In General
The only understanding of it yo can have from a laymen's point of view is that it is a search for symmetry.
Say a ball flies out of a hole with a certain spin and angle but you don't know what's inside the ball thrower because you just see a hole the ball flies out of. You have to come up with a description of the internals of the machine. Unfortunately there are a variety of descriptions that will work so how do you pick the right one?
You listen to the way the machine makes noises. You count how fast it shakes and when. You look at other things the machine does but it turns out this machine is connected to ten thousand other machines which all do different things.
It's not good enough for your model to describe what this part of this multi-machine does accurately. It also has to "jive" with what all the other components are doing as well. There has to be a symmetry between them because some of the gears that run this machine are running other machines at the same time.
Remember that physics shares a tremendous amount with computer modeling and therefore video games.When you want to make a ball bounce in a game you need to assign weight and momentum and flexibility and the effects of gravity and many more things to every point on that ball. If you want it to spin just a little there are complex matrix transformations that touch every one of these variables simultaneously. ...that's just a ball bouncing.
Take this idea and expand it a great deal and you begin to see that what is being attempted is to take an absurd amount of complex variables of one thing and then compare it to all the astronomical number of variables of another thing and then attempt to determine what they share in common. Try to find the the symmetry.
Supercolliders basically allow us to use dynamite on the big machine and then watch how the parts fly apart. This gives some indication of their starting positions at the time.
Creation time: Apr 28, 2013 09:51 AM PDT
For the same reason that after 20 years and hundreds of millions spent on LIGO, not one single gravitational wave has been detected.
For the same reason that after looking into the stars we detected that a cherished theory, GR, was horribly wrong about it's predictions so we surmised there must be some invisible undetectable fairy dust that makes it accurate: Dark Matter
The problem is superstition has wormed into physics. They now believe in magic and give it a new name like "collapsing the wave function". Just like morons of old came up with nonsense explanations when they couldn't understand the phenomena, it doesn't mean nothing happened. It doesn't mean there is no data to support their superstition, it simply means they cannot separate data from interpretation.
As soon as we buy into nonsense that has no mechanism, there is no magic or insanity that isn't plausible because the chain of cause and effect is brought into question and all logic breaks down. It is a shared, and infectious mental instability.
‘Students are told that the theory must be accepted although they cannot expect to understand it. They are encouraged right at the beginning of their careers to forsake science in favor of dogma.’ -Louis Essen When speaking about Special Relativity (inventor of the atomic clock and the man responsible for our current most precise measurement of light)
Creation time: Jul 16, 2013 08:31 PM PDT
1) First and foremost: Social mechanics. Many theoretical physicists have been teaching Copenhagen or Many Worlds for years and written books on it and made their entire career on a construct that needs to be thrown in the trash and forgotten.
Their life's work needs to be thrown in the trash and forgotten. Let that weight settle on you for a moment... Feel it from their side.
2) Secondly, the "pilot wave" portion was not very well understood/conceptualized or fleshed at the time it was proposed. They often thought of it as "non-local" or part of some waves pre-existing in the universe. It seemed weirdly ad hoc in this pseudo-half-conception. It was really poorly understood primarily because chaos theory and complex cascading effects like that were not widely known enough during the time for people to really understand the theory.
Now that we have a nice visual model from Couder, it's so much easier to see and understand it, but they simply didn't have it at the time they were considering the explanations. We have a hugely unfair advantage now with those experiments.
3) Indeterminacy was poorly understood at the time. The very concept of "random" was not well understood until long after programmers started attempting to generate something we could call "random". Only upon really tackling this problem do you begin to understand that there is no such thing. The concept and inner workings of a pseudo-random number generator shed much more light to a broader crowd of a probabilistic effect.
For instance: With new technology you can much more easily conceive of an experiment using an LED covered billiard ball controlled by a random number generator that shares a seed via RFID upon impact with another ball and then combining their literal spins with the positions of the lights at a given time you can find strange counter-intuitive correlations in the positions of lights that, when over-simplified to top/bottom hemisphere, will demonstrate a hidden variable theory that shows results much like Bell's tests of EPR
4) They were unaware of the additional spin states that we are now aware of which leave large questions about the primary axioms of Bell's Inequality and the tests of the EPR paradox in the way the results are interpreted.
It's like trying to see a rational correlation between lights blinking that are blue and red when you are blue-green color blind and there is actually a green state as well.
5) Determinism is really hard for most people to countenance. Free will is a sacred space for anyone religious and even among scientists today there's nearly 50% theism still present. Religion is a very strong bias for interpretation of data and that's what were talking about. Not the factual data of QM, that's not in question, but instead this is a question of the interpretations of that data.
Schrodinger and Bohm, the fathers of QM, laughed in the face of indeterminacy as a real underlying principle (even while describing it and relying upon it mathematically) but they were ignored for reasons that seem more obvious now than in the past. The internet has opened humanity's eyes in ways we never expected. Magical beliefs are melting away before the might of raw information availability.
Indeterminacy still holds in a sacred space in most theoretical physicist's hearts, though, and it's a belief system that's not going to go down without a fight. There's entire new-age religious views and books based upon the idea as a base-level description of reality. People gobble magical stuff up. (even rational people)
6) Even with the Couder experiments showing a very easy to understand, rational mechanical description for quantum phenomena there are still only a very few people in fluid dynamics who can really map this new idea down to a very fine level onto QM interactions. Just a quick look at Couder's experiments makes you feel like you've got the idea, but when you think it through, you'll realize there's a great deal of details missing in the analogy.
I happen to be one of those extremely few people who can provide the explanation in laymen's terms. While I'll spare you a further lecture here, I will give you a hint: Particles are not what is solid, the quantum vacuum is. Cavitations of this vacuum and the necessary rotations which accompany the waves gives the phenomena of "wave-particle duality". (wave-vortex duality) There's much more to it but I'll leave you with a little wonder for now. ...until it's a stand alone Quora question. (Did you know Maxwell's equations are based upon vortices and fluid dynamics?)
To Summarize:
The end result is that they had some very misleading views of information that got them to believe in a wooish version of reality and it's really hard to admit that. So instead they have to be allowed to slowly bring theories around to what is correct without ever mentioning how ridiculous they look for ever believing the magical explanations in the first place.
IE: When they insist that they never believed it in the first place because it was just a theory they were working with and "that's science", just nod your head and say "Of course, Grampa!"
[1401.4356] Why bouncing droplets are a pretty good model of quantum mechanics
[1305.6822] Violation of Bell's inequality in fluid mechanics
[1301.7351] Why quantum computing is hard
[1301.7540] The irrotational motion of a compressible inviscid fluid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W...
Now see if you can find the D orbital in the model of the hydrogen atom that can be found in this video. (Leave a comment if you find it!):
Creation time: Feb 07, 2015 12:19 AM PST
While I don't know if it was discussed per se, there was no immediate and strong indication of a cap on an object's speed.
On the other hand...
What is well known is that by the time of Maxwell, there were some strong hints of matter being closely related to electromagnetism and electromagnetism was presumed to be dependent upon the luminiferous aether.
What is little known in modern times however, (except by those who are physics history hobbyists like myself) is that early attempts at explaining matter were generally connected to the idea of vortices. Maxwell himself ascribed to an aether vortex model of matter.
If you then look at the problem from a fluid dynamics perspective, the speed of light is a measurement of the elasticity of the medium the wave travels in. If a particle is a miniature vortex of the aether, then there is a maximum speed of rotation related to the speed of light.
If that vortex attempts to travel through the medium, then any speed near or beyond light would tear it apart much like the "helicopter effect". EG: If a helicopter's blades rotate at 50 MPH and the helicopter travels 50 MPH through the air then on one side, the blade is travelling 100 MPH through the air and on the other side it is stationary.
If you're interested in the history behind special relativity, (like the how and why you'd come to all those conclusions from classical aether based physics) then you will love my three entries in the quora blog: Relativity Demystified
In it I provide a contrast between Lorentz Ether Theory (LET) and Special Relativity (SR) that sits at the very razor's edge of when we transitioned from classical physics to modern physics theory.
