How big is the universe?

ApacheKid

Joined Jan 12, 2015
1,684
Here:

No, entanglement does work that way. The measurement does not affect the entangled particle in any way. It merely allows us to know the outcome of a possible measurement on the entangled particle.
I think there are matters of interpretation here. The mathematics describing quantum physics, can be interpreted in different ways. The "Copenhagen" interpretation is very different from the "many worlds" interpretation as I'm sure you are aware, yet they both consistent with observation.

Nobody can say "you don't know what you're talking about, of course the many worlds interpretation is right".

I never said information can travel faster than light.

Einstein had views on entanglement, would it be appropriate for Neils Bohr to say to him " You seem to have little basic understanding of quantum mechanics with that statement. Your idea about entanglement and causality is total pseudoscience from popsci articles."? Such remarks are rude, arrogant in fact and have no place in scientific discourse.

If someone is wrong when discussing science then alienating the person with ridicule isn't how to deal with it.
 
Last edited:

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
13,578
I think there are matters of interpretation here. The mathematics describing quantum physics, can be interpreted in different ways. The "Copenhagen" interpretation is very different from the "many worlds" interpretation as I'm sure you are aware, yet they both consistent with observation.

Nobody can say "you don't know what you're talking about, of course the many worlds interpretation is right".

I never said information can travel faster than light.
You did by using a set of events that would IMO break physics causality, something more fundamental than the speed of light. Quantum mechanics (and interpretations based on the reality of what see can see and measure) does not violate causality. With quantum entanglement you don't have separate particles, you have parts of a single particle. You can interpret these particles with a single wave function being the same object mathematically. Weird that properties of objects are not in that object but that's what we see with nonlocality. Nonlocality is the weirdness in QM.

So it doesn't really happen in a instant like communication of changing information/forces/states/etc.. You moved the same particle somewhere at classical speeds (up to the speed of light) and measured it. This seems to imply that entanglement is somehow, weirdly more fundamental than spacetime.

Many Worlds renders the weirdest results of quantum mechanics a lot less weird by being a purely deterministic, completely causal interpretation where every possible outcome happens at once.

Copenhagen embraces the weird by having nondeterminism in wave function collapse with causally connections enforced by non-deterministic outcomes of 'measurements'.

https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-trouble-with-many-worlds.html
 
Last edited:

ApacheKid

Joined Jan 12, 2015
1,684
It might shock you but I mainly agree.

We bear a large degree of responsibility for that horror, so yes it does outrage me as just some guy helping to save those that escaped the war crimes (may kissinger burn in hell) of that era by the US and those the used that power vacuum created by the US to murder millions. We delivered people to the UN camps on the Thai border from boats at sea, the barbaric acts we saw on innocent people by criminals at sea after the horrors we did earlier have no excuses.

What did you do?
View attachment 322682
What I did was educate myself, examine the facts, the record. That is what enables me to evaluate the actions of world leaders in the US, UK, EU and elsewhere. I recognized that I had been subject to decades of propaganda by the ideologies that underpin our governments.

US policy toward Israel is almost indistinguishable between Democrat and Republican administrations, when it comes to geopolitics the US acts as it has since the Monroe doctrine. The facts are easy to find but shocking, almost unpalatable and that is that the US is the greatest threat to world peace.

Such a view is too hard for many to accept, so they turn away, they reinterpret the facts so as to preserve the myth of US as the benevolent superpowers that tries to hard to do the right thing but sometimes stumbles, the myth of the US as victim. This myth is beyond absurd when one looks at facts though.

Consider Cambodia you mentioned, that poor country was also bombed (in addition to Laos and Vietnam) and between 1965 and 1973 2,700,000 tons of bomb were dropped in some 230,000 sorties on 113,000 sites. That is what precipitated the "Killing fields" the complete destruction of civic life led to a dismayed and desperate population to support a tiny insignificant insurgency which eventually led to genocide, but one directly attributable to the United States actions.

The sad truth is that US geopolitics like the British, French, Spanish before it, does all it can to stifle the self determination by people who's resources are deemed to within "Our sphere of influence".

