Mathematical Proof of God?

[shunyadragon]

My problem is that @shunyadragon had done nothing to establish a connection between his claims and his citations. He just wants to try to force us to accept that there is a connection without doing any of the basic work or taking responsibility for the words he type.

Provide something of substance, respond to the citations, and you can stop waiting.

 

[ppp]

Provide something of substance, respond to the citations, and you can stop waiting.

There's nothing to respond to. The citations don't matter until you explain why they're relevant.

I'm waiting for you to establish relevance. In much the same way that I am waiting for The Door of Stone to drop. I don't expect it's ever actually going to happen, but occasionally poking the author is an amusing way to kill a few seconds.

 

[shunyadragon]

There's nothing to respond to. The citations don't matter until you explain why they're relevant.

I'm waiting for you to establish relevance. In much the same way that I am waiting for The Door of Stone to drop. I don't expect it's ever actually going to happen, but occasionally poking the author is an amusing way to kill a few seconds.

Provide something of substance, respond to the citations, and you can stop waiting.

 

[ppp]

Provide something of substance, respond to the citations, and you can stop waiting.

You first.

 

[shunyadragon]

You first.

Provide something of substance, respond to the citations, and you can stop waiting.

 

[ppp]

Provide something of substance, respond to the citations, and you can stop waiting.

I don't want to stop. Waiting delights me.

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't want to stop. Waiting delights me.

. . like addicted to potato chips covered with spider webs.

 

[shunyadragon]

My problem isn't with your references, which are (when relevant) about hypothetical solutions to what is an ongoing problem in theoretical physics (problems, actually). My problem is that you are trying to bully, bludgeon, and bluster others about QM when you don't know what you are talking about and your don't seem to understand that your references (when relevant) concern unverified guesses that haven't even been adequately formulated theoretically, let alone observed. Hence, as I said:
“It is commonly accepted that, at the Planck scale, no experimentally verified theory provides a framework for measuring space or time.”
Perche, T. R., & Martín-Martínez, E. (2022). Geometry of spacetime from quantum measurements. Physical Review D, 105(6), 066011.

1) There are no "quantum level increments of time", as time enters into QM as a parameter, either absorbed into the operators representing the observables associated with a system or as a paremeter for the state of the system itself. In both cases, time in QM is continuous, external to the theory, and equivalent to Newtonian (absolute) continuous time:
“Newtonian Absolute Time is what ordinary QM is based upon.”
Anderson, E. (2012). Problem of time in quantum gravity. Annalen der Physik, 524(12), 757-786.
2) Time measurements in quantum theory are external to the theory itself, a part of the ongoing measurement problem (because time in QM itself, either absorbed into the observables or parametrizing statevector or the wavefunction of a system, evolves deterministically and continuously, while measurements induce a different process external to QM).
3) If you have some theory and understanding of QM that includes "quantum level increments of time", just describe the equations governing the systems in this theory. Does your knowledge of QM include such basic elements of the theory? If so, then be familiar with the Schrödinger equation and possibly even the Heisenberg picture and you'd certainly be familiar with at least some ways in which total or partial time derivatives as well as PDEs and ODEs are built into QM. These all require continuity in time.
Your theory you claim to be "academic" and what not apparently excludes all possible formulations of quantum theory (outside of certain untested and currently untestable approaches towards certain paths to a solution for problems like quantum gravity, time in QM, the measurement problem, etc.). So what are the basic formula for this theory? What are the basic units? What are the observables of the theory? Is it a field theory? It can't be consistent with textbook QM or any other formulation that has been empirically supported because these all require continuous time, and it can't be discrete, because this would violate laws of causality, conservation, and just about anything else as they rely on the wrong symmetry groups.

But please, share your "expertise." I don't need references. I need you to describe the basic equations and elements of your theory (not names from popular science literature, I mean the actual mathematics). I don't even need evidence for the observations you falsely claimed support your view. I just need you to support it at the theoretical level by showing how I, as a physicist, might wright down the equations for an arbitrary (or even a particular) system of interest that somehow didn't involve continuous time or space and was consistent. I won't hold my breath.

Impossible. I wasn't participating in this discussion until after I read you repeatedly make statements that were false whilst trying to assert others were ignorant. You gave the references before I entered into the discussion, so you couldn't have given them "because" of anything to do with me.
And as my main area of expertise is quantum foundations, I doubt it is MY "lack of knowledge" that is the problem here.

Trying to 'Bully' with voluminous references doe not help your case.

What you provided was a voluminous number of different theoretical considerations of various aspects of the current knowledge of Quantum Mechanical, Very extensive and very wordy. You get an A for effort.

Absolutely none of your references provided observed evidence of a dimensional world with a continuous time arrow of the macro scale of our universe,

 

[ppp]

. . like addicted to potato chips covered with spider webs.

