String Theory Co-Founder: Sub-Atomic Particles Are Evidence the Universe Was Created

[metis]

Actually, many of the articles are well written and very well cited using academic and other credible sources.

Plus they supply links.

 

[viole]

First of all, Wikipedia is no kind of an authoritative source.
.

In this case it does not matter, since it just lays down a mathematical proof based on the modern theory of QM. And that proof makes it obvious that there is not such a thing as spooky actions at a distance in QM (without hidden variables). By the way, the references say the same thing. And the theorem is part of any introductory course on QM.

If you do not agree, all you have to do is find a fault in the mathematical proof or in the assumptions of QM. Or we could go through that together, if you prefer.

What do you propose to attack? The assumption that composite states can be mathematically treated as tensor products? Or what else, exactly?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Zosimus]

Actually, many of the articles are well written and very well cited using academic and other credible sources.

If they are very well cited using academic and other credible sources, then reference the academic and other credible sources!

 

[Zosimus]

In this case it does not matter, since it just lays down a mathematical proof based on the modern theory of QM. And that proof makes it obvious that there is not such a thing as spooky actions at a distance in QM (without hidden variables). By the way, the references say the same thing. And the theorem is part of any introductory course on QM.

If you do not agree, all you have to do is find a fault in the mathematical proof or in the assumptions of QM. Or we could go through that together, if you prefer.

What do you propose to attack? The assumption that composite states can be mathematically treated as tensor products? Or what else, exactly?

Ciao

- viole

It says: "The theorem is built on the basic presumption that the laws of quantum mechanics hold"

As we know, all scientific theories are eventually discarded. We cannot know what theory will replace QM and what parts of the new theory will be consistent with the old theory.

Additionally, I note that you have studiously avoided addressing the main thrust of the argument. FTL communication is, at least theoretically, possible with three entangled photons.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If they are very well cited using academic and other credible sources, then reference the academic and other credible sources!

They do. They have numbers in brackets that will take you to the bottom of the page so you can see what the source is of the number you clicked on, as well as all of the sources used in the article.

 

[viole]

It says: "The theorem is built on the basic presumption that the laws of quantum mechanics hold"

As we know, all scientific theories are eventually discarded. We cannot know what theory will replace QM and what parts of the new theory will be consistent with the old theory.

So, your initilal argument that relativity is broken because of QM, is now turned into: relativity is broken, because QM might be broken, too?

Additionally, I note that you have studiously avoided addressing the main thrust of the argument. FTL communication is, at least theoretically, possible with three entangled photons.

I am afraid not. The theorem is valid for any entangled system. No matter how many particles are involved. Don't you think so?

So, nothing new under the sun.

Ciao

- viole

 

[idav]

It says: "The theorem is built on the basic presumption that the laws of quantum mechanics hold"

As we know, all scientific theories are eventually discarded. We cannot know what theory will replace QM and what parts of the new theory will be consistent with the old theory.

Additionally, I note that you have studiously avoided addressing the main thrust of the argument. FTL communication is, at least theoretically, possible with three entangled photons.

No theories don't always get completely discarded.

In some cases a theory or idea is found baseless and is simply discarded. For example, the phlogiston theory was entirely replaced by the quite different concept of energy and related laws. In other cases an existing theory is replaced by a new theory that retains significant elements of the earlier theory

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories
Btw wiki is good enough to get basic points across. Nobody can be an expert in he field of everything.

 

[Zosimus]

They do. They have numbers in brackets that will take you to the bottom of the page so you can see what the source is of the number you clicked on, as well as all of the sources used in the article.

First of all, studies show that Wikipedia is accurate some 74 percent of the time. Well that's better than a 50-50 shot, that doesn't mean that it's a good source. Wikipedia isn't designed to be a primary or even a secondary source of information. Most people who edit Wikipedia are males in their late 20s. Many of these people have axes to grind, and don't hesitate to ban people whose ideas don't agree with theirs. Thus, it is not surprising that . Wikipedia is not a reliable source, period. Even legitimate corrections are often reverted and by bots. I have had simple grammatical correction reverted by bots. Copyrighted information cannot make its way into Wikipedia. Obviously, the more valuable the information is, the more likely it is to be copyrighted.

