As for the mathematics side of it, you could be right.

Perhaps when then get that straitened out, then the problems between physics and quantum mechanics will be solved.

I have a feeling someone is on the right track anyway with the wave motions of space and time etc... Now you need to go in there and straiten them out about the mathematics.

Still think we are just inside some gigantic holodeck reality.

This from a guy who takes a practical and pragmatic approach to tarot cards and refuses to see any magic or mystical reasons for them or how they might work.



How romantic!

I’m a pragmatic non-mystical romantic shaman with bard-like qualities and an artistic flair for audiovisual arts with a dash of pantheistic sorcery inserted in the mix in ways that elude the most skeptic observer.

After they figure out how quantum mechanics works they’ll finally turn their attention to trying to figure out how I work.

I think owl put this in my profile. I’ve been far too modest over the years.

Is This From The Show Quantum Leap. Where he goes to different time zones like we do from east to west

Ahh....

Thank you James, JB, and anyone else who has been participating!!!

If my new found understanding is correct...

According to both, physics and Q.M.

There are elements in both matter and light which exhibit the properties of both, waves and particles...

The "solution" has been the Shrodinger equation. This calls for all possible positions, momentums, spin, etc. to exist simultaneously until measurement or observation... Then what supposedly happens is called the state vector collapse. It is in this instant that all other possible states sort of disappear and the observed state is all that is. This is represented by the wave function symbol(which I cannot reproduce on this computer). That is the solution... all possible answers until observation. Sounds like an ad hoc to me, but it yields identical solutions to Heisenberg as well... just in terms of waves.



James, regarding your answer(s) concerning the "concrete" answer...

I am not so sure that I would be so quick to agree with the whole of your response...

James, you know that I greatly respect and appreciate your input, so keep this in mind...

The quantum jumping or quantum mechanical tunneling indeed stumps the causual mind in all of us, but why would that be valid reason to dismiss so many things which have become very reliable rules, formulas, laws, etc.??? Do not forget that it has been these very things which have led us this far!

A commonly held belief, which is backed by the Shrodinger equation, and supported by Heisenberg's uncertainty and the measurement problem that has resulted, is that the observation itself affects what is observed...

John Bell's theorem, which was created as a way to "test" the EPR paradox team's objection to Heisenburg's uncertainty has itself been tested on several occasions with varying results... some which support cause and effect, and some which support Q.M.

After studying this theorem and some of the experiments which tested it, I have came up with a few issues, one of which was the expression used. I do not feel that the mathematical expression adequately represented that which was being tested(concerning the twin photon and polaroid filter tests). I am still working on this... insert grin here!


Now then... besides all this which has been built around Heisenberg's uncertainty, I have a SERIOUS issue with this so-called uncertainty to begin with, allow me to explain!

Heisenberg claimed, and it seems that most everyone agrees, that the actual measuring of an object disturbs the object a little. If this object is of an atomic scale then this disturbance would be quite substantial, therefore when we measure either an object's momentum or position it would disturb the object so much that we cannot know both simultaneously.

Here is my question which is probably very naive, but...

In the measuring of single particles, we often expose the object to a ray of light. This ray of light then disturbs the particle?

How can this be the case if light has no mass?

Why do you imagine that it would have to have mass?

My guess is vibration is all that is needed to disturb the hypothetical particle.

hmmm curious ...

if light is both wave and particle ... would it not have mass as a particle and a frequency as a wave?

...and isn't it believed to have zero rest mass? Light is never at rest ...

momentum can be transferred from light to the object ... so if an object has momentum is that not considered mass in some way?

Perhaps the confusion is compounded because mass is used in a couple of different ways ... or at least it seems to be to my naive scientific self ...

One definition of mass says that anything which has some gravitational pull on other objects has mass.

E=mc^2

Light has momentum which can be transferred to other objects it runs into ...

...so in this case light would have mass...


Another definition refers to 'rest mass' ... so if light is always moving what difference does it make what happens at rest? And how do we know that it has zero rest mass since it is always moving?

...but in this case light would be seen to have zero mass ...


