Quantum Mechanics and String Theory are insanely complex fields of study that is beyond my ability to grasp. However, some simple experiments that have been conducted in studying this has blown my mind.
I wonder if any of you guys have looked into this at all, and am curious as to what it means....
Ignore the title of this video, I only post this because it has a great visual explanation of the Two-Slit Experiment.
This experiment showed that matter only exists as a result of observation. I still don't understand how observation creates matter, only that it does.
Not only does observation create matter, but it gives that matter a history and a backstory. Crazy!
So, if all matter, and reality, exists only as a result of observation, then.....ummm.... what or who is the original observer? It would have to be something or someone outside of matter and material reality.... wouldn't it?
I don't fully grasp the science but using their terms, particles aren't particles until they are observed. Until then, they are "potentials" or "probabilities".
Observing causes the probability to collapse into matter, creating a particle, and giving it it's nuclear properties.
Like I said, I don't fully grasp it.
For Quantum computing however, Instead of having a bit that can be either a 1 or a 0, we have q-bits that are neither 1's nor 0's but the sum of both. Meaning they are in a superstate in which they are both a 1 and a 0.... sort of...
I dunno. I just know that we have quantum computers, and they work. The mechanics require far more study into physics than I have, that's for sure.
The thing that impresses me though is how they claim that observation itself creates....
"Although unseen, the Lord is always near to those who believe in Him and trust Him and depend on Him for the strength to meet the challenges of life"
"All material things, the universe, the world, even our bodies, may be Eternal Thought expressed in time and space. The more the physicists and astronomers reduce matter, the more it becomes a mathematical formula, which is thought. In the final analysis, matter is thought. When Eternal Thought expresses itself within the framework of space and time, it becomes matter. Our thought, within the box of space and time, cannot know anything firsthand, except material things. But we can deduce that outside the box of space and time is Eternal Thought, which we can call God."
Quantum mechanics and theory are fascinating for me. I think of looking deep into a clear black night sky, deep into the light of the stars, finding myself lost in the depth of what I see.
This experiment showed that matter only exists as a result of observation. I still don't understand how observation creates matter, only that it does.
Not only does observation create matter, but it gives that matter a history and a backstory. Crazy!
So, if all matter, and reality, exists only as a result of observation, then.....ummm.... what or who is the original observer? It would have to be something or someone outside of matter and material reality.... wouldn't it?
Pick up Feynman's "QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter." Written based on four lectures on quantum electrodynamics for non-scientists. Feynman was exceptionally good at explaining things.
Hint: Nobody knows how it all works, probably a meaningless question. What we can do is predict what will happen under stated conditions.
Hint 2: Forget waves. Why do we assume light only goes in straight lines? Maybe it only appears to do that in conditions we encounter in every day life.
Easy answer to the two slit thing, you're changing the conditions of the experiment. Photon goes source-slit-screen. Photon goes source-slit-detector THEN detector-screen. Now two steps.
============
Oh yeah, skip string theory, it's all a big guess and I think probably untestable. Quantum electrodynamics has been tested for decades and hasn't been found to be in error (yet).
I'll certainly have to look into his book. I have to be the biggest nerd I know. I start down a path learning about something and the next thing I know, I'm consumed by it. It occupies my every thought for a few days until I encounter the next thing that does this...
This week, it's quantum mechanics...
The thing that gets me about the double slit experiment isn't so much that particles such as photons and electrons can and do operate like waves, rather than particles, but rather when science wanted to know WHY they set up instruments to observe what happens when this stuff passes through the slits.
What happened was the interference patterns vanish, and just two lines appear where the particles went through the slits and impacted the sheet.
The act of observing changed everything. It changed the wave like behavior and the pattern that appeared on the sheet went from several lines to just the two.
The observation gave definition to the undefined. It changed probability into matter.
(Note I edited my post a bit, sometimes it doesn't come out of my head the clearest as I type.)
I'd bet QED would hold your interest. Be prepared for some bizarre ideas, our common sense notions of how things work are based on the observation of billions and billions (Sagan )of events interacting. A single event standing alone can seem quite different.
