Zosimus
Active Member
A Libertarian who trumpets the need for state licensing of words? Now I've seen everything.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
String Theory Co-Founder: Sub-Atomic Particles Are Evidence the Universe Was Created
- Thread starter Dante Writer
- Start date
-
- Tags
- creation string theory
Yeah yeah, theory of gravity is just a theory. You have anything better than appeal to ignorance.
We have facts about gravity that don't put a dent in GR, rather GR is the one doing the replacing of "theories". The experiment that I linked confirms for fact that space dilation is a fact of how gravity works, as predicted by GR. I use the term theory until evidence starts piling up that we don't need to cling to such terminology.
If you want to deny how gravity works thats great, show me the experiments that prove otherwise.
Riddle me this. Why is it that the new quantum gravity observations from black holes only confirm GR when quantum realms are supposedly incompatible?
Just as suspected, more evidence just keeps piling up.
http://inewstoday.net/2016/06/for-the-second-time-ever-gravitational-waves-have-reached/
http://inewstoday.net/2016/06/for-the-second-time-ever-gravitational-waves-have-reached/
I've even more horrors to expose you to.
Booowahahahhahhhhahahhahahaha, etc!
Zosimus
Active Member
Which theory of gravity?
I suppose you are referring to the "discovery" of gravity waves announced recently? After decades of looking for them, gravity waves have finally been found.
Or have they? Wasn't there a major announcement in 2014 that gravity waves had finally been discovered? Wasn't the error rate supposed to be 1 in 10 billion? And wasn't the announcement proved completely wrong less than 6 months later?
Not to worry – LIGO claims to have found gravity waves in 2016. Whewh! Einstein finally vindicated... of course, if the gravity waves turn out to be a mirage, no one will be to blame. After all, the peer-reviewed paper has more than 1,000 authors. It will be easy to share the blame around.
From http://osnetdaily.com/2016/02/7567/
"In this latest announcement, we are told mirrors in the arms of LIGO moved .004 the diameter of a proton, indicating that two black holes were colliding somewhere in the distance. Where? We aren’t told. We are only told that one of them was 36 times as massive as the Sun and the other 29 times as massive. In the collision three Solar masses were released.
"Where did they get those numbers? They just made them up out of thin air. OK, but what indication do we have the movement of the mirrors was caused by that rather than anything else? The signal conformed precisely to the predictions of general relativity for black holes as calculated in computer simulations, Dr. Reitze said. Really? That’s all we get? You can see why I now think this is all a joke.
"These people don’t even try to fake the scientific method anymore. In that method, you would have to cross off all the other causes of that tiny motion. Since you can’t possibly do that in this case, assigning the motion to hypothetical black holes is just a farce..."
----------------------------
I couldn't agree more.
Wow bold claims with no experimental evidence to back it up, just ridicule of other people actually finding answers.
The evidence just keeps piling up.
http://inewstoday.net/2016/06/for-the-second-time-ever-gravitational-waves-have-reached/
I'm one of the biggest skeptics too but I don't expect science to just hand us the answers on a silver platter with theories that have taken over a hundred years to get verifiable evidence and experiments that can be repeated to validate or falsify said theories.
Zosimus
Active Member
Remember that this is the 4th time that gravity waves have been detected... whoops, no they haven't.
The first time was in 1969 (Joseph Weber).
The second time was in 1978 (Joseph Taylor & Russell Hulse)
The third time was in 2014 (Bicep)
Now, we have the latest hoax...er... I mean...discovery... in from LIGO.
Of course, no one has been able to replicate the findings, but you're already convinced. It's this thing called confirmation bias.
The first time was in 1969 (Joseph Weber).
The second time was in 1978 (Joseph Taylor & Russell Hulse)
The third time was in 2014 (Bicep)
Now, we have the latest hoax...er... I mean...discovery... in from LIGO.
Of course, no one has been able to replicate the findings, but you're already convinced. It's this thing called confirmation bias.
More appeal to ignorance. I'm not interested in even someone replicating it if they can falsify it.
Not at all. Your appeals to ignorance in no way make it confirmation bias on my part.
Seriously, where is the the experiment that suggests "gravity doesn't work like einstein thought"? By all means show your work.
Haha. The same old tried technique to delegate debate to google. I already showed you that i could debate in favor of a flat earth, by using google.
By the way, you keep embarassng yourself by posting things that contradict your claim. Here is for instance from the first link:
"Whereas the result may sound like a way to send faster-than-light messages, it isn't, really, because you can't know the state of the entangled photon pair before it's measured; so there's no way to control it and make the photon at the other end take on certain states and use it like a Morse code telegraph"
I wonder wether you read/understand what you post. I also wonder whether you are not a computer program that debates by searching for key words and post links automatically.
