt, it is that before anything is measured nothing is certain (superposition, wavefunction etc). That includes any "hidden plans" or "hidden variables" that entangled electrons might be have.
So my conclusion then is that why is it not possible for entangled pairs to have uncertain hidden variables, and that these variables are orientated, symmetrical, opposing, and probabilistic in nature? The orientation allows the pair to agree on a frame of reference with respect to direction (actually this variable need not be uncertain or implicit). The symmetry ensures all arbitrary orientations are equivalent. The opposing nature ensures that when a measurement is made in the same direction, it is certain that the result will be opposite. The probabilistic nature of the hidden variables is such that the distribution of frequencies that the experimenters see are a direct measure of this probable nature! E.G.
Along any arbitrary orientation/axis/dimension/direction/pole, one entangled electron could have a variable:
[math]
P_{up}=\cos ^2\left(\frac{\alpha }{2}\right) P_{down}=\sin ^2\left(\frac{\alpha }{2}\right)
[/math]
and its entangled partner would have
[math]
P_{up}=\sin ^2\left(\frac{\alpha }{2}\right) P_{down}=\cos ^2\left(\frac{\alpha }{2}\right)
[/math]
Where [math] \alpha [/math] is the angle of measure relative to the axis, and P is the probability of being measured in that state.
Given that the pair agree on orientation, they are inherently, mutually, symmetrically, opposingly certain when measured along any same arbitrary axis; and internally, symmetrically, opposingly probabilistic otherwise.
That is, arbitrarily orientated, the hidden plan could be:
"if electronA is measured at [math]\alpha=0[/math] and electronB is measured at [math]\alpha=\frac{\pi}{3} [/math] then electronA will show 100% UP 0% DOWN and electronB will show 25% DOWN 75% UP".
They could show both UP if measured at such angles. After many measurements, the individual discrepancies balance out and a probability pattern emerges; and it is this probability that experimenters are comparing to frequency distribution expectations (as long as they are opposing when they must be opposed, such as when measured in the same direction).
"if electronA is measured at [math]\alpha=0[/math] and electronB is measured at [math]\alpha=\pi [/math] then electronA will show 100% UP 0% DOWN and electronB will show 0% DOWN 100% UP"
"if electronA is measured at [math]\alpha=\frac{\pi}{4}[/math] and electronB is measured at [math]\alpha=\frac{\pi}{2} [/math] then electronA will show 85.35% UP 14.64% DOWN and electronB will show 50% DOWN 50% UP"
That is, the electron's themselves do not know precisely what state/value they will be measured at  there's no explicit plan/variable. But they might have an implicit hidden function/variable that tells them how likely they will be measured in any state relative to a given orientation. And it is this likeliness, over repeated measurements, that consistently violates Bell's inequalities! Over many electron pairs, the recorded distribution of frequencies simply describe the hidden probability function and not any hidden explicit values.
So to me, Bell's inequality of expected frequency distribution only apply when the hidden variables are explicit. If the hidden variables are implicitly described through a probability function, then violation of Bell's inequality is only proof against explicit hidden variables and not proof against implicit hidden variables.
In other words, when we explicitly list all the possible states and calculate the expected frequencies (Bell's inequalties), we are inadvertently collapsing the probability distribution as described by the hidden state function, which in turn would naturally lead to consistent violations with experimentation, as is apparently the case. This is akin to listing all the possible paths of a photon through a double slit, calculating the expected distribution on the detector (particlelike distribution), and then declaring the interference patterns we consistently see are violating the expected distribution.
So an orientated, symmetrical, opposing, and probabilistic hidden state function seems to preserve Quantum Mechanics AND Locality!
Einstein would be proud!
Ok, I'm ready for my schooling.
PS This is not intended as speculation, rather this is likely confusion on my part. Please correct me.
Just to clarify:
 I'm not questioning the mathematical derivation of the inequalities.
 I'm not questioning the accuracy of the experimental methods.
 I'm not questioning the results of the experiments.
 I'm not questioning any arguments about loopholes.
 I'm not questioning Quantum Mechanics predictions.
