studiot

High Externet, thanks for the clarification. I think I'll take a leaf out ofthe OP's book and ask And who are you to be asking an off topic question in some other member's thread ? Surely you should be addressing the questions he has so clearly clarified for all of us. Especially as they show some real thought behind them , not a hidden agenda like you have.

A word about Mathematics. I don't know what maths courses are like in your part of the world but in my day they started to introduce what is probably the most useful technique you will encounter. Curve sketching. That is the ability to take a formula and visualise sketch the shape and layout of the curve it plots on a graph. I say this because I am trying to find a suitable Morse curve for you to further explain QM. I may have to draw my own. It is not enough to expect coputer programs to draw them for you. I say this for two reasons. Firstly the experience of doing it. Secondly most formulae have constants, and other expressions that you may not have values for so the program will not actually be able to plot your graph. Note Newton popping up again. That fellow really did get around.

This goes totally against what I said. The Fie;ld that gives rise to quantum phenomena is not quantised. You cannot have quantisation without such a field. The quantum phenomena occur not only because the field is there but also because of the interaction with something else. That something else is not quantised either. It is only the interaction which is quantised.

Well yes, but those are results, not the conditions themselves. So First we start with an object that has properties. (neutrinos for instance are vey difficult to work with because they have next to no properties) Then we place it in a Field (do you know what a Field is in Physics ?) It is important to realise that the Field is not quantised. At least one of the properties of the object must be capable of interacting with the Field. So we can consider the consequenses of that interaction. This is where mathematics starts to come in. Normally energy is considered. Note we do not consider the object itself directly. So the object has energy by virtue of its interaction with the field (via some property) So we invent a dependent variable and write a general equation connecting this variable with the variables of the Field. We have been very successful with the Schrodinger equation. Here the Field is an electric field. The invented dependent variable is called the wave function, because the Schrodinger equation is an equation connecting space and time in a manner that admits motion, including wave motion. So if we place an object, say an electron, in such a field, say the field of the nucleus, we can solve that equation. When we solve such an equation, as you rightly say, there are boundary conditions. In this case we are looking for places where the wave function is zero. In other cases we may be looking for places where the function is a maximum or minimum For example Nuclear Magentic Resonance, Where the Field is now a magnetic field. This is where quantisation occurs, as these refer to places of stability, where a body may hold a certain energy. Going back to your gravitons, the basic problem is finding a suitable equation and property for the gravitational field. Newton's Law does not have such convenient pair. And General Relativity, which ony plays a small part in electric quantisation, plays a very large part inmore advance mechanical dynamics. Sorry this is a bit rambling, but it is difficult to summarise without the maths. However do ask questions.

This is the start of the topic. Indded so. The question marks are quite clear and demonstrate that the OP was asking a question. Or do you disagree with this ?

Surely you understand the difference between a statement and a question ? The title of the thread is not a question, nor is it an invitation to discuss anything. For that invitation we must turn to the first line of the first post where Externet very very clearly spelled out his question. Or actually questions all related. He also explained in an expanded quote what source material he war referring to. In short a model question.

No it isn't preaching. Preaching would be quoting Sunday Sermon lines from the Bible with no connection to the topic, just to initiate a conversation. OK so you say you are talking about knowledge. Please explain / expand on the connection between knowledge and the original question which was "what is the difference between an image and a likeness ?" You could review my comment (that you missed earlier) that you have two hands each like the other, but they can never be an image of each other, except in a mirror.

If you have done all that in the few years your stated age has allowed, I am not suprised you have not had time for both physics and maths and even other sciences. However Einstein once said something like - I can't remember the exact quote - Get the Physics right and the Maths will follow. And the Physics here refers to principles not maths. What do you understand are the conditions for quantisation to occur of anything ? I am pushing you, because you may have worked this out for yourself. If so I want to give you credit for it. If not I will help with an explanation.

Thank you. I, at least will bear that in mind. But you still haven't answered my question about the role of fields in any quantisation theory.

The article claims that China has installed enough alternative energy generation for carbon dioxide emissions to be falling and will continue to do so. BBC NewsChina's emissions may be falling - here's what you should...Experts are divided if the drop over really means China has reached the peak of its emissions.

MiGL is a respected physicist, now retired, as are several of those responding to your posts. But this did not answer my question as the connection between quantisation and fields is fundamental. Any new theory must acknowledge this fact and take it into full account. But I don't think any AI understands it. By the way, is English your first language ? - It helps us to know and amke allowance for those who are communicating via translators

Well it is correct that that a lable is not that which is labelled. But what does this have to do with the topic of this thread ?

But nobody said they were part of quantum electrodynamics or quantum chromodynamics. Do you understand the point behind quantum field theories ?

How much more off topic preaching do we have to endure.

Which just goes to prove how poor your AI is at maths. You have just managed to demonstrat @joigus ' point about a circular argument. I you are deriving something the something to be derived is the last thing stated except of course the famous QED or Quod erat demonstrandum

The thing is that if you actually know what you are talking about then it should be the simplest thing in the world to produce a (short) derivation of just one of the several claims you have made that you can prdecit/calculate. Let us say Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. Then I would have more confidence in following this thread further.

Methinks this whole thing is a giant leg pull.

This is a complete non answer. Further it is your hypothesis not mine so it is up to you to make it work. Observer ? what observer ? Are you saying that the universe and its host computer are not all there is ? Is 'the observer' part of the computer or the universe ? You claim speed is important. So demonstrate a calculation where this is so. TheVat obviously understood both points clearly. I have tried to explain my second point with a simple example. Have you ever designed a circuit board or do you know anything about them ? You need to consider all of my questions, not just a selected few to demonstrate that you hypothetical computer is even theoretically feasible under ideal conditions, let alone a practicality. I asked you how big is it. Therefore how far apart are the first and last cells holding the data ? Therefore how long does it take for the 'ready' or other clock signal to propagate from one to the other ? You can't just say "A computer can calculate it" any more than you can say "A six digit calculator can calculate Pi accurately to sixty places"

In the UK we call the combination of Chemistry and Engineering - Materials Science. But it is up to sweepysheep to tell us more detail and us to encourage that.

It is a valid question and the you, as the OP, should be prepared to address it. Relativity of simultaneity has nothing to do with speed. If you don't understand this please ask. You clearly have some idea since you mention 'common simulation speed'. Since my earlier reply I have also thought about a non relativistic point in relation to this issue. A simple internal combustion engine has to be fed oil. water , fuel, air and sparks at the appropriate times and in the appropriate order or it will either not run well or maybe even not at all. Even today's computers are now facing similar, but much greater, requirements so that designers have to correct for the time propagation time differences between the various connection pins of a chip. Contemplating a computer capable of calculating every action in the universe begs the question. How big is that computer and what does that mean for data transit times ?

Although I don't accept the premise, it is an interesting idea that is not untrue either. However you have several thousand years of catching up to do since most religions already have a pecking order of Gods.

Excellent question +1 I don't see a response that pzkpfw's excellent question. We do, howevr, definitely see much experimental evidence of the effect he describes. This would have a dramatic effect on any simulation hypothesis.

Did you ever meet a farmer that wasn't always moaning about the weather ?

My apologies that poor Author is Henry Gee, not just Henry.

There's lots of help available here, but it would be a good idea to tell us where you are coming from since Engineering Science is a very large subject. Do you have any specific questions in mind?