Thermodynamics Suggests Creation

[Justatruthseeker]

No it doesn't. That was actually an argument used to illustrate the absurdity of quantum effects on macroscopic scales. Please learn the basics of what you're talking about before pontificating on scientific matters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger's_cat

"a state known as a quantum superposition, as a result of being linked to a random subatomic event that may or may not occur. The thought experiment is also often featured in theoretical discussions of the interpretations of quantum mechanics."

Please, perhaps you should learn the basics of what you are talking about before pontificating on actual science......

"Intended as a critique of the Copenhagen interpretation (the prevailing orthodoxy in 1935), the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment remains a defining touchstone for modern interpretations of quantum mechanics. Physicists often use the way each interpretation deals with Schrödinger's cat as a way of illustrating and comparing the particular features, strengths, and weaknesses of each interpretation."

 

[RealityCheck01]

According to theory, he is right. I only challenged his request for proof.

The Heisenberg principal says that even the impossible will
happen now and then. The most probable will happen more often.

It is wrong that I requested proof (science has no proof).
Very wrong, SkyWriting (no one knows whether the universe began or not)
14 August 2018 SkyWriting: A "they are the same thing" lie about Newtonian dark stars and relativistic black holes (my post was clear that they are not).

Whatever you are talking about is not the Heisenberg principle. There are pairs of observables like momentum and position, energy and time. The better the measurement of one of these pairs in an observation, the more uncertainty there is in the other. The principle says that the possible will happen!

 

[RealityCheck01]

The heisenberg principle also says cats are not alive or dead until we open the box and actuate the probability.

This is the Heisenberg principle. This is Schrödinger's cat

Schrödinger's cat is a thought experiment, sometimes described as a paradox, devised by Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935.[1] It illustrates what he saw as the problem of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics applied to everyday objects. The scenario presents a cat that may be simultaneously both alive and dead,[2][3][4][5][6][7][8] a state known as a quantum superposition, as a result of being linked to a random subatomic event that may or may not occur. The thought experiment is also often featured in theoretical discussions of the interpretations of quantum mechanics. Schrödinger coined the term Verschränkung (entanglement) in the course of developing the thought experiment.

The cat described by QM has two possible states <dead| and <alive|. The Copenhagen interpretation says the wavefunction of any unmeasured system is a superposition of possible states. That cat has a state of <dead| + <alive| until a measurement is made.

17 August 2018 Justatruthseeker: Ignorance of Schrödinger's cat followed by "inane theory", "time needs matter to exist", and "T=0" gibberish.
QM and GR are the most tested scientific theories that we have had. Vacuum solutions of GR (no matter!)

We are not discussing t = 0 because you are writing nonsense, not science.
We (as in cosmologists and people who know cosmology) know that we cannot discuss t = 0 because the known laws of physics in standard cosmology break down at t = 0 !
We can speculate what effects QM will have and that leads to a universe existing for t <= 0. We can go to non-standard cosmology and they tend to have an eternal universe, e.g. a cyclic universe. There is brane cosmology with an eternal bulk universe with our universe embedded on a brane.

ETA: Cosmologists are creative people. I expect that somewhere out there, there is a cosmology where spacetime comes into existence. If we were discussing actual cosmology then I would go looking for it.

 

[Strathos]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger's_cat

"a state known as a quantum superposition, as a result of being linked to a random subatomic event that may or may not occur. The thought experiment is also often featured in theoretical discussions of the interpretations of quantum mechanics."

Please, perhaps you should learn the basics of what you are talking about before pontificating on actual science......

"Intended as a critique of the Copenhagen interpretation (the prevailing orthodoxy in 1935), the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment remains a defining touchstone for modern interpretations of quantum mechanics. Physicists often use the way each interpretation deals with Schrödinger's cat as a way of illustrating and comparing the particular features, strengths, and weaknesses of each interpretation."

From your own link:

According to Schrödinger, the Copenhagen interpretation implies that the cat remains both alive and dead until the state has been observed. Schrödinger did not wish to promote the idea of dead-and-alive cats as a serious possibility; on the contrary, he intended the example to illustrate the absurdity of the existing view of quantum mechanics.

The experiment as described is a purely theoretical one, and the machine proposed is not known to have been constructed. However, successful experiments involving similar principles, e.g. superpositions of relatively large (by the standards of quantum physics) objects have been performed.[21] These experiments do not show that a cat-sized object can be superposed, but the known upper limit on "cat states" has been pushed upwards by them. In many cases the state is short-lived, even when cooled to near absolute zero.

In other words, quantum physics doesn't say the cat experiment is actually realistic like you claim.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

In other words, quantum physics doesn't say the cat experiment is actually realistic like you claim.

Like I claim? I claim it's a bunch of cow manure.... You all are the ones that claim anything is possible depending on the state of observation, not me......

