Creativesoul! Hi!!

In response to your post, I would say that I did not state that "things" would not exist.

I said "time as we know it" would cease to exist.

Time.

Without motion there is no time.

Are you really serious about these answers or are you being sarcastic again? Sorry, but these answers are totally ridiculous.

I will start with the first one. Next post.

You ask a question? That explains what exactly???

Okay, I'll answer it. If it were not for matter (planets, stars, etc.) moving through space, there would be no way to measure TIME. Planets would not rotate or revolve around stars or the sun.

Also if there were no matter at all in this universe, there would be no space. The entire universe would collapse into a void of nothing.




Honestly, this explanation, sounds like it came from a 4th grader. It does not explain anything. It is just a bunch of statements of belief. While I don't claim to be a math wiz or a scientist, I'm not a complete idiot. This is just insulting.

In a void of nothingness there is no way to measure anything and no way to track the movement of anything and call it time.

Also, if it is a complete "vacuum" what holds that vacuum together if there is no energy or matter? Are you saying that there would be nothing but an infinite nothing? That would be absurd then, to call it "space" or attempt to measure "time" in a vast infinite nothingness.

And of course there would be no one to do such a thing anyway.

That's really hilarious.

I have mentioned before and I will mention it again. You are attempting to use an example in the reality of the very large to demonstrate and disprove a quantum fact.

The first thing you would have to do in this situation is come to an agreement about what and "observer" is.

I said before that an observer is ANYTHING that can sense and react to anything else. This would be just about everything down to the last photon. They are all observers in that sense.



How does one observe something?

With the eyes? The ears? The nose? With a telescope? Feelers? Vibrations?

All of these things. Particularly vibrations.

Anything that interacts with anything else is an observer.

You are obviously assuming that an observer is a human being.




No, my question is not pointless, your answer is. If you read my posts you would have already read that an observer in this case would be anything that interacts with anything else.

You are limiting your observer, obviously, to a human being.



The smallest of the quantum soup reacts to things and experiences things and move randomly.

Forget the third one. I know they are connected... I'm off to bed.

Thanks for trying.

This is something that is explained by the philosophical concept of "difference in movement type".

Atoms on the sub-atomic levels behave in ways that are described by quantum theory. Once you go over to the multi-atom molecularity, you will find chemical laws governing the molecules' reactions, and quantum laws won't explain why the air sky is blue or the leaves are green. Once you go over the chemical, and see how blocks and masses of objects interact, you will have classical and relative physical laws. You can't explain the ellyptical paths of planets around the sun with chemistry, or with quantum laws. Much like you can't explain the interaction of atoms when you burn coal or gasoline, using only the effects of gravity or quantum physics, and much like you can't explain the jump of an electron cloud form one energy level inside the atom to another one, with chemical laws or with macrophysical laws (classical or relativity physics).

Similarly, sentient and other biological things, that grow, reproduce, die and decay, with a relatively short span of time during which they appear to have a will to find their comfort level at any situation, can't be explained by quantum laws, by chemical laws, by physical laws. The movement type of biology is independent of these three.

And social movements have governing laws as well, that are particular to the behaviour of societies, and are not part or explicable by biological or psychological laws.

----------

This means... what. This means that this is how it is. It means nothing more, nothing less. It has no "meaning" between the types of movements. It is futile to search for meaning in there. This difference between types of movement exist, and we don't know why they exist, and how they connect, if at all.

You ask, Jenniebean, how they connect, and if we can't say, then you claim victory.

No, we don't know how they connect, and no, we won't capitulate to you in this argument. YOU also don't know how they connect. You may have theories that explain the connectivity, but you need and do invoke the supernatural in your explanations. The supernaturals you use in your theories have unprovable elements, elements that have no effective reasons for us to believe they are real.

I don't know if this makes sense to you. Sometimes you can dig your heels in when a certain type of issue is brought up.

No matter how simply and concisely someone tries to explain the basics of quantum physics to you, you come back with insults, laughter and a complete lack of understanding... not to mention the goofy, out of context, explanations.

A simple calculation of the quantum uncertainty of an electron at, say, 200 MEV will give an answer of about an inch. A fantastically large number in comparison to the size of an electron and a concept that governs the useful engineering aspects in most all regards.