I'm merely querying whether it is appropriate to apply the inequalities to the situation in the experiments, that is, Bell's Theorem.
0 
Happy to get involved i need to learn stuff, but trying to visualise what going on first
Area under a curve is found by integration. I'm not sure how you can normalise the result to between 0 and 1. The result of integration can only be a constant if the integrand f(x) is such that x is only raised to the power of 1. This means you only get a nonxvalue result (or a constant) if f(x) is a line not a curve. (I think). There are some odd techniques but i don't see how a curved function can have an area (within any significant limits) that doesn't have a variable that changes with respect to x.
I don't have mathematica. Also my experience in maths is around 23 weeks lol
So take your xaxis cone of unit length, where
[math]
\nu = \frac{\pi}{4}
[/math]
(i just drew two lines with limits, figuring out how to plot a real right cone with varying \nu)
So point D is somewhere on the two lines? The area enlosed between the xaxis, and f(x), between x=1 and x=D_x Would be
[math]
\int_{D_x}^1 (x+1)dx
[/math]
0 
Ok so what is the difference between (the three coordinate antivector) and (the scalar value of the radius of the sphere)?
So summing the coords of the antivector gives you the radius?
So say you have the three3Ddirection coords perpendicular to each other
[math]
L_1 (x_1, y_1, z_1)
[/math]
[math]
L_2 (x_2, y_2, z_2)
[/math]
[math]
L_3 (x_3, y_3, z_3)
[/math]
Then the antivectors
[math]
A_x = (x_1 + x_2 + x_3),
A_y = (y_1 + y_2 + y_3),
A_z = (z_1 + z_2 + z_3),
[/math]
But then there would be three solutions to the radius? What am i missing?
What use does the threecoordantivector give us?
0 
If i understood you.
If A_x is an area, its the area of the base of a right cone.
[math]
A_x=
\pi(x tan(\nu_x))^2
[/math]
If its a coordinate the its just the radius of the circle of the base of right cone.
[math]
A_x = x(tan\nu_x)
[/math]
pi is the relationship between the circumference and diameter of a circle on a plane.
your function is a relationship between what and what? Between alpha and lamda?
I can't get my head around these planes.
0 
next time you get on a train or a car... take a look out the window.
If you think like a geocentric, then your train is the frame of reference and the train is in the middle. When a tree goes past your window, it is because the Almighty Jedi is pulling the entire universe past your window. This IS the most obvious thing ofcourse. You are not moving (on the train). Therefore the tree must be moving. Its really hard to explain how Jedi is doing this, but all you need is faith.
If you think like a scientist, then you realise that there is an alternative! What if the tree is stuck to the Earth, just like it is when I'm not in a train? What if i take the Earth as the frame of reference? Then....erm.... the Earth and the tree is the side that is not moving, and... and... and... I must be on a train moving relative to the Earth!
Both frames are equally valid. Cherry pick which ever one you want.
The only thing that makes sense of geocentrism is a Creator.
This goes back to the thing you haven't given any thought to
..i havent given any thought to what this creator would be like..
As why the almighty Jedi unbounded in power, is yet bounded in desire?..this is what our creator wants ..
So I ask you for a third time. Tell me of your Creator.0 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyRJZbNmC7U
That's part 1. There's 9 parts I'm sure you can find them. That's not my voice, I'm not that condescending. Usually.
0 
That has nothing to do with SR, that is to do with people saying planets orbits make more "sense" with a heliocentric view. That is the main thing people note when "disproving" the idea the earth can be in the middle, when in fact all it does is show they dont understand what SR says.
No.
I made no mention of SR. I only mentioned frames of reference. When Earth is the frame of reference, then by definition it is in the "middle". So by that, I have already proved that earth CAN be in the middle. But when it IS in the middle, its hard to describe the other planets moving relative to it, other than some Jedi moving the planets and stars around in a game of eternal deception.
So my choice is to believe in the Jedi, or to try another frame of reference. And when i move my frame of reference to the big firey fireball thing that's really really hot, and really really bright, and really really really hard to miss, then what was hard to describe before becomes a lot simpler  that is, it looks like the planets are orbitting the big firebally thing.
