new development in quantum mechanics

[goldisheavy]

http://www.economist.com/science/PrinterFr...ory_id=13226725

 

I thought you might enjoy this story.

[DaoChild]

Very interesting stuff, for sure!

 

I think in the years to come we'll see a fascinating new synthesis -- the line where mysticism and science cross. After all, if you are a scientist and don't constantly question the current dominant theories of the world - how can you continue to grow, learn and experiment?

 

The world is an amazing place.

[JeroenK]

In the same line, anyone here read "Dynamic Tao and its Manifestations"? It explains the Dao De Jing in a scientific framework and uses quantum mechanics to do so. I'm still in the process of reading it, but find it fascinating so far. The two go very well together.

[Guest paul walter]

[.Stunning validation of what is the principle of 'enlightenment'-emptiness and impartiality giving us a whole new status that could never be comprehended through trying and searching.

[Sunya]

i have a friend thats a dogmatic materialist that clings to science like baptists cling to the "true word of God" (but he claims to be an athiest agnostic, whatever that means) and i've had discussions with him about the parallels between mysticism and quantum theory, he says that any parallel is "mere coincidence" because science is the only true investigation of reality. Thought, and especially direct empirical experience (it's just chemicals in the brain, duh) are not good methods of investigation. it's all myth, he says. and philosophy is in the same category. myth myth myth. go science! hail science! lol, it's funny how many pseudo intellectuals think that they achieved something 'great' and 'superior' by letting go of religion and embracing reason and rationality, but they unfortunately throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

a quote from Einstein on this matter --

 

 

"The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who--in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses'-- cannot hear the music of the spheres."

Edited March 6, 2009 by mikaelz

[voidisyinyang]

http://www.dynamictao.com/science_dynamictao.html

 

this seems silly in my view -- still it's creative.

[voidisyinyang]

Probably the most important insight of the Black Hole War (Susskind versus Hawking) is the basic, yet totally ignored, fact that when particles become smaller than the Planck length, gravity takes over as the strongest force. Normally in subatomic matter gravity is non-existent -- but as I stated, because of the infrared-ultraviolet condition:

 

"In part, it was the lack of understanding of the Infrared-Ultraviolet connection that misled physicist about the nature of information falling on a horizon. In chapter 15, we imagined using a Heisenberg's microscope to watch an atom falling toward a black hole. As time progresses and the atom gets closer and closer to the [black hole] horizon, it requires increasingly high-energy photons to resolve the atom. Eventually, the energy will become so great that the collision of the photon and the atom will create a large black hole. Then the image will have to be assembled out of the long-wavelength Hawking radiation. The result is that instead of becoming sharper, the image of the atom will get increasingly blurred to the point that the atom will appear to spread out over the whole horizon."

 

What this means is that there is a SIZE inversion (or again mass inversion) of black holes on the macrocosmic and microcosmic level. Supermassive black holes ARE quantum black holes -- because of the gravity inversion and even more so the universe is a huge black hole.

 

Susskind states that not only is the universe accelerating in expansion but that it's accelerating EXPONENTIALLY. Lawrence Krauss made a similar announcement just a few days ago -- the Cosmic Rip.

 

The assumption all along is that information is defined by space that is logically "falsifiable" through visual measurement -- space as time.

 

The Complementary Principle in science keeps getting expanded -- first with wave-particle duality and then with quantum measurement uncertainty of momentum and position and now with space itself.

[Owledge]

@mikaelz

The dissent comes from different ways of interpreting science. You could for example say that spirituality itself doesn't lead to knowledge, but only when you add scientific method to it.

Arguing about mere words ... it happens so often.

 

"Does reality exist when no-one looks?" - Another question that begins to appear silly when you thoroughly analyze it.

 

Concerning quantum physics ... I see a lot of mysticism in it. Scientists there deal with a matter that is too huge for their inadequate minds and thus come up with phantastical ideas about it. That's the religious part.

 

Do not only know that you do not know but also do not mind!

Edited March 6, 2009 by Hardyg

[forestofsouls]

I think quantum physics is poorly understood which makes it easy to use it as a dumping ground for mystical justifications. From my understanding, the observer principle is not that consciousness creates things, but that by observing something, you will to use an instrument, and the use of that instrument disturbs the measurement. But "what the bleep" picks up on that and says it means our thoughts create reality. Not really the same thing.

[Creation]

Thank you sharing this, goldisheavy. Interactionless measurement is quite possibly the most important discovery on the experimental side of the foundations of quantum physics for a long time (see below). That article was very vague and dumbed down (thought for good reason, of course), so I'm going to do more research on Hardy's paradox. But that will have to wait until I have slept.

 

I think quantum physics is poorly understood which makes it easy to use it as a dumping ground for mystical justifications. From my understanding, the observer principle is not that consciousness creates things, but that by observing something, you will to use an instrument, and the use of that instrument disturbs the measurement. But "what the bleep" picks up on that and says it means our thoughts create reality. Not really the same thing.

Bingo. In quantum mechanics the observer "collapsing the wavefunction" is a random event (the theory only gives odds for the outcome); that's the whole trouble with quantum mechanics. This does not lend itself to the sentiment that consciousness creates reality. Getting that from physics will have to wait for a physical theory of consciousness. Good luck with that . But as for getting a better understanding of quantum mechainics itself, I think interactionless measurement will help because when you look at the Bohr-Einstein debates, there is this huge tension that keeps coming up because Einstein wants to talk about physical reality, but Bohr denies him this on the basis of the uncertainty principle and they just talk past each other. This could really frame those debates in a new light, and I think that Einstein, who history chides as being on the wrong side of the issue, could be largely vindicated.