Learn how and why to make relativity yourself in laymen's terms!
In a world that is quickly slipping into non-physical and pseudo-spiritual explanations of everything, there is one concept from which, not just physics, but all of science flows. It has a rapidly growing antithesis undermining it in universities which is loosely referred to as “post-modernism.”
-
One might think of it as a “no magic” principle.
-
One might call it the principle of reason.
-
It could be called counter-factual definiteness.
-
It’s often referred to as “external reality.”
-
It is the assumption that there is a real world unaffected by human perception.
I prefer to call it “Mechanics.”
Specifically, the idea is that there is no thing which does not have cause and there is no cause which can communicate its effect to a distance without a mediating factor or substance. (IE: No magic)
As you can see if you are knowledgeable in the field, however, even certain interpretations in modern physics have been attempting to break down this “No Magic” rule of logic and reason and once we do that, the flood gates are open and science will be swept away in a torrent of superstition.
The dam is already springing leaks because the keepers of it not only neglect their task of fixing the constant bombardment of magical thinking, they have actively begun to join in tearing it down.
There are, however, rational interpretations of modern Quantum Mechanics that support determinism and there are recent experiments which have provided new understanding of a mechanical reasoning for previously misunderstood and seemingly nonsensical effects. There are now complete physical theories that explain experimental data while maintaining that reality is still quite real and reasonable without the slightest spooky weirdness or other magical belief.
Unfortunately, these more practical solutions are eschewed for the more mystical interpretations that dominate the old academic orthodoxy. (Copenhagen) The reason is both the well known orthodoxy effect described by Thomas Kuhn, as well as the deep-seated human need to feel their consciousness is somehow special and actually runs the universe around them instead of the other way around.
Here is a good Laymen’s Video on deterministic mechanical explanations returning to physics: (some people have started repairing the dam)
Creation time: Feb 10, 2017 12:29 AM PST
Don’t expect criticism of consensus to survive on a voting-based site.
But, yes both theories, when considered in their totality and not just mathematically, are terribly flawed, self-referential, mutually exclusive, magical thinking.
Mathematically they are flawless. This is because math is flawless when executed according to the rules. The question is whether or not the meaning of the math is correct. That’s an answer math CAN NOT PROVIDE.
Math is meaningless without understanding.
There is a difference between a computer and a human and we call it understanding. A computer is capable of doing flawless math, faster and with more perfection than a human. They store more information and recall it faster and with better accuracy. Therefore knowledge and mathematical ability are not equal to human intellect. There is something superior.
Can a computer tell you if math is correct? At this point the pedants will say yes because they naturally halt their regression in the consideration of a subject prematurely. A computer can tell you if math is consistent with the rules but it cannot tell you if you’ve used the math properly.
A child will set up the math for a word problem and solve that math correctly and then when the teacher tells them they’ve done it wrong, they will run through all the rules of the math without grasping the actual problem. I was this “nerdy” child once arguing with the teacher that my math was right without grasping there was another layer. I was the computer-brained thinker then as a child, but now the memory of that narrow perspective helps me.
The skill to know when math is used properly IS THE ERROR in these theories.
The issue is that people in physics are classically the pedantic type that are unaware of meta-language layers. Godel and Tarski tried to show them and Thomas Kuhn tried to contextualize the larger impact of it. It’s been to no avail and the cycle of revolution begins anew.
I’ve spent well over a decade trying to talk with people to break them out of the lower layer and get them to grasp that the issue is at a different layer and it’s just been a mind-numbing valueless exercise in futility. They were weaned on the idea of “shut-up-and-calculate” in which they shut off the human part of the brain and become computational units alone.
They actually scoff at the very idea of metaphysics and use it as a pejorative when the truth of the matter is it’s the ability to evaluate the usefulness and applications of maths that is being discussed. It is the hard question only a human can answer and a computer-mind can never even grasp.
“The proof is in the pudding, and these theories are totally successful! We have evidence and you have talk!”
I’ve repeated many times that there are indigenous tribes that pray and sing to spirit of a fishing tree as they beat it’s root into the water of little pools. Their system successfully gathers fish because they rise to the surface in response to the procedure. This is a kind of protoscientific belief based on strictly followed procedures and evidence.
A completely wrong conception, when coupled with experimental information, leads to worthless theories that are successful in one thing and useless for extension. (There’s a neurotoxin in the root)
The issue is that our current theories are close, but wrong, and they are about some really difficult and complex subject matter.
“What makes you say they are wrong?”
Magical thinking comes from the belief in non-causal effects. Very specifically, the central tenet that makes up the core of science is causality. This can also be called “mechanics.”
It is the “no magic” tenet of science that got us out of the caves and it is the magical beliefs creeping into science that will put us right back in them. As our core ability to reason is rotted away by post-modernist anti-rationality, we find that magical beliefs in science uphold these mindsets that literally undo a human’s ability to reason. But I digress…
What I mean is that there is now the idea of retrocausality and observer-based effects that real scientists promote because the truth is that the current theories support this madness.
There is a disconnect between maths and meaning. The maths represent something real going on and the interpretations and expectations that come from them are utter garbage. This can lead to not being able to know the difference between an illusion represented mathematically, and a real effect represented mathematically. (enter Einstein)
It all starts with Relativity.
Every irrational concept in theoretical physics starts with special relativity. Einstein took the mechanics of Lorentz which were a description of an illusion and presented that surface illusion as the only reality while stripping away the mechanical underpinning that led to the maths.
He ripped away the mechanics and kept the maths that describe the now missing mechanical underpinning. Lorentz’s description of an illusion became Einstein’s description of reality.
This baseless set of maths is still accepted by those who arbitrarily halt their regression extra-early. These are pedantic computer-minds. These are the minds of purest faith. They require no regression analysis to proceed forward.
If given an unfamiliar and slightly more complex version of the question, “What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object,” they will continue forward from irreconcilable (false) axioms just like a child will when considering this paradox.
When describing the twins paradox, the answer they give is always to solve the problem with inferring a preferred frame. The entire paradox is to demonstrate the requirement of a preferred frame. Therefore they “prove it’s correct” by showing it’s wrong and are never the wiser as they do so. Somehow they overflow their buffer and cannot grasp the loop they are in. Sound familiar? It should since it’s a component of every religious argument.
When it comes down to it, the simple requirement of a preferred frame makes everything about relativity perfectly mechanical and rational. (Lorentz and Poincare’s version) There is no twins paradox to solve.
Einstein eventually grasped this after Mach pointed it out and Einstein eventually called it Aether as well. By the time he did, however, the wondrous nature of an illusion stuck in the minds of those who gravitate to magical thinking and relativity took on a life of its own without Einstein.
“Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity I do not understand it myself any more.” ― Albert Einstein
"According to the general theory of relativity, space without aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense." -Albert Einstein 1920, University of Leiden
“You imagine that I look back on my life’s work with calm satisfaction. But from nearby it looks quite different. There is not a single concept of which I am convinced that it will stand firm, and I feel uncertain whether I am in general on the right track.” — Albert Einstein, on his 70th birthday, in a letter to Maurice Solovine, 28 March 1949 (in B. Hoffman Albert Einstein: Creator and Rebel 1972, p.328)
How it led to irrationality in QM
Without the revolution of relativity, previously no science would accept self-conflicting ideas that had no underpinning of mechanics. That was an anathema to science. It was an affront to the age of reason. It was this “Math as reality” that the computer-minded embrace that allowed the virus of irrational thought to infect the sciences. (though alongside it there were philosophies impinging on science with critiques of “cartesian anxiety”)
Now that we’ve cast off the need for mechanical underpinning in science, one could simply speak of effects without any need to get bogged down in the “metaphysics.” A purist golden age of math began. Non-human thought (math) began to be viewed above human thought. (reasoning)
Everything sits alone in its own relativistic reality with no need to combine and resolve errors between conflicting viewpoints. Everything is correct even when it conflicts, so long as you switch perspective and ignore the previous one. Nothing can conflict if a single perspective is wholly right within itself regardless of other perspectives. (This problem of apparent unity and consistency within a singular system without reference to an outside system is exactly what Godel and Tarski were “on about”)
Now, since according to relativity, there is not one location a photon actually is for all observers, then we can start to deal in infinities and divide by zero errors. When all possible perspectives are considered, a photon is in every possible place and every possible time along the entirety of its path.
