Kartazion

28 minutes ago, studiot said:

A is not allowed to strike the ball again or in any way further influence its trajectory.

So does A still 'have the ball ?

No, because the ball goes to player B. If player A no longer has the ball, then the entanglement is terminated.

4 minutes ago, studiot said:

I think there is a period when neither player 'has the ball'

This corresponds to the speed of the oscillation of information. The information packet is represented by the ball.

This is measured by the thickness of the net when none of the players has the ball.

3 minutes ago, studiot said:

Please define

Yes it is when the player has the ball in his camp and so he can play it.

Analogy and interpretation of quantum entanglement according to Kartazion

Imagine a game of ping-pong. At the center is the singularity, or the source, where there is the net. Each of the players is a particle. Together, they therefore constitute the entangled pair throughout the game. The ball is the packet of information. Let me explain. If one player has the ball, well the other player does not. The state is therefore always opposed. The entanglement corresponds to the current game of ping-pong. But when a player wins or loses the game, or the game in progress, the ball is then in the possession of one of the two players. Here we have the state of measurement. The measure can correspond to an immobilization of one of the two players in his action to play; or by an interruption of an external event on the fragile dexterity that is quantum entanglement.

New Theoretical Process for Manufacturing Qubit-type Quantum Memory

The idea is to have an isolated proton without an electron, and to make absorb an electron entangled with the proton. The conservation of the quantum number remains.

After having defined a value of the quantum number to a pair of entangled electrons, the idea is that to make of absorbing one of the two electrons to an isolated proton. After acquisition of the electron by the proton, the value of the quantum number is kept by the electron for a lifetime limited to the hydrogen atom, and keeps memory of the quantum number through the electron. 

The protium (the proton alone) is the most common isotope of hydrogen, and the only stable isotope without a neutron.

New Theoretical Process for Manufacturing Qubit-type Quantum Memory

Quantum Memory of the Proton Electron

The idea is to have an isolated proton without an electron, and to ionize an electron entangled with the proton. The conservation of the quantum number remains. The magnetic quantum number mℓseems to be the best candidate. After having defined a value of the quantum number to a pair of entangled electrons, the idea is that of ionizing one of the two electrons to an isolated proton. After acquisition of the electron by the proton, the value ofthe quantum number is kept by the proton for a lifetime limited to the protium atom, the most common isotope of hydrogen, and the only stable isotope without a neutron.

-In practice, can we have an isolated proton? Without being able to isolate only oneproton, we can ionize the whole of a mole. The mole would therefore have several copies of the same quantum information.

-During ionization, does the technical challenge remain in the storage of ml? or the projection of angular momentum? It is noted that the quantum number remains invariant and is the object of conservation during a nuclear reaction.

I used 'meditation' and not 'mediation'.

?

No.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

You don’t see a connection between those words?

Between 'meditation' and 'mediation'?

I made a big mistake. Therefore I am definitely withdrawing from this forum.

I apologize for everything.

Kartazion.

19 minutes ago, joigus said:

Will you just read what I said instead of answering to the last line of text?

Which last line of text? Can you clarify it?

19 minutes ago, joigus said:

I refuse to write it once again just because you're sloppy and don't care about the argument at all. 

Which arguments?

20 minutes ago, joigus said:

Only by skimming over what I was saying, they immediately understood.

Not me.

22 minutes ago, joigus said:

I've had many déjà vu moments with you: Some of my students with very low attention span. They have an excuse, because their minds are forming.

Is yours?

I confess. If my minds is it weak I have no excuse. We can't all be smart like you.

23 hours ago, joigus said:

Why do you call it meditation?

I didn't call it 'meditation'. Where do you see I called this word? 

42 minutes ago, joigus said:

I never mentioned any "mediation".

It's intellectual dishonesty coming from you. Only you mentioned the word mediation and you wrote it in your post. Prove me wrong.

Try to be more careful with the terms and with the logic when you're trying to make fine points.

33 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

Indeed the word was badly chosen.

@Area54 Sorry, I was wrong. That was not what I meant as a sentence.

I will answer you correctly. Thank you

25 minutes ago, swansont said:

But you can’t or won’t properly frame the question. 

 

Chemical bonds are not the same as the interaction between elementary particles.

 

That was never in question, or one of the options under discussion.

 

Which is irrelevant to the discussion. All these non-sequiturs only serve to disrupt and distract.

 

Right. Which makes this another distraction. 

 

Can you please focus on the topic that you introduced? Open a thread on free will if you want to discuss free will.

 

Not really the clarification I had hoped for.

Ok.

12 minutes ago, joigus said:

No. I know where I'm going, and I know where you're going. Confused by an idea that was discarded as superstition in the Ionian islands 26 centuries ago? Why should I?

10 hours ago, joigus said:

Why do you call it meditation?

Simply It's because I never call anything mediation. Where did you get that word from? Have you confused it with the word premeditated?