Waves came first, it was a practical model way back. Then Einstein showed clearly that photons were particles. Confusion ensued of course. Which will it be today, waves or particles? If you allow that photons don't necessarily move in straight lines you don't need to think of waves. Though wave theory remains as a convenient approximation and misleads schoolkids daily. It is easier to conceptualize, but it's approximation passed on as truth. Feynman explains it all, in steps.
Feynman explains the other stuff too, and more, so much better than I can.
Exactly! Matter only "exists" (according to QM) when an observation causes the infinite probabilities to collapse into a defined form.
Probabilities aren't infinite or we couldn't calculate them. I think Schrodinger's Cat was a misdirection. Have some thoughts on that but I don't know enough to know if they're half-baked or just silly.
My optician said the other day that just about all kids today are studying quantum physics more than anything else in college. A fast growing field and very interesting to the kids.
Light is both a wave and a particle. The real fun is trying to measure dark matter and/or dark energy. It's there but nobody can see it because it absorbers light.
Is dark matter and energy material and reality or is it not. Does anyone know for sure.
I have to be the biggest nerd I know. I start down a path learning about something and the next thing I know, I'm consumed by it. It occupies my every thought for a few days until I encounter the next thing that does this...
yeah we really didnt talk enough at the hog hunt im the biggest one i know too, to the point the vast majority of my science discussions happen with my microbiologist buddy over on the east coast cause no one near me is interested past the basics.....granted its more various aspects of biology than physics
All that I recall is that my college final exam in quantum mechanics was to derive the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in three dimensions. It was a "take home" exam (thinking piece of cake) with three days to work it (more cake), four problems in all (yes). It was pretty hairy calculus up the azz and I think I spent 30 hours on that one exam. That chit is for special minds.
I'm an engineer with a lot of electromagnetic involvement. I do believe that quantum mechanics & electromagnetic theories will merge or be related. The clues to the universe will evolve from electromagnetic theories. New methods of space travel based on electromagnetic matter & technologies that we can't even imagine today.
It's akin to Schrodinger's Cat where all possible realities exist simultaneously until the observer chooses which will be the constant. Thus, each observer choosing, if simultaneously and independent upon of each other, may well choose a different reality.
These scientific theories and descriptions of what is infinitely possible and how they are determined are fascinating. Are they a conception of God? Are they a manifestation of the ancient Taoist philosophies (read those with an open mind, compare to QM/QT)? Are they a conception of the nativistic Great Circle (again, read and compare)? Are they all simply saying the same thing? In some respects, they have to be (assuming QM/QT is true).
I suspect sitting 'round with you, rattler, nighthawk, and a few others could be rather fun.
(Note I edited my post a bit, sometimes it doesn't come out of my head the clearest as I type.)
I'd bet QED would hold your interest. Be prepared for some bizarre ideas, our common sense notions of how things work are based on the observation of billions and billions (Sagan )of events interacting. A single event standing alone can seem quite different.
Waves came first, it was a practical model way back. Then Einstein showed clearly that photons were particles. Confusion ensued of course. Which will it be today, waves or particles? If you allow that photons don't necessarily move in straight lines you don't need to think of waves. Though wave theory remains as a convenient approximation and misleads schoolkids daily. It is easier to conceptualize, but it's approximation passed on as truth. Feynman explains it all, in steps.
Feynman explains the other stuff too, and more, so much better than I can.
So, the duality of light is more than a duality then?
This stuff gets the queasions interacting in my stomach. Bizzare, wonderful and terrible is the universe, the theories try to get it knocked down to fit into our heads and how much of it is lost in that effort? The two slit is an enduring thrill, don't let it make you mad, let it make you smile. Having TWO slits is the choice.
What really blows my mind with the double slit experiment is what happens when you change the point of observation.
The original place was to observe the stuff passing through the slits. Observing it there changed the outcome from several parallel lines to just two, exactly like the slits.