Absurdities began to be believed as possible in reality instead of simply mistakes in cognition.
“….we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity.” - On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, Albert Einstein 1905
“So, what are you saying is the source of error in these theories if it’s not the maths?”
1) Specifically the constancy of light speed is irreconcilable with a preferred frame. The illusion of light constancy found in Lorentz’s original work is not. This loss of rationality led to Minkowski space-time and reification of the 4th dimension. This leads to minkowski diagrams incapable of reflecting what is known to occur in Lorentz’s version of relativity.
Time dilation and length contraction also leads to time contraction and length dilation.
Yet, Lorentz’s model, which can represent this truth, is mathematically indistinguishable from Einstein-Minkowski version which cannot represent this truth. No experiment has ever distinguished the two theories because a successful one-way speed of light test has never been successfully performed.
2) Specifically the Copenhagen interpretation of QM which dominates concensus, holds that particles can exist in a state of probability. The reficiation of the human concept of probability has led to “spooky action at a distance” and a host of other magical effects. This is in contrast to revamped versions of the deBroglie double solution to pilot wave interpretation and the new context given by the Couder experiments and fluid mechanics.
Schrodinger, a central father of QM ridiculed copenhagen with the cat thought experiment:
“It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally restricted to the atomic domain becomes transformed into macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation. That prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a "blurred model" for representing reality. In itself, it would not embody anything unclear or contradictory. There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks.”
“Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood a single word.” - Niels Bohr
“It is safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.” - Richard Feynman
“If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics, you do not understand it.”-- John Wheeler
“Quantum mechanics makes absolutely no sense.” - Roger Penrose
"Solipsism may be logically consistent with present quantum mechanics." - Eugene Wigner
Why would anyone care about all this “metaphysics stuff?”
Why would a shaman praying to the fishing tree care that the root is a neurotoxin instead of a tree spirit? He’s still getting use out of it so what does it matter?
Those are the thoughts of the pedants who lack the spark of creativity. It is the spark of non-computer-like intellect that explores a trajectory of the truest version of reality. It’s about extending the uses of things. Is is how invention is done outside of the slowness of evolutionary steps found in trial and error.
Sure the shaman still gets his fish but what about when he wants to hunt elk… will his system still work? Can he still pray to that tree?
If you do not understand reality properly, your extension of models is little more than a random probing of the infinite. Understanding gives a narrower path to follow for the extension of creativity. It gives a proper direction and THAT is why we care about metaphysics and the pursuit of the greatest truth we can find.
Predictive ability is a measure of intellect and it is also a measure of greater truth.
“If he [Thomas Edison] had a needle to find in a haystack, he would not stop to reason where it was most likely to be, but would proceed at once with the feverish diligence of a bee, to examine straw after straw until he found the object of his search. … Just a little theory and calculation would have saved him ninety percent of his labor.” ― Nikola Tesla
If you’d like to understand how and why Lorentz developed the core of relativity, the change factor, these three blog entries should help:
Creation time: Sep 20, 2017 06:03 AM PDT
Aligning ancient religious concepts with modern physics is highly speculative, but also very interesting!
So, allow me to introduce my speculations based on a unique perspective.
First, to directly answer your question in a pedantic manner. Current accepted quantum physics usually refers to the copenhagen interpretation which relies upon a basic idea of pure randomness and probability at the deepest level of reality. This is precisely the opposite of a recording and is therefore wholly incompatible with the concept of an Akashic record.
Particles in free space pop in and out of existence at random, according to dominant interpretations. This, by definition cannot store information.
But, now I’ll answer your wider implied question of how the sciences and the data dealing with the quantum world might be interpreted to align with the idea of the akashic record.
Where does the term “Akashic Record” come from and what is the origin of the concept?
The term and the concept are two different things and the theosophists added some confusion. The term itself came from theosophy and is said to be coined by C. W. Leadbeater's Clairvoyance (1899) who refers to to it by name but is said to have gotten the concept from Alfred Percy Sinnett, who, in his book Esoteric Buddhism (1883), wrote of a Buddhist belief in "a permanency of records in the Akasa" and "the potential capacity of man to read the same."
Buddhists, however, seem to have no concept like this beyond kamma, and to associate the two would be a bit of a stretch.
The true origin of the concept most likely comes from a variety of hindu sources, the first of of which is Chitraguptam.
Chitra guptam mahaa praajnam lekhaneepatra dhaarinam;
Chitra-ratnaambara-dhaararn madhyastham sarvadehinaam.
Chitra guptam - The Chitra Guptas (who are endowed with)
maha praajnam - great intelligence and copious memory, (and who)
lekhaneepatra - with (their) pencil, on leaves
dhaarinam - keep records and preserve the memory (and who)
Chitra-ratnaambara-dhaararn - wearing jewels of precious metals
madhyastham - mediate as umpire (madhyasthaha is an epithet of Lord Shiva also)
sarvadehinaam - between all souls that are embodied.
In this part of tradition we see there is the concept of a record of all human activity.
The second is from the idea of the origin of Shruti, (“that which is heard”) the term used to refer to ancient hindu scriptures usually thought of as cannon, and śruti is also a term meaning the smallest unit of sound a human can detect, specific divisions of an octave, and often refers to the hypotenuse of a triangle.
Combine all these concepts and you have the divine truths and records of all of humanity recorded somewhere and accessible to some of the great rishis. These truths are associated with wave phenomena and geometry and the smallest unit of wave phenomena. (A quantum unit)
The association with modern Quantum Physics begins at this point.
The idea of the atom historically are said to have arisen simultaneously in the east and while the west attributes the concept to Democritus, Kanada seems the more likely origin because of the context and history of hindu thought. Some exchange of ideas is likely the reason for the simultaneous development.
This, however, is the end of its association with modern concensus.
What is little known, however, is that there are fluid dynamics interpretations of quantum mechanics. In these interpretations, particles are epiphenomena of the actions of an all pervasive medium.
Enter superfluid quantum vacuum theory
Under the deBroglie-Bohm interpretation or pilot wave interpretation, a fluid mechanics dominant viewpoint paints a picture of a space that is full of structure which inherently stores information. This information governs quantum outcomes because the motions of this primary substance are the source of said quantum phenomena.
Under information theory, this sort of mixing and interactions within an inviscid fluid media is simultaneously seen as storage and computation.
This is basically aether or akasha, storing the information of material and wave interactions of everything in the universe through the structure of the media itself: space, the quantum vacuum, the aether, the akash.
Thus you have the Akashic record explained through credible but non-consensus quantum mechanics.
This sort of speculation refers to such enormously broad sets of information that I must refer you to a chain of other answers I’ve given which, within those refer to a paper I’ve written on the topic of the interplay of modern physics with spirituality when seen through the lens of the fluid dynamics paradigm shift I like to call the neoclassical revolution in physics.
“Long ago he[man] recognized that all perceptible matter comes from a primary substance, of a tenuity beyond conception and filling all space - the Akasa or luminiferous ether - which is acted upon by the life-giving Prana or creative force, calling into existence, in never ending cycles, all things and phenomena. The primary substance, thrown into infinitesimal whirls of prodigious velocity, becomes gross matter; the force subsiding, the motion ceases and matter disappears, reverting to the primary substance.” - Nikola Tesla
Here is the beginning of the chain:
These quora answers lean toward the technical whereas a video series I’ve started begin from a spiritualist side.
Those can be found on my channel here with various talks etc: SevenSageSecrets
The main video series link, however, is this one: Separation, Spirit, Structure, & Energy: Introducing 3S - YouTube
Creation time: Sep 20, 2017 06:45 PM PDT
Because modern confusion about relativity will cause the discussion to break without a 5th dimension.
…well actually in its current form it will keep breaking in a godelian loop.