0 
Using the earth as a frame of reference, its hard to describe the motion of the planets. They move in strange patterns and cycles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model
Using the sun as a frame of reference, the planets appear to move in notsostrange orbits.
Can you prove Jedi's don't exist? No? Well then, at least I have given it some thought.
You don't need a reply, you prefer ignorance it seems.
0 
..i havent given any thought to what this creator would be like..
So you believe in something you never really thought about. That's just blind faith, and religious talk; don'teatthisorelse Jediism. That is as loony as egocentrism.
1 
The Creator slipped? That is funny
If you are loony, take solace knowing at least you're not alone!
I think you're mistaking morality with knowledge. Long ago, we had simpler morals, and there was greater clarity between good and evil. More likely due to rather than in spite of our lack of knowledge. The universe of eternal deception that was Created just for us has but one law: Ask one question, and the answer will make you ask at least one more. Extrapolating this law back in time then, long ago there were less questions to ask. Therefore knowledge and morality was less complex.
However because there were less questions, our relative level of understanding (as a ratio of things we thought we understood to things we knew we didn't understand) was higher. So in that sense you could say we were closer to the Creator. You could argue we were happier then, or blissfully ignorant.
So now all you have to do is describe the Creator... specifically why he wants to eternally deceive us.
0 
Well that's part of what i am suggesting in this thread, we only have part of the story.
Well not really, if there is a Creator, we have NONE of the story.
Because the story then would be all about the Creator, of which we know nothing.
Which leads me back to my question #57
What can you tell me of your Creator, other than in his unlimited omnipotence, he is still bound by desires?
..this is what our creator wants ..
0 
Why is the creator seemingly endlessly flexing his omnipotent will only to deceive us?
0 
There is no geocentrism involving the Earth. Except the Earth moon ie the moon is the only non manmade object orbitting the Earth.
Unless there's a Creator moving all the things around making it look like were orbiting the sun....just for us.
0 
I read it as "I am the centre!" as in "I am Sparticus!"  lol
You read it right. The exclamation makes all the difference.
0 
Ive never understood this line of thinking, that its egotistical to think that we are the center of the universe, as if we had anything to do with that if we were. We ARE special, YOU ARE special. Until we find life somewhere else i am absolutely going to believe we are indeed special, why would i think about it any other way?
No. WE are not the center of the universe. "I am the center". "There is only ME".
1 
egocentrism>geocentrism. In my opinion, which ironically, is all that
mattersexists for egocentrics.1 
heart?
You can google the answers, though I'm not sure precisely what biology means by "paired".
Tongue, diaphragm and the transverse arytenoid
Apparently sphincters too maybe.
0 
Does it matter what kind of vibrations you're referring to?
You could have:
 linear vibration of a fixed volume sphere.  simply put a metal ball moving side to side, along a line through its origin. 1 linear frequency.
 planar vibration of a fixed volume sphere  a metal ball moving side to side and up and down (or planerotational vibration). 1 radial frequency dimension.
 triplanar vibration  hard to imagine, but this might need 3 linear frequency values to fully describe, or 1 radial and 1 linear.
 volumetric vibration  like a balloon expanding and contracting at some frequency. 1 linear
 volumetric triplanar vibration  1 radial, 2 linear.
 rotational vibration  Assuming there is some frictional value between the surface of the sphere and water to enable rotational vibrations. 1 radial, 1 linear
 Then the sphere could moving (not just vibrating around the origin point of the sphere) around a fixed point in the water medium. Lets say for simplicity its movement is circular on a plane. Then if the angular speed is significant relative to the vibration frequency and amplitude, that would be interesting. 1 radial, 1 linear
 A 3plane frictional rotational oscillations about origin, 3plane linear oscillations about origin, 3plane movement about fixed point, volumetric vibration system would need 3 radial and 4 linear dimensions to describe!
 Also all oscillation frequencies could themselves be oscillating!
I think you could make lots of patterns, in a standing unbounded water medium, where spaces might occur, especially at high frequencies
0 
I have no problem whatsoever with inconsistencies. Conceptual ideas are great if only to expand the mind. Unfortunately I cant help you with the mathematical modelling.
