Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
"There once was a lady from Wight
Who travelled much faster than light
She left one day, in a peculiar way
And returned on the previous night."
__________________ We are surrounded by endless forms, most beautiful and most wonderful, and it is noaccident, but the direct consequence of evolution by non-random natural selection - the only game in town, the greatest show on Earth. ~R.D.
And yet that seems to me exactly what you're doing - claiming that time-travelling quantum particles have such long temporal reach they influence back into your different state past - which as I keep saying, doesn't seem likely because while quantum objects can do weird things in space and time they still have a limited range in which they can do so.
Man has a limited range too. Now, if we used real people up there...I wonder ? By the way, how do you KNOW that things quantum will not work as they do out of a certain range!!!?
But the point is that this earth was created before the stars in the universe. It will be here forever. Therefore, observers of waves and whatnots coming and going thru time, here on earth, need to look at the past and future, not just the present.
Except...why in the world would God want to do that? There is nothing dodgy about the LHC and what it intends to do.
I am not saying He would. In the list of probabilities of why the almost, apparently cursed project, has a rough go of it, God came to mind. But as I say, I don't know, why even speculate? Maybe it was the devil, trying to delay man from learning that the god particle, or some other key stuff was a bunch of malarky? I don't know, sorry. But I recall a certain captain of a certain boat boasting of the mighty work of man, that 'Not even God could sink her' The rest is history. I actually feel some of that sort of attitude in some things I have read on the project. Kind of like,
'behold we are god, and there was no creator, as we will show when we find some stupid particle' Maybe it's just me, but I am sensitive to that wreak.
Yikes, well spotted! I agree, I gave two conflicting statements there and I apologise for it. If it helps clear things up, I'm still not sold on the idea of time-travelling particles - and I definitely don't think it applies to the LHC meltdown.
Er....no - the imaginary quantities I was referring to are usually things that do exist in the present, like a phase term. Or to give a practical example, reactance in an electrical circuit, which is the phase of the resistance in an AC circuit. It exists in the present only - it's just easier to write it mathematically using the number i. No need to invoke an additional universe to explain it.
Well, the imaginary numbers seek to refer to something that is causing an effect..no? Since they don't know what causes the weird stuff, they resort to imaginary numbers. A different state in both future and past is the simplest answer.
My point was, I'm not convinced all these notions of quantum objects time travelling actually involve time travel or if it's just a case of taking the math a bit too literally. I mean, antimatter can be represented as regular matter travelling backwards in time, and we can represent it as such using abstract Feynman diagrams - but we can still clearly see antiparticles that behave identically to their equivalent particles from our perspective of moving forward in time.
Ah, I see. So you no longer agree with what you admitted already here, and what many physicists accept. Ok. Guess we'll call it a hunch.
My question is - why would God even need one, assuming God even has a ship/time machine (definitely a unique take on it there) and that it exists. And why would it matter how old it was? We're talking about an infinite immortal omnipotent being. Why would you use age to describe him or his attributes?
Well, He describes it in the bible. Associated with it's visit was a heavenly band praising God, by the way.One reason that the Christmas Star of Bethlehem almost certainly was that good ship of the Father. Apparently many have felt that the Almighty can assume what they might call a God Body. Since Jesus assumes the body of a man, it seems to have some credence?
And the fact that God time travels (omnipotent, so why not, although that does leave some rather troubling theological questions) doesn't mean he has to be invoked to explain quantum objects time travelling. Lightning is a result of a cloud-ground capacitance discharging - not God being displeased with us mortals.
True, not invoked as if He was there as a travel buddy with each wave crossing time. But no one claims that. He set up certain rules. Rules for the temporal universe, and the rules of the eternal state. If some wave or force, or particle, or etc happens to cross the boundaries, via the time route, then we have more at play than just this present rules!
What I meant is, the photons in the experiment described in the article you cited were travelling away from each other at the speed of light - however, my point is that the effects of the entanglement (correlation)between them acted faster than the speed of light, not (as I thought your quote implied) that the speed of light itself was changing. Additionally, I've done some entanglement studies before and as far as I can tell no time-travel has yet been invoked to explain it.
So the quantum effects wouldn't necessarily be at a different pace in a different state past just because the speed of light is different - because the speed of the entangled objects has no effect on the entanglement itself.
