__/.:*-PHYSICS SUPERTHREAD-*:.\__

OK. so i dont ever come in crossfire, so its pretty lame to expect others to flock to my thread. But this is some shit that ive really been getting interested in in the past year. That being said i make no claims to having the firmest grasp on the subject, it does afterall contain quite a fair amount of abstract shit. Lots of things that happen on the micro level of physics do not compute with how we see things on the macro level day to day.

So for right now my main focus has been on the gap between quantum mechanics and the effect human consciousness has on it. The science of the observer. I must admit i originally got into this after seeing the movie/"dockumentary" What the #@!& do we know?" which puports to be about quantum physics but really is alot of cult/spirit warrior bullshit packaged as such, but because of it, i read many books by acredited physicists on the subject and found you dont have to add a bunch of crazy bullshit to quantum physics, its crazy enough on its on.

Anyway, this can be a place to talk about cosmology, dark energy, string theory, whatever any of you nerds feel like doing, for now im just going to post my recent reading list and see what happens.

euclids window

a different universe

Sex drugs einstein and elves this guy is bananas

quantum enigma;physics encounters consciousness

faster than the speed of light

the god effect

art & physics

physics on consciousness

this is a part of that bullshit movie but to my knowledge their presentation of these facts is at least mostly accurate, how they choose to interpret these facts is where they get a little kooky.

Double slit experiment

* ihad to edit out one of these links, upon further review the level of kookdom was a little high for my tastes, at least with "what the bleep" you know off the bat to take it with a grain of salt

here,this one is much more credible anyway

im in the middle of a 4 disc set from netflix on string theory based on the book the elegant universe. its a little cheesy, as most programming about science is, but so far im along for the ride. string theory interests me, but im a little hesitant to get behind something that cant be tested experimentally as science.

eeing the movie/"dockumentary" What the #@!& do we know?"

i really hated this movie

but that double slit experiment is really interesting

The First Three Minutes by Steven Weinberg (nobel prize winning physicist) -- great book about a modern view of the universe's origins

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html - The Elegant Universe program - if anyone wants a crash course in string theory

thanks for the nova link,

yeah what the bleep do we know was sooo bad, i had people telling me how amazing it was and i watched it and its made for preschoolers, an especially lame part was the bit where they're at a wedding reception and all these faggy hormones or osmething start jumping around.

the elgent universe is pretty good though.

physics and martial arts = successful ass kicking

f=ma

levrage/fulcrum

torque

...all that shit.

That Nova version was fantastic. The Elegant Universe was the book that got me into physics, pretty badass to finally see the TV adaptation. It's funny how at times it kinda feels like an infomercial for the superstring cult or something.

I've had that "What the !@#$% do we know" flick on and off my netflix queue forever. Someone tells me I should watch it, so I add it, then someone else tells me it's the biggest waste of time, so I remove it, then someone tells me I should watch it regardless cause it's still good imagination fodder, so I add it... and on and on it goes

id say watch it. but its pretty hokey.

ok so. heres another morsel from my limited understanding of physics. this is for the noobs.

one of the coolest and most famous thought experiments in physics is schrodingers cat. it deals with something i tentatively discussed earlier about observing and the conscious observer (human) role in physics.

We place a living cat into a steel chamber, along with a device containing a vial of hydrocyanic acid. There is, in the chamber, a very small amount of a radioactive substance. If even a single atom of the substance decays during the test period, a relay mechanism will trip a hammer, which will, in turn, break the vial and kill the cat. The observer cannot know whether or not an atom of the substance has decayed, and consequently, cannot know whether the vial has been broken, the hydrocyanic acid released, and the cat killed. Since we cannot know, the cat is both dead and alive according to quantum law, in a superposition of states. It is only when we break open the box and learn the condition of the cat that the superposition is lost, and the cat becomes one or the other (dead or alive). This situation is sometimes called quantum indeterminacy or the observer's paradox: the observation or measurement itself affects an outcome, so that it can never be known what the outcome would have been if it were not observed.

We know that superposition actually occurs at the subatomic level, because there are observable effects of interference, in which a single particle is demonstrated to be in multiple locations simultaneously. . What that fact implies about the nature of reality on the observable level (cats, for example, as opposed to electrons) is one of the stickiest areas of quantum physics

to the average viewer this might seem to imply that we create reality backwards, that is "reality" doesnt occur until we make it by observing. does a tree to fall in the woods if no ones there to see it? is there even a tree there until we see it, this kind of logic is a stretch, but its what makes this interesting.....

pretty fucked up huh?

physicists will not usually stoop to this level of what ifs and aint it cool spooky shit, but im not a physicist so there you have it.

super duper thread guys

Well, the "What the bleep do we know?" movie was comissioned by Ramtha's School of Enlightenment.

