Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gravity Emerges from Quantum Information, Say Physicists
Technology Review ^ | 3/26/10

Posted on 03/27/2010 11:06:22 AM PDT by LibWhacker

The new role that quantum information plays in gravity sets the scene for a dramatic unification of ideas in physics

One of the hottest new ideas in physics is that gravity is an emergent phenomena; that it somehow arises from the complex interaction of simpler things.

A few month's ago, Erik Verlinde at the the University of Amsterdam put forward one such idea which has taken the world of physics by storm. Verlinde suggested that gravity is merely a manifestation of entropy in the Universe. His idea is based on the second law of thermodynamics, that entropy always increases over time. It suggests that differences in entropy between parts of the Universe generates a force that redistributes matter in a way that maximises entropy. This is the force we call gravity.

What's exciting about the approach is that it dramatically simplifies the theoretical scaffolding that supports modern physics. And while it has its limitations--for example, it generates Newton's laws of gravity rather than Einstein's--it has some advantages too, such as the ability to account for the magnitude of dark energy which conventional theories of gravity struggle with.

But perhaps the most powerful idea to emerge from Verlinde's approach is that gravity is essentially a phenomenon of information.

Today, this idea gets a useful boost from Jae-Weon Lee at Jungwon University in South Korea and a couple of buddies. They use the idea of quantum information to derive a theory of gravity and they do it taking a slightly different tack to Verlinde.

At the heart of their idea is the tricky question of what happens to information when it enters a black hole. Physicists have puzzled over this for decades with little consensus. But one thing they agree on is Landauer's principle: that erasing a bit of quantum information always increases the entropy of the Universe by a certain small amount and requires a specific amount of energy.

Jae-Weon and co assume that this erasure process must occur at the black hole horizon. And if so, spacetime must organise itself in a way that maximises entropy at these horizons. In other words, it generates a gravity-like force.

That's intriguing for several reasons. First, Jae-Weon and co assume the existence of spacetime and its geometry and simply ask what form it must take if information is being erased at horizons in this way.

It also relates gravity to quantum information for the first time. Over recent years many results in quantum mechanics have pointed to the increasingly important role that information appears to play in the Universe.

Some physicists are convinced that the properties of information do not come from the behaviour of information carriers such as photons and electrons but the other way round. They think that information itself is the ghostly bedrock on which our universe is built.

Gravity has always been a fly in this ointment. But the growing realisation that information plays a fundamental role here too, could open the way to the kind of unification between the quantum mechanics and relativity that physicists have dreamed of.

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1001.5445: Gravity from Quantum Information


TOPICS: Astronomy; Science
KEYWORDS: electrogravitics; gravity; information; quantum; stringtheory; thomasvanflandern; tvf
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-71 next last

1 posted on 03/27/2010 11:06:23 AM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

BTTT


2 posted on 03/27/2010 11:16:38 AM PDT by Fiddlstix (Warning! This Is A Subliminal Tagline! Read it at your own risk!(Presented by TagLines R US))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fiddlstix

I don’t get it.

If gravity is a force of entropy, why does gravity cause things to be attracted to each other - that seems less entropic rather than more.


3 posted on 03/27/2010 11:25:59 AM PDT by chrisser (Starve the Monkeys!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: chrisser
why does gravity cause things to be attracted to each other

I don't think attraction is the correct term. I think in terms of "weight". The earth is not pulling you towards it but rather space is pushing you down towards its cog.

4 posted on 03/27/2010 11:33:42 AM PDT by BipolarBob (Yeah, I was in rehab. I got Hooked on Phonics. Darn that Sesame Street Gang.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: chrisser

universe starts as singularity - more entropy - less gravity - things move apart - universe expands.


5 posted on 03/27/2010 11:34:13 AM PDT by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
"Some physicists are convinced that the properties of information do not come from the behaviour of information carriers such as photons and electrons but the other way round. They think that information itself is the ghostly bedrock on which our universe is built."

Why did the phrase, "In the beginning was the Word - - -", suddenly come to mind?