Look, the physics is very simple. When two particles interact they might jump spontaneously into a state of minimal energy. When that happens, they become highly entangled. They become like one system, or a system of two particles with constraints. The constraint, or correlation, is that they will have opposite spins when you measure them.
You can have systems with constrants in classical mechanics, too. For instance, rigid bodies. You do not need to measure the state of all particles in.a rigid body. Once you have a couple, all the others are given. Instantaneously.
Same here. Measuring the spin of one particle, gives you the other. Maybe less intuitive, but this is mainly due to the fact that our brains did not evolve to have an intuition of subatomic particles.
No need to invoke spooky actions at a distance or other absurdities.
Wow, an original thought of yours. Unfortunately, I don't know what it means.
Well, at least we know you are not a computer program. They tend to make no spelling errors
Ciao
- viole
Last edited:
Zosimus
Active Member
Oh, you think that you can just wander off for awhile and come back to argue something that wasn't being argued in the first place. I have bad news for you: I remember the argument very well. Let's recap, shall we? Viole said:Haha. The same old tried technique to delegate debate to google. I already showed you that i could debate in favor of a flat earth, by using google.
By the way, you keep embarassng yourself by posting things that contradict your claim. Here is for instance from the first link:
"Whereas the result may sound like a way to send faster-than-light messages, it isn't, really, because you can't know the state of the entangled photon pair before it's measured; so there's no way to control it and make the photon at the other end take on certain states and use it like a Morse code telegraph"
I wonder wether you read/understand what you post. I also wonder whether you are not a computer program that debates by searching for key words and post links automatically.
Look, the physics is very simple. When two particles interact they might jump spontaneously into a state of minimal energy. When that happens, they become highly entangled. They become like one system, or a system of two particles with constraints. The constraint, or correlation, is that they will have opposite spins when you measure them.
You can have systems with constrants in classical mechanics, too. For instance, rigid bodies. You do not need to measure the state of all particles in.a rigid body. Once you have a couple, all the others are given. Instantaneously.
Same here. Measuring the spin of one particle, gives you the other. Maybe less intuitive, but this is mainly due to the fact that our brains did not evolve to have an intuition of subatomic particles.
No need to invoke spooky actions at a distance or other absurdities.
Wow, an original thought of yours. Unfortunately, I don't know what it means.
Well, at least we know you are not a computer program. They tend to make no spelling errors
Ciao
- viole
So, what about your claim that photons communicate at 10,000 times the speed of light? Did you just make it up?
To which I responded with multiple links from prestigious websites such as livescience.com and scientificamerican.com showing that the 10,000 number was not just "made up." That's the number that the most reputable websites are posting.
So now that you have been completely pwned, a word that you seem to be unfamiliar with, but which means something like "humiliatingly defeated", you want to change the terms of the conversation to something entirely different. It's no longer about whether I made the claim up, but rather it's whether viole can cherry-pick among the various links to find something that could be twisted to support an argument that wasn't being made.
So now you want to make it about whether this entanglement is the result of secret variables or spooky action at a distance. No problem. At http://phys.org/news/2015-11-nist-team-spooky-action-distance.html we read:
The NIST experiments are called Bell tests, so named because in 1964 Irish physicist John Bell showed there are limits to measurement correlations that can be ascribed to local, pre-existing (i.e. realistic) conditions. Additional correlations beyond those limits would require either sending signals faster than the speed of light, which scientists consider impossible, or another mechanism, such as quantum entanglement.
The research team achieved this feat by simultaneously closing all three major "loopholes" that have plagued previous Bell tests. Closing the loopholes was made possible by recent technical advances, including NIST's ultrafast single-photon detectors, which can accurately detect at least 90 percent of very weak signals, and new tools for randomly picking detector settings.
"You can't prove quantum mechanics, but local realism, or hidden local action, is incompatible with our experiment," NIST's Krister Shalm says. "Our results agree with what quantum mechanics predicts about the spooky actions shared by entangled particles."
pwned again.
Petulantly Withholding Normally Excellent Discernment?
Zosimus
Active Member
My point really. All these things are due to entanglement, which we know to exist, and not to sending signals faster than light. Notice the "or" in the sentence. And that is why there is no problem with relativity. There never was. Every physicists knows that today.
I start gettng some confidence that you do not even understand what you post in "defense" of your argument. Which is to be expected if you just cut and paste from the Internet instead of actually studying the subject
Ciao
- viole
Last edited:
Zosimus
Active Member
Once again, because you know that you are getting pwned, you insist on changing the argument. Let's recap.My point really. All these things are due to entanglement, which we know to exist, and not to sending signals faster than light. Notice the "or" in the sentence. And that is why there is no problem with relativity. There never was. Every physicists knows that today.
