That alone is a scientific claim that requires knowing what is known about reality now, which only a professional would have the training to comment on.

Using science to prop up mysticism is all that is being done in that article, and its nonsense.

It's not a scientific claim.

It's my claim.

I feel that this it true.

I don't have to know everything about science either.

So I guess you could call it "my belief."

I find this interesting: Cosmic Rays


http://mingle2.com/topic/show/304202

Sorry but you are incorrect. Nothing I said is in the least conflict
with quantum physics. And there do not need to be any observers for
the Universe to exist and behave the laws of physics...

"What we know about the world is as much a product of the devices we use to interact with the "real world" as the "real" world itself, which ultimately lies beyond our senses and essentially unknowable."


Observer Created Reality

Copenhagen does NOT say that the observer creates reality, whatever that means. It does not say that the world is a purely mental construct (Idealism).

Copenhagen does say that a property of a system however may not be defined until it is measured. For example, if an electrons waveform is smeared out over space, it's position is not just unknown but undefined. The electrons position is only defined once it is measured. Copenhagen treats the experiment and measuring apparatus as a gestalt (whole). The interested reader is referred to the later section on Philosophy.

Bohr's Complementary Principle or Wave-particle Duality

Quantum particles are said to exhibit a wave-particle duality. Bohr's Complementary Principle says that it is possible to design an experiment to show the particle nature of matter, or show the wave nature of matter, even though each picture of matter is mutually exclusive.

For example, Double Slit Diffraction using a single photon at a time demonstrates the wave-nature of light as the light moves from the source through the diffraction grating and builds up a diffraction pattern on the final screen. The particle nature of light is demonstrated by arrival of discrete packets of energy (photons) at the final screen.

Bohr’s Complementary Principle is at the heart of the Copenhagen Interpretation. Matter is neither a wave nor a particle; each picture is complementary not contradictory. It is the nature of the experiment which "chooses" which picture (or aspect) of matter is demonstrated.

The Principle is much more subtle and deep than it first appears; it is best understood by reference to Kantian or Positivist Philosophy. We know the world through our senses, or experimental devices. What we know about the world is as much a product of the devices we use to interact with the "real world" as the "real" world itself, which ultimately lies beyond our senses and essentially unknowable.

REF site: http://sokane.110mb.com/QM/Quantum_Reality.htm#Copenhagen

Would you present proof of the above statement please?

If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound if there is no one to hear it?

If that is supposed to be proof, sorry. It ain't.

You can, of course, believe anything you want. Most everything you have said in this thread related to light, motion, and physics (quantum or not) is garbage as is the original reference to light not being in motion.

If you actually understood physics, you would realize the difficulty in combining the physics of the very small with that of the very large. This concept is clearly what you are doing while having no understanding that you are doing it.

I realize the difficulty in combining the physics of the very small with that of the very large, but that does not mean that they are not intimately connected.

Does it? (Scientists have failed to do it.)

(If they are separate, then explain how they are separate if you know.)

That's why the following question does not really apply: (In fact it demonstrates how YOU are attempting to combine the very small with that of the very large.)




"Copenhagen does say that a property of a system however may not be defined until it is measured. For example, if an electrons waveform is smeared out over space, it's position is not just unknown but undefined."

I'm thinking that what Copenhagen is saying above is that your tree falling in the forest may not even exist. If it does, you can't really know it or define it.

Really? I missed it.

Oh yeh you mean where he was combining the physics of the very small with that of the very large, something YOU SAID is too difficult to do.

Hence those examples do not really make any sense.

They only don't make sense to you.

It was humor based on the concepts of this thread.

Oh I understand it and it is practically sarcasm. (As you said, HUMOR.)

It simply does not apply. You can't combine the physics of the very small with that of the very large.

Not really. Except as humor or sarcasm. There is too much going on between the very small and very large. Way too much information there.

But

Why don't you answer the real questions I am asking if you are so smart and educated?

Explain how time and space can exist without energy and matter.

Explain how this universe can exist with absolutely no observers.

And by observers, I don't mean intelligent humans beings.

I mean anything that can sense and react to anything else.

Also:

If quantum physics and regular physics of the very large are separate, how are they separate? If they are not separate, how are they connected?

How do you understand it or explain it or connect it or separate it?

I mean, I really want to know your personal perceptions of this in simple non sarcastic (non insulting) terms. Not a bunch of scientific formulas or gobble-deegook written for a scientist or physics expert...which I am not

When I say that the true nature of light is that it has no speed, I am talking about light alone, by itself, where it would exist free from the influences of this matter-energy-space-time universe.

Isolated.

If we could, match the "speed of light" normal time (as we measure it) would cease to exist.

So in that position, one might simply look out at the universe and see that it is the thing that is moving.....if we could even see it.

I love how we use ourselves as the reference point, when all that is, exists, with or without us...

JB....your opening information has a resounding yes, in my field of perception..

I also have nejoyed reading other people's reference points of their own perceptions...

parameters....fascinating things.

Since I cannot be anywhere (or anyone) except myself, and since this is the point from which I observe reality, I am the only reference point possible .. for me.

(as are you from your point of view.)

To understand most of these questions better you will have to
actually seriously study some Physics but these are the simplest
answers to your questions...

1. Explain how time and space exist without matter or energy:

Why shouldn't time and space exist separately from energy and
matter? There are plenty of places in space where time exists and
there is no matter or energy present. There is no requirement that
energy or matter is necessary for time or space. Space is present
in the absence of energy or matter. Space dimensions are a construct
which can exist in a complete vacuum. Of course if there is no
matter or energy of any sort in the Universe then there would be
a lot of nothingness out there and there would be no reason to
measure anything but that does not mean that a method of measurement
does not exist. Measurement is just pointless when there is nothing
there to measure....

2. Explain how the Universe can exist without observers.

Put a rock on a table then leave. It will stay there without
observers. It will obey the laws of Physics when no one is around.
This mechanism has never been found to have been violated.

Suppose that there is only one planet in the whole Universe with
no observers on it. It would sit there like a rock in space obeying
the law of gravitation etc just as we know it to operate for all
time. Even if nothing is there to observe it. As I have said before,
recording devices have been used in the absence of observers and
have shown that events do in fact get recorded even when no observer
is present. Time marches on and the laws of Physics are obeyed. No
observer is needed for this to happen. Now if you are going to call
the recording device an observer then your question is pointless.
If there is nothing anywhere that can experience anything then you
have simply constructed an empty Universe which trivially contains
nothing and has no importance or significance whatsoever.

3. Explain how Quantum Physics and regular Physics are separate or connected.

They are connected. Quantum Physics reduces to classical mechanics
when things are large - so regular physics is a valid approximation
which accurately describes the motion of large objects when quantum
effects are so small that they are inconsequential.

Everything behaves according to Quantum Physics as far as we
know regardless of size. Classical mechanics is also valid because
it is an approximation to Quantum mechanics which is extremely
accurate for large objects because the quantum effects are so small
for large objects that they can be neglected in most circumstances
and classical mechanics then gives a perfectly good description of
most everyday phenomena.

These are the simple and non-mathematical answers to your questions.

Hey JB. In a tough one here, are ya?

If an observer obtains light speed, things do not cease to exist. To the contrary, they exist in every aspect except one... motion.