9 minutes ago, Area54 said:

This is central to evolutionary theory. You will likely have heard the somewhat trite summary of natural selection as "survival of the fittest". The fittest are those having the genes that, on average, best equip them to survive the hazards of their environment. Consult any relevant textbook for details. Without stresses placed on organisms by hazards their could be no meaningful selection.

Indeed the word was badly chosen.

9 hours ago, joigus said:

Meditated by whom? Can you write something that makes some sense for a change?

A creator. Some call him/her/it God.

9 hours ago, joigus said:

Why do you call it meditation?

Are you confused a bit there?

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Ironically, evolution depends on hazards; it's not a choice, it's an explanation. 

Can you give me a source of your claim, namely the fact that evolution depends on hazard?

10 hours ago, swansont said:

How does that show premeditation?

It is indeed the aim of my main question to find out; if we can determine it by science or not.

10 hours ago, swansont said:

Biological beings are literally “more than elementary particles agglomerated in motion” There are more and different interactions than you have between elementary particles (e.g chemical bonds) There is the emergent behavior that you mentioned. 

The chemical bond? What does it make of the chemical bond its particularity if it is not that particles bound or agglomerated as I indicated above?

10 hours ago, swansont said:

That’s irrelevant, isn’t it? The divide is between some intelligence, somewhere, running the universe, and the absence of that. Nothing to do with our choices.

That's what I'm saying. It is not our choices that make the universe work this way.

10 hours ago, swansont said:

You have yet to establish that the laws of the universe are equivalent to free will. You just made an argument against this notion.

The same. It is indeed the origin of these laws of immutable physics that ultimately lead us to be able to make choices in life.

10 hours ago, swansont said:

Again, irrelevant. The divide is between some intelligence, somewhere, running the universe, and the absence of that. Nothing to do with whether the universe can make a choice.

The universe does not make a choice. It follows the laws of physics. So where does the origin of our free will come from? The universe is only the visible part of what constitutes us. And it is thanks to nuclear fusion (among other things) that we subsist here and now.

10 hours ago, swansont said:

Not hazardous? What does that mean?

Hazardous of hazard (chance).

6 hours ago, swansont said:

How can you show this?

Simply because some of these photons reach us here on earth to interact with the electron of matter encountered.

6 hours ago, swansont said:

Gas expansion follows laws.

Yes the famous fluid mechanics.

6 hours ago, swansont said:

More, I would say

Can you give me the relevant example which adds the more?

6 hours ago, swansont said:

So? How does free will imply an intelligent agent running the universe? 

It is not our choices that make the universe work this way. I want to make it clear that the universe follows the rules that it owns, and AFAIK only living beings are endowed with this free will. The universe does not give itself the choice and follows the stages of evolution until us. It is these stages of evolution that I suspect to be not hazardous.

16 minutes ago, swansont said:

The overall pattern is random, so the emission is isotropic.  

But the emitted photon can arrive at a final destination location in a premeditated manner.

23 minutes ago, swansont said:

Yes. The results of chemistry are not random. If you mix hydrogen and oxygen and add a spark, you primarily end up with H2O and not some random combination of the atoms.

But just a random gas expansion.

24 minutes ago, swansont said:

Not sure how we made the leap all the way over to biology, but evolution explains this. 

They are neither more nor less than elementary particles agglomerated in motion.

28 minutes ago, swansont said:

Oh, there are still rules. Can you float without assistance, just because you wish to? Can you run 100m in 3 seconds? You can’t “do as you wish”

I didn't mean to say that we can defy the laws of physics. But just that we are arbitrary in our decisions. We have the choice to run or not.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

The distribution of what? How are you using “random”?

We agree that when the sun shines, and by its nuclear fusion, photons are released and are distributed in space. Do you think for a moment that such and such a photon goes in such and such a direction how? Randomly? Or in a controlled way?

3 hours ago, swansont said:

And yet these processes follow patterns described by statistics, exactly what you’d expect if there were probabilities in play, rather than some entity making a choice.

Biology structures particles according to the genetic code of DNA and cannot do otherwise. Yet the result in the form of living or organism beings is however endowed with intelligence and can decide what he wants to do as he wishes and without there being any rules and laws. How do you explain that?

7 hours ago, swansont said:

“Randomly distributed” doesn’t describe the functioning of the universe. But that’s not the issue.

It appears to follow laws. If an intelligence were involved those laws still apply, so it doesn’t matter if an intelligence was involved; the intelligence doesn’t override the laws. Things wouldn’t look any different. So there’s no reason to think science should be able to determine this.

But during a nuclear fusion for example, the distribution is done, and in terms of radiation, in a random or structured way?

Intelligence is being able to choose between several results where each of these paths are of course subject to the same laws.

Erratum. I spoke of radiation. I should rather speak of particle emission like the neutron for example.

7 minutes ago, swansont said:

You said “Science should be able to determine whether the functioning of the universe is random or governed by an intelligent force that rules our universe.”

What part was accidental?

I answer as a novice. I do not see any constraint in this request. Just the part 'Science should be able to determine' in 'Science is able to determine'. Because science could, and this in my opinion, determine whether the underlying and canonical functioning of the universe is randomly distributed or not.