When they moved the point of observation to the instant just before the stuff hits the sheet the exact same thing happened. Everything collapsed to just the two parallel lines.
The observation still created the electron but more than that, it gave it a history and determined that it always was the electron. Given that things exist as a probability rather than matter this makes sense. It always contained the probability that it would be an electron.
What gets me is that the observation collapsed the entire history of that probability and created the electron back in time.
HAJ, on of the authors fallacies is conflating measurement with observation. Ask yourself, how are these measurements being done? To date, we know of 4 fundamental forces, nuclear strong force, nuclear weak force, gravity, and the electromagnetic force. Especially early on, the sensors used in there experiments were large and used magnetic tape as their recording medium. In other words, the experimenters were turning on an electromagnet in their attempts to measure a mass-less particle. Modern physicist clarify this further stating, "It must be emphasized that measurement does not mean only a process in which a physicist-observer takes part, but rather any interaction between classical and quantum objects regardless of any observer.
In other words, the observer is irrelevant. It's the interaction between the quantum and classical worlds that cause the effects.
I believe, in these tests, observation means measure. So, I can see what you're saying but most things that I'm reading state that observation itself plays a crucial role.
Still, even if the interaction changes things, the fact it changes the entire historical existence is mind boggling to me.
I believe, in these tests, observation means measure. So, I can see what you're saying but most things that I'm reading state that observation itself plays a crucial role.
Still, even if the interaction changes things, the fact it changes the entire historical existence is mind boggling to me.
But it gets even more mind boggling. As velocity approaches the speed of light (C), the rate of the passage of time approaches zero. So imagine if a photon was sentient. At the moment of it's creation, it was traveling at the speed of light, and so long as it continues to travel at C from the point of view of the photon,time does not pass. It is only when some classical object such as the photon passing through a wine glass, water, or a sensor, that causes it to slow below the full speed of C that time actually passes for the photon, causing it to move from a timeless state, to a state of existing in time.
It's like the super-cooled beer you just pulled from your freezer. It's 29 degrees but still a liquid. However the slighted bump will cause an instant change of state from liquid to solid. Similarly the slightest interaction with a classical object causes the photon to change states.
Photons, which have no mass, still generate force when they collide with particles.... how?
Good point, so let me clarify. A photon has zero mass when at rest, however, a photon is never at rest. An alternate description of it's mass is <1�10−18 eV/c^2. So when it motion, it does have mass. (Of course that begs the question, does an photon at rest really have zero mass, or are we just taking the limit as the mass asymptotically approaches zero.)As an object approaches C, it's mass goes to infinity, so the simple classical equation F=ma becomes an equation of competing limits when applies to the world of quantum mechanics and the photon.
So, since the higgs boson is what is believed to give things mass, the act of motion creates the higgs boson?
The higgs boson, in conjunction with the higgs field (and I believe you are correct, it is the motion of the boson through the field) imparts mass upon classical objects.
Now the Higgs Boson is a particle force carrier, where the Photon is the Electromagnetic force carrier, which I'm sure creates it's own bundle of mind boggling questions....
If it's the interaction between the quantum and classical worlds that turns a probability into defined matter and the quantum world predates and creates the classical world, where in time was the first interaction?
Everything boils down to whats happening in your neurons at any given minute. It is all just an electrical impulse. Sucks to be a few electrons over a synaptic bridge.
If it's the interaction between the quantum and classical worlds that turns a probability into defined matter and the quantum world predates and creates the classical world, where in time was the first interaction?
It's the chicken and the egg
Previously we mentioned how time effectively stops for things moving at the speed of light. In addition, the passage of time approaches zero for objects of infinite density. So in a condition of a singularity, there would be no perceived passage of time. As the singularity expanded, it's density decreased, and time effectively began. Around 10^-37 seconds after the Big Bang is when we had the first phase transition which occurred at the same time as Cosmic Inflation. (Inflation is described as a "rapid expanion" of the early universe. Perhaps it could be described as an expansion of the universe when time was still moving slowly?) At the end of inflation, only primary particles (quarks, gluons etc.) existed, but they did exist withing space/time. As densities and hence temperatures dropped, the primary particles coalesced into primary particles, and primary anti-particles.
