Here's my take, Icsaszar! The light beam substitution would be similar to observing a lighthouse. A distant observer only sees a flash of light once per rotation of the reflector even though the light beam is sweeping around through 360 degrees. The light in that flash travels directly towards the observer no faster than approximately 300,000,000m/s. In the first case, since a shadow is simply the absence of light, can it be said to have a velocity in any sense?
'Bladerunner 2049' is currently showing on TV, in fact it is showing on the Sony Movies channel right now.
I recorded it to DVDR when it premiered recently, but haven't watched it yet.
Attachments
I investigated Philip K Dick many years ago. I rustled up an obscure book from the British Library for free. Following my intuition.
Only Apparently Real: By Paul Williams
AFAIK, "The Feds" tormented and pursued this man as America's No.1 enemy. IMO, he was just a guy doing the best he could. I suspect he was "Damaged Goods" trying to recover through his Art. He certainly lost it numerous times.
I am wary of judging anyone, unless I have walked a mile in their shoes. Philip took me to places where the normal seemed weird.
And the weird seemed normal. Shall we get back to Maths and Physics? Feel much safer there. 🙂
Only Apparently Real: By Paul Williams
AFAIK, "The Feds" tormented and pursued this man as America's No.1 enemy. IMO, he was just a guy doing the best he could. I suspect he was "Damaged Goods" trying to recover through his Art. He certainly lost it numerous times.
I am wary of judging anyone, unless I have walked a mile in their shoes. Philip took me to places where the normal seemed weird.
And the weird seemed normal. Shall we get back to Maths and Physics? Feel much safer there. 🙂
Why not? What a great question! If it's disappearing at a rate of speed, that can be calculated.
What about entanglement? Instantaneous
Last edited:
I say this in the most friendly fashion, Discopete. The Quantum World is the right Theory, the Classical World is the wrong Theory. 🙂
Let me introduce to you the respected Physicist Sidney Coleman:
Quantum Mechanics in Your Face
Liked by Dick Feynman, Lenny Susskind and doubtless numerous others. Despite his highly Autistic awkwardness.
What Sidney shows in this extremely dated but amusing Physics lecture is that Quantum Entanglement is just a plain misunderstanding of what actually is happening.
If you open your box on Planet Earth and find that your Schroedinger's hypothetical Cat is DEAD. Then you can say for sure that the Cat on the other side of the Universe is ALIVE!
But no information is gained. It's a dead cert. Just how it works. In a Classical Universe, things are either true or false. In a Quantum Universe you must add the possibility that they can be neither True or not False. Best I can explain it. 😱.
Let me introduce to you the respected Physicist Sidney Coleman:
Quantum Mechanics in Your Face
Liked by Dick Feynman, Lenny Susskind and doubtless numerous others. Despite his highly Autistic awkwardness.
What Sidney shows in this extremely dated but amusing Physics lecture is that Quantum Entanglement is just a plain misunderstanding of what actually is happening.
If you open your box on Planet Earth and find that your Schroedinger's hypothetical Cat is DEAD. Then you can say for sure that the Cat on the other side of the Universe is ALIVE!
But no information is gained. It's a dead cert. Just how it works. In a Classical Universe, things are either true or false. In a Quantum Universe you must add the possibility that they can be neither True or not False. Best I can explain it. 😱.
Physicists don’t understand how measuring an entangled system suddenly reverts it to a classical, unentangled state, or whether entangled particles are actually communicating in some way.
However, quantum computers, which rely on entanglement, are real - just ask Google! Google's Quantum Computer Just Aced an 'Impossible' Test | Live Science
Not chickening out of this one at all. 😎
But I think I'll sleep on Quantum Entanglement right now. Way I see it, is entangled states are prepared in the lab. I'm not sure what you have in your hand, but I know I have the opposite.
Not quite certain knowledge, more half knowledge. You follow? 🙂
Quantum Computers solve a different sort of problem from deterministic ones. More sleep needed. 😀
But I think I'll sleep on Quantum Entanglement right now. Way I see it, is entangled states are prepared in the lab. I'm not sure what you have in your hand, but I know I have the opposite.
Not quite certain knowledge, more half knowledge. You follow? 🙂
Quantum Computers solve a different sort of problem from deterministic ones. More sleep needed. 😀
They are indeed made in the lab, especially for the experiments in the lab.