Nearly every "expert" in the movie is someone on JZ Knight's staff. It's a good movie, especially for someone who's unfamiliar with the physics basics, but it's "out there".

Check out the Wikipedia entry on the Copenhagen Interpretation.

Robert Anton Wilson is also big on "pseudo-physics".

"Decades before the crossover cult film What the Bleep Do We Know!? popularized the idea that the principles of quantum mechanics could be applied to the world at large, Robert Anton Wilson had laid out much the same theory in his book, Prometheus Rising. Venture further into Wilson's oeuvre and you'll find equally prescient material on longevity research; you'll likely even stumble across source materials that inspired Dan Brown to write The DaVinci Code."

(rest of the article HERE)

There was a cosmologist that I read about in Discovery mag a couple years ago (Ok not the best source), and he was really out on the edge. His idea was that the universe not only aligned itself as a result of observation, but that parts of it did not come into existence until we observed it. In other words, that quasar far off in space was literally not there until we (or some alien), trained our telescopes on it. Anyone know who that guy was?

Well, there are many people who think that. Even Hawking has said "Did quarks exist until we looked for them?" I am not sure if that is a statement about ontological determinism or metaphysical determinism, but it speaks well to the discucssion either way.

As for retrofitting reality to our observation. I am not sure that it is so much Retroactively creating reality through our observation, but an instant action. Take HUP, quantum probability, and the double slit experiment for example. The unobserved double slit experiment provides the basis for most discussions on the quantum level. That a particle 'passes through two slits' at the same time is suggestive of the probability aspect within quantum mechanics. That is to say that any particle has a certain probabilistic prediliction to exist in a certain state. This in turn suggests that there is some defining choice in those probabilities that then actuates the state of the aforementioned particles.

It also, holds relation to Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle. According to the inverse relationship between accurately measuring position and speed, we conceptually hold that particles like electrons can 'exist in two different places at once.' We can not measure the position of a particle to a degree of accuracy without sacrificing an ability to accurately measure its speed in a directly proportional way. So, if one focuses their measurement on speed of a particle to an infinitely accurate degree, it becomes infinitely impossible to measure its position.

Apply this to the role of the observer. Measurement is Observation. A direct quantification of the emperical world is what we do everyday. Take again the double slit experiment. The introduction of the observer changes the results of the expirement astoundingly. The observation stops the probabilistic behavior of the particle and forces it to choose a side to pass through. Obersvation alone acts as the defining choice in the possible existences of the particle. It closes the probabilistic waves and actuates its existence in a certain place. Perhaps one can see the relation of Obersvation, HUP and the Doule Slit Experiment now.

The observer, acting as an infinitely definable measurement of either speed or position, interacts with particles in a manner that is contingent with HUP, but also with probabilistic metaphysics. It is not that we are retroactively fitting existence to our conscious observation, but that our observation is determining of our existence as we experience it.

HUP can, in my opinion, be seen as an insight into contemporary physics (quantum) through a language contingent to previous views of particles and their behavior. It's like an artifact from relativistic terms that has been transferred to current discussions of quantum behavior.

i hear you. im actually kind of proud that after months of reading physics texts i can actually follow what the fuck you just said. haha. its extra funny to me because i graduated with a degree in english, i havent taken a math class since like 97, sometimes doing higher multiplication problems in my head is a struggle.

but i like physics because it lends itself to cross breeding fields of study (as does most everything, the power of diversity and all.) so looking at it from a completely mathless viewpoint is still possible. although at times, for instance when watching the nova thing on string/M theory. because the math is so complex, but is also so vital, sometimes the explanations seem lacking without it, and even kind of i dont know, like Mammero said, its just looks like an infomercial for science guys.

Math is a human creation, it ties to the visual for me, take two of these rocks im holding(observing) and add two more rocks. two fucking electrons or whatever. sorry im kinda high, but anyway, we create this math, this way of looking at situations statistically, and then somehow it shows us these possiblities of (mem)branes and extra dimensions, points to things we cant see without it. we can say that mathmatically they work but what does that really mean? im rambling but i feel theres a point somewhere in the dark.

with string theory now where im heading (ramble wise) i guess what i dont see is how things can work mathematically and be wrong.. as it is possible that string theory is. how then is it that something "working mathematically" mean its right. 2+2=4. isnt the math right or wrong. or is string theory like a math magic trick. like i said, my understanding of physics from an equations viewpoint, (what i gather is the correct way) is nonexistant. the more i read though the more my literary mind grasps for fuck, logic i guess.