So if we follow this through, yes, the quantum world can first. It is the inherent instability of a quantum nothing that allows for a Universe from Nothing. As the quantum universe expands and cools, it's first phase change gives birth to primary particles, and I assume, the primary force carrier (because for every primary element there must also be a force carrier) and it's second gives rise to the classical elements, such as hydrogen and anti-hydrogen.
So we know which came first, and it is the phase change that leads from one to the other. In the 20's we learned we could affect a phase change of photons by effecting there velocity, as we later learned we could change phase change atoms back into their constituent primary parts, including the Higgs Boson, with the help of a particle accelerator.
Everything boils down to whats happening in your neurons at any given minute. It is all just an electrical impulse. Sucks to be a few electrons over a synaptic bridge.
Sucks less when you put a little alcohol with those electrons across that synaptic bridge.
Theory is moving away from the Big Bang being the zero point in time or even a singular event. Multiverse theory posits that the universe is constantly branching with every quantum event resolution and we see only the observed item in this continuum, all the other possibilities are in sister universes. Brane theory posits that we are on a multidimensional surface that is sandwiched in with many other universes and that the Big Bang is a cycle energy release when two of the branes touch, which propels them apart but gravity eventually attrachs them back to do it again and again. This also explains why gravity is so weak, as it effects across all the branes, so much of it is 'lost' to our universe.
Other theories like finite minimum space, where spacetime is posited to be divisible only down to a certain size.
All these things change the need for a starting point in time.
Copenhagen theory of quantum mechanics posits that there is an observer that has already 'seen' all quantum events and therefore the wave uncertainties are already all collasped and it is just we are experiencing the results as time passes.
And things are known as 'wavicles', since they sometimes act as if they were a particle and sometimes as if a wave. And you should look at spooky interactions at a distance, where spin quantities of particles match instaneously when measured, which seems to violate the faster then light principle.
Previously we mentioned how time effectively stops for things moving at the speed of light. In addition, the passage of time approaches zero for objects of infinite density. So in a condition of a singularity, there would be no perceived passage of time. As the singularity expanded, it's density decreased, and time effectively began. Around 10^-37 seconds after the Big Bang is when we had the first phase transition which occurred at the same time as Cosmic Inflation. (Inflation is described as a "rapid expanion" of the early universe. Perhaps it could be described as an expansion of the universe when time was still moving slowly?) At the end of inflation, only primary particles (quarks, gluons etc.) existed, but they did exist withing space/time. As densities and hence temperatures dropped, the primary particles coalesced into primary particles, and primary anti-particles.
So if we follow this through, yes, the quantum world can first. It is the inherent instability of a quantum nothing that allows for a Universe from Nothing. As the quantum universe expands and cools, it's first phase change gives birth to primary particles, and I assume, the primary force carrier (because for every primary element there must also be a force carrier) and it's second gives rise to the classical elements, such as hydrogen and anti-hydrogen.
So we know which came first, and it is the phase change that leads from one to the other. In the 20's we learned we could affect a phase change of photons by effecting there velocity, as we later learned we could change phase change atoms back into their constituent primary parts, including the Higgs Boson, with the help of a particle accelerator.
You and I know that this is only one of several postulated theories about the origin. of the universe, and I'm not even talking the religious aspect. Just the scientific study of origins. The community doesn't share a consensus on this, which is part of what makes it so difficult to nail down.
For example...
Quote
As the singularity expanded, it's density decreased...
So, we have a singularity with mass. How? The very things that should allow that to exist weren't in existence yet. It would have been an undefined probability with nothing to act upon it to force it to collapse into a defined singularity.
How can we say that probabilities become reality only when they interact with the classical world when we also postulate that the very existence of the classical world came about because a probability created it all on it's own?
Also, if the quantum world is so unstable, why don't we see more of this happening? More big bangs?
It seems to me that quantum nothingness is perfectly happy to remain such until it is acted upon by "observation".