It is not just the speed of light that is different in the future and past. We should ask ourselves, what the quantum stuff is getting entangled with?
"Theoretical physicist Terence Rudolph of Imperial College London, author of a commentary on the new paper, says that putting bounds on faster-than-light entanglement is useful for researchers trying to imagine theories that might extend beyond quantum mechanics.
What might such a theory look like? Rudolph says we're probably stuck with instantaneous entanglement, which seems impossible to us because we're stuck in everyday space and time. "We need to understand how quantum mechanics sees space and time," he says. "I think there's probably much deeper issues.""
(the link about 10,000 times faster than light)
So, yes the correlation between the photons happens at speeds greater than light. That is present light. Why is it such a stretch to stop limiting creation state light to present speeds?
I mean that 10,000 times faster was a bottom limit.
__________________ Pr 21:30 -There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD.
But the point is that this earth was created before the stars in the universe.
That is, of course, impossible. the material for planetary formation comes from the remnants of stellar formation.
Originally Posted by dad
It will be here forever.
Um.... until the sun becomes a red giant, anyways.
Originally Posted by dad
I am not saying He would. In the list of probabilities of why the almost, apparently cursed project, has a rough go of it, God came to mind.
Either that, or they had an electrical problem and some issues with keeping their magnets in operating shape....
Originally Posted by dad
Well, He describes it in the bible. Associated with it's visit was a heavenly band praising God, by the way.One reason that the Christmas Star of Bethlehem almost certainly was that good ship of the Father. Apparently many have felt that the Almighty can assume what they might call a God Body. Since Jesus assumes the body of a man, it seems to have some credence?
Eh? The most recent suggestions are that the Star of Bethlehem was a super or hypernova in the Adromeda galaxy, or Halley's Comet.
Last edited by laconicstudent; 20th October 2009 at 07:39 PM.
Oh dear dad, I was really hoping there was the germ of an actual physics discussion in here, but your lack of science knowledge is showing through again.....
Originally Posted by dad
Man has a limited range too. Now, if we used real people up there...I wonder ? By the way, how do you KNOW that things quantum will not work as they do out of a certain range!!!?
I could as easily ask you how do you KNOW things quantum have an infinite range, as you've implied.
Quantum wavefunctions (again, NOT the particles themselves, these are their probability distributions) are normalisable (i.e. the sum of probabilities of finding the object being described, over all of space, is 1). This can't be done if the probability of finding the particle keeps on increasing as distance increases. A wavefunction is normalisable only if it eventually decays away to zero, meaning that the particle has a limited range in space. I don't see why this shouldn't apply to a time-based description either.
But the point is that this earth was created before the stars in the universe. It will be here forever. Therefore, observers of waves and whatnots coming and going thru time, here on earth, need to look at the past and future, not just the present.
Er...no. Why should a wavefunction of a quantum object prepared in a certain fashion today have anything to do with a 6000 year old different state past? This is ascribing an unjustifiable temporal reach to your quantum objects again.
I am not saying He would. In the list of probabilities of why the almost, apparently cursed project
It's the largest piece of experimental apparatus ever created, along with a bunch of extremely volatile control magnets. No, of course it's cursed. That's a much more logical explanation.
But as I say, I don't know, why even speculate?
I agree, why even speculate, especially speculating nonsense. You were the one who brought this up first, stop backtracking.
Maybe it was the devil, trying to delay man from learning that the god particle, or some other key stuff was a bunch of malarky?
Malarky is a pretty good description of what you're putting forward. Thanks for that.
I don't know, sorry. But I recall a certain captain of a certain boat boasting of the mighty work of man, that 'Not even God could sink her' The rest is history. I actually feel some of that sort of attitude in some things I have read on the project. Kind of like,
'behold we are god, and there was no creator, as we will show when we find some stupid particle'
Please provide an actual citation of this being endemic among particle physicists, otherwise this is just false witness, which is a sin.
(Here's a hint - you won't. So quit while you're ahead.)
Maybe it's just me, but I am sensitive to that wreak.
Apparently so sensitive you start making up instances where it occured.
Well, the imaginary numbers seek to refer to something that is causing an effect..no? Since they don't know what causes the weird stuff, they resort to imaginary numbers. A different state in both future and past is the simplest answer.