6 posted on 03/27/2010 11:48:48 AM PDT by FairWitness
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

I would love to see and hear these physicists debate global warming with Al Gore, just to see himself sputter into the pool of his noninformation and inconvenience.


7 posted on 03/27/2010 11:52:16 AM PDT by quintr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairWitness

Agreed. Pardon my illiteracy, but, what is meant by “information”?


8 posted on 03/27/2010 11:53:54 AM PDT by Louis Foxwell (He is the son of soulless slavers, not the son of soulful slaves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
They think that information itself is the ghostly bedrock on which our universe is built.

Which brings up the potential to "hack into" the transmission of the information and by definition control everything.

I'm not entirely sure this would be a good thing. I can think of a number of people who I don't want to have such control.

9 posted on 03/27/2010 11:56:13 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender

I think the universe still is a singularity.
It only appears not to be so by those who are in it.
That is why every particle is at the center of the Big Bang,just as they were at the Big Bang.
They are separated by time and momentum but have never reall moved relative to the universe’s event horizon.


10 posted on 03/27/2010 11:58:01 AM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (IN A SMALL TENT WE JUST STAND CLOSER! * IT'S ISLAM, STUPID! - Islam Delenda Est! - Rumble thee forth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
universe starts as singularity - more entropy - less gravity - things move apart - universe expands.

That explanation is not based on physics. Gravity is an acceleration: the rate of distance per time squared. The only way an object can accelerate is by a force acting upon it such as gravity.

An object moving through space at a constant velocity has no acceleration. Therefore no force is acting upon it. To change its velocity, there must be an acceleration. To get that acceleration, a force must act upon the moving object.

The velocity at which the universe is expanding is increasing. That means there is an increase in acceleration. That increase can only come about due to a force.

11 posted on 03/27/2010 12:11:27 PM PDT by stripes1776 ("That if gold rust, what shall iron do?" --Chaucer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Amos the Prophet
Pardon my illiteracy, but, what is meant by “information”?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information
12 posted on 03/27/2010 12:14:17 PM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (IN A SMALL TENT WE JUST STAND CLOSER! * IT'S ISLAM, STUPID! - Islam Delenda Est! - Rumble thee forth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: stripes1776

I thought Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity proposed that gravity isn’t a force but a distortion of space-time caused by the mass of an object that resides in space-time.


13 posted on 03/27/2010 12:29:58 PM PDT by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: stripes1776

I thought Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity proposed that gravity isn’t a force but a distortion of space-time caused by the mass of an object that resides in space-time.


14 posted on 03/27/2010 12:29:59 PM PDT by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: quintr
I would love to see and hear these physicists debate global warming with Al Gore, just to see himself sputter into the pool of his noninformation and inconvenience.

Gore can't even understand the simple concept of equilibrium, he would blow a fuse trying to understand entropy.

15 posted on 03/27/2010 12:46:35 PM PDT by Species8472 (The problem with political jokes is that they get elected)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: stripes1776

You are assuming that the expansion of the universe consists in matter moving further apart in pre-existing empty space.

Rather it consists in the volume of space increasing over time. It’s hard to imagine it with space being three-dimensional, but down a dimension, space should be thought of not as 3-dimensional analog of an infinite plane, but of a closed surface (for simplicity, the surface of a sphere, say), which is increasing in area (volume in the 3D case) over time (like a balloon being blown up). What you say about accelerations and forces is about dynamics of matter within space (on the surface of the sphere in the dimension reduced analog) not about the dynamics of space itself.


16 posted on 03/27/2010 12:53:04 PM PDT by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: FairWitness

In the beginning was Will and Idea.


17 posted on 03/27/2010 12:53:14 PM PDT by AceMineral (Do you go to women? Don't forget your whip.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
I thought Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity proposed that gravity isn’t a force but a distortion of space-time caused by the mass of an object that resides in space-time.

The geometry of space due to gravity still results in an acceleration of mass. You can still use the formula for convenience: F = mg, where the force is F, the mass is m, and the acceleration g is gravity.

