RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (5) < [1] 2 3 4 5 >   
  Topic: The Traveling Twin Takes a Short Cut, Continuation of MG v Demski Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2008,22:00   

In the other thread it was pointed out that I had strayed completely off topic.  There was even an implicit remark that this was dishonest.  Therefore, I am starting this thread.

For those that haven't been following the situation, allow me a quick recap...

I had presented my thoughts on the comparative strengths and weaknesses of Mike Gene's and Dembski's methods for inferring design (I feel Mike Gene's is a more honest attempt even if it is weak).

This, of course, engendered pejorative remarks about me personally and repeated inquiries about things like who I am (Mike Gene?), my definitions, my opinions and what books I have read.

I eventually acquiesced to these requests by indicating Penrose’s The Road to Reality is the type of book I like to read and explained some of my general thoughts.  One of which is that I consider the Twin Paradox to be a geometry problem that is explained by understanding the traveling twin takes a short cut.

The last comment (from Doc Bill) was questioning the relationship of this topic to a Biology Forum.  It is at this point that I decided to start this thread and answer that.

As some of you know, I am of the opinion that it is possible life is the result of an evolution of living organisms making direct use of interconnected quantum effects be it for photosynthesis (see recent Berkeley Lab discoveries), DNA processing (see A. Patel) or quantum consciousness (see S. Hameroff).

The reason I feel quantum effects are interconnected is generally based on the Copenhagen quantum interpretation concerning waveforms and specifically due to Penrose’s derivative interpretation called Objective Reduction (OR).

And one of the things that ties it all together is the geometry of our universe.  If the distance in four dimensional space-time is appropriately described by the Minkowskian geometry equation…

dl^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 – dt^2

or in a rotated complex dimension view…

ds^2 = dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2

Then it becomes apparent there are different path lengths between two points in four dimensional space-time and the shortest distance is NOT a straight line.

The homebody twin takes the straight line path along the time dimension (2 years)…

ds = SQRT(2^2 – 0^2 – 0^2 – 0^2)

ds = 2

The traveling twin takes a path out and back (1 year, 0.8 light-years both ways)…

ds = SQRT(1^2 – 0.8^2 – 0^2 – 0^2)
      + SQRT(1^2 – (-0.8)^2 – 0^2 – 0^2)

ds = 1.2    [Edited to correct mistake made in rush]

The traveling twin path is shorter.

The traveling twin takes a short cut.

Things that travel at the speed of light take the ultimate short cut in space-time, the path length is always ZERO.

This trivializes the explanation of quantum experiments involving Bell’s inequality and Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger (GHZ) quantum states, at least for light.  The quantum effects are interconnected because the space-time path length between them is zero.

To me, this starts to tie everything together, as in “life, universe and everything”.

And, yes, that includes Biology.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2008,22:12   

I'm not really interested in patrolling 27 different threads wherein you demonstrate that you have no idea what you're talking about on 27 different subjects ala AFDavey Doodles.

Keep it to these two, or if you're done with the other, let me know so I can close it up and you can keep it to this one.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2008,22:13   

Hi Creek Belly,

In the other thread, you wrote...
 
Quote
I understand Minkowskian geometry, moreover I know when it's applicable. When you gave your example of the traveling twin, I showed that the solution came from both accelerating to +0.8c and -0.8c, you can show that the traveling twin enters a non-inertial reference frame and thus the conflict is resolved. The fact that you're still arguing about physics from special relativity is telling, you need general relativity at least to have any knowledge of gravity.

Here's the catch with Minkowskian geometry: space-like separated events are not causally connected in the classical relativistic picture. If you want to argue that they are, you can perform some experiments to test this. The fact that you can flip signs around doesn't mean anything unless there's a physical effect that we can measure.

Look, I've been reasonably supportive to the point where I'm genuinely interested in the physics research you present. However, when you say things that are demonstrably false, and chide people for holding on to outdated scientific dogma, I get a little annoyed. You complain that we're arguing from authority (I'm not, I'm arguing from the principles of physics), then you turn around and do exactly that. Man up and show me you know what you're talking about.


First point, I agree that I haven't filled in details for things like gravity (which I also view as a geometry problem)  But I think I am starting with a firm foundation of a four dimensional view of space time.  So before we progress to gravity, let's address your other points.

As far as showing things are "causally connected" in space-time with experimental data, I give you Quantum Mechanics and countless Bell inequality and GHZ experiments.  Quantum Mechanics and Cosmology do not exist in separate realities.

This gets back to the fundamental question of whether or not you truly embrace four dimensional space-time.  If four dimensional space-time is real, than the calculated distance is real too.  If the distance is zero, there is no separation.

You say I said something that is demonstrably false.  Besides possibly misapplying terms and my stupid "no acceleration" comment what is demonstrably false about saying the traveling twin takes a short cut?

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2008,22:15   

Hi Lou,

Thank you for asking.  I think we can close up the other thread.  I copied Creeky Belly's comment here.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2008,22:20   

If anyone cares to see the history of this ... stuff, this thread is a continuation of that thread.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
pwe



Posts: 46
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 26 2008,04:27   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 25 2008,22:00)
This trivializes the explanation of quantum experiments involving Bell’s inequality and Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger (GHZ) quantum states, at least for light.  The quantum effects are interconnected because the space-time path length between them is zero.

To me, this starts to tie everything together, as in “life, universe and everything”.

And, yes, that includes Biology.

You don't say?

I have a question, though.

Which of the twins is Mike Gene and which is William Dembski?


- pwe

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 26 2008,10:09   

FYI

Some other nut on the internet wrote...

Quote
Historically, physicist R. P. Feynman first pointed out the fact that the Green functions of Schroedinger equations are given as path integrals [2]. Later, he used it as a fundamental tool for quantum electrodynamics, and had a resounding success.  We find the nice exposition of the “physical meaning.
...
Let “Minkowski path integral” refer to the usual path integral; integral over paths on ‘real’ space-time, interpreted as a Minkowski space. It is known by physicists that when calculating usual path integrals, the formal replacement of the time variable t by “imaginary time” T = it has good effects, e.g. the degree of divergence is reduced. The procedure of replacement is called Euclideanization. This suggests that the Euclideanized path integrals are more likely to be given a mathematical foundation. The history seems to have proven that.
...
However I remark the fact that Euclidean path integral is not ’realistic’, and Minkowskian path integral is the only ’realistic’ path integral, where paths are in the real space-time. In my opinion, the final form of physics should be in Minkowskian formulation. Although mathematical foundation of Minkowskian path integral is an extremely difficult problem, the significance of it must not be underestimated.

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 26 2008,10:44   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 26 2008,10:09)
FYI

Some other nut on the internet wrote...

   
Quote
Historically, physicist R. P. Feynman first pointed out the fact that the Green functions of Schroedinger equations are given as path integrals [2]. Later, he used it as a fundamental tool for quantum electrodynamics, and had a resounding success.  We find the nice exposition of the “physical meaning.
...
Let “Minkowski path integral” refer to the usual path integral; integral over paths on ‘real’ space-time, interpreted as a Minkowski space. It is known by physicists that when calculating usual path integrals, the formal replacement of the time variable t by “imaginary time” T = it has good effects, e.g. the degree of divergence is reduced. The procedure of replacement is called Euclideanization. This suggests that the Euclideanized path integrals are more likely to be given a mathematical foundation. The history seems to have proven that.
...
However I remark the fact that Euclidean path integral is not ’realistic’, and Minkowskian path integral is the only ’realistic’ path integral, where paths are in the real space-time. In my opinion, the final form of physics should be in Minkowskian formulation. Although mathematical foundation of Minkowskian path integral is an extremely difficult problem, the significance of it must not be underestimated.

We're back in the same smelly miasma as in the other thread. Quotations from learned sources (appeals to authority) don't help anything unless you've demonstrated that you understand the source material.  For example, from your quotation,
   
Quote
Although mathematical foundation of Minkowskian path integral is an extremely difficult problem, the significance of it must not be underestimated.
[my bold]
You want to accept the conclusion (the significance must not be underestimated) without understanding its antecedent (an extremely difficult problem).
Here's what you're trying to get away with:


:angry:

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 26 2008,19:26   

Hi Jim,

It is interesting that you chose the Pythagorean Theorem in your attempt to make your point because it was a situation involving this theorem that helped shape the way I approach learning.

I was in advanced placement math classes back in the dark ages when I was in High School.  I was surrounded by the straight-A know-it-alls on their way to PhD status.

One day the class went on a short field trip to a nearby university having a “math day”.  One on the activities was what passed as a multi-media presentation of Euclidean geometry where it was explained how Euclid would have demonstrated (A + B)^2 = A^2 + 2AB + B^2 with rectangles and squares instead of numbers.

The next day the class resumed the study of trigonometry and was given the in-class assignment of proving the Pythagorean Theorem.  The presumption made by the teacher and the rest of the class was that this was to be done using the tools presented in the current chapter.  But the current chapter was basic TRIG which is based on the Pythagorean Theorem.  I was the only one in the class who used Euclidean geometry to do the assignment.  Here we were getting exposed to base foundations and while the know-it-alls could mouth the proper words, work the proper formulas and get the As they really didn’t UNDERSTAND what they were doing.  I did.

My mental defect is I am lopsided towards the analytical.  I can solve puzzles quickly.  I tend to be able to debug software systems based on the symptoms alone.  I see the holistic picture.  I understand it.  This ability is at the expense of bypassing irrelevant details, like proper semantics.  I know why and how to do Fourier Transforms but I still have to look up how to spell it.  

This is the reason why I went down the path of engineering instead of academia.

But back to the point at hand, you feel that I am not demonstrating a complete enough understanding of the subject in order to suffer carrying on a serious discussion with me on it.

I will tell you what I am looking for.  I am looking for the weaknesses in the basic understanding I do have.  Am I trying to see the holistic picture enough to make sense of things.  I am not in the position to make a detailed presentation of the mathematical foundation tying together Cosmology and Quantum Mechanics while proposing an explanation for decoherence.  If I could do that, I would probably mathematically model Black Holes for a living, engage Stephen Hawking in debates, discover patterns for aperiodic tilings as a hobby and get knighted for my accomplishments.

No, you aren’t arguing from authority, you are arguing from repetition.  You, and others, are restating over and over that I am ignorant and I am wrong without saying where specifically my logic breaks down or what specific assumptions you disagree with.

From your comment in the other thread about Henderson-Darling oscillations and reciprocal inversions; I suspect you are familiar with Penrose’s hypotheses even if you disagree with them.

What I am trying to provoke, politely ask for and/or beg is to get a critique of how well I understand Penrose’s hypotheses, even it is at a very crude level.

For example, a critique could go like…
“While Penrose does posit a single wavefunction in space-time his connection, his concept of decoherence is dependent on the existence of quantum gravity which you haven’t addressed.”

  
rhmc



Posts: 340
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 26 2008,19:33   

sorry but that last post puts me in the group that thinks you're full of guano.

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 26 2008,21:29   

Hi RMHC,

Your comment makes me curious.

Do you think I am lying and/or exaggerating?

If so, about what?

That I am an engineer who is good at solving problems?

That the Pythagorean Theorem can be understood with Euclidean geometry?

That Sir Roger Penrose was knighted and discovered Penrose Tilings in his spare time?

If I am lying about Penrose's view of the universe and Quantum Mechanics, that is what I am trying to get people to tell me.

What am I misunderstanding?

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 26 2008,22:25   

No.  The guano is the part about not needing to understand the basics.  The basics are the base of understanding anything.  I'm an actor and this sort of thing really ticks me off.  Everyone thinks they can act--you just memorize stuff right?  Right.  There is no foundation and no process to be learned.  Even those with natural talent need to have a firm grasp of the basics to be able to create good work day in and day out as is needed.  Just saying "I'm funny" is no solution to being able to be funny on demand, every time.  Training and attention to the details of your profession are what allow you to be funny, believable, and endearing.

That you are able to "holistically realize a solution out of thin air" doesn't score you many points if you have such a blatant disregard for the building blocks of the puzzle's subject matter.  What happens when your intuition is off?

Also, the poor analogy of doing Fourier Transforms while not being able to spell it doesn't help your case.  What possible relevance could spelling have to being able to do maths?

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 26 2008,23:31   

Hi Blipey,

You wrote...
Quote
The guano is the part about not needing to understand the basics.


But understanding the basics is what I am doing.  It is the base foundations that I look for, the supporting walls, the pillars.

Take your acting as an example.  Surely, in acting you run into the type of people who can tell you the names of all the different techniques and maybe even have been schooled in them, but still don’t understand them.  Going through the motions and mouthing the words does not mean you understand them.

Yes, the riggers of training is important for the practitioners, be they actors or scientists.  I am neither an actor nor a scientist.  But that doesn’t keep me from understanding and appreciating either or both.

As an actor, would you try to convince me that I am incapable of understanding the need for an actor to be believable just because I don’t know the details of acting techniques?

I don’t think I am relying on intuition, I am relying on understanding.  Of course I can only understand what I know.  I know GPS Satellites must adjust their clocks because four-dimensional space-time is real.  I know quantum effects interact non-locally in three dimensional space (e.g. Bell’s inequality, GHZ states, etc).  I know there are different path lengths between two points in four-dimensional space-time.  It is my understanding that the space-time path lengths correspond to varying perceived clock times.  I deduce that the different clock times in the Twin Paradox is due to different path lengths in space-time.  Which is why I think…

…the traveling twin takes a short cut.

Does my understanding become “guano” because I might not know the proper terminology or I fail to appreciate all the subtleties and techniques needed to reach such a conclusion?

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 27 2008,00:27   

Quote
Does my understanding become “guano” because I might not know the proper terminology or I fail to appreciate all the subtleties and techniques needed to reach such a conclusion?

Most likely, yes.  Understanding is hard without knowing the subtleties and techniques, though I'm sure you wouldn't agree.  There are not many Ramanujans walking around and even he needed to learn the basics to be a contributing member of the mathematical world.
Quote
would you try to convince me that I am incapable of understanding the need for an actor to be believable just because I don’t know the details of acting techniques?

No, I would say that you are incapable of being an actor.  And it is no stretch to say that without knowing the basics and techniques of physics, you are incapable of being a physicist.  Try not to mix the metaphors.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 27 2008,00:35   

Quote
Of course I can only understand what I know.

This is the kind of thing that makes you look like a kook.  This is a waste of type and you only include it for one of the following reasons:

1.  You think it is profound and needs mentioning.  It doesn't; it's a truism.  Most people take it for granted and talk about interesting things.

2.  You think that it helps make your case in some way, or helps people figure out who you are.  It may do the latter, otherwise it is trivial.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Bob O'H



Posts: 2132
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 27 2008,01:56   

Quote
My mental defect is I am lopsided towards the analytical.  I can solve puzzles quickly.  I tend to be able to debug software systems based on the symptoms alone.  I see the holistic picture.  I understand it.  This ability is at the expense of bypassing irrelevant details, like proper semantics.

Methinks a bit more attention to relevant details might come in handy.  Things like being able to work out when something is accelerating.

Bob

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 27 2008,08:57   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 26 2008,23:31)
Take your acting as an example.  Surely, in acting you run into the type of people who can tell you the names of all the different techniques and maybe even have been schooled in them, but still don’t understand them.  Going through the motions and mouthing the words does not mean you understand them.

That's an excellent description, TP -- of you.

"Mouthing the words" without understanding.  Knowing the jargon, with no clue as to what it actually means.  That is you, to a 'T'.

Case in point:  for several days now, you've been making a fundamental mistake that completely undermines your position regarding special relativity and the twin paradox.  I've been waiting to see if you would catch your error.  By now it is clear that you never will.