No, dad, it really isn't. The example I gave was describing a phase term associated with the resistance of an AC circuit. There is nothing mysterious about it, there are probably several hundred of them in your house right now. To invoke a whole extra set of laws of physics that only existed 6000 years to explain how your kettle works is overkill.
The point about a complex/imaginary number description is that while it uses a counter-intuitive number like i, that doesn't mean there is something spooky going on behind the scenes. I was wondering out loud if the time travel ideas in other areas of physics were something similar to that.
Ah, I see. So you no longer agree with what you admitted already here, and what many physicists accept. Ok. Guess we'll call it a hunch.
Goodness, was that an argument from authority from dad, invoking the majority of contemporary mainstream scientists?! When exactly do scientists go back to being lying scumbags whose collective work is useless?
Anyway, I already issued a clarification on that - my position is, I'm not convinced on the whole time-travel thing in physics.
And no offence dad, but you're hardly one to point out errors or contradictions given your track record.
Well, He describes it in the bible.
You interpret it from the Bible, I think you meant, but hey, let's not split hairs.
Associated with it's visit was a heavenly band praising God, by the way.One reason that the Christmas Star of Bethlehem almost certainly was that good ship of the Father. Apparently many have felt that the Almighty can assume what they might call a God Body. Since Jesus assumes the body of a man, it seems to have some credence?
I think I can safely say that you are in a very small minority of Christians that think God rides around the Bible in an OT equivalent of a DeLorean.
True, not invoked as if He was there as a travel buddy with each wave crossing time. But no one claims that. He set up certain rules. Rules for the temporal universe, and the rules of the eternal state. If some wave or force, or particle, or etc happens to cross the boundaries, via the time route, then we have more at play than just this present rules!
"cross the boundaries, via the time route...."
Violates laws by using laws? Hmmmm...
It is not just the speed of light that is different in the future and past. We should ask ourselves, what the quantum stuff is getting entangled with?
Once again....the two quantum objects in the experiment were entangled with EACH OTHER.
So, yes the correlation between the photons happens at speeds greater than light. That is present light. Why is it such a stretch to stop limiting creation state light to present speeds?
I mean that 10,000 times faster was a bottom limit.
My point is, the speed of entanglement has NADA to do with the actual speed of light. And it also has nothing to do with time travel. We can argue about their variance all we want, but you're barking up the wrong tree by trying to use these two quantities to explain it.
__________________ ____________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
That is, of course, impossible. the material for planetary formation comes from the remnants of stellar formation.
Only in your dreams, pal. Really. That is just a scenario of the godless, for the clueless.
Um.... until the sun becomes a red giant, anyways.
Which is never. Only if we had no God, and a lot of time in this state. In other words, in your dreams.
Either that, or they had an electrical problem and some issues with keeping their magnets in operating shape....
So many possibilities, so little time.
Eh? The most recent suggestions are that the Star of Bethlehem was a super or hypernova in the Adromeda galaxy, or Halley's Comet.
Impossible. That doesn't hover over Bethlehem, and if it did, others would have seen in in nearby countries. Neither does it do tour guide work on the side, and guide wise men to houses.
__________________ Pr 21:30 -There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD.
I could as easily ask you how do you KNOW things quantum have an infinite range, as you've implied.
So you can't back up your claim that it has a limited range ..interesting. Why would I think that things quantum have an infinite range!? Any more than I think anything in a temporal universe has infinite anything!!? Sometimes I wonder about you.
Quantum wavefunctions (again, NOT the particles themselves, these are their probability distributions) are normalisable (i.e. the sum of probabilities of finding the object being described, over all of space, is 1). This can't be done if the probability of finding the particle keeps on increasing as distance increases. A wavefunction is normalisable only if it eventually decays away to zero, meaning that the particle has a limited range in space. I don't see why this shouldn't apply to a time-based description either.
How would you know what ACTUAL probabilities are, if you assume all things temporal state!? What you are saying seems to be all in the head. In other words, NOT based on testing, or observation, for example, ..actual results way way way way beyond earth!
Er...no. Why should a wavefunction of a quantum object prepared in a certain fashion today have anything to do with a 6000 year old different state past? This is ascribing an unjustifiable temporal reach to your quantum objects again.
