BS: Our Quantum Universe

Subject: BS: Our Quantum Universe
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Feb 26 - 09:38 AM

You've heard that quantum mechanics can't be explained like we can Newtonian physics, like F=MA, which can explain any home run or goal.
Classic physics equations only deal with macro interactions, but a quantum equation has a particle symbol and a wave sitting side by side.

At 10 to the minus 33 centimeters, the world is a very different place of possibilities. For many decades, I considered that space has a very different geometry than the 4 dimensions we live in. It may even help to explain the unexplainable. The quantumverse lives in a dimension that may have no existence or concept of distance. Add the speed of light to photons and electrons, and distance evaporates into time.

By prying open a new concept of geometry, a deeper understanding and command of the quantum could become more pliable. Afterall we will soon combine quantum computing with general AI. It would be better to know more than the numbers of certain equations work without explanation, despite Bell and Heisenberg's suggestions of how they might work.

The Chinese are experimenting with a satellite full of entangled particles with their counterparts back here on Earth. IMO they are missing somthing more fundamental. Of course, in Trump's America, science itself is missing.

Wherever your knowledge of the quantum is, be it the split beam or entanglement throughout time, it would be good to explore, since some of your own nervous system has quantum properties that have unbelievable capabilities.

Subject: RE: BS: Our Quantum Universe
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Feb 26 - 09:48 AM

"Add the speed of light to photons and electrons, and distance evaporates into time."
Since time does not move when traveling at the speed of light, when a photon a million light-years away hits your eye, to the photon, no time has passed,

Subject: RE: BS: Our Quantum Universe
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Feb 26 - 02:04 PM

Denmark and Germany have achieved quantum teleportation or burrowing but only with one particle or a wave. The goal will be an entire object. People like Ingo Swan can perform remote viewing which seems to me to be a quantum process.

Quantum computing demands super shielding, otherwise decoherence of the three-state bit occurs. The advantage is millions of times more computing power.

Subject: RE: BS: Our Quantum Universe
From: Paul Burke
Date: 03 Feb 26 - 03:08 PM

Electrons have mass, so they can't travel at the speed of light. If you want extra dimensions, buy some string. As for combining quantum computing with AI, oh dear. At least I'm old and won't be around for too long in that kind of world.

Subject: RE: BS: Our Quantum Universe
From: Lighter
Date: 03 Feb 26 - 03:59 PM

There's no telling what goes on below the Planck Limit. Our equations fall apart, defeated by smallness. There are theories about "granular time," unstable space, crowded nothingness.

There may be an infinitesimally tiny universe down there, identical to our own except in size and that Donald Trump is not president.

Subject: RE: BS: Our Quantum Universe
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 03 Feb 26 - 06:00 PM

I have gone through nearly all entire days wrestling with quantum physics and at he end of the day conclude I know less than when I started.

Subject: RE: BS: Our Quantum Universe
From: Lighter
Date: 03 Feb 26 - 06:28 PM

So you *do* understand it!

Subject: RE: BS: Our Quantum Universe
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 04 Feb 26 - 04:54 AM

I
used to before I started learning about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Our Quantum Universe
From: Paul Burke
Date: 04 Feb 26 - 06:21 AM

"There's no telling what goes on below the Planck Limit. " But the electron is quite big compared to the Plack limit: about 1000000000000000 times bigger. That's without quantum effects spreading it out and making it even bigger.

"when a photon a million light-years away hits your eye, to the photon, no time has passed, " For the photon, as you said. But for us, up to a couple of million years ago (if the photon came from the Andromeda galaxy). The photon's timelessness has been invoked as an explanation of two slit experiments (by Gribbin or Gould, I can't remember which), because the photon has all the time in the world to try all possible paths. Perhaps there's only one ohoton in the Universe, being everywhere at once?

But that doesn't cover the same experiment carried out with electrons, atoms, molecules (even surprisingly big ones - I'm told Schroedinger repeated the experiment with cats).

"Our equations fall apart": they do an' all. Maths is an approximation to reality. There are no infinite straight lines, perfect circles, dimensionless points*, or right angles in reality. Plato thought this meant that the imperfect world is not true, whereas the ideal mathematical one is. I think it's the other way about, but them I'm an engineer, and used to finding that my bright idea stretched the model too far. Quantum maths is an approximation. It has to be, it tells us nothing about gravity and it's struggling with the mass/ energy content of the Universe.