I have no idea creative one but it is quite curious ...

You're girlfriend beat me to the answer.

Photons have zero 'rest mass'. But they are never at rest. So it almost seems like a moot point. It's actually required for the math to work out.

Anyway. Light is energy, and as Artgurl pointed out E=mc^2. Energy equates to mass.

So while photos are said to have zero rest mass, light itself has 'mass' in the sense that it carries energy.

So this is why light can push things around. It's a good thing too, otherwise it would have no affect on our retinas and we'd all be in the dark.

However, back to your point about the Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

It doesn't merely state that we can't know everything about a particle simply because during the measurement process we interfere with it. This is quite often a misconception of what the Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is truly saying.

It's truly saying that a 'particle' or 'quantum entity' cannot simultaneously have a definite position and a definite momment whether it is being measured or not.

This isn't just a statement about what we can measure. He's actually saying that this is the way the universe is (whether measured or not).

This is well-known with respect to momentum and position being mutually exclusive.

However, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle also says the same thing about Time and Energy.

In other words, it's impossible for a quantum entity to exist at a precise time with a precise amount of energy.

If it exists somewhen 'precisely' in time, then it's energy is vague.

Conversely if it's energy is well-defined, then it becomes spread out in time. It's not longer localized in time.

Heisenberg is saying that this is the way the universe is (whether we measure it or not).

There is a popular misconception that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is saying something about our inablity to measure these things precisely. But that's not really the case (although that's certainly true as well).

The reason we can't measure them simultaneously is because they don't exist simultaneously! Not merely because we are disturbing the 'particles' when we try to measure them.

This is a consequence of the mathematics model that is used in the theory. The model demands that a photo be massless. (rest mass)

It does seem redundant since the theory also states that a photon can never be at rest. But maybe that's why! If it ever came to rest it would need to disappear completely. But that would be a violation of energy conservation. So maybe that's why it can never come to rest?

I confess that I don't understand the mathematical model in detail so don't ask me for equations.

But I have listened to lectures by men and women who do understand the math and they have explained these things with much confidence in that they apparently make perfect sense mathematically.

I wish I were more educated in the math. But alas, I've actually gotten away from this more in the past few years. I'm kind of 'out of the loop' anymore.

I just bought two new classical guitars and I'm learning to play meditative mood music.

I'm hoping to become a vegetable in my old age.

No more thinking for me!

Too bad Michael didn't catch me about 20 years ago when I was deeper into this stuff. I'm almost to the point where I don't even want to think about it anymore.

Note to Michael,

I just finished reading Alan Guth's book "The Inflationary Universe". I highly recommend it. It's amazing!

I'm not necessarily saying that he's onto truth, but he should has some interesting concepts and he's quite convinced of them himself.

In chapters 16 and 17 he actually explains how a universe can be started from NOTHING. And I mean NOTHING. Not just empty space!

However he does confess that he does this (along with Stephen Hawlking and others), using the laws of physics which includes quantum mechanics, and quantum fluxuations.

So even though he has a theory of how the entire universe could start from "nothing", without violating the conservation of energy, or any other laws of physics, he does confess that they must assume that the laws of physics EXIST.

So he ends the book asking where the laws of physics came from?

From my point of view, the laws of physics come from the behavior of what already exists.

In other words, the laws of physics are nothing more than a description of how things that already exist behave.

So ulimately there is no answer, because we end up with the Chicken and Egg question - Which came first? The laws of physics. Or the physical universe which exhibits 'laws'.

We're never going to 'hit bottom' in philosphy it seems.

So it's best to just by guitars and play music.

You do not have to understand to make very accurate calculations.

We do not have to be able to visualize a 4th dimension to work out the mathematics of one . . . .

We do not have to know what its like to be a lion to study one . . .

We do not have to understand what is light to have a grasp of its properties and how they effect things like electrons and diffraction and scattering . . . which helps us resolve high quality radiological imaging . . . .

I guess in order for me to understand what you are saying when you suppose that light has mass or that a particle has mass is I need to know exactly what you mean by mass.

Density?

Density of what?

