Dark Matter is Information?

[BurtG]

My limited take on the science industry is that scientists are a bunch of cunts who can’t handle being wrong. So they reject everything that doesn’t fit in their consensus BS. Something like this theory might help to fix things.

Like all the archeology finds that don’t fit

 

[BurtG]

appreciate when complex matters can be condensed into meme format.

 

[The D]

DId not expect to find fiziks in the pit.

Most of the time we’re degenerate ruhtards, but not all the time

 

[Ronws]

So, I did a quick search of this thread and did not see the keyword I was looking for. About 35 years ago, I was looking into all of this stuff.

And came across a thought model that others have been chasing since then in QM. Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen were working with the Conservation of Energy in QM.

In fact, the effect became known as the EPR Event. TLDR, electrons in orbit have a quality or feature called spin. Spin up, spin down. For conservatioe, the electrons on opposite sides of the orbit have to have opposing spins. If the electron nearest the observer is spin up, then the other one is spin down.

Adding to this is the alignment effect of an em microscope being used to observe an electron. The field of the scope would effect the spin direction of the electron in observation. The opposite side electron would have to have the opposite spin instantaneously. So, not only is this information that is being transmitted, it is happening way faster than the speed of light.

 

[Rthur]

So, I did a quick search of this thread and did not see the keyword I was looking for. About 35 years ago, I was looking into all of this stuff.

And came across a thought model that others have been chasing since then in QM. Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen were working with the Conservation of Energy in QM.

In fact, the effect became known as the EPR Event. TLDR, electrons in orbit have a quality or feature called spin. Spin up, spin down. For conservatioe, the electrons on opposite sides of the orbit have to have opposing spins. If the electron nearest the observer is spin up, then the other one is spin down.

Adding to this is the alignment effect of an em microscope being used to observe an electron. The field of the scope would effect the spin direction of the electron in observation. The opposite side electron would have to have the opposite spin instantaneously. So, not only is this information that is being transmitted, it is happening way faster than the speed of light.

View attachment 8776263

Quantum entanglement.

R

 

[DocRDS]

So, I did a quick search of this thread and did not see the keyword I was looking for. About 35 years ago, I was looking into all of this stuff.

And came across a thought model that others have been chasing since then in QM. Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen were working with the Conservation of Energy in QM.

In fact, the effect became known as the EPR Event. TLDR, electrons in orbit have a quality or feature called spin. Spin up, spin down. For conservatioe, the electrons on opposite sides of the orbit have to have opposing spins. If the electron nearest the observer is spin up, then the other one is spin down.

Adding to this is the alignment effect of an em microscope being used to observe an electron. The field of the scope would effect the spin direction of the electron in observation. The opposite side electron would have to have the opposite spin instantaneously. So, not only is this information that is being transmitted, it is happening way faster than the speed of light.

View attachment 8776263

Spooky action at a distance. Yeah its a problem RN. A hint that the standard model is incomplete.

Also neutrinos have mass (they aren't supposed to).

There is also a constant off, I can't remember which one--but it hints that things are not perfectly kosher. The SM is good, but incomplete. I think it requires 27 parameters. So uncivilized.

 

[flogxal]

You read the article right? Parsed from the article:

“So far, this might sound purely theoretical. But we have already tested parts of QMM on today's quantum computers. We treated qubits, the basic units of quantum computers, as tiny spacetime cells. Using imprint and retrieval protocols based on the QMM equations, we recovered the original quantum states with over 90% accuracy.”

Okay. Am I supposed to change my mind? A real gen-yoo-wine quantum computer tested the theory as a math model of some kind? And that proves a physics principle somehow? Because "quantum" computer?

You may have to walk me through it, I took my year of physics in the late 1980s before people used computers for everything, all our lab experiments were basic mechanics principles, including using an air hockey table for momentum, energy transfer, energy conservation. But boy if you say "quantum" computer I may be outclassed here. I mean it has the word "quantum" in it and everything.

 

[DarnYankeeUSMC]

You read the article right? Parsed from the article:

“So far, this might sound purely theoretical. But we have already tested parts of QMM on today's quantum computers. We treated qubits, the basic units of quantum computers, as tiny spacetime cells. Using imprint and retrieval protocols based on the QMM equations, we recovered the original quantum states with over 90% accuracy.”

“This showed us two things. First, that the imprint operator works on real quantum systems. Second, it has practical benefits. By combining imprinting with conventional error-correction codes, we significantly reduced logical errors. That means QMM might not only explain the cosmos, but also help us build better quantum computers.”

“…
It ties together some of the deepest puzzles in physics, from the information paradox to dark matterand dark energy, from cosmic cycles to the arrow of time.

And it does so in a way that can already be simulated and tested in the lab. Whether QMM proves to be the final word or a stepping stone, it opens a startling possibility: the universe may not only be geometry and energy. It is also memory. And in that memory, every moment of cosmic history may still be written.”

Computer= bullshit in, bullshit out.
All the years since the computer was invented that parameter hasn't been improved.

 

[lash]

Computer= bullshit in, bullshit out.
All the years since the computer was invented that parameter hasn't been improved.

True.