You have been claiming, for days, that special relativity is "wrong" and that the Minkowskian geometry of general relativity is needed in order to make sense of the twin paradox:
Quote
A lot of people think of the Special Relativity answer to the Twins Paradox when they hear "relativity" or "space-time".  That version is so incomplete that I consider it wrong.

Quote
In his book Penrose explains the Twins Paradox (i.e. Clock Paradox) is a geometry problem.

He demonstrates how using the Minkowskian geometry of General Relativity ALL BY ITSELF solves the paradox.  Note, a generalized Twins Paradox problem doesn't include gravity.

People feel more comfortable saying and thinking of General Relativity as just a minor upgrade to Special Relativity.  You can even find lots and lots of people with impressive credentials saying just that.

Quote
Since I am on a roll.  Let me offer you something sure to cause a loud howl from the Group Think mentality that holds court here.

The reason for the introductory lesson in Minkowskian geometry and General Relativity is to awaken you to the reality of shortcuts in space-time.

Quote
Special Relativity is superfluous.  General Relativity is a complete explanation.  Special Relativity no longer needs to be a consideration.  Occam's razor suggests we should discard it.  That is what I am doing.

Minkowskian space-time geometry is the appropriate model of our universe, not Euclidean geometry.

Quote
Minkowskian space-time geometry is the appropriate model of our universe, not Euclidean geometry.


Guess what, TP? Minkowskian geometry is the geometry of special relativity, not general relativity.  

Without realizing it, you've been using special relativity to resolve the twin paradox, all the while claiming that special relativity is "wrong" and that general relativity is needed to resolve the paradox.

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.  Just pathetic.

Knowing you, I suspect that you will try to frame this as a mere "semantic" issue.  You'll try to claim that even if you used the wrong term to describe the geometry of general relativity, you understood the concepts all along.

Wrong.

Not only have you claimed that Minkowskian geometry is the basis of general relativity, when it actually applies to special relativity, you've also used the mathematics of Minkowskian geometry to analyze the twin paradox:
Quote
Hmmm, let's do the math…

ds^2 = dt^2 - (dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2)
= (1 year)^2 - (0.9 light-years)^2
= 1.0 - 0.81
= 0.19

ds = 0.436 years

Quote
All I can do is my best.

ds = sqrt(dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2)

Quote
It is my understanding that the arc length function that matches experimental data like GPS satellites is...

ds = SQRT( dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2)

Quote
What is your understanding on the significance of Minkowskian goemetry?

Did I misapply this equation Penrose presented in The Road to Reality?  (chapter 18 is titled "Minkowskian geometry")

ds^2 = dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2


This is classic.  You tell us that special relativity is wrong, and that it cannot resolve the twin paradox.  Then you proceed to show us (copying Penrose) how special relativity (via Minkowskian geometry) resolves the twin paradox.  And you do all this without realizing that you've shot yourself in the foot.  Wait to go, TP.

You've also shown us that you completely misunderstand Penrose's chapter on Minkowskian geometry.  

Now do you understand why we've been asking you to set the blogs aside for a while, pick up a book on elementary physics, and really learn it for a change?

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 27 2008,09:04   

[quote=Thought Provoker,Jan. 26 2008,19:26][/quote]
Quote

My mental defect is I am lopsided towards the analytical.  I can solve puzzles quickly.  I tend to be able to debug software systems based on the symptoms alone.  I see the holistic picture.  I understand it.

No, your "mental defect," if you choose to call it that, is being unable to understand why your intuitions don't count when you don't understand the basic ideas. You've demonstrated (to yourself, at least) a facility for problem solving, and having been favorably impressed with your results you've apparently come to believe that you can apply your quasi-Sherlock Holmes methods to every problem that presents itself.  It's a form of narcissism.  Being able to debug software systems by examining symptoms is called "experience."  You don't have it in physics, and can't (or won't) understand why it matters.

Quote
This is the reason why I went down the path of engineering instead of academia.

I'm an engineer too, and I know enough physics to be able to apply what I need in my work, but my knowledge is far from comprehensive.  I understand what I don't know, and don't pretend I know more because I read mass-market books. I'm not interested in trying to solve problems I'm not qualified to understand.
Quote
But back to the point at hand, you feel that I am not demonstrating a complete enough understanding of the subject in order to suffer carrying on a serious discussion with me on it.

I will tell you what I am looking for.  I am looking for the weaknesses in the basic understanding I do have.  Am I trying to see the holistic picture enough to make sense of things.  I am not in the position to make a detailed presentation of the mathematical foundation tying together Cosmology and Quantum Mechanics while proposing an explanation for decoherence.  If I could do that, I would probably mathematically model Black Holes for a living, engage Stephen Hawking in debates, discover patterns for aperiodic tilings as a hobby and get knighted for my accomplishments.


No, you're not looking for weaknesses in your understanding; if that were the case we wouldn't be into a second or third thread of people explaining that your weakness lies in basic ignorance.  Amongst a good portion of the ignorant masses your grand pronouncements and liberal use of jargon make it seem like you know what you're talking about, but it's a thin disguise when you're spouting off to people who know better.
Quote
No, you aren’t arguing from authority, you are arguing from repetition.  You, and others, are restating over and over that I am ignorant and I am wrong without saying where specifically my logic breaks down or what specific assumptions you disagree with.

Your logic breaks down because of your ignorance. That's what you need to fix. Until you do, you have no basis for understanding anything anyone tells you with regard to specific errors. You are either too lazy or too impressed with yourself to understand where the problem lies. Thus the repetition.  Just because you refuse to acknowledge the problem doesn't mean that the problem doesn't exist.  It's cognitive dissonance.
Quote
From your comment in the other thread about Henderson-Darling oscillations and reciprocal inversions; I suspect you are familiar with Penrose’s hypotheses even if you disagree with them.

What I am trying to provoke, politely ask for and/or beg is to get a critique of how well I understand Penrose’s hypotheses, even it is at a very crude level.

Here's the deal, in a nutshell: if you understood Penrose's hypotheses, you wouldn't need to ask, and if you really understood that you don't understand them, you would seek knowledge rather than forming conclusions and challenging people to refute them.  You're not interested in being proven wrong, and it's transparently disingenuous to try to convince us otherwise. You should stick with TT, where there are plenty of ignorant slobs who'll be duly impressed.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 27 2008,10:06   

In order to better reflect the actual content of this thread, I think it should be renamed to "Thought Provoker thinks he can take a shortcut."

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
hooligans



Posts: 114
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 27 2008,11:01   

Thought P said:
Quote
One on the activities was what passed as a multi-media presentation of Euclidean geometry where it was explained how Euclid would have demonstrated (A + B)^2 = A^2 + 2AB + B^2 with rectangles and squares instead of numbers.


That's the way most math teachers go about it nowadays. Except at our school we teach these concepts at the 8th grade.

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 27 2008,11:44   

Hi all,

Actually Keiths you are correct on two fronts, in that I now understand Minkowskian geometry is generally considered to be flat not curved and, therefore, is mostly a reformation of special relativity. And you are right in that I will call it a semantics problem because I have been thinking in terms of a flexible Minkowskian geometry that could be either flat or curved.

This is something I have come to understand better because of our recent exchanges and why I changed my tune to admitting that you might have caught me misusing the term "General Relativity".

Here is something from a CalTech web page titled  What is General Relativity?

   
Quote
We've described the Euclidean (or Euclidean-Mesopotamian :-) metric in two space dimensions:
dL^2 = dX^2 + dY^2
and we've discussed at some length the complications that arise with the addition of time to space to give the Minkowski metric (shown here in just one space and one time dimension):
dS^2 = c^2 dT^2 - dX^2
What else can we do to our spacetime distance function to make life more interesting (and hopefully solve the problem with Newtonian gravity discussed in the last section)?
What if we play around with the form of the Minkowski metric? It turns out that if the spacetime metric is arranged in the right manner, we can get something called spacetime curvature. And that is what the General Theory of Relativity is all about.
For example, suppose we add some extra space and time dependence to the Minkowski metric to make a new spacetime distance function
dS^2 = gTT(T,X) c^2 dT^2 - gXX(T,X) dX^2
Using differential geometry, taking the right combination of first and second derivatives of gTT(T,X) and gXX(T,X), we could calculate the what is called the curvature tensor Ruv for this choice of spacetime distance function. The subscripts on Ruv are called tensor indices and refer back to the coordinates used in the above metric. The Minkowski metric corresponds to the choice gTT = gXX = 1 and it has Ruv = 0 for all values of the tensor indices. This is why the Minkowski metric is known also as flat spacetime - because the spacetime curvature calculated from this distance function is zero.


Now I may be wrong, but from the type of responses I have gotten from the less vocal viewers, I suspect some don't have enough understanding to know which clock runs faster; a clock floating motionless in free space away from any gravity wells or a clock sitting on a planet size chunk of rock which is floating motionless’ in free space (not even rotating).

I can use my crude, semantically incorrect view of Minkowskian geometry to realize that a curvature in four-dimensional space-time is going to be described by a matrix simular to how a two dimensional curvature would be described by...

Gxx, Gxy
Gyx, Gyy

Accept instead of 2x2 it would be 4x4.

So when calculating path length segments (ds) in curved space-time something that would otherwise traveling straight along the time dimension where...

ds = SQRT(dt^2)

...ends up with cross products from the matrix multiplication with something like...

ds = SQRT(0.99999*dt^2 - 0.00447*dz^2)

So things in gravity wells are like the traveling twin taking a short cut.

Therefore, the clock sitting on the rock appears to be running slower compared to the clock floating motionless in free space.

Isn't a good thing that the general level of understanding is being increased?  Even though I may be the only one learning something new here (which I doubt).

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 27 2008,13:08   

A man groping blindly in the darkness of his self-imposed grave of ignorance, all the while proclaiming himself the light of the world to those holding the candlelight vigil for him.

Open the casket, it's locked from the inside.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 27 2008,19:42   

Hi All,

FYI from the crypt.

Starting with standard Minkowskian geometry...

ds^2 = dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2

Converting Cartesian to polar
( dx to r*d(phi) and dy to r*sin(phi)*d(theta) and dz to dr)

ds^2 = dt^2 - (r*d(phi))^2 - (r*sin(phi)*d(theta))^2 - dr^2

Allowing for curved space...

ds^2 = Gtt*dt^2 - (r*d(phi))^2 - (r*sin(phi)d(theta))^2 - Grr*dr^2

In flat space, Gtt = Grr = 1

In generalized curved space, Gtt = 1/Grr, therefore...

ds^2 = Gtt*dt^2 - (r*d(phi))^2 - (r*sin(phi)d(theta))^2 - dr^2 / Gtt

The sharper the curve, the smaller the Gtt.

In my crude, incorrect semantic way of looking at things, I would have called this curved Minkowskian geometry.

However, if Gtt is calculated to be equal to...

Gtt = 1 - 2 * G * M / r

...where M is mass and G is the gravitational constant I understand this becomes known as Schwarzschild Geometry.

ds^2 = Gtt*dt^2 - (r*d(phi))^2 - (r*sin(phi)d(theta))^2 - dr^2 / Gtt

I offer that this equation combines aspects of General Relativity (gravity) with aspects of Special Relativity (flat Minkowskian geometry) in one equation.

And we are still calculating paths through four dimensional space-time.

So, even if it involves gravity and acceleration, the traveling twin still takes a short cut.

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 27 2008,19:59   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 27 2008,17:44)
Hi all,

Actually Keiths you are correct on two fronts, in that I now understand Minkowskian geometry is generally considered to be flat not curved and, therefore, is mostly a reformation of special relativity. And you are right in tha I will call it a semantics problem because I have been thinking in terms of a flexible Minkowskian geometry that could be either flat or curved.

"Hi everyone. You know, X is Y not Z, and a lot of you have been pointing this out to me, but I'm still right because I'm saying X might be Y or Z."

Seriously, are you THAT good at doublethink?

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 27 2008,21:11   

Hi Ian,
   
Quote
Seriously, are you THAT good at doublethink?


And I suppose you think that is double-ungood right?

If it isn't obvious by now, I am not concerned about proper terminology and am focusing on ideas, especially thought provoking ideas.

Do you accept the reality of four dimensional space-time?

If time is truly just another dimension (albeit complex), wouldn't you agree that paths through it would be of the form...
ds^2 = A*dt^2 + B*dx^2 + C*dy^2 + D*dz^2
...where in non-curved space-time A, B, C and D are either 1 or -1 depending on the orientation of the real and imaginary planes?

If the four dimensional geometry is real, doesn't that make the paths real too?

Do you disagree that whether you calculate it in Cartesian or Polar, with or without curvature due to gravity, it looks like a clock measures the path length of four dimensional space-time?

Now you might be able to reformulate things to map into Euclidean geometry and other assumptions made by Newtonian Physics (e.g. acceleration) but only under "special" circumstance.  Does this detract from our ability to understand and calculate varying path lengths in space-time?

Do you doubt the traveling twin takes a short cut?

If so, why?

If not, then we can move on to the thought provoking implications of things traveling at the speed of light taking the ultimate short cut in four dimensional space-time.

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2008,01:19   

Shorter TP:

I'm not interested in the peanut butter of LAN jacks but rather on stratifying the brittle lamp shade of provoking vomit.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2008,04:18   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 28 2008,03:11)
Hi Ian,
     
Quote
Seriously, are you THAT good at doublethink?


And I suppose you think that is double-ungood right?

If it isn't obvious by now, I am not concerned about proper terminology and am focusing on ideas, especially thought provoking ideas.

Do you accept the reality of four dimensional space-time?
[Sinp to cut things neither I, nor TP understand]

Ok, 1. I, like you, am not qualified to talk about this, so I, unlike you, won't try to discuss the finer points.

2. You are literally admitting "I am making things up, and using proper terms to apply to totally different ideas I pull out of my ass"

Why should ANYONE bother talking to you, you freaking psycho?

Seriously, what the hell? It would be like me saying I wanted to discuss evolution, then talking non stop about the genesis creation story and calling it evolution. It's not just slightly incorrect, it's total misuse of actual terms. You might as well start talking about how "liberals" are left wing.

They aren't, and general relativity and special are't the same which YOU state yourself, so stop calling one the other.

Good grief.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
olegt



Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2008,07:39   

I haven't read the previous thread, but if I understand it correctly, TP is arguing something physicists and mathematicians have known for a while: a zigzag path in a spacetime with a metric signature (+,-,-,-) has a shorter length than a straight line.  Duh!

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2008,08:18   

Quote (olegt @ Jan. 28 2008,07:39)
I haven't read the previous thread, but if I understand it correctly, TP is arguing something physicists and mathematicians have known for a while: a zigzag path in a spacetime with a metric signature (+,-,-,-) has a shorter length than a straight line.  Duh!

OT:

olegt, do you have a link to your FTK sig?  Given proper context that could be my new favorite.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2008,13:03   

Hi Olegt,

Thank you for that simple explanation.

I agree, I didn't think it was that difficult.

The traveling twin takes a short cut.

Would you also state it is obvious that the path length of things moving at the speed of light is ZERO in spacetime with a (+,-,-,-) metric signature?

ds^2 = dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2

  
olegt



Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2008,13:14   

blipey, I'll have to look for the reference.  

TP, yes, it's well known (to physicists and mathematicians, anyway) that light travels along null geodesics.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2008,13:52   

Thank you again olegt.

Now that we finally got that squared away, hopefully we can see how the apparent interconnections of "non-local" photons in quantum experiments (e.g. EPR, Bell inequality, Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger (GHZ) states, etc.) isn't that mysterious once it is recognized that this all happens in four dimensional space-time.

Is this another obvious statement?

  
olegt



Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2008,15:02   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 28 2008,13:52)
Thank you again olegt.

