Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Everything posted by joigus

  1. joigus


    I just knew that was the direction you were going. I remember many discussions with philosophers, and I had a deja vu. But I didn't want to bring it up until you stated it clearly. You inquiry is not about colour. It's about qualia --or should be. Philosophy really. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/
  2. I did. I also remember an episode on Frasier using the same idea. Very interesting narrative idea back in the day.
  3. In anticipated response to, Measurement not always involves interaction. Not always involves decoherence. When it does, it is irreversible. I'd say that almost every measurement that your brain is performing by watching what's going on in the room, involves decoherence. Some people are happy with the description of the wave function being irreversibly entangled with the rest of the universe. You can lead a happy life thinking that and never do anything wrong as concerns physics. I'm one of the people who isn't. I need to understand what happened to the rest of the amplitude that "collapsed". Some people do.
  4. Sorry, not new, but much much better formulated. To account for some kind of stratification in taxa, which is what your rough idea seems to be about: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/punctuated-equilibrium#:~:text=“Punctuated equilibrium is the idea,by intermittent bursts of activity.” Gradual, of course, is not absurd. We see it all the time. We see it in the bones, in the teeth, and so on. The "substance" you're looking for is, perhaps, alternative splicing. Or at least that's what some of those clueless scientists seem to have guessed at: https://www.nature.com/articles/nrg2776 Introns develop long, long before they are used against the environment. Most of these introns are lost, because they are no use. Every so-and-so many tens of millions of years, one of these intron rarities, happens to be useful for a specific environmentally-related purpose. When this extremely rare event happens, it manifests in the fossil record looking so similar to a miracle that only an expert could tell the difference. That's why having super-redundant eukaryote DNA is such a blessing in evolutionary terms.
  5. What you call "the act of measurement", although I prefer a less exalted term: "interaction with the detector". To be more precise: An interaction that is amplified, so that the carrier of the piece of information "the particle was detected here" is a collectivity of quantum particles, each one with its own particular quantum phase, all of them decohering and making the entire universe decohere with respect to the teeny tiny coherent quantum state that you prepared. You can explain this with entanglement with the rest of the universe. It can be explained away in terms of entanglement. But not a two-particle entanglement. It's a super-dooper super mega entanglement with millions and billions of thermal states. That entanglement, if you will.
  6. 100% of 200 plus 25% of 200 is 250 There's no reason why 100% of 250 minus 25% of 250 should produce 200 They are %'s of different quantities. Goverments and oligopolies sometimes use these maths to raise the prices a little more than it would appear to people untrained in maths. (1.01)10 is more than 1.1 (it's 1.1046), so ten increases of 1% increase more than 1 increase of 10%
  7. Falacy: 1) Mainstream people think everything is OK with current state of physics 2) I have a new theory 3) Something new is found Conclusion: I was right. See any of the tens, probably hundreds of ways in which that reasoning could go wrong? Starting with 1) and 2) being blatantly false...
  8. No. It seems to be a fantasy. No. It should have a clear empirical content, or at least be possible to relate to such empirical content by the theory. Your formulae do neither. You might want to take a look at this: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/operationalism/ So it's not just about writing nice equations that satisfy my sense of what this or that should be.
  9. A cautionary tally: (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_general_relativity) I guess what I'm saying is, what are the chances? What are the chances that anyone --thinking from intuition plus a bunch of elementary maths-- comes up with something not seen already by one of these people or partially equivalent to it? The battlefield is littered with the corpses of theories. First order of business should be: Get a rough idea of the map of different directions these alternatives are trying to extend GR into. You don't have to be a master mathematician. But the art of approximations is a must. And, yes. The algebra is wrong. In particular, your definition of force is unit-dependent. And your acceleration should be (time)-1 dimensional. When m goes to infinity your "force" goes to 1? What does that even mean?
  10. Today I learned about the Leidenfrost effect. Thanks to Swansont. Now I understand my frying pan a little better.
  11. Ultimately, either Galilean or Lorentz invariance is a salient fact from experiment, of course.
  12. I agree. There is nothing forcing F=F' a priori. We must be told how the force changes under the transformations. It is no coincidence that all basic forces depend on the differences of the coordinates (invariance under translations), they do it through the gradient of a potential-energy which is a scalar under rotations (so F rotates covariantly as an SO(3) vector) and the force law does not depend on higher time derivatives of the coordinates. In fact, if you study in depth what kind of velocity dependence you can have in the law of force, curiously enough, the answer is the Lorentz force: vxB, where B is a vector field. Only a small class of force laws gives you consistency with Galilean relativity.
  13. joigus


