[quote]swordthrower wrote:
Wow, that makes NO sense at all.
[/quote]
I see you’ve met mertdawg.
[quote]pookie wrote:
If those laws precluded time travel to the past, you’ll never be able to do so. That’s what I meant.
[/quote]
But we don’t know as yet that they do preculde time travel.
Wow. Glad to read such an intelligent debate after some of the posts floating around.
I’m glad I’m not the only one interested in this.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
pookie wrote:
If those laws precluded time travel to the past, you’ll never be able to do so. That’s what I meant.
But we don’t know as yet that they do preculde time travel.[/quote]
That’s why my sentence starts with “If”.
interesting thread
What do you guys make of this guy?
[quote]swordthrower wrote:
However, your different results would have nothing to do with any slight differences in your experiment, its just that each possible result of your experiment has an associated probability of occuring.[/quote]
I’m familiar with these experiments. And I believe the results were misinterpretated.
How can you say that there was a probability of a different outcome in any experiment, when that different outcome never happens? Only one outcome happens, the one that was possible. If something doesn’t happen, was it ever really possible?
Some physicists refer to this as the “collapsing of the probability curve”. When the probability equals zero, the possibility becomes non-existent. Any other outcome than that which occurs, was retroactively therefore impossible. This is just another way of saying the same thing.
I understand also, that some scientists believe nothing was changed between these two experiments, which you consider “identical”.
Apparently they are unfamiliar then, with such physical forces as gravity (lest you think of me as a metaphysicist), which have a bearing on everything at once. Apparently they are unfamiliar that nothing can ever be the same again, that the stars align but only once (metaphorically), that everything happens but once!
“You can’t step into the same river twice.” (Heraclitus)
A child could tell you this.
[quote]twistedsteel wrote:
interesting thread
What do you guys make of this guy?
www.johntitor.com[/quote]
Gee, what do you think?
If you believe that, then I’ve got a perpetual motion machine I’d like to sell you…
[quote]Kailash wrote:
I’m familiar with these experiments. And I believe the results were misinterpretated.[/quote]
Its not “these” experiments, its ANY experiment. It is fundamental to quantum mechanics, not just the result of some experiment.
[quote]
How can you say that there was a probability of a different outcome in one experiment, when that outcome never happens? A different outcome happens, the one that was possible. If something doesn’t happen, is it still possible?[/quote]
Yes it is! If I send an electron through a magnetic field, then when I measure it, I will get one of two spin states. But before I measure it, it is in a state which is a superposition of both states. When I measure it, I collapse the wave function (or, force it to have one specific value). I know it sounds wierd, and you might be tempted to use common-sense arguments (based on our perception of the classical world), but these properties of quantum mechanics have been experimentally verified time and again.
[quote]
I understand that the scientists believe nothing was changed between experiments. Apparently they are unfamiliar with such physical forces as gravity (lest you think of me purely as a metaphysicist), which have a bearing on everything at once. Apparently they are unfamiliar that nothing can ever be the same, that the stars align but once (metaphorically), that everything happens but once![/quote]
Ok, so you are seriously accusing physicists of being unfamiliar with gravity! Interesting… And how would gravity change anything? Please enlighten me.
[quote]
A child could tell you this.[/quote]
Yeah, and the child would be wrong. Nature is what she is, and she doesn’t give a damn if it fits our limited perception of the universe. If you are seriously going to try to debunk quantum mechanics using metaphysics, you had better come up with something better to replace it. And until then, stop using your digital camera (because it uses the quantum-mechanical properties of electrons and photons, all the while in a gravitational field).
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Anyone on this thread have any ideas about the possibility of time travel?
[/quote]
It is quantum mechanically impossible to “time travel” because it violates the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which states that on cannot not know at precisely the same instant a particle’s momentum and position. Particles do travel back and forth in time as they are physically wont (read R. Feynman’s, “Quantum Electrodynamics” for a better explanation); however, for the human body to be able to travel back and forth his or her pieces would have to be broken up and put back together.
This is not possible because of the aforementioned principle. Mathematically it is provable but I will not do it; it has been done before and can be seen here if you don’t believe me (warning – requires knowledge of non-commuting operators)
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/UncertaintyPrinciple.html
[quote]pookie wrote:
What the Bleep Do We Know? is not the way to learn about quantum mechanics. The whole movie is clap-trap gobbledigook made to sound good using scientific terms to mean things they don’t mean at all.
[/quote]
Was I the only physicist pissed off at this movie? There was no real science in any of that movie except maybe how brain receptors work.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pookie wrote:
What the Bleep Do We Know? is not the way to learn about quantum mechanics. The whole movie is clap-trap gobbledigook made to sound good using scientific terms to mean things they don’t mean at all.
Was I the only physicist pissed off at this movie? There was no real science in any of that movie except maybe how brain receptors work.
[/quote]
I haven’t seen it because I keep hearing how bad it is, and pseudoscience pisses me off. So I guess I will keep on not seeing it.
But, anyone who tries to learn about quantum mechanics from a damn movie instead of opening a book deserves to have his head filled with crap.
[quote]swordthrower wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
Geometrically, its because the more energy that is added to a light beam, the more “oblique” is its path through space and time, because space and time are curved.
Wow, that makes NO sense at all.
First of all, the diagram is awful. Where did you get it? It really doesn’t explain any physics at all.
[/quote]
First, the drawing may suck. It is not inaccurate in any way, but may not be very clarifying.