The genocide taking place before our eyes in Gaza today is just the latest example, yet this time there is a far greater public awareness of the facts, the history and the sentiment expressed by many thousands of students of whom you express great disapproval is exactly the same sentiment people expressed at the Nazi and Ustashe genocide from the 1940s. The exact same principles are at play, a brutal, racist, intolerant racially supremacist ideology is ethnically cleansing Palestine, stealing land, murdering civilians and doing so in broad daylight - BUT has been doing this WITH UNCONDITIONAL US SUOPPORT since before WW II started.

So that's what I did, I educated myself, I freed myself from the bondage of nationalism, patriotism, willful self delusion and that enables me to protest, to contribute to legitimate charities like UNRWA with the hope that some child might eat, some child might be able to undergo an amputation with a painkilling anesthetic while all the while US bombs are dropping on them.

To normalize the West's brutality is no different to how many Germans normalized the Nazi war machine, most just shrugged their shoulders, went about their day, they passively enabled genocide just as many in the West are doing now.

The way some speak of these students as "left leaning commies" or "drugged up entitled losers" or "antisemitic spoiled brats" or "terrorist supporting nutjobs" is simple the language of the propagandist, designed to hide truth, designed to make us turn away and shrug our shoulders - I no longer let it.
 

ApacheKid

Joined Jan 12, 2015
1,684
You did by using a set of events that would break physics causality, something more fundamental than the speed of light. Quantum mechanics (and interpretations based on the reality of what see can see and measure) does not violate causality.

Many Worlds renders the weirdest results of quantum mechanics a lot less weird by being a purely deterministic, completely causal interpretation where every possible outcome happens at once.
By the way that movie is known as pop-science FYI.

Copenhagen embraces the weird by having nondeterminism in wave function collapse with causally connections enforced by non-deterministic outcomes.
Indeed so we see your own biases and beliefs at play here, that nondeterminism is "weird" yet how can that be? why believe in something (determinism) whose existence can obviously never be explained deterministically? What is weird about recognizing that? I see no good reason whatsoever to insist that the universe is, must be deterministic.

Placing determinism on some pedestal is a choice, an interpretation of nature, all science is ultimately about interpretation.
 
Last edited:

ApacheKid

Joined Jan 12, 2015
1,684
@nsaspook Since you are a man of science, you might spend a little time listening to a scientist debating an imperialist and see how facts and scientific rigor can be applied in other domains, this is just 18 minutes long, but for those who've never seen it I suggest you sit back and listen to these two men:

 

ApacheKid

Joined Jan 12, 2015
1,684
What is the intended level needed for telling a guy he doesn't know what he is talking about, when a uneducated hillbilly like me can see how wrong the poster was, and then can easily cite a guy that's not a uneducated hillbilly to show how wrong the poster was.
Implying people are stupid, inept, incompetent is not how to get them to listen to what you have to say.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
13,578
By the way that movie is known as pop-science FYI.



Indeed so we see your own biases and beliefs at play here, that nondeterminism is "weird" yet how can that be? why believe in something (determinism) whose existence can obviously never be explained deterministically? What is weird about recognizing that? I see no good reason whatsoever to insist that the universe is, must be deterministic.

Placing determinism on some pedestal is a choice, an interpretation of nature, all science is ultimately about interpretation.
Yes, it is pop-science. The movie inclusion is called an attempt at humor on a dry subject. I don't think that nondeterminism is 'weird". I also see no good reason for a deterministic universe and IMO see scant evidence that it is.
 

ApacheKid

Joined Jan 12, 2015
1,684
Yes, it is pop-science. The movie inclusion is called an attempt at humor on a dry subject. I don't think that nondeterminism is 'weird". I also see no good reason for a deterministic universe and IMO see scant evidence that it is.
You wrote

Copenhagen embraces the weird.
What weird idea does the Copenhagen interpretation embrace then?
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
13,578
You wrote



What weird idea does the Copenhagen interpretation embrace then?
Quantum nonlocality in a single universe. Many worlds makes it possible to remove randomness and action at a distance from quantum theory with a 'local' theory. MWI believers likely would say that Quantum nonlocality is an artifact of the Copenhagen interpretation.
Again with the explainer.