Watch this to understand relative simultaneity:
Now let me explain to you the higher dimensional twins paradox.
Remember the alien and the guy on the bench? What determined where they where they were on the loaf? Like if forward time is the X coordinate, how do you establish their relationship and angle to each other on the Y coordinate? What is their initial X placement determined by? (Hint: It’s undefined)
How can we say we are looking into their future if where their timeline’s alignment cannot be established? If I’m simultaneous with their future then another different alien there is simultaneous with mine too. Am I then simultaneous with my own future? (you draw a reflection of the simultaneity cut)
Any subject can be ahead of the other and their initial placement along X is fundamentally relative. This is why you need a 5th dimension to represent every configuration of the 4D “loaf” there’s multiple loafs required to describe relative simultaneity properly.
Let’s go a bit further and talk about reverse time travel.
So, we can travel at an angle through spacetime (that loaf) and we know that I can launch a russian nesting doll type of configuration of ships which can accelerate to nearly light, launch the next ship and so on. The angle through spacetime each of them cuts should eventually point backwards.
If it, instead, is only a portion of the previous angles, how did that initial angle become the dominant one that we make the others take smaller and smaller cuts from?
You don’t get to have it both ways.
Without a universal reference frame we can’t define any starting point for things to be compared.
If two twins are the only objects in the universe and then each insist the other is above them and both will be “right” at the same time. This is like a divide by zero error. It’s nonsense caused by broadening Godel incompleteness and subsequently Tarski’s undefinability to larger sets of logic above mathematics. There is no “above” when above is undefined. I’ve just tricked you into an impossible calculation.
It’s just like asking a child what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object. You’ve tricked them into flailing around in a forward loop that breaks the requirement of appropriate reference.
That’s what happens with modern misconceptions of relativity all the time. It’s just that silly riddle being used on adults.
Let’s say that there’s three things in the universe. Two people an a black hole. Is there any more of a “true” perspective of what is stationary or moving than just two people? Only if we decide the “bigness” of the black hole somehow gives it the special priviledge of being the universal reference for what is stationary.
If we keep it relative, that’s nonsense. One of the two twins could be the reference. Now let’s presume they are super strong and can push off from each other to be able to make their escape speed from each other be near the speed of light.
Let’s also say that just as they do this, the black hole is approaching them from the side and they time it perfectly so that they travel in a straight line through the bent spacetime around the black hole and it passes between them at just the right rate that they come right back together again.
Now they look like they just went away and came back. Who’s the older twin?
…now modern relativity apologists will flail around in a godelian loop until they don’t recognize their explanation establishes a preferred frame. Then their loop arbitrarily halts and they spit out the garbage they just created.
This is like saying “The immovable object definitely wins… it’s immovable!”
So what’s the real answer?
The real answer is the one that Einstein started to understand well before general relativity was published. He liked it best from Mach’s version of a universal frame defined by the average gravitation of the universe, but in the end it’s the requirement of an external reference. It’s plugging the hole and avoiding the Godelian trap.
A universal reference frame is required for relativity to work and establishing that then blows a gigantic hole in most ideas of time travel.
Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. “ - Albert Einstein, University of Leiden, 1920
Any exploration of temporal mechanics will come to this inevitable conclusion and throw all modern ideas (misconceptions) of relativity that are taught in university into complete disarray. (because they forgot history)
[1804.01846] History of the NeoClassical Interpretation of Quantum and Relativistic Physics
Creation time: May 11, 2018 04:38 PM PDT
My work often closely examines the borderline between physics and metaphysics and you’ve picked the perfect subject for the discussion: relativity.
The google definition of metaphysics is:
“based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.” (emphasis mine)
People tend to glaze over that last part especially in theoretical physics. An entire school of thought called “shut up and calculate” grew up around quantum mechanics and I personally blame Dirac for this.
“This result is too beautiful to be false; it is more important to have beauty in one's equations than to have them fit experiment.” - Paul Dirac, The evolution of the Physicist's Picture of Nature Scientific American 208 (5) (1963)
“I learned to distrust all physical concepts as the basis for a theory. Instead one should put one's trust in a mathematical scheme, even if the scheme does not appear at first sight to be connected with physics. One should concentrate on getting interesting mathematics.” - Paul Dirac
“If I were forced to sum up in one sentence what the Copenhagen Interpretation says to me, it would be 'Shut up and calculate!' - David Mermin
It’s only really just recently in the world of computer animation that is it easy to conceive that pure logic can create a purely fictional world. Generations of the past had a worshipful feeling about logic that made them constantly conflate it with truth and intellect.
Only just recently in the world of insufficient AI that people can easily and intuitively understand that perfect calculation, storage and retrieval is not the essential intellect of humans. (Some older dysfunctional people still mistakenly see it as such) Our understanding of Autistic savantism as a disability has contributed but I think the insufficiency of AI up until recently is what really gives us an understanding.
The question of similar disability in mathematically gifted but functional adults (Asperger’s) is an interesting and controversial topic that I think is of great import and influence on this topic, but not necessary for this discussion.
Yes, parts of modern theoretical physics is metaphysics in that it is logical inference too many steps from empirical data.
Specifically the dividing line between Lorentz Ether Theory and Einstein’s Special Relativity, which are mathematically equivalent, is a matter of interpretation and specifically an ontological assertion: That there is no aether and space and time are conjoined.
Lorentz and Poincare provided a theory based upon the evidence that has length contraction, time dilation, and the illusion of light speed constancy which is based upon the Michelson-Morley null interferometer reading but furthermore extends back through work by Larmor, Kelvin, FitzGerald and MacCullagh which are all based in experimental observations of electromagnetic wave behaviors in a medium with particular properties that were causal in those effects.
The removal of the aether is completely unjustified by any experiment whatsoever (no successful one-way speed of light tests) and many experiments could be easily interpreted as proof for it while being listed as proof against. (Sagnac effect being a glaring one)
The relativity of simultaneity is not the same as time dilation and because of this, any evidence of different clock rates are irrelevant to this metaphysical assertion. It it completely unsupported by evidence.
Furthermore, the preference of one interpretation over another is often Metaphysical.
So the preference of Copenhagen interpretation that was dominant for a long time in theoretical physics is utterly metaphysical. The preference growing for pilot-wave however, is based upon the Couder silicon oildrop “walker” experiments that show a real mechanic for quantum effects.
Copenhagen asserts unknowable probabilistic determinants without mechanics but it is in-fact based on evidence so there isn’t a fine defining line because they do not believe there is another level to examine.
Knowing what math to use is metamath and knowing what physics formulas to apply is metaphysics.
Knowing what is physics and what is metaphysics, can be knowledge level based!
At certain point in our past we based theories upon the observable fact that flies spontaneously generated from rotting meat. We could calculate the time required and the ounces of flies produced etc. We could observe and accurately calculate many things about the topic but a lack of knowledge made us believe that we had empirical evidence for what amounts to a magical belief.
The same thing occurs in physics. We can believe there is not another granular layer and therefore believe our assertions are empirical but they are factually magical thinking.
The dividing line is mechanical underpinning… something abandoned this century.
[1804.01846] History of the NeoClassical Interpretation of Quantum and Relativistic Physics
Creation time: May 23, 2018 05:14 PM PDT
Tachyons are a poor example. Dark Matter would have been far better.
People can avoid the crucial aspect of your question because of the lack of consensus around tachyons. Dark matter has long term consensus and is still just as much fairy dust.
A bunch of people just swallowed their tongues in apoplectic, flabbergasted outrage at my claim that dark matter is fairy dust, and that’s why it’s a much better example.
Let’s first point out here that there is zero direct evidence for dark matter. It is only the amount by which GR fails to properly predict observation. Period. It’s a fudge factor we have decided has real existence because… “it must, or GR is wrong.”
Let me make this abundantly clear: I am NOT saying there isn’t an additional amount of rotation in galaxies beyond what GR predicts. I am not saying there is not a need for an additional amount of matter to make GR (and Newtonian models as well) predict what we see.
I am not saying there isn’t some additional something going on which we now label “Dark Matter.” I just refuse to buy into this superstitious and asinine method of accounting for reality by refusing to revisit and correct old theories with new information.