 

[lash]

Okay. Am I supposed to change my mind? A real gen-yoo-wine quantum computer tested the theory as a math model of some kind? And that proves a physics principle somehow? Because "quantum" computer?

You may have to walk me through it, I took my year of physics in the late 1980s before people used computers for everything, all our lab experiments were basic mechanics principles, including using an air hockey table for momentum, energy transfer, energy conservation. But boy if you say "quantum" computer I may be outclassed here. I mean it has the word "quantum" in it and everything.

Okay, I get it. If it isn’t done with a slide rule, pencil and paper then it isn’t real. Gotcha!

 

[flogxal]

Sarcasm aside, lash, I read recently that RUS has developed either a process, or a thing/chip, which can do computer based calculations of those 0s and 1s sequences even faster than what has been known recently. Even if that speed is faster, it's still just a computer. So we have a better-balanced hammer, or a screwdriver that isn't prone to stripping screw heads. Goody, I say!

I foresee a lot of PRS / NRL Hunter folks wanting the very very fastest on-board computer for LRF and horizon flatness because "faster computer means less time lost on the clock," but I am really a slide rule sort of guy on tech so I won't be one of the new adopters.

 

[flogxal]

Computer= bullshit in, bullshit out.
All the years since the computer was invented that parameter hasn't been improved.

Early 90s I did regional air pollution reduction planning for a regional planning entity. Yes, I was a greenie in my 30s. Taught me a lot about "the other side" and its/their views. LIke saying their computer model, done by computer scientists consulting "atmospheric chemists", represented actual chemistry ongoing daily with great precision. I always had to argue with the lead modeler/defender of the model that it's just a model and isn't reality. Weeeellll no sir, nosireee! Not to this guy, nor to my boss (Chief of Enviro Planning) who had a PhD in modeling from MIT yes sir you betcha. Definitely better than my ugrad, they thought. Even if blinkered and hampered with two leg braces intellectually, theirs was better!

Enviro Chief was so high on his own MIT supply that in my initial intro to him, he says "Dave tells me you have a law degree. Interesting. The law is a hobby of mine." (Dave = my boss, who hired me, head of air quality planning)

A hobby. Am I supposed to be impressed, or to relate? He has a PhD in computer modeling from MIT. He has half a friggin' education not a whole one. This, lads, is "good government" in the modern era.

 

[DocRDS]

Okay. Am I supposed to change my mind? A real gen-yoo-wine quantum computer tested the theory as a math model of some kind? And that proves a physics principle somehow? Because "quantum" computer?

You may have to walk me through it, I took my year of physics in the late 1980s before people used computers for everything, all our lab experiments were basic mechanics principles, including using an air hockey table for momentum, energy transfer, energy conservation. But boy if you say "quantum" computer I may be outclassed here. I mean it has the word "quantum" in it and everything.

I'll actually try (no offense) as this does go pretty deep into the weeds and most people would be "so wat foo"

When we look at distant galaxies they are not obeying the laws of motion (newton/einstein) as we understand them. Various explanations have been proposed. The gist is galaxies are "spinning" to fast. We can estimate how much mass there is in the galaxy and from that we know how fast that stuff should orbit. And yet its going much faster than it should be.

That means our current understanding is wrong. That's okay, some years ago the Sun was only putting out 1/3 of the neutrinos it was supposed to based on our current theory. The theory was that neutrinos should have no mass. Turns out they do have mass (which isn't predicted) but that explains where the other 2/3 went (if a particle has mass, it can "transition"--no pun intended to another type of particle in the same family. So an electron neutrino with mass can turn into a muon neutrino--massless particle can't)

Anywhoo--one of the "corrections" to explain why galaxies are spinning to fast is "Dark Matter" Its matter that has mass, but doesn't emit light so we can't see it (thus it is "Dark") Now things like the all the planets in the solar system would be classified as dark, but the Sun makes up 99% of the mass of our solar system and the amount of dark matter neeeded to explain is MUCH more than 1%--its like 70-90% of the matter in a galaxy is "dark" We only see its interaction based on gravity, not on light (electro magnetism).

What this new theory proposes is a new explanation for "what is dark matter" AND it can be tested. Anytime you get a new theory, you can do calculations of "what kind kind of universe would this describe" And it turns out by doing these calculations, it turns out, it desribes our universe a little bit better than our current model (and is compatible with our current model).

So we often thing that Einstein "overthrew" Newton, but what he really did was refine. Newton's laws still apply for the distances that newton was able to observe, Einstein's laws turn into Newton's laws when you deal with most objects--only extremee objects (very fast moving, very heavy) show a difference and the diffeerence starts very small. This theory APPEARS to turn into our current standard model out "our" normal observation distances AND describe dark matter as well. So that's why the quantum computer thing is important--its a calculation that shows "year your math sorta checks out" The reason you use a quantum computer is it is a close model to what is being described, its not some super new way of calculating--its a simulation of the behavior they are trying to describe.