Well, that depends on HOW FAR into the past and future time traveling quantum level things have gone! Do you know??? No. I doubt it. Therefore, if they exceed a few thousand years, in time, then they hit the different state. Why not?? In fact, if they come from the future, it could be (depending on how near the return of Jesus we are) mere centuries, decades, or even years!!!!
It's the largest piece of experimental apparatus ever created, along with a bunch of extremely volatile control magnets. No, of course it's cursed. That's a much more logical explanation.
Ah, something some are proud about???! Watch out. Remember Babel. That was the largest project to date at the time. It had problems too!
I agree, why even speculate, especially speculating nonsense. You were the one who brought this up first, stop backtracking.
I think you mean the educated theoretical physicists, that made a prediction about possible causes of failure for the LHC. Not me. I only used their stuff as an example of how time travel is widely accepted, and incorporated into the QM.
Please provide an actual citation of this being endemic among particle physicists, otherwise this is just false witness, which is a sin.
I stated how they come off to me. That is cool. Not sin. "In generating an environment that resembles conditions one thousandth of a millionth of a second after the start of time and the creation of all the universe's building material, CERN will be inundated with data from the observations. " Scientists Search for Missing Mass, `God Particle' (Update1) - Bloomberg.com The fact that nations gather together, and spend fortunes on a godless premise strikes me as open rebellion, like Babel.
No, dad, it really isn't. The example I gave was describing a phase term associated with the resistance of an AC circuit. There is nothing mysterious about it, there are probably several hundred of them in your house right now. To invoke a whole extra set of laws of physics that only existed 6000 years to explain how your kettle works is overkill.
The thread wasn't about your example. In the example I used, time travel was discussed, not making tea. Quantum mysteries In the case of photons, that is dealing with light. If one part of light one place, and another part another place are effected at least 10,000 times the speed of light, that has more import, than a kettle.
The point about a complex/imaginary number description is that while it uses a counter-intuitive number like i, that doesn't mean there is something spooky going on behind the scenes. I was wondering out loud if the time travel ideas in other areas of physics were something similar to that.
/ Behind the scenes mean unknown. Your opinion of the unknown, unless based on something is not really needed. Call us when you know something!
Goodness, was that an argument from authority from dad, invoking the majority of contemporary mainstream scientists?! When exactly do scientists go back to being lying scumbags whose collective work is useless?
When they leave the known, and observed, and start diddly fretting around with same state imaginary this and that.
Anyway, I already issued a clarification on that - my position is, I'm not convinced on the whole time-travel thing in physics.
We were taling about quantum, not regular physics.
You interpret it from the Bible, I think you meant, but hey, let's not split hairs.
No. The bible clearly shows Jesus is the I AM, that was there before creation and Abraham. No interpretation needed at all.
I think I can safely say that you are in a very small minority of Christians that think God rides around the Bible in an OT equivalent of a DeLorean.
Not among bible believers. That is basic stuff.
Once again....the two quantum objects in the experiment were entangled with EACH OTHER.
I know. So? Point? HOW were they connected? Not by present state rules that they know of..? So, if they have come trough time, then we can invoke more than present state rules.
My point is, the speed of entanglement has NADA to do with the actual speed of light. And it also has nothing to do with time travel. We can argue about their variance all we want, but you're barking up the wrong tree by trying to use these two quantities to explain it.
Well, let's start by you explaining right now what exactly makes them entangled, or connected? Also, what forces are involved, how? Get serious. Don't come off like you know when you don't. ..Or do you ? I'd say you are very close to busted here..careful.
__________________ Pr 21:30 -There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD.
So you can't back up your claim that it has a limited range ..interesting.
No, that was a counter to the double standard (first of many) in your argument. My actual response was below.
Why would I think that things quantum have an infinite range!?
Infinite might be an exaggeration. But you're assuming even contemporary quantum objects can reach 6000 years into the past, for no good reason whatsoever.
Any more than I think anything in a temporal universe has infinite anything!!? Sometimes I wonder about you.
The first of many backtracks.
How would you know what ACTUAL probabilities are, if you assume all things temporal state!?
Because I'm not assuming a different state past needs to be involved like you are? Double standard.
