QuantumT
-
Posts
523 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by QuantumT
-
-
2 hours ago, StringJunky said:
You would probably be better off letting go of that belief because, as swansont said earlier, it's bringing classical ideas into the quantum domain. So, AFAIK, duality is only a mystery when you try to use classical descriptions to describe quantum phenomena.
Well, I think it can be de-mystified with commonsense reasoning 😉
Only problem is the rejection that naturally follows, when ones paradigm is challenged.1 hour ago, Strange said:Done. The "logical reason" is quantisation.
Pretty much all the counter-intuitive ("mysterious") quantum behaviour is just a consequence of the quantisation of the wave and field equations.
How does quantisation explain the observer effect?
If you ask me, it is much better and simpler explained as a GPU response.But guys, don't mind me. I know you don't agree with me, and I'm not trying to convince you. The subject of this thread was begging me to throw it in. I'll hush now 😁
0 -
3 hours ago, dimreepr said:
It's reasonable to assume reality will continue to baffle a reasonable explanation...
Just like there's a logical reason for Brownian motion, I firmly believe there's a logical reason for duality. We just need to find it (or gain consensus for an existing idea).
0 -
Quote
There have been a number of dark matter candidates put forward over the years, but we still don't seem to be much closer to finding an answer. This is where the d-star hexaquark - more formally, d*(2380) - enters the picture.
0 -
10 hours ago, Alfred001 said:
All the typical weirdnesses of QM - the double slit experiment, observation collapsing the wave function etc. - are they still regarded as mysteries that need to be resolved, or is the view now that that's just how the universe is and there is no explanation beyond that?
I think it depends on the attitude of the scientist. Scientists are people like everybody else, and they have likes and dislikes.
Some dislike mysteries, that leave room for woo interpretations, so they prefer to cut the BS and simply say "that's just how nature is".
I, myself, am the more stubborn kind, and refuse to give up on achieving a reasonable explanation.0 -
Could this mean that the dimensionless constants were different in the early universe?
0 -
On 2/5/2020 at 6:05 PM, jimmydasaint said:
The article you cited also mentioned that fullerenes had also generated interference patterns in 1999.
I do not understand how this experiment will lead to a new era in quantum biology. Could you please give us your perspective on their findings.
Neither do I (understand quantum biology), I'm just the messenger. I was hoping a discussion, here on this forum, would reveal what it's about, and its possible applications.
But I find evidence of "macro" duality fascinating, because it breaks the boundaries we thought it had. It's not only a quantum phenomenon as we originally assumed. And that is worthy of being "breaking news" IMHO. But it's not treated so.
Fullerenes are simple carbon molecules. This is a step further.
0 -
3 hours ago, Mordred said:
No energy is a property it doesn't exist on its own.
Energy is defined as the ability to perform work. So when someone states field energy simply think of it as the fields ability to perform work.
Keep in mind a field is an abstract object that describes a collection of mathematical values/objects such as scalar quantities/ vectors/spinors or tensors at each coordinate.
Thanks for clarifying that.
One final question: Is space divided into stationary quantum fields, or are they moving around?
0 -
Thanks guys, I now better understand quantum field oscillation. Question is, does the energy jump/leap from field to field (disappear/reappear)?
0 -
I see I'm not the only one wondering about the origin:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Where_does_vacuum_energy_come_from (it's a forum thread)
Some suggest the energy comes from photons. Could that be right?
0 -
19 minutes ago, StringJunky said:
Vacuum energy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy
Yes, I've read that page. As I understand it, "the nature of vacuum energy" remains an unsolved problem. So we just don't know where it comes from, is that right?
0 -
28 minutes ago, MigL said:
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which states that for a brief enough period of time, the energy of a particle, system, or even a volume of space, can be a range of values, as long as the Heisenberg inequality is satisfied.
So, no origin and no time travel?
0 -
Been googling for an answer to this for weeks now, but to no avail, so I turn to you guys as the last resort.
When two virtual particles emerge in a vacuum (fluctuation), where does the energy come from?
I've heard claims that the energy comes from the future (but not from a reliable source). Is that true? (Or is it from the past?)
Does the energy involved in quantum fluctuation really travel in time? Or is the origin undetermined?0 -
Quote
Physicists have watched a chain of 15 amino acids interfere with itself, in an experiment that paves the way for a new era of quantum biology.