We do this in aging software packages too. We just add yet another kludge fix when we should have re-written. Some things require complete rebuild from first principles and cannot be repaired.
The problem is “what is proof?”
Just like I could propose undetectable “little devils with lassos” that pull objects and give 9.8 m/s/s as their speed of pulling, my “theory” would be predictive and I could say. “Look at the EVIDENCE!!!11”
This illusion of evidence by proxy is a huge issue in modern theoretical science and it’s something Popper was trying to avoid by talking about falsifiability as a requirement for theory.
Dark matter has long been nothing more than fairy dust and little devils with lassos…
Many people have spoken on this answer about the necessity of just taking something for granted and moving forward and I wholeheartedly agree that sometimes we have to just use a best guess and keep exploring. We can’t get stuck in analysis paralysis. We have to use the best we have and try to just fix little issues.
A time comes however, when we have to recognize that our best guess might have led us astray fundamentally and now we need to stop using it as a basis altogether. That’s the hard part.
If you’ve ever tried to champion a redesign of a software package that’s been around a while you’ll know it’s nearly impossible to get people on board with what they see as killing the golden goose.
Unfortunately it’s one hooked to life support on it’s last leg they are praying will lay one more egg if they throw enough at it.
One can literally describe how badly physics is failing (theory versus measurement) at a specific point by the following sentence:
“…according to a different way of estimating it, the predictions of quantum field theory is wrong by a factor of 10^120, which is a factor of a million billion quadrillion quintillion sextillion septillion octillion times.”
While this sounds pretty hilarious, it’s not really a laughing matter because the community keeps playing off issues like this as though they are small though taken together indicate that:
“Scientists have now become a church and I do not regard it as an honor to be part of this or of any church.” - Ernst Mach
Remember, dark matter is NOT non-luminous matter. It’s UNDETECTABLE “matter.” Yet how many times have you been told that the universe is made up of 5% real stuff and 95% dark magics? (with a straight face)
It’s taught like fact and I don’t care how many times they say they “know it’s theory” they still believe it as strongly as religion. They are just covering their bases and it’s typical little conversational tactics to pretend you believe something less than you do. They aren’t fooling anyone with their “well technically” are they? We know when someone believes something down to their bones.
These missteps and absurd beliefs are a necessary part of the development process. You can’t just find what is right without identifying the things quite close to right which are actually wrong.
We need a starting point or literally cannot move forward.
Unfortunately we are humans and scientists, as humans, are subject to social influence to a very large degree because knowledge and truth require experience far beyond a single human’s personal experience. We need social truth systems and they are inherently fallible. (religion was just a beta-test version of science)
If you’d like to know more about the specific events in the history of physics that got us into this mess, read this paper:
History of the NeoClassical Interpretation of Quantum and Relativistic Physics (PDF)
…and perhaps you’ll play a role in how we get out of it.
And finally of course remember this:
Creation time: Feb 16, 2020 07:46 PM PST
In a world that is quickly slipping into non-physical and pseudo-spiritual explanations of everything, there is one concept from which, not just physics, but all of science flows. It has a rapidly growing antithesis undermining it in universities which is loosely referred to as “post-modernism.”
-
One might think of it as a “no magic” principle.
-
One might call it the principle of reason.
-
It could be called counter-factual definiteness.
-
It’s often referred to as “external reality.”
-
It is the assumption that there is a real world unaffected by human perception.
I prefer to call it “Mechanics.”
Specifically, the idea is that there is no thing which does not have cause and there is no cause which can communicate its effect to a distance without a mediating factor or substance. (IE: No magic)
As you can see if you are knowledgeable in the field, however, even certain interpretations in modern physics have been attempting to break down this “No Magic” rule of logic and reason and once we do that, the flood gates are open and science will be swept away in a torrent of superstition.
The dam is already springing leaks because the keepers of it not only neglect their task of fixing the constant bombardment of magical thinking, they have actively begun to join in tearing it down.
There are, however, rational interpretations of modern Quantum Mechanics that support determinism and there are recent experiments which have provided new understanding of a mechanical reasoning for previously misunderstood and seemingly nonsensical effects. There are now complete physical theories that explain experimental data while maintaining that reality is still quite real and reasonable without the slightest spooky weirdness or other magical belief.
Unfortunately, these more practical solutions are eschewed for the more mystical interpretations that dominate the old academic orthodoxy. (Copenhagen) The reason is both the well known orthodoxy effect described by Thomas Kuhn, as well as the deep-seated human need to feel their consciousness is somehow special and actually runs the universe around them instead of the other way around.
Here is a good Laymen’s Video on deterministic mechanical explanations returning to physics: (some people have started repairing the dam)
Creation time: Feb 10, 2017 12:29 AM PSTParallels to Religion
Yes in a very particular way. The only way religion is valid is if it adheres to science.
Science is just a way/process of finding out what reality really is without falling prey to charlatans and human biases and failings. The label science or religion is irrelevant. It just so happens that we've identified and proven a system that seems to predict the world properly and called it "science".
For instance, if the human soul was considered to be simply meta-data (not memories, but ideas and opinions) that could be stored on any information system and then it could be proven that the configuration of meta-data you call a soul can be adequately stored across the network of human minds such that it can be accessed in an adequately similar way to the method of access (cyclical thalamo-cortical loops) found in the human brain and can interact with that system in a way that proves those meta-data connections are intact then BAM, you've scientifically proven life after death and the soul.
That's a religion that could be called scientific and science that could be called religious.
What if we figure out that spacetime or quantum spin foam can also store data and the electromagnetic interactions with various systems of our brain leaves an imprint of the data we think of as a soul.. Then what if that data imprint can go on being processed in a cyclical fashion? Then have we just described a spirit world?
Is believing that consciousness is just a computational process and then believing that the only computational system that can house consciousness is a human brain any less biased, magical and irrational than any other belief system? Computation and data storage and retrieval is happening all around us in a billion billion forms. Mainstream atheists often don't realize what a homocentric magical belief it is to think that only the holy human brain can hold consciousness.
So when it comes down to it... if it has mechanism/cause-and-effect, it's still science even if you use flowery terminology and anthropomorphism. If it doesn't have mechanism then it's irrational and no matter how hard you try to assign math and logic and technical terms to it, it's still magical thinking nonsense (String theory, I'm looking at you)
Creation time: Aug 01, 2013 03:36 PM PDT
If you count quantum physics (not just macro level) there are a number of things that rely upon our knowledge of valence behaviors, electron shell configurations etc.
Once again, however, this is the knowledge itself which was teased out experimentally and not the understanding of the theory itself that provided a basis for future discovery.
For instance, even Schrodinger himself thought it was moronic to conceive of a lower level of reality as pure probability even though he developed the wave function that described that probability we use as a predictive model.
So there are advancements that have grown out of newer scientific knowledge in an evolutionary manner. IE: Trial and error leading to only one step of growth but many steps covered through sheer time and effort.
For instance, Schrodinger simply created a model that describes what we've detected. There is no deeper understanding that has allowed us to skip steps in the development process. But our knowledge (found experimentally) of the shapes of orbitals etc can be used to predict the shapes of chemicals or drugs being developed.
Biological and chemical sciences have developed a great deal (too many to list) directly because of our experiential knowledge of quantum level behaviors. However, purely theoretical constructs have not resulted in large leaps of discovery as they have in the past.
For the macro level, relativity has added quite literally nothing. Even the adjustments to the GPS satellites is so small that the clock drift error (random direction) that is regularly corrected from ground tends to overshadow the adjustment size built in by GR. Some cosmologists and astronomers will argue that GR has added a great deal to our understanding of the universe to which I will counter that I believe it has contributed a great deal of confusion alone because I do not believe the data they generated from a faulty model and they have no experiments to back up most of their claims.
Take "Dark Matter" for instance. We had this model that was supposed to predict the rotations of things in the universe (General Relativity) and so we looked out into the universe to see if it was correct. We found that galaxies rotated far faster than predicted thus experimentally falsifying the theory. Instead of calling it falsified, however, we made up fairy dust we couldn't detect and called it dark matter. Dark matter is literally just the amount GR was incorrect by. We couldn't detect a scrap of it for 70 years but still clung to the failed theory and the fairy dust.