What you are saying seems to be all in the head. In other words, NOT based on testing, or observation, for example, ..actual results way way way way beyond earth!
No Dad, double slit experiment, etc. All are based on wavefunctions. There is nothing in the head about this, it's been a well-established part of physics since the 20's.
Well, that depends on HOW FAR into the past and future time traveling quantum level things have gone! Do you know??? No. I doubt it.
DO YOU? Just because I can't answer you sufficiently (not that you know even remotely enough about the subject matter to judge that adequately) doesn't automatically give your idea any more credence. False dichotomy.And I've given you my reasons for thinking that the temporal reach of a quantum is much less than 6000 years.
Therefore, if they exceed a few thousand years, in time, then they hit the different state. Why not?? In fact, if they come from the future, it could be (depending on how near the return of Jesus we are) mere centuries, decades, or even years!!!!
Do you listen to yourself when you write this stuff?
Ah, something some are proud about???!
Proud? Where did I say that? Point out EXACTLY where I said that, or retract and apologise immediately. This is your inference, and nothing more.
Watch out. Remember Babel. That was the largest project to date at the time. It had problems too!
What about the kind of pride that allows someone to make a post full of double standards and backtracking? Maybe you're the one who should be watching out.
I think you mean the educated theoretical physicists
Oh look, they're still a reputable source of authority here! I wonder if these guys know all about your other threads where you accuse scientists of collectively being scumbags. Hypocrite.
that made a prediction about possible causes of failure for the LHC. Not me. I only used their stuff as an example of how time travel is widely accepted, and incorporated into the QM.
No, you said the LHC is apparently cursed. That's not what the physicists said, that's what you said. You were called on it and now you're backtracking, yet again. Be a man and admit your error.
I stated how they come off to me. That is cool. Not sin.
In generating an environment that resembles conditions one thousandth of a millionth of a second after the start of time and the creation of all the universe's building material, CERN will be inundated with data from the observations.
Yeah, that's a pretty sufficient description of the situation. That doesn't back up what you're saying, so it's still false witness. Repent.
The fact that nations gather together, and spend fortunes on a godless premise strikes me as open rebellion, like Babel.
There is nothing godless about this project.
The thread wasn't about your example. In the example I used, time travel was discussed, not making tea. In the case of photons, that is dealing with light. If one part of light one place, and another part another place are effected at least 10,000 times the speed of light, that has more import, than a kettle.
Nevertheless, the same kind of quantities are used, and you failed to understand them in both cases, and failed to understand the example being given.
Behind the scenes mean unknown. Your opinion of the unknown, unless based on something is not really needed. Call us when you know something!
Yeah, you notice the word "DOESN'T" in that quote? Yeesh...
When they leave the known, and observed, and start diddly fretting around with same state imaginary this and that.
Except you invoked that, not them. There is nothing observed about their hypothesis. So by your own standards they fail to make the grade - which exposes brilliantly how you're just shoehorning science you barely understand into your own quackery purely to justify your personal interpretations of the Bible.
We were taling about quantum, not regular physics.
Quantum physics IS regular physics, dad. We live a quantum world. And even so, that doesn't allow you to just pull stuff out of your orifice to justify whatever you want.
No. The bible clearly shows Jesus is the I AM, that was there before creation and Abraham. No interpretation needed at all.
Who's saying anything about querying whether Jesus is the I AM? I'm querying your personal interpretation of Jesus having a time travelling flying spaceship.
Not among bible believers. That is basic stuff.
Not hardly. Not among your clique, more like.
I know. So? Point? HOW were they connected? Not by present state rules that they know of..? So, if they have come trough time, then we can invoke more than present state rules.
Entanglement is a unique quantum connection all of its own - there is no classical analogue for it.
Well, let's start by you explaining right now what exactly makes them entangled, or connected? Also, what forces are involved, how? Get serious. Don't come off like you know when you don't. ..Or do you?
A lot more than you, dad.As I said already, quantum entanglement is a unique connection all of its own. You can't explain it in terms of "forces".
I'd say you are very close to busted here..careful.
The day I feel intimidated by your ignorant threats is when hell freezes over. As is, ironically, the day you bust anyone.