But let's not loose sight of the big picture. The universe is expanding at an increasing velocity. That means some force is accelerating it.

18 posted on 03/27/2010 12:57:24 PM PDT by stripes1776 ("That if gold rust, what shall iron do?" --Chaucer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Quantum physics is the obstacle to the theory of everything. It’s sort of like a modern day flat Earth.


19 posted on 03/27/2010 12:58:23 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David
You are assuming that the expansion of the universe consists in matter moving further apart in pre-existing empty space.

That is an inference you made. Conceive of space however you want. That doesn't change the facts of observation. The universe is expanding at an increasing velocity. That means a force is accelerating it. Hence the need to theorize the existence of dark matter and dark energy.

20 posted on 03/27/2010 1:03:26 PM PDT by stripes1776 ("That if gold rust, what shall iron do?" --Chaucer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
Quantum physics is the obstacle to the theory of everything. It’s sort of like a modern day flat Earth.

You could look at it another way and say that relativity is the obstacle to the theory of everything. It would be more accurate to say the relativity and quantum mechanics contradict each other. The theory of everything will have to harmonize both theories in some way.

21 posted on 03/27/2010 1:06:06 PM PDT by stripes1776 ("That if gold rust, what shall iron do?" --Chaucer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: stripes1776

Personally I think they are both wrong but that quantum theory is more wrong than relativity. Both of them are getting pretty long in the tooth as well. Quantum theory is about 80 or so and relativity is more than 100. It would be nice to see a physicist consider some alternative theories instead of just try to find more evidence that can be interpreted as supporting the old ones.


22 posted on 03/27/2010 1:24:19 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
Personally I think they are both wrong but that quantum theory is more wrong than relativity. Both of them are getting pretty long in the tooth as well. Quantum theory is about 80 or so and relativity is more than 100. It would be nice to see a physicist consider some alternative theories instead of just try to find more evidence that can be interpreted as supporting the old ones.

Yes, quantum mechanics is counterintuitive, but then for subatomic particles it gives correct results and relativity gives incorrect results.

String theory may be the way forward, but there is no consensus yet. Besides, strings would be so small, there is no way to verify that they actually exist. Still it's very interesting.

23 posted on 03/27/2010 1:36:37 PM PDT by stripes1776 ("That if gold rust, what shall iron do?" --Chaucer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: stripes1776
Gravity is an acceleration: the rate of distance per time squared. The only way an object can accelerate is by a force acting upon it such as gravity.

An object moving through space at a constant velocity has no acceleration. Therefore no force is acting upon it. To change its velocity, there must be an acceleration. To get that acceleration, a force must act upon the moving object.

The velocity at which the universe is expanding is increasing. That means there is an increase in acceleration. That increase can only come about due to a force.

Thank you. That's probably the most clear and concise explanation I've seen on the subject. You must be a good teacher, 'cause I don't feel so dumb as reading the rest of these posts. Wasn't it Lord Kelvin who said physics should be clear enough to be explained to a barmaid, or some such thing?

24 posted on 03/27/2010 2:10:17 PM PDT by Right Winged American (No matter how Cynical I get, I just can't keep up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: stripes1776

I’m not sure that it really gives “correct” results. It seems to hold together mathematically, but no one has actually tested the theory. The only way you can really test the theory is to recognize that the fundamental staple is a probability. No one has ever tested to see if the actual probabilities are the same as the predicted probabilities. The crown achievement of quantum theory is Feynman’s calculation of the value of the electron charge, based on probabilities. If you look up the value of an electron charge, you will see it calculated to the 23rd decimal place, but no one has actually measured it that far because it’s simply impossible. Everyone assumes that Feynman’s calculation is correct, so they use the theoretical value. And you have physicists claiming that the theory is correct because it gives you a value of the charge of an electron precise to the 23rd decimal place. What they really mean, though, is that you can predict the charge of an electron to the 23rd decimal place. Whether the prediction is correct, though, is another matter. And no one knows that.