Now, because we have started to understand that there is an interstellar medium and we've started throwing around ideas like the Higgs field, we're hinting around aether in a million little ways and avoiding calling it aether like the plague... It's childish and absurd.
Even the mass-energy equivalence principle was being postulated by neo-classical physics based upon aether even though perhaps not so concisely and elegantly as Einstein. (Poincare and others)
So, in effect, experimental science has yielded the results experiments yield which is an iterative, single-step, trial and error building of knowledge and models. Our theory-crafting in physics has not yielded actionable results. Theory-crafting should point us towards more concise areas of investigation to limit the time required for a trial-and-error approach.
They have not done that...
The reason is magical beliefs. Every irrational idea in physics that is failing can be tracked to two magical root beliefs: indeterminacy and light-speed constancy. It's not that we don't detect phenomena that seem to indicate these behaviors, it's that we believe and say we "understand" them when our understanding lacks any mechanism of cause and effect. There's nothing "under" about our standing.
Creation time: Jul 30, 2014 06:27 PM PDT
Yes,
Wave-particle duality and wavefunction collapse. (and by extension all magical and non-deterministic explanations of quantum physics) Particles don't interfere with themselves, the resulting (and separate) waves do.
Technicals:
http://youtu.be/nmC0ygr08tE?list...
Laymen's terms with dual slit replication starting around 3:20:
If you'd like to know why the magical interpretations of entanglement are crap, the simple explanation is that Bell's math requires that any hidden variable theory produce a linear result which is utter nonsense and only proves that a pseudo-random effect exists.
The instant "action" at a distance is not an action at all but knowledge of a truth which a dumb theory says you shouldn't know... That's not action, that's stupidity.
If you'd like an example of a thought experiment which conforms to all tests of entanglement and is a hidden local variable theory I will provide it below. (the problem is that the notion of "local" is poorly defined)
Make two billiard balls with a surface covered in small LED lights. Both have accelerometers and RFID chips. They also use the C rand() algorithm with their own ID number as the seed. This governs the lighting of the LEDs on the surface. When the balls strike however, they transmit their own and receive the nearby identifier. They restart the rand() with a seed which is the average of the two identifiers.
Because random is not a real thing but a human concept, the rand algorithm is actually pseudo-random and therefore will output precisely the same "random" sequence for a given seed.
Now because the balls impart averages of speed, rotation and also synchronize their random component, this experiment will conform to tests of "entanglement" (non linear results) but it's not clear whether or not this is a hidden "local" variable theory or not.
What is crystal clear is that no magic is required and no action at a distance is mediated without some intervening factor.
"There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks."
—Erwin Schrödinger
Creation time: Aug 26, 2014 07:09 AM PDT
ANY body of information can be believed in a fashion which is “religious.”
We must ask what it is that all religions hold in common since they can be vastly different in so many ways. You’ve already identified some, but what are the others?
Do religious people, or even the group in general, adhere to the supposed axioms and philosophical roots? (Hypocrisy)
What are the cognitive mechanisms surrounding negative “religious behavior?”
What are the behaviors most categorical negative “religious behavior?”
-
Science is based upon questioning, yet revolution is a constantly recurring requirement because of the inflexible beliefs of its proponents and their ostracization/ridicule of that which does not fit orthodoxy: (Hypocrisy: Check!)
“Normal science, the puzzle-solving activity we have just examined, is a highly cumulative enterprise, eminently successful in its aim, the steady extension of the scope and precision of scientific knowledge. In all these respects it fits with great precision the most usual image of scientific work. Yet one standard product of the scientific enterprise is missing. Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.” - Thomas Kuhn -
An unquestioning deference to consensus, orthodoxy and manuscripts held in reverence: Elders hold the keys to truth instead of evidence. The very idea of truth itself is not the convergence of overlapping facts and analogies, but instead simple consensus-rules-all rationale. Even the idea of magic, effect without cause or mechanic, becomes cannon. Black becomes white and vice versa. Special meme’s are used to defend the faith: Requiring a “no-magic” rule of mechanical causation is denigrated as requiring things be “intuitive” and using reasoning is called “cartesian angst.”
See light’s constancy, indeterminism/observation-effects and a host of other non-mechanical beliefs. (Faulty cognition and magical ideation: Check!)
“Science advances one funeral at a time.” - Max Planck -
Religious faith is often a methodology of favoring a hive’s opinion over an individual when it comes to the discovery and organization of what we call truth. This hive behavior lends itself to systems of power and protection of that power which does not favor efficacy but prestige. Ideas begin to mutate further and further from the beginning state, through this incestuous power system. Ridicule of those things which undermine these individuals and the concepts that are part of the religion become the method of maintenance.
For example, look to any self-styled critic who knows nothing other than consensus and attacks any idea outside his preferred group’s “truth” with the cowardly confidence that the hive “has his back.” (Hive behavior: Check!)
“Scientists have now become a church and I do not regard it as an honor to be part of this or of any church.” - Ernst Mach
Science and religion have a great deal in common and the minds who are well-suited to religion are well-suited to science in important ways.
Religious behavior has a good functional reason for existing. In other primates we call it superstition or colloquially the 100th monkey effect. What we should pay closer attention to is that it is the iterative and evolutionary development of knowledge via capture and dissemination.
The engine of cultural development is religious behavior. They are all part of one instinctual set of mechanisms that work at a group level. It is the duty of religion minds to carry out what Kuhn called normal science. It is the duty of great minds to create revolution. To be called mad. To venture great things and fail spectacularly.
It is the creative and artistic mind that adds to the mix the great leaps beyond evolutionary development but those great leaps can never happen without the limiting vector of exploration created by normal science.
The relationship of science and religion is a necessary one with deep roots.
The evolutionary development of knowledge and the revolutionary advance exist in a mutually dependent loop like the chicken and the egg. Kuhn pointed it out but the role of religious thought and behavior is part of a much larger set of systems.
Even in the evolutionary development of species, there is a requirement of a current form and regular revolution in the search for the best model of maintaining existence. Animals are programmed to die because it is the revolutionary component of a new birth and removal of the old model taking up resource space that allows evolution to progress. The timing of the death is only nature’s “best guess” about the change speed of the environmental niche and an attempt to match it.
Creation time: Dec 27, 2017 01:32 AM PST
String Theory
The best way to understand dimensions is to start with smaller dimensions than three and work up very slowly so that the analogy is clear. An overage of detail is needed to eliminate confusion. Patience will pay off. Furthermore I hope to point out that a spatial version of Tarski’s undefinability exists in consideration of dimensions without any reference to formal set theory.
1) Creating a space to hold things and defining the relationships.
A zero dimensional object is called a point but a single dimensional “array” used to store it can have infinite points. The array is the actual "dimension" which contains the point objects. (an array in programming looks like this: arrayname[#]) Given that a point has no dimension and is not measurable, it is a bit misleading to insist that a collection of dimensionless points is somehow measurable. In fact, the relationship of the points to each other is utterly undefined until another dimension is defined. An infinite number of them could all be in the same place or they could be randomly arranged in some higher dimensional space. The point is that the dimension or array is a "space" which is kind of like an infinite set of containers. If a higher dimension does not exist, however, our concept of arrangement between them is something we add via imagination because of our concept of a linear arrangement of a number line that we label those boxes with, but that relationship cannot exist in a 1D reality. In a 1D reality there is no spacial relationship between points. Just like higher dimensions, our pre-conceived notions accidentally add things to lower dimensions as well. There’s no collision or direction because there’s no way to define a direction without something for the “line” to traverse. Therefore the following is visualization is misleading without higher dimensions. What it does convey is that we use sets of containers called arrays to store and label things like bits of empty space of whatever size we decide to use for a unit size.