I wouldn't know. I only like spider webs on my oatmeal raisin cookies.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Trying to 'Bully' with voluminous references doe not help your case.

I only gave you referenced because you, in an attempt to refute my original reply to your nonsense, you asked me to supply references.
I only joined this discussion because quantum foundations is my area of expertise and I am inundated with various bogus claims about quantum mechanics all of the time, which is bad enough. But I'm used to that, and if people want me to explain more I'm always happy to (if not, ok). In this case, however, I'd had enough of BOTH the sheer volume of unsubstantiated nonsense you've posted from a position of self-proclaimed authority (supported by references to wikipedia, blogs, etc., instead of scientific literature) but no substance AND because these false claims have been accompanied with insultingly dismissive rhetoric:

Actually no, you are incorrigibly ignorant of Quantum Mechanics making outrageous statements.

You need to get some basics on Quantum Mechanics.

Selecting citing references to justify your agenda reflect you are clueless as to Quantum Mechanics.

The above is a terribly confused misinformation concerning the nature of Quantum Mechanics.

Please get an education in science so that you can be coherent in your discussion of science.

Yet you haven't demonstrated you are at all familiar with QM specifically or quantum theory more generally, still less the kind of theoretical physics required to substantiate claims about quantum cosmologies, the big bang from a quantum perspective, quantized space(time), quantum time, etc.
So I'll ask again:
You've mentioned, repeatedly, what quantum mechanics has objectively shown in relation to the nature of space and time, such as here:

In Quantum Mechanics at the 'Quanta level' scale, it has been objectively observed that the Quantum world that underlies our three-dimensional time/space universe does not have three dimensions and continuous time like our maco scale universe, Time only exists as a momentary time of discontinuous events of the basic particles of matter. as observed in cyclotrons.

This is nonsense. It fails utterly to describe what cyclotrons are actually capable of, is incompatible with QM, and is unsupported by all testable formulations of any quantum theory that we hope to have (but currently do not) of the quantum nature of space and time at the scales where we might hope to detect evidence for or against discrete space(time). Your references to support it range from outright stating that your claims are unverified, even widely rejected, to simply describing them in terms of a "proposed" explanation that is completely untested.

What you provided was a voluminous number of different theoretical considerations of various aspects of the current knowledge of Quantum Mechanical

I went into details in my first reply on the problems with your ignorance of QM. You ignored them all and ask for references. When I give these, you ignore them too.
You are the one claiming that you understand QM and telling others that they don't understand it, asking for references and telling me and others that we don't understand QM but you do. Ok, so show it.
What are the equations of the theory you describe? Is this theory of yours manifestly covariant? How does the use of cyclotrons support the existence of this "quanta scale" that you describe as not being continuous or having 3 spatial dimensions nor a continuous time dimension when even the LHC (probing at much, much, higher energy scales) has found no evidence for discrete spacetime and the standard model of particle physics as well as the standard model of cosmology (and all empirical tests) continued to support the existing quantum theories, all of which rely on continuous time (relativistic QFT requires spacetime, obviously, but it is built by demoting the spatial operators of QM to the role of a continuous fields in continuous spacetime that the newly minted operators of QFT, renamed "particles", act on locally).

Absolutely none of your references provided observed evidence of a dimensional world with a continuous time arrow of the macro scale of our universe,

It's true, the references I supplied deal with actual physics, not nonsense statements about "a dimensional world" (????) with "a continuous time arrow of the macro scale of our universe". This is gibberish, not QM or quantum theory or physics. However, whenever you start thinking about this boundless quanta level scale you are so keen on, try reading some of your own sources more carefully:
"the No-Boundary Proposal is not generally accepted"
From your source: The Quantum Origins of Our Universe

If you would like to deal with actual science and actual physics, you have to be prepared for more than sensationalist bunk. For example:
"Time in quantum mechanics appears as a classical parameter in the Schrödinger equation. Physically it represents the time shown by a “classical” clock in the laboratory."
Giovannetti, V., Lloyd, S., & Maccone, L. (2015). Quantum time. Physical Review D, 92(4), 045033.

 

[shunyadragon]

I wouldn't know. I only like spider webs on my oatmeal raisin cookies.

OK! Chopping oatmeal cookies covered with spiderwebs.