I don’t think string theory makes much sense, either. Probably the best place to start would be with Special Relativity. Einstein’s theory is the closest I think to the mother load, but it’s got a problem. It’s not a complete theory of time. You can compare your own time regime to the time regime prevailing in another frame of reference, but there is nothing in the theory that explains the rate at which time passes in your own frame of reference. In order to get at the bottom line, you need a theory of time, and they don’t have that yet. The nature of time is still a mystery. Once you have the answer to that, you can adjust the Special Theory to take that into consideration, and then a new version of quantum theory will fall right into place.


25 posted on 03/27/2010 2:30:38 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: stripes1776

“String theory may be the way forward, but there is no consensus yet.”

I started to respond to another poster, but saw this and realized you have wonderfully condensed all that is wrong with all that is called science today.

SCIENCE IS NOT DONE MY CONSENSUS.

Every new discovery in science always comes from that rare individual genius who contradicts the consensus.

Global warming and evolution are “sciences” done by “consensus;” which is why they are not science.

(Don’t get funny ideas. I do not believe in God or creation.)

Hank


26 posted on 03/27/2010 2:36:56 PM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
Verlinde suggested that gravity is merely a manifestation of entropy in the Universe

Erik and I were discussing this last July at Duggan's Pub. Looks like he finally believed me............FWIW, he's a lousy pool player.

27 posted on 03/27/2010 2:38:01 PM PDT by Hot Tabasco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
SCIENCE IS NOT DONE MY CONSENSUS.

There's no need to shout. An individual can make any theory he chooses. But it only has currency when a consensus is reached. That's the value of a consensus.

Every new discovery in science always comes from that rare individual genius who contradicts the consensus.

Then can you name me that rare individual genius who came up with string theory?

28 posted on 03/27/2010 3:19:07 PM PDT by stripes1776 ("That if gold rust, what shall iron do?" --Chaucer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
I’m not sure that it really gives “correct” results.

All the rules and formulas for quantum mechanics were laid down by 1928. Since then it has been used to make the most precise numerical predictions in the history of science.

I don’t think string theory makes much sense, either.

Nothing in the theory says you have to think it makes sense.

Probably the best place to start would be with Special Relativity.

OK, good luck with your theory.

29 posted on 03/27/2010 3:29:35 PM PDT by stripes1776 ("That if gold rust, what shall iron do?" --Chaucer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Right Winged American
Wasn't it Lord Kelvin who said physics should be clear enough to be explained to a barmaid, or some such thing?

Great quote. Whoever said, I think he was right.

30 posted on 03/27/2010 3:31:51 PM PDT by stripes1776 ("That if gold rust, what shall iron do?" --Chaucer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: stripes1776

“There’s no need to shout. An individual can make any theory he chooses. But it only has currency when a consensus is reached. That’s the value of a consensus.”

Apperently there is a need to shout since so many people are deaf to the truth. I thought some people might have finally tumbled to it when the “global warming” fraud, driven entirely by the “consensus” idea of “peer review” was revealed for what it is.

A hypothesis only becomes a theory when it has been verified by reality, not how many people agree with it. Every advance in science has been against the accepted “consensus” view, from anesthesia to “heavier then air human flight.” It is not the opinion of any number of people that establishes any truth, it is reality itself, and whatever is an incorrect description of any aspect of reality, it is not true, no matter how many people agree with it.

Consensus is a great method for putting over lies, it is worse than useless in science.

Hank


31 posted on 03/27/2010 3:36:18 PM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
Apperently there is a need to shout since so many people are deaf to the truth. I thought some people might have finally tumbled to it when the “global warming” fraud, driven entirely by the “consensus” idea of “peer review” was revealed for what it is.

There was never a consensus among climatologists that global warming is good theory. Newspapers and some politicians decided it was fact. And a vocal group of climatologists got a lot of money for writing reports that supported the theory.

A hypothesis only becomes a theory when it has been verified by reality, not how many people agree with it.