Many physicists are actually becoming skeptical of string theory because of exactly that reason. Some people view it as a mere math magic trick, with no verifiable bearing on reality. String theory is essentially a bunch of mathematical acrobatics attempting to reconcile quantum physics with general relativity, but so far none of its predictions can be tested, and I personally find some of the mathematical contortions intuitively very displeasing (specifically the hidden dimensions.) The fact is that string theory grew out of a basic assumption that, while poetic, ultimately required a huge amount of mathematical jargon to make it work, and has because of this arrived at an effectively infinite number of possible ways of describing the universe.

On another note, I'm taking a quantum mechanics course right now, and it's making me appreciate how much a mathematical viewpoint brings to the understanding of physics. As we examine the strange consequences of solving the schroedinger equation in different situations, the professor has continually remarked that none of the findings are that strange if you consider the analog's in classical wave mechanics and optics. I find the view of fundamental particles as some sort of wave disturbance in the fabric of spacetime to help a lot in reconciling oneself to the stranger aspects of quantum theory such as the double-slit experiment. Of course, this brings you back to the question of why observation seems to drastically alter the behavior of this wave disturbance. The idea just now occurred to me that perhaps the particle-like properties of particles can be considered as a consequence of a fundamental limitation of observation, rather than an effect of observation or a reflection of the real properties of the particle, where the 'real' properties are exclusively wavelike. That is, imagine a blind man standing in the ocean waiting for a wave to pass by his body. When the wave interacts with the body of the blind man, it is experienced as a completely localized up and down motion, but from the perspective of a seeing person the wave is clearly spread out in space. Observers of particles, in this analogy, are like the blind man. That's not a great analogy and this idea just popped into my head, I need to think about it more.

sooo, where to start on the math tip. seriously yesterday it took me about 3 minutes just to remember how to do a problem like. x+y=36. x is 8times as many as y. what is y?

is there any hope for me when it comes to this ridiculous math ?

You need to learn calculus. The math still gives me a lot of trouble, I hate that shit...

Einstein wasn't a great mathematician. A qualitative understanding of physics isn't necessarily bad, but understanding the mathematical basis of it gives you a much more nuanced understanding, and a better platform from which to make your own interpretations.

Edit to give qoute that my statement was about.

"Many physicists are actually becoming skeptical of string theory because of exactly that reason. Some people view it as a mere math magic trick, with no verifiable bearing on reality. String theory is essentially a bunch of mathematical acrobatics attempting to reconcile quantum physics with general relativity, but so far none of its predictions can be tested, and I personally find some of the mathematical contortions intuitively very displeasing (specifically the hidden dimensions.) The fact is that string theory grew out of a basic assumption that, while poetic, ultimately required a huge amount of mathematical jargon to make it work, and has because of this arrived at an effectively infinite number of possible ways of describing the universe. "

-Module X

I think there is a question here of what metaphysical claims can come from statements that are proclomations of logic. We are speaking of the issue of complexity and non-predictiveness in string theory, but I think it is more an 'external question,' as Carnap would put it. It is a question of whether a structure we regard as consistent with reality, mathematics as a representation of emperical experience, can validly make predictive statements that extend themselves beyond the perception of the world it is making claims about. That is to say: Is there any reason to believe that our experience may someday correspond with the 11-dimensional existence entailed in string theory? Can we assume that it will not happen over time? Or is it really just a question of subjective ontology within the historical scheme of scientific pursuit?

damn, i wrote out a long ass post about consciousness, HUP, relativistic conceptions of probabilistic wave theory and how we can concieve of it as possible that we experience extension in the way we do through consideration of all these ideas. Ill rewrite it out later. I wanted to make a small existential argument for Module X's statement that "our experience of particles is but an artifact of the fundamental limitation of observation on the essential nature of whatever it is that wave/particles are.'

Basically that I believe there is an infinite nature to consciousness. Consciousness is tantamount to observation, and as such is also infinite in its nature. This plays into its interaction with reality because of HUP. If you concieve of probabilistic wave functions as relativistic bodies, then one can build from there the reason we experience these wave functions as particles. I draw a parallel between the relativistic terms of 'position' and 'velocity,' and the quantum terms of 'particle' and 'probabilistic wave function,' respectively. Then if I transfer what I originally wanted to call 'infinite observation' to the closing of 'probabilistic wave functions' it follows that the result is our experience of 'particles.' That is a very very large claim with very little detail as to why it is true. I'll come and rewrite it and I think it will make sense. Im not witty, I don't know if moving away from the specific scientific rigor of physics is ok with you, for sake of the thread. If I get too wishy washy with concepts, just tell me to go back to the nature of the heavens and the creator thread. I also need to start a thread on existentialism in science, or analytic philosophy.