 

[Zosimus]

So, your initilal argument that relativity is broken because of QM, is now turned into: relativity is broken, because QM might be broken, too?

Maybe you don't get where I'm coming from. Let me break it down for you.

Science is based on a logical fallacy. Therefore, all scientific results are highly speculative. The purpose of science, in most cases, is to obtain federal funding. The secondary purpose of science is to get published and thus advance someone's career. Thus, it's not surprising that most published research findings are false. In fact, approximately 80 percent are wrong. The reasons for this are known, and no corrective action has been taken.

Therefore, I conclude that QM is wrong, and GR is wrong too. The difference is that GR is demonstrably wrong whereas QM is not demonstrably so at the present time. In the future, QM will be proved wrong. It may even take centuries, but it will happen.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

First of all, studies show that Wikipedia is accurate some 74 percent of the time. Well that's better than a 50-50 shot, that doesn't mean that it's a good source. Wikipedia isn't designed to be a primary or even a secondary source of information. Most people who edit Wikipedia are males in their late 20s. Many of these people have axes to grind, and don't hesitate to ban people whose ideas don't agree with theirs. Thus, it is not surprising that . Wikipedia is not a reliable source, period. Even legitimate corrections are often reverted and by bots. I have had simple grammatical correction reverted by bots. Copyrighted information cannot make its way into Wikipedia. Obviously, the more valuable the information is, the more likely it is to be copyrighted.

http://www.cnet.com/news/study-wikipedia-as-accurate-as-britannica/
Wikipedia is about as good a source of accurate information as Britannica, the venerable standard-bearer of facts about the world around us, according to a study published this week in the journal Nature.
http://www.livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html

And last year, a study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology found that Wikipedia had the same level of accuracy and depth in its articles about 10 types of cancer as the Physician Data Query, a professionally edited database maintained by the National Cancer Institute.

The self-described "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" has fared similarly well in most other studies comparing its accuracy to conventional encyclopedias, including studies by The Guardian, PC Pro, Library Journal, the Canadian Library Association, and several peer-reviewed academic studies.
...
A Small Study of Our Own

To add to the debate, Life's Little Mysteries carried out its own, albeit small, test of Wikipedia's accuracy by consulting experts from two very different walks of life: theoretical physics and pop music.

Life's Little Mysteries asked Adam Riess, professor of astronomy and physics at Johns Hopkins University and one of the scientists credited with proposing the existence of dark energy , to rate Wikipedia's "dark energy" entry.

"It's remarkably accurate," Riess said. "Certainly better than 95 percent correct."

This is not true, however, of the page about the indie pop band "Passion Pit," according to its drummer, Nate Donmoyer. Donmoyer found 10 factual errors on his band's page ranging from subtle to significant. Some information even appeared to have been added to the page by companies or organizations in search of publicity.

"It's kind of crazy," Donmoyer told LLM. "I don't think I can trust Wikipedia again. The littlest white lies can throw its whole validity off."

It may make sense that Wikipedia would have more reliable articles about academic topics than pop culture ones, considering that the latter are more prone to rumors and hearsay

Say what you want. Of course Wiki isn't 100%, but nothing is, and study-after-study has shown Wiki to have accurate and reliable information.

 

[Zosimus]

http://www.cnet.com/news/study-wikipedia-as-accurate-as-britannica/
Wikipedia is about as good a source of accurate information as Britannica, the venerable standard-bearer of facts about the world around us, according to a study published this week in the journal Nature.
http://www.livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html

Say what you want. Of course Wiki isn't 100%, but nothing is, and study-after-study has shown Wiki to have accurate and reliable information.

Encyclopedia Britanica is not a good source, either. So saying that Wikipedia is as good as another encyclopedia means nothing. At any rate, the facts in the link do not bear out the title.

"That averages out to 2.92 mistakes per article for Britanica(sic) and 3.86 for Wikipedia."

In short, Wikipedia had 32.2 percent more mistakes than did Britannica.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Encyclopedia Britanica is not a good source, either.

Then by all means get busy and informing everyone.