Popular opinion and the newspapers may think that a theory is verified. But that is not the way science works. A theory is never verified. All you can do is test the theory by taking measurements. If the measurements come within some tolerance of the predicted results, then you can say the measurements support the theory. But no theory is ever verified. It you ever wrote up a report in a physics lab in college and said your experiment verified a theory, you would get an F.

32 posted on 03/27/2010 3:54:34 PM PDT by stripes1776 ("That if gold rust, what shall iron do?" --Chaucer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: stripes1776

Ok, you made me look:

“If you can’t explain your physics to a barmaid it is probably not very good physics.”

—As quoted in Journal of Advertising Research (March-April 1998)

Variant: “A theory that you can’t explain to a bartender is probably no damn good.”

—As quoted in The Language of God (2006) by Francis Collins, p.60

I also particularly liked this one:

“All science is either physics or stamp collecting.”

—As quoted in Rutherford at Manchester (1962) by J. B. Birks

Unsourced variant:

“That which is not measurable is not science. That which is not physics is stamp collecting.”

“Physics is the only real science. The rest are just stamp collecting.”

—(Unsourced)

“That which is not measurable is not science.” is also attributed to Lord Kelvin

Guy had a talent for a well turned phrase!


33 posted on 03/27/2010 4:18:59 PM PDT by Right Winged American (No matter how Cynical I get, I just can't keep up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker; Fiddlstix; chrisser; BipolarBob; Amos the Prophet; stripes1776; vbmoneyspender; ...
The answer to all your questions is here. FWIW, in my opinion this guy will be a household word in 5-10 years. Here's a link to his blog and a sample of his theory. Enjoy!

http://beyond-information.blogspot.com/

I've discovered two things. One is the direct representation of existence. The other is the universal representation of thought.

The direct representation of existence is literally the ontology of existence. It is a new basis for the representation of formal systems that is both consistent and complete. It will provide a new foundation for logic and the mathematics required to address RQFT effectively. It is the basis for the unification of physics. It will allow us to develop a complete and consistent description of existence rapidly and efficiently.

It offers the possibility of allowing us to manipulate the structure of time, space, and matter directly. Using this system, we will be able to directly simulate all the relations and interactions required to learn how to do so.

The universal representation of thought is the ontology of thought. It is the basis for the neural representation of thought. It can be used to create computers that understand the meaning of information directly, and manipulate concepts and abstractions at the level current computers manipulate bits. Its representation is combinatorically more efficient in time and space than that of systems based on information.

I am currently in the middle of developing a software program that combines both the direct representation of existence and the universal representation of thought in a single computer program. With it, we will be able to simulate creation of the universe, including the creation of space, time, matter, and the construction of the laws of physics. Using the universal representation side of the system, we will be able to create true thinking computers. It will allow people to interact with their computers simply by writing or talking to them in natural language. The representation itself is extremely well suited for distributed use. I could release it to the world as a peer to peer application and create the worlds first planetary scale AI. In effect, it would allow everybody on the planet to interact with each other and contribute ideas as if they all shared part of the same brain. However, the system itself can also use those ideas, think about them, integrate them, and extend them. It will allow us to integrate and seamlessly refine and extend the knowledge of humanity within a single consistent, complete domain of representation. Furthermore, we won't have to do any work to integrate the knowledge. The representation does it all automatically, in exactly the same way our thoughts integrate information automatically within our brains.

Among other things, the direct representation of existence has allowed me to derive a consistent hypothesis for:

1) The cause of the quantization of energy 2) The first cause of symmetry. 3) What spacetime is and how it is created and represented 4) The cause of the big bang and the expansion of the universe 5) The cause of the zero point field 6) The cause of gamma ray bursts 7) The cause of zitterbewegung 8) The cause of mass 9) The representation of spin 10) The cause of gravity 11) The representation of quarks 12) The basic representation of subatomic particles.

I have been able to derive all of this and more directly from the representation of the direct ontology of existence qualitatively, but to model it quantitatively I need to finish my simulator. The field interactions are context dependent, too dynamic and too complex to work out by hand using current mathematics.