I think there is a question here of what metaphysical claims can come from statements that are proclomations of logic. We are speaking of the issue of complexity and non-predictiveness in string theory, but I think it is more an 'external question,' as Carnap would put it. It is a question of whether a structure we regard as consistent with reality, mathematics as a representation of emperical experience, can validly make predictive statements that extend themselves beyond the perception of the world it is making claims about. That is to say: Is there any reason to believe that our experience may someday correspond with the 11-dimensional existence entailed in string theory? Can we assume that it will not happen over time? Or is it really just a question of subjective ontology within the historical scheme of scientific pursuit?

Actually what I was saying was that, in order to make string theory work, these extra dimensions were 'added' with no empirical evidence to support them. Thus some view it as an arbitrary math trick used to reconcile two mathematically incompatible theories. It's like connecting two broken pieces of a 2x4 with a piece of string. There's no reason to believe string theory works aside from mathematical self-consistency. And in any case, string theory or M-theory or whatever you want to call has not succeeded in finding any unique description of reality, its mathematical contortions can be twisted in an almost infinite number of ways, just as a string connecting two broken pieces of a 2x4 would succeed in connecting the two pieces, but fail to provide any continuity of structure. I think string theory would need a more sound mathematical basis for the question of mathematics in metaphysics to be entirely relevant, though it is certainly relevant to physics in general.

damn you guys, pump the brakes.haha.

no but really, i dont mind the straying. thats why bullshit aside, i dont really get to heated over stuff like what the bleep or dancing wu li masters.

i like the fact that physics can bleed over into religious studies or be used to back up crazy cult shit, not to imply that thats where you are coming from, but its just so applicable to well, everything, i cant fault people for straying away from "The science."

just to throw another log on the fire. what do you guys think about these giant atom smashers that are being built. ive heard two things, one that america is about to get dwarfed in comparison to ones being built elsewhere and people are suggesting funding for one upping the ones that havent even passed the planning stages (in europe) so america can continue to grab headlines.

also ive heard speculation about us eventually building these things so large that they overpower our intentions, effectively creating things like timespace rips or the like, even crazier things perhaps, albeit accidentally. again, speculation.

I also need to start a thread on existentialism in science, or analytic philosophy.

fuck it dude, keep it in here, i have no illusions about tons of graffiti writers giving a shit about science, its all connected as far as this english major is concerned.

Actually what I was saying was that, in order to make string theory work, these extra dimensions were 'added' with no empirical evidence to support them. Thus some view it as an arbitrary math trick used to reconcile two mathematically incompatible theories. It's like connecting two broken pieces of a 2x4 with a piece of string. There's no reason to believe string theory works aside from mathematical self-consistency. And in any case, string theory or M-theory or whatever you want to call has not succeeded in finding any unique description of reality, its mathematical contortions can be twisted in an almost infinite number of ways, just as a string connecting two broken pieces of a 2x4 would succeed in connecting the two pieces, but fail to provide any continuity of structure. I think string theory would need a more sound mathematical basis for the question of mathematics in metaphysics to be entirely relevant, though it is certainly relevant to physics in general.

Right. You were perfectly clear in what you meant. I was merely extending your argument to a different philosophical end. I was using this specific case study as an example of the question of whether ontological pursuits (the 11 extra dimensions) of logical epistemologies (physics) can have any predictive significance to the nature of reality.

That is to say we map a structure, that has truth verifiability as intrinsic to its nature (mathematics as identical to Logic, Frege + Carnap), onto our perception of experience as to make certain claims about it. That is to say we use mathematics to make claims about the reality we experience. What is the goal of those claims? If they are of direct report as many analytic people would have it, does any statement that logically follows from the mapping language speak to reality? Such is the question at hand with M-theory. From the logical product of mathematics we develope hyperconceptual statements about the nature of the reality we experience.

So then, do we believe that these seemingly inverifiable yet logically true statements are speaking outside of the parameters of their predictive ability? Or has our experience of reality merely not caught up with our conceptual understanding of it? It is the same problem with electrons and other un-observable entities which we seek to verify existence of.

So, to restate my original interpretation of the issue you brought up with M-theory; Do products of analytic theory, as statements about the nature of reality, over extend their predictive essence when they make claims that are contemporarily unverifiable in experience?

I think we were just speaking in different levels of abstraction. I was on a more general conception of knowledge, where as you were thinking of the instance in physics.