Now this is FAR from proven, but given we've been on a dead end for about 100 years in terms of "new" physics its an exciting development that can be tested. String theory is fun and all, but we can't test it with our current tech. You and I will problably never see any benefit from this new theory, but for instance, newton's laws are great for lifef here on earth (Newton got us to the moon) but Einstein's modifications gave us GPS and such, so there may be a benefit. Because we can test and prove/disprove--its sort of exciting--we can actually do something rather than pontificate about theories--we can go test it. So that's cool--even if it turns out to be a dead end. Experimental Science guys get a woody over this cause usually they find something they can't explain and theory has to catch up. Lately the theory dorks have been putting out crap we can't test so how much fun is that.


TLDR:
New theory is actually testable which means we can go do some measurements instead of just bullshitting in journals all day.


I'll put away my physics boner now and go load salt in my water softener.

 

[lash]

I'll actually try (no offense) as this does go pretty deep into the weeds and most people would be "so wat foo"

When we look at distant galaxies they are not obeying the laws of motion (newton/einstein) as we understand them. Various explanations have been proposed. The gist is galaxies are "spinning" to fast. We can estimate how much mass there is in the galaxy and from that we know how fast that stuff should orbit. And yet its going much faster than it should be.

That means our current understanding is wrong. That's okay, some years ago the Sun was only putting out 1/3 of the neutrinos it was supposed to based on our current theory. The theory was that neutrinos should have no mass. Turns out they do have mass (which isn't predicted) but that explains where the other 2/3 went (if a particle has mass, it can "transition"--no pun intended to another type of particle in the same family. So an electron neutrino with mass can turn into a muon neutrino--massless particle can't)

Anywhoo--one of the "corrections" to explain why galaxies are spinning to fast is "Dark Matter" Its matter that has mass, but doesn't emit light so we can't see it (thus it is "Dark") Now things like the all the planets in the solar system would be classified as dark, but the Sun makes up 99% of the mass of our solar system and the amount of dark matter neeeded to explain is MUCH more than 1%--its like 70-90% of the matter in a galaxy is "dark" We only see its interaction based on gravity, not on light (electro magnetism).

What this new theory proposes is a new explanation for "what is dark matter" AND it can be tested. Anytime you get a new theory, you can do calculations of "what kind kind of universe would this describe" And it turns out by doing these calculations, it turns out, it desribes our universe a little bit better than our current model (and is compatible with our current model).

So we often thing that Einstein "overthrew" Newton, but what he really did was refine. Newton's laws still apply for the distances that newton was able to observe, Einstein's laws turn into Newton's laws when you deal with most objects--only extremee objects (very fast moving, very heavy) show a difference and the diffeerence starts very small. This theory APPEARS to turn into our current standard model out "our" normal observation distances AND describe dark matter as well. So that's why the quantum computer thing is important--its a calculation that shows "year your math sorta checks out" The reason you use a quantum computer is it is a close model to what is being described, its not some super new way of calculating--its a simulation of the behavior they are trying to describe.

Now this is FAR from proven, but given we've been on a dead end for about 100 years in terms of "new" physics its an exciting development that can be tested. String theory is fun and all, but we can't test it with our current tech. You and I will problably never see any benefit from this new theory, but for instance, newton's laws are great for lifef here on earth (Newton got us to the moon) but Einstein's modifications gave us GPS and such, so there may be a benefit. Because we can test and prove/disprove--its sort of exciting--we can actually do something rather than pontificate about theories--we can go test it. So that's cool--even if it turns out to be a dead end. Experimental Science guys get a woody over this cause usually they find something they can't explain and theory has to catch up. Lately the theory dorks have been putting out crap we can't test so how much fun is that.


TLDR:
New theory is actually testable which means we can go do some measurements instead of just bullshitting in journals all day.


I'll put away my physics boner now and go load salt in my water softener.

Thanks. Very interesting to me.

 

[brianf]

So, I did a quick search of this thread and did not see the keyword I was looking for. About 35 years ago, I was looking into all of this stuff.

And came across a thought model that others have been chasing since then in QM. Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen were working with the Conservation of Energy in QM.

In fact, the effect became known as the EPR Event. TLDR, electrons in orbit have a quality or feature called spin. Spin up, spin down. For conservatioe, the electrons on opposite sides of the orbit have to have opposing spins. If the electron nearest the observer is spin up, then the other one is spin down.

Adding to this is the alignment effect of an em microscope being used to observe an electron. The field of the scope would effect the spin direction of the electron in observation. The opposite side electron would have to have the opposite spin instantaneously. So, not only is this information that is being transmitted, it is happening way faster than the speed of light.

View attachment 8776263

Electrons are like gravity..not “seen” only proven.

Not saying I don’t believe etc, but electrons are another “we proved it by math we created” theory.

This is why science makes some people nuts and some people just love it.

@lash I’m stupid

 

[lash]

Electrons are like gravity..not “seen” only proven.

Not saying I don’t believe etc, but electrons are another “we proved it by math we created” theory.

This is why science makes some people nuts and some people just love it.

You just quoted a post that talks about electromagnetic microscopes being used to observe electrons, while stating that we can’t prove they exist. Are you taking too many of those medications you manufacture?