Once the higher dimension is defined, however, (two dimensions) then the relationship of the points (places or bits of space) in that higher dimensional structure is also somewhat automatically defined by cartesian coordinate systems. Suddenly, because there is an external reference, measurability becomes more meaningful. If they were labelled in numerical order then they now exist in a line. There are also now unlimited number of possible locations along a line that a point can exist and the relationship between the points in this higher dimensional reality is numerically labelled in a two dimensional array. (arrayname[x][y]) This is to say that what we think of as lines, can now actually exist since there is some higher dimensional reference. Our labeled boxes for holding points may be labeled along x because that’s what we do for cartesian coordinates, but a general line can go across both x and y axis. The habit of cartesian coordinate systems adds something that isn’t really there for a 1D reality. Without that y axis, the “line”(or collection of bits of space) could be thought of as piled up in one place or tied in a knot and there’d be no way to differentiate because the relationship is undefined. It would all be imagination without that higher dimensional reality to contain and define it.
This means that going from one dimension to two defines a real structure which, filled or not, has unlimited "slots" for the lower dimension. To restate it, while unlimited number of points could have existed in the single dimensional structure before the extra dimension was added to view it from, no relationship between them could be clearly defined. IE The relationships of a dimensional structure we use to keep up with things, cannot have real relationships unless there is a (somewhat hidden or intimated) higher dimensional reality to view it from. We should think of the one dimensional array as the "space" of one dimension and while we might think of it as an infinite line, that straight structure called a line cannot exist without the next dimension. It is arbitrary that we would usually stuff the previous single dimension into the two-dimensional array at the bottom and lay in out orthogonal to the y axis. (arrayname[x] gets put into arrayname[x][0])
Consequently, once a second dimension is added, the "space" of two dimensions now exists whether or not you fill it with lower dimensional objects such as points. Or same-dimensional (2-dimensional) objects such as lines. (unlimited x and unlimited y) This additional dimension now allows us the very first "shape", a line, but it also simultaneously allows numerous lines to exist upon different axes.
A crucial digression on the borderline between dimensions: Above it looks as though I’ve called a line a 2-dimensional object by mistake. A line is conventionally considered a 1-dimensional object. I find this convention to be misleading because points are called zero dimensional. This is a little like timekeeping in that the spaces between divisions can cause a little oddness. So long as one has lives 10 years and 2 seconds that lifetime can span 3 different decades.
Within the conventional terminology, there is the acknowledgement that an arrangement of 0 dimensional objects is 1 dimensional but involves two dimensions. (0th and 1st)
When I called a line 2-dimensional, it was not my intent to confuse, but to bring to mind the reliance upon the second dimension for a line to be in any way line-like. It is crucial to understand this borderline between dimensions and keep it in mind when attempting to grasp the real meaning of dimensions.
Recapping: In the case of going from one dimension to two, simply adding one additional dimension not only defined relationships between 0th dimensional objects like points but also allowed for relationships between conventional two dimensional objects like triangles and one dimensional arrays (lines) can now be curved and have an additional relationship to themselves. We gained not only lines but other shapes such as triangles etc. This idea of additional new relationships between different parts of a line is an important concept moving forward.
Let’s simplify for a moment and just consider dimensions without all the requirements and dependencies and in-between things.
If we intend to extend from dimension to dimension in a way that makes sense, then we can use our first concept of the first dimensional space as an infinite number of points leading to an infinite length straight line as one dimensional space to see that an infinite stack of these lines creates the second dimensional space.
EG: Think of making a line along the very bottom of a page from tiny points and knowing you can do this forever on a page that has no side edge. Now think of making the next line on top of this one and the next on top of that etc. You know you can keep doing this forever and you have now described an infinite plane or two dimensions. (bear with me, while obvious, you'll want to hold this idea in your head for going from the third dimension to the fourth)
This infinite stack which is called two dimensions can now also be stacked. Though two-dimensional space is an infinite plane, sometimes it's easier to conceive of as a sheet of paper. With this concept it becomes easy to think of a stack of paper that can be infinite.
We now have infinite points stacked into an infinite line for the first dimension, infinite lines stacked into an infinite sheet for the second dimension, infinite sheets stacked into an infinite cube for the third dimension. (and you're seeing where this is going)
What we must now realize is, that upon adding a second dimension, it became easier of us to think of a whole universe that is 2-dimensional. An infinite plane is a two dimensional universe and the infinite cube is a 3-dimensional universe.
Just like when we added the second dimension we created a new form of relationship between one-dimensional objects, upon adding a third dimension we have created a new form of relationships between two dimensional objects. Previously with only one dimension we had only one line constrained to be in a stack but then with the second dimension there could be multiple lines with multiple relationships.
When there were only two dimensions there was only a single sheet constrained to be in a plane. Upon adding a third dimension multiple sheets could exist with not only relationships to each other but with relationships to themselves. IE A sheet not only has a rotational orientation but it can now be curved back upon itself.
If we now add a fourth dimension we have created a space with room for infinite three dimensional universes. Consequently we have now also created new relationships between these three dimensional universes such that they can have an orientation and additional relationship to each other. They can now be curved back upon themselves.
This idea of creating an infinite set of sets (adding another dimension) continuously allows new types of relationships to appear (or be defined) with each additional dimension added. An additional dimension allows a set to be bent back upon itself.
Simplifying the 4th dimension.
Given that time is conjoined with space in special relativity, there are some strange conventions that have to be employed to represent rearrangements of the 4th dimension, so lets just start with collapsing spatial dimensions.
We can think of a 2D plane at a sheet of paper with it’s various points and shapes being swept down to the bottom of the page and squashed flat along the bottom line and we’ve compressed 2D into 1D. We can think of doing this for a whole stack of papers and we’ve compressed 3D into 2D.
Now it is crucial to note that when we think of a 3D universe we are thinking of a single moment in time and therefore the universe we think of is already 4D. A 3D array can only hold the information for one single moment of time and would require a 4th dimension to store all the copies of the universe that exist moment after moment.
So, now with our 3D universe compressed to a sheet, we can stack these sheets together to represent a 4D universe. Just like a sheet shape within a 3D plane is not constrained to one axis, we can now define a moment as a slice through that 4D (multiple compressed 3D) universe.
So far this is all pretty easy until we add relativity.
Now, however, upon adding relativity there is a requirement of a 5th dimension.
This is not apparent in the video above, but before relativity the universe was already 4D. A single moment was 3D and there were multiple moments. Upon adding relativity, however, a single moment is fundamentally 4D. One cannot speak about space without mentioning time. Location is dependent upon time.
What this means for the discussion in the video above is that the “loaf” of spacetime they show is only one possible configuration of all the moments. Modern interpretations of relativity state that there is no preferred frame of reference therefore entirely different versions of that loaf are equally valid as the one presented.
When we consider the alien on the bike and the man on the park bench we think of them as definitely directly across spacetime from each other. This relationship, however, cannot be established since another frame’s idea of simultaneous would place them at an angle to one another across the loaf in one direction while another would place them at the opposite angle.
That is to say, there are multiple valid arrangements of the loaf such that if we consider forward time to be x, in one case the alien starts out in front of the man on the bench (further along x) and in another valid arrangement, the man on the bench is in front.
So if we try to think of being simultaneous with another location’s future, how do we determine where the starting point to move forward from is? The relationship is undefined. If there is no singular true and valid arrangement we are actually slicing from then another dimension is required to store all the various but valid alternative configurations of our 4D loaf of the universe.
To cut across a 4D universe a 5th dimension must be added just like to have a line, a second dimension must be added.
Godel and mutual dependencies.
This problem above is an expression of Godel incompleteness and Tarski’s undefinability in yet another form. There are many structures such as lines that we do not think of as actually a comparison or interaction between things and we therefore lose sight of the need for another “thing” to compare or interact with.
Imagine if there was nothing in the universe but two people. Each can say of the other “you are above me” and they might both be considered correct or incorrect because the answer is undefined without an external reference.
What we think of as a river cannot exist if we remove the water. That’s just a dry depression. It cannot exist as water alone. That could be a cloud or an ocean. It is only by the interaction of the water and the depression that a river arises.
There are many instances in which we metaphorically attempt to keep the concept of a river while removing one of the components it is made of. This leads to various problems in logic and attempts to make judgement about things which are undefined.