 

[Revoltingest]

http://www.cnet.com/news/study-wikipedia-as-accurate-as-britannica/
Wikipedia is about as good a source of accurate information as Britannica, the venerable standard-bearer of facts about the world around us, according to a study published this week in the journal Nature.
http://www.livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html

Say what you want. Of course Wiki isn't 100%, but nothing is, and study-after-study has shown Wiki to have accurate and reliable information.

Besides, it's easier to simply impugn the source, without pointing out any actual errors.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Of course. And by the way, I'm not criticizing or against Kaku's or your views. I'm just trying to see if they're the same as mine. (By the way, intelligence=truth=logos, hence my thoughts go to Heraclitus)

And I think they might be, or at least very close. I call my view pantheistic, or rather panentheistic. My thoughts and views lean towards Heraclitus and Spinoza, and I've learned that Einstein's views were also very close to them and my own.

Would you call yourself a deist rather than pantheist/panentheist? Is your God (and Kaku's) separate from the world (like in monotheism or deism) and not part of the universe? Or is it just simply that you don't want to give your (and Kaku's) beliefs a specific label?

Why are people saying that GOD is separate from existence? Is it not obvious that all perceivable existence is a product of GOD in some fashion or another? Mathematical symmetry is observable in all existence. You would be hard pressed to find any sort of believer who denies that nature or the laws that bind existence to not be of GOD, yet pride wants to separate the theist, deist, pantheist, atheist and agnostic.

No one knows everything, but we should all be aware that division based on greed or pride of any sort will not lead to peaceable advancement or even continued existence.

2¢

With respect and humility towards all.

Peace

 

[Zosimus]

Besides, it's easier to simply impugn the source, without pointing out any actual errors.

Perhaps if you read the original post, you would see that I made three specific points. I can only assume that the over-wrought dwelling on the first point shows that the second and third are too strong to be even acknowledged.

 

[Revoltingest]

Perhaps if you read the original post, you would see that I made three specific points. I can only assume that the over-wrought dwelling on the first point shows that the second and third are too strong to be even acknowledged

Your linked post......

First of all, Wikipedia is no kind of an authoritative source.

This merely impugns the source without addressing the issue.

Second, the claim is that no kind of communication is possible with dual-entangled systems (not even slower than light). In addition, the theorem relies on multiple unproven assumptions.

Unsupported speculation

Finally, Triple-entangled photons are now a reality, a discovery that does allow for theoretical communication.

Now you're doing what you so frequently decry, ie, quoting the latest fashion in science.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Science is based on a logical fallacy.

I don't think I've seen you pointing this out before; please explain what logical fallacy science is based on. Thank you.

 

[Zosimus]

Your linked post......

This merely impugns the source without addressing the issue.

Untrue.

Unsupported speculation

No, that's exactly what the link says. It says, ...it is not possible for one observer, by making a measurement of a subsystem of the total state, to communicate information to another observer. So even if the theorem is 100 percent true, it still doesn't support viole's contention that the theorem forbids FTL communication. It forbids all communication, not just FTL communication. That's because there's no known theoretical or practical way of setting the state of one side to anything without destroying the entanglement, thus meaningful information cannot be transmitted. This does not change the measurements of the speed of communication between the two particles as 10,000 times the speed of light.

Then viole claimed that I made that number up. So I posted a number of links backing up that number. Then she said that I was just going based on newspaper articles that got it all wrong. No problem. The original research paper is right here. Then viole said that I didn't understand the effect of density matrixes(sic), and so I was just ignorant. Personally, I think that someone who doesn't know that it's matrices is the ignorant one.

And now I have you, as a representative of the peanut gallery, inserting your opinion into a disagreement that you neither know nor understand because, I suppose, you have some perverse desire to humble me. Imitating me is not going to humble me as imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

 

[Zosimus]

I don't think I've seen you pointing this out before; please explain what logical fallacy science is based on. Thank you.

Well, it's really simple. It's called the Problem of Induction. I'm surprised you haven't heard of it, because it was thought up by David Hume, who died in 1776, so really it's been around for at least 240 years.

Here's the main idea. Imagine that we take a rock and drop it. We measure carefully and note that the rock accelerates downward at some 9.8 m/s/s. We drop a different rock, and it behaves similarly. We drop a lead ball, and it behaves the same way. Soon we're dropping all kinds of things in all kinds of places from all kinds of heights. Eventually someone decides that all objects dropped on Earth accelerate downward at a set rate regardless of mass, height, or location.