Now that we finally got that squared away, hopefully we can see how the apparent interconnections of "non-local" photons in quantum experiments (e.g. EPR, Bell inequality, Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger (GHZ) states, etc.) isn't that mysterious once it is recognized that this all happens in four dimensional space-time.

Is this another obvious statement?

Obvious?  I don't think so.  Your statement is wrong, on a couple of levels.

For starters, the relativistic aspect is not particularly relevant to the EPR paradox: the original and its variants apply to nonrelativistic quantum mechanics as well.  The 1935 paper by Einstein et al. dealt with the physical observable known as momentum, a concept perfectly valid in nonrelativistic mechanics.  Bell formulated his theorem for two nonrelativistic particles carrying spins 1/2.  You don't need photons, you can do experiments with particles at rest.  

Relativity only serves to highlight the paradox: if a physical signal could travel faster than the speed of light, it would also violate causality (in a different reference frame).  So, relativity does not explain anything; on the contrary, it makes quantum physics more mysterious.  

The EPR paradox is not only stated but also resolved without any help from relativity.  While the measurement performed on one part of an entangled pair does change the wavefunction of the pair, there are no experimentally measurable consequences to the other part.  Suppose Alice and Bob share two spin-1/2 particles in an entangled state with a total spin 0.  If Alice measures the spin of her particle, she knows instantaneously that Bob's particle as a spin pointing in the opposite direction.  She can predict what the result of Bob's measurement will be, but she can't send Bob any signal using this setup because no matter what Bob does with his particle, he won't be able to learn whether Alice did her measurement.  So Alice can't send an instantaneous signal to Bob and thus there is no paradox.  There is a vast amount of literature on this, so I won't go into details.  

To conclude, TP, your appeal to spacetime does not resolve the EPR paradox because relativity makes it even worse (no physical object can travel faster than light).  The resolution lies in the nonclassical nature of quantum randomness: the rules of quantum physics are logically consistent, even though they do not agree with probabilistic interpretations inspired by classical physics (hence the paradox in the form of Bell's theorem).  Experiments nonetheless show that quantum theory gives correct predictions, so it's vindicated.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2008,18:56   

Not that we're not all having a blast here, but exactly what does all this have to do with either biological evolution or the Intelligent Design Creationism Hoax?

I mean, is there a point coming along at any time in the near future?

Just wonderin'.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2008,20:05   

Hi Lou,

This thread has only 33 replies but 20 times as many views.  Significantly more interest than the thread about baseball (which has 35 replies).

I laid out the connection to biology in the opening post.  I hope you aren't going to pull the plug just when someone steps up and starts engaging in a discussion.

That being said, I will try to keep things moving.

Thank You

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2008,20:40   

Hi oldgt,

Thank you for your comment.

I agree that classical information can't propagate faster than the speed of light.  But quantum information can't result in causal paradoxes so there is nothing inherently preventing it for freely traveling anywhere and anywhen in space-time.

I noticed you referenced the wavefunction of the quantum effects.  Does this mean you lean towards the Copenhagen quantum interpretation?

Penrose uses the term quanglement to be short for quantum entanglement.  The interconnection of quantum effects.  I consider his OR interpretation to be a Copenhagen derivative.

I agree that quanglement occurs in situations other than light.  I find quantum experiments that demonstrate Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger (GHZ) states less fuzzy and when done with light I think it provides a good introduction to understanding "quantum weirdness".

In GHZ experiments, two measurements force the state of the third and the logic of third state flips depending on the measurements.  It is clear (at least to me) that the three quantum effects are interconnected.

I'm confused as to why you seem to resist considering quantum information traveling the paths of spacetime.  As things approach the speed of light (from the classical viewpoint) the space-time path gets shorter and shorter.  The wavefunction for light is compressed in a spacetime path of zero length.

To me, this means the classical view of three GHZ quantum effects being separate yet connected is explainable by embracing the reality of four dimensional spacetime.

So I consider the relativistic aspect very relevant to understanding Quantum Mechanics.  It is the nonrelativistic decoherence that is the tricky part.

Are you aware of Penrose's opinions on quantum gravity?

  
olegt



Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2008,22:09   

TP, all current interpretations of quantum mechanics are equivalent as far as experimental consequences are concerned.  So there is no physical reason to prefer one interpretation over another.  The Copenhagen interpretation has the advantage of being taught in college courses, which makes it the lingua franca of QM.  That's a good enough reason to stick with it and there are no good reasons to do otherwise.  

The rest of your comment contains statements that are either trivially true or extremely vague.  Yes, the quantum wavefunction of a particle can be changed at a distance if it is in an entangled state.  However, I have no idea what you mean by "quantum information" that travels faster than light.  Give a formal definition, then we can discuss it.  

And no, relativity is not necessary for the understanding of quantum physics.  Every textbook I know (and that's not a small number) deals at length with the nonrelativistic theory first.  Relativistic quantum mechanics is a marriage of quantum mechanics and relativity, two areas of physics that are already well developed on their own.  Take a look inside this classic textbook and you'll see what I mean.  


ETA: Penrose's views on quantum gravity are irrelevant to this question.  There is no theory of quantum gravity yet, as far as I know.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2008,22:48   

No, I hadn't planned on pulling any plugs.  I was just curious if you were trying to go somewhere or just rambling.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2008,22:54   

(), (_), (___) ... RAWHIDE!

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2008,08:52   

Hi olegt,

Thank you for replying.  Excuse the quick response, but I am at work.  I will do a longer response later.  For now I wanted to ask something in reply to...
 
Quote
TP, all current interpretations of quantum mechanics are equivalent as far as experimental consequences are concerned.  So there is no physical reason to prefer one interpretation over another.


Do you consider the Many Worlds interpretation as having a PHYSICAL justification?

I think it is metaphysical.  As metaphysical as saying "God works in mysterious ways."

Is "God does it" a legitimate quantum interpretation?

BTW, I think Ken Miller comes close to saying just that when justifying his Theistic Evolution view.

P.S. Thanks for the link to the textbook.  I will try to address that later.

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2008,13:01   

Thought Provoker keeps running up against a cruel fact: the people who contribute new ideas to physics are those who understand physics in the first place.  He would prefer to live in a world where a breezy misreading of Penrose's The Road to Reality puts one on the Nobel short list.

Lacking the discipline to learn physics, TP instead employs a quasi-Darwinian approach to theorizing:

1. Throw out a bunch of random ideas that seem intuitively correct.  Pretend that they are settled truth.

2. Accuse your opponents of "group-think" when they demur.

3. Pepper your discourse with platitudes and truisms like "I can only understand what I know" and "I don't know the Truth, do you?"

4. Quietly drop ideas when your opponents point out their flaws.  If you acknowledge your errors at all, pretend that they are merely "semantic" issues -- the kind of thing that a "straight-A PhD type" might obsess over, but not something that a genius of your stature would stoop to consider:
Quote
I see the holistic picture.  I understand it.  This ability is at the expense of bypassing irrelevant details, like proper semantics.

5. Keep pushing any ideas that don't immediately get shot down.  The idea is to use your opponents, who actually understand physics, to winnow your ideas for you.  In the end, you'll take credit for the ones that survive.

This quasi-Darwinian process hasn't worked so well for TP, who has made the following claims:

Claim:  Einstein developed special relativity to deal with the problems of Mercury's orbital precession and the gravitational redshift of light.

Status:  Wrong.  Those phenomena are explained by general relativity, not special relativity.

Claim: There is no inertial frame of reference in special relativity.

Status:  Wrong.  There are an infinite number of inertial frames.

Claim: Special relativity cannot resolve the twin paradox, but general relativity can, via Minkowskian geometry.

Status: Wrong.  Special relativity is based on Minkowskian geometry; general relativity is not.  The fact that the twin paradox can be resolved via Minkowskian geometry means that special relativity is sufficient.

Claim:  An orbiting spacecraft experiences no acceleration.

Status:  Wrong even in Newtonian physics, fercrissakes.

Claim:  The traveling twin, going from rest to 0.8c, and then to -0.8c, experiences no acceleration.

Status: Again, wrong even in Newtonian physics.

Claim:  Relativity explains the EPR paradox.

Status: Wrong.

Claim: Relativity is essential to understanding quantum mechanics.

Status:  Wrong.

As far as I can tell, TP has presented only one idea that hasn't been shot down (and even then he got it wrong by attributing it to general relativity and not to special relativity):  the idea that the spacetime path is shorter for the Traveler than it is for the Homebody in the context of the twin paradox.

Unfortunately for TP, that fact has been known for decades, and nobody on either of these two threads has contested it.  Even Penrose states it explicitly in his chapter on Minkowskian geometry.

Here, collected from throughout these threads, is some good advice for TP: 

Quote
Again, TP, I urge you to take some time to learn some basic physics.

Quote
After decades of study, you should be able to understand what each Twin observes. Please grapple with the simple case first.

Quote
Sometimes you need to walk before you run. Start at the level of "forming coherent basic idea" before trying to "synthesise myriad complex concepts poorly understood from popular science books" or "revolutionising all of science".

Quote
Read the Lasky article again, and try to comprehend it this time.  Find an intelligent friend who can explain it to you, if necessary.

Quote
You need a better grasp of quantum physics and mechanics beyond the people who popularize it; maybe look for an evening Master's program in physics.

Quote
Why keep embarrassing yourself?  Take some time off from the blogs, get a nice freshman-level physics text, and learn the basics.  People won't take you seriously as long as it's obvious that you don't know what you're talking about.

Quote
On the other hand, you didn't come here looking for answers, you came to spout off about your theory. You then proceeded to tell everyone how wrong they were about physics, and now it's some wonder when they throw it back in your face. I think you're genuinely interested in the science, but I don't think you do yourself justice when you can't be humble enough to ask for help.

Quote
Seriously, stop arguing your idiotic points and start asking intelligent questions.  You are surrounded by people far more knowledgable than you, an intelligent person would realize that and attempt to profit from their insight.

Quote
If I can't trust that you know what you're talking about (you clearly don't), then I, like others on this board, have no reason to listen. You need to take the initiative: put down the popular books, pick up a textbook, work out some examples, and convince us that you have a mastery of the basics before you even think about relativity.

Quote
Methinks a bit more attention to relevant details might come in handy.  Things like being able to work out when something is accelerating.

Quote
Now do you understand why we've been asking you to set the blogs aside for a while, pick up a book on elementary physics, and really learn it for a change?

Quote
A man groping blindly in the darkness of his self-imposed grave of ignorance, all the while proclaiming himself the light of the world to those holding the candlelight vigil for him.

Open the casket, it's locked from the inside.


--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2008,16:29   

Hi Keiths,

Such emotion.  Did you notice my pseudonym includes the word "Provoker"?

You wrote...
Quote
The idea is to use your opponents, who actually understand physics, to winnow your ideas for you.


Guilty as charged.  Of course, that is kind of what I have been indicating all along.

While I appreciate your (and other's) help in educating me on some of the details, the title of this thread is The Traveling Twin takes a Short Cut.  I consider this concept key to my understanding of Penrose's OR and Orch OR (the latter being a joint Penrose/Hameroff hypothesis).

Now that the concept of short cuts through space-time seems to have survived the gauntlet, we are moving on to other aspects of Penrose's OR.  For example, that all quantum effects are just exposed parts of a single, multidimensional wavefunction in space-time.

To me, that implies that all quantum effects are interconnected.

But if you feel you have a better understanding of Penrose's OR or Orch OR, by all means, please feel free to correct me.

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2008,17:35   

Hi olegt,

I feel that Penrose's opinions on quantum gravity are  quite relevant to a discussion on decoherence.  Here is something I found from Notes for a brief history of quantum gravity

 
Quote

1964
Penrose introduces the idea of spin networks, and of a discrete structure of space controlled by SU(2) representation theory. The construction exists only in the form of a handwritten manuscript. It gets published only in 1971 [24]. The idea will surprisingly re-emerge 25 years later, when spin networks will be found to label the states of loop quantum gravity.
...
1986
Penrose suggests that the wave function collapse in quantum mechanics might be of quantum gravitational origin [63]. The idea is radical and implies a re-thinking of the basis of mechanics. Remarkably, the idea may be testable: work is today in progress to study the feasibility of an experimental test.


Here is something in Penrose's own words

Will try to expand comments later.

  
rhmc



Posts: 340
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2008,17:59   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 28 2008,21:05)
This thread has only 33 replies but 20 times as many views.  Significantly more interest than the thread about baseball (which has 35 replies).

some of us are just here to watch the train wreck.

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2008,19:48   

Quote (rhmc @ Jan. 29 2008,17:59)
 
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 28 2008,21:05)
This thread has only 33 replies but 20 times as many views.  Significantly more interest than the thread about baseball (which has 35 replies).

some of us are just here to watch the train wreck.

As far as I can tell, everybody but TP is here for the train wreck.

Even if Orch OR were a promising theory, TP is the last person you'd go to for an explanation, after witnessing his performance on these threads.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2008,20:05   

Quote
Did you notice my pseudonym includes the word "Provoker"?


I also noticed it includes the word "Thought".

When you put the two words together many people would get the impression that new ideas are to be broached.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
olegt



Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2008,20:07   

TP, quantum decoherence was not the subject of our discussion and couldn't have been.  Quantum entanglement is destroyed by decoherence, which means that if you wish to have the former, you make sure that the latter does not occur.  There is no point in dragging it in if your goal is to discuss entanglement.  

I see no further point in having a discussion with you since you are unable to stay on topic and keep changing the subject.  You haven't bothered to define what you mean by "quantum information," and from that I conclude that you are not interested in having a conversation, either.  

Best wishes,

OT

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2008,22:31   

Hi olegt,

Thank you for your comments.  I am sorry to hear you are dropping out, especially after I read through the textbook's contents and excerpts.  I noticed it had the parathetical "(Non-relevistic Theory)" and came from the "USSR Academy of Sciences".  I was uncomfortable that this was a typical textbook, so I went to Amazon and found a textbook that was highly recommended.  The third chapter was titled "All is not well with Classic Mechanics" (link)

As for explaining quantum information I thank you for the motivation.  While I think defining "quantum information" is similar to trying to define "information", I think I should have a better definition than I do.

From Quantum Mechanics as Quantum Information...
 
Quote
Until we can explain quantum theory’s essence to a junior-high-school or high-school student and have them walk away with a deep, lasting memory, we will have not understood a thing about the quantum foundations.
So, throw the existing axioms of quantum mechanics away and start afresh! But how to proceed? I myself see no alternative but to contemplate deep and hard the tasks, the techniques, and the implications of quantum information theory. The reason is simple, and I think inescapable. Quantum mechanics has always been about information. It is just that the physics community has
somehow forgotten this.
...
Quantum entanglement has certainly captured the attention of our community. By most accounts it is the main ingredient in quantum information theory and quantum computing [64], and it is the main mystery of the quantum foundations [65]. But what is it? Where does it come from?
The predominant purpose it has served in this paper has been as a kind of background. For it, more than any other ingredient in quantum mechanics, has clinched the issue of “information about what?” in the author’s mind: That information cannot be about a preexisting reality (a hidden variable) unless we are willing to renege on our reason for rejecting the quantum state’s objective reality in the first place. What I am alluding to here is the conjunction of the Einstein argument reported in Section 3 and the phenomena of the Bell inequality violations by quantum mechanics. Putting those points together gave us that the information symbolized by a |?> must be information about the potential consequences of our interventions into the world.


Well it is late, if you change your mind I would like to continue.

Thanks again.

  
Nomad



Posts: 311
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2008,23:22   

I'm sorry, TP, but did you just attempt to say (by using the words of another, of course) that if it can't be explained to an ignorant high schooler than it isn't understood at all?

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2008,06:48   

TP said  
Quote
As for explaining quantum information I thank you for the motivation.  While I think defining "quantum information" is similar to trying to define "information", I think I should have a better definition than I do.