I saw that we were talking about a God particle linked to a book related to the Higgs boson.

9 minutes ago, swansont said:

But you proffered a similar scenario.

I didn't do it on purpose.

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

Where’s the evidence for it?

No evidence. But it is because of what you said that there are :

Quote

Zero. We have a model that doesn’t require any.

Zero candies in the Standard Model.

Did I answer correctly?

55 minutes ago, swansont said:

Zero. We have a model that doesn’t require any.

I suspected it a little. That's why I found it a little strange this jelly story.

52 minutes ago, joigus said:

Will you ever get my point?

No. Not too much.

On the other hand as swansont puts it, we don't need a balls of jelly to make the Standard Model of our universe work. So I gave you the number n°* for this balls of jello story. It's because I'm used to talking about quantum or nuclear physics. That why.

* guess

^.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

If someone thinks an intelligent agent is required, they own the burden of proof conclusively showing this requirement

I will surely say nonsense, but would that not be there a form of 'intelligence' in the behavior of the Higgs boson?

On 12/2/2020 at 4:13 PM, joigus said:

You proposed the idea that an "intelligent world" rules our universe. Ok. What is that world? Where is it? How do you define its "intelligence"? How does it relate to "the universe". Why another "world" besides the world?

A mysterious world that would make no sense to us. A quantum world, with bursts of energy which structures the particles thanks to the directing fields, intelligent or not.
The very structure of the universe what. A world that would be capable of generating billions of stars with phenomenal quantities of energy.

Can you imagine for a moment the size of our universe?

If so, then how much balls of jello would it take to generate such a universe?

1 hour ago, POVphysics said:

If the universe was designed somehow, there would probably be some engineering parameters that can't be explained; they're just built into the universe. 

I understand. The theory of everything at its limits.

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Life, the Universe and Everything???

BTW, there is a correct answer, but you won't know that till you read it (hint hint)... 😉

Apparently I'm not the only one to ask myself the question. Thanks for the source.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

We have Darwin, without an intelligent agent. 

23 hours ago, swansont said:

How would the universe look if this were the case?

You wanted to ask me if in the case that the universe emanates from intelligence, what would it be like?

12 hours ago, swansont said:

Science doesn’t require the hypothesis, so why would it try explain? How would the universe look if this were the case?

Like Darwin?

12 hours ago, swansont said:

That’s a dodge. The point here is that it’s not a simple question, because you have not clarified important points that are crucial for answering. It’s an ambiguous question. 

5 hours ago, joigus said:

As Swansont said, you're dodging the questions and decided to get personal.

I understand. I'll clarify it.

5 hours ago, joigus said:

You still don't understand the argument that everybody else has understood. Got it?

So juste tell me what argument is it? I don't get it.

3 hours ago, Area54 said:

In case you still haven't got it, your question was a damn silly question, it was meaningless, it was an affront to logic and common sense. 

I respect your opinion on the matter.

3 hours ago, Area54 said:

If you still cannot see that I recommend you study for a bachelors degree in philosophy and the history of science. 

Ah ok. That much. Study for a bachelor's degree to understand this thread.

3 hours ago, Area54 said:

You can report back here when you graduate and apologise.

Apologize for what?

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Why is joigus’s question gibberish while yours is not?

There was no temporal component to the question.

Ok.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

The clue is, you don't understand the question...

But what question are you talking about?

36 minutes ago, joigus said:

You proposed the idea that an "intelligent world" rules our universe. Ok.

No I ask the question of knowing if it is simply possible. This is not affirmative.

37 minutes ago, joigus said:

What is that world? Where is it? How do you define its "intelligence"? How does it relate to "the universe". Why another "world" besides the world? You do not bother to justify at any length what you say, and not only you expect everybody to make a rational argument from it, but you get angry with me to the point of being insulting when I show you that your non-argument is vague at best, by substituting "intelligent world" for some equally ad hoc notion, shoehorned into the same question.

Why make a big deal out of it for a simple question?

38 minutes ago, joigus said:

I don't care for your insults, nor do I care for your neg-reps attacks. Nor do I care for your apologies, but if you want to offer your apologies, I will accept them.

To say that words are ridiculous is not an insult.

41 minutes ago, joigus said:

--knock, knock, anybody there?

You know I'm here.

3 hours ago, joigus said:

Why? You'd be equally clueless. You still are.

No clueless of what? From the answer to my main question?

3 hours ago, joigus said:

Exactly, to make a point. And you still don't understand, I see.

I'm not trying to figure out how it works, but just getting a science expert answer to my main question. I opened this thread related to this one question.

48 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Why would you resurrect a thread in which you clearly struggled? 

I think I know, but I'd love to hear your excuse reason...

Ah yes of course I forgot that it is forbidden to write on a thread that is several weeks old.

44 minutes ago, iNow said:

He clearly just wanted to call joigus stupid and inept

41 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Shush, you're giving him a clue...

The clue is that these are just the words that are ridiculous or stupid. Surely not him. I clearly just wanted to call gibberish stupid and inept.