Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
pittsburghjoe

The realms of the Observed VS Unobserved

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, pittsburghjoe said:

The unobserved realm has always been. The observed has a beginning. Does anyone even care that I have a Theory of Everything in the op?

Please write directly to the Nobel Institute to collect your million dollar prize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, pittsburghjoe said:

Does anyone even care that I have a Theory of Everything in the op?

Yes, I care. How do you know so much about god's creation? Does he communicate with you? Are the walls of your bedroom covered in math equations? I like to keep my walls clean and write down ideas in notebooks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My theory is a little more refined than that.

I killed Duality (at the same time) for a Theory of Everything

You may think you have evidence of a particle acting as a wave at the same time ..but you don't. You are assuming they are both at the same time because you are not taking observation into account. You wouldn't catch a quantum wave being a wave before it went through a detector (that it was moving towards). The particle is likely pre-set to be physical or a wave before it starts moving. Observation gives one type of result ..a physical one. (unless you messing around with polarizers) .

They key to killing duality is pointing out that the final panel of an experiment doesn't count as observation. When you say you can measure wave-like properties, it is derived from that final panel. If quantum observation doesn't show wave-like properties, duality at the same time falls apart. Quantum observation is only for detectors in the path of a particle that allows the particle to continue on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, pittsburghjoe said:

With this thread in mind, how would you go about formulating a physics model that would tell the same story?

We disagree about so much that I wouldn't try to formulate a physics model here, certainly not one that required a god and a timeless realm at the beginning. I thought I might help you with the logic of your argument. In terms of a theory of physics, I'm still stuck on my view of space.

When I read about these various theories in physics, I generally think that they suffer from a flawed basic conception. In your case, we should probably begin with "time."

I agree with Rand that "time" is "a measurement of motion." So "time" is not a dimension of the universe. It depends on the existence of things that move and things that measure that movement. In this regard, we could say that in the absence of things that measure motion, sequence must exist. Events must occur in a particular order, due to the law of causality. But "time" only exists relative to a thing that can measure the motions involved in those events.

Regarding your idea of god, if he can measure his own motions, or the motions of quantum waves, then time exists without the need for anything else in the universe such as physical objects.

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe this will help people get on board.
 

The unobserved quantum realm doesn't care about time or distance so the order goes something like this:

  1. quantum field excitation of a new particle is about to happen
  2. it gets assigned a path in the quantum field
  3. if the path contains a spacetime enactor (a detector), it swaps the particle to physical
  4. the particle or wave is sent via the quantum field if it's a wave / spacetime if physical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, pittsburghjoe said:

Maybe this will help people get on board.

I suggest relating your idea to Objectivism in some way. You do realize that this is a forum for Rand fans, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, pittsburghjoe said:

wtf does Rand have to do with physics?

Science relies upon philosophy. That's why you can't make sense of your physics without invoking faith in god. If you were an Objectivist, you would base your physics on reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Science relies upon philosophy. That's why you can't make sense of your physics without invoking faith in god. If you were an Objectivist, you would base your physics on reason.

There are atheist that reject the notion of god, yet have some notions that are pretty far out there. Does the capacity to use reason rely on being an Objectivist? If so, how did Aristotle, Tomas  Aquinas, Galileo Galilei, Issac Newton, etc., arrive at the conclusions many take for granted today?

While following an objective methodology doesn't make one an Objectivist, claiming to be an Objectivist doesn't ensure one's methodology to automatically adhere to objectivity either.

Edited by dream_weaver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dream_weaver said:

Does the capacity to use reason rely on being an Objectivist?

No. My point is that an Objectivist wouldn't say things like "there is no logical reason for Spacetime to exist," and then appeal to a god-based explanation. This is an appeal to faith in god. Also, I asked Joe how he knows about god, and he ignored me--another indication that he has no rational argument to offer. I then took his idea of god and showed how it didn't match his physics, once logic is applied. More evasion. I've now taken the conversation to something relating to Rand's ideas, hoping to press the importance of philosophy upon Joe. He seems like a good guy, and he deserves my best criticism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While philosophy does play a significant part, it does so in such a way that most folk are unaware of the role it is enacting. 

How else could philosophy operate under the radar all of these years while simultaneously being denounced as a mere 'bauble of the intellect'?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The uncertainty principle and bell's theorem could prove me wrong, but I can prove them incomplete. Uncertainty is only considering waves and Bell is only considering spin.
 
Hmm, maybe it isn't the path after-all. It just happens to know the path because knowing what state it will be would show the same thing.
 
The delayed choice quantum eraser is my proof. It clearly shows the state is decided before either entangled particle even starts moving.
 
Unobserved quantum waves not having spacetime is a very big deal. Without time, its life is instantaneous.
 
No need for a god or path info. Boom! Quantum physics is changed from this day forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The birth is this:
The quantum information for a new particle forms and if its state doesn't change it's released as a wave in the quantum field. If it does change it becomes physical and released in spacetime.

The Unobserved Quantum Realm is somehow all time, all the time. Spacetime's time is based off the speed an observation can happen ..the speed of light.

Nothing is faster than the speed of light because spacetime's framerate is based off the speed of light.

It takes light one femtosecond to travel the width of abbe's diffraction limit. I think I just figured out why the natural divide between the two realms is this size.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Different-microscopic-elements-and-Abbes-diffraction-limit_fig1_270272277

If a femtosecond is the smallest usable amount of time for observation. Spacetime runs at 1,000,000,000,000,000 frames per second.

What a nice round number a god might use to program a simulation called spacetime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If what matters is if the wave changes state while alive. Placing a detector in the path is just one of several avenues to cause observation (state change). Observation can be equated to stage change.

A wave changing state from a detector must be different than a wave collapsing on the final panel. That final panel is a tombstone for the waves death.

Edited by pittsburghjoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm now questioning if it's even necessary to declare observation is involved in the double slit. It's accepted that observation means measurement ..but all the experiment cares about is a waves state change while its alive.

Observation would just be something that occurred after the experiment was over. It didn't influence the outcome. I think a polarizer isn't measuring/observing anything and demonstrates what I'm saying.

Uncertainty involves waves. My theory says a particle is not physical and waves at the same time, uncertainty does. You have to use the back panel in an uncertainty experiment. Fringes mean a wave was involved and the particles were not observed during its life.

A polarizer isn't an observation or measurement now.

State Change is all that matters
Waves can die, Particles can't

A wave didn't collapse going through a polariser, but it does by hitting a last panel ..death.
The polariser does something to the object that made it through. I say state change.
That state change tells the realm of all time, all the time that it shouldn't be a wave before releasing it. Its actually a natural process, no real decision is made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How a polarizer causes a preemptive wave to change state has been discovered. A wave would be forced to split in two to go through both slits, but with the polarizers being different, it can't continue going on unnoticed. One of the slits would have blocked it. It has nothing to do with "which way" information.

Edited by pittsburghjoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Duality is spared as long as it doesn't claim physicality at the same time as waves.

 

Because a wave runs on a realm that is all time, all the time. A state change during its life causes the quantum field to hand the information wave over to spacetime and become physical.

Edited by pittsburghjoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

State is a binary physicality variable

If Spacetime is a simulation, State is the object being added to the program.

The bridge/exchange between the two realms is state/physicality.

The Realm of Unobserved has always been and always will be. Spacetime had to have been built/coded on top of it to exist. Spacetime has to convert unobserved information from the realm.

Edited by pittsburghjoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...