I find that strange (or would if I were having a discussion with a normal person) in light of TP earlier saying the following:  
Quote
I'm confused as to why you seem to resist considering quantum information traveling the paths of spacetime.


Which means that TP's earlier statement should be translated as

I'm confused as to why you seem to resist considering that this-thing-that-I-have-no-good-definition-for-and-really-just-a-vague-notion-of-what-I-wou
ld-like-it-to-be-but-can't-really-explain-it  can travel the paths of spacetime.


Gee, I have no idea why there are no provoking thoughts happening here.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2008,16:18   

Please excuse my brief absence.  I had some non-blog reading and correspondence to catch up on.

My daughter is well on her way to earning her PhD.  She briefly mentioned my wild ideas to her mentor.  He asked for more information.  What follows is the letter I am sending to him.  I am interested in hearing his reaction.

Dr. [name withheld],

[My daughter] tells me that you are interested in hearing about the subject of my internet debates concerning the timing and source of consciousness. If you want to simply jump into the deep-end of the pool take a look at www.hameroff.com and start reading Dr. Hameroff’s numerous publications. However, if you want a less abrupt introduction, I will attempt to give you the benefit of my general understanding.

Dr. Hameroff is a sixty year old Professor Emeritus at the University of Arizona where he is the Director for the Center of Consciousness Studies. Dr. Hameroff indicates he has always been interested in the study of consciousness and that was the main reason he studied Anesthesiology. He figured the best way to understand consciousness was to study the details of what causes unconsciousness. It was this line of investigation that led him to suspect that the microtubules in neurons had a key role in consciousness.

In 1982 Stuart Hameroff, along with R.C. Watt, presented a paper titled Information Processing in Microtubules where they laid out how the tubulin dimers that make up microtubules can act like on/off bits in a computer. This wasn’t exactly a new idea, other people had considered the possibility that a cell’s cytoskeleton (which is made up of microtubules and actin filaments) might act as a kind of nervous system for the cell. However, Hameroff was going beyond that to suggest that not only does anesthesia disrupt the tubulin processing but that the processing is quantum, not classical. Bluntly put, Hameroff is suggesting that each neuron contain multiple quantum computers working in concert to give rise to consciousness.

Hameroff has an anesthesiologist background; Watt came from the department of Electrical Engineering. These are hardly the credentials needed to be taken seriously in the field of Quantum Mechanics. Besides, all they were saying at this point was that the brain has significantly more processing power than generally thought. Instead of a processing bit per neuron, Hameroff was suggesting a processing bit per tubulin.

Enter Sir Roger Penrose.

Roger Penrose worked with Stephen Hawking (the guy in the wheelchair) in mathematically modeling Black Holes. Penrose and Hawking are peers from different schools of thought that trace their roots back to Bohr and Einstein. Penrose and Hawking have jointly written at least one book and held a debate in 1994 which was hyped as the modern equivalent of the old Bohr/Einstein debates. The debate was generally about what are fundamentally real foundations verses what are simply observations yet to be understood.

In Quantum Mechanics several things show a dual nature. For example, light can be thought of as both photons and light waves. There are many more startling examples of this, including a single particle being in two places at one time. There are mathematical models that explain this and modern physicists no longer hesitate of talk about superposition (two or more quantum states existing simultaneously) and Qbits (quantum bits that are both “1” and “0”).

Bohr, Penrose and most adherents to the Copenhagen School generally consider the superposition nature to be fundamentally real. The term “waveform collapse” is used to describe the event of multiple states resulting in a single observed state. The general thought was that the collapse was caused by the observation and that the final state was random (constrained by permissible states). Einstein and Schrödinger were on the opposite side of the debate. It was in this context that Einstein exclaimed “God doesn’t play dice.” Einstein was convinced that, like Newtonian Physics, Quantum Physics had to be deterministic. The general argument was that a more complete quantum theory would be figured out someday and it would provide a logical explanation for the observations. Schrödinger posed a thought experiment for the purpose of challenging the Copenhagen School. If a cat’s life was directly tied to a quantum effect in superposition, would the cat be both alive and dead at the same time? Schrödinger eventually regretted posing this intractable puzzle since it plagued physicists on both sides. Schrödinger’s Cat was very much a relevant topic in the 1994 Penrose/Hawking debate (although Hawking tried to downplay its significance).

Penrose has developed a Copenhagen like hypothesis he calls Objective Reduction. However, rather than multiple waveforms collapsing he suggests that the universe is one large wavefunction in four dimensional space-time and quantum states are exposed parts of this single wavefunction.

By now, you might be asking what all of this has to do with consciousness.

While Penrose worked out quite a bit including gravity and general quantum theory, there was still the “measurement problem” of Quantum Mechanics. This plays into the Schrödinger’s Cat thought experiment. Penrose had an answer to why large things don’t appear in superposition (the more the mass, the faster to Objective Reduction (OR) due to gravitational energy), but he didn’t have a ready answer for why observations caused OR. What interconnects observations to Quantum Mechanics? Could it be the consciousness of the observer?

Penrose is very much the mathematician. Not only does he mathematically model Black Holes, he solves extremely difficult math puzzles in his spare time. In the 1960’s it was mathematically proven that you could tile a surface without having the pattern ever repeat. They called it non-periodic tiling and the race was on to figure out who could find the least number of tile shapes that could be used for non-periodic tiling. The number started out with over 20,000 tile shapes which was quickly reduced to 104. In 1974, Penrose had reduced it to six tile shapes. Shortly after that, he identified non-periodic tiling was possible with just two tile shapes.

Penrose maintains that his solution to non-periodic tiling could not have been found via an algorithmic process. Ergo, his brain is not an algorithmic computer. He formalized this by claiming strict algorithmic artificial intelligence (Strong AI) was impossible. Penrose wrote several books that revolved around this theme. He also generalized that the quantum wavefunction is not algorithmic. So even if “God doesn’t play dice” quantum effects are not deterministic, in the sense that it isn’t a lack of knowledge that is preventing us from being able to fully characterize them, quantum effects can’t be fully characterized, period.

Since Quantum Mechanics is the only known source of non-algorithmic information, Penrose suggested that consciousness must be directly linked to Quantum Mechanics. Penrose wrote The Emperor’s New Mind and Shadows of the Mind. These books caught the attention of Dr. Hameroff and in 1992, the two of them started collaborating on a model of consciousness based on Orchestrated Objective Reduction.

An interesting piece of evidence Penrose offers is that the timing of OR events is based on the gravitational energy inherent in mass. According to Penrose, it follows the equation of E=h/t where E is the gravitational energy and h is plank’s constant and t is the time of self OR collapse. It turns out that the mass of roughly 1011 tublins would result in OR event taking 25 ms. This would correspond to the gamma brain wave frequency of 40 Hz which Hameroff offers corresponds well with attention and consciousness.

This completed the circle. Conscious observations cause quantum OR because consciousness is directly connected with the orchestrated, interconnected quantum effects that occur in our universe.

Enter Benjamin Libet and his consciousness studies.

You may have heard of Libet since his experimental data has caused quite a bit of a shake up in your field. As far as I know, Libet was never directly involved with either Penrose or Hameroff. However, Hameroff has referenced Libet’s work quite a bit. If I understand correctly, Libet has shown there is up to a half a second of “readiness potential” prior to a conscious recognition of an event. I understand this was very unexpected to Libet and others in the field. The delay is significant enough to make it difficult to explain everyday activities like hitting a fast ball or playing professional tennis.

One explanation is to say that we fool ourselves into thinking we are making conscious decisions in these circumstances. Another is to argue that we can consciously veto automated responses. I won’t dwell on all the alternatives because I am sure you have better access to the appropriate information than I. Hameroff offers that the Orch OR model provides a simple answer. The “readiness potential” of consciousness is direct evidence of quantum processing in action. Orchestrated quantum effects are all in super position sorting out all the possibilities until that system collapses into the final state and a final conscious decision.

I recommend Hameroff’s paper Consciousness, neurobiology and quantum mechanics: The case for a connection. It provides a fairly readable explanation of all of this.

Arguments against Orch OR generally focus on Penrose’s timing calculations and the perceived difficulties of having quantum processing occurring in a warm, wet and noisy environment like a brain. Penrose’s timing explanation makes sense to me and most of the arguments against it are either simple incredulity or suggesting it isn’t universally accepted (which it isn’t). Penrose has indicated that while he may have doubts about microtubules, he is convinced that he is right on the basic physics. I am not in a position to effectively argue that Penrose doesn’t know what he is talking about. Dr. Hameroff provides his rebuttals of the warm, wet brain argument in the above paper and in other papers available on his web site.

As you can imagine, this sounds too close to mysticism for a lot of people. In fact, the route I took to come to understand occured while I was chasing down the details of the religiously motivation Intelligent Design Movement. If you didn’t hear about it, there was a trial in Dover Pennsylvania late in 2005. It centered on the actions of a religiously motivated school board and a book that was clearly about creation science relabeled as “Intelligent Design”. I found the trial interesting and was intrigued by hints of the possibility that a scientific argument could be made in support of Intelligent Design. Since I like a good argument and this had learning potential, I investigated further.

I ended up at a web site called www.TelicThoughts.com. While a lot of the blog’s participants are clearly religiously motivated the blog is above average in tolerating contrary, anti-religious opinions like mine. One of the blog’s moderators steered me to Hameroff’s web site.

If you go to dfcord.blogspot.com you will find this letter (with names removed) posted with links to the various web sites and other details I mentioned.

Feel free to leave anonymous comments or questions there. Alternatively, you can contact me at dfcord (at) hotmail.com.

Thank you for your interest, I hope this has been informative.

Regards,
[name withheld]

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2008,17:35   

What is the purpose of this thread, TP?  Is all this relativity talk to demonstrate what you believe is grounds for the belief in intelligent design or what? I don't get it.

Please explain the purpose of this thread.  

Seriously.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2008,18:27   

Hi Mr Christopher,

Seriously, the main purpose of THIS thread was to test my understanding.  A trial by fire.

I think there are some well-rounded intelligent people here who would gladly point out where I got things flat out wrong.

In the past, my provocative babblings have produced very constructive counter-arguments.  For example, qetzal provided a fantastic counter explanation to how single-celled organisms find food without the possibility conscious processing in microtubules.

I do think the key to fighting the ID Movement effectively is engaging them with science, not rhetoric.  Come up with a better ID hypothesis than they have.

Obviously, I think I have a good candidate.  Whether it is correct or not, it is better than the intangible jello most ID proponents have.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2008,18:31   

Test your understanding?  What exactly does that mean, TP?

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2008,20:13   

TP said:
Quote
I do think the key to fighting the ID Movement effectively is engaging them with science, not rhetoric.  Come up with a better ID hypothesis than they have.

It is your contention that the best way to fight the ID movement is to come up with an ID hypothesis?  Surely you can't mean that.

I think the best way to wipe baseball off the earth is to play more baseball.

Secondly, I am also really looking forward to what Dr. Blank has to say.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2008,20:30   

Hi Mr Christopher,

Quote
Test your understanding?  What exactly does that mean, TP?


I don't know what it "exactly" means theoretically.

In practice, it means I describe some details of my overall hypothesis and people make pejorative remarks that occasionally provoke me into figure something new out.

There are some notable exceptions.

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2008,21:00   

Hi Blipey,

You asked...

Quote
It is your contention that the best way to fight the ID movement is to come up with an ID hypothesis?


I think there is a difference between the ID Movement and an honest search for hints of an orchestrated properties in nature.

The ID Movement is about promoting a belief in God.

While it is rare, there are people willing to suppress their philosophical/religious bias to ethically engage in earnest outside-the-box exploration.

But if the rare person is punished for his or her honesty, it just gives ammunition to the Dembskis and Wells of the world.

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2008,23:01   

TP:  Thank-you for that very concise and upfront response.

As this is off topic for the thread, I'll be very brief as well.  I agree the ID movement is about promoting the idea that God created the universe.  I can't buy into the fact that it is better to counter the efforts of a theory with zero results by working harder at trying to find the results.  Time, IMO, is better spent on working with actual results--of which there are plenty.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2008,05:33   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 31 2008,22:00)
Hi Blipey,

You asked...

Quote
It is your contention that the best way to fight the ID movement is to come up with an ID hypothesis?


I think there is a difference between the ID Movement and an honest search for hints of an orchestrated properties in nature.

The ID Movement is about promoting a belief in God.

While it is rare, there are people willing to suppress their philosophical/religious bias to ethically engage in earnest outside-the-box exploration.

But if the rare person is punished for his or her honesty, it just gives ammunition to the Dembskis and Wells of the world.

TP, here seems to be your problem with all this, near as I can tell.

You're doing it wrong.

You've started with your conclusion, that being

"There is a god, and the evidence exists to support this".

Then you've gone looking for the evidence.  When the Intelligent Design Creationism Hoax failed utterly and miserably to give you this evidence or other evidence of anything at all really, you've turned elsewhere, in this case to Roger Penrose.

When the work of Penrose didn't help your conclusion, you sort of mangled it around until you thought it did. Then you came here explaining to a big group made up mostly of scientists and people in scientific fields how science supports your conclusion.

Only it doesn't, and this group knows what it's talking about.  Some of them explained to you that you have a poor understanding of even the popular-science book version of Penrose's work, and they're quite qualified to judge.  They spent a lot of years and a lot of money to study and experiment and learn the stuff they know.  They explained to you why the evidence doesn't fit your conclusion.  It's not like you're the first guy to come through here with the same basic argument, so they've had a bit of experience.

When they explained that, you simply ignored them and continued to insist that the evidence supports your conclusion.  That's a great big arrogant slap in the face, from my vantage point.  You've basically told them that they've wasted their time and effort and money, and that you, some random internet Joe who has demonstrated he has not even the most basic understanding of their life's work, who hasn't put in the time to learn the fundamentals, is going to walk in here and tell them all about how wrong they are.  Can you see why this might be considered insulting and worthy of derision?

You would do well to listen and learn.  By all means ask questions, but when you're given an answer, listen.  If you still think the answer isn't correct, then go put in the time and the effort and the work to show that.  Get it published in the relevant peer-reviewed journal.  You might actually be right, but your intuition doesn't count as evidence, and neither does your misunderstanding of a popular science book.

You're doing it exactly backwards, and you're walking around kicking some very good people in the cajones while you're at it.  That will not expand your knowledge, prove your conclusion, or make you very many friends anywhere but in the moronic creationist circles.

(cue Arden with "ur duin it rong" lolcat in 3...2...1...

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2008,16:40   

Hi Lou,

Allow me to quote from a book I happen to have in my possession.

   
Quote
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction; jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."


For those who don’t recognize this, it is the first sentence in Chapter 2 of Dawkins’ The God Delusion.  I was looking through the book in a bookstore when it first came out deciding whether or not to buy it.  When I came across this passage I laughed out loud and did something I hardly ever do, buy a hardcover book.

The rest of the book could not maintain the standard set by the one sentence.  I felt most of the book was mostly obviously true or simply Dawkins voicing his philosophical opinion like on page 31 where he said “I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.”

My philosophical outlook happens to match Dawkins’ on this specific subject.  There are other opinions that Dawkins has that I disagree with, but I am willing to respect his ethical attempts in trying to defend them.

Lou, your comment surprised me in a couple of ways.

First, in your presumption that I was starting with a conclusion there is a God.  You even put it in quotes as if I actually said it.

I have noticed that one of the more provocative things about me is that I am who I say I am (even though I am anonymous).  People get frustrated looking for the pretense.  There is none.

I can understand and even sympathize considering how common the pretense tactic is in the Culture War.  Note that you are not alone in suspecting my motives, quite a few ID proponents accuse me of pretense even when I tell them I am very much a critic of the religious movement embodied in the actions of the Discovery Institute and Uncommon Descent.