The majority of quantum entanglement experiments use photons as the entangled particles. A non-linear optical crystal is used to convert single high-energy photons into pairs of photons with half the energy.
Physicists look at detection results to see whether the entangled particles wind up with the same polarisation more often than could be explained by classical statistics.
The University of Glasgow team demonstrated the violation of a 'Bell inequality' within the observed images and claim that the results are the first confirmation of true quantum entanglement.
The quest to test quantum entanglement | symmetry magazine
I commented a few weeks ago that if you look at a photon that has been traversing the cosmos for say 8 billion years, the photons wavefront will be many billions of light yrs across. However, the instant that photon interacts with matter - say a detector in an observatory- it ceases to exist across its entire wavefront. This is what the dual slit experiment is all about.
QE of course takes the concept a step further.
QE of course takes the concept a step further.
I needed to sleep on Entanglement and Quantum Computers because it's a while since I have spent time on them. As we know, you forget half what you know after 4 days away from a subject! 😱
I think we get into trouble when we do the semi-classical approach. Sidney Coleman showed that Quantum Mechanics gets a completely different result from the semi-classical approach of wave-particle duality. No question Quantum Entanglement exists. But it doesn't work the way people think, if you are dreaming of faster than light and all that.
The Reference Frame: Sidney Coleman: Quantum mechanics in your face
The core of the lecture is that the observer is a Quantum Mechanical player in the experiment being done too. The statistics are not what the semi-classical Quantum approach comes up with at all.
But the takeaway is that once the entangled particles are separated, they don't interact at all. And causality holds, and nothing, including information, goes faster than light.
I think we get into trouble when we do the semi-classical approach. Sidney Coleman showed that Quantum Mechanics gets a completely different result from the semi-classical approach of wave-particle duality. No question Quantum Entanglement exists. But it doesn't work the way people think, if you are dreaming of faster than light and all that.
The Reference Frame: Sidney Coleman: Quantum mechanics in your face
The core of the lecture is that the observer is a Quantum Mechanical player in the experiment being done too. The statistics are not what the semi-classical Quantum approach comes up with at all.
But the takeaway is that once the entangled particles are separated, they don't interact at all. And causality holds, and nothing, including information, goes faster than light.
Last edited:
So it is possible that the apparent big bang and expansion of our 3D universe is simply a projection we can sense of a rotating 4D (or higher) universe.
My post was merely to illustrate the apparently strange nature of photon behavior, not to question the validity of QE.
Of course, if a photon does not experience time, and exists for just an infinitesimal instant while anything with a non-zero rest mass does, you can expect all sorts of interesting things to happen!
Of course, if a photon does not experience time, and exists for just an infinitesimal instant while anything with a non-zero rest mass does, you can expect all sorts of interesting things to happen!
I'm quite sure none of us have much grasp of the Universe really. Would it be better to just take turns in rambling about stuff we find interesting? 😀
I am way out of my depth with Ads/CFT Correspondence. But I like M.C. Escher's Hyperbolic Geometry drawings of curved space, and I like Conformal Field Theory which is all about spheres always looking like spheres when reflected by a convex mirror.
I first encountered it with some exciting experiments done at Brookhaven with the Relatavistic Heavy Ion Collider.
This collider seeks to explore the Universe in conditions soon after the BIg Bang.
What if the very smallest things in our Universe are tiny pairs of virtual Black Holes?
To make sense of the Maths, it was found you could calculate stuff with simpler 4D Conformal Field Theory and translate it up to a complicated 5D Anti-de Sitter Space. The physicists called this the "RHIC Fireball", if I remember right. Great title, IMO.
All a bit String Theory on the Ads side, and quite QFT or Standard Model on the CFT side, but interesting. Very little maths is a complete waste of time. 🙂
I am way out of my depth with Ads/CFT Correspondence. But I like M.C. Escher's Hyperbolic Geometry drawings of curved space, and I like Conformal Field Theory which is all about spheres always looking like spheres when reflected by a convex mirror.
I first encountered it with some exciting experiments done at Brookhaven with the Relatavistic Heavy Ion Collider.
This collider seeks to explore the Universe in conditions soon after the BIg Bang.
What if the very smallest things in our Universe are tiny pairs of virtual Black Holes?
To make sense of the Maths, it was found you could calculate stuff with simpler 4D Conformal Field Theory and translate it up to a complicated 5D Anti-de Sitter Space. The physicists called this the "RHIC Fireball", if I remember right. Great title, IMO.
All a bit String Theory on the Ads side, and quite QFT or Standard Model on the CFT side, but interesting. Very little maths is a complete waste of time. 🙂
Last edited:
This is worthy of explanation and is a consequence of the fact that absolutely everything is moving through spacetime at the speed of light, c.
Anything that moves through space uses up some of its spacetime speed and that leaves less for its movement through time. That is why a moving clock doesn't move through time as fast as a stationary one i.e. it ticks more slowly.
A photon of light travels through space at a speed c. It therefore uses up all of its spacetime speed leaving none for its movement through time i.e. if you were a photon, you would not experience the passage of time; your entire journey would appear to be instantaneous.
Ooh, Hello, after 14:11 PM. Welcome back Galu! 😀
I'm more the Midnight Rider than the Midnight Rambler, IMO. Just love that Reggae beat! Not that I mind the "Strolling Bones" either. 😀
I was watching one of Lenny Susskind's Stanford lectures on Youtube a while back.
Way he explained the photon, is traveling at the speed of Light, it must compress or shorten into a sort of pancake perpendicular to its direction of travel. Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction.
Seen one photon, you seen em' all, of course. All relative.
But it can't be entirely static, being a Spin 1 Boson force carrier. It must be spinning or wobbling in some way.
We always think photons have a sort of linear up or sideways polarisation. But AFAIK, the fundamental photon is actually circularly polarised either clockwise or anticlockwise along its direction of travel.
I'm more the Midnight Rider than the Midnight Rambler, IMO. Just love that Reggae beat! Not that I mind the "Strolling Bones" either. 😀
I was watching one of Lenny Susskind's Stanford lectures on Youtube a while back.
Way he explained the photon, is traveling at the speed of Light, it must compress or shorten into a sort of pancake perpendicular to its direction of travel. Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction.
Seen one photon, you seen em' all, of course. All relative.
But it can't be entirely static, being a Spin 1 Boson force carrier. It must be spinning or wobbling in some way.
We always think photons have a sort of linear up or sideways polarisation. But AFAIK, the fundamental photon is actually circularly polarised either clockwise or anticlockwise along its direction of travel.
Are the virtual photons responsible for the force interactions between charged particles exactly the same as the 'real' photons that make up light?
Thought I had an answer, but now not so sure!
Last edited:
It would appear that virtual photons are 'off shell' while real photons are 'on shell'. Can one distinguish real and virtual photons?
In Quantum Field Theory (QFT) virtual particles are termed 'off-shell' because they do not satisfy the energy-momentum relation. On shell and off shell - Wikipedia
Now, don't expect me to be able to explain any of this!
In Quantum Field Theory (QFT) virtual particles are termed 'off-shell' because they do not satisfy the energy-momentum relation. On shell and off shell - Wikipedia
Now, don't expect me to be able to explain any of this!
Quantum Entanglement involves more than one particle behaving like one. Besides such a state requires extremely low temperatures to remain stable, any particles involved, will still remain separate. This means, irrespective on the entanglement, no particle travels faster than light.
Besides science fiction, Quantum Entanglement may play a role in biological brains. I am not referring to the idea of Quantum Consciousness which postulates that the micro-tubuli of neurons have resonating electrons which form a Quantum Entanglement over entire neural networks in brains. This postulate ignores the extremely intricate and complex neural circuits that make brains, and places undue emphasis on micro-tubuli which are known to serve the puspose of structural support. A more tempting question is what happens at synaptic clefts? Are neurotransmitters in action in some form of intermittent quantum entanglement? It is known consciousness requires a brain to electrically oscillate at around 40Hz: what happens during such oscillations especially at synaptic clefts?
Physically, a biological brain is a marvel, but functionally, it is even more enticing...
Besides science fiction, Quantum Entanglement may play a role in biological brains. I am not referring to the idea of Quantum Consciousness which postulates that the micro-tubuli of neurons have resonating electrons which form a Quantum Entanglement over entire neural networks in brains. This postulate ignores the extremely intricate and complex neural circuits that make brains, and places undue emphasis on micro-tubuli which are known to serve the puspose of structural support. A more tempting question is what happens at synaptic clefts? Are neurotransmitters in action in some form of intermittent quantum entanglement? It is known consciousness requires a brain to electrically oscillate at around 40Hz: what happens during such oscillations especially at synaptic clefts?
Physically, a biological brain is a marvel, but functionally, it is even more enticing...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.