E=mc2 Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared.

So while energy may equal mass, mass equals energy.

So if you take this energy and slow it way down in frequency (vibration or motion) then you have what you call "mass"

A particle is not both a wave and a particle, it simply "behaves" like both a wave and a particle.

I don't know what you mean by "mass."

I believe that everything is vibration and waves and mass is simply a standing wave.

jb

Light does have mass, just not "rest mass"

Energy density is mass. E=MC^2

Its perfectly fine to not understand. It takes years of training to grasp the mathematics, and as a very bright physicist once said and I am paraphrasing, if you say you understand quantum mechanics . . that means you dont.

Light in vacuum always travels the speed of light. Stretching out the wave reduces the frequency but does not slow it down . . . . it cannot slow down.

Abra you mentioned in your opening post that at the Quantum level the rules of physics change . . . this is not so. We just don't see the phenomena of QM at large levels . . . nothing changes except our perception of the rules.

We also dont have to give up Cause and effect, we just have to allow for Backward Causation . . . . hehe. Things in the future that can Cause an effect in the past lol, I love it!
___

Edit what does interest me is why this is in religion chat? Nothing wrong with this topic, its a beautiful topic with lots of things to ponder. In fact QM is what has captured my soul and propelled me into physics. But does this really have anything to do with Religion?

We've been asking for a philosophy and/or science forum forever ... but have been told by the administrators that they did not feel it was necessary ... that this forum would do ...I am still hoping they will create one ...

This is posted here for a lack of somewhere more appropriate to post it ....

It is in the religion chat because there is not philosophy forum. It is metaphysics, and there is no metaphysics forum.

My interest is in the true nature of reality. You could call that my "religion."


JB

I am still waiting for someone to define mass. What is mass?

You said energy density is mass. That just means that mass is energy. What makes this energy dense?

JB

I'd really like to understand this, but I'm not particularly interested in spending a decade in study to do so. Is there any kind of a "QM for Idiots" that would explain it simply? Or is such a thing not possible? Or maybe even an example of an observed phenomenon that leads to this conclusion.

There is observed phenomenon but I can't remember what it was. Perhaps Bushidobillyclub can explain what it is.

The way I understand it is in understanding how time works and why. (I could be way off base.)

It has to do with the "speed" of light within our physical universe, and how "time" as a "thing" does not actually exist.

It could be about movement of 'things' in relation to light; ~ light being the constant.

Anything that can move faster than light (in relation to this physical universe of standing waves) can move backward and forward in time.

In our physical universe light seems to have a set speed. I suspect (and this is just me and my ideas talking) that light has no speed at all in and of itself, except within the warped space of this universe which is governed by MEST (Matter, energy, space and time.)

Thought moves faster than light in this universe. If thoughts are things, (and some people believe they are) then there are things that move faster than light in this universe.

So I say that thoughts are things, and they originate from outside of this physical universe in what I call the universal mind. This universe exists within the universal mind and is like a dream world.

I know this is getting out of the realm of science here but these are just my ideas so please take them as just ideas.

But if science has proven that the past can in fact be influenced then what influences it? Thoughts themselves do on the quantum levels. The future can also be influenced by thoughts. If thoughts can influence the future by traveling faster than light, then why would they not be able to influence the past?

jb

JB you are correct in your statements about light. It is light that first made us realize the reality of backward Causation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

Here is a link to the double slit experiment, in certain iterations of this experiment, they have shown that an observation in the future causes the collapse of the probability wave in the past.

Mass is the quantity of matter in an object. Mass is what gravity interacts with. Mass is still not fully understood. Mass and energy seem to be two sides to a coin, neither are fully explainable in terms we can visualize. The true nature of matter, mass, and energy are completely foreign to our sense of commonality.


Max Tegmark is doing research down that potentiality: Holographic reality. Or perhaps reality being holographic.


The key idea here is to ask what is vibrating?

I believe that light itself is allways in a state of stillness, motionless in time/space.

Only the frequency propagates...

by transfering energy to the next particle of light in the matrix.

But the matrix itself remains unchanged and unchanging.