God and Quantum Mechanics

[Dancing David]

I understood it to be velocity, not vector? Genuinely asking, as I am wondering if there's some subtlety I don't know. Thank you!

I am not an expert but it involves the momentum which is vector times mass.

 

[Dancing David]

Hi David,

The uncertainty principle, most associated with the universal expression of [latex]\Delta p \Delta x \approx h/2[/latex] where any cetainty in momentum [latex]p[/latex] such as an observation causing a collapse in the wave function [latex]\int_{\Omega} |\psi|^2[/latex] (which is maybe what you meant ?) makes the position [latex]x[/latex] more indetermined. If God knew everything, then these attributes such as location and position would be simultaneously known if he was all-knowing, completely omnipotent. This causes a violation, hence why i suggested a possiblity of a God doing this, due to the two scientists paper i had shown. The absolute values (which by i think you mean a collapse in the wave function) would be suffice to suggest that God can violate the uncertainty principle following the mathematical laws contained within the paper, which suggest you can know for certainty within the present time the location and position of a particle if you are able to make a measurement of the particles position or trajectory in the past, and its remaining path or trajectory in the future, an know both without properly violating the laws of quantum mechanics. This is given as a mechanism.

The wave function does not collapse and you are stating things that you can not demonstrate.

Absolute values are not possible in QM.

 

[Dancing David]

The quantum waves in which you are referring to, do not normally cancel out for billions upon billions of lightyears. Even my wave function, albiet, as small as it is, it still extends way past pluto due to the statistical nature of the wave function. Space and time is scrammbled with this ghostly potential information in the form of the wave function, it even governs entire stars and planets, and even the entire universe, as you would find from a Wheeler-de Witt Equation of the universe, where time has no value or energy change.

I was using the term to convery an idea and I phrased it as such, I know why you post here.

You get slaughtered in SMT. So you ramble here where your speculative nonsense fits in with the rest of philosophy.

 

[Dancing David]

Wait a minute. Before i even address your post entirely, are you refuting the fact that special relativity does not use conscious measuring observers i.e. us? Humans? Such as the twin paradox perhaps?

Ooops time to leave the thread.


You have broken down, debating the word salad is not productive.

Later.

 

[Satra]

okay people, that starts to get a little tooooo complicated for me.

Neither am I scientist nor do I have a special ability for scientific language and equations, and my notions of the English language are basic ones.

And as we discuss about partly similar notions with divergences in the detail and I really don't get all the words and am not sure about all grammatical constructions, I get a brain like cabbage-soup (perhaps a feeling similar to your when reading my posts).

so I'll start to begin to try to analyze your texts and see later if I have something of interest to say.

 

[sol invictus]

The uncertainty principle, most associated with the universal expression of [latex]\Delta p \Delta x \approx h/2[/latex] where any cetainty in momentum [latex]p[/latex] such as an observation causing a collapse in the wave function [latex]\int_{\Omega} |\psi|^2[/latex] (which is maybe what you meant ?) makes the position [latex]x[/latex] more indetermined. If God knew everything, then these attributes such as location and position would be simultaneously known if he was all-knowing, completely omnipotent.

No, not really. In standard quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle is not an expression of ignorance - it's an expression of fact. The particle simply doesn't posses a well-defined position and momentum. You could know everything there is to know - which means the wave function of everything, exactly - and still not know x and p precisely.

The absolute values (which by i think you mean a collapse in the wave function) would be suffice to suggest that God can violate the uncertainty principle following the mathematical laws contained within the paper, which suggest you can know for certainty within the present time the location and position of a particle if you are able to make a measurement of the particles position or trajectory in the past, and its remaining path or trajectory in the future, an know both without properly violating the laws of quantum mechanics.

Do you mean, the absolute value signs as in [latex]$ | \psi|^2$[/latex]? If so, they have absolutely nothing to do with collapse. They mean absolute value.

Wait a minute. Before i even address your post entirely, are you refuting the fact that special relativity does not use conscious measuring observers i.e. us? Humans? Such as the twin paradox perhaps?

Does not "use"? What is that supposed to mean? It applies to conscious observers, just as it does to clocks, rocks, and socks.

 

[Singularitarian]

Special relativity doesn't give a whit for conscious observers. It cares about inertial reference frames, which are defined purely with respect to physics.

We usually teach it by making up problems involving conscious observers, but only because it's easier to ask a student to visualize things like "what does Bob feel when the rocket accelerates?" rather than "how much has the comoving clock elapsed when the test particle strikes it?" or whatever. (We do the same thing with Galilean relativity. "One observer is in a car moving at 5 kph ...", but you would not say that Newton's Laws have a privileged position for conscious observers.)

We are important in relativity, as we act as sufficient measuring devices. Einstein included the human observer many times in his relativity examples, which makes his theory observer-dependant.

 

[Singularitarian]

No, not really. In standard quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle is not an expression of ignorance - it's an expression of fact. The particle simply doesn't posses a well-defined position and momentum. You could know everything there is to know - which means the wave function of everything, exactly - and still not know x and p precisely.