Creation time: Jan 07, 2015 08:03 PM PST
"Metaphysical" means "about physics" not specifically "magically spiritualicious".
We've been taught that the word metaphysical is a pejorative and then anyone who questions the over-arching rationale of a theory can be accused of being metaphysical.
This word game has become a word trap. They are technically correct in that the person is discussing the interpretation of data and how it all fits together is discussing metaphysics, but they also get to invoke the new common association that has been linked to it which is "magical thinking". Hopefully you can see how this is terrible tool that enforces dogma.
So with this in mind you have to first understand that there is a difference between theories and their interpretations. Then there is opinion-based assessment of those interpretations. Then, especially with string theory, there are applications.
What I mean by this is that string theory could be seen as a fairly open ended mathematical method of dealing with various phenomena like knot theory and fluid dynamics. Personally I think the merging of these particular disciplines might eventually produce something of merit but I digress.
The point is that a theory can be seen as differing components or the components plus the way they are connected and a particular interpretation of that configuration or some combination of these factors. This leaves too much room for semantics and is the source of a lot of misunderstand so it is always a good idea to start breaking a disagreement down into components to see if you're even talking about the same thing before beginning an argument.
Separating Interpretation from "Theory"
On the topic of specifically interpretations, the best example is Quantum Mechanics which has a few well defined interpretations of the phenomena. Bear in mind that discussion of the merit of one interpretation over the other is a metaphysical discussion that could stay utterly within the working physical evidence and need not touch upon any philosophical aspect though often will. For many years the most dominant interpretation of QM has been the Copenhagen interpretation, but other popular interpretations include "Many worlds" and "Pilot wave".
My personal opinion of each is that "Copenhagen" is dumb magical thinking that will destroy physics, "Many worlds" should fall to Occam's razor because it is ad hoc and will never be provable. My opinion of "Pilot wave" is that it was poorly understood at the time and now, with the silicon oil-drop macro experiments, actually provides a real mechanism and understanding that should immediately be accepted over the others as being the only rational and viable alternative.
[1401.4356] Why bouncing droplets are a pretty good model of quantum mechanics
So the point to take from all of this is that a formal mathematical system can accurately predict phenomena but there is a vast swath of ideas that can ride on top of that raw mechanism and provide wildly different views of the universe from the very same data.
So is string theory magical nonsense? Yes and no; you're asking the question too broadly. Does it have abilities to represent certain aspects of reality? Yes. Can stick figures represent reality and leave vast swaths of truth un-touched? Yes! Many theories are like this. Look at the following video and imagine a Troll, or a Lion-man dancing. Those things would work on that framework but none of them will match the actual actor and clothing that was actually filmed for this video:
So the point is that there is both a centralized accuracy and tons of room left for interpretation and often people will accidentally assume they have the whole scene when all they have is stick figures and they don't really realize they filled in the holes with imagination. Right now you're certain that was a human that was captured but perhaps it was only a simulation and there never was a human.
String theory has a great deal of breadth in its application and to extend the analogy above this means that you can begin to describe the whole world of lion people using the theory.
Math, Metaphors and Commutation of Theories.
The mathematically minded are often not very good with metaphors and so they frequently do not see a commonality of base truths in various sets of information. There is a problem of baby and bathwater in various viewpoints and it's difficult to get some people to realize that it's the same baby with different bathwater.
The very best example of commutation of theories is to understand that particle physics can be utterly converted from a discrete treatment of phenomena to a completely continuous one. This is a very little understood truth because it is difficult. There is already an example of it however.
Phonons (not photons) are a quantized treatment of mechanical waves in solids. We know there are no particular particles of mechanical energy actually present, and we do not believe mechanical waves have a wave-particle duality, yet we can use a formal system of mathematics in a very useful way when dealing with certain phenomena such as lasers. Phonons behave according to quantum mechanics but are not actually particles.
This also therefore means that if we discovered that wave-particle duality was a complete farce and there was a medium in which waves propagated, quantum mathematics would still work with the exact same power it does right now. Our discrete system could simply be an overlay of continuous phenomena. (There are no gallons in a pool either)
The same is true of other theories as well. An enormous or even revolutionary shift in interpretation could occur while retaining the larger part of the math unaltered. But just as we assume "wave-particle duality" is inseparable from QM, it is often difficult to understand where raw data ends and interpretation begins.
Why does any of that matter? Shouldn't we just "shut up and calculate"?
This is the heart of the matter and why the term "metaphysics" is used with derision. There is some truth to the idea that differing interpretations are irrelevant because they are equally valid on some scale but there is a crucial difference.
There was a tribe of indigenous people who would beat a root into water to cause fish to rise to the surface for them to eat. Their interpretation of the experimental results was that the prayer to the spirit of the tree resulted in it harvesting fish for them. Our interpretation of the results was that there is a neurotoxin that only harms fish in the root.
In both cases, the interpretation gives reliable results and is therefore valid at that level. Somehow, however, you can sense they are not actually equal even though I've just provided justification that they are equal.
The difference is prediction. The difference is the application of analogy and metaphor. Our interpretation allows us to use this information for other applications whereas the native interpretation only works for this specific application.
One is a truer understanding than the other. We intuitively know that understanding is an accurate set of connections of data that will allow us to use analogy to discover new phenomena from our interpretation.
When people denigrate "metaphysics" it's because they lack a spark of creativity and are very poor at metaphor. They only see the value of reliable knowledge and they cannot see the value of understanding; connection. (the meta) They cannot understand that the proper connection of knowledge acts as a guide, through analogy, to discovery. It is a breadth search that narrows a field of inquiry from an infinite trial-and-error to a guided subset to test.
"Shut up and calculate" is for calculator intellect. Humans are not meant for memorization, regurgitation and calculation. Metaphysics is for human level intellect which is greater than machine level intellect.
Creation time: Jan 09, 2015 05:51 PM PST
Let me show you a proof of extra dimensions:
When the dots are mixed in they exist “in another dimension.” That is to say that if we want to deal with the fact that the dots still exist in a reality-perspective that is equally mixed, then we need a multi-dimensional mathematical treatment to hold and represent the quantities and relationships.
What I’m showing you here is the idea that additional dimensions don’t have to actually be a change to reality, they can simply be a useful reparsing of 3D reality.
It wasn’t until Minkowski’s convention conjoined space and time that we ever decided that multi-dimensional views of reality might mean that the reality we are in is some partial smaller walled-off portion of a larger reality we don’t necessarily have access to.
This idea of multidimensionality is deceptively similar but not the same. The one I showed you above takes our reality and repartitions it. The multi-dimensionality we now entertain is more that our 3 dimensional existence is one smaller subset or repartition of the truer, and more real, larger reality.
I personally think it’s unnecessary garbage/confusion and I’ve tracked down the exact points at which we added this to our collective worldview, but that’s a different discussion.
So, how would we prove it?
Probably through some mechanism like entanglement combined with a third “thing.” Some might argue entanglement by itself is sufficient. Others would say that light’s ability to shortcut through time and be infinite in its own frame is a proof of the 4th dimension.
I’d have to see entanglement used to do something more real and useful in a “shortcutting our reality” sort of way to feel that it’s anywhere close to evidence of additional dimensions in the “we are the smaller thing” way.
If you’re talking about a re-parsing of our current reality such that things are smeared and “superposed” (and 3D reality is equal or larger) sure I’m on board with alternative realities coexisting with our own if you can bring me some proof.
In my opinion, we abandoned parsimony in the name of parsimony when we traded the aether for infinite additional 3D existences within every moment (adding a 4th dimension) and it’s just a fact of history that we did so without any experimental reason to do so. (One-way speed of light - Wikipedia)
That’s the issue, we need voluminous proof. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We just don’t have it. What we have is lots of equivalent explanations that are far more rational, reasonable, workable, mechanical and non-magical.
I believe in parsimony. Now how do I get people to see that, long ago, we abandoned it and once we left its grounding force we’ve been spiraling farther away from it decade by decade?
Creation time: Aug 24, 2018 04:36 PM PDT