I've got a lot of work ahead of me to get this ready for publication. I also have about a year of work to do to finish my simulator. Looks like its going to be an exciting year.

34 posted on 03/27/2010 4:19:55 PM PDT by TruthFactor (The Death of Nations: Pornography, Homosexuality, Abortion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stripes1776

“most precise numerical predictions in the history of science.”

Exactly. Just precise predictions. But where is the experiment proving that they are accurate?


35 posted on 03/27/2010 4:34:25 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: stripes1776

“A theory is never verified.”

There was a hypothesis that heavier than air human flight was possible. At the same time the Wright Brothers were flying, the “academic” scientific community were writing prestigious papers proving it was not possible. Perhaps you are not convinced the “hypothesis” that heavier-than-air human flight is possible has been verified.

By the way, a “theory” is a hypothesis that has been proven. So long as it is not “verified” it is only a hypothesis, not a theory.

Perhaps you believe the hypothesis that communications signals could be transmitted to and from Earth by a relay station launched into orbit around the earth’s equator at a distance of about 22,300 miles, has not been verified. At that altitude, the “satellite” would maintain a stationary position over the earth, by maintaining an orbital speed of approximately 6000 miles per hour. But of course that hypothesis has never been verified either.

And of course the hypothesis that signals could be transmitted through the atmosphere electromagnetically has never been verified. Nor has the hypothesis that anisthesia could be used to perform painless surgery.

But for those who prefer to live in a world of total skepticism, nothing can ever be verified or proved. What a horrible way to live.

Hank


36 posted on 03/27/2010 5:01:13 PM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
By the way, a “theory” is a hypothesis that has been proven. So long as it is not “verified” it is only a hypothesis, not a theory.

A theory is never proven in the sciences. Inductive reasoning is not a proof.

If you want proof you have to go to mathematics. Deductive reasoning provides a proof.

37 posted on 03/27/2010 5:17:28 PM PDT by stripes1776 ("That if gold rust, what shall iron do?" --Chaucer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
Exactly. Just precise predictions. But where is the experiment proving that they are accurate?

There is no such thing as an accurate measurement in the sciences. That's why in an experiment you take many measurements and then calculate an average.

38 posted on 03/27/2010 5:21:50 PM PDT by stripes1776 ("That if gold rust, what shall iron do?" --Chaucer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: stripes1776

Yes, but there is little or no effort among quantum physicists to determine whether these fantastically precise predictions actually mirror reality. I don’t see how you can call it a settled question that quantum physics is correct until someone actually does such a study. If the actual experimental parameters only loosely approximate what they claim are highly precise theoretical predictions, then one would have to wonder whether they’ve got it right.


39 posted on 03/27/2010 5:27:22 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
Yes, but there is little or no effort among quantum physicists to determine whether these fantastically precise predictions actually mirror reality. I don’t see how you can call it a settled question that quantum physics is correct until someone actually does such a study. If the actual experimental parameters only loosely approximate what they claim are highly precise theoretical predictions, then one would have to wonder whether they’ve got it right.

No, they don't loosely approximate. The experimental results are exceptionally close to the theoretical predictions. That's why it's a good theory.

As for getting it right, it's the best theory yet devised to describe subatomic particles. If you apply relativity theory to subatomic particles, you get bad results.

And that's the contradiction in physics. We need one theory (relativity) for large objects, and a different theory (quantum mechanics) for small objects.

40 posted on 03/27/2010 5:36:11 PM PDT by stripes1776 ("That if gold rust, what shall iron do?" --Chaucer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: stripes1776

Can you direct me to an article or book that describes these experiments? I’ve read several texts on quantum physics, and so far have found for the most part only theoretical discussion. It’s one thing to come up with a probabilistic treatment that can be reconciled mathematically with the known physical laws. Quite another thing to come up with a theory that can be tested favorably against actual statistics.