__________________ ____________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
No, that was a counter to the double standard (first of many) in your argument. My actual response was below.Infinite might be an exaggeration. But you're assuming even contemporary quantum objects can reach 6000 years into the past, for no good reason whatsoever.
Well, let's look at photons. Being part of what light is, and all, many people feel that they reach a lot further back than that. The early universe, according to the imaginary present based backwards time scenarios, sees light still coming in from it. And you know how long ago they claim that was. So, can you give us a reason, rhetoric aside, why the reach of the quantum effects here would be limited to less than 6000 years?? Not sure you have a clear point. Actually, I am fairly sure you don't. I do not know, myself. But, focusing on the 'weirdness', as they commonly call it, (hope you don't mind if I use their technical terms)--there must be a reason for it.
The first of many backtracks.Because I'm not assuming a different state past needs to be involved like you are?
I am exploring the possibility, to see if it fits. However, it depends what we are talking about. Looking at an article I posted here we read "new demonstration of how light going through a "double slit" experiment seems to know before it sets out in its journey exactly what kind of traps have been set for it along the way. .. All of these experiments were carried out using beams of individual photons, and there is no way in which the results can be explained by using classical physics. They lay bare the mysteriousness of quantum mechanics in all its glory, and in particular demonstrate its "non local" nature -- the way in which a photon starting out on its journey behaves in a different way for each experimental setup, as if it knew in advance what kind of experiment it was about to go through. The best interpretation of the evidence so far seems to be that we should not think of any object, not even a single atom, as an "isolated system". " Quantum mysteries So, then, I treat this universe and it's temporal state as an isolated system. You seem to be suggesting that all things must be explained within that box. A simpler explanation seems to be that the effects in the quantum realm are not limited to within this isolated system! Now, if you have anything more than a hunch, do share.
Double standard.No Dad, double slit experiment, etc. All are based on wavefunctions. There is nothing in the head about this, it's been a well-established part of physics since the 20's. DO YOU? Just because I can't answer you sufficiently (not that you know even remotely enough about the subject matter to judge that adequately) doesn't automatically give your idea any more credence.
OK, that's a little better, you admit you do not know enough to answer properly. I can accept that. No one suggested that double slit experiments were in the head. It was not you even mentioning them, that elicited a response from me, that something was only in your head. If you are talking about photons, apparently they last awahile. If you are theorizing about other particles that will decay away after a while, well, OK. --As long as we can establish that this universe and it's decay will be in place that long.
False dichotomy.And I've given you my reasons for thinking that the temporal reach of a quantum is much less than 6000 years.Do you listen to yourself when you write this stuff?Proud? Where did I say that? Point out EXACTLY where I said that, or retract and apologise immediately.
Calm down, son. Look at my words, that you snipped. It refers to 'even if some...are proud' Now, as for your reasons that the reach of things affected by the quantum is so stunted, no, you haven't made a clear case at all here that I see? --Not one that applies across the board, and limits time travel of the Q field. Better to be clear, than to be shrill, and touchy feely.
.. Be a man and admit your error.Yeah, that's a pretty sufficient description of the situation. That doesn't back up what you're saying, so it's still false witness. Repent.There is nothing godless about this project.
No, I do feel that smell of pride, and rebellion all around that silly money wasting project. The whole idea is all about the big bang, that is the silliest satanic lie I ever heard. Also without any basis, save the religious same state stuff. Which is nothing. So, all we have here is a bigger idol than usual. Whoopee do. Excuse me, if I pass on falling down before it. Those that have God don't need any imaged god particle. Any particles they find, in their godless smash up derby there come from creation. Nothing to do whatsoever with any universe in a hot little soup long ago! Move over, Babel, man has another hot shot project.. Phooey on it, I say!!!
Nevertheless, the same kind of quantities are used, and you failed to understand them in both cases, and failed to understand the example being given.Yeah, you notice the word "DOESN'T" in that quote? Yeesh...Except you invoked that, not them. There is nothing observed about their hypothesis. So by your own standards they fail to make the grade - which exposes brilliantly how you're just shoehorning science you barely understand into your own quackery purely to justify your personal interpretations of the Bible.Quantum physics IS regular physics, dad.