 

BobTPH

Joined Jun 5, 2013
9,291
I never said information can travel faster than light.
Not in so many words. It is implied in the passage I quoted. And with either sense of “determined”. (caused, or ascertained). Information travels in one direction or the other as you stated it.
 

ApacheKid

Joined Jan 12, 2015
1,684
Quantum nonlocality in a single universe. Many worlds makes it possible to remove randomness and action at a distance from quantum theory with a 'local' theory. MWI believers likely would say that Quantum nonlocality is an artifact of the Copenhagen interpretation.
Again with the explainer.

I think I've said before that I find Sabine to be a bit of a sensationalizer, her show is designed to attract viewers and increase her follower count and I've seen some episodes that I just found unhelpful frankly, granted she has deep insights and impressive certification but is not the first person I'd look to for explanations of this subject.

Now to repeat myself I did state from the outset in post #195 "I'm not very skilled at quantum mechanics" and I'm always willing to admit error but not at the point of an insult gun.

If I do hold a dated, inaccurate view of this then that's not because of pop-science but because the issue has been regarded as deeply mysterious for decades. Einstein regarded it as "spooky action at a distance" as you well know. I read far far less physics and mathematics these days than I did in the 1970s so my views reflect my views and understanding as they stood at that time.

It took (it seems) some thirty years from Einstein's initial objections to the issue being resolved, so there you are, I am hardly alone and an ignoramus consumer of pop-science for seeing things the way I do.

I have plenty of very good books at my disposal here but I just do not read the subjects as voraciously as I once did. Now here's what I just read in an article published in MIT Technology Review

Entangled particles can become widely separated in space. But even so, the mathematics implies that a measurement on one immediately influences the other, regardless of the distance between them.
Which is kind of what I said isn't it?

Source: MIT Technology Review.
 
Last edited:

ApacheKid

Joined Jan 12, 2015
1,684
I'll listen to this later, I've watched his stuff before and he understands that subject as well as anyone I think - Jim Al-Khalili. This episode dives into entanglement after first talking about the amazing ability of birds navigating magnetically...

 
Last edited:

k1ng 1337

Joined Sep 11, 2020
1,031
Your issues are not with QM as discussed here. You are mixing good food with IMO the spoiled and saying it's all bad.
https://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/beauty.150513/post-1288660


IMO you underestimate the power of QM being used in modern technology by your narrow focus on computational problems that have little effect on practical applications we use daily. QM is totally compatible with the macroscopic world that we work in because it's a theory designed to explain what we see during experiments like the double-slit. The QM happens at the two (now three)-dimensional layers of semiconductor devices on current technology devices. The semi-classical physics used for most semiconductor devices does absolutely have a quantum underpinning even if QM is not used as first principles except for designing new production tools sets that cost billions.. It's been refined to the engineering level much like classical electromagnetics has been refined to circuit theory so mere mortals can use it. A low voltage Zener or Tunnel diode can't be designed or explained precisely using classical physics because of the quantum tunnelling effects of very thin junctions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling
Silicon 'cat whisker' diodes were invented before quantum mechanics but only a QM understanding of those diodes could lead to the design of the point-contact transistor. The entire theoretical underpinnings of transistors is quantum-mechanical. All of Shockley and Bardeen's theoretical work was using quantum mechanics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_transistor



Most of your QM objections are the reasons I objected strongly to the QM post about instant effects across vast distances and other such IMO nonsense. Most of the claims of people using QM as a basis to put forth metaphysical claims are from POPSCI articles of speculative physics papers, not from the physicists and engineers that use QM at some level on a daily basis. Things like multiverse theory are interpretation's used to 'explain' the source of QM probabilities that are used in calculations to predict things like magnetism in certain atomic elements that can't be explained using classical physics. The unresolved questions about how to 'interpret' quantum mechanics, details about how it relates to classical mechanics, etc ... are mainly what these speculative physics papers are about.