Maybe you are referring to the two slit experiments? I’m not sure if that convinces me. There are other explanations for that, as Bohm showed.


41 posted on 03/27/2010 5:47:33 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
Can you direct me to an article or book that describes these experiments?

Try this: Multiscale Methods in Quantum Mechanics: Theory and Experiment (Trends in Mathematics)

42 posted on 03/27/2010 6:10:20 PM PDT by stripes1776 ("That if gold rust, what shall iron do?" --Chaucer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: stripes1776

“If you want proof you have to go to mathematics. Deductive reasoning provides a proof.”

So you do not think the possibility of heavier-than-air human flight has been proven? It certainly wasn’t proved by mathematics. It was proved my demonstration.

I’m afraid you’ve been taken in by the logical postivists, and their mystic concept of “proof.”

I never mentioned “inductive” reason (of which there really is no such thing).

The concept of coherent light was a hypothesis for a long time. The idea of stimulated light emission was introuduced by Einstein in 1905. For years the concept of coherent light was discussed and patents taken out, but it was never proven. It was not until 1960 that the concept of coherent stimulated light was proved, not by mathematics, but a working model created by Theodore Maiman. The hypothesis of coherent light, we now call lasers, was proved, and it is now a proven workable theory.

You, like so many others influenced by the academic perversions of logical positivism, linguistic analysis, and postmodernism, have swallowed the skepticism inflicted on every academic discipline by Hume and Kant. I do not blame you. I would like to help you overcome them, but that is up to you.

Hank


43 posted on 03/27/2010 6:23:00 PM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: stripes1776

Theorizing about dark energy and dark matter is trying to force the geometro-dynamics of space-time into a bed of Procrustes of concepts we devised to describe interactions of matter and energy, not changes in space and time themselves.


44 posted on 03/27/2010 6:32:55 PM PDT by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: stripes1776

Thanks. I’ll read it.


45 posted on 03/27/2010 6:36:20 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: stripes1776; Hank Kerchief
If you want proof you have to go to mathematics. Deductive reasoning provides a proof.

Unless I'm mistaken, theories are proven as fact when demonstrated through exeriments that can be duplicated.

46 posted on 03/27/2010 7:13:51 PM PDT by Grizzled Bear (Does not play well with others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
So you do not think the possibility of heavier-than-air human flight has been proven? It certainly wasn’t proved by mathematics. It was proved my demonstration.

You're mixing apples and oranges. It takes only one counter example to disprove a proposition. All apples are red. Is that statement true? Well, all you have to do is show a counter example, there is a yellow apple, and the proposition is disproved. This is still deductive reasoning.

47 posted on 03/27/2010 7:54:48 PM PDT by stripes1776 ("That if gold rust, what shall iron do?" --Chaucer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Grizzled Bear
Unless I'm mistaken, theories are proven as fact when demonstrated through exeriments that can be duplicated.

Theories in science are not proven as fact. They can only be supported by experimental data. Newtonian theory was supported by experimental data for 200 years. And then in the late 18th century physicists observed data that contradicted Newton's theory. So they had to come up with a better theory. And that was Einstein's theory of relativity. But very soon relativity was contradicted by observations of subatomic particles. So they had to come up with a theory to explain that contradiction, and that was quantum mechanics.

So physics now has two theories that contradict each other, relativity and quantum mechanics. And that's why they are looking for a better theory.

The distinction here is between proving a theory and supporting it. Science does not prove theories. It can only support a theory with data. But this is inductive reasoning, and inductive reasoning is not proof.

48 posted on 03/27/2010 8:44:58 PM PDT by stripes1776 ("That if gold rust, what shall iron do?" --Chaucer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: FairWitness
Why did the phrase, "In the beginning was the Word - - -", suddenly come to mind?

Same here, FRiend....

The article is otherwise rather frustrating, in that it does not provide a means by which information gets a physical component.

49 posted on 03/27/2010 8:50:24 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; Alamo-Girl

Information = Gravity ping....


50 posted on 03/27/2010 8:51:12 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-71 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson