Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism

[sjastro]

One of the arguments presented in the video is since certain experiments show quantum effects appear at macro scales leads to the conclusion the macro world is an extension of the scales at which quantum mechanics operates.
What destroys this argument is quantum decoherence.
An example of quantum decoherence occurs when a measurement is performed where the superimposed state defined by the quantum wavefunction Ψ collapses to give the measured value.
The double slit experiment using electrons is an example.
In order to preserve the wavefunction before a measurement is even made the system must be fairly well isolated from the external environment.
As scale increases it becomes increasing more difficult to isolate the system and the time scale in which a system remains decoherent becomes increasingly shorter; in most cases at larger scales the time scale is for all intents and purposes instantaneous which is why be don't commonly observe quantum mechanical events in the macroscopic world.
In the double slit experiment if we replace electrons with marbles or billiard balls the time scale is so short the double slit experiment is reduced to a "classically behaved" experiment.
It is not only scale but the nature of the external environment that determines whether a system will behave quantum mechanically or classically.
Here is an image I took of part of the Eta Carina nebula using a Ha filter and OIII filter.

Both emissions involving hydrogen (H) and oxygen (O) atoms are examples of quantum mechanical transitions but the OIII emission is an example of a forbidden transition.
Quantum mechanics doesn't "forbid" such transitions instead the probably of such transitions occurring is very low.
The reason why the OIII transition is observed is due to the highly rarified environment of the nebula.
The OIII transition can never be observed on Earth in the very best ultra high vacuums as collisions between O atoms de-excites the atoms preventing the transition.

 

[sjastro]

Wow! More straw man arguments?

GR served to explain flaws in Newtonian Physics. QM resulted to explain flaws in GR. I once read that Einstein realized that his work was flawed shortly before, or shortly after he released it.

The Flaws of General Relativity
A compilation of some defects of the conventional theory of gravitation
It is generally assumed that Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity is an adequate theory of gravitation. However, although it has well passed all observational and experimental tests so far, some theoretical arguments indicate that it will have to be replaced with a more consistent theory.
Last modification 18th July '97

by Laro Schatzer <schatzer@ubaclu.unibas.ch>

Remark: I removed the section stating the non-existence of interactive N-body solutions in general relativity [3-6], since the claim has been successfully refuted [7-8]. Accordingly, I decided to change the title: the "failure" was switched to "flaws".

General Relativity Does Not Respect Local Energy-Momentum
There are serious problems with local energy-momentum conservation in general relativity (see [1] for a review). It is well known that Einstein's theory does not assign a definite stress-energy tensor to the gravitational field. This property is extremely unsatisfactory, because one knows that all other fundamental interactions in nature actually do respect the principle of local conservation of energy-momentum. Essentially, the non-existance of a stress-energy tensor is a consequence of the purely geometrical interpretation of gravity as curvature of space-time.

On the contrary energy-momentum is conserved locally in GR.
Space-time is an example of a Lorentzian manifold which is locally flat where the stress energy tensor vanishes.
Solutions of the resultant Einstein vacuum equation are metric tensors with time independent coefficients.
Globally the conservation of energy is not applicable in expanding cosmological models where the coefficients of the metric are time dependant.

General Relativity Predicts Space-Time Singularities
Space-time singularities and event horizons are a consequence of general relativity, appearing in the solutions of the gravitational field. Although the "big bang" singularity and "black holes" have been an topic of intensive study in theoretical astrophysics, one can seriously doubt that such mathematical monsters should really represent physical objects. In fact, in order to predict black holes one has to extrapolate the theory of general relativity far beyond observationally known gravity strengths. Quoting Albert Einstein shows that he was quite aware of this conceptual problem: "For large densities of field and of matter, the field equations and even the field variables which enter into them will have no real significance. One may not therefore assume the validity of the equations for very high density of field and of matter, and one may not conclude that the 'beginning of the expansion' [of the universe] must mean a singularity in the mathematical sense. All we have to realize is that the equations may not be continued over such regions." [2] Many physicists would prefer a gravity theory without mathematical anomalies in its field solutions.