However, even though I understand it, I was taken aback by the apparent certainty you expressed.

The other thing that surprised me was your metaphor that I was "...walking around kicking some very good people in the cajones".

I consider After the Bar Closes to be the equivalent of bare knuckles fight club.  Not a place for the likes of Dr. Geoff Simmons who recently (yesterday?) complained during a debate when P.Z. Myers said he was ignorant of the various intermediate whale-like fossils.

Is there a logic fallacy similar to "argument ad whining"?

While the tone here is a little rougher than I would generally like, I figured that drawing some blood and kicking some “cajones” was just part and parcel to the debating style needed to get respected around here.

Sorry, but I am not the type of individual to fall in line and follow anyone's lead, regardless of title, experience or popularity of the one doing the leading.

Another way of looking at it is that I want to, and can, learn (I consider myself a quick learner) but I refuse to be taught.

I think I am doing more good than harm.  If I force people to re-evaluate what they thought they knew, great.  Whether they change their minds or gain a better understanding of what they already knew, this is a plus.

If I frustrate and humble some people resting on larels, it helps them see that they are, in fact, resting on larels.

If my bumbling around amuses those that see my bumbling for what it is, I am providing entertainment.

Frankly, I am somewhat confused by the appearance that you consider me dangerous.

I consider the continuation of the Culture War stalemate to be dangerous.  Eventually something is going to have to give.  If it comes down to forcing society to choose between believing in the divine and trusting in science, I am afraid science will lose, badly.  Maybe as bad as the last time this happened around 400 AD.

I don't want that to happen.  Not so much for me, but for my children and grandchildren.

  
Shirley Knott



Posts: 148
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2008,16:53   

If you cannot even spell "laurel" nor understand why it would be that term rather than any other, you have no business referring to 400AD nor anything else at all.
The notion that you have 'humbled' anyone in your series of posts here is, to be polite, a sign of seriously delusional thinking.
You give every evidence of being a pompous overbearing bluffoon of the first water.
Note:  'bluffoon' is a portmanteau word signifying that you are a buffon who bluffs, it is not a typo or confusion or misunderstanding as your repeated abuse of terminology and lexicography are.

Kindly intercourse elsewhere and expire.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2008,16:57   

You're not dangerous, TP.  You're clearly mental.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2008,18:03   

Well, this is about all I have left to say:

Let's take your fighter analogy and expand on it a little.

See, I'm like the little old guy who empties the spit bucket at the gym.  I dreamed of being the world champion when I was a kid, but along the way there was this girl, see, and some drugs... um  OK, let's skip ahead a little...

So I'm working in the gym, see?  And it's full of world class fighters, working hard to be the best.

In walks this 14 year old kid, probably weighs 85 pounds, soaking wet.  That's you, see?  The kid (you) starts yappin' at the pros, tellin' them they're doin' it wrong.  They look at him and tell him to go piss in his hat.

I feel a little bad for the kid, see?  So I walk over to him and tell him that he needs to shut up and watch.  He needs to do a little work.  If he asks, the pros will help him along and stop making fun of him eventually, though it might be a while, given his entrance.

But instead of that, the kid (you) keeps on yappin' about how the pros don't know what they're doin, and how he knows all about how they should be doin' it.  Then he shows me a picture.  It's a still that he got all his information from.  It looks like this:



Well, I tried, but if you're gonna insist on protecting your fists with your chin, I'm gonna hold the ropes open for ya'.

Climb on in there, Champ.

Edited by Lou FCD on Feb. 01 2008,19:05

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2008,18:09   

Hi Shirley,

What can I say? I R a inginear.

As for going elsewhere, apparently I am an entertaining train wreck.

Either than or I am a cajones kicking bully in a place known for its no-coddling attitude.

As for me bluffing, please call me on it.

In my letter to my PhD-bound daughter's mentor did I say anything you would consider flat out wrong?  Or, for that matter, misleading?

Or are you just presuming I am lying because that is what you want to believe?

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2008,18:13   

Hi Mr. Christopher,

You wrote...
Quote
You're not dangerous, TP.  You're clearly mental.


Let me ask the questions you asked me...

Please explain the purpose of this comment.  

What exactly does it mean?

  
creeky belly



Posts: 205
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2008,18:22   

Quote
I think I am doing more good than harm.  If I force people to re-evaluate what they thought they knew, great.  Whether they change their minds or gain a better understanding of what they already knew, this is a plus.

If I frustrate and humble some people resting on larels, it helps them see that they are, in fact, resting on larels.

If my bumbling around amuses those that see my bumbling for what it is, I am providing entertainment.

There's an inherent threshold of learning that can take place when sifting through your misconceptions. The people who know the subject well can tell your conclusion is wrong from the premises, but it might not be obvious to those who aren't as technically proficient. I can tune you out because I know you lack the core competency to draw conclusions from the science. I'm not being mean, you've demonstrated this to us before. However, your tone is from a position of authority, and for people unfamiliar with the subject, you represent something antithetical to learning.
 
Quote
Sorry, but I am not the type of individual to fall in line and follow anyone's lead, regardless of title, experience or popularity of the one doing the leading.

Except if it's Hameroff or Penrose.
 
Quote
Another way of looking at it is that I want to, and can, learn (I consider myself a quick learner) but I refuse to be taught.

And it's clear that your learning has ill-equipped you to discuss the science. I wonder why.

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2008,18:27   

Hi Lou,

You wrote...
Quote
I'm gonna hold the ropes open for ya'.

Climb on in there, Champ.


Thank you.

I hope you don't mind that I will take advantage of this invitation because I have had a minor concern that patience was wearing thin and the plug might be pulled.

I told you I would try to keep this thread moving, but since you engaged in the back and forth, I felt it would be ok to respond accordingly.

Meanwhile, was there anything in the letter I send to my PhD bound daughter's mentor you felt was flat out wrong?

Failing that, was there anything you felt was misleading?

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2008,19:28   

Hi Creeky Belly,

You wrote...
     
Quote
Except if it's Hameroff or Penrose.


I was wondering who was going to take advantage of that obvious opening.

I am not surprised it was you.

Actually, there are multiple things I disagree with Hameroff on.  Believe it or not, I think he has over-reached in multiple areas.

quatel and others have pointed out multiple areas where Hameroff's certainty is unjustified and probably flat out wrong.

As for Penrose.

Another book I happen to have lying around is The Nature of Space and Time.  The last chapter in the book is a debate between Penrose and Hawking.

It is interesting because it is understandable.

Have you read it?

As it is with most people, I didn't recognize the name Penrose as readily as Hawking.  While I knew there was a schism in Quantum Mechanics, I didn't fully understand the details.

There is a lot that all sides agree on.  QM data is difficult to ignore or dispute.  Penrose's OR offers an answer that Hawking could only disagree with, not dispute.  His disagreement was to suggest OR solves a problem that doesn't matter.  From Hawking's opening remarks talking about Schrödinger's Cat...

     
Quote
"But that doesn't bother me.  I don't demand that a theory correspond to reality because I don't know what it is.  Reality is not a quality you can test with litmus paper.  All I am concerned with is that the theory should predict the results of measurements.  Quantum Theory does this very successfully."
 page 121

This tells me that there isn't a blatant hole in Penrose's explanation or Hawking would have pointed it out.  All Hawking was arguing is that Penrose's explanation isn't necessary.  Penrose argues that explaining everyday observations is necessary.

I am not wedded to Penrose's interpretation.  I would really like to hear someone actually defend Many Worlds interpretation.  The best I get is that it is just as good as anything else because it predicts that results of measurements.  Whoopty ding dong, I know plenty of ID Proponents that will happily provide a hypothesis that predicts the results of all experiments.

An explaination needs to make sense.

Penrose's explanation makes sense.

Do you have an alternative that you feel is better?

The last one you offered didn't conflict with Penrose's OR.  It was a subset.  It wasn't as complete.

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2008,23:52   

Quote
Another way of looking at it is that I want to, and can, learn (I consider myself a quick learner) but I refuse to be taught.

This is just asinine.  Anyone who refuses to be taught is of no use to society.  A person who refuses to be taught is a loner.  Such a person should expect to be shunned and should not expect to have an impact on anyone else.  If you are not allowing society to impact you, why do expect that you can impact society?

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,08:11   

Quote (blipey @ Feb. 01 2008,23:52)
Quote
Another way of looking at it is that I want to, and can, learn (I consider myself a quick learner) but I refuse to be taught.

This is just asinine.  Anyone who refuses to be taught is of no use to society.  A person who refuses to be taught is a loner.  Such a person should expect to be shunned and should not expect to have an impact on anyone else.  If you are not allowing society to impact you, why do expect that you can impact society?

TP is neurotically skeptical and narcissistic.  The big problem in dealing with people who are grossly neurotic is that being unable to recognize their own neuroses is diagnostic of the neurosis. Attempts to get TP to acknowledge his shortcomings will be futile, as his threads here attest.  "Sane" people don't think that they can overthrow a large body of knowledge without actually understanding it first.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
olegt



Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,08:59   

Quote
I am not wedded to Penrose's interpretation.  I would really like to hear someone actually defend Many Worlds interpretation.  The best I get is that it is just as good as anything else because it predicts that results of measurements.  Whoopty ding dong, I know plenty of ID Proponents that will happily provide a hypothesis that predicts the results of all experiments.

An explaination needs to make sense.

Penrose's explanation makes sense.

This is where you go off the rails, TP.  All of the various interpretations of QM make sense: they're all logically consistent.  That is a minimal requirement for a physical theory.  

Unfortunately, logical consistency does not guarantee the validity.  A theory must be tested experimentally.  Penrose's theory fingers gravity as the cause of wave function collapse.  In principle, it can be tested.  If and when it is tested, we'll see how it fares.  

Multiworld interpretation does not seem to be experimentally testable at the moment.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,09:00   

Hi Jim,

It is interesting that you bring up narcissism.

I was asking my daughter about that the other day.

She explained  arrogant behavior is just one symptom of many that make up a diagnosis of narcissism.

While I am egocentric, arrogant and stubborn, she indicates I am not narcissistic.

The reason can be found in Blipey's obvious deduction that I am a loner.  I am willfully independent.

Think about it, have I come across as someone who is overly sensitive to insults and disapproval?  If I were, posting to AtBC would not only be insane, it would be incredibly stupid.

Saying that I am narcissistic makes as much sense as saying I have an inferiority complex.  Feel free to accuse me of either or both.

Another interesting accusation you made is that I am "neurotically skeptical" while simultaniously thinking I can "overthrow a large body of knowledge".

I am just a Monday morning quarterback talking about the game.  Penrose and his Felix experiment is what might overthrow the dogmatic, laurel-sitting thinking you are become comfortable with.

More on this in following comments.

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,09:09   

Quote
nar·cis·sism      /?n?rs??s?z?m/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[nahr-suh-siz-em] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. inordinate fascination with oneself; excessive self-love; vanity.
2. Psychoanalysis. erotic gratification derived from admiration of one's own physical or mental attributes, being a normal condition at the infantile level of personality development.

Being a loner is not an argument for your not being narcissistic.  In fact, being a loner strengthens the case of your being narcissistic.  Do you recall the Greek Myth of Narcissis?

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,09:12   

Added because I can't edit!  Aaaarrrgghhhhh!

In fact, TP, when you enter "narcissist" into the thesaurus at dictionary.com you get the following:
Quote
Main Entry:   introvert
Part of Speech:   noun
Definition:   loner


--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,09:31   

Hi olegt,

I see we cross posted.

Are you familiar with Cramer's Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics?

Here is a link to a recent paper.

Cramer points to the Afshar experiment as supporting evidence.

If I understand correctly, the Afshar would also be supporting evidence for Penrose's OR.

The point is that I am interested in looking at alternatives.

Do you have a quantum interpretation similar to Penrose's or even Cramer's that attempts to make sense of everything?

Thanks

P.S. to blipey, I am not interested in engaging in a dictionary debate with you.  If you want to think I am narcissistic, go ahead.

P.P.S. I have to run an errand.  I will attempt to get to the FELIX experiment later.

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,09:42   

I'm just pointing out that by your behavior you are narcissistic.  The dictionary definition is not really what I'm pointing out.  I'm pointing out that you don't a have a grasp on the basics of what narcissism entails--much like people are telling you that you don't have a grasp on the basics of physics that you want to discuss.  It's all one giant ball of wax.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,10:14   

I think it's the diagnostic criteria for narcissism that would be relevant to the question, Thought Revoker, not the dictionary definition.  Excessive focus on dictionary definitions instead of scientific ones, of course, do seem to be quite emblematic of anti-science activists...

BTW, I'm not asserting that you are a narcissist by these criteria; I haven't paid a lot of attention to your comments here because I don't find your original post or this one very relevant to the EvC conflict which (mostly) brings me here.  I will say however, you're not as much of a narcissist as Larry Fafarman.  FWIW.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
olegt



Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,10:22   

TP,  
Quote
If I understand correctly, the Afshar would also be supporting evidence for Penrose's OR.

I'd like to see how.  Please explain.  Don't change the subject.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,11:36   

In an attempt to keep the thread moving...

So far we have managed to come to a less-than-smooth agreement that four dimensional space-time provides for short cuts.  We even managed an uneasy truce that there exists an ultimate short cut in space time by calling it traveling along the "null geodesics".

However, when I attempted to suggest this ultimate short cut could be used to explain the existence of quantum entanglement (or as Penrose would say "quanglement") we hit a road block.

Many times I have been accused of misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting Roger Penrose.  This puts me into a kind of paradox, since I am trying to verify my understanding by putting things in my terms.  Of course I could be misunderstanding/misrepresenting Penrose, that is what I am trying to find out.  It does me little good to simply parrot back Penrose's words if I am trying to test my understanding.  Thus the paradox.

However, to help us get over this hump, on page 603 of The Road to Reality Penrose writes...
   
Quote
"23.10 Quanglement
I must make it very clear than I am not trying to give support to the idea that ordinary information can be propagated backwards in time (nor can EPR effects be used to send classical information faster than light; see later). That kind of thing would lead to all sorts of paradoxes that we should have absolutely no truck with (I shall return to this kind of issue in 30.6).  Information, in the ordinary sense, cannot travel backwards in time.  I am talking about something quite different that is sometimes referred to as quantum information. Now there is a difficulty about this term, namely the appearance of the word 'information'. In my view, the prefix 'quantum' does not do enough to soften the association with the ordinary information, so I am proposing that we adopt a new term for it:

QUANGLEMENT
...
There is no way to send an ordinary signal by means of quanglement alone.  This much is made clear from the fact that past-directed channels of quanglement can be used just as well as future-directed channels.
...
As far as I make out, quanglement links are always constrained by light cones, just as are ordinary information links, but quanglement links have the novel feature that they can zig-zag backwards and forwards in time, so as to achieve an effective 'spacelike propagation'.


It makes little difference to me if the quantum effects are interconnected ("quanglement") throughout spacetime because the quanglement links zig-zag forward and backwards in time or because spacetime geometry collapses around the "null geodesics" since I consider them to be effectively the same thing.

The usual response to my demonstrating Penrose's concepts is to question the experimental support.

I already mentioned the Afshar experiment, but I need to understand it further.

Experiments demonstrating Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger (GHZ) quantum states coupled with demonstrations involving C60 and C70 fullerenes("BuckyBalls") make for some pretty hard evidence to explain.

Penrose's OR does that.

One of the more frustrating things about Penrose is his aversion to supporting free internet access to his scientific papers.  However, I found one where he was one of the co-authors of a paper describing Penrose's FELIX experiment.