    Pardon me. I thought you were trying to make sense.
  14. Seems like you're trying to build an analogical model (based on sound waves) of relativistic electrodynamics... Is that what you're trying to do?
  15. joigus


    Oh, but your post is: (My boldness.) You said it, not I.
  16. joigus


    Hi. Welcome. Isn't this a little bit more about psychology of perception than quantum theory?
  17. (Oxford) The word "Antisemitic" refers to hatred directed towards the Jews, not towards other Semitic peoples. Even though the word "Semitic" is more encompassing. The reason should be obvious. Anti-Arab feelings are not much of an issue today, neither is it hatred towards the ancient Semites, like the Nabateans, or the Moabites. Anti-Muslim is more relevant, as there's some of that going on. But "Muslim" is not an ethnic tag. Antisemitism, on the other hand, is a recurring theme throughout history. We tend to coin words that have a reality behind them. I suggest you try anti-Nabatean, or anti-Moabite, if you ever feel in need of makig such distinctions. I will make no further comments on the rest of the hatred-spreading flyer you left here. I find it revolting.
  18. Neither is mine. And I apologise if any misunderstanding was because of that. There are infinitely many "Lorentz" groups (quite trivially) because the Lorentz group depends on a particular parameter c, the speed of light in the vacuum, that you could assume to take on a different value, and another, and another. Would the new set of transformations it be a group? Of course. Would all the structure generated by the Lorentz group be valid? Of course. You would have time-like, space-like, and light-like vectors, the metric, the whole works. The only exception is provided by the choice c=infinity, with which you recover the Galilean group. But you have to choose what this invariant maximum speed that generates this peculiar geometry (hyperbolically-constrained if you will) is going to be. Other ideas similar to what you suggest have been and are being tried. Namely: doubly-special relativity. And I'm sure the are others still. Doubly-special relativity has different versions. But nothing you say suggests to me that you are trying to go in a similar direction --the interesting one. Rather, you seem to be repeating the known stuff with a different parameter. One such attempt would be totally mathematically consistent. We know, because it was consistent more than a century ago. So the only question is whether it's experimentally true. And we know it to be false.
  19. I told you this since the very beginning there are as many "Lorentz" groups as you like just by re-defining the parameter. Studiot implied it too. Thanks for expressing what I told you and you had missed as if it were my fault. Your comments are easily the silliest I've found in these forums so far. The good thing is --apparently-- you finally understood. I can only hopel It was studiot who asked for clarification, not me. Every time you introduce an abbreviation you must clarify what you mean. That's what professionals do. It's obvious you're not one. You seem to have problems following up on the comments. Take more time to answer instead of embarrassing yourself so much. Bye. PS: Re-read the criticism. All the answers you need are there.
  20. Not Einstein, please. Not that mojo! I take it back, I take it all back! Sorry, the joker in me takes over from time to time. Identifying \( v^{2}/c^{2} \) with the classical potential, inspired in the Newtonian approximation of GR, has been thought of before. It doesn't work, as it doesn't account for all of gravity's degrees of freedom. It's also been discussed in these forums. I don't have a problem with anybody's education. Neither do I have a problem with contradicting Einstein's universe. Einstein's universe was ruled out many decades ago, so... And I've got my quotes too: Guess who said that? When one has no arguments, quoting great scientists is, I think, the rational equivalent of praying. There goes my prayer.
  21. "An upheaval will certainly come..." I was wondering when you were gonna shut down all pretence that you're doing science and start with the prophetic language. And there you go. What took you so long?
  22. joigus

    How brain work

    Hello. How question do: https://www.scienceforums.net/guidelines/
  23. For some reason I didn't see these comments yesterday. Thanks for the clarification.
  24. Etc. It's also present/important/relevant (although not enormously abundant by any means) in planetary science. Is generally considered a signature of either biology, or also interesting geology or atmospheric chemistry. Experts will tell you more or correct what I said.
  25. I couldn't agree more! It doesn't, but that doesn't mean it has a 100% consistent axiomatic formulation. In particular, it could fail at very small distances, and it might be the case that quantum theory cannot do the job of explaining away what happens at these incredibly small scales. Who knows. But so far it's done the job exceedingly well. There is a very famous quote by Feynman on the extraodinary predictive capabilities of quantum field theory.
  • 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.