I say put that cat in a box and a year later it's going to stink up the room regardless if you have observed it or not......

Hence my statement "but don't get mad at me when the dead cat stinks up the room a year later......"

So we agree, the belief that observation determines the outcome is a bunch of cow manure.....

Observation can affect the outcome. i.e. to measure the location of an electron you would need to stick a probe into the system being measured, which would change the position of the electron as it reacted to the probe, hence its exact position can not be determined beforehand..... because you never knew its position beforehand.... and your act of observation changes the equations....

But lets get back to that "smeared out" data and the claim you can calculate time before the data was smeared......

 

[Strathos]

Like I claim? I claim it's a bunch of cow manure.... You all are the ones that claim anything is possible depending on the state of observation, not me......

You misunderstand. You were claiming that modern science says it's a realistic experiment. I was pointing out that it says no such thing.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Observation can affect the outcome. i.e. to measure the location of an electron you would need to stick a probe into the system being measured, which would change the position of the electron as it reacted to the probe, hence its exact position can not be determined beforehand..... because you never knew its position beforehand.... and your act of observation changes the equations....

No; you're thinking of the Observer Effect, something different - though often confused with the Uncertainty Principle or quantum indeterminacy.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No; you're thinking of the Observer Effect, something different - though often confused with the Uncertainty Principle or quantum indeterminacy.

No, I am thinking of reality, instead of fantasy. There is a difference. Fantasy is believing in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, that reality isn't real until we observe it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It is wrong that I requested proof (science has no proof).
Very wrong, SkyWriting (no one knows whether the universe began or not)
14 August 2018 SkyWriting: A "they are the same thing" lie about Newtonian dark stars and relativistic black holes (my post was clear that they are not).

Whatever you are talking about is not the Heisenberg principle. There are pairs of observables like momentum and position, energy and time. The better the measurement of one of these pairs in an observation, the more uncertainty there is in the other. The principle says that the possible will happen!

That's simply a flaw in our measurement system. Because the more precisely you define a particles position, the closer to stationary you also have to define it, so it's momentum is less well known.

It simply places the particle more in our frame or co-ordinate system, and from within one's own co-ordinate system, one appears as stationary. This is why even though we are spinning on our axis, orbiting the sun, which is orbiting the galaxy, which is itself moving through space, all of our devices read as stationary. One can not read one's own motion from within one's own co-ordinate system. Likewise to therefore read its momentum or velocity, it's position within the co-ordinate system must be less well defined..... It's simply a flaw in our measuring devices or in the way we measure.....

 

[RealityCheck01]

That's simply a flaw in our measurement system. ...

Stating more ignorance is not impressive, Justatruthseeker.
This is the Heisenberg principle. It is a fundamental consequence of quantum mechanics. No matter what kind of measurements you make using whatever devices you come up with, there are "complementary variables, such as position x and momentum p". That article has proofs of some uncertainty relations, e.g. "Proof of the Schrödinger uncertainty relation".

You do have a bit of the Heisenberg's microscope thought experiment where classical optics gives an approximation to his principle.

17 August 2018 Justatruthseeker: Ignorance of Schrödinger's cat followed by "inane theory", "time needs matter to exist", and "T=0" gibberish.

This is the Heisenberg principle. This is Schrödinger's cat

13 August 2018 Justatruthseeker: The rather deluded crank Stephen Crothers is not a credible source of science.
14 August 2018 Justatruthseeker: An ignorant "if there was no cause, there would be no universe" assertion.
14 August 2018 Justatruthseeker: A "discussing seconds and minutes after the beginning" lie.
14 August 2018 Justatruthseeker: A meaningless and ignorant "supporters of Fairie Dust" rant about inflation.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Stating more ignorance is not impressive, Justatruthseeker.
This is the Heisenberg principle. It is a fundamental consequence of quantum mechanics. No matter what kind of measurements you make using whatever devices you come up with, there are "complementary variables, such as position x and momentum p". That article has proofs of some uncertainty relations, e.g. "Proof of the Schrödinger uncertainty relation".

You do have a bit of the Heisenberg's microscope thought experiment where classical optics gives an approximation to his principle.

17 August 2018 Justatruthseeker: Ignorance of Schrödinger's cat followed by "inane theory", "time needs matter to exist", and "T=0" gibberish.


13 August 2018 Justatruthseeker: The rather deluded crank Stephen Crothers is not a credible source of science.
14 August 2018 Justatruthseeker: An ignorant "if there was no cause, there would be no universe" assertion.
14 August 2018 Justatruthseeker: A "discussing seconds and minutes after the beginning" lie.
14 August 2018 Justatruthseeker: A meaningless and ignorant "supporters of Fairie Dust" rant about inflation.