The same simple calculation can be do on, say, a bullet where accuracy and momentum are important. The quantum uncertainty is again easily calculated but gives a small number which has no practical use for a bullet.

The same formula works again on a bowling ball whose speed, direction, and momentum are critical but again, the quantum effects are so small as to be meaningless.

The same formula is equally accurate in calculating the quantum uncertainly of a moving battleship giving a extremely small meaningless answer ... but quite accurately.

You claim you understand the physics while applying quantum concepts to objects whose quantum effects have no meaning at the scale you use.

As Slowhand has explained, it is not that the quantum aspects cannot be calculated, measured, or understood. The fact is that they have no useful meaning for objects approaching the size of a grain of sand and larger.

Your arguments sound like someone changing the color of their toenail polish because their underwear is too tight... then exclaiming angrily that everyone else is wrong and only they understand the connection.

metalwing
Oh well I feel so much better now. You have been insulting me and casting me as totally ignorant all along and I freely admit that I am no rocket scientist. Here I have been thinking you guys were so smart and scientific, but I didn't realize you actually took me for a complete moron.



Oh he explained that? Really? Why didn't he just say that? Whatever happened to just saying what you actually mean? Why the elaborate sarcastic examples about putting a rock on a table and leaving it, and a tree falling in the forest?

I would not dream of attempting to apply quantum calculations to large objects even if I knew how to do the math. There is too much information in between. Too many variables.

(It would be way worse than sitting down and attempting to write a huge computer program only using zeros and ones and having to learn that bottom level machine language from scratch.)



Oh you are allowed to get insulting but I'm scolded for laughing at his so-called explanations? I thought they were meant to be humorous. I can't laugh?

I'm not saying that you are "wrong," I'm saying that you just don't know the answers to my questions. You pretend to know more than you really know. You make statements and then you can't explain them, you just make them and expect me to take your word for it. If you make a statement, and I ask you to explain why you are right, and you can't do that, what am I to think?

Do you honestly agree with this???



I'm talking about the entire space time continuum, which must have Matter, energy, space and time or else it falls apart.

Do you seriously support this? (I'm not talking about specific "places" in space. I am talking about the entire space time continuum.)The statement is irrelevant even if it were true. (I'm going to bet that its not true and that there is no evidence at all to support such a statement.)



and do you agree with and support this?



REALLY? (I wonder who would be doing the measuring and with what.)

Like I said, I feel so much better now.

s1ows explanation was, by and in large, philosophically on point JB. Empirically speaking, all evidence shows that no observer is needed for reality to exist. We are both, objects in the world and subjects taking an account of it. An observer takes an account of that which appears.

The OP claim contradicts everything we know about light.

Sorry Creativesoul. I think it was sarcastic, unscientific and down right insulting.

First we would have to agree on what an observer is. If you are talking about intelligent humanoids or even animals then you are correct. So, if that is what you mean, then I agree with you.

Now lets see if anyone can understand what I mean.

Since this whole idea came from quantum physics, if you use the larger reality to find an observer, you will get an incorrect conclusion.

An observer is anything that can sense and react to anything else. This includes subatomic particles.

If you insist that a subatomic particle is not an observer, then your conclusion would be correct assuming that premise, but you have failed to grasp what I am saying. Or simply refused to accept it.

As far as his other stuff, about space and time existing without matter and energy... I would like to see a bit more scientific evidence for that statement.

You have been given concise answers to everything. You didn't understand the answers. Several of us have tried to give examples to show you how quantum physics works and you didn't understand the reference. You make constant false and insulting statements because you have no respect for people who are far more educated on the subject than you. For example, in your post above. "You pretend to know more than you really know. You make statements and then you can't explain them, you just make them and expect me to take your word for it."

This topic was first year physics for me. I took many more years of the stuff. We are not talking Laplace Transforms here nor Differential equation solutions to Maxwell's equations. This is simple quantum physics.

You speak of "too many variables" as if you actually know how many there are. There are actually only a few and the math is simple.

It is you who pretend to know far more than you actually know. As far as I can tell, everyone has politely tried to explain to you how far off base you are about a topic in which we are well schooled, but you have an answer for everything.