OK, so the word doesn't really makes your case. OK. Or does it? Try to be clear. If you think a point was missed, simply restate it in a way that 14 year olds reading the post would understand. That way, I might get it. And lurkers might get that you actually had some point.
We live a quantum world.
I see. So GR lives ..where? If you stuff a kettle in a slit, what, half of it will race the other half at over 10,000 times the speed of light? No. It takes application of things quantum, to the world, we don't live in a quantum world, persay, that I ever heard of? I see things quantum as the fringes of the box. The place where realities of the past and future universe meet this one. Otherwise, why would Wheeler, and Einstein, and others not have it all down pat?
And even so, that doesn't allow you to just pull stuff out of your orifice to justify whatever you want.
Not I, heaven forbid. I simply make them restuff it where they pull it out of, until they have some semblance of proof.
Who's saying anything about querying whether Jesus is the I AM? I'm querying your personal interpretation of Jesus having a time travelling flying spaceship.
Ok, so you admit that God time travels. But you do not like the vehicle He was riding in in Eze. Great. Or is there some hidden point in there you are making, but can't get it out?
Not hardly. Not among your clique, more like.Entanglement is a unique quantum connection all of its own - there is no classical analogue for it.
Thank you! In other words, it is out of the box. So, we need to think out of the box, to start to crack the mystery.
.. quantum entanglement is a unique connection all of its own. You can't explain it in terms of "forces". ....
Unique, but having no classical analogue in standard physics. That is why we are talking about it, very good.
__________________ Pr 21:30 -There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD.
Only in your dreams, pal. Really. That is just a scenario of the godless, for the clueless.
Yes, the fact that we can observe such things in nebula definitely means it doesn't occur. Get real, there is this organization called NASA. We can observe this occuring
Originally Posted by dad
Which is never. Only if we had no God, and a lot of time in this state. In other words, in your dreams.
I will regard your reliance on your non-parsimonious alternate state insanity as a concession.
Originally Posted by dad
Impossible. That doesn't hover over Bethlehem, and if it did, others would have seen in in nearby countries. Neither does it do tour guide work on the side, and guide wise men to houses.
Did you even bother looking up Halley's Comet? We have historical records of the coming of Halley's comet in the first century A.D. which stated that it appeared to be stationary at that time. Despite your claims to the contrary, I hate to tell you, the British Astronomical Association agrees with ME. "The Star of Bethlehem and the comet of AD 66" Jenkins, R. M. British Astronomical Association. 2004, VOL 114; PART 6, pages 336-342. ISSN: 0007-0297 Darn, looks like its professional astronomers versus Dad, I wonder who is right. Here's an explanation by the author of the paper: The Star of Bethlehem Integrated Sciences
Well, let's look at photons. Being part of what light is, and all, many people feel that they reach a lot further back than that. The early universe, according to the imaginary present based backwards time scenarios, sees light still coming in from it. And you know how long ago they claim that was. So, can you give us a reason, rhetoric aside, why the reach of the quantum effects here would be limited to less than 6000 years??
Because quantum effects don't happen on the scale needed to make 6000 years jump seven orders of magnitude to make the age of the universe look like the age science says it is. Quantum tunnelling exists, yes. Can a person walk through a wall? No.
Not sure you have a clear point. Actually, I am fairly sure you don't. I do not know, myself. But, focusing on the 'weirdness', as they commonly call it, (hope you don't mind if I use their technical terms)--there must be a reason for it.
Let me get this right - you don't know what the point is but you're sure I don't have it? Whatever, dad.
I am exploring the possibility, to see if it fits. However, it depends what we are talking about. Looking at an article I posted here we read "new demonstration of how light going through a "double slit" experiment seems to know before it sets out in its journey exactly what kind of traps have been set for it along the way. .. All of these experiments were carried out using beams of individual photons, and there is no way in which the results can be explained by using classical physics. They lay bare the mysteriousness of quantum mechanics in all its glory, and in particular demonstrate its "non local" nature -- the way in which a photon starting out on its journey behaves in a different way for each experimental setup, as if it knew in advance what kind of experiment it was about to go through.
Ok, that's nice. Again, this does not allow you to pull things out of your orifice without basis or proof.
The best interpretation of the evidence so far seems to be that we should not think of any object, not even a single atom, as an isolated system.