Yes, I know, from the man that can't figure out when he is following an epicycle that has been falsified a hundred times over.....

Ptolemy didn't want to abandon his epicycles either and thought they actually reflected reality and so simply continued to "tweak" them......

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

No, I am thinking of reality, instead of fantasy. There is a difference. Fantasy is believing in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, that reality isn't real until we observe it.

You confused the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle with the Observer Effect.

The Copenhagen interpretation is something else again (although the von Neumann-Wigner version is arguably a special case of the Observer Effect). Most modern versions of the Copenhagen interpretation don't rely on observer 'creation' of reality; there are a variety of more plausible suggestions for the collapse of the wavefunction for those who can't cope with unitary evolution of the wavefunction.

I'm not a fan of arbitrary wavefunction collapse - it seems to me absurd to think 'reality' only appears after its supposed collapse. Whatever underlies the wavefunction is just as real as what we see after a measurement; superpositions are demonstrably real, and that says multiverse to me.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You confused the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle with the Observer Effect.

The Copenhagen interpretation is something else again (although the von Neumann-Wigner version is arguably a special case of the Observer Effect). Most modern versions of the Copenhagen interpretation don't rely on observer 'creation' of reality; there are a variety of more plausible suggestions for the collapse of the wavefunction for those who can't cope with unitary evolution of the wavefunction.

I'm not a fan of arbitrary wavefunction collapse - it seems to me absurd to think 'reality' only appears after its supposed collapse. Whatever underlies the wavefunction is just as real as what we see after a measurement; superpositions are demonstrably real, and that says multiverse to me.

yes, and then we go from the absurd to the even more absurd of multiverses, which are even less testable....

Kind of like dark matter and dark energy. Undetected for nearly 80 years and failing every single test, but "faith" is strong in them......

All the while they ignore those vast clouds of plasma right where the dark matter was supposed to exist with up to twice the mass of the galaxy itself...... Not to mention their refusal to treat plasma with the proper physics like we do in every single plasma experiment.

It's no wonder they have to resort to imaginary multiverses when they treat a universe 99.9% plasma unlike the state of matter it is and contrary to every single plasma experiment in every single plasma laboratory.

But I bet you never stopped to consider that those suppositions may simply be artifacts of using the wrong physics for the wrong state of matter?????

 

[RealityCheck01]

Yes, I know, from the man that can't figure out when he is following an epicycle that has been falsified a hundred times over.....

28 August 2018 Justatruthseeker: An irrelevant, ignorant and lying "epicycle that has been falsified falsified a hundred times over" post.
You have not falsified the Heisenberg principle. You have not falsified any science in this thread. You have not falsified any science that I can recall. Thus "falsified a hundred times over" is a lie. Note that any reference to the deluded and lying Thunderbolts "cult" is an automatic failure. From the ISF forum:
18 November 2010: The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions by Wal Thornhill
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.
13 April 2018: A couple of the delusions in Scott's Birkeland current paper.
These are mostly about their electric comet insanity. They also collapse the Sun into a white dwarf!

You were the one stating ignorance abut textbook physics that even has a Wikipedia article!
27 August 2018 Justatruthseeker: Stating more ignorance about the Heisenberg principle is not impressive.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Kind of like dark matter and dark energy. Undetected for nearly 80 years and failing every single test, but "faith" is strong in them......

28 August 2018 Justatruthseeker: Lies about dark matter ands dark energy which have been detected and succeeded in tests.
Dark matter. Dark energy.
What we do not have is direct detection of dark matter particles in labs here on Earth. Denying the existence of dark matter from this is like denying the existence of stars because we have none in labs here on Earth ! It may be that dark matter is made of particles that cannot be directly detected. There is a small possibility the dark matter is not particles but an effect from a modified GR (relativistic MOND).
No one expects to directly detect dark energy because it is too weak.

28 August 2018 Justatruthseeker: A "they ignore those vast clouds of plasma..." lie.
Dark matter is not plasma (it is dark!).
We were missing half of the baryonic matter that is needed to explain our observations (the universe is ~4.9% baryonic matter). We found a cloud of hot plasma around the Milky Way that provided a tiny fraction of this missing matter. The resolution is a 2017 detection of intergalactic matter.

28 August 2018 Justatruthseeker: A "refusal to treat plasma with the proper physics" lie.
Astrophysics uses the proper physics to treat plasma. For example, a basic property of plasma is the Debye length. This is the scale to which electrostatic effects persist in plasma. This is ~10,000 meters in the intergalactic medium . Above the Debye length, we can treat a plasma by itself as a neutral gas. External conditions can change this, e.g. double layers have scales of some tens of Debye lengths.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

yes, and then we go from the absurd to the even more absurd of multiverses, which are even less testable....