Towards quantum superpositions of a mirror

   
Quote
In 1935 Schrodinger pointed out that according to quantum mechanics even macroscopic systems can be in superposition states [1]. The quantum interference effects are expected to be hard to detect due to environment induced decoherence [2]. Nevertheless there have been proposals on how to create and observe macroscopic superpositions in various systems [3, 4, 5], and experiments demonstrating superposition states of superconducting devices [6] and fullerene molecules [7]. One long-term motivation for this kind of experiment is the question of whether unconventional decoherence processes such as gravitationally induced decoherence or spontaneous wave-function collapse [8, 9] occur.


From the conclusion...
   
Quote
We have performed a detailed study of the experimental requirements for the creation and observation of quantum superposition states of a mirror consisting of 10^14 atoms, approximately nine orders of magnitude more massive than any superposition observed to date. Our analysis suggests that, while very demanding, this goal appears to be in reach of current technology. It is remarkable that a tabletop experiment has the potential to test quantum mechanics in an entirely new regime. Preliminary experiments on components of the proposal are currently under way.


There is more to talk about on this, which I hope we get to in follow-up comments.  I note with interest that it appear there are experiments that show superposition of objects consisting of up to 10^5 atoms.

If anyone knows what experiments this paper was referring to, please let me know at dfcord (at) hotmail.com.

Thanks

P.S. to olegt - I will be creating a response to your Afshar request shortly.

  
olegt



Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,11:51   

TP, no, you do NOT seem to understand what you are talking about.  Here's a typical example.
Quote
Experiments demonstrating Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger (GHZ) quantum states coupled with demonstrations involving C60 and C70 fullerenes("BuckyBalls") make for some pretty hard evidence to explain.

Penrose's OR does that.

GHZ experiments demonstrate the existence of quantum entanglement.  Penrose, with his OR, tries to explain the collapse of the wavefunction, which (among other things) kills entanglement and returns physics to its classical form.  It's plain wrong to suggest that Penrose's OR explains GHZ.  

And you are precisely right: everything is fine as long as you provide direct quotes from Penrose, but as soon as you try to formulate things in your own words it becomes clear that you don't have the foggiest idea about the subject.  You find it cool to throw around the names of Penrose, Hawkings, or Zeilinger, but you don't have a clue about the physics.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,13:48   

Hi olegt,

You are getting ahead of me.  First Afshar, then GHZ.

I found out about the Afshar experiment by way of Cramer's TIQM while I was debating someone on Telic Thoughts.  Here is the Wikipedia description of TIQM...

 
Quote
The transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics (TIQM) is an unusual interpretation of quantum mechanics that describes quantum interactions in terms of a standing wave formed by retarded (forward-in-time) and advanced (backward-in-time) waves. The interpretation was first proposed by John G. Cramer in 1986. The author argues that it helps in developing intuition for quantum processes, avoids the philosophical problems with the Copenhagen interpretation and the role of the observer, and resolves various quantum paradoxes.[1][2] Cramer uses TIQM in teaching quantum mechanics at the University of Washington in Seattle.

The existence of both advanced and retarded waves as admissible solutions to Maxwell's equations was proposed by Richard Feynman and John Archibald Wheeler in 1945 (cited in original paper by J. Cramer). They used the idea  to solve the problem of the self-energy of an electron. Cramer revived their idea of two waves for his transactional interpretation of quantum theory. While the ordinary Schrödinger equation does not admit advanced solutions, its relativistic version does, and these advanced solutions are the ones used by TIQM.

Suppose a particle (such as a photon) emitted from a source could interact with one of two detectors. According to TIQM, the source emits a usual (retarded) wave forward in time, the "offer wave", and when this wave reaches the detectors, each one replies with an advanced wave, the "confirmation wave", that travels backwards in time, back to the source. The phases of offer an confirmation waves are correlated in such a way that these waves interfere positively to form a wave of the full amplitude in the spacetime region between emitting and detection events, and they interfere negatively and cancel out elsewhere in spacetime (i.e., before the emitting point and after the absorption point). The size of the interaction between the offer wave and a detector's confirmation wave determines the probability with which the particle will strike that detector rather than the other one. In this interpretation, the collapse of the wavefunction does not happen at any specific point in time, but is "atemporal" and occurs along the whole transaction, the region of spacetime where offer and confirmation waves interact. The waves are seen as physically real, rather than a mere mathematical device to record the observer's knowledge as in some other interpretations of quantum mechanics.

John Cramer has argued that the transactional interpretation is consistent with the outcome of the Afshar experiment, while the Copenhagen interpretation and the many-worlds interpretation are not.


I have learned to take things from Wikipedea with a grain of salt which is why I added the qualifier "If I understand correctly...".

And since you and others are loudly proclaiming I understand nothing, that should have been a dead giveaway.

If you read this description of TIQM it sounds very similar to OR.  But instead of "quanglement" going backwards and forwards in time, TIQM has advanced and retarded waves.

Penrose changed the term from "waveform collapse" to "objective reduction" for a reason.  I suggest it is because OR doesn't posit a wave-form collapsing into a particle-form.  It's all waves.  Or more specifically, it's all part of one, giant wavefunction that is our universe.

Chapter 21 of Penrose's The Road to Reality is titled "The quantum particle".  It contains figure 21.10 on page 523 that was very revealing to me as an electrical engineer.

As an electrical engineer I am comfortable with looking at things in time domain and frequency domain.  A single spike in the time domain is a sine wave in the frequency domain and a single spike in the frequency domain is a sine wave in the time domain.

Penrose explains this is what is happening with the Heisenberg uncertainty relation with position states and momentum states taking the place of time and frequency domains.

Please note that Penrose didn’t refer to time and frequency domains.  That is my way of thinking of it.  It became clear to me there is no such thing as solid particles, just standing waves in spacetime.

I did some more digging into the Afshar experiment and found there are a lot of people questioning the validity and/or significance of this experiment which I’m not prepared, at this time, to parse out.  So, for now, let me modify my statement to be..

“If my understanding is correct, the Afshar experiment supports Penrose’s OR hypothesis just as much or as little as it supports Cramer’s TIQM.”

Which get us to GHZ states…

As I am sure you know, there was a time that physicists where presuming the existence of hidden, local variables that would, someday, become understood.  There was hope as long as there was no direct logical inconsistency preventing it.  Bell showed the inconsistency.  But even so, there was room for doubt because experimental data still relied on probabilities.  To me, GHZ state experiments removed all doubt.

For the listening audience…

There is just no way to explain the GHZ states without presuming quantum entanglement across space or time or both.

To me, superluminal communication in four dimensional spacetime inherently means communicating backwards in time as explained in the Penrose quote I provided in the precious comment.

At this point, if you are willing to except GHZ state experiments support the validity of Penrose’s quanglement or visa versa, that is good enough for my purposes (leaving Penrose's OR for later).

We can then move on to Penrose’s view of the universe as a single, multi-dimensional wavefunction.

  
creeky belly



Posts: 205
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,14:44   

Quote
As an electrical engineer I am comfortable with looking at things in time domain and frequency domain.  A single spike in the time domain is a sine wave in the frequency domain and a single spike in the frequency domain is a sine wave in the time domain.

This is a perfect example of speaking as an authority and then completely undermining your argument. The Fourier transform of a delta-function (spike) is not a sine wave, it's a constant. It's also evident from Heisenberg's uncertainty principle: something with perfectly determined position will have a completely uniform distribution of momentum.

The advanced wavefunction and the retarded wavefunction are part of a special set of equations called Green's function, which can be derived from quantum electrodynamics. Why can't we apply these equations to the universe in general? There's no quantum theory which can deal with gravity. That's why you can't just throw up a wavefunction and say it describes the universe. If Penrose wants to think of it that way, it's a philosophical position, not a scientific one.

olegt, Afshar's experiment was trying to test Bohr's complimentarity: extracting which-way information and retaining interference. It's similar to a double slit experiment, where the interference pattern is measured close to the screen and the photons are allowed to propagate a distance further in order to differentiate which slit the photon travelled through.

  
creeky belly



Posts: 205
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,15:16   

Quote
This is a perfect example of speaking as an authority and then completely undermining your argument. The Fourier transform of a delta-function (spike) is not a sine wave, it's a constant. It's also evident from Heisenberg's uncertainty principle: something with perfectly determined position will have a completely uniform distribution of momentum.

I should say that the square modulus is the uniformity, not the Fourier series. I retract this point.

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,15:29   

Hi Creeky Belly,

Quote
This is a perfect example of speaking as an authority and then completely undermining your argument. The Fourier transform of a delta-function (spike) is not a sine wave, it's a constant.


This is an interesting development.

You see, to this glorified grease monkey a single line (spike) in the frequency domain means a pure sine wave at the given frequency in the time domain.  And a constant in the frequency domain means all frequencies are present in the time domain.  We would call that "white noise".

Now I wonder what a pure sine wave in the frequency domain produces in the time domain.  (start the Jeopardy theme song).

I take it you don't have Penrose's The Road to Reality.  Obviously Keiths does but I doubt he would be interested in confirming the contents of page 523 for me.

And as much as you would like to ignore it, Penrose has done a great deal of investigation into gravitational effects and quantum gravity.  Remember, this is the guy who modelled Black Holes for a living.

EDITED: I see you retracted your point.  Thank you.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,15:30   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Feb. 02 2008,15:29)
 Remember, this is the guy who modelled Black Holes for a living.

And you should see "July" in his calender.

RrrrRRRrrrrrrrrrr!

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
olegt



Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,16:51   

Quote
If you read this description of TIQM it sounds very similar to OR.  But instead of "quanglement" going backwards and forwards in time, TIQM has advanced and retarded waves.

Penrose changed the term from "waveform collapse" to "objective reduction" for a reason.  I suggest it is because OR doesn't posit a wave-form collapsing into a particle-form.  It's all waves.  Or more specifically, it's all part of one, giant wavefunction that is our universe.

They may sound similar to you, TP, but they aren't.  

Cramer's "transactional interpretation" is just a philosophical icing on the cake of standard quantum mechanics.  The physics and mathematics remain exactly the same, the only new element is a warm and fuzzy feeling in our stomachs.  Here's a quote from Cramer's definitive article in the Reviews of Modern Physics:
   
Quote
It should be emphasized that the TI is an interpretation of the existing formalism of quantum mechanics rather than a new theory or revision of the quantum mechanical formalism. As such, it makes no predictions which differ from those of conventional quantum mechanics. It is not testable except on the basis of its value in dealing with interpretational problems. The author has found it to be more useful as a guide for deciding which quantum mechanical calculations to perform than to the performance of such calculations. [Emphasis in the original, underlining mine --OT]


On the other hand, Penrose's theory is physically different from the standard QM.  He argues that the collapse of a wavefunction occurs because of gravitational effects.  Thus, an experimental check of Penrose's objective collapse is possible and it must show that gravity is indeed involved.  

In light of the above, Afshar's experiment cannot be viewed as a confirmation of either Cramer's or Penrose's theories.  The former is untestable, as its author himself wrote.  The latter did not receive a boost from Afshar because his experiments had nothing to do with gravity.  There go your claims.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,20:21   

Hi olegt,

Ok, I will concede the Afshar experiment lacks support of Penrose's OR (at least until I understand it better).

And since you seem to be more comfortable with me quoting Penrose I will do that after a minor side trip.

I sense something that is on the fringes of "standard QM".  That is whether or not there is a common agreement on the existence of a hard threshold for coherence/decoherence.

From the Penrose co-authored paper Towards quantum superpositions of a mirror

   
Quote
In 1935 Schrodinger pointed out that according to quantum mechanics even macroscopic systems can be in superposition states [1].


With the citation...
"[1] E. Schrodinger, Die Naturwissenschaften 23, 807 (1935)."

During the Hawking/Penrose debate, Hawking seem to imply no hard decoherence threshold but, instead, referred to various environmental effects causing the collapse in the Schrödinger's Cat situation.

Here is what is said by BuckyBall experimenters in a paper titled Quantum interference experiments with large molecules

   
Quote
B. Coherence and which-path information
We might believe that coherence experiments could be spoiled by transitions between the many thermally excited states. Obviously, this is not the case, as has been shown by our experiments. But why is this so? No matter what we do, we can only observe one of these qualities in its ideal form at any given time. If we tried to locate the particle during its passage through one of the two slits, say by blocking one of the openings, the interference pattern would disappear. This rule still holds if we do not block the slit, but manage to obtain which-path information for example via photons scattered or emitted by the molecules. Sufficiently complex molecules, in contrast to the electrons, neutrons, and atoms used so far, may actually emit radiation41,42 without any external excitation, because they have stored enough thermal energy when leaving the oven. According to Bohr’s rule, the interference pattern must then disappear if the molecules emit a photon with a sufficiently short wavelength which enables the experimenter to measure the location of the emitting molecule with sufficient precision. According to Abbe's theory of the microscope, the photon should have a wavelength shorter than twice the distance between the two slits.
What actually saves the experiment is the weakness of the interaction. The wavelength of the most probably emitted photons is about a factor of 100 larger than the separation between two neighboring slits. And the number of light quanta that actually leak into the environment is still sufficiently small—of the order of one, up to potentially a few photons—and cannot disturb the interference measurably. Therefore, even if the fullerene molecule emits a few photons on its path from the source to the detector, these photons cannot yet be used to determine the path taken by the molecule. In other words, the photon state and the molecule state
are not, or only very slightly, entangled because the two possible photon emission states from either path largely overlap. In a sense we may say that the fullerene has no ‘‘memory’’ along which path the emission occurred


Is this the standard QM explanation?

Let's hear from Penrose starting on page 851 from The Road to Reality...
 
Quote

[The uncertainty of separated mass] directly leads, via Schrödinger's equation, to an absolute uncertainty E in the energy of the superposed states under consideration.  The next step is to convert this expression for E into another (equivalent) mathematical form, which we can interpret as:

E = gravitational self-energy of the difference between the two mass distributions in the states |x> and |q>.
...
So what are we to do with our fundamental 'energy uncertainty' E?  The next step is to invoke a form of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle... [where] the average lifetime T having an inbuilt time uncertainty, is reciprocally related to an energy incertainty, given by h/2T. ... According to this picture, any superposition like |Y> would therefore decay into one or the other constituent states, |x> or |q>, in an average timescale of

T = h/E


Which means that massive objects do not stay in superposition as long as less massive objects.

olegt, at this point I'm not sure where our disagreements are.  You confirmed my understanding of the Traveling Twin's shorter path through spacetime.  While you balked at my use of quantum information, you appeared comfortable with Penrose's quanglement.  I didn't get into the single wavefunction because it was obvious you would view that as just philosophical shading of standard QM like TIQM.

So now, I am expecting you to say something about Penrose's OR hypothesis needing experimental support.

I will respond to that after you do so.

  
olegt



Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,23:39   

Quote
olegt, at this point I'm not sure where our disagreements are.  You confirmed my understanding of the Traveling Twin's shorter path through spacetime.  While you balked at my use of quantum information, you appeared comfortable with Penrose's quanglement.  I didn't get into the single wavefunction because it was obvious you would view that as just philosophical shading of standard QM like TIQM.


TP, I'll repeat one more time, but my patience is not infinite.  

Your comments make no sense.  You throw around quotes from Penrose and Hawking but you can't formulate anything on your own.  You claim that different theories are similar where they are not, find experimental support for them where there is none, and use categories that you can't even define.  As a result, your posts are a curious mixture of things that are trivially true ("shortcuts" in Minkowski space), unsupported and usually false assertions (Penrose's OR is similar to Cramer's TI), and plain non sequiturs (GHZ confirms Penrose's OR).  This stuff doesn't provoke deep thoughts, it reminds me of Alan Sokal's hoax paper Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity.  

The funniest thing is that you nod in agreement, move on and then ask me to point out where we disagree.  

And you guessed it right: I do find Penrose's hypothesis a speculation because it lacks an experimental confirmation.  You got a problem with that?