If you went to class, would you act this way?

I was not being sarcastic at all. I was trying to be helpful.
I stand by my explanations. They are pretty easy to understand
I think and certainly not merely opinion.



But here is another way of looking at the question about whether light
travels. The Sun produces light and it shines on the Earth and warms
us up. So light travels from the Sun to the Earth.

Light travels.

Right?

No I have not.



1slowhand gave no answers. He only made statements. He did not "explain" anything. Am I the only one who can see this?



Not an explanation, not even a statement. This is a question.



A statement. No explanation. No evidence of this.



This is a STATEMENT! It does not ANSWER MY QUESTION. --->My question was, please EXPLAIN how time and space can exist without energy or matter.<-----

I asked that question because both you and he stated that time and space can exist without energy and matter.

Neither you or he answered that question. You just blurt out statements. Much like a Bible thumper blurts out scripture.




Neither you or he answered (or explained) HOW you could have a system of measurement with no matter or energy in a void of NOTHINGNESS.

Not to mention WHO would be doing the measuring and with WHAT.





Really? Is that what you think? That I didn't understand the simple reference? That is bull. Your examples are so obvious they are insult my limited intelligence. All you are saying is that you feel the quantum "world" does not appear to have any significant effect on the "larger" things in this, reality/world. That is obvious. I get that.

What you seem to be saying is that where physics is concerned, the quantum stuff is not really significant.



That is not true.




... you have still not answered my questions. And the only reason for my questions in the first place is I am simply asking you to back up your statements with at least a tiny bit of a logical explanation as to why you made them.

Instead, all I get are more statements.




I have told you time and again that I am no mathematician or rocket scientist. If I make a statement, I will at least attempt to explain why I make it, no matter how unscientific that may be.

Your responses to my challenge to you to explain your statements has only be rude and insulting. If I am "way off base" and you are so smart, then you should be able to explain your statements.

You have failed to define or agree on what an "observer" is.
You have both ignored my definition of what an observer is where this subject is concerned.

An observer is anything that can sense its environment, and interact with it or with anything else.

Given that premise, explain how the Universe can exist without observers.

There are vast stretches of space with no matter or energy in them
which is partially why it is called space. If you send a space
vehicle into space it travels with it's course unaltered for vast
distances because there is nothing to disturb it's path.

On the microscale there is space between particles and atoms and
molecules.

Time exists to measure events associated with any of these spaces such as an asteroid passing through etc.

This is how time and space can exist without matter or energy present.

There can be a vast empty void which lasts 1 microsecond, a century,
or perpetually.

A system of measurement exists as an abstract concept even without
anyone thinking about it or having anything to measure.

I don't think the above explanations have been rude or insulting. I
cannot see why you do not understand them when others appear to get
what I have been saying.

Finally here is a way that the Universe can exist without observers
even if an observer is defined as

"anything that can sense its environment, and interact with it or with anything else"

Suppose there is such an observer. They see the whole Universe.
They take all kinds of measurements about it and write a book
about it. Document all sorts of stuff. Take pictures et cetera.
They are the only observer around maybe they are the last sentient
being or some such. Then they die.

The Universe does not cease to exist. It is there just as they
document it. Only the observer ceases to exist. If another observer
comes along (although they don't have to) then the Universe will be
exactly as the dead observer noted...and following the laws of
Physics with no observer around forever.



Eh?

I'm sorry then. I thought you were being sarcastic.

Light appears to "travel" inside of this warped space-time continuum.
Outside of this universe, or if light was isolated from all the effects of this space-time environment, (warped universe) I suspect that the true nature of light could be that it does not actually "travel."

But yes, in this universe, according to observation by humans, and in relation to matter....and us.. light does appear to travel at a constant rate of 'speed.' This might have something to do with the density of the field it is in. But I don't know anything.

Movement and "travel" is perceived relative to something that is stationary. Right?

So what, in this universe is stationery?

Is matter stationery?

just because space is warped or is affected by gravitation this does
not mean that light does not travel from one location to the next although
it will affect the way the light travels such as with gravitational
lensing.

movement it relative so there does not have to be a stationary reference point.

nothing has to be "stationary" for motion to be perceived

1slohand said:





Okay from now on I will back up my statements. (Since no one has any respect for what I think.)