 

[Makinchips208]

I'll actually try (no offense) as this does go pretty deep into the weeds and most people would be "so wat foo"

When we look at distant galaxies they are not obeying the laws of motion (newton/einstein) as we understand them. Various explanations have been proposed. The gist is galaxies are "spinning" to fast. We can estimate how much mass there is in the galaxy and from that we know how fast that stuff should orbit. And yet its going much faster than it should be.

That means our current understanding is wrong. That's okay, some years ago the Sun was only putting out 1/3 of the neutrinos it was supposed to based on our current theory. The theory was that neutrinos should have no mass. Turns out they do have mass (which isn't predicted) but that explains where the other 2/3 went (if a particle has mass, it can "transition"--no pun intended to another type of particle in the same family. So an electron neutrino with mass can turn into a muon neutrino--massless particle can't)

Anywhoo--one of the "corrections" to explain why galaxies are spinning to fast is "Dark Matter" Its matter that has mass, but doesn't emit light so we can't see it (thus it is "Dark") Now things like the all the planets in the solar system would be classified as dark, but the Sun makes up 99% of the mass of our solar system and the amount of dark matter neeeded to explain is MUCH more than 1%--its like 70-90% of the matter in a galaxy is "dark" We only see its interaction based on gravity, not on light (electro magnetism).

What this new theory proposes is a new explanation for "what is dark matter" AND it can be tested. Anytime you get a new theory, you can do calculations of "what kind kind of universe would this describe" And it turns out by doing these calculations, it turns out, it desribes our universe a little bit better than our current model (and is compatible with our current model).

So we often thing that Einstein "overthrew" Newton, but what he really did was refine. Newton's laws still apply for the distances that newton was able to observe, Einstein's laws turn into Newton's laws when you deal with most objects--only extremee objects (very fast moving, very heavy) show a difference and the diffeerence starts very small. This theory APPEARS to turn into our current standard model out "our" normal observation distances AND describe dark matter as well. So that's why the quantum computer thing is important--its a calculation that shows "year your math sorta checks out" The reason you use a quantum computer is it is a close model to what is being described, its not some super new way of calculating--its a simulation of the behavior they are trying to describe.

Now this is FAR from proven, but given we've been on a dead end for about 100 years in terms of "new" physics its an exciting development that can be tested. String theory is fun and all, but we can't test it with our current tech. You and I will problably never see any benefit from this new theory, but for instance, newton's laws are great for lifef here on earth (Newton got us to the moon) but Einstein's modifications gave us GPS and such, so there may be a benefit. Because we can test and prove/disprove--its sort of exciting--we can actually do something rather than pontificate about theories--we can go test it. So that's cool--even if it turns out to be a dead end. Experimental Science guys get a woody over this cause usually they find something they can't explain and theory has to catch up. Lately the theory dorks have been putting out crap we can't test so how much fun is that.


TLDR:
New theory is actually testable which means we can go do some measurements instead of just bullshitting in journals all day.


I'll put away my physics boner now and go load salt in my water softener.

But is it salt softening the water? Or water softening the salt?

Very informative post btw.

 

[DocRDS]

Electrons are like gravity..not “seen” only proven.

Not saying I don’t believe etc, but electrons are another “we proved it by math we created” theory.

This is why science makes some people nuts and some people just love it.

ACKSHUALLY!!

We've known or suspected the existance of the electron 100 years before the math caught up. We (Ok scientists) knew there was the electron "thing" for a most of the 19th century (1801-1899). It got its "name" in the late 1890s. Quantum electrodymanics--the precursor to our current standard model/theory, didn't pop up until the 1920s. So to be correct, once the theory came around--it was "oh hey--this totally explains the electron and its behavior.

And we didn't prove it by math--we proved it by detecting it. I know that technically its not "seeing" it, but its kinda like a dinosaur. We've never seen a dinosaur, but we have seen a lot of evidence they left behind. (Have you ever seen a billion dollars?)

Here's he is with his bud the positron (Wilson Cloud Chamber):

So yeah you can't 'see' electrons, but you can see evidence of them--they aren't just a match construct.

I know you weren't arguing against their existence, but its only been recent that theory got ahead of experiment (aka the "math construct"--something like the Higgs Boson--we predicted it, now we gotta go find it. More often we find stuff first, then have to explain it). For most of history, experiment was like "try and explain this shit" and theory was "ok how about this". AKA Evidence predates theory.

Its only been recently with string theory where the theory guys came up with some stuff and the experiment guys said "how tf am I supposed to test that?"

That's why scientists get all giddy when stuff goes wrong--it means NEW SCIENCE! And yeah some people are like who cares. And yet we have pages and pages dedicated to reloading and stuff. 99% want to put round in rifle, go bang. Big whoop. That ain't us. And while special relativity has limited application Quantum Electrodynamics is in EVERYTHING. And I mean everything.

 

[Ronws]

I'll actually try (no offense) as this does go pretty deep into the weeds and most people would be "so wat foo"

When we look at distant galaxies they are not obeying the laws of motion (newton/einstein) as we understand them. Various explanations have been proposed. The gist is galaxies are "spinning" to fast. We can estimate how much mass there is in the galaxy and from that we know how fast that stuff should orbit. And yet its going much faster than it should be.