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2008,11:01   

Hi Olegt,

Thank you for responding and thank you for the summary.

I realize that my terminology isn't standard and causes friction.  For example, to me "quantum information" and "quantum entanglement" and "quanglement" are all the same thing.

Of course, that means I appear oblivious to subtle details and shades of philosophical differences that is important to those who hold them.

Yes, I nod my head when I realise you are arguing distinctions I don't find important.  However, I thank you for the external view point and your patience.

As to experimental data for Penrose.  Again, here is the link to Penrose's proposed FELIX experiment.Towards quantum superpositions of a mirror

The brings us to to justifying the default position or, as you say, "Standard QM" while we wait for experimental confirmation.  What is the "Standard QM" explanation for why BuckyBalls exhibit coherence but baseballs don't?  If the quote from the BuckyBall experimenters is any indication it comes down to assuming there is unexplainable magic behind Heisenberg's pronouncement.

So, by "Standard QM" could an isolated planet-size rock in an isolated part of space be in superposition as long as there is no chance anyone could measure both position and momentum?

Penrose has a logical explanation.  Mass, whether in superposition or not, curves space.  The larger the mass, the steeper the curve.  Ergo, coherence is time limited for objects with mass, the larger the mass, the shorter the time.

Coherence of massless photons can be maintained forever.

Coherence of very light electrons have a long time limit.

Coherence of heavier atoms have shorter time limits.

Coherence of BuckyBalls is too short to do much more than interference patterns.

Coherence of Baseballs is so short as to be undetectable.

It's not like Penrose is suggesting an unidentified Designer using an unspecified mechanism to keep his magic hidden.

So, can you summarize your interpretation as to why BuckyBalls exhibit coherence and baseballs don't?

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2008,18:26   

Quote
why BuckyBalls exhibit coherence and baseballs don't?


My guess would be the difference in relative size of the object as compared to its wavelength.

A baseball is so much larger than its wavelength (except possibly when its momentum is zero to a huge number of digits precision?) that its wavelike properties (including uncertainties such as position vs. momentum or energy vs. time) get swamped.

Henry

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2008,18:42   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Feb. 03 2008,17:01)
Hi Olegt,

Thank you for responding and thank you for the summary.

I realize that my terminology isn't standard and causes friction.  For example, to me "quantum information" and "quantum entanglement" and "quanglement" are all the same thing.

But they AREN'T.

What the hell is wrong with you? You're incredible, you really are.

You are the greatest example I've ever seen of someone who glibly throws terms around without knowing or caring what they really mean.  You've swallowed a dictionary, but don't understand half of it, and you DON'T CARE.

You have a serious case of the "pretentious dickhead" there TP...

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2008,19:00   

Which is exactly the kind of self-absorbed "I'm so cool" complex that indicates narcissism.  It's not the definition that is at issue, it's TP's refusal to compare himself to the definition--dictionary or clinical.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2008,20:02   

Hi Henry,

Thank you for your response.

Your answer is somewhat similar to what Creeky Belly has said earlier except he was more adamant that Penrose is wrong.

Your description isn't as directly in conflict with Penrose's.

Momentum includes both mass and velocity.

You also leave open the possibility that the threshold isn't abrupt.  As in there is a gradual transition between things that can be maintained in coherence and things that can not.

If I understand correctly, the precision limit to momentum is tied to Planck's constant. So it would be reasonable to suggest that the coherence threshold is tied to Planck's constant.

And if the threshold is gradual and not abrupt that it would make sense that the closer you got to the threshold the harder it would be to maintain coherence for long periods of time.  The time would get shorter and shorter.

Penrose's time estimate is based on Planck's constant over the gravitational energy due the the amount of mass involved.

Penrose also used the "approximately equal to" symbol.  This can be found on page 851 of The Road to Reality.

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2008,20:09   

Hi Ian,

From page 603 of The Road to Reality...

Quote

I am talking about something quite different that is sometimes referred to as quantum information. Now there is a difficulty about this term, namely the appearance of the word 'information'. In my view, the prefix 'quantum' does not do enough to soften the association with the ordinary information, so I am proposing that we adopt a new term for it:

QUANGLEMENT

At least in this book, I shall refer to what is commonly called 'quantum information' as quanglement.  The term suggest 'quantum mechanics' and it suggests 'entanglement'. This is very appropriate.  This is what quanglement is all about.

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2008,20:19   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Feb. 04 2008,02:09)
Hi Ian,

From page 603 of The Road to Reality...

Quote

I am talking about something quite different that is sometimes referred to as quantum information. Now there is a difficulty about this term, namely the appearance of the word 'information'. In my view, the prefix 'quantum' does not do enough to soften the association with the ordinary information, so I am proposing that we adopt a new term for it:

QUANGLEMENT

At least in this book, I shall refer to what is commonly called 'quantum information' as quanglement.  The term suggest 'quantum mechanics' and it suggests 'entanglement'. This is very appropriate.  This is what quanglement is all about.

Guess what? I don't care.

Just because someone else is being a dumbass doesn't mean you should copy them. In fact, that's an even bigger indictment of your actions. You just copy someone else's opinions and then tack "what do you think?" to the end.

Ye gods man, your problem isn't just that you don't understand half the stuff you say, it's that you don't CARE that you don't understand it. If you came out with this stuff, then someone told you that your points X, Y and Z were wrong you should damn well accept this and APOLOGISE. Then stop using terms incorrectly.

You really are an icreadible case, you know? I've encountered this kind of thing before, like the woman in one of my seminars who tried to state that the third world has always been the term used for the poorest areas. I, because I actually knew what I was talking about, calmly informed her that she was wrong, and she did exactly what you are doing. "Well the term may mean this but I see it as this..." to which I flat out told her no, she was wrong. She then had a minor hissy fit at me, (which to your credit, you haven't done) and still used the term incorrectly.

If you use a term incorrectly and then have it pointed out to you, stop abusing the damn term. Seriously, it makes you look like a dumbass who shuts everyone else out ad just continues on your merry way, making the other half of the conversation up in your head.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2008,20:19   

Hi blipey,

So it bothers you that this glorified grease monkey thinks he is so cool?

Am I really that intimidating?

There are people here who understand this much better than I.  However, they are leaving me to bumble through, misspelled words and all.

I don't mind.

I also don't mind if you are convinced I am narcissistic.  Are you sure you don't want to add in a charge of inferiority complex too?

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2008,20:22   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Feb. 04 2008,02:19)
There are people here who understand this much better than I.

Yet you totally ignore them when they correct you.

Gee, I wonder why people get pissy at you....

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2008,20:23   

Hi Ian,

For what it is worth, I have decided using the term "quantum information" is more trouble than it is worth.

I am going to try to use "quantum entanglement" and "quanglement" from now on.

See, I can learn.

  
olegt



Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2008,20:47   

TP, I'm not going to reply to the first part of your latest comment since I've already commented on those subjects.  I'm going to answer the rest and it'll be a long answer.
   
Quote
The brings us to to justifying the default position or, as you say, "Standard QM" while we wait for experimental confirmation.  What is the "Standard QM" explanation for why BuckyBalls exhibit coherence but baseballs don't?  If the quote from the BuckyBall experimenters is any indication it comes down to assuming there is unexplainable magic behind Heisenberg's pronouncement.

It looks like magic only if you put it in black-and-white terms: an object either exhibits quantum coherence or it doesn't.  But it doesn't work that way.  Coherence, quantified through a suitable statistical quantity like the density matrix, decreases to zero gradually as the object is getting wacked by the environment.  Experiments show that it usually does so in an exponential fashion, as exp(-t/T), where T is called a decoherence time.  You can say that a quantum system possesses coherence over time intervals short to T and doesn't over ones longer than T.  While that would only be a qualitative description, it shows that the situation is a bit more complex than you assume.  

In light of this fact, the question becomes quantitative: how long is the decoherence time?  The answer depends on the particular physical system and its environment.  While calculating it is not an easy task, in some cases it has been done in the framework of standard quantum mechanics.  For instance, Das Sarma and his collaborators recently computed the decoherence time for a phosphorus spin planted in silicon (a few milliseconds at 8 degrees Kelvin).  In this case, decoherence is caused by the hyperfine interaction of the phosphorus electron spin with the spins of silicon nuclei.  The calculated value agrees with the experimentally measured one in various settings, thus indicating that perhaps gravity has nothing to do with decoherence in this case, it's all within the reach of standard quantum mechanics.  

I don't think anyone computed the decoherence time for a baseball in a typical environment.  It's a much more complicated task.  However, given the vastly greater number of degrees of freedom (10^23 vs 1) and their strong interaction with the environment, one can reasonably infer that the decoherence time will be much, much shorter than in the case of an electron spin in ultrapure silicon.  That, and not exotic gravitational quantum effects, are the likely reason for the lack of quantum coherence for baseballs.  
Quote
So, by "Standard QM" could an isolated planet-size rock in an isolated part of space be in superposition as long as there is no chance anyone could measure both position and momentum?

Penrose has a logical explanation.  Mass, whether in superposition or not, curves space.  The larger the mass, the steeper the curve.  Ergo, coherence is time limited for objects with mass, the larger the mass, the shorter the time.

Coherence of massless photons can be maintained forever.

Coherence of very light electrons have a long time limit.

Coherence of heavier atoms have shorter time limits.

Coherence of BuckyBalls is too short to do much more than interference patterns.

Coherence of Baseballs is so short as to be undetectable.

I'm afraid I don't find this argument convincing.  For starters, not only mass, but also the number of particles involved increases in this sequence.  More importantly, standard quantum mechanics provides an excellent account for decoherence in at least some of the physical systems (see the example above), while Penrose's theory remains at this point a speculation.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2008,20:52   

Quote
Hi blipey,

So it bothers you that this glorified grease monkey thinks he is so cool?

Not at all; everyone is entitled to an ego.  In my profession it is damn near required.  What is off-putting about you is your complete disregard for anything that anyone has to say to you.  A healthy ego does not equal a deaf ego.

Quote
Am I really that intimidating?


Not at all.  I actually find you very mild-mannered and might even find you personable if we met.

Quote
There are people here who understand this much better than I.  However, they are leaving me to bumble through, misspelled words and all.

Yes there are a lot of people here who most likely understand this much better than you (I am not one of them).  They are not, however, leaving you to bumble through.  They have given you a stupendous amount of advice and corrected your errors at every turn.  That you choose to completely ignore them is totally on you.  It is as Ian said; you are like a small child with his fingers in his ears.  In my opinion, this is entirely related to your previous statement that you are not open to being taught.  You feel that you are perfectly able to teach yourself anything.  In this day and age that is complete ludicrous.

You keep asking people to correct your mistakes.  You will never benefit from this until you decide that basics are important to any field of study.  That you have a contempt for detail and fundamentals is a major short-coming.  That you don't see this even though it has been pointed out by people more knowledgeable than you is a worse short-coming.

Quote
I also don't mind if you are convinced I am narcissistic.  Are you sure you don't want to add in a charge of inferiority complex too?

No, in my unprofessional opinion you most certainly don't have an inferiority complex.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2008,22:05   

Hi Olegt,

Thank you for that reply.  It was informative.

It also helps explain where Max Tegmark got his numbers for his arguments against Penrose/Hameroff.

So, if I got this right, most people agree that decoherence has a time limit.  Even Penrose agrees that decoherence can happen because the "object is getting wacked by the environment."

So the trick is to isolate a large object, say a mirror, and see if it's decoherence time matches Penrose's prediction.  Which is what Penrose is proposing in his FELIX experiment.

Of course, that wouldn't prove it was due to gravity, but I would think it would open up the question to more people.

BTW, do you know anything about Organic Quantum Wires?

Here is a paper titled Macroscopic coherence of a single exciton state in a polydiacetylene organic quantum wire.

 
Quote
Here we show that a single exciton state in an individual ordered conjugated polymer chain7, 8, exhibits macroscopic quantum spatial coherence reaching tens of microns, limited by the chain length.


If I am understanding correctly, these carbon-based polymer chains remain in superposition for up to 90 picoseconds.

And I am still trying to get my arms around why the calculation for decoherence time is proportional to square-root of temperature.  As in the higher the temperature the longer the decoherence time.

But thanks again for your help.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2008,22:56   

Quote
And I am still trying to get my arms around why the calculation for decoherence time is proportional to square-root of temperature.


It's bound to have a relationship to temperature, since the faster nearby molecules are moving, the more often one of them whacks the entangled particle(s).

Henry

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2008,01:38   

TP lectures Bradford over at Telic Thoughts:
 
Quote
Bradford, it's not my intent to be mean. It is my intent to help you be honest with yourself.

Why do the words 'pot', 'kettle', and 'black' come to mind?

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2008,07:00   

Hi Keiths,

I have an idea.  Why don't you create an anonymous login at Telic Thoughts so you can continue to argue with me over there?

Maybe you could use a female name like "Valerie" to further hide your identity.

Then you could lecture me in both blogs about my lack of honesty.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2008,10:32   

As before, similarities in behaviour and attitude between TP and GoP are noted.

We'll be treated to pictures of semi-naked wrestlers and fighting analogies next....

Oh wait.

Remind me, why are people bothering again? Surely we're beyond the point where TP's obvious disinterest in rational discourse is evident?

I've begun to realise that there is such a thing as an unredeemable troll and that bothering with them is only fuelling their "issues".

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2008,11:15   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Feb. 04 2008,07:00)
Maybe you could use a female name like "Valerie" to further hide your identity.  Then you could lecture me in both blogs about my lack of honesty.

TP,

You seem to think it would be dishonest if I chose to use an Internet pseudonym.

Being the upright and honest person you are, I'm sure if I looked in your local phone book I would see an entry under "Provoker, Thought", and that your parents are listed on your birth certificate as Mr. and Mrs. Provoker.

Likewise, I'm sure that this comment of yours...  
Quote
Now, Keiths and Zachiel and a whole lot of other people will provide lots of handwaving explanations that include references to acceleration and/or changing inertial frames. However, I consider this just a reluctance to give up on Newtonian Physics and its Euclidean geometry way of looking at things.

...is a mere misunderstanding, and that you would never intentionally misrepresent our position as being a rejection of relativity.

No, our honest, ethical TP would never do that.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2008,12:16   

Hi Henry,

You wrote...
 
Quote
It's bound to have a relationship to temperature, since the faster nearby molecules are moving, the more often one of them whacks the entangled particle(s).


Excuse me for allowing myself to get distracted by Keiths but I wanted to address this when I had more time.

I would agree that the logical thing would be that the relationship between temperature and coherence time should be inversely proportional.  That is why I am confused by references where it seems the opposite is being suggested.  

The paper on organic quantum wire suggested the time INCREASED according to the squareroot of temperature.

Max Tegmark also calculated his coherence time using the following equation...

time ~ SQRT(mkT) / (Ngqpn) ~ 10^-20 seconds

... in his argument against Penrose/Hameroff's calculations.  Temperature "T" is in the numerator.
(see equation 13 of this paper)


A quick internet search of scientific papers resulted in me finding this...

Long coherence times at 300 K for nitrogen-vacancy center spins

Quote
Is a value around 50 us the ultimate time possible for NV2- at room temperature? Consideration of what limits the phase-memory in the present experiments leaves unclear whether somewhat longer times may be possible. The discussion can be divided into sources of the decoherence involving the NV- centers themselves and other sources.
The ultimate limit for phase memory is the spin-lattice relaxation of the NV- itself. Spin-lattice relaxation is strongly temperature dependent but this is moderated in diamond by the high Debye temperature and small spin-orbit interaction. An EPR measurement found T1 to be 1.2 ms for T = 80 K and B = 0.3 T.