They are not about the math of it, how useful it is or if it can be used to make useful predictions of common material properties like magnetic properties of rare-earth metals used to explain and make the powerful magnetics of today used in things like compact, efficient motors, generators, etc ... that power our world.
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_34.html


https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.03455
Quantum Theory of Rare-Earth Magnets


QM, as poorly presented in most mass media, usually defines quantum mechanical systems as infinitely small objects but leaves out the fact that everything is made from quantum sized objects and the QM effects can be designed scale up with those objects.
Superconducting magnets with masses of many tons only function because they are in a macroscopic quantum state. The superconducting wires only function because they are in a macroscopic quantum state.
I'm not saying it's all bad because I'm very much a believer and user of the technologies produced. My first interaction with quantum effects happened when I was around 10. I was given an old guitar and I noticed that when I put my finger on the next string, but on fret #7, I got an octave higher (double the frequency). I soon noticed this theme in optics when looking closely at street lamps (I see interfence patterns in the rays which occur at integer multiples). Now I know it's all related by the mathematics of QM and it's the sort of phenomena where all you gotta do is observe the fine details with enough patience. There are a bunch of other examples I noticed over the years which I can only describe in terms of QM.

However, you said my narrow focus on computation is limiting my view but I think it's quite the opposite. Even if we agree the physical substrate is best described by QM, this leaves open a great number of real world problems not addressed in the least by QM. Things like justice, anger and love are intuitive notions but what these words actually mean in a quantum environment is pure speculation (are these notions computable?). My main issue along these lines are emergent properties. Specifically, how do we get living systems from non-living systems (that is, how do emotionless atoms give rise to an emotional person like myself)? There is a sharp discontinuity between what QM says about physics and what the universe is from a Darwinian point of view.

As a matter of computation or performing an analysis in this direction, there is still all the data that hasn't been looked at yet. First we have to gather the data (after defining it of course), then we have to build machines to process the data and then build machines to test and confirm the data. This venture has already cost thousands of people years and what has it revealed? Things like alarm clocks, medicine and atomic bombs. The first two things are pretty cool but I argue it's primarily because of their usefulness these methods are constantly refined. As for other problems like murder and psychosis, QM and mathematics don't really say much despite being crucial problems in need of our attention. It's easy to say a person experiencing psychosis is just a brain gone wrong but the fact is we barely know what a brain is or how it operates (by the rules of QM no less)

Given that each of us has a brain and thinks differently, all these problems funnel into more and more computational complexity which I think needs to be taken into account. From a purely computational perspective, how are we supposed to have a "theory of everything" if we have not examined "everything" at least once? In a very real sense, one would have to be God to carry out these operations. There is something mystical about this which seems to undermine any conclusion we could ever make about reality.
 

ApacheKid

Joined Jan 12, 2015
1,684
Incidentally, for those of us who watch youtube sometimes on our desktop PC or tablet, I'd like to recommend the Brave Browser.

This is just a browser but it suppresses ads automatically and very reliable, play any of the science links posted above in Brave and you'll see not a single ad, it's free and I've had no issues using it for the past year or so.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
13,578
I'm not saying it's all bad because I'm very much a believer and user of the technologies produced. My first interaction with quantum effects happened when I was around 10. I was given an old guitar and I noticed that when I put my finger on the next string, but on fret #7, I got an octave higher (double the frequency). I soon noticed this theme in optics when looking closely at street lamps (I see interfence patterns in the rays which occur at integer multiples). Now I know it's all related by the mathematics of QM and it's the sort of phenomena where all you gotta do is observe the fine details with enough patience. There are a bunch of other examples I noticed over the years which I can only describe in terms of QM.

However, you said my narrow focus on computation is limiting my view but I think it's quite the opposite. Even if we agree the physical substrate is best described by QM, this leaves open a great number of real world problems not addressed in the least by QM. Things like justice, anger and love are intuitive notions but what these words actually mean in a quantum environment is pure speculation (are these notions computable?). My main issue along these lines are emergent properties. Specifically, how do we get living systems from non-living systems (that is, how do emotionless atoms give rise to an emotional person like myself)? There is a sharp discontinuity between what QM says about physics and what the universe is from a Darwinian point of view.