That means our current understanding is wrong. That's okay, some years ago the Sun was only putting out 1/3 of the neutrinos it was supposed to based on our current theory. The theory was that neutrinos should have no mass. Turns out they do have mass (which isn't predicted) but that explains where the other 2/3 went (if a particle has mass, it can "transition"--no pun intended to another type of particle in the same family. So an electron neutrino with mass can turn into a muon neutrino--massless particle can't)

Anywhoo--one of the "corrections" to explain why galaxies are spinning to fast is "Dark Matter" Its matter that has mass, but doesn't emit light so we can't see it (thus it is "Dark") Now things like the all the planets in the solar system would be classified as dark, but the Sun makes up 99% of the mass of our solar system and the amount of dark matter neeeded to explain is MUCH more than 1%--its like 70-90% of the matter in a galaxy is "dark" We only see its interaction based on gravity, not on light (electro magnetism).

What this new theory proposes is a new explanation for "what is dark matter" AND it can be tested. Anytime you get a new theory, you can do calculations of "what kind kind of universe would this describe" And it turns out by doing these calculations, it turns out, it desribes our universe a little bit better than our current model (and is compatible with our current model).

So we often thing that Einstein "overthrew" Newton, but what he really did was refine. Newton's laws still apply for the distances that newton was able to observe, Einstein's laws turn into Newton's laws when you deal with most objects--only extremee objects (very fast moving, very heavy) show a difference and the diffeerence starts very small. This theory APPEARS to turn into our current standard model out "our" normal observation distances AND describe dark matter as well. So that's why the quantum computer thing is important--its a calculation that shows "year your math sorta checks out" The reason you use a quantum computer is it is a close model to what is being described, its not some super new way of calculating--its a simulation of the behavior they are trying to describe.

Now this is FAR from proven, but given we've been on a dead end for about 100 years in terms of "new" physics its an exciting development that can be tested. String theory is fun and all, but we can't test it with our current tech. You and I will problably never see any benefit from this new theory, but for instance, newton's laws are great for lifef here on earth (Newton got us to the moon) but Einstein's modifications gave us GPS and such, so there may be a benefit. Because we can test and prove/disprove--its sort of exciting--we can actually do something rather than pontificate about theories--we can go test it. So that's cool--even if it turns out to be a dead end. Experimental Science guys get a woody over this cause usually they find something they can't explain and theory has to catch up. Lately the theory dorks have been putting out crap we can't test so how much fun is that.


TLDR:
New theory is actually testable which means we can go do some measurements instead of just bullshitting in journals all day.


I'll put away my physics boner now and go load salt in my water softener.

I agree that while I thought Einstein was trying replace Newton, what he effectively did was uphold Newton and also upheld causality. And that is why the EPR Event is seen, in my mind, as conflicting with both causality and the Special Theory of Relativity.

As for the water softening, I don't know. But I heard they are making water that turns the frogs gay.

 

[brianf]

You just quoted a post that talks about electromagnetic microscopes being used to observe electrons, while stating that we can’t prove they exist. Are you taking too many of those medications you manufacture?

Could be..I must have missed that lol

I’ll edit it on the bottom I’m stupid

 

[Defiantly_Not_Bender]

Okay, I know that many of you have zero interests in advanced quantum physics, but a few of you might find this very interesting.

I am just posting the link as I know that many of you automatically skip anything more than two sentences long…

Information could be a fundamental part of the universe, and may explain dark energy and dark matter

For more than a century, physics has been built on two great theories. Einstein's general relativity explains gravity as the bending of space and time.

phys.org

One of the most interesting books I’ve read lately is about quantum physics.

Ontological Shock level of information.

 

[Defiantly_Not_Bender]

We exist in the mind of God. It all makes sense once you realize this.

Close. We are conscious entities with free will. We are our own beings with our own ideas and thoughts that are only known to us (and God) but can share information through different mediums and communications. The fact that we experience anything at all, proves this.

 

[Defiantly_Not_Bender]

Can you re-format this into a coupla memes and gifs?

Actually this is a great point. We communicate with agreement of random symbolic shapes and images that convey information that can be expressed from one conscious entity to another. The original thought or experience one has but wishes to be shared with another must use a medium (alphabet or esoteric symbolic imagery) (memes)

I contend that memes are an extremely efficient form of symbolic communication because it can condense hundreds if not thousands of words in a simple image or two combined with a few simple words.

Symbolism is a very old if not the oldest form of communication between conscious entities since the beginning of time.

 

[Defiantly_Not_Bender]

Until we prove gravity not just “the math works”, I’m skeptical on quantum theories and advanced thought based purely on math with no physical proof.

But that’s just me

Your thoughts that originated in your consciousness came before spacetime existed. Consciousness is fundamental not spacetime.

 

[Defiantly_Not_Bender]

If a fourth dimension is time, what if there is a fifth dimension? I speculate a fifth dimension would be perspective.
How can one measure perspective?
I've always been skeptical of quantum physics. This is the first forum I've ever found myself in a position to mention this idea.