This is from Dr. Sten Odenwald, NASA Astronomer

"The 'empty space' within and near particles such as electrons and quarks is far more active and complex than in the lower-energy 'empty space' within the boundaries of atoms.

There is no such thing as 'empty space' anywhere in nature.

There are only apparent 'voids' that SEEM not to contain matter or energy, but at the level of the quantum world, even 'empty' voids are teeming with activity as particles come and go; created out of quantum fluctuations in any of a variety of fields in nature. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle all but guarantees the existence of such a dynamic, physical vacuum. Physicists, moreover, have conducted many experiments where the effects of these ghostly, half-real particles can be seen clearly.

The level of activity that fills the physical vacuum is set by the energy at which the vacuum is 'observed'. Within an atom, much of the activity is carried by 'virtual photons' that mediate the electromagnetic force, and by the occasional electron-positron pairs that appear and vanish. At very high energies, and correspondingly small length scales, the vacuum fills up with the comings and goings of even more high energy particles; quarks-antiquarks, gluons-antigluons, muons-antimuons, and a whole host of other particles and their anti-matter twins. Within the nucleus of an atom, gluons and their anti- particles are everywhere, going about their business to keep the quarks bound into the nuclear 'quark-gluon plasma', portions of which we see as protons and neutrons."

What is an Observer?





Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

Does time really exist?

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-time




http://quantumweird.wordpress.com/2007/06/23/does-time-exist/





Even the National Bureau of Standards admit they are “not measuring time, but only defining it“.


About the true nature of a photon traveling at C: It experiences no time. It travels no path at all regardless of the length of its "travel."

Time and distance for the photon does not exist.

We only think light travels. Those measurements of time and distance for the photon are for our domain only – the human one.

There is no quantum world, and macro world. (this is a colloquial popular science misnomer)

There is only one, we just happen to find various phenomena at difference scales based on how large or how small the uncertainty of our measurement tools are.

Its like how water is water, but at different temperatures we call it ice, or steam. Its still H2o.

You seem hung up on observers, stop, its really unimportant and just causing you added confusion.

Just know this, interactions cause the collapse of the wave function: a mathematical construct used to determine variables of particle interactions.

100 years of people being confused by QM has caused this, and problems that the physics community has long ago resolved are still being debated by the few confused scientists and the vast sea of popularizes of quantum blather-advertising.

The only problems with QM is that the equations do not play nice with other sets of maths we rely on to describe reality. THATS IT. Some in the community have given up becuase some of us think its an issue of representation, not of the actual underlying reality.

Also JB none of us, regardless of the accuracy of our statements, are Theoretical Physics educators, so while we try to cut you some slack, cut us some slack.

Do you think we all would still be trying so hard to work with you if we didn't care?

We do not sit here day in and day out as a physics professor would trying to find better ways to get this material across to our students. I know from my own training just how amazingly wrong that article you posted is, and how unscientific the person who wrote it truly is, however that does not mean that I can, across an internet forum, make you understand. (Not that myself and others have not tried)

It took me years of training, and further years of using the maths to even feel confident I myself could work through scientific questions on this topic, no less be able to train someone else to do the same, and again no less within a few threads over a forum where you do not even have the basic training needed to get started.

Tell you what . . .

Go here: http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/theorist.html

Follow the steps and come back once you have completed them, you will be far better off, but know this . . . . it isn't easy, it takes LOTS of work, and you cannot claim its too hard in one breath and then in another that we do not understand when it is US who have gone through many of these steps if not all . . . I can only speak for myself when I say that I did not go down the path to theoretical physics, I am just a radiology technician with a degree in physics who configures x ray equipment and understands a great deal of the basics.

So know that once you start you may find the mountain of knowledge much larger at each step then you thought when you where on the previous step. You may eventually realize just how far down the mountain you are right now and feel bad about engaging in this thread the way you have.

Thanks Bushi. Yes I know there is no "quantum world."

Thanks for the link. I'll check it out.

P.s.

Great link!

I do not feel bad I engaged this thread because it has netted this great link.

Thanks sincerely.