The Grand Design

[pred]

Spoilsport have you got Germanic genes coursing through your viens? the reason i ask is they also have no sense of humour.

Funny you should say that, but YES I do have Germanic/Teutonic Roots.

I'm so sorry, i didn't realise but hey dont beat yourself up about it, you're not alone, infact my daughter has a German mother and she lives in the far north in the barren wasteland we call Glasgow. so no matter how bad things may seem, the chances are there is aways someone somewhere worst off.

 

[pred]

So by and large we are all a bit thick when it comes to quantum physics, my take on people that can grasp the dynamics is as follows.

I believe that every so often evolution throws up something different to the norm, take autism, i think in years gone by children that were different would have perished at the wayside, now we are in a different era and are able to support handicapt children i think they will probably be the Einsteins of the future due to the way they see the world.

Will we become the neandertals and die out?

 

[pred]

Another thing, Brian Cox said in his series that one day the last ember of the last dying star would fade away into radiation waves and that will be that ENDE, sorry Brian i'm going to have to dissagree with you on this one, when you look at nature everything is a cycle, dying and being reborn, how many big bangs have there been in the past? how many are happening now in another place? If you really want to explore this theory of mine further may i suggest you roll yourself a good joint first, and i mean proper weed man, not this carp they sell nowadays.

 

[pred]

This looks quite impressive.

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2012/19/full/

I think though that we are only just emerging from the caves, the more we learn the more there is to learn.

 

[Micilin]

may i suggest you roll yourself a good joint first, and i mean proper weed man, not this carp they sell nowadays.

I think I've spotted why you are not getting such a good hit.........your weed sounds a bit fishy.

 

[chapeau]

I didn't see the Brian Cox presentation, but he does a good programme trying to put these weird concepts into everyday understanding which is rather difficult as the principles are hardly everyday stuff.

Here you go...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmAmyHnEbNw&t=8m20s

The word he uses is 'instantly' when describing how electrons in the universe "communicate".

And with some further googling....

Cox's notes for his students..

www.hep.manchester.ac.uk/u/forshaw/BoseFermi/Double Well.html

Cox tries to explain to a forum.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3682325&postcount=37

Love his final sentence when describing how he tries to explain things to laymen with weird ideas of how science works..

If we tried to take account of every nob head on the planet, we wouldn't have time to make the programs or write the books.

does he have the likes of gasbanni in mind

 

[chapeau]

Hmmm,

Well I think the way I will look at it is that as all electrons are entangled, there is really only one electron in the whole universe, so warming it up here also instantly warms it up on the other side of the galaxy.

Simples.

Now I just have to work out how to get the electron in next doors wiring to heat up my cooker so I get free electricity.

 

[Hysteresis]

I have always had some reservations about the Schrodinger Cat explanation of Quantum Mechanics. There was a simpler variation of the Cat and the decay of a single atom etc etc which was simply a light in a box, which was switched on and the box closed. No observer could then determine if the light filament was burnt out and it was unpredictable , until the box was opened and observed.
The conclusion was that the light was both On 'AND' Off at the same time, just the same as the Cat was both dead and alive at the same time. My problem here was the use of the logical AND, surely it should be a logical OR. Just because the light state is not observed, has no bearing on whether it is On 'OR' Off or the Cat dead OR alive. The fact of observing cannot alter it's physical state. The only difference is that the observer knows the condition and therefor can dismiss the logical OR from the statement.
I know Schrodinger was carrying out a Thought experiment, but the experiment always breaks down for me as I use the logical OR as it seems to me to be right.
I bow to the incredible Schrodingers far far superior brain and I have no doubt his right,but I find the Cat explanation flawed.
Any comments anyone?

 

[JohnD]

consider that Schroding's example was to demonstrate the absurdity of the argument that particles could simultaneously be in two states.

 

[Space cat]

If the idea of a 'particle' being in two states at the same time seems absurd - and it is - then the logical conclusion is that our concept of a particle is wrong. It's not difficult to prove that, according to the known laws of physics, an electron cannot be a little ball orbiting a nucleus. At the very least, its charge and mass must be evenly distributed in a ring. So where is that electron now?

On a slightly different tack, the Schrodinger experiment is a big problem for mathematicians: Does it make sense to assign a probability to an event that's already happened?

 

[Hysteresis]

That is the point. The concept of an orbital electron is wrong if the charge is evenly distributed at least in a ring. I think we all now agree that the planetary electron was a good model for things like the periodic table etc but is very outdated now. So it follows that the electron does not exist, therefore how on earth can something that does not exist be in two or more places at the same time.
I think the Schrodinger thought experiment was a bad example of the complex question it tries to address, and for me it rather confuses the issue.
In some quarters, there are ideas that postulate nothing exists at all and what we conceive is just a manifestation of different states of energy. Einstien had it right all along.
Certainly if one accepts that the atom is very nearly nothing at all and is almost all empty space (99.99%) (Using the Bohr atom as a model) then the idea has some substance. What we see is really nothing at all other than a bit of energy reacting with radiation- whatever radiation is.

 

[pred]

So if i understand this right we are all made of radiation waves, radiation is a form of light, so that makes us holograms.

http://youtu.be/9-CG6gCrPYM

 

[Hysteresis]

So if i understand this right we are all made of radiation waves, radiation is a form of light, so that makes us holograms.

http://youtu.be/9-CG6gCrPYM[/QUOTE]

NO! One postulation is that we are made of ENERGY which is in the form of MASS (E=MC^2 and all of that) but that Mass is in the form of particles which forms less than 0.01% of the space we perceive as solid matter. ie next to nothing. Those particles can be Energy or Mass and we perceive it by light which is the interaction of this energy and Electromagnetic radiation, which our complex brains turn into a model which is what we see.
Se we see a model of virtually nothing which is EM radiation, which no one knows what that is anyway.
Not my postulation but a postulation made by far more intelligent brains than mine.

 

[pred]

So Arnold Rimmer doesn't come into this equation?

 

[Hysteresis]

Pred - You will never learn, we have already determined I do not have a sense of humour, that is if you class Red Dwarf as humourus.
I stopped considering Red Dwarf type humour mildly funny when I was seven years old or maybe even before that.