Second, I agree 100%. I never said light speeds up, only that there is a blueshift. What’s your point, you don’t seem to be disagreeing with anything here.
[quote]
Also, we are talking about the special theory of relativity, which does not include the effects of mass (which is what causes spacetime to curve). In the problem with two observers going towards each other with flashlights, it is assumed to be in flat space.
As for the geometric explanation, I think you are referring to a Minkowski diagram, which has time on one axis and space on the other (in the 1D case). Look it up![/quote]
3rd, this model IS a Minkowski diagram, and a correct one at that. What the heck is wrong with that? I should not have said “curved space-time,” I should simply have said “increased in relative obliqueness.” With this qualifier, the model is a 100% accurate explanation I HOPE you realize.
By the way, special relativity may still be tied to curved space, and other universal (variables) such as the perimeter of the universe, and rate of linear expansion independent (if it is ever really possible) on mass, although mass, of course would also set/be consistent with these parameters.
[quote]pookie wrote:
swordthrower wrote:
Wow, that makes NO sense at all.
I see you’ve met mertdawg.
[/quote]
I really am sorry if I’m over your heads. The truth is Pookie, that you have shown me I was wrong on technical, non-theoretical points, but
on the theoretical points for which we disagreed (mass equivalence in chemical and physical processes) you were just unknowing of the facts.
Admit it, you had never considered that the energy produced in chemical reactions or a physical change like a pendulum swinging came from a conversion of mass into energy.
[quote]swordthrower wrote:
Kailash wrote:
I understand that the scientists believe nothing was changed between experiments. Apparently they are unfamiliar with such physical forces as gravity (lest you think of me purely as a metaphysicist), which have a bearing on everything at once. Apparently they are unfamiliar that nothing can ever be the same, that the stars align but once (metaphorically), that everything happens but once!
Ok, so you are seriously accusing physicists of being unfamiliar with gravity! Interesting… And how would gravity change anything? Please enlighten me.
[/quote]
The Bell Theorem demonstrates that no unmeasured variable could account for the outcome.
Now swordthrower, why don’t you explain what the Bell theorem is and how it did this.
This is what you wrote:
Where do you ever mention a blueshift? Whatever your point is, it is not clear. I’m not trying to attack your intellect, I just think you need to present your ideas a little better, because as far as I am concerned, that is a meaningless statement.
So if we are indeed talking about Minkowski Diagrams, then the path of light on a Minkowski diagram is always the same, regardless of reference frame. The path of light cannot become more “oblique,” because that would indicate a change of velocity.
And as far as your diagram is concerned, please tell me what it is showing.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
swordthrower wrote:
Kailash wrote:
I understand that the scientists believe nothing was changed between experiments. Apparently they are unfamiliar with such physical forces as gravity (lest you think of me purely as a metaphysicist), which have a bearing on everything at once.
Apparently they are unfamiliar that nothing can ever be the same, that the stars align but once (metaphorically), that everything happens but once!
Ok, so you are seriously accusing physicists of being unfamiliar with gravity! Interesting… And how would gravity change anything? Please enlighten me.
The Bell Theorem demonstrates that no unmeasured variable could account for the outcome.
Now swordthrower, why don’t you explain what the Bell theorem is and how it did this.[/quote]
Easy now… Getting a little testy are we?
I’m assuming you are referring to Bell’s Inequality (which is a statement about the non-locality of coherent quantum-mechanical states)… But I don’t see how it relates to some vague statement about physicists not taking gravity into account.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
pookie wrote:
swordthrower wrote:
Wow, that makes NO sense at all.
I see you’ve met mertdawg.
I really am sorry if I’m over your heads. The truth is Pookie, that you have shown me I was wrong on technical, non-theoretical points, but
on the theoretical points for which we disagreed (mass equivalence in chemical and physical processes) you were just unknowing of the facts.
Admit it, you had never considered that the energy produced in chemical reactions or a physical change like a pendulum swinging came from a conversion of mass into energy.[/quote]
You mean that thread way back then where you eventually admitted you where “the king of the retards?”
Guess what, you still are.
[quote]pookie wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
pookie wrote:
swordthrower wrote:
Wow, that makes NO sense at all.
I see you’ve met mertdawg.
I really am sorry if I’m over your heads. The truth is Pookie, that you have shown me I was wrong on technical, non-theoretical points, but
on the theoretical points for which we disagreed (mass equivalence in chemical and physical processes) you were just unknowing of the facts.
Admit it, you had never considered that the energy produced in chemical reactions or a physical change like a pendulum swinging came from a conversion of mass into energy.
You mean that thread way back then where you eventually admitted you where “the king of the retards?”
Guess what, you still are.
[/quote]
Bow to your king!
Here’s a better figure which I’m sure you can all see represents the oblique shift of relative reference frames. This is a modified Minkowski diagram in that it puts both reference frames into locally orthoganal space-time axes.
Notice first, that the velocity of the light beam is c to both observers: An observer in reference frame R because he views his frame as unmoving, so all of the velocit arises from the light propogating away from him.
Observer B sees observer A moving at .5 c and the light moving and .5 c away from the observer in frame R.
Also notice that for an observer in frame A, the frequency of the light beam has increased, ie has more energy. Also both reference frames move through time at c(t) relative to either observer.
[quote]pookie wrote:
You mean that thread way back then where you eventually admitted you where “the king of the retards?”
Guess what, you still are.
[/quote]
Yes, for thinking that faced with the facts, you would admit that you were wrong when you said that only nuclear processes derived their energy from conversion of mass. You still can’t accept that can you?