General relativity does not "predict" singularities.
It is a scale dependant theory where the singularities turn up as mathematical artefacts.
By changing the coordinate system describing black hole models one can get the coordinate singularity to disappear; the physical singularity at r=0 cannot exist in quantum mechanics.
Despite this limitation GR is very much supported by observation.
As an example black holes can now be imaged which shows they are not "mathematical monsters"; we can also use simple back of the envelope calculations using GR to show the photon orbit dimensions predicted by GR agree with observation.

General Relativity Failed to Be Quantized
Quantum mechanics can be said to be the cornerstone of modern physics. For every physical field theory it should be possible to formulate it as quantum field theory. Actually, it is generally accepted that the field theories of electromagnetism or gravitation are but an approximation, the "classical limit", of more fundamental underlying quantum field theories. It is also assumed that interaction theories have to be gauge theories. The possibility of formulating gravity as quantum field theory is essential in the context of the unification of all fundamental interactions. However, all attempts to find a consistent quantum gauge field theory of general relativity have failed. This indicates again that general relativity can hardly be an absolutely correct theory of gravitation.

Good grief.
Like any other theory GR was developed to explain observation of the times.
GR is a theory of gravitation developed by 1915 where quantum effects are not observed.
QM didn't even exist at the time.

Towards a Consistent Theory of Gravitation
It appears that general relativity is not an adequate theory of gravitation, and that it has to be replaced by a new consistent theory. An alternative is the gravity theory of Hüseyin Yilmaz [1-3].

GR like QM is an incomplete theory.
One can be as equally critical of the limitations of QM for its failure to treat gravity like the electromagnetic, weak and strong forces which are based on quantum field theories.

 

[Michael]

Globally the conservation of energy is not applicable in expanding cosmological models where the coefficients of the metric are time dependant.

In other words, the GR theory of gravity isn't the problem, only various specific *cosmology* models violate conservation of energy laws.

General relativity does not "predict" singularities.
It is a scale dependant theory where the singularities turn up as mathematical artefacts.
By changing the coordinate system describing black hole models one can get the coordinate singularity to disappear; the physical singularity at r=0 cannot exist in quantum mechanics.

It seems like there's an inherent tension between the Pauli exclusion principle, QM and various claims related to r=0 in GR.

 

[expos4ever]

Are you suggesting that me saying, "A religious apologetics YouTube channel isn't an authority on science," is an appeal to authority fallacy?

You are, of course, not appealing to authorty.

Here is a pattern that we frequently see here:

- someone (A) makes a claim X without a legitimate supporting argument (or supporting evidence;
- someone else (B) challenges A on X, either pointing out that A has not supported X or that there is some other problem with X;
- intentionally or otherwise, A then brings up one or more irrelevant or otherwise misleading tangents.
- B is kept so busy trying to deal with these tangents that the fact that X has been substantively refuted, or not supported, is lost in the mess.

Kind of like the "Gish Gallop": The Gish gallop is a technique used during debating that focuses on overwhelming an opponent with as many arguments as possible, without regard for accuracy or strength of the arguments.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

GR (general relativity) resulted from the generalization of special relativity (SR) to non-inertial (accelerating) reference frames. [SR only applied to inertial (non-accelerating) reference frames.]

Not strictly true, SR handles accelerating frames well enough; what it doesn't handle is gravity, which is where GR comes in.

Early work on QM precedes the development of GR. It certainly is *NOT* an attempt to explain the "flaws" in GR. [Ironically, gravitation is the one area of fundamental physics to which QM *hasn't* been successfully applied.

Yes, indeed. It's now thought likely that, rather than quantising the gravity of GR, it will be necessary to derive quantised gravity from QM.

 

[Kylie]

Not strictly true, SR handles accelerating frames well enough; what it doesn't handle is gravity, which is where GR comes in.

Isn't acceleration and gravity the same thing? How an astronaut in a space ship can't tell if the force he experiences is because of gravity or because of acceleration?

 

[SLP]

I wish people would stop posting videos without summarizing them.

It is, after all, against forum rules:

Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.

 

[SLP]

Science hasn't buried Elohim, it has revealed him, and with it buried materialism.

Gibberish.