 

[shunyadragon]

I only gave you referenced because you, in an attempt to refute my original reply to your nonsense, you asked me to supply references.
I only joined this discussion because quantum foundations is my area of expertise and I am inundated with various bogus claims about quantum mechanics all of the time, which is bad enough. But I'm used to that, and if people want me to explain more I'm always happy to (if not, ok). In this case, however, I'd had enough of BOTH the sheer volume of unsubstantiated nonsense you've posted from a position of self-proclaimed authority (supported by references to wikipedia, blogs, etc., instead of scientific literature) but no substance AND because these false claims have been accompanied with insultingly dismissive rhetoric:





Yet you haven't demonstrated you are at all familiar with QM specifically or quantum theory more generally, still less the kind of theoretical physics required to substantiate claims about quantum cosmologies, the big bang from a quantum perspective, quantized space(time), quantum time, etc.
So I'll ask again:
You've mentioned, repeatedly, what quantum mechanics has objectively shown in relation to the nature of space and time, such as here:


This is nonsense. It fails utterly to describe what cyclotrons are actually capable of, is incompatible with QM, and is unsupported by all testable formulations of any quantum theory that we hope to have (but currently do not) of the quantum nature of space and time at the scales where we might hope to detect evidence for or against discrete space(time). Your references to support it range from outright stating that your claims are unverified, even widely rejected, to simply describing them in terms of a "proposed" explanation that is completely untested.


I went into details in my first reply on the problems with your ignorance of QM. You ignored them all and ask for references. When I give these, you ignore them too.
You are the one claiming that you understand QM and telling others that they don't understand it, asking for references and telling me and others that we don't understand QM but you do. Ok, so show it.
What are the equations of the theory you describe? Is this theory of yours manifestly covariant? How does the use of cyclotrons support the existence of this "quanta scale" that you describe as not being continuous or having 3 spatial dimensions nor a continuous time dimension when even the LHC (probing at much, much, higher energy scales) has found no evidence for discrete spacetime and the standard model of particle physics as well as the standard model of cosmology (and all empirical tests) continued to support the existing quantum theories, all of which rely on continuous time (relativistic QFT requires spacetime, obviously, but it is built by demoting the spatial operators of QM to the role of a continuous fields in continuous spacetime that the newly minted operators of QFT, renamed "particles", act on locally).


It's true, the references I supplied deal with actual physics, not nonsense statements about "a dimensional world" (????) with "a continuous time arrow of the macro scale of our universe". This is gibberish, not QM or quantum theory or physics. However, whenever you start thinking about this boundless quanta level scale you are so keen on, try reading some of your own sources more carefully:
"the No-Boundary Proposal is not generally accepted"
From your source: The Quantum Origins of Our Universe

If you would like to deal with actual science and actual physics, you have to be prepared for more than sensationalist bunk. For example:
"Time in quantum mechanics appears as a classical parameter in the Schrödinger equation. Physically it represents the time shown by a “classical” clock in the laboratory."
Giovannetti, V., Lloyd, S., & Maccone, L. (2015). Quantum time. Physical Review D, 92(4), 045033.

You acknowledged this therefore yes, absolutely none of your references provided observed evidence of a dimensional world with a continuous time arrow of the macro scale of our universe, which was the point of my reference,

Yes your long windy voluminous references and posts are an attempt to 'Bully' your view.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You acknowledged this therefore yes, absolutely none of your references provided observed evidence of a dimensional world with a continuous time arrow of the macro scale of our universe, which was the point of my reference,

My references showed how that quantum mechanics relied on continuous time and that the kind of "quanta level scale" you refer to is not only without any empirical or observational support, we lack a cogent theory of how this "quantum world" could be realized theoretically. You referenced a blog post on speculative ideas you don't understand.
Now, since you've been demeaning others about their lack of understanding of QM, how about showing you have the faintest idea of what you are talking about and describing a single equation of motion, operator algebra, quantization schema, or any other component of actual quantum theories and show how quantum mechanics can do what you've said, as we already know it doesn't describe nor can it describe anything you've claimed:

"Time in quantum mechanics appears as a classical parameter in the Schrödinger equation. Physically it represents the time shown by a “classical” clock in the laboratory."
Giovannetti, V., Lloyd, S., & Maccone, L. (2015). Quantum time. Physical Review D, 92(4), 045033.

“It is commonly accepted that, at the Planck scale, no experimentally verified theory provides a framework for measuring space or time.”
Perche, T. R., & Martín-Martínez, E. (2022). Geometry of spacetime from quantum measurements. Physical Review D, 105(6), 066011.

“Newtonian Absolute Time is what ordinary QM is based upon.”
Anderson, E. (2012). Problem of time in quantum gravity. Annalen der Physik, 524(12), 757-786.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

My problem is that @shunyadragon had done nothing to establish a connection between his claims and his citations. He just wants to try to force us to accept that there is a connection without doing any of the basic work or taking responsibility for the words he type.

Well, he has at time ignored his own sources (maybe they are too long to read...). So perhaps asking for some sort of connection is too much for us to request. After all, he's repeated the same claims over and over again, so they must be right at this point, no?