I start gettng some confidence that you do not even understand what you post in "defense" of your argument. Which is to be expected if you just cut and paste from the Internet instead of actually studying the subject
Ciao
- viole
You asked whether I had made the 10,000 times the speed of light number up. I posted multiple links showing that it was not made up.
Now you are trying to argue that "all these things are due to entanglement."
Well, yes, that's a given. The question is what is entanglement? Is entanglement due to a hidden variable that entangled particles share that allow them to coordinate their behavior or is entanglement due to some kind of a strange communication between the two particles that we cannot understand? You seem to be championing the hidden variable theory, likening the entanglement to having a red ball in one box and a blue ball in the other and just not knowing which box contains which ball until the boxes are opened.
However, I refer you to It’s been a tough week for hidden variable theories wherein we read:
"The November 2nd issue of Science had two independent papers describing the results of recent delayed-choice experiments. The goal of these papers was to rule out hidden variable theories as an explanation for aspects of quantum mechanics. More specifically, the experiments showed that the wave-particle duality which results during measurement in the double-slit experiment cannot be explained by combining classical mechanics with local hidden variables. This won’t come as a surprise to people who deal with quantum mechanics on a daily basis (consciously), but it’s nice to have additional material to refer to quantum naysayers, and the experimental set-ups were impressive."
-------------------------------
In conclusion, while hidden variable theories are not impossible – perhaps you will improve on them and make them work – the current scientific thinking is that hidden variables cannot explain what is observed.
So, once again, I have posted links that refute you whereas you merely say "I talked to this teacher who told me otherwise."
In conclusion:
1. I did not make the 10,000 times the speed of light number up. I have posted multiple links supporting that number as the best information available to date.
2. Hidden variable theories, while not impossible, are not the preferred explanation for quantum entanglement.
So you can cluck your tongue all you want, roll your eyes, and search desperately for an exit from the corner you've painted yourself into. At the present time, the data do not support your position.
And who is trying to find an exit, since I agree that entanglement is real and there are no hidden variables?
My point is all this does not pose a threat to relativity at all, because entanglement , even without hidden variables, does not require any signal communication between the two particles. It actually forbids it. And this is why NO SERIOUS PHYSICST believes special relativity is broken by the absense of hidden variables in entanglement. This is only in your mind, What Einstein did not like does not entail that it broke its theory. It did not.
There is even a theorem about that: the no communication theorem that proves, mathematically, that you cannot send signals at a speed higher than light's in entanglement system. You seem to ignore that, too.
On top of that: the no communiction theorem allows to exclude spooky action at a distance and instantaneous communiction exactly for non hidden variables theory, while might not be true for hidden variables theories. So, you are dvertising, for the nth time, your own defeat.
And that is why relativity is still taught as orthodoxy. And that is why it is even married to QM In so the so called quantum field theories or Quantistic electrodynmics, which are riddled with entanglement, and yet, provide a framework to explain basically everything about matter and its interaction with light. QM and relativity form together what is arguably the best confirmed theory of all times.
You seem to it ignore even that, that special relativity and quantum mechanics work pretty well together in this area.
And if you knew how local density matrixes are affected by remote experiments, you would know that. But I guess you do not even know what a density matrix is. Which sets a superior limit to your competence to argue about the subject in this area.
So, my suggestion is that you stop getting your education from the Internet or from "experts" ala D. Chopra, and start doing your homework, if you want to really debate the subject, with a reduce risk of self embarassement.
Ciao
- viole
Last edited:
Zosimus
Active Member
Once again, your post is devoid of anything. Links? What have you shown other than empty claims?
Second, I never claimed that meaningful FTL communication was possible. Don't put words into my mouth.
Finally, I still think it's hilarious that you claim to be an expert on "density matrixes" but you don't even know that the plural is matrices. In fact, Google won't even permit you to search for "density matrixes." It immediately shows the results for density matrices and clucks its tongue disapprovingly.
While I'm at it, you should learn to spell embarrassment. Double r, double s.
Here you go:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem
Note: the theorem excludes spooky actions at a distance for non hidden variable theories and might not be true for hidden variables versions.
Since we both seem to agree that there are no hidden variables, well, you can do the math.
Ciao
- viole
Zosimus
Active Member
First of all, Wikipedia is no kind of an authoritative source.
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.
Finally, Triple-entangled photons are now a reality, a discovery that does allow for theoretical communication.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Actually, many of the articles are well written and very well cited using academic and other credible sources.