"There may be an infinitesimally tiny universe down there". Probably exactly ours, not a clone exactly the same. The Universe was created by Maurice Escher.

Subject: RE: BS: Our Quantum Universe
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Feb 26 - 07:28 AM

My mistake for bringing an electron into the quantum but the neutrino does. The electron is still amazing for its anti-matter positron state, muon state, and strange spin.

You guys all have insightful concepts. The reason I bring up the quantumverse is that I suspect we have made greater strides scientifically than what is publicly presented. We may be way beyond popular knowledge. Why? Because the Trillions in black budgets probably reverse engineered something worth keeping above top secret.
There are countless witnesses that have come forward if we choose to believe them.

Subject: RE: BS: Our Quantum Universe
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Feb 26 - 07:57 AM

I know I sound like the villain Mike Johnson "I know I can't prove it but I suspect..." I just wish it were true so that we wouldn't have to rely on rocketry anymore.

String theory has sort of run out of rope. A dimension without distance is too bizarre, even for me, to believe in, but it is a super-simplistic way to view entanglement. It seems God not only plays dice but is a degenerate gambler.

Subject: RE: BS: Our Quantum Universe
From: Lighter
Date: 04 Feb 26 - 08:03 AM

When I was in school, I thought math was real.

Now I can't be sure that I'm real.

Subject: RE: BS: Our Quantum Universe
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Feb 26 - 08:28 AM

In quantum field theories the photons may not travel. There may be universal fields of photons, neutrons and electrons where the displacement of any could have an instant effect on all of them. Or where the universe itself plays a much bigger role than we thought.

But, like SPB, the more I look into it the less I realise I understand. At least we don't pretend to understand and make things up as we go along ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Our Quantum Universe
From: Paul Burke
Date: 04 Feb 26 - 08:41 AM

"dimensionless points*": I meant to add a note to that. In fact, mathematically there are dimensionless points, and it held back the development of calculus. Although no one is known to have commented on Archimedes' proto- calculus as revealed in the palimpsest revealed twnty years ago or so, they certainly did on the efforts of Galileo amongst others. He used the method of integration by adding up slices to make a shape, other mathematicians objected that you can't make it exact, because you'd have to slice it infinitely thin like a Euclidean line, and no number of dimensionless lines can make up an area. This objection persisted even after Newton and Leibniz had made the use of calculus normal; see Bishop Berkeley's "ghosts of departed quantities". It was only finally sorted out in the 19th century, at least to the satisfaction of mathematicians. Actually I'm buggered if I can see why the solution was better than what went before, but that's maths for you.

But look at it in a different way. Take a square, side 1. Draw a diagonal across it. That's 1/2 + 1/2 = 1, yeah.

Now split one half from the corner of the square to the midpoint of the diagonal. You now have 3 similar triangles, and 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/4 = 1. Still at primary school.

Now take one of the little triangles and repeat, except that the split now goes to the midpoint of the hypotenuse of its hypotenuse: 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/8 = 1. Bright kid.

Repeat ad kalendas graecas. !/2+1/4+1/8+1/16+1/32+1/64+1/128+... lots of little bits .... + 1/8. 1/8? Isn't that nothing? Indeed it is.

Now repeat that process, except each time you divide a triangle, you do the same to all the others. By the same logic, you've now got:
1/8+1/8+1/8+1/8+...1/8... = 1.

Many a muckle macks a mickle, as the muckmen say in Mickleover. And 8 squared of nothings makes 1.

But you didn't have to start with a square with side 1, it could have been any number, well any positive number. So that rather tedious to write out series can be equal to anything.

But infinitesimals are mathematically very useful. I haven't found a use for infinity yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Our Quantum Universe
From: Paul Burke
Date: 04 Feb 26 - 08:43 AM

All the carefully- chosen Unicode lemniscates came out as 8's: for 8 read lemniscate, except where it should be 8!

Subject: RE: BS: Our Quantum Universe
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Feb 26 - 04:15 PM

I believe crowd sourcing works but its easy to get lost in a hurry.