We can not comprehend the mind of God as he is infinite. But saying something doesn’t exist just because it can’t be measured is false. The smell of your wifes favorite perfume that brings back memories or the taste of a perfect rib-eye is just as real as the chair on which you sit. Science has been used to hide the reality of our actual nature as independent conscious beings.

 

[Defiantly_Not_Bender]

Wait till we talk about simulation theory. Our reality is only the GUI on a computer.

 

[Defiantly_Not_Bender]

Sorry, I am a super nerd on this topic.

You have all been warned.

 

[Mike Casselton]

I agree that while I thought Einstein was trying replace Newton, what he effectively did was uphold Newton and also upheld causality. And that is why the EPR Event is seen, in my mind, as conflicting with both causality and the Special Theory of Relativity.

As for the water softening, I don't know. But I heard they are making water that turns the frogs gay.

Down here, they removed the Floor-Ride, so maybe they'll straighten up.

 

[Skeptic1]

But saying something doesn’t exist just because it can’t be measured is false.

I didn't say this at all.

I said "how can perspective be measured?".
I didn't say it can't be measured.

I then said "I'm skeptical of quantum physics."
I did not say it does not exist.

See what I mean? Perspective is a bitch

 

[lash]

Down here, they removed the Floor-Ride, so maybe they'll straighten up.

But if we remove the Floor-Ride from Florida, then that leaves only the Duh!

 

[Defiantly_Not_Bender]

I didn't say this at all.

I said "how can perspective be measured?".
I didn't say it can't be measured.

I then said "I'm skeptical of quantum physics."
I did not say it does not exist.

See what I mean? Perspective is a bitch

Quantum physics is just a word for trying to explain how things are happening. I guess I’m confused what you’re skeptical of then.

 

[Defiantly_Not_Bender]

The Mandelbrot Set

This was a mathematical formula that wasn’t fully discovered until we had the computing power of the late 70s or early 80s to flesh it out.

The Mandelbrot set is the collection of all complex numbers c for which the iteration z \to z^2 + c (starting at z=0) never blows up — producing one of the most famous fractals in math.

As you repeat the algorithm or essentially zoom in, it goes on forever, creating different patterns and repeating the same shape occasionally as in the image above.

Why is it important? The math. Or math in general. We (humans) didn’t invent math, we discovered it. 1+1=2 is fundamental. It’s true outside of spacetime.

Short




Full version

 

[Defiantly_Not_Bender]

 

[Skeptic1]

Quantum physics is just a word for trying to explain how things are happening. I guess I’m confused what you’re skeptical of then.

I'm skeptical of theories being presented as science when at best they are a guess.

 

[Defiantly_Not_Bender]

Donald Hoffman theorizes that reality is just a GUI simulation like Windows running on a desktop. Reality isn’t the computer, it’s just the cursor clicking on links and opening files to other information that is fundamental outside of spacetime.

 

[Defiantly_Not_Bender]

I'm skeptical of theories being presented as science when at best they are a guess.

The good scientists like Hoffman and Faggin understand it it’s just theory. When scientists are honest with each other, they admit it it’s just granting each other assumptions and building on top of those. Electricity and electronics are still taught as theory even though the device you’re holding in your hand, obviously works.

 

[lash]

I'm skeptical of theories being presented as science when at best they are a guess.

Theory is as integral to the scientific process as any other aspect. Theory and supposition is how the human mind works. Otherwise we would be incapable of making even the simplest decisions. It’s all our personal theories and the accompanying experiences that make us capable of judging what we should do outside of breathing and other auto-functions.

 

[Defiantly_Not_Bender]

Theory is as integral to the scientific process as any other aspect. Theory and supposition is how the human mind works. Otherwise we would be incapable of making even the simplest decisions. It’s all our personal theories and the accompanying experiences that make us capable of judging what we should do outside of breathing and other auto-functions.

I'm skeptical of theories being presented as science when at best they are a guess.

To further agree with you, scientism or individuals who think like mainstream so-called accepted scientists who promote theories as fact. There is a majority of them who think that if it cannot be measured, it does not exist. With the information we have today that is a very sophomoric and juvenile take. Neil Tyson Degrassi, or the fake scientist promoted as real like Bill Nye, the science guy fall into this category.

True science is a spectrum and will continually welcome and invite questioning the subject matter as that is exactly how progress is made. We can grant each other other assumptions and build on them from there.

Ego and hubris, unfortunately are extremely prevalent in academia. They never want to be proven wrong, which, as a construct is a fallacy in and of itself. We have to continually remain humble and be quick to say we simply don’t understand rather than worry about a bruised ego, such as a child would.

To wrap up my rambling, I 1000% agree with your position as it is extremely frustrating.

 

[flogxal]

TLDR:
New theory is actually testable which means we can go do some measurements instead of just bullshitting in journals all day.


I'll put away my physics boner now and go load salt in my water softener.

Thanks Doc. Actually testable, now that is something. Time to put the word salad to experimental mettle.

I did my ugrad in Bio. There is no "theoretical biology" of any repute. There shouldn't be for physics either.

 

[lash]

Thanks Doc. Actually testable, now that is something. Time to put the word salad to experimental mettle.