0 -
10 minutes ago, Huckleberry of Yore said:
Wouldn't gravity essentially "fade away" if every indivisible instance with mass were separated by space so that gravitational attraction would be negligible? I suppose that means each is separated from all others by an infinite space (or would it?). That's a lot of space but there seems to plenty of that.
I wouldn't call that 'fading', but more its means of influence being taken away. I imagine it would come back, if the right circumstances were to arise somehow.
0 -
I can't imagine that gravity will ever fade away, but what about the strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force? Do they have an expiration date?
Will atoms one day lose their energy and fall apart? If not, how is it possible for them to preserve their energy?0 -
Today (well, a few days ago) I learned that, in the observable universe, a quarter of the volume in cubic meters corresponds to the amount of particles with mass: 10^80
I assume it would look something like this as an equation: 0.25 * V = P
If this is wrong, blame google 😁
0 -
In Denmark, hand sanitizers with ethanol, are being used with great effect in all areas of health care.
I was recently in a Danish hospital, and the sanitizer gel was everywhere, with instructions to use before touching anything.Patients with 'super bugs' had sanitizers at their beds, and cleaning after them was done with chlorine. It works!
Now we just need to address the usage of antibiotics in agriculture.
0 -
Finally I managed to find a description to the claims. It has a name. Zero Energy Universe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe
It's a hypothesis.
0 -
It seems Michio Kaku agrees. He says* the exact same thing.
(* duration 1 minute 16 seconds)
0 -
36 minutes ago, swansont said:
I don't know. I didn't watch the video.
Then I suppose my presentation is correct. The video is only there, so you can 'see it for yourself'. It is only 3 minutes long.
36 minutes ago, swansont said:You are supposed to provide the discussion material, so that the video is not necessary.
This is his claim:
Is that correct?
0 -
10 minutes ago, swansont said:
I was addressing your flawed restatement of it.
I'm sorry if I presented it wrong, I didn't intend to. But didn't he say that gravity is the counterpart of matter?
0 -
34 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:
In general YouTube is a horrible place to try to learn science. YouTube videos from respected universities are of course fine!
33 minutes ago, swansont said:Is gravity really "negative energy"? No. Gravity is a somewhat nebulous term here. It's an interaction. It's spacetime curvature.
Is gravitational potential energy negative? Yes, by convention. But not AFAIK by anything dictated by nature.
The gravitational PE is given by -GMm/r which goes to zero when r becomes infinitely large. So it's very convenient to use this convention. But there is an additive constant, which is assumed to be zero. And everything still works if it has some other value.
Yeah, I sensed there was something kooky about his claims...
0 -
Okay, I just saw this short 3 minute video about our universe coming from nothing.
In it, the narrator says that gravity is the counterpart (negative energy) that balances the universe to a total value of 0 energy. Is that correct?
0 -
15 hours ago, Mordred said:
Here is the arxiv article
https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.03369
Hrrm how to simplify this. Ok let's give this a shot.
In classical physics you have the E and B fields for electromagnetism however in QM those fields are replaced by the probability potentials ϕ and A now in regions where the E and B fields are zero you can still have potential via the wavefunction that the ϕ and A are non zero
This tells us that the QM and QFT subsequently treatments is more fundamental than the classical treatment in that it is more complete in the information of the EM field. In essence the paper helps confirm that the probability wave functions do have a physical and measurable effect through their potentials.
For example it's also a key aspect to how a particle wave packet can go through two slits at once.
Thank you very much, Mordred.
So if the wave state is applicable in our reality/world/universe or whatever, does that not mean it weakens the many worlds hypothesis?
0
Simulations- String Theory and other things. Split from: Are the weirdnesses of QM still regarded as mysteries to be resolved?
in Quantum Theory
Posted
It is when the player (or game character) looks at something. The GPU then instantly responds by loading the object / surroundings in question.
Well, if we assume that reality is virtual, there is nothing counter intuitive about the observer effect. It's actually the only scenario in which it makes perfect sense.
I guess it's all about how the evidence is interpreted. To me the collapse of the wave function is valid evidence of a virtual universe, just like Brownian motion is evidence of molecules.
I should also mention that I used "commonsense reasoning" as a pun, because it is a strong AI term 😁