Indeed Sam, he cannot. To put it in a nutshell G.M. does not know whereof he speaks. He ignores more than just Q.M. Alan Aspects's 1982 telepathic particles follow more simply from waves and or wavicles which follow more obviously from the fields they are embedded in. Actually particles are now interpreted as knots or standing waves. Math is still used and uses particle soup which is a convention in temporary use until math comes up with something better. "" We have found a strange footprint on the shores of the unknown. We have devised profound theories, one after another, to account for its origins. At last, we have succeeded in reconstructing the creature that made the footprint. And lo! It is our own." by Sir Arthur Eddington, Space, Time, and Gravitation, 1920 which is by now almost commonplace. In Process philosophy and Information theory info transfer is immediate.
To take it further Science Fiction is in trouble because recent findings are weirder than imagined once by S.F. It does not surprise me as most older SF was written by Physics qualified people. FI E.E. Smith SF was Paul Linebarger Double Ph.D with honours. adrian Sam Carana wrote: > You say that the cutting edge of physics is currently the Unified > Theory, George. And I believe that we both distrust efforts to come up > with a single theory to explain all phenomena. The 10-dimensional > model is purely theoretical, and it's an extension of conventional > dimensions, which is probably why it's welcomed by conventional > physics. But let's face it, QM does not fit in easily with > conventional physics, if at all. In your case, George, I believe that > you prefer to ignore QM. > > Having said that, I should explain. I believe that you're not ignoring > QM for as far as it can be explained in terms of conventional physics. > I believe you're ignoring the importance of entanglement as a > phenomenon, Georges. You say that Phenomena happen in Reality and that > they must be verifiable. But entanglement can hardly be described in > terms of conventional physics, if at all. You say that entangled > particles just have opposite spins. But their spin is no coincidence > and the FACT that if one changes, the other one, even when miles away, > will also change THAT VERY INSTANT, that is what baffles conventional > physics. > > You say that the claim is that by measuring one I know the other, but > if by measuring you mean unleashing an apparatus of physical forces > upon the entangled particles, you shouldn't be surprised that this > will change the bond (Heidegger). We don't need to measure the status > of entangled particles through a battery of tests, because it's is of > a simple yes/no type. If measuring means making something comply to > conventional physics, then QM is indeed hard to measure. If we trust > the qualities of the entangled pair, then we don't need to measure, we > can presume their relationship on the basis of QM. > > So, can we make such presumptions? Can we have any presumptions? I > believe we always presume some things, whatever we state, so let's > just try and identify our presumptions, rather than argue about what > follows from that. The point is that QM contradicts conventional > physics, which is precisely why it can hardly be described in terms of > conventional physics. The basic problem of conventional physics is > that it starts from a basis of presumed certainty. QM challenges this > presumption. When one's calculations don't add up, one can keep > checking one's calculations for errors, OR if that doesn't help, one > can revise one's presumptions. Some delve into Chaos Theory, others > fabricate further dimensions. By contrast, I prefer to presume that > there is diversity, before certainty > > Cheers! > Sam Carana > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
