The Metaphysics of Quantum Mechanics

[JaysonR]

Right, the ratio is the same, but notice how many exception you had to make to state that.
Meaning, it's not universal; it's relative (the result is).

Aside from that, we can't use that for any purpose of, "tapping into", anything.
It's just a ratio that provides information.

It's not like a frequency or object that is being looked to with hopes of finding a universal connection to traffic throughout the entire universe.

We can't traffic anything through the spacetime interval universally to accomplish anything.
We can compute it.

[hybrid]

Originally Posted by JaysonR

Right, the ratio is the same, but notice how many exception you had to make to state that.
Meaning, it's not universal; it's relative (the result is).

Aside from that, we can't use that for any purpose of, "tapping into", anything.
It's just a ratio that provides information.

It's not like a frequency or object that is being looked to with hopes of finding a universal connection to traffic throughout the entire universe.

We can't traffic anything through the spacetime interval universally to accomplish anything.
We can compute it.

correct.
i suspect that the st interval in the realm of quarks is different from the realm of photons/electrons.
but then again it would be universal in that dimension.

so this tells me that c is not actually a velocity but acts as a "mechanical slop" that regulate the contraction and dilation of space and time. that is why nothing can exceed it in its realm. which can be further deduce to think of c as a secondary harmonic of a much higher frequency. probably in the tune of c^2. ;)

[whoguy423]

Thanks JasonR and Kepler for your reply,

I see your point about the gelatin analogy and I suppose that's a good way to think about the universe per se. Is this gelatine model a real scientific model?

Kepler, I knew someone would ask how constructive and destructive interference would occur on a universal level.... here it is... Where there is matter in the universe... this is a result of constructive interference from gravitational effects and where there is very little or none, is destructive intereference... from what I understand. This would not relate at all to the double slit experiment as it has not been tested that gravity does indeed travel in waves.

There has been no known creation of artificial gravity... to my knowledge anyway... only gravity blockers, although the effects are teeny weeny.

JasonR ... I think if you look at Einsteins E=mc^2 .... matter is energy.

For me atleast, it's purely academic as to whether matter contains energy... of whether matter is energy. I'm happy either way.

Kepler... about the range thing... the inverse cube(or was it square) rule thingo majiggy... yes you are right.... however... I'd like to point out that at the atomic scale... electrostatic force is dominant... whereas at the universal scale... gravity is dominant...I suppose electromagnetic force falls somewhere in between, though perhaps overlapping over everything since it exists in both fields and waves.


I do understand they both fall off at the same rate, however, it is in context of scale... whether at nano metres, or light years.

What I'm talking about when I say Ultimate Reality is .... at the plank scale... quantum fluctuations can cause particles to pop in and out of existance!!!

What the heck!!! Here now ... gone the next ... huh ... where did it go? Is this universe just an illusion of particles and atoms appearing and disappearing so fast we think this reality is real?

Does my head in... you figure it out.

[whoguy423]

Originally Posted by Kepler

Both the gravitational and electrostatic force fall off as For you to diffract through a doorway, your deBroglie wavelength would have to be roughly the width of an average doorway (let's say 1 meter). As mentioned, λ = h/p where p is the momentum, m*v, with m being the mass and v the velocity you are traveling at through the doorway. Rearranging, you can figure out how fast (or slow) you'd have to go through the doorway for diffraction to take place.

v = h/(m*λ)

Plugging in some numbers (assume the average person is ~ 75kg) you find

v = (6.62*10^-34m^2*kg/s)/(75kg*1m) = 8.8*10^-36 meters per second or 0.000279 femto meters per billion years!

Very slow! In fact, if the doorway was 10 cm deep, it would take you 25620 billion times the age of the universe to travel through the door at that speed.

This demonstrates that the wavelike properties of a macroscopic object such as a person are, for all practical purposes, completely negligible.

Hi Kepler,

I know your demonstration is purely academic.... but I'd just like to say De Brogelie's equation thing is only applicable to particles, rather than something huge like a person, but yes... I can see that basically if you could walk though a door that slowly... you would definitely defract into a billions little pieces... since chaos theory would definately play a HUGE role at getting our bodies atoms out of any conceivably form and order.

Interesting!!!