So, then, I treat this universe and it's temporal state as an isolated system.
I thought you just said you shouldn't think of anything as an isolated system.
Oh dear, dad.
You seem to be suggesting that all things must be explained within that box. A simpler explanation seems to be that the effects in the quantum realm are not limited to within this isolated system! Now, if you have anything more than a hunch, do share.
How in the world is introducing a correlation with an entirely different set of laws of physics meant to be "simpler"?
OK, that's a little better, you admit you do not know enough to answer properly.
Now who's snipping words? I said, I couldn't answer properly by your standards - but you're so clueless about science you couldn't establish proper standards in this debate to save your life.
I can accept that. No one suggested that double slit experiments were in the head.
Tough dad, that was a pretty obvious tie-in, which you missed. Might want to actually learn some quantum mechanics before declaring everything wrong.
If you are talking about photons, apparently they last awahile. If you are theorizing about other particles that will decay away after a while, well, OK. --As long as we can establish that this universe and it's decay will be in place that long.
What are you talking about decay for? We're talking about time travel here.
Calm down, son. Look at my words, that you snipped. It refers to 'even if some...are proud'
I know what it said. It's still an innuendo that had no basis in reality or in what I said.
Now, as for your reasons that the reach of things affected by the quantum is so stunted, no, you haven't made a clear case at all here that I see? --Not one that applies across the board, and limits time travel of the Q field. Better to be clear, than to be shrill, and touchy feely.
Listen dad - I'm going to take an aside from the topic here. Drop the attitude. Don't post calm down and then spend the rest of the post flaming and goading. You're coming in with the high ground here, act like it. And let me tell you - your attitude here doesn't impress many people.
No, I do feel that smell of pride, and rebellion all around that silly money wasting project. The whole idea is all about the big bang, that is the silliest satanic lie I ever heard. Also without any basis, save the religious same state stuff. Which is nothing. So, all we have here is a bigger idol than usual. Whoopee do. Excuse me, if I pass on falling down before it. Those that have God don't need any imaged god particle. Any particles they find, in their godless smash up derby there come from creation. Nothing to do whatsoever with any universe in a hot little soup long ago! Move over, Babel, man has another hot shot project.. Phooey on it, I say!!!
I don't think I need to add anything else to this. You wouldn't be the first Luddite prophesying doom and missing the mark completely.
OK, so the word doesn't really makes your case. OK. Or does it? Try to be clear.
Says the man with the dodgy syntax and dodgier ideas.
My point was, just because the math is counterintuitive, doesn't necessarily mean the actual physical events are. This is why I'm not sure about where particles alleged to be time travelling are actually travelling.
I see. So GR lives ..where?
It's in there somewhere. Quantum mechanics isn't overriden by GR, or vice versa, though their effects may become negligible at different length scales.
If you stuff a kettle in a slit, what, half of it will race the other half at over 10,000 times the speed of light? No. It takes application of things quantum, to the world, we don't live in a quantum world, persay, that I ever heard of?
There's no "apply" about it. Objects are quantum. End of.
I see things quantum as the fringes of the box. The place where realities of the past and future universe meet this one.
Yeesh, well no wonder you don't understand it.
Otherwise, why would Wheeler, and Einstein, and others not have it all down pat?
Because no scientific theory is ever perfect?
Not I, heaven forbid.
Oh dad, you card. When's the stand-up career beginning?
I simply make them restuff it where they pull it out of, until they have some semblance of proof.
At least in theory. In practice, however....
Ok, so you admit that God time travels. But you do not like the vehicle He was riding in in Eze. Great. Or is there some hidden point in there you are making, but can't get it out?
Yes, it would be - why does an omnipotent omnipresent God need a time travelling ship?
Thank you! In other words, it is out of the box. So, we need to think out of the box, to start to crack the mystery. Unique, but having no classical analogue in standard physics. That is why we are talking about it, very good.
Yes, dad, well done. So why did you bring up forces if you already knew this?
Nice try to pretend that you actually have a clue what you're on about.
And thinking outside the box, again, doesn't mean you can just start making stuff up.
__________________ ____________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
? By the way, how do you KNOW that things quantum will not work as they do out of a certain range!!!?
Whatever, dad.
Linear Mode