Subject: RE: BS: Our Quantum Universe
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Feb 26 - 09:36 AM

There is a debate among scientists that as long as the numbers work thats all you need to know, while others think a different kind of understanding should be more fundamental.

Subject: RE: BS: Our Quantum Universe
From: Paul Burke
Date: 05 Feb 26 - 01:42 PM

The numbers work: that means the model has not been faulted. With, of course, the data presented. Within the world of quantum mechanics, the model has proved extremely robust. It doesn't work at all outside it. Gravitation has (so far) refused to be helped.

As for a deeper understanding, that is something that generally comes about when the model fails. The CLASSIC case is Copernicus' realisation that the solar- centric system worked better than the Earth- centric model. But it took over 50 years to get the model to work, partly because of poor accuracy of observations before the telescope, and partly because Copernicus' model assumed perfect circles, whereas the orbits are ellipses. Tycho Brahe started the rectification of the first problem, with a humungous non- telescope observatory that got better accuracy; Kepler worked out the second, though it took right up to Newton to get it mathematically based.

I've often wondered what would have happened if Fourier analysis had been thought of in, say, 1520. All those epicycles would have become merely extra terms in an equation, and there would have been no incentive to improve the model. The fact that the fixed stars move so rapidly - their sphere, at vast distance, circled the Earth once a day- would have made the assumption of faster-than-light movement part of the model. Relativity would have been impossible.

I sometimes think quantum theory has got itself into this state. Maybe wave- oarticle duality is the modern equivalent of epicycles.

Subject: RE: BS: Our Quantum Universe
From: Lighter
Date: 05 Feb 26 - 02:17 PM

Might the collapse of equations at the Planck Limit mean that math really is just a mental creation?

In other words, the supposed axioms that "make" 1 + 1 = 2 and everything else may be baffled at the Planck Limit, because the "math language" we've devised simply can't deal with the weirdness of the infinitesimal.

I speak as someone who never got past trig.

Subject: RE: BS: Our Quantum Universe
From: Paul Burke
Date: 05 Feb 26 - 02:33 PM

Well, in my universe 1+1=10 as often as not. As for maths not coping with infinitesimals, I suggest reading about Gregor Cantor. He went barmy, but not before he'd proved that lemniscatological* infinity is only the first sort of infinity. He called it Aleph-Null, perhaps because all the Roman and Greek letters were taken already, or perhaps for fun. There is at least one other sort of infinity, that is in some sense "bigger" than Aleph-Null, and he suspected (but couldn't prove) that there are (is?) an infinite number of types of infinity. As far as I can make out, none of the infinities are (is?) very useful, except that they suggest there is (are?) an infinite number of types of infinitesimals.... arse.

As for the Planck limit itself, that's mainly of interest to pirates and their victims.

*(r) me 2026.

Subject: RE: BS: Our Quantum Universe
From: Lighter
Date: 05 Feb 26 - 03:40 PM

"An infinite number of infinities."

That sounds to more like playing with math than describing anything that exists.

I mean, they *could* exist, but the only evidence is in messing with mathematical symbols.

At some point, math as we know it could and may have already stumbled badly at the quantum level, just as Newton's physics eventually failed. Because it doesn't exist outside the mind.

Or perhaps math really is "real," but only up to a certain point.

I speak as someone who flunked calculus after doing pretty well up till then.

Subject: RE: BS: Our Quantum Universe
From: Paul Burke
Date: 05 Feb 26 - 04:12 PM

Maths in my view (and not speaking for the wife) is simply a way of creating models of reality. It's analogy, metaphor. One apple for me, one for the wife, one each for the kids.... how many's that? Let's set up a correspondence between apples, people, and fingers. That many! Let's go out and find that many fingers of apples, then we know we've got enough. Thank goodness we've only got two kids who can eat apples.

But then there's maths for maths sake, mathematica gratia mathematicae. That's creating new relationships. And every now and then, someone who's both good at thinking about relationships between things and maths, finds that maths describes a relationship between things that we didn't know how to quantify before.

The relationship was always there; now we can describe it, and make predictions. Next apple season, we've got another kid who's old enough to eat apples. Now we need more fingers. Thank goodness I've got a thumb.