hipster doofus Posted May 18, 2019 Share Posted May 18, 2019 The two sides of the coin run perfectly fine on their own. My point is that when we zoom into a large object, those atoms bonded together are not going to display quantum weirdness. If we separated a single atom from that object, I claim that atom has become 2D, but is 3D while we are observing it. So to unify, we can write an equation that says Relativity is 3D and QM is 2D or less. Quantum field theory and Quantum Electrodynamics obviously haven't unified the two yet because we get guys like this still saying they are not unified, from a couple days ago (see the 3:10 mark) https://youtu.be/dW7J49UTns8?t=190 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted May 18, 2019 Share Posted May 18, 2019 21 minutes ago, hipster doofus said: My point is that when we zoom into a large object, those atoms bonded together are not going to display quantum weirdness. Not true. The fact that the transistors in your computer work is due to "quantum weirdness". In fact the reason glass is transparent and metals conduct is explained by quantum effects. All of chemistry is explained by quantum effects. 23 minutes ago, hipster doofus said: If we separated a single atom from that object, I claim that atom has become 2D Do you have evidence for this? 23 minutes ago, hipster doofus said: So to unify, we can write an equation that says Relativity is 3D and QM is 2D or less. OK. Go on then. Show us this equation. BTW, for the benefit of anyone wondering, the video is a Royal Institution lecture on loop quantum gravity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghideon Posted May 18, 2019 Share Posted May 18, 2019 (edited) 30 minutes ago, hipster doofus said: The two sides of the coin run perfectly fine on their own. My point is that when we zoom into a large object, those atoms bonded together are not going to display quantum weirdness. If we separated a single atom from that object, I claim that atom has become 2D, but is 3D while we are observing it. So to unify, we can write an equation that says Relativity is 3D and QM is 2D or less. Can you give a more detailed definition of the idea. What weirdness? What is "observe" in this context? Edited May 18, 2019 by Ghideon xpost with Strange Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hipster doofus Posted May 18, 2019 Author Share Posted May 18, 2019 I see quantum weirdness as properties that can do superposition and entanglement. The other things Superfluidity / Superconductivity are just things that happen to occur at the quantum level. Observe and Measure are the same thing. I think the actual divide is due to the number of atoms bonded together that happens to be around the amount needed for us to see them. Objects we consider 3D are not in a superposition state. I wish I was smart enough to know how to write the equation to prove this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted May 18, 2019 Share Posted May 18, 2019 16 minutes ago, hipster doofus said: I wish I was smart enough to know how to write the equation to prove this. As it appears to be something you have invented without any evidence, why do you think there might be an equation to describe this? 16 minutes ago, hipster doofus said: Objects we consider 3D are not in a superposition state. Macroscopic objects have been put into a superposition of states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hipster doofus Posted May 18, 2019 Author Share Posted May 18, 2019 They are 3D when we measure/observe ..not while they are in the superposition state. Their math might say they are always 3D ..but that's all they are during superposition ..math, saying they have a different dimensional number might explain why they are able to be in that state to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted May 18, 2019 Share Posted May 18, 2019 Just now, hipster doofus said: They are 3D when we measure/observe ..not while they are in the superposition state. Evidence? Just repeating your absurd claims without any evidence is a violation of the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hipster doofus Posted May 18, 2019 Author Share Posted May 18, 2019 Evidence that waves collapse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted May 18, 2019 Share Posted May 18, 2019 (edited) 40 minutes ago, hipster doofus said: Objects we consider 3D are not in a superposition state. I wish I was smart enough to know how to write the equation to prove this. I'm tempted to ask if you know what superposition means. The equation is simply that if 2 effects, call them A and B, act on something together then the combined effect (call it C) follows the equation C = aA + bB where a and b are simple constants. This technique is very heavily used in classical amd macroscopic Physics, Chemistry and Engineering. Edited May 18, 2019 by studiot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghideon Posted May 18, 2019 Share Posted May 18, 2019 40 minutes ago, hipster doofus said: I think the actual divide is due to the number of atoms bonded together that happens to be around the amount needed for us to see them. What is "bonded together"? What happens, according to you, to a cloud of ionised gas when no-one is looking? I am rather convinced the gas stays 3 dimensional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted May 18, 2019 Share Posted May 18, 2019 26 minutes ago, hipster doofus said: Evidence that waves collapse? No. Evidence for your claims such as "I claim that atom has become 