When well-supported, well-tested scientific theories make predictions, they are taken seriously, even if they can't yet be tested. The cosmological multiverse requires only that the universe is very much larger than the observable universe; and the quantum multiverse (i.e. Everettian 'Many Worlds'), is simply a matter of accepting that quantum superpositions don't mysteriously collapse, but spread out into the environment, and that a measurement outcome we observe is part of that decohered superposition. Neither nature nor physics cares whether you think it absurd.

Kind of like dark matter and dark energy. Undetected for nearly 80 years and failing every single test, but "faith" is strong in them......

You still seem to be confusing the name given to the observed phenomena with the hypotheses proposed to explain it. There are many hypotheses proposed to explain the 'dark matter' phenomena, not all of them involving particles. So far, no suitable particles have been found, but new suggestions are being proposed regularly (e.g. the axiflavon, & the hierarchion).

All the while they ignore those vast clouds of plasma right where the dark matter was supposed to exist with up to twice the mass of the galaxy itself......

Plasma is a poor candidate because it isn't 'dark'. Charged particles can emit EM radiation and interact strongly with light - that's how we know there's plasma out there.

But I bet you never stopped to consider that those suppositions may simply be artifacts of using the wrong physics for the wrong state of matter?????

You'd lose that bet. Everyone knows there's plasma out there, but it just doesn't fit as an explanation for the observed phenomena.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes there is. The Cosmos.

"By Law" it is the result of a some initial cause.

what "law" would that be?

 

[DogmaHunter]

All past events are faith.

Someone walked here:

A fire raged here:

No faith required.

Certainly your dream about time zero is faith.

Time is a property of the universe.
No universe = no time.

"causality" is necessarily a temporal phenomena.
It's a concept that makes no sense, when a time dimension does not exist.

It's like talking about a house north of the north pole.

Under current reality, everything has a cause.

That's not exactly true either. Ideas of causality become blurry at best at the quantum level.

In any case, causality is a phenomena of physics as it applies IN the universe.
You can't appeal to the physics of the universe to make statements about a context where said universe does not exist.

When that changes for me...listen for three knocks late, late at night.

You have been explained all this before. I'm sure it won't stick this time either.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Come on RC, if there was no cause, there would be no universe......

Why?

And if there was no beginning, then what are you even discussing T=0 for to umm, begin with?????

You seem to be confusing "beginning" with "causality".

Wait, if there was no beginning, and nothing yet existed to measure, then why are you discussing seconds and minutes after the beginning????

I don't think he said that the space-time continuum had no beginning.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

When well-supported, well-tested scientific theories make predictions, they are taken seriously, even if they can't yet be tested. The cosmological multiverse requires only that the universe is very much larger than the observable universe; and the quantum multiverse (i.e. Everettian 'Many Worlds'), is simply a matter of accepting that quantum superpositions don't mysteriously collapse, but spread out into the environment, and that a measurement outcome we observe is part of that decohered superposition. Neither nature nor physics cares whether you think it absurd.

They cant even get their predictions correct right next door cosmologically speaking....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliosphere

""The IBEX results are truly remarkable! What we are seeing in these maps does not match with any of the previous theoretical models of this region."

If they can't get things right, at the edge of the solar system, what makes you think they have it right billions of light years away????????

You still seem to be confusing the name given to the observed phenomena with the hypotheses proposed to explain it. There are many hypotheses proposed to explain the 'dark matter' phenomena, not all of them involving particles. So far, no suitable particles have been found, but new suggestions are being proposed regularly (e.g. the axiflavon, & the hierarchion).

Yes, more mysterious particles, all the while ignoring halos of plasma right where they need the magical matter......

Plasma is a poor candidate because it isn't 'dark'. Charged particles can emit EM radiation and interact strongly with light - that's how we know there's plasma out there.

You'd lose that bet. Everyone knows there's plasma out there, but it just doesn't fit as an explanation for the observed phenomena.

No, you would loose that bet. plasma acts collectively, which is why galaxy rotation curves are flat...

Oh it does, you just refuse to accept actual experimentation in which flat rotation curves were produced...... perhaps even the very explanation for your fantasy black holes as well.....

https://www.plasma-universe.com/Galaxy_formation

"Galaxy formation in the Plasma Universe is modeled as two adjacent interacting Birkeland filaments. The simulation produces a flat rotation curve, but no hypothetical dark matter is needed, as required by the conventional model of galaxy formation."

But since they don't use the correct physics as is done in every plasma laboratory, they need their magical matter..... clearly, like everyone else on here, you simply do not understand that plasma is not dominated by the gravitational force, but by particle physics and electromagnetic theory.... Gravity is a secondary force in plasma, which is why they need 95% ad-hoc theory in a universe 99.9% plasma.....

Simple physics... the wrong physics.....