Like I said, I am still trying to get my arms around how temperature relates to coherence times.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2008,12:46   

I just wonder why people keep feeding TP.  Everyone has advised him to go get an education, yet some of the same people seem to be providing him personal one on one turoring in this thread.

I'm not suggesting you should not be TP's personal tutor, I'm just curious as to why.  If you had a student who was as dense as TP would you continue to tutor him?

Anyhow...

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2008,15:38   

Quote

If you had a student who was as dense as TP would you continue to tutor him?


Not pro bono.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
creeky belly



Posts: 205
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2008,16:56   

Quote
A quick internet search of scientific papers resulted in me finding this...

Long coherence times at 300 K for nitrogen-vacancy center spins

It's similar to an NMR experiment. You take a sample and place it in a large (as homogenous as possible) magnetic field. You then apply an EM wave perpendicular to the field, with a frequency which resonates with the gyromagnetic ratio and the magnetic field strength. There are quite a few experiments you can do. The first is a relaxation experiment: if you apply the EM wave for just the right amount of time, most of the spins in the material will flip to an alignment opposite to the field. This is the 180 degree pulse. The spins will then try to align back with the field. This is called the relaxation time, and usually denoted T1. The other experiment you can do is called spin-echo, and it sounds like this is the experiment in the paper. If you hit the material with a 90 degree pulse, most of the spins will be aligned perpendicular to the magnetic field in the same direction. When this happens, classical physics says they will precess, but they will not all precess at the same rate. After waiting and then applying a 180 degree pulse, it essentially causes the film to run backwards until most of the spins return to being aligned. Some fraction will relax back into the environment each time you hit it with a 180 degree pulse, and the measurement of this decay time is called T2, which is the decoherence time.

NMR was one of the initial investigations into quantum computing, since it could be done easily at room temperature. Unfortunately, it becomes difficult to scale up for practical purposes, but remains a simple way to generate long coherence times. I think the researchers' goal is figuring out if T1, lattice vibrations, or dipolar interactions are the limit for coherence. Is there any particular reason you linked to this paper?

Or did you latch onto the title and pick out the conclusion without looking at the science?

Here's a good visual source for the setup. Here's an explanation of the spin-echo process.

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2008,17:29   

More like pro bonehead

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2008,17:32   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 04 2008,15:38)
Quote

If you had a student who was as dense as TP would you continue to tutor him?


Not pro bono.

Good point!  I might continue to tutor them, but double the hourly rate.  Maybe triple.

Chris!

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2008,17:45   

Hi Creeky Belly,

Thank you for that explaination.

The reason I looked into the paper was because "I am still trying to get my arms around how temperature relates to coherence times."

I had read the entire paper three times.  I will read it again in light of what you said.

By chance, did you read (see Max Tegmark paper)?

Do you agree with his method for calculating decoherence times?

It seems that he is indicating the decoherence times increase as the temperature increases (of course assuming no state changes like solid to liquid).

  
creeky belly



Posts: 205
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2008,17:58   

Quote
I would agree that the logical thing would be that the relationship between temperature and coherence time should be inversely proportional.  That is why I am confused by references where it seems the opposite is being suggested.  

The paper on organic quantum wire suggested the time INCREASED according to the squareroot of temperature.

Well, a cursory glance of the papers linked to in the article, which I highly recommend, shows this plot as the argument.

Which means that for temperatures below 50K the power law is approximately T^0.5. Then it falls off, as one would expect.

EDIT: The paper was: Fluorescence yield and lifetime of isolated polydiacetylene chains: Evidence for a one-dimensional
exciton band in a conjugated polymer
, R. Le´cuiller, J. Berre´har, J. D. Ganie`re, C. Lapersonne-Meyer, P. Lavallard, and M. Schott, PHYSICAL REVIEW B 66, 125205, 2002

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2008,22:29   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Feb. 04 2008,17:45)
I had read the entire paper three times. [Emphasis mine]

Quote (creeky belly @ Feb. 04 2008,17:58)
Well, a cursory glance of the papers linked to in the article, which I highly recommend, shows this plot as the argument... Which means that for temperatures below 50K the power law is approximately T^0.5. Then it falls off, as one would expect. [Emphasis mine]

Snap!

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,08:47   

Hi Keiths and Creeky Belly,

Keiths wrote...
Quote
Snap!



That's it?  That's the sound of the train wreck everyone has been waiting for?

I long ago realized Creeky Belly has better access to research material than I do.  I could only find the abstract to the paper he mentioned.  Keiths, you did notice that Creeky Belly took the time and effort to upload the chart to image shack so he could post it, didn't you?

While it is obvious this took a little more effort than a "cursory glance" on Creeky Belly's part, I'm not complaining.  In fact, I appreciate the effort and information he has provided.

Thank you, Creeky Belly.

Now, let's see if we can put together a better sounding train wreck, shall we?

I think we are coming to the end of this thread.  Therefore, in appreciation of Lou's patience and for the support and interest others have shown, I am planning on putting together a summary of the lessons learned here, including some worked out examples.

I would also like to provide a summary of the reaction I get from my daughter's mentor.

This may take a few days to put everything together, so I hope the patience can hold out a little longer.

Thanks and Regards,
Thought Provoker

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,09:00   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Feb. 05 2008,14:47)
Hi Keiths and Creeky Belly,

Keiths wrote...
 
Quote
Snap!



That's it?  That's the sound of the train wreck everyone has been waiting for?

I long ago realized Creeky Belly has better access to research material than I do.  I could only find the abstract to the paper he mentioned.  Keiths, you did notice that Creeky Belly took the time and effort to upload the chart to image shack so he could post it, didn't you?

While it is obvious this took a little more effort than a "cursory glance" on Creeky Belly's part, I'm not complaining.  In fact, I appreciate the effort and information he has provided.

Thank you, Creeky Belly.

Now, let's see if we can put together a better sounding train wreck, shall we?

I think we are coming to the end of this thread.  Therefore, in appreciation of Lou's patience and for the support and interest others have shown, I am planning on putting together a summary of the lessons learned here, including some worked out examples.

I would also like to provide a summary of the reaction I get from my daughter's mentor.

This may take a few days to put everything together, so I hope the patience can hold out a little longer.

Thanks and Regards,
Thought Provoker

Ready! Fire! Aim!

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
creeky belly



Posts: 205
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,12:23   

Quote
I long ago realized Creeky Belly has better access to research material than I do.  I could only find the abstract to the paper he mentioned.  Keiths, you did notice that Creeky Belly took the time and effort to upload the chart to image shack so he could post it, didn't you?

While it is obvious this took a little more effort than a "cursory glance" on Creeky Belly's part, I'm not complaining.  In fact, I appreciate the effort and information he has provided.

Well, the first question I had, as you did, was why the square root? So I followed the citation. Step 1. That led me to the Fluorescence paper above. This plot was prominently displayed in their results sections, and was well described in their conclusion. Step 2.

I understand that not everybody has access to Phys Rev, but at the same time, if you're trying to form a conclusion from a review article, you should really know the experiments it's based on. If this means making a trip to a library, I think that's a reasonable expectation. This is about the fifth or sixth time I've done this for you, but I warn you Mr. Bond, my patience is not inexhaustible. It sounds like you have a daughter pursuing a PhD; typically that means she will have access to a number of journals. If the school has a physics program, no doubt she'll have access to all of the Phys Rev's.

To answer another question, I thought Tegmark's estimations were too generous, it seems to me like surface forces would be much more prevalent at those length scales. As Hameroff noted, he also seems to ignore much more prevalent sources of decoherence at those temperatures. That being said, I also read the rebuttal, and found it to be less than convincing, just substituting one bad model for another.

EDIT: removed -s from surfaces

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,13:55   

Quote (keiths @ Feb. 04 2008,02:38)
TP lectures Bradford over at Telic Thoughts:
 
Quote
Bradford, it's not my intent to be mean. It is my intent to help you be honest with yourself.

Why do the words 'pot', 'kettle', and 'black' come to mind?



--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2008,13:24   

Hi All,

Please excuse the tease because I still haven't finished putting together the summary.

I just found out who Olegt is and I want to re-emphasize my appreciation of the time and patience he took with me.

I also wanted to throw this out.  I still need to look into it further, but if anyone wanted to comment on it, I would appreciate hearing other views...

Excerpts from "A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser"

Quote
To the physicist, the results "are all consistent with prediction." To the layperson, the results should be shocking. Let us review the course of the experiment as it unfolds, beginning when the incoming photon from the laser generates an entangled pair at the crystal.

Time 1. The entangled pair leaves either region A or region B of the crystal. The signal photon heads off to detector D0, and the idler photon heads off to the interferometer.

Time 2. The signal photon is registered and scanned at detector D0 according to its position. This information (the position of the signal photon upon "impact" at D0) is sent on its way to the Coincidence Circuit.

Time 3. The idler photon reaches the first pair of beamsplitters, BSA, BSB. There, QM makes a choice which direction the idler photon will go – either to detectors D3, D4; or to the quantum eraser BS and on to detectors D1, D2.

Time 4a. If the idler photon is shunted to detectors D3, D4, it is detected with which-path information intact. Then and only then do we know which-path information for its twin signal photon that already has been detected, scanned, registered and recorded at D0.

Time 4b. If the idler photon passes through to detectors D1, D2, it is detected with no which-path information (the which-path information having been "erased" at BS).

Time 5. The Coincidence Circuit correlates the arrival of a signal photon at detector D0 with the arrival of its twin at D1, D2, D3, or D4. If the correlation is with an idler arriving at D3 or D4, then we know (after-the-fact) the which-path information of the signal photon that arrived earlier at D0. If the correlation is with an idler arriving at D1 or D2, then we have no which-path information for the signal photon that arrived earlier at D0.

Time 6. Upon accessing the information gathered by the Coincidence Circuit, we the observer are shocked to learn that the pattern shown by the positions registered at D0 at Time 2 depends entirely on the information gathered later at Time 4 and available to us at the conclusion of the experiment.

The position of a photon at detector D0 has been registered and scanned. Yet the actual position of the photon arriving at D0 will be at one place if we later learn more information; and the actual position will be at another place if we do not.

Ho-hum. Another experimental proof of QM. This is the way it works, folks.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2008,14:22   

SciAm did the quantum eraser already.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2008,14:43   

Hi Wesley,

Thank you for the link to your website.

I was going to post your link on Telic Thoughts but then thought I would give you the opportunity to veto that, or better, let you post it to Telic Thoughts yourself.

Here is the link to the topical thread on TT.

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2008,16:49   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Feb. 05 2008,08:47)
That's it?  That's the sound of the train wreck everyone has been waiting for?

No.  The train wreck started long ago. We're just waiting for the last car to jump the rails and explode in a flaming ball of tard.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 06 2008,17:11   

TP's already jumped the shark!

Now he has to jump the rails, too?

He's going to need a Double Tard Latte at the very least.

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2008,19:34   

Please excuse me for taking so long, but my daughter’s mentor got busy so I quit waiting for him and then I got distracted.  But I promised you guys a train wreck so…

Probably the most significant lesson I learned was what the phrase “Jumped the Shark” was all about.  I knew about the Happy Days episode, I probably even watched it.  I hadn’t made the connection.

Now on to the other stuff.

We started with Special Relativity, Minkowskian geometry and the Twins Paradox.

Here is what Penrose had to say on page 420 of The Road to Reality.

 
Quote
In passing from [Euclidean geometry] to [Minkowskian geometry], there are also changes that relate to inequalities.  The most dramatic of these contains the essence of the so-called 'clock paradox' (or 'twin paradox') of special relativity. ... if we accept that the passage of time, as registered by a moving clock, is really a kind of 'arc length' measured along a world line, then the phenomenon is not more puzzling than the path along which this distance is measured.  Both are measured by the same formula, namely [integral of ds], but in the Euclidian case, the straight path represents the minimizing of the measured distance between two fixed end-points, whereas in the Minkowski case, it turns out that the straight, i.e. inertial, path represents the maximizing of the measured time between two fixed end events (see also 17.9)." [emphasis Penrose's]


The path (or arc length) is calculated from the relation…

ds^2 = dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2

Which means the traveling twin’s path is shorter.

olegt said it simply as…
 
Quote
…a zigzag path in a spacetime with a metric signature (+,-,-,-) has a shorter length than a straight line.  Duh!


However this assumes flat spacetime, which is a “special” case.  To be more complete, we need to take into account gravity and curved space.  Once we start talking about curved spacetime, references to Minkowskian Geometry confuses the issue.  However, we can show that  curved space time can be seen as modified flat Minkowskian Geometry.

If we designate “dz” as the up direction in a Earth orbit the spacetime curve will effect the path length calculation as…

ds^2 = Gtt * dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2 / Gtt

…where the steeper the curve the smaller Gtt.  Gtt = 1 for flat space.

Schwarzschild determined that…
Gtt = 1 - Rs / r
Where Rs, the Schwarzschild Radius, is 8.87 millimeters for Earth.

A GPS Satellite in geosynchronous orbit is traveling at 0.0000129217 times the speed of light.
So in one second, the satellite travels 0.0000129217 light-seconds in distance in the X direction.

Calculating the path length for flat space results in…

ds = SQRT(1^2 - 0.0000129217^2 – 0^2 – 0^2)
   = 0.999999999916515 seconds

Calculating the path length for r = 2.656175×10^7 of (geosynchronous orbit)
and Gtt = (1 – 0.00887 / 2.656175×10^7) = 0.99999999966606115937391173397837

ds = SQRT(Gtt * 1^2 - 0.0000129217^2 – 0^2 – 0^2 / Gtt)
   = 0.999999999749545 seconds of GPS Clock time (slower)

A clock on Earth’s equator is traveling at 0.0000017737252 times the speed of light
So in one second, the clock travels 0.0000017737252 light-seconds in distance in the X direction.
Calculating the path length for r = 6.3781363×10^6 of (Earth’s radius)
and Gtt = (1 – 0.00887 / 6.3781363×10^6) = 0.99999999860931162603094574821175

ds = SQRT(Gtt * 1^2 - 0.0000017737252^2 – 0^2 – 0^2 / Gtt)
   = 0.999999999303083 seconds of Earth Clock time (even slower)

Comparing this Earth Clock to the GPS clock results in

Ratio = 0.999999999749545 / 0.999999999303083  = 1.000000000447

Which matches GPS timing observations.

The point being that four dimensional spacetime is real and detectable whether it is a modified Minkowskian Geometry or Schwarzschild Geometry expressed in Cartesian coordinates.

The spacetime path length is zero at the null geodesics  (edge of light cone).

I understand this is fairly uncontroversial as long as we are careful with the terminology.

It gets more controversial when General Relativity is merged with Quantum Mechanics.

If 4D spacetime geometry is real, than it is just as real for quantum particles and wavefunctions as it is for traveling twins.

Quantum experiments have demonstrated non-local behavior.  Wheeler’s delayed choice and quantum erasure experiments have become so common, they can be done at home inexpensively (thanks Wesley).

One way to describe quantum non-local behavior is to discuss some kind of quantum information communication.  But I have learned that the term “quantum information” is too misleading and controversial.  Quantum entanglement might be better.   Sir Roger Penrose coined the term quanglement.

From Penrose’s book The Road to Reality…

 
Quote
As far as I can make out, quanglement links are always constrained by the light cones, just as are ordinary links, but quanglement links have the novel feature that they can zig-zag backwards and forwards in time, so as to achieve ‘spacelike propagation’.  Since quanglement is not information, this does not allow actual signals to be sent faster than light.
page 603

Now where was I going with this?

Watch out for the curve in the track!

Screech, rumble, crunch, crackle. BOOOOOOM!

...

...


Thank you for all the help and entertainment.  I am sorry I didn’t focus as much on this summary as I had intended.

  
  124 replies since Jan. 25 2008,22:00 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (5) < [1] 2 3 4 5 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]