 

Another reason I think this is important was stated by a leading expert in the field, Sir Anthony Leggett: "It's important to probe quantum mechanics on various frontiers, and one frontier not probed enough is in the direction towards the real world."

[joeblast]

Probably the most important insight of the Black Hole War (Susskind versus Hawking) is the basic, yet totally ignored, fact that when particles become smaller than the Planck length, gravity takes over as the strongest force. Normally in subatomic matter gravity is non-existent -- but as I stated, because of the infrared-ultraviolet condition:

 

"In part, it was the lack of understanding of the Infrared-Ultraviolet connection that misled physicist about the nature of information falling on a horizon. In chapter 15, we imagined using a Heisenberg's microscope to watch an atom falling toward a black hole. As time progresses and the atom gets closer and closer to the [black hole] horizon, it requires increasingly high-energy photons to resolve the atom. Eventually, the energy will become so great that the collision of the photon and the atom will create a large black hole. Then the image will have to be assembled out of the long-wavelength Hawking radiation. The result is that instead of becoming sharper, the image of the atom will get increasingly blurred to the point that the atom will appear to spread out over the whole horizon."

 

What this means is that there is a SIZE inversion (or again mass inversion) of black holes on the macrocosmic and microcosmic level. Supermassive black holes ARE quantum black holes -- because of the gravity inversion and even more so the universe is a huge black hole.

 

Susskind states that not only is the universe accelerating in expansion but that it's accelerating EXPONENTIALLY. Lawrence Krauss made a similar announcement just a few days ago -- the Cosmic Rip.

 

The assumption all along is that information is defined by space that is logically "falsifiable" through visual measurement -- space as time.

 

The Complementary Principle in science keeps getting expanded -- first with wave-particle duality and then with quantum measurement uncertainty of momentum and position and now with space itself.

Drew, you start out talking about sub-planck length objects, but then talk about a size inversion - question - from what I've read, sub planck length has no basis in physical reality, its just the smallest granular size. How would a 'particle' become smaller than the planck length? Are we kinda talking decreasing arbitrarily small vibrations? My understanding of the matter is that when things get that small, the planck length becomes a '1' and you cant get any smaller, much in the same way a pure square wave will only have a value of (+/-)1. (Not sure how much of an extent you are including things like principles from string theory, which includes the bounce you're referring to where the physics of x/1 in one set of equations is physically identical to 1/x in another (dual) set.)

 

Creation, good luck getting a technical understanding of Hardy's paradox...I just read a pdf on it If I hadnt already have read other things on it I wouldnt have been able to completely follow the technical pdf!

[Creation]

Creation, good luck getting a technical understanding of Hardy's paradox...I just read a pdf on it If I hadnt already have read other things on it I wouldnt have been able to completely follow the technical pdf!

Could you please post the link to the pdf?

[joeblast]

Well that would have helped now wouldnt it?

 

Here's the link I was reading before!

[voidisyinyang]

Joeblast -- yes indeed what you see is spot on. I was reading the reviews of the Black Hole War yesterday at the library -- most are just quick summaries, but George Johnson's NY Times review mentions how the sub-planck length translates into an expansion of black holes as pure information. Something how 1 bit of information is one square planck length or around there. Anyway my point still stands that the fundamental problem with science is defining information or consciousness as something contained by space.

 

more details at my blog:

 

http://mothershiplanding.blogspot.com/2009...-mother-of.html

 

Drew, you start out talking about sub-planck length objects, but then talk about a size inversion - question - from what I've read, sub planck length has no basis in physical reality, its just the smallest granular size. How would a 'particle' become smaller than the planck length? Are we kinda talking decreasing arbitrarily small vibrations? My understanding of the matter is that when things get that small, the planck length becomes a '1' and you cant get any smaller, much in the same way a pure square wave will only have a value of (+/-)1. (Not sure how much of an extent you are including things like principles from string theory, which includes the bounce you're referring to where the physics of x/1 in one set of equations is physically identical to 1/x in another (dual) set.)

 

Creation, good luck getting a technical understanding of Hardy's paradox...I just read a pdf on it If I hadnt already have read other things on it I wouldnt have been able to completely follow the technical pdf!

Edited March 7, 2009 by drew hempel

[joeblast]

Will need some time to ponder, integrate, formulate

[Unconditioned]

In the same line, anyone here read "Dynamic Tao and its Manifestations"? It explains the Dao De Jing in a scientific framework and uses quantum mechanics to do so. I'm still in the process of reading it, but find it fascinating so far. The two go very well together.

 

I haven't read that one but "The Tao of Physics" is a similar book.. it compares quantum mechanics and particle theory to Buddhism, Taoism, and Hinduism. Some of the connections are very very closely related.

[JeroenK]

I haven't read that one but "The Tao of Physics" is a similar book.. it compares quantum mechanics and particle theory to Buddhism, Taoism, and Hinduism. Some of the connections are very very closely related.

 

More books to read I guess

 

I've finished Dynamic Tao. Although the book in itself is fascinating the author gives a new twist to the Dao De Jing that I'm personally not too sure off. Aside of that, the style of translating the DDJ is something that defenitally does not fit me. I assume that has to do with him being a scientists, and me being the total opposite. Brain just works differently. Its hard for me to do anything with the way he translated Laotzu's work.