"I'm still hoping to have it published in Dec. 2012 in order to take advantage of the expected 'paradigm shift' in how we view the universe."-Pat
Well I hope you have it published on the first of the month, I would like to have a week to read it and the remaining five days to medidtate on the concepts. LOL! On May 11, 7:19 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > On 11 May, 02:04, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I would have to agree archy that your illusion of a "perfectly" > > connected machine is premature at best, there are just too many > > unanswered variables concerning quantum mesh theories. I know you have > > connected some serious dots but when I see your surname amidst the > > list of notable physicists a change in perception may be in order, in > > other words, how is the book coming along? > > Yeah, not badly. I just need to put all the data into a logically > flowing format that nicely leads from one topic to the next. Plus, > carefully word things so as to avoid fatwas. This latter bit is what > I'm researching now. It seems that Islam forbids the discussion of > God's 'essence' (based on an hadith rather than any quote from the > Qur'an) and, as that is exactly what I do, I need to word my arguments > carefully by qualifications. I think the key point is that, whilst I > equate God's essence with energy, physics/science doesn't have a > 'clear' idea of what energy looks like and THAT'S my way out. > Certainly, potential energy has no appearance (just lift a pencil and > note the changes in the appearance of the pencil) and there are so > many forms of kinetic energy (and with that, I include thermal, > gravitational, sound, elastic and everything that isn't 'potential') > that it seems to have no 'single apearance' at the quantum level; so, > there's my way out THERE. My reliance on the original 26-dimensional > string theory also allows me to discuss energy in terms of 'forces' > and these forces seem to have no real appearance either. And, of > course, there's the plain fact that, if you ask a string theorist, > "what, exactly, does a string look like?" the response would be..."I > dunno. We can't see them." So, by pointing all that out, I should be > fairly safe. Although, I KNOW there's no way to please everybody, at > least I can put the concept out there. I'm still hoping to have it > published in Dec. 2012 in order to take advantage of the expected > 'paradigm shift' in how we view the universe. > > > > > On May 10, 8:03 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 9 May, 00:31, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Entanglement is the idea that particles can be linked in such a way > > > > that changing the quantum state of one instantaneously affects the > > > > other, even if they are light years apart. I'm always interested in > > > > "spooky action at a distance", or any serious blow to our conception > > > > of how the world works. In 1964, physicist John Bell calculated a > > > > mathematical inequality that encapsulated the maximum correlation > > > > between the states of remote particles in experiments in which three > > > > "reasonable" conditions hold: that experimenters have free will in > > > > setting things up as they want; that the particle properties being > > > > measured are real and pre-existing, not just popping up at the time of > > > > measurement; and that no influence travels faster than the speed of > > > > light, the cosmic speed limit. Many experiments since have shown that > > > > quantum mechanics regularly violates Bell's inequality, yielding > > > > levels of correlation way above those possible if his conditions hold. > > > > That pitches us into a philosophical dilemma. Do we not have free > > > > will, meaning something, somehow predetermines what measurements we > > > > take? That is not anyone's first choice. Are the properties of quantum > > > > particles not real - implying that nothing is real at all, but exists > > > > merely as a result of our perception? That's a more popular position, > > > > but it hardly leaves us any the wiser. Or is there really an > > > > influence that travels faster than light? In 2008 physicist Nicolas > > > > Gisin and his colleagues at the University of Geneva showed that, if > > > > reality and free will hold, the speed of transfer of quantum states > > > > between entangled photons held in two villages 18 kilometres apart was > > > > somewhere above 10 million times the speed of light (Nature, vol 454, > > > > p 861). > > > > This is not the science that lets us build stuff, but I do feel some > > > > kind of buzz about not being quite so trapped by the rather crude > > > > inevitability of being stuck with the limitations of the speed of > > > > light. > > > > Isn't it far simpler to just accept that the two photons are tied > > > together in a dimension outside our line of sight? That's my proposal > > > via string theory and, if true, makes the speed actually instantaneous > > > rather thna some multiple of C that, for all intents and purposes > > > SEEMS instantaneous. In fact, as you know, I propose that ALL quanta > > > are constantly entangled and, whilst we only see entanglement when we > > > isolate specific quanta, entanglement is the natural state of all > > > quanta and is what ties all the universe into one completely > > > interactive and interdependent 'thing'. It seems that science keeps > > > trying to contrive around entanglement when, in my opinion, it should > > > accept that it is the natural and normal state of affairs and that the > > > state of entanglement is a constant feature of quanta--the one that > > > joins them into one perfectly connected machine.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
