|
Rule -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/13/2006 10:03:20 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: WhipTheHip
I don't trust the fantasies of physicsts, either. Physicists don't have
many fantasies when it comes to the real world. They tend to be
super realists.
Garbage in yields garbage out. Nearly all modern physics since about 1890 sucks. (Excluding some parts of quantum physics, and - solid evidence - particle physics.)
quote:
ORIGINAL: WhipTheHip
Many-Worlds is not a fantasy.
We can exchange "it is" and "it is not" all day, but those are not arguments.
quote:
ORIGINAL: WhipTheHip
I trust physicists description of reality.
Say, I have got a load of old steel for sale in Paris. It is called the Eiffel Tower. Interested? You do not have a scientific mindset. I do not trust any interpretation of observed facts by any scientist. (Don't feel bad: there is hardly any scientist with a scientific mindset. Nearly all are parrots wallowing in contemporary paradigm.)
quote:
ORIGINAL: WhipTheHip
They are the brightest humans on Earth.
They are not. They are just about the least bright humans on Earth - hence all the hallowed stupidities in physics since about 1890.
Only mother-females are conceivably less bright. Doubtlessly you meant that they are the most intelligent humans on Earth and in that you would be correct. They are doubtlessly more intelligent than I am; I know a lot of people who are. That does not change the fact that I can demolish the ideas of half a million physicists before breakfast - and those of twenty million other scientists to boot. I am the brightest human being on Earth. There is a distinct difference between being highly intelligent and being bright. Being bright requires lots of brain capacity, pushing out intelligence. If those physicists were as bright as I, they probably would have the intelligence quotient of a chimpansee.
quote:
ORIGINAL: WhipTheHip
So, I generally do trust what physicists say.
Do not feel bad about that: most people do.
quote:
ORIGINAL: WhipTheHip
I see nothing illogical about Many-Worlds.
Do not feel bad about that: most people do not see anything illogical about that.
quote:
ORIGINAL: WhipTheHip
You have not stated why you believe it is logically impossible, so I can't respond to your claim. Nor is it exponentially worse than the problem of who created the Creator.
Yes, it is logically impossible: for explaining the existence of one universe I can do (there are actually two of them, but I had better not elaborate), but explaining the existence of googol related universes compounds the difficulty beyond credibility. Ever hear of Occam's razor? (In fact I do not have a problem with the existence of many unrelated universes per sé, but I do have an issue with the Many Worlds Hypothesis.)
Now as to why it is exponentially worse than the problem of who created the Creator. It is. When you try to explain the creation of the Creator you must stack single turtles on single turtles. (I got to 13 before I concluded that there was no point to the exercise - way back when I was still a child. I knew that I could have added some more turtles before loosing sight of all of them, but there simply was no profit in that.) The Many Worlds Hypothesis on the other hand requires all turtles to be carried by two turtles (choices) each. That is exponentially worse than the problem of who created the Creator. Simple, isn't it?
quote:
ORIGINAL: WhipTheHip
There is no reason to accept a supernatural explanation when there is perfectly good natural explanation.
The many worlds hypothesis is not a perfectly good natural explanation; instead it sucks Q.E.D. (see previous paragraph). (Of course in my unfinished and unpublished cosmology book I do provide a perfectly good natural explanation. I will not elaborate on that either.)
quote:
Undoubtedly I do not comprehend the theory.
quote:
ORIGINAL: WhipTheHip
Before you dispute a physics' theory supported by many
world-renowned physicists, you should first make an effort
to understand it, and know what it really says.
No. I am not going to look at trees in a forest that does not exist. That would be silly, now wouldn't it? (Just like those many world-renowned chimpansees.)
quote:
ORIGINAL: WhipTheHip
> However, if it entails that all choices / possibilities are realized,
> then yes it is completely deterministic.
It does.
See? I can see a forest that does not exist without looking at the trees in that forest.
quote:
ORIGINAL: WhipTheHip
> Now cut away that googol of superfluous universes
The other universes are not superfluous, but necessary.
Given infinite time everything will happen, even the
least likely thing. Religious people are always trying
to limit the universe.