 

[SLP]

Here's a new easier version:

It is So COOL how you can copy paste and link, as if this impresses people or something.

 

[SLP]

You've presented yet another ad hominem fallacy....

And here we go with the projection and the nonsense...

Don't you people ever come up with something new? Something sensible? Something original?

 

[SLP]

Wow! More straw man arguments?

And there is thew other one...

GR served to explain flaws in Newtonian Physics. QM resulted to explain flaws in GR. I once read that Einstein realized that his work was flawed shortly before, or shortly after he released it.

The Flaws of General Relativity
A compilation of some defects of the conventional theory of gravitation
It is generally assumed that Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity is an adequate theory of gravitation. However, although it has well passed all observational and experimental tests so far, some theoretical arguments indicate that it will have to be replaced with a more consistent theory.
Last modification 18th July '97

by Laro Schatzer <schatzer@ubaclu.unibas.ch>

Remark: I removed the section stating the non-existence of interactive N-body solutions in general relativity [3-6], since the claim has been successfully refuted [7-8]. Accordingly, I decided to change the title: the "failure" was switched to "flaws".

General Relativity Does Not Respect Local Energy-Momentum
There are serious problems with local energy-momentum conservation in general relativity (see [1] for a review). It is well known that Einstein's theory does not assign a definite stress-energy tensor to the gravitational field. This property is extremely unsatisfactory, because one knows that all other fundamental interactions in nature actually do respect the principle of local conservation of energy-momentum. Essentially, the non-existance of a stress-energy tensor is a consequence of the purely geometrical interpretation of gravity as curvature of space-time.
General Relativity Predicts Space-Time Singularities
Space-time singularities and event horizons are a consequence of general relativity, appearing in the solutions of the gravitational field. Although the "big bang" singularity and "black holes" have been an topic of intensive study in theoretical astrophysics, one can seriously doubt that such mathematical monsters should really represent physical objects. In fact, in order to predict black holes one has to extrapolate the theory of general relativity far beyond observationally known gravity strengths. Quoting Albert Einstein shows that he was quite aware of this conceptual problem: "For large densities of field and of matter, the field equations and even the field variables which enter into them will have no real significance. One may not therefore assume the validity of the equations for very high density of field and of matter, and one may not conclude that the 'beginning of the expansion' [of the universe] must mean a singularity in the mathematical sense. All we have to realize is that the equations may not be continued over such regions." [2] Many physicists would prefer a gravity theory without mathematical anomalies in its field solutions.
General Relativity Failed to Be Quantized
Quantum mechanics can be said to be the cornerstone of modern physics. For every physical field theory it should be possible to formulate it as quantum field theory. Actually, it is generally accepted that the field theories of electromagnetism or gravitation are but an approximation, the "classical limit", of more fundamental underlying quantum field theories. It is also assumed that interaction theories have to be gauge theories. The possibility of formulating gravity as quantum field theory is essential in the context of the unification of all fundamental interactions. However, all attempts to find a consistent quantum gauge field theory of general relativity have failed. This indicates again that general relativity can hardly be an absolutely correct theory of gravitation.
Towards a Consistent Theory of Gravitation
It appears that general relativity is not an adequate theory of gravitation, and that it has to be replaced by a new consistent theory. An alternative is the gravity theory of Hüseyin Yilmaz [1-3].
References
[1] M. Carmeli, E. Liebowitz and N. Nissani: "Gravitation, SL(2,C) gauge theory and conservations laws", World Scientific, Singapore (1990), chapter 4
[2] A. Einstein: The Meaning of Relativity, Fifth Edition, Princeton University Press (1956), 129
[3] H. Yilmaz: "Towards a field theory of gravity", Nuovo Cimento 107B (1992), pp. 941
[4] C. O. Alley: "Investigations with lasers, atomic clocks and computer calculations of curved spacetime and of the differences between the gravitation theories of Yilmaz and of Einstein", Frontiers of Fundamental Physics, edited by M. Barone and F. Selleri, Plenum Press, New York (1994), p. 125-137
[5] H. Yilmaz: "Did the apple fall?", Ibid, p. 115-124
[6] G. C. McVittie: Astronomical Journal 75 (1970), pp. 287
[7] F. I. Cooperstock, D. N. Vollick: "The Yilmaz challenge to general relativity", Nuovo Cimento 111B (1996), 265
[8] E. D. Fackerell: "Remarks on the Yilmaz and Alley papers", Proceedings of the first australasian conference on general relativity and gravitation, ed.: D. L. Wiltshire, University of Adelaide (1996), 117; click here to find thepostscript version

The Flaws of General Relativity

And thus... JESUS!!!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Isn't acceleration and gravity the same thing? How an astronaut in a space ship can't tell if the force he experiences is because of gravity or because of acceleration?