Mordred's post #12 is revealing though. Gravity is the key.
0 
Could you say direction of entropy is relative to the direction of time, always forwards and in the same direction?
If you define antitime as backwards to time (a relative statement, relative to time) , then antientropy is perhaps a better description of entropy in an antiuniverse (as a relative statement, relative to normal entropy and normal time).
Does antimatter exclude the possibility of antitime? Does it need to be one or the other?
Is charge not ultimately defined by chirality?
Is chirality not ultimately modelled by spatial direction (spin with reference to direction in a dimensional volume)?
Is antidirection just another form of symmetry?
Is antimatter just a manifestation of antidirection?
0 
Ah yes i recall seeing that thread before, but i need to do some background work to fill in gaps in my comprehension that i feel i can only obtain if i "follow" my own ignorance.
Jumping in at the deep end before I can swim, just leads to drowning. I need to find my paddling pool.
Thanks for those mathematical terms, I will begin from there and see where that goes.
1 
Take a simple function f(x)=x^2, or the equation y=x^2
This clearly lies on a plane with two dimensions. There is one variable x that determines the solution y. In terms of ?vector space? this function needs +x, x, and +y
However if you zoom out far enough when x is in the order of magnitude 1x10^5, the plane begins to disappear.
Eventually, but a lot before x=infinity, this function loses the positive x axis, the negative x axis, and the positive yaxis. Simply it becomes a line x=0. Let me call this a declining function, as dimensions decline with increase in scale.
Conversely, if you start with something that measureably resembles a line, if you zoom in far enough, its possible other dimensions can emerge. A declining function at an arbitrary scale can also be described as an emergent function at a different (smaller) scale.
Obviously this example is very simplistic, and there are functions that are nondeclining with scale like y=x.
Other functions such as y=x^2 + 3, will need to retain its +y, but will lose +x and x.
Other functions such as y=x^3, will need y axis
Questions:
 Can all functions be generalised into either declining and nondeclining functions?
 Can declining functions be subdivided into different degrees of freedom lost? (combinations of +x,x, +y,y)
 What is the analysis of such behaviour called in mathematics?
 Is there a theorem behind which functions will be declining and the degree of decline?
 Out of the solution space, can we prove what is the ratio of functions that fall into such categories of degrees of decline?
 We can observe declining behaviour when we zoom in, such as in differentiation we lose the curve to get a gradient. But can we observe emergent behaviour from "zooming out", without transformation rules? Not quite the same as integration?
graphs from https://www.desmos.com/calculator
0 
Everything I say is gibberish, with no mathematical or evidential basis. But i have conceptions based upon my best interpretations of what the text books are trying to explain, and a lot of stuff in my head is contradictory.The Helix model is a nice conceptual model. Its how my ignorant mind visualises the way ripples propagate in the electric and magnetic perpendicular fields (or a unified EM field). Not sure how this spiralling helix (or double helix with antiparticle) fits with the Maxwells equations.On my journey of knowledge and discovery, I came across the Crestroyer theory. While I don't quite comprehend some of the conclusions, like hiding antimatter in parallel universes or tangential dimensions, and it doesn't describe any "helix" nature of waves; I do like the idea of vibrations and ripples in the EM field, with matter being standing waves, and photons being waves in motion. Your description reminds me a little of that. It does refer to spacetime units being of this creation/destruction mechanism, and might loosely describe the photon as its own doublehelical matter/anti matter ripple with a net energy of zero over 1 wavelength.I've come across other references to the spacetime helix where the double helix becomes a single helix when the wave approaches speed of light, describing time dilation. Not sure how this single helix applies to the photon.I've also come across ideas of a sea of electric charge (Dirac sea?), and other references to this being a sea of both electrons and positrons. And that it is this Aethereal sea that enables these ripples to propagate. This idea sort of corresponds to zeropoint energy fields, where fluctuations are spontaneous within a region of zero average energy. Told I've also been told that space itself is not a medium. So confusion here.Not sure which ones are legitimate models though and how any of these ideas might be tied together. Looking forward to your next parts.
0
Is this equation right?
in Chemistry
Posted
bah details
just add another water molecule!