They are only necessary to the phantasy of the many worlds hypothesis. Paradigm-bound scientists are always trying to limit their grasp of reality to what their tiny minds can comprehend. The universe is a lot bigger that their very small mind. (Never mind their high intelligence. It enables someone only to run fast. If one has no eyes, one may run in any direction, but such a highly intelligent blind scientist will get nowhere.)
quote:
ORIGINAL: WhipTheHip
> that clutter reality until you have only our one universe.
If you assume a true assertion untrue, you can prove
anything.
Quite. And vice versa. Why is science mostly the jurisdiction of the highly intelligent, but otherwise severely mentally handicapped? (See my earlier remark about the advances in physics since about 1890.)
quote:
ORIGINAL: WhipTheHip
> If we cannot communicate / interact with those other universes
We can. First, learn the theory, then disagree with it.
That is a demonstrable fallacy, as I will argue later. And no: I am not going to look at trees in a forest that does not exist.
quote:
ORIGINAL: WhipTheHip
> they by definition do not exist.
Not true. By your definition of existence, the past does not
exist, nor do black holes beyond their even horizons, nor
any part of our universe outside our light cone, because
we have no way of interacting with these things.
Quite. It is a solipsist's point of view. I seriously doubt that there is anything beyond the closed curtains before the window of my room. However: that is a lonely and boring existence. So I am going to assume - in the Beginning was the Word and I declare that the first word was "assume" - that there is a universe beyond the closed curtains before the windows of my room and that you and all kinds of other people and beings exist. There: I have done it. I have created the universe - and of course I simultaneously created its history and the memories of living beings of past events retro-actively - otherwise it would be a sloppy creation, not so? This must satisfy Chaingang and meatcleaver. (Oh, and by the way: I threw in a lot of alien extraterrestial species and a secret evil Earth space fleet that is in secret fighting them - but only the people that wear tin foil hats know that.)
So no: by my definition of existence the wave function of the universe does exist. And one wave function of the universe does suffice for me. I have no interest in bothering with another googol wave functions of related universes.
quote:
ORIGINAL: WhipTheHip
> Is our single universe than still completely deterministic?
If you assume a true assertion untrue, you can prove
anything. The universe includes multiverses. So, yes
our universe is completely determinstic. If you don't
look at the entire meta-verse, then our universe could
look random.
Ah. I asserted so already. As to the non-bold parts: I addressed those earlier.
quote:
ORIGINAL: WhipTheHip
Schrodinger's equation is completely deterministic.
> You probably say so because of these three assumptions:
Negative. I say so because Schrodinger's equation is
completely deterministic. It is a mathematical function
that yields only one answer for any given point in time.
Then it is seriously inadequate. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. (Frankly, wave functions were always mathematically beyond me.)
quote:
ORIGINAL: WhipTheHip
> a. [The wavefunction has] an observer-independent objective existence and actually is the object.
I don't know what you are trying to say. Observers have nothing to do with Schrodinger's equation.
> b. The wavefunction obeys the empirically derived standard linear deterministic wave equations at all times.
Again, I don't know what you are saying.
> c. The observer plays no special role in the theory and, consequently, there is no collapse of the wavefunction.
True.
You may not know what I am saying at a and b, but all three items a, b and c are literal quotes from the website about the many worlds hypothesis that you referred me to. (Yes I did read some of it. It is not I who is silly, but those chimpansees.)
quote:
ORIGINAL: WhipTheHip
> These are sensible assumptions. Does a tree make noise when it falls in the forest while no-one is around? Yes.
If you reject Many Worlds, then nothing exists when no-one is around. This is one of Einstein's main objections to Borh's interpretation of QM. Einstein said, the moon exists even when no one is looking at it. Bohr and Heisenberg and every other phycist in the world agrees
that if Bohr and Heisenbergs interpretation of QM is correct, then the moon does not exist when it is not being observed. This is patently absurd. This means the universe did not exist until there were observers to observe it.
Pff. Bohr. Highly intelligent, but not bright at all.
quote:
ORIGINAL: WhipTheHip
> But: when a particle of radiation interacts with a particle of matter, there is an observer,
> to wit the particle of matter; the wave function does collapse.