The effects of pseudo-force due to inertial acceleration and the effects of gravity are different but equivalent - this is the Equivalence Principle.

In practice, if you don't know whether you're accelerating or in a gravitational field, you can tell the difference if you have enough room and instruments sensitive enough to measure the uniformity of the effect; a gravitational field is, in practice, non-uniform, whereas the effect of inertial acceleration is uniform.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

In other words, the GR theory of gravity isn't the problem, only various specific *cosmology* models violate conservation of energy laws.

Ah, no. The correct logic is that the conservation of energy laws are only applicable where the coefficients of the metric are not time-dependent. In GR, space and time are dynamic, they can change (as is empirically well-established). But over sufficiently small spatial and temporal scales (i.e. everyday human scales), space & time can be considered to be static and energy conserved; i.e. energy is conserved in the limit.

 

[Belk]

The effects of pseudo-force due to inertial acceleration and the effects of gravity are different but equivalent - this is the Equivalence Principle.

In practice, if you don't know whether you're accelerating or in a gravitational field, you can tell the difference if you have enough room and instruments sensitive enough to measure the uniformity of the effect; a gravitational field is, in practice, non-uniform, whereas the effect of inertial acceleration is uniform.

How would you go about detecting the non-uniformity of a gravitational field?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

How would you go about detecting the non-uniformity of a gravitational field?

Use a gravimeter at different locations.

 

[Kylie]

The effects of pseudo-force due to inertial acceleration and the effects of gravity are different but equivalent - this is the Equivalence Principle.

In practice, if you don't know whether you're accelerating or in a gravitational field, you can tell the difference if you have enough room and instruments sensitive enough to measure the uniformity of the effect; a gravitational field is, in practice, non-uniform, whereas the effect of inertial acceleration is uniform.

Lemme get this straight, because I just woke up and my brain is still getting into gear (I need coffee)...

So you're saying that if I have two gravity sensors, one a the top of the room and one near the floor, if they both read the same I am on an accelerating spacecraft, and if they read different, I am in a gravitational field?

 

[sjastro]

How would you go about detecting the non-uniformity of a gravitational field?

The presence of tidal forces destroys the uniformity of a gravitational field.
In a rocket being accelerated at g, objects in the rocket fall in parallel paths.
This is not the case for objects falling in the Earth's gravitational field as they fall towards the Earth's centre of gravity and do not follow parallel paths.

The equivalence principle applies if tidal forces can be neglected.
This occurs in an infinitesimally small region of spacetime over an infinitesimally brief period of time where the general and special theories of relativity are equally applicable.
For spacetime regions and time frames that are not infinitesimally small, but small enough, the equivalence principle is a valid approximation.

 

[Belk]

Use a gravimeter at different locations.

Cool! Thanks. Something new to learn about.

 

[Belk]

The presence of tidal forces destroys the uniformity of a gravitational field.
In a rocket being accelerated at g, objects in the rocket fall in parallel paths.
This is not the case for objects falling in the Earth's gravitational field as they fall towards the Earth's centre of gravity and do not follow parallel paths.

The equivalence principle applies if tidal forces can be neglected.
This occurs in an infinitesimally small region of spacetime over an infinitesimally brief period of time where the general and special theories of relativity are equally applicable.
For spacetime regions and time frames that are not infinitesimally small, but small enough, the equivalence principle is a valid approximation.

Interesting. Thank you for the explanation.

 

[HARK!]

Isn't acceleration and gravity the same thing?

Gravity = acceleration?

No.

F=G([m1*m2]/D^2)