I did my ugrad in Bio. There is no "theoretical biology" of any repute. There shouldn't be for physics either.

Hmm, really? So you are saying that the Theory of Evolution didn’t exist? Or is that not biology?

 

[lash]

Thanks Doc. Actually testable, now that is something. Time to put the word salad to experimental mettle.

I did my ugrad in Bio. There is no "theoretical biology" of any repute. There shouldn't be for physics either.

You really seem hung up on the word “theory”. Why is that? Would you agree that hypothesis and theory are similar?

 

[Skeptic1]

Theory is as integral to the scientific process as any other aspect. Theory and supposition is how the human mind works. Otherwise we would be incapable of making even the simplest decisions. It’s all our personal theories and the accompanying experiences that make us capable of judging what we should do outside of breathing and other auto-functions.

As I said...... perspective

 

[Mike Casselton]

But if we remove the Floor-Ride from Florida, then that leaves only the Duh!

Have you been outside lately?

The Duh!, has taken over.

I love this thread. It forces me to think about bigger stuff than earth

 

[DocRDS]

I go the hospital for one day! I swear....

I agree that while I thought Einstein was trying replace Newton, what he effectively did was uphold Newton and also upheld causality. And that is why the EPR Event is seen, in my mind, as conflicting with both causality and the Special Theory of Relativity.

As for the water softening, I don't know. But I heard they are making water that turns the frogs gay.

The "origin" of special relativity was actually how to bring back the "all laws are the same regardless of reference frame" a la Galileo. The paper was titled (English Translation) On the Electrodynamics of Moving Particles. It also offered a solution to measuring the speed of light in the ethe and failure to detect the ether. However the original paper only dealt with non-accelerated frames (no forces upon them). When expanded to general relativity, (frames of reference WITH forces) is when he modifed Newton's laws.

I didn't say this at all.

I said "how can perspective be measured?".
I didn't say it can't be measured.

I then said "I'm skeptical of quantum physics."
I did not say it does not exist.

See what I mean? Perspective is a bitch

While "quantum" is a buzzword thrown at everything, quantim physics is probably one of the most rigorously tested theories out there. Its stupid accurate to the point beyond which we can measure. Even the weird shit (spooky action at a distance). We can actually demonstrate that. So its not just math. You can be skeptical all you want. There is no evidence that Quantum Mechanics is flawed at a fundamental level. It may be incomplete in certain instances, but those are edge cases (and still exciting because new physics!). Most of our modern world is built on QM. Yes its a "theory" A theory with more testing than an asian child going to Harvard (and Fuck Harvard btw, just sayin)

The Mandelbrot Set

View attachment 8777293

This was a mathematical formula that wasn’t fully discovered until we had the computing power of the late 70s or early 80s to flesh it out.

The Mandelbrot set is the collection of all complex numbers c for which the iteration z \to z^2 + c (starting at z=0) never blows up — producing one of the most famous fractals in math.

As you repeat the algorithm or essentially zoom in, it goes on forever, creating different patterns and repeating the same shape occasionally as in the image above.

Why is it important? The math. Or math in general. We (humans) didn’t invent math, we discovered it. 1+1=2 is fundamental. It’s true outside of spacetime.

Short




Full version

I'll just drop this here for your interest

Thanks Doc. Actually testable, now that is something. Time to put the word salad to experimental mettle.

I did my ugrad in Bio. There is no "theoretical biology" of any repute. There shouldn't be for physics either.

That's like your opinion man. Theory gets a bad name. But if you can test the theory, it can lead to greater understanding. Its just logic. If A and B happen, then by logic, so should C. So lets go find C. Did we find it? No--fix the theory. Yes? Ok well that means D should equal 5. Does it equal 5? etc.... Its when you get these hare-brained theories that make no predictions that you have a problem. Don't bag on biology--it is grounded in statistics. A ton of our statistical tools come from biology.

Things like tunneling--a key part of your hard drive, were first theories before they were tested. Now you buy it off the shelf at best buy/amazon. Gravitational waves. Long held a theory--verified experimentally. Gravitational lensing. GPS is based on time dilation.


I know its cool in the pit to be "Anti-Science" (Thanks Covid Vaxine) but there has been a lot of good work done and you are free to reject it. Just be careful if we point out that you are typing out your response on the very thing you are skeptical off. Again tunneling WAS a theory. THen it was found, and now its the standard hard drive re-write head.

Time dilation was a theory--and now your phone uses it (along with other quantum effects) to tell you your location.

 

[lash]

I go the hospital for one day! I swear....

But seriously. Were you there for you or others?

 

[lash]

I go the hospital for one day! I swear....

The "origin" of special relativity was actually how to bring back the "all laws are the same regardless of reference frame" a la Galileo. The paper was titled (English Translation) On the Electrodynamics of Moving Particles. It also offered a solution to measuring the speed of light in the ethe and failure to detect the ether. However the original paper only dealt with non-accelerated frames (no forces upon them). When expanded to general relativity, (frames of reference WITH forces) is when he modifed Newton's laws.