As a matter of computation or performing an analysis in this direction, there is still all the data that hasn't been looked at yet. First we have to gather the data (after defining it of course), then we have to build machines to process the data and then build machines to test and confirm the data. This venture has already cost thousands of people years and what has it revealed? Things like alarm clocks, medicine and atomic bombs. The first two things are pretty cool but I argue it's primarily because of their usefulness these methods are constantly refined. As for other problems like murder and psychosis, QM and mathematics don't really say much despite being crucial problems in need of our attention. It's easy to say a person experiencing psychosis is just a brain gone wrong but the fact is we barely know what a brain is or how it operates (by the rules of QM no less)

Given that each of us has a brain and thinks differently, all these problems funnel into more and more computational complexity which I think needs to be taken into account. From a purely computational perspective, how are we supposed to have a "theory of everything" if we have not examined "everything" at least once? In a very real sense, one would have to be God to carry out these operations. There is something mystical about this which seems to undermine any conclusion we could ever make about reality.
Sorry but IMO most that is totally unrelated to QM or even science in general. I now see it's useless to continue this discussion in this thread with you. Peace be with you.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
13,578
I think I've said before that I find Sabine to be a bit of a sensationalizer, her show is designed to attract viewers and increase her follower count and I've seen some episodes that I just found unhelpful frankly, granted she has deep insights and impressive certification but is not the first person I'd look to for explanations of this subject.

Now to repeat myself I did state from the outset in post #195 "I'm not very skilled at quantum mechanics" and I'm always willing to admit error but not at the point of an insult gun.

If I do hold a dated, inaccurate view of this then that's not because of pop-science but because the issue has been regarded as deeply mysterious for decades. Einstein regarded it as "spooky action at a distance" as you well know. I read far far less physics and mathematics these days than I did in the 1970s so my views reflect my views and understanding as they stood at that time.

It took (it seems) some thirty years from Einstein's initial objections to the issue being resolved, so there you are, I am hardly alone and an ignoramus consumer of pop-science for seeing things the way I do.

I have plenty of very good books at my disposal here but I just do not read the subjects as voraciously as I once did. Now here's what I just read in an article published in MIT Technology Review



Which is kind of what I said isn't it?

Source: MIT Technology Review.
Be honest, that's not really what you meant. If you had given your statement wiggle room with a seems or implies we wouldn't be having this conversation.

IMO, we both know that so that's just one of the reasons you get no slack now or ever from me.
 

ApacheKid

Joined Jan 12, 2015
1,684
Be honest, that's not really what you meant. If you had given your statement wiggle room with a seems or implies we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Calling me a liar won't help here, I meant what I said, that's why I said it, we're having this conversation because you responded to what I wrote, you chose to say what you said.

IMO, we both know that so that's just one of the reasons you get no slack now or ever from me.
I thought we were discussing physics, science not your emotions. If you act like a bully, rude, arrogant, know-all, then do not be surprised at people's reactions to that.
 
Last edited:

ApacheKid

Joined Jan 12, 2015
1,684
Sorry but IMO most that is totally unrelated to QM or even science in general. I now see it's useless to continue this discussion in this thread with you. Peace be with you.
How did you establish that there's no relation between QM and any of the points he/she raised? many philosophical and scientific points were raised by the post.
 

ApacheKid

Joined Jan 12, 2015
1,684
Not in so many words. It is implied in the passage I quoted. And with either sense of “determined”. (caused, or ascertained). Information travels in one direction or the other as you stated it.
Yes but see what I quoted in post #232 more or less the same as what I said. I did not say what I said as some claim for absolute truth, but as I perceive the matter, how I interpret what I've learned. There's the opposite of "implied" it's "inferred", that's what you did, you inferred - see here.

Specifically Note:

Infer can also more generally mean “to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence.” This means there are situations in which you might infer something when nothing was implied or nothing was intended to be implied.
 
Last edited:
Top