Do you mean, the absolute value signs as in [latex]$ | \psi|^2$[/latex]? If so, they have absolutely nothing to do with collapse. They mean absolute value.



Does not "use"? What is that supposed to mean? It applies to conscious observers, just as it does to clocks, rocks, and socks.

Sol, i can tell you don't really know physics. Afterall, what sane scientist would refute this [latex]\int_{\Omega} |\psi|^2[/latex] as a collapse in the wave function, or at least, a mathematical statistical description of it. Just wikipedia it. You'll find it i am sure in one form or another, maybe Dirac Notation.

 

[ben m]

Sol, i can tell you don't really know physics. Afterall, what sane scientist would refute this [latex]\int_{\Omega} |\psi|^2[/latex] as a collapse in the wave function, or at least, a mathematical statistical description of it. Just wikipedia it. You'll find it i am sure in one form or another, maybe Dirac Notation.

Sing, this is the Nth time you have taken the "anyone who says I'm wrong must be ill-educated" approach. It hasn't worked yet. Stop it.

I have no idea what your [latex]\int_{\Omega} |\psi|^2[/latex] is meant to express. If you think it represents some sort of collapse---well, there's not even an operator in there; what eigenvector space do you think you're collapsing to? If you think it represents [latex]\langle \psi \mid \psi \rangle[/latex], please note that this is just a normalization factor and not an observable.

 

[ben m]

Einstein included the human observer many times in his relativity examples, which makes his theory observer-dependant.

Is his theory also dependent on windowless elevators? Twins? Rockets?

 

[lionking]

Sol, i can tell you don't really know physics. Afterall, what sane scientist would refute this

as a collapse in the wave function, or at least, a mathematical statistical description of it. Just wikipedia it. You'll find it i am sure in one form or another, maybe Dirac Notation.

Of all the amazing, ignorant posts I have seen in this forum, this one clearly takes the cake.

This post (and many others by you which preceded it) is trollish and extremely disrespectful.

 

[Dancing David]

Sol, i can tell you don't really know physics. Afterall, what sane scientist would refute this [latex]\int_{\Omega} |\psi|^2[/latex] as a collapse in the wave function, or at least, a mathematical statistical description of it. Just wikipedia it. You'll find it i am sure in one form or another, maybe Dirac Notation.

Oh wow.

 

[Upchurch]

We are important in relativity, as we act as sufficient measuring devices. Einstein included the human observer many times in his relativity examples, which makes his theory observer-dependant.

He also used just clocks, rods, and barns. Time to actually read a book on Relativity.

Fail.

 

[Singularitarian]

Sing, this is the Nth time you have taken the "anyone who says I'm wrong must be ill-educated" approach. It hasn't worked yet. Stop it.

I have no idea what your

is meant to express. If you think it represents some sort of collapse---well, there's not even an operator in there; what eigenvector space do you think you're collapsing to? If you think it represents

, please note that this is just a normalization factor and not an observable.

Edited by Professor Yaffle: 

Edited to remove incivility

Seriously, for it has nothing to do with an ''ill-approach.''

If the man had asked genuinely what it meant, without coming in here and ridiculing my level of knowledge, which might not be vast, nevertheless, my response was the total antithesis of his comment.

 

[Singularitarian]

And the integral ben... i am
surprised you do not know it. The integral expresses the domain (or the point of collapse of some wave [latex]\psi[/latex]). The definition of the integral is the collapse of the wave function itself. You just showed a notation of the same context, but one which doesn't take into respect time.

 

[Singularitarian]

He also used just clocks, rods, and barns. Time to actually read a book on Relativity.

Fail.

Yes he did, but his theory initiates awareness, the knowledge of time passing more slowely for observers. Why doesn't anyone understand this makes his theory observer-dependant... its quite simple really, inavoidable. Telling me it is not observer-dependant, is like telling me a Mars Bar has no chocolate.

 

[Singularitarian]

Of all the amazing, ignorant posts I have seen in this forum, this one clearly takes the cake.

This post (and many others by you which preceded it) is trollish and extremely disrespectful.

lol

Yes, there is an ignorance, i can see it quite clearly. Tell me, you aren't serious?

As a mathematical expression, it speaks for itself.

 

[Singularitarian]

Is his theory also dependent on windowless elevators? Twins? Rockets?

It does require experimentation, at least.

With the elevator, it came as a surprising example, but still truely observer-dependant. If there was no dependency, then his theory would account for nothing, for where would our experience to correlate with his model?

Twins are just an example of the required observers, who can in theory measure distortions in time. This is purely observer-dependant.

And rockets... well... I don't know why you chose that. His theory suffices for any body moving at relativistic speeds. Only difference is, is that it cannot be applied to one observer, such as an atom. It requires all inertial observers, including us.

 

[lionking]

lol

Tell me, you aren't serious?

I am completely serious. Your posts are mainly ignorant and disrespectful.

 

[Singularitarian]

Do you say everything is disprespectful if you don't understand it?

If you don't understand it, it means not i am being meaningfully disrespectful or ignorant. The last choice of word however, is kind of hypocrotical if this is the case.