While "quantum" is a buzzword thrown at everything, quantim physics is probably one of the most rigorously tested theories out there. Its stupid accurate to the point beyond which we can measure. Even the weird shit (spooky action at a distance). We can actually demonstrate that. So its not just math. You can be skeptical all you want. There is no evidence that Quantum Mechanics is flawed at a fundamental level. It may be incomplete in certain instances, but those are edge cases (and still exciting because new physics!). Most of our modern world is built on QM. Yes its a "theory" A theory with more testing than an asian child going to Harvard (and Fuck Harvard btw, just sayin)


I'll just drop this here for your interest





That's like your opinion man. Theory gets a bad name. But if you can test the theory, it can lead to greater understanding. Its just logic. If A and B happen, then by logic, so should C. So lets go find C. Did we find it? No--fix the theory. Yes? Ok well that means D should equal 5. Does it equal 5? etc.... Its when you get these hare-brained theories that make no predictions that you have a problem. Don't bag on biology--it is grounded in statistics. A ton of our statistical tools come from biology.

Things like tunneling--a key part of your hard drive, were first theories before they were tested. Now you buy it off the shelf at best buy/amazon. Gravitational waves. Long held a theory--verified experimentally. Gravitational lensing. GPS is based on time dilation.


I know its cool in the pit to be "Anti-Science" (Thanks Covid Vaxine) but there has been a lot of good work done and you are free to reject it. Just be careful if we point out that you are typing out your response on the very thing you are skeptical off. Again tunneling WAS a theory. THen it was found, and now its the standard hard drive re-write head.

Time dilation was a theory--and now your phone uses it (along with other quantum effects) to tell you your location.

This is great stuff! thanks.

 

[Defiantly_Not_Bender]

I go the hospital for one day! I swear....

The "origin" of special relativity was actually how to bring back the "all laws are the same regardless of reference frame" a la Galileo. The paper was titled (English Translation) On the Electrodynamics of Moving Particles. It also offered a solution to measuring the speed of light in the ethe and failure to detect the ether. However the original paper only dealt with non-accelerated frames (no forces upon them). When expanded to general relativity, (frames of reference WITH forces) is when he modifed Newton's laws.



While "quantum" is a buzzword thrown at everything, quantim physics is probably one of the most rigorously tested theories out there. Its stupid accurate to the point beyond which we can measure. Even the weird shit (spooky action at a distance). We can actually demonstrate that. So its not just math. You can be skeptical all you want. There is no evidence that Quantum Mechanics is flawed at a fundamental level. It may be incomplete in certain instances, but those are edge cases (and still exciting because new physics!). Most of our modern world is built on QM. Yes its a "theory" A theory with more testing than an asian child going to Harvard (and Fuck Harvard btw, just sayin)


I'll just drop this here for your interest





That's like your opinion man. Theory gets a bad name. But if you can test the theory, it can lead to greater understanding. Its just logic. If A and B happen, then by logic, so should C. So lets go find C. Did we find it? No--fix the theory. Yes? Ok well that means D should equal 5. Does it equal 5? etc.... Its when you get these hare-brained theories that make no predictions that you have a problem. Don't bag on biology--it is grounded in statistics. A ton of our statistical tools come from biology.

Things like tunneling--a key part of your hard drive, were first theories before they were tested. Now you buy it off the shelf at best buy/amazon. Gravitational waves. Long held a theory--verified experimentally. Gravitational lensing. GPS is based on time dilation.


I know its cool in the pit to be "Anti-Science" (Thanks Covid Vaxine) but there has been a lot of good work done and you are free to reject it. Just be careful if we point out that you are typing out your response on the very thing you are skeptical off. Again tunneling WAS a theory. THen it was found, and now its the standard hard drive re-write head.

Time dilation was a theory--and now your phone uses it (along with other quantum effects) to tell you your location.

I’ve seen that one. And how it ties into the Mandelbrot Set. Another amazing one is Game Theory. I equate it to why you know who wants to destroy White Christians. lol it has vast implications

 

[Sean the Nailer]

Actually this is a great point. We communicate with agreement of random symbolic shapes and images that convey information that can be expressed from one conscious entity to another. The original thought or experience one has but wishes to be shared with another must use a medium (alphabet or esoteric symbolic imagery) (memes)

I contend that memes are an extremely efficient form of symbolic communication because it can condense hundreds if not thousands of words in a simple image or two combined with a few simple words.

Symbolism is a very old if not the oldest form of communication between conscious entities since the beginning of time.

Cave-Meme's.

 

[Defiantly_Not_Bender]

Cave-Meme's.

Exactly

 

[flogxal]

Doc, what I meant literally is that I don't think "theoretical" is a branch, I think it's an integral part of the process. In physics for some reason it gets its own niche, which from my outsider POV looks more like sci-fi musings. Those what ifs should be part of the scientist's daily view, not a separate niche to create cartoon fodder for Sat AM cartoons set "in the future."

But since I didn't focus on physics (not minor, def not BS category) maybe I don't get why it has its own niche. I see only the publications that remind me of a more elaborate Popular Science / Popular Mechanics article from the 1960s/70s.

@lash -- your question above was a good one, hope my answer above to DocRDS explains what I meant.