2D" or "They are 3D when we measure/observe ..not while they are in the superposition state." Do you have any? Or are these just wild guesses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hipster doofus Posted May 18, 2019 Author Share Posted May 18, 2019 I'm not trying to discredit anything that has already been tested and proved (the true unifying theory won't do that either), except when deciding if something is 3D or not. I'm not certain QM is 2D ..it might be 0D for all I know ..it just can't be 3D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted May 18, 2019 Share Posted May 18, 2019 1 minute ago, hipster doofus said: I'm not certain QM is 2D ..it might be 0D for all I know ..it just can't be 3D. Do you have any evidence for this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted May 18, 2019 Share Posted May 18, 2019 So are you going to answer my question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted May 18, 2019 Share Posted May 18, 2019 ! Moderator Note Please review and adhere to the speculations guidelines. This level of rigor won’t cut it. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hipster doofus Posted May 19, 2019 Author Share Posted May 19, 2019 Observation of Mass = 3D I'm talking about something so obvious that I'm embarrassed for the human race to have only noticed it now. We can't see particles while in superposition and we can't know their position and momentum at the same time. This points directly to an object that is existing outside of our normal 3D view. We don't see objects other than 3D in the real world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted May 19, 2019 Share Posted May 19, 2019 9 minutes ago, hipster doofus said: I'm talking about something so obvious that I'm embarrassed for the human race to have only noticed it now. If it is so obvious, why can't you provide any evidence for it? 9 minutes ago, hipster doofus said: We can't see particles while in superposition Of course we can. 9 minutes ago, hipster doofus said: we can't know their position and momentum at the same time. Of course we can. 9 minutes ago, hipster doofus said: This points directly to an object that is existing outside of our normal 3D view. No it doesn't. 10 minutes ago, hipster doofus said: We don't see objects other than 3D in the real world. Perhaps because they don't exist. As you are just repeating the same baseless claims, without any support, perhaps this thread should be closed? On 5/18/2019 at 6:38 PM, hipster doofus said: So to unify, we can write an equation that says Relativity is 3D and QM is 2D or less. When are you going to show us this equation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuantumT Posted May 19, 2019 Share Posted May 19, 2019 2D is unmeasurable, because it only exists in math. There is nothing 2D in the universe, because it cannot exist physically. Your conjecture is invalid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hipster doofus Posted May 19, 2019 Author Share Posted May 19, 2019 I wonder what else only exists as math ..oh that's right, objects in superposition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuantumT Posted May 19, 2019 Share Posted May 19, 2019 (edited) 17 minutes ago, hipster doofus said: I wonder what else only exists as math ..oh that's right, objects in superposition. Particles in superposition are very real and 3D, and has been proven many many times. What do you think the Large Hadron Collider is measuring? Edited May 19, 2019 by QuantumT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted May 19, 2019 Share Posted May 19, 2019 16 minutes ago, hipster doofus said: I wonder what else only exists as math ..oh that's right, objects in superposition. Objects in superposition do not "only exist as math". The clue is in the fact they are objects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hipster doofus Posted May 19, 2019 Author Share Posted May 19, 2019 The wave collapses when we measure them. They hold their properties while in superposition, so what? You don't have proof of what dimension they are in when in that state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted May 19, 2019 Share Posted May 19, 2019 Just now, hipster doofus said: The wave collapses when we measure them. They hold their properties while in superposition, so what? You don't have proof of what dimension they are in when in that state. If you are not going to provide any support for your claims, or this "equation" you claim to have then I will request this thread is closed. Can you provide any evidence? Can you show us your equation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hipster doofus Posted May 19, 2019 Author Share Posted May 19, 2019 I hope you will feel ashamed if this idea takes hold and you were responsible closing this thread. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted May 19, 2019 Share Posted May 19, 2019 4 minutes ago, hipster doofus said: I hope you will feel ashamed if this idea takes hold and you were responsible closing this thread. There is no danger of that happening. I hope one day you will learn a little basic science (and not feel too embarrassed about what you have posted here). 10 minutes ago, hipster doofus said: The wave collapses when we measure them. They hold their properties while in superposition, so what? You don't have proof of what dimension they are in when in that state. The wave equation describes properties in three dimensional space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts