|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jan 4, 2015 13:26:49 GMT
Dark is just a name given to "Unseen" If it has a name, it makes it easier to talk about without understanding it. I therefore propose Dark anything is just "We really just dont know" when in this context. Until we actually turn it light..... we do not know what it is. Now you're getting it  The big diffference between black holes and dark matter is that we had a theory about the existance of black holes before we ever detected them. We had a working knowledge of what they should be, how they should form and how they should work, even before we knew they were really there, which is also why we knew where and how to look for them. Dark matter is the other way around. We have observational evidence of "something" interacting with normal matter, but nothing theoretical we've ever come up with can explain what that "something" is. It was the same for Newton trying to work out what the "something" that made everything fall down instead of up was. He had observational evidence that things always fall down, but no pre-existing theory that could help explain what that "something" was. Ho Hum.... Can anyone see the irony?.... I am chuckling down to my shoes here, 'cos that realisation has just answered a question in my head that was glaringly obvious, we have come full circle, all the way around CERN even, and returned to our starting point. "Dark" is the actual true physical form of the original question, it is, in full, the third state that I questioned, its is Quantum Cat............ You could say that. The quantum uncertainty principal works on the idea that you can never be sure something is there unless you observe it, but the very act of observing it changes its state to "being there". It might have been somewhere else if you hadn't looked, so yeah. While you're not looking, the cat is "in the dark", as in: we don't know if it's there or somewhere else or if it's even anywhere at all. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 4, 2015 15:05:45 GMT
Dark is just a name given to "Unseen" If it has a name, it makes it easier to talk about without understanding it. I therefore propose Dark anything is just "We really just dont know" when in this context. Until we actually turn it light..... we do not know what it is. Ho Hum.... Can anyone see the irony?.... I am chuckling down to my shoes here, 'cos that realisation has just answered a question in my head that was glaringly obvious, we have come full circle, all the way around CERN even, and returned to our starting point. "Dark" is the actual true physical form of the original question, it is, in full, the third state that I questioned, its is Quantum Cat............ except that the scientific community has already established definitions of "dark matter" and "dark energy" and that definition is "whatever is making our calculations come out with too little gravity" and "whatever is making our calculations come out with too little energy" so dark matter and dark energy is not quantum cat. quantum cat is "something that cannot be peeked at without changing what it is." |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jan 4, 2015 18:29:10 GMT
Dark is just a name given to "Unseen" If it has a name, it makes it easier to talk about without understanding it. I therefore propose Dark anything is just "We really just dont know" when in this context. Until we actually turn it light..... we do not know what it is. Ho Hum.... Can anyone see the irony?.... I am chuckling down to my shoes here, 'cos that realisation has just answered a question in my head that was glaringly obvious, we have come full circle, all the way around CERN even, and returned to our starting point. "Dark" is the actual true physical form of the original question, it is, in full, the third state that I questioned, its is Quantum Cat............ except that the scientific community has already established definitions of "dark matter" and "dark energy" and that definition is "whatever is making our calculations come out with too little gravity" and "whatever is making our calculations come out with too little energy" so dark matter and dark energy is not quantum cat. quantum cat is "something that cannot be peeked at without changing what it is." I don't think SD meant that the quantum cat was either dark matter or dark energy, but rather that the so-called "third state" (the first and second being "there" and "not there") is a state of being "dark", as in "is unknown". |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 5, 2015 1:04:00 GMT
except that the scientific community has already established definitions of "dark matter" and "dark energy" and that definition is "whatever is making our calculations come out with too little gravity" and "whatever is making our calculations come out with too little energy" so dark matter and dark energy is not quantum cat. quantum cat is "something that cannot be peeked at without changing what it is." I don't think SD meant that the quantum cat was either dark matter or dark energy, but rather that the so-called "third state" (the first and second being "there" and "not there") is a state of being "dark", as in "is unknown". thst's reasonable. but we're starting to use "dark" for multiple things and that leads to confusion. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 5, 2015 8:34:48 GMT
except that the scientific community has already established definitions of "dark matter" and "dark energy" and that definition is "whatever is making our calculations come out with too little gravity" and "whatever is making our calculations come out with too little energy" so dark matter and dark energy is not quantum cat. quantum cat is "something that cannot be peeked at without changing what it is." I don't think SD meant that the quantum cat was either dark matter or dark energy, but rather that the so-called "third state" (the first and second being "there" and "not there") is a state of being "dark", as in "is unknown". Yeah, thats the one. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 5, 2015 8:41:44 GMT
I don't think SD meant that the quantum cat was either dark matter or dark energy, but rather that the so-called "third state" (the first and second being "there" and "not there") is a state of being "dark", as in "is unknown". thst's reasonable. but we're starting to use "dark" for multiple things and that leads to confusion. If your not confusded, you dont understand whats going on.... And I get that from leading quantum scientists, who have said that confusion and not understanding are the states of learning that make us probe further, and there we have science. Of course, they write it all down, otherwise its just mucking about. In my confused state of mind, this thread is me doing research, and sometimes having written something down, I realise I am wrong.... Do I correct it?.. Or leave it as it stands to go back to at a later date to understand where I am now?... I say I leave it as it is, just in case it helps someone else at a later date. That and having the Quantum Cat around the place, well, it certainly keeps the mice down, and who cant like a cat that can be kitten, experienced mouser, warm and friendly, and cleans up its own mess (eventually)?... And all at the same time, just dont peek whilst its changing.... (its shy...) There is a thin line between madness and genius. I often use that line to pull myself ashore..... but you all expected that anyway didnt you?... |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 5, 2015 15:15:09 GMT
thst's reasonable. but we're starting to use "dark" for multiple things and that leads to confusion. If your not confusded, you dont understand whats going on.... And I get that from leading quantum scientists, who have said that confusion and not understanding are the states of learning that make us probe further, and there we have science. Of course, they write it all down, otherwise its just mucking about. In my confused state of mind, this thread is me doing research, and sometimes having written something down, I realise I am wrong.... Do I correct it?.. Or leave it as it stands to go back to at a later date to understand where I am now?... I say I leave it as it is, just in case it helps someone else at a later date. That and having the Quantum Cat around the place, well, it certainly keeps the mice down, and who cant like a cat that can be kitten, experienced mouser, warm and friendly, and cleans up its own mess (eventually)?... And all at the same time, just dont peek whilst its changing.... (its shy...) There is a thin line between madness and genius. I often use that line to pull myself ashore..... but you all expected that anyway didnt you?... there is good confusion and bad confusion and using the same turn of phrase for two scientifically different meanings leads to bad confusion. (not to be confused with using the same turn of phrase for two comedically different meanings) |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jan 5, 2015 15:15:27 GMT
That and having the Quantum Cat around the place, well, it certainly keeps the mice down, and who cant like a cat that can be kitten, experienced mouser, warm and friendly, and cleans up its own mess (eventually)?... And all at the same time, just dont peek whilst its changing.... (its shy...) As long as it doesn't drag in dead mice from some parallel universe. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jan 5, 2015 17:12:56 GMT
That and having the Quantum Cat around the place, well, it certainly keeps the mice down, and who cant like a cat that can be kitten, experienced mouser, warm and friendly, and cleans up its own mess (eventually)?... And all at the same time, just dont peek whilst its changing.... (its shy...) As long as it doesn't drag in dead mice from some parallel universe. The Quantum Cat doesn't drag anything. It just looks for the other-dimensional mice in its mouth and there they are. In that regard, the dark Quantum Cat actually has become a black hole (not THAT end of the cat! Get your minds out of the gutter!). It's just the only black hole in the unviverse that's a picky eater. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on May 30, 2016 7:33:34 GMT
Copy from other thread.
[/quote]
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on May 30, 2016 7:45:55 GMT
Fur-ther studies of quantum cats.... www.rawstory.com/2015/10/physicists-prove-quantum-spookiness-and-start-chasing-schrodingers-cat/Soi what they are saying is that the spin of an electron is unmeasured, as in speed or rotation and distance from the nucleus, than as you measure it, you find all other electrons on the same particle [for instance hydrogen] are spinning just the same... Erm.... I cant see what this proves other than the speed and distance of all electrons of the same particle of hydrogen are EXPECTED to be at the same speed and distance, otherwise, it wouldnt be hydrogen would it?.. Einstein was right, there is something that makes Hydrogen Hydrogen and not Helium. It has to do with the number of electrons and how they interact on each other. Perhaps there are physical limitations on the electrons in speed, that greater than that speed, they reach escape velocity, and fly off?... And dont we know this anyway?.. isnt that part of particle physics into how much energy it takes to split the atom?.. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on May 30, 2016 8:00:27 GMT
I am getting further and further confused.
"Quantum" seams to now part replicate the state of unknown.
And now that state of unknown is becoming an "Important" part of physics.
Erm.. hasnt it always been?.
Isnt science the mere art of making the unknown the known, in that writing it down for all others to see what has become known?..
If I lock a coin in a box, or even a 20side dice, and shake that box, there is bugger all chance of me being able to predict exactly what state that dice is in before I open that box.
Its still a dice.
Its still going to be resting on one side when I stop shaking that box.
It will still show a value of between 1 and 20 on the uppermost side.
The fact that the dice exists in an unknown state is just that... unknown.
I am struggling to see the analogies here...
Because they are now starting to suggest the impossible.
If another dice could be manufactured as an exact clone of the existing dice, and both dice were shaken in exactly the same way, but on separate sides of the world, this idea of quantum entanglement says thet the dice exist in exactly the same state.
Then surely they also suggest that is that is true, when you open the box, they will be orientated in exactly the same manner. ?...
The point is...
Say I know that a tap of say 1lb psi on the side of that box is just enough to tip that dice over on its side once.
If the "shake" of the box could be done exactly the same in that both boxes got exactly the same amount of force at the same time, chances are, they will display the same result when the box is open...
Thats just basic physics.
So in this way, have I dis-guarded any form of possible "quantum" on that bx by knowing too much?..
Yes I have.
Quantum can therefore only exist in the chaotic randomness of the unmeasured.
So therefore, if you shake the box on both sides of the world in a truly random manner, the state of unknown is "quantum" until you open the box....
But when you do, "!Quantum" also states that the two dice should show the same value.
Erm.... no... thats a 1-in-20 chance that any value will show up?...
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on May 30, 2016 8:05:36 GMT
Busting "Bells theorem"?...
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on May 30, 2016 8:19:15 GMT
So we had Newton.
His "laws" were held as true until Einstein theory of relativity.
Which disprove Newtons laws at high speed, but as no one could go that fast at the time, no one noticed?..
I do not suggest that in any way I be treated as an Einstein here....
Its just that the theory of Quantum is the answer 42
Its not that you didnt get the right answer, its just we asked the wrong question....
Therefore, I am trying to learn enough to ask the right question that can either be answered with "Quantum" of "We got that wrong didnt we?."
As far as I can go here, with all answers of "!Quantum", I am getting alternative solutions that make more sense.
Including Bohmian Mechanics, that sort of say if you understand the nature of something, its predictable, and not just "!quantum" because you didnt study it?...
"Talking particles" that communicate faster than light speed?...
1] how do they know what to communicate?.
2] to whom?.
3] If true, does that show intelligence?.
4] Today I will be a banana. [which makes sense if you ask the above questions whilst watching the above video...][as in its an anti-sensible alternative to red or white]
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on May 30, 2016 8:32:24 GMT
Definition of random, not a coin toss.
If you know the mass, size, and forces used, you can, with knowledge of the path it will take, and knowledge of which side was up when you flipped it, predict exactly what state it will be in when it lands.
Randomness only happens because the human form on flipping that coin is always not exact in the amount of force it chooses to use, nor does it measure it.
If you plot a path from a mechanical coin toss machine that only allows say a two-foot path to where the coin lands, and use exactly the same force on every throw, and exactly the same starting position, you will get the same results.
As long as you use the same type of coin, say an American quarter, it may not matter which coin from a box of 100 you use... as long as they are "almost" identical and have had the same equality of wear.
Therefore, a Coin toss is not in any way !"quantum" and a bad analogy to use?..
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 30, 2016 14:26:01 GMT
Definition of random, not a coin toss. If you know the mass, size, and forces used, you can, with knowledge of the path it will take, and knowledge of which side was up when you flipped it, predict exactly what state it will be in when it lands. Randomness only happens because the human form on flipping that coin is always not exact in the amount of force it chooses to use, nor does it measure it. If you plot a path from a mechanical coin toss machine that only allows say a two-foot path to where the coin lands, and use exactly the same force on every throw, and exactly the same starting position, you will get the same results. As long as you use the same type of coin, say an American quarter, it may not matter which coin from a box of 100 you use... as long as they are "almost" identical and have had the same equality of wear. Therefore, a Coin toss is not in any way !"quantum" and a bad analogy to use?.. a human coin tosser can be just as consistent with practice. allowing it to bounce on a hard surface imparts the only randomness involved. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on May 31, 2016 8:00:36 GMT
Definition of random, not a coin toss. If you know the mass, size, and forces used, you can, with knowledge of the path it will take, and knowledge of which side was up when you flipped it, predict exactly what state it will be in when it lands. Randomness only happens because the human form on flipping that coin is always not exact in the amount of force it chooses to use, nor does it measure it. If you plot a path from a mechanical coin toss machine that only allows say a two-foot path to where the coin lands, and use exactly the same force on every throw, and exactly the same starting position, you will get the same results. As long as you use the same type of coin, say an American quarter, it may not matter which coin from a box of 100 you use... as long as they are "almost" identical and have had the same equality of wear. Therefore, a Coin toss is not in any way !"quantum" and a bad analogy to use?.. a human coin tosser can be just as consistent with practice. allowing it to bounce on a hard surface imparts the only randomness involved. Good point..... |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on May 31, 2016 10:48:23 GMT
I am watching, as you may suspect, a LOT of informative video. I just watched this one. But I have a problem.... they are measuring up-down-east-west type of scenario to predict "Spin" on an electron.... I understand all of that. But I have the big problem of what hell are they doing if they have not even started to think "Corkscrew". They state quite clearly that an electrons spin may change, or even will change over time... so why havnt they bothered to investigate that an electrons "flight" over a longer period of time may be slightly corkscrew.... So what is spin?.. Whenever a charged particle moves, it creates a magnetic field. Think of the one they draw around the earth as a big example of this?... Ok, so all particles create a similar field.. Except its not always perfect, it may be stronger on one side than on the other... and this creates spin, in that, the particle wants to move either towards or away from that imperfection. You wanna know how easy it is to see that on action?. put a compass next to a working electric cable. However, I am stuck with the Stern-Gerlach machine measurements... In that I believe the process of observation has somehow changed the results. In this way, if you try to measure the orientation of a randomly thrown magnet passing through a measuring machine, that uses electro magnetics to create the measure of the orientation, then the magnet in flight will somehow react to the measuring field whilst in flight. milesmathis.com/stern.htmlSo you are using a magnetic field to measure a magnetic field and wondering why it has changed the orientation of the magnetic field you are measuring?... Thus I have helpfully disproved the whole experiment of using the Stern-Gerlach machine to measure orientation of a electron?... oh crud.... a "Truck driver from Manchester" shouldnt be able to do that should he?.. And therefore, I have a BIG question. To use an example, An aeroplane gets in a 'spin'. Its a complete three axis FUBAR of a stall, which until quite recently in the world of flight, would have been totally unrecoverable... Except some pilots now do it as a stunt. But this is proof of the whole range of spin possible in three dimensions... But measuring the spin on one axis alone helps not a bit at that time, they have to know all three to correct the spin... so knowing all three is somehow important?... (as in no short Sherlock?..) In the case of a Stern-Gerlach machine experiment, your not measuring all three dimensions at a time?.. why is that?. So now I have the direction that the act of measuring somehow CAN alter the being of something previously unknown... But, again, its not "!quantum".
Its quite simply when measuring the forces they have introduced another force which has changed the state of the item being measured.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on May 31, 2016 11:06:31 GMT
From that link above, milesmathis.com/stern.html"Now there's your problem"I have been trying to address all of this from a mechanical point of view... His making more sense here that I could have ever attempted.... Surely if you are measuring anything, you should assign 1 as the lowest positive result possible, as he says?.. Or re-assign the 1 as a 10, move the decimal place, to make room for anything else that isnt a 5?.. he goes on later to say... I would say that from my position of an actual real time laugh here, he is hitting the nail on the head. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jun 3, 2016 8:57:32 GMT
Why are solar systems, and even Galaxies, "disk" shaped, and not a ball?...
Because the Star spins.
Why does it spin?.
Surely a ball of gas does not need spin?...
And in that there are entire galaxies out there that are naught but a cloud of gas, they are called nebulae by some.
Enter a spinning particle or group of them that may have been caused by a collision, that is now generating some form of Gravity that "is more" than just the local small force of gravity that is from all matter...
That extra gravity, call it magnetism if you will, starts the process off creating a super-dense local gravitation that "collects" all around it.
That theory sort of shows how the local system of a star could have been formed. And why all solar systems have orbital moons or planets that spin in the same direction...
Mostly.
But here is the question, does spin impart gravity, or is it that as no one has measured the gravity of say a large planet like earth with or without spin, does no one actually know?..
There is gravity on the moon, but, as its not as big as earth, its not as high as earths.
But the moon has no spin....
|
|