[hybrid]

Originally Posted by whoguy423

What I'm talking about when I say Ultimate Reality is .... at the plank scale... quantum fluctuations can cause particles to pop in and out of existance!!!

What the heck!!! Here now ... gone the next ... huh ... where did it go? Is this universe just an illusion of particles and atoms appearing and disappearing so fast we think this reality is real?

Does my head in... you figure it out.

we look into space for the ultimate reality because there is nothing else to turn to.

Originally Posted by whoguy423

Kepler, I knew someone would ask how constructive and destructive interference would occur on a universal level.... here it is... Where there is matter in the universe... this is a result of constructive interference from gravitational effects and where there is very little or none, is destructive intereference... from what I understand. This would not relate at all to the double slit experiment as it has not been tested that gravity does indeed travel in waves.

Source?

Originally Posted by whoguy423

There has been no known creation of artificial gravity... to my knowledge anyway... only gravity blockers, although the effects are teeny weeny.

Gravity blockers? Care to provide some more information about these? Also, see the link I posted about artificial gravitation.

Originally Posted by whoguy423

JasonR ... I think if you look at Einsteins E=mc^2 .... matter is energy.

As you said, the equation is E=mc^2. The equations is not E = m. Energy is proportional to mass.

Originally Posted by whoguy423

Kepler... about the range thing... the inverse cube(or was it square) rule thingo majiggy... yes you are right.... however... I'd like to point out that at the atomic scale... electrostatic force is dominant... whereas at the universal scale... gravity is dominant...I suppose electromagnetic force falls somewhere in between, though perhaps overlapping over everything since it exists in both fields and waves.

Right. The gravitational force is proportional to the object's mass. The electrostatic force is proportional to the object's electrical charge. Planets have large masses and are basically electrically neutral. Atoms have small masses and (if ionized) large relative charges. For these reasons, gravity dominates on the large scale and electrical forces dominate on the small scale (go even smaller and nuclear forces dominate).

Also, both gravitation and electric forces have associated "fields" so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with that.

Originally Posted by whoguy423

What I'm talking about when I say Ultimate Reality is .... at the plank scale... quantum fluctuations can cause particles to pop in and out of existance!!!

What the heck!!! Here now ... gone the next ... huh ... where did it go? Is this universe just an illusion of particles and atoms appearing and disappearing so fast we think this reality is real?

Does my head in... you figure it out.

Lol, yeah. Trippy stuff.

Originally Posted by whoguy423

I know your demonstration is purely academic.... but I'd just like to say De Brogelie's equation thing is only applicable to particles, rather than something huge like a person, but yes...

No, there are no such restrictions. Source? We are made of particles.

Originally Posted by whoguy423

I can see that basically if you could walk though a door that slowly... you would definitely defract into a billions little pieces... since chaos theory would definately play a HUGE role at getting our bodies atoms out of any conceivably form and order.

Lol, chaos theory, what?

[whoguy423]

Source... me... well until they confirm Gravity Waves... then you'll see that the arrangement of matter throughout the universe can be provided by wave principles.

In regard to artificial gravity... centrifugal force, magnetism, electrostatics etc.. can mimic gravity... but is not actually gravity.

Gravity blockers... some crazy russians created this disc of superconductor which spins at super high speed causing a reduction of gravity above the disc. Can't remember the crazy russians names.

The point i was making was just to backup my original intention of showing that gravity waves ( if they do exist ) can affect on a universal scale... over and above electrostatic forces or even electromagnetic forces.

De Brogelie's model is to show that particles can indeed be modelled as a wave... I do understand our bodies are particles... billions trillions of them... and so there would in fact be billions of waves all interacting together... but again...
your demonstration was purely academic and I'm not saying it's wrong... just that it is more applicable to particles.

Over time Chaos Theory says that over time, atoms/particles tend to go out of order to a lesser energy state... so our bodies over billions of years would simply crumble to dust ... even in a perfect vacuum with zero interference.

Cheers

Thanks for the replies, whoguy.

Originally Posted by whoguy423

Source... me... well until they confirm Gravity Waves... then you'll see that the arrangement of matter throughout the universe can be provided by wave principles.

So, you're just speculating at this point?

Originally Posted by whoguy423

In regard to artificial gravity... centrifugal force, magnetism, electrostatics etc.. can mimic gravity... but is not actually gravity.