Not according to many-worlds. Particles do not qualify as observers.
And this still leaves open the question of the existence of reality
between interactions. According to you, nothing exists between
interactions. But you raise an interesting point. I will have to
do some research before I can fully respond to this suggestion.
The suggestion is we do away with observers and measurements
and just say the wave-function collapses whenever matter and
energy interact. This is a good question. I will try to find an
answer to it.
Ah, you have seen the light.
Of course according to me everything exists between interactions. I have assumed it, didn't I, when I created the wave function of the universe. (Or did you not pay attention when I created the universe?)
It really is very, very simple: to observe anything, to be conscious of anything, energy has to interact with matter. Therefore it is not the observation, but the interaction of a particle of radiation with a particle of 'matter' that causes the wave function to collapse. (As chimpansees go, Bohr may have been very intelligent, but he definitely was not one of the brightest.)
quote:
ORIGINAL: WhipTheHip
> When you aim a quantum mechanical particle at an obstruction with two holes in it, it will go through both holes.
How can one particle go through two holes a billion miles apart?
How does water go through two holes a billion miles apart? (Interesting experiment, by the way. Would it be at the speed of light of does one have to add the time required to travel to both holes and back again? Hm, I suppose it will be instantaneous.)
quote:
ORIGINAL: WhipTheHip
> Once on the other side, though, there are not two particles, but only
> the single one.
Then how do you explain the interference pattern.
That is obvious: it is subphotonic interference.
quote:
ORIGINAL: WhipTheHip
The double-slit experiment is the best proof of Many-Worlds. According to many-worlds, the particle goes through one slit in one world, and the other slit in another world. According to the mathematics, the two universes will interact and produce an interference pattern which is exactly what we observe. Hence, the double-slit experment proves the existence of many worlds.
Isn't that explaining one unknown proposition by another and vice versa? Only I am allowed to do that (being the Creator of the universe and all[;)]).
What more evidence do you want that neither the many worlds hypothesis nor the interference paradox is correct?
quote:
ORIGINAL: WhipTheHip
> From this we must conclude that the universe will walk all paths
> to arrive at its destination, but that there is only a single destination -
> and that destination is determined by non-deterministic interference.
No physicist in the world would agree with this statement. If
this were true, you would not get an interference pattern on
the wall between the two-slits. By interferance pattern, I mean
a pattern of light and dark bands.
Yes, I know what an interference pattern is. I discussed the two slits experiment already.
And I am seriously not very interested in the opinion of highly intelligent but not so very bright chimpansees.
quote:
ORIGINAL: WhipTheHip
If your theory was right, we would observe the following on a
screen behind the two-slits: two dark bands directly behind
each slit, and the bands would gradually get lighter and lighter,
further and further away from each slit. But this is not what
we observe.
No, that is perhaps what we see with a single slit. When there are two slits my hypothesis requires interference. (It has been about ten years since I last occupied myself with this stuff, so bear with me.)
quote:
ORIGINAL: WhipTheHip
Even if shoot one photon or particle at a time at the two
slits, we still get an interference pattern.
Yes, I know. (One must have some know-how to demolish the ideas of half a million physicists before breakfast after all, not so?) Earlier, if you recall, I said the same thing myself, limiting myself to one particle only.
quote:
ORIGINAL: WhipTheHip
> Weinberg says about quantum theory:
> "The final approach is to take the Schrodinger equation seriously
> [..description of the measurement process..] In this way, a measurement > causes the history of the universe for practical purposes to diverge into > different non-interfering tracks, one for each possible value of the > measured quantity. [...] I prefer this last approach"
Weinberg believes in Hugh Everett's Many-Worlds. This is what
he is saying here. And even though the universes don't interfere
with each other, they do in the double-slit experiment. If you
knew the many-worlds theory, you would understand why.
I can't teach you the whole theory here.
Please! Not the many worlds hypothesis again! It is a boring hypothesis with trees in a forest that does not exist. And no: I am not going to look at those trees.
Cheers,
Rule the Creator. [8D] [;)]
|
|
|
|