If we break this logic down, we can see that it follows this form.

Premise: A dropped rock behaved in a certain way in the past.
Conclusion: A dropped rock will behave in the same way in the future.

The problem is that the conclusion does not follow from the starting premise. Therefore, there must be a missing premise. By adding in that missing premise, we can have a sound logical argument such as the one below:

Premise 1: A dropped rock behaved in a certain way in the past.
Premise 2: The past is a perfect guide to the future.
Conclusion: A dropped rock will behave in the same way in the future.

So now we have a valid logical argument (yay!) but what about premise 2? What reason do we have to believe that the past is a perfect guide to the future? In fact, if we look around, we can see that a lot of people who thought that got into trouble. For example, some people reasoned that since real estate had gone up for a few years in a row that it would continue going up. Some of those people have negative net worth now or filed bankruptcy. So can we fix this argument? How about this?

Premise 1: A dropped rock behaved in a certain way in the past.
Premise 2: The past is a good guide to the future.
Conclusion: A dropped rock will probably behave in the same way in the future.

This seems better, but wait – how do we know that the past is a good guide to the future? Some people, who have not deeply thought about this, will say "If we look at the past, we can see that the past has been a good guide to the future in the past. It will, therefore, be a good guide to the future in the future." The problem is that this is circular reasoning. We cannot conclude that since the past was a good guide to the future in the past that it will be a good guide to the future in the future UNLESS we presuppose what we are trying to prove in the first place!

To be more precise, let's suppose that we have a rule thus:

P1: If an object is dropped, it will accelerate downward at 9.8 m/s/s (less air resistance).
P2. The rock, which I just dropped, accelerated downward at 9.8 m/s/s (less air resistance).
C: Therefore, my initial premise was correct.

The problem is that this is a logical fallacy called affirming the consequent. Attempting to use induction breaks the rules of deductive logic.

So how do we solve this problem? There are a few possible solutions that have been advanced.

Hume said that since humans are irrational and since he was a human, that he couldn't stop using induction even if he tried. So he abandoned rationalism in favor of the irrationality of mankind. Most people are not happy with this "solution."

Practicalists reason that if induction doesn't work, then we have nothing to fall back on so we might as well continue to use induction because at least it has some chance of working. This doesn't really answer the question of how reliable inductive reasoning is.

Karl Popper said that the entire question was wrong because science doesn't use induction. He said that in reality science tried to prove theories wrong using modus tollens. This explanation is not satisfactory to a lot of people, especially people who want to insist that their pet theory has been scientifically validated and who want to bash Christians with it.

Finally, we have Bayesians. These are the people who propose to use Bayes Theorem to rationally calculate the subjective probability of the truth of scientific claims. So here's where I let you in on a little secret. These are the people I'm looking for. I have no interest at all in evolution or creationism. I want to debate Bayesian epistemology with someone–someone like this guy right here, but it seems that I'm not likely to find one of these guys in this forum (though I keep hoping).

In conclusion, until science solves the problem of induction and/or the paradox of confirmation, all scientific claims should be taken with a massive grain of salt.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I'm surprised you haven't heard of it, because

Instead of ASSUMING I haven't heard of it, you might ask IF I've heard of it. Or you could just simply say something like "My reason for doubting science is the problem of induction" and wait to see how I respond. Instead, you take a condescending, snotty tone with people who might otherwise have an interest in discussing this or other matters with you...so you get what you got.

These are the people I'm looking for. I have no interest at all in evolution or creationism. I want to debate Bayesian epistemology with someone–someone like this guy right here, but it seems that I'm not likely to find one of these guys in this forum (though I keep hoping).

Then I think you're doing a poor job of looking. Why don't you start a thread in the Philosophy section, asking to debate Bayesian epistemology with some who cares about that issue, instead of trolling in other threads, where you avoid telling people up front about what you want to discuss and instead engage people indirectly by being insulting?

Enough. All I wanted to know was what your problem was with science, because you hadn't been clear. Go be happy with yourself; I'll not be engaging with you further.