Right, which is why I said "artificial gravity like situations".

Originally Posted by whoguy423

Gravity blockers... some crazy russians created this disc of superconductor which spins at super high speed causing a reduction of gravity above the disc. Can't remember the crazy russians names.

This (or similar)? That's not a gravity blocker, that's simply using a magnet to counter the gravitational force.

Originally Posted by whoguy423

De Brogelie's model is to show that particles can indeed be modelled as a wave... I do understand our bodies are particles... billions trillions of them... and so there would in fact be billions of waves all interacting together... but again...
your demonstration was purely academic and I'm not saying it's wrong... just that it is more applicable to particles.

Lol, what do you mean by "academic"? Also, you are simply restating your point and not providing any reason why you can't apply deBroglie's relation to macroscopic objects.

Originally Posted by whoguy423

Over time Chaos Theory says that over time, atoms/particles tend to go out of order to a lesser energy state... so our bodies over billions of years would simply crumble to dust ... even in a perfect vacuum with zero interference.

Chaos theory is a pretty general field of mathematics. There is a connection to entropy, however, which I think is what you're talking about.

[JaysonR]

Kepler touched on anything I would touch on, so I won't duplicate discussions.

On this matter:

I see your point about the gelatin analogy and I suppose that's a good way to think about the universe per se. Is this gelatine model a real scientific model?

It is not a scientific model in the sense that, to my knowledge, it has not been evaluated in the field; no.

It should be, however.
The bowling ball and rubber sheet was a very useful model for their time.
The point of the ball and sheet model was to show a single slice of spacetime and the affect that a mass has upon it.
That was a hurdle to jump, but we've jumped that at this point.

At this point, people see this model and don't even really notice that because they are so used to the model, that they make a conceptual mistake of taking the model's constituents to be a description of more than just the affect of a mass on spacetime and also then take the model as a representation of the material relationship between a mass and spacetime.

Most people seeing the model don't stop and wonder, "What is everything in this model that is not the rubber sheet or the bowling ball?"
Or, "Considering particle physics, how are the bowling ball and sheet separate?"

It also permits an accidental ignoring of one of Newton's discussions on gravity which is (should be) cardinal to every inquiring mind.
While Newton was not complete on everything regarding gravity, this particular consideration - especially at this point of our understanding of particle physics - should not be overlooked.

Originally Posted by Newton

That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one another, is to me so great an absurdity that, I believe, no man who has in philosophic matters a competent faculty of thinking could ever fall into it.

Yet, this is exactly what is often times thought of when someone looks at the model of the ball and sheet.

It is for this reason that I prefer the gelatin model, and wish the ball and sheet model would vanish.

[hybrid]

Originally Posted by seekerscientist

But what about the quantum mechanical formalism that the act of observation actually creates reality?

the wave equation is a superposition of all possible states until an observer make it collapse into a definite state. i.e. with a location or with a direction. the way we calculate is to average the amplitudes and then square it to give us an average answer. iow, the Schrodinger equation is a statistical tool so we can predict where the electron is in a particular condition.

how do we confirm if our calculation is correct and/or how do we measure an electron's position and direction (momentum)?

we shoot the electron with the photon. if we want its precise location we shoot it with a high energy photon ( high frequency- small wavelength). when the photon's small waves hits the electron, we know that the electron is within the vicinity of a small confined of space occupy by the photon waves. and viceversa, if we want to measure it's velocity, we shoot it with a low energy photon, whose wave have lower frequency and bigger waves, this will allow us to measure the general direction and speed of the photon.

in day to day activity, the observer's effect in reality is negligible. the electrons in our eyes got entangled with the electrons of what we are looking at.

let say we are looking at the moon, and the millions of electrons in our eyes got entangled with the million electrons of the moon, so we can say that a million of electrons in the moon changed their state because we look at it. but since the moon has gazillion of electrons, a million changes in general has no effect in the moon at all. so no, we do not affect reality in general just by observation much more create it. .

The central problem, of course, is who is the observer?

What do you think?

the observer is the brain/nervous system.
to me the relevant question is at what stage of the evolution of matter, it started to have an experience of quality. like thoughts and feeling. e.g. the sweetness of sugar can be detected by the brain/tongue as a unique vibration, but the taste of sweetness as a quality experience belongs to consciousness.