Theory is moving away from the Big Bang being the zero point in time or even a singular event. Multiverse theory posits that the universe is constantly branching with every quantum event resolution and we see only the observed item in this continuum, all the other possibilities are in sister universes. Brane theory posits that we are on a multidimensional surface that is sandwiched in with many other universes and that the Big Bang is a cycle energy release when two of the branes touch, which propels them apart but gravity eventually attrachs them back to do it again and again. This also explains why gravity is so weak, as it effects across all the branes, so much of it is 'lost' to our universe.
Other theories like finite minimum space, where spacetime is posited to be divisible only down to a certain size.
All these things change the need for a starting point in time.
Copenhagen theory of quantum mechanics posits that there is an observer that has already 'seen' all quantum events and therefore the wave uncertainties are already all collasped and it is just we are experiencing the results as time passes.
And things are known as 'wavicles', since they sometimes act as if they were a particle and sometimes as if a wave. And you should look at spooky interactions at a distance, where spin quantities of particles match instaneously when measured, which seems to violate the faster then light principle.
That Copenhagen Theory seems to be quite soundly backed up with the evidence of experimentation. Most of the others seem to be based more in the world of mathematics. Don't get me wrong, math is a very reliable means of testing a theory.
"spooky interactions at a distance"
This is how Einstein defined Quantum Entanglement (the entire basis of Quantum Computing which started this thread).
He was no fan of Quantum Mechanics as it really made a mess of Relativity.
The big bang is the scientific conscientious. As for more big bangs, I was trying to keep the explanation simple but JB did a nice job of offering some alternatives that may predate our Big Bang. As for more big bangs within the confines of this universe, we will not see that level of quantum nothingness for about another trillion years. Evolution and abiogenesis are recognized as two separate fields of study I consider pre and post bang cosmology to effectively be two separate fields. In both instances, at some point we may possess the knowledge to unite the fields, but at this point IMO we do not.
As for your presupposition that it is God the all present observer that created the universe, and evidence by human observation change the state of photons, this argument breaks down. Because and ever present God would observe anything and everything independent of humans. Humans would never be able to observe anything that was not already observed/being observed etc, hence our observations could not create the phase changes to which you credit them.
Sorry Mark, but that piece of the apologetics doesn't work any better today then it did when Bishop Berkeley proposed it 300 years ago.
If Hawking is correct, there could even be no singularity at the core of the black hole. Instead, matter would be only temporarily held behind the apparent horizon, which would gradually move inward owing to the pull of the black hole, but would never quite crunch down to the centre. Information about this matter would not destroyed, but would be highly scrambled so that, as it is released through Hawking radiation, it would be in a vastly different form, making it almost impossible to work out what the swallowed objects once were.
If Hawking is correct, there could even be no singularity at the core of the black hole. Instead, matter would be only temporarily held behind the apparent horizon, which would gradually move inward owing to the pull of the black hole, but would never quite crunch down to the centre. Information about this matter would not destroyed, but would be highly scrambled so that, as it is released through Hawking radiation, it would be in a vastly different form, making it almost impossible to work out what the swallowed objects once were.
In that context he was speaking of blackholes, not the big bang.
You misunderstand me my friend. Big Bang is scientific conscientious. That's not what I was stating the community didn't agree upon.
What is up for grabs is what happened then. I mean, we don't even have a clear definition for space-time. There is still a whole lot of debate on what that even is.
Quote
As for more big bangs within the confines of this universe, we will not see that level of quantum nothingness for about another trillion years.
Why? Is all of space occupied and defined?
Quote
As for your presupposition that it is God the all present observer that created the universe, and evidence by human observation change the state of photons, this argument breaks down. Because and ever present God would observe anything and everything independent of humans. Humans would never be able to observe anything that was not already observed/being observed etc, hence our observations could not create the phase changes to which you credit them.
If Hawking is correct, there could even be no singularity at the core of the black hole. Instead, matter would be only temporarily held behind the apparent horizon, which would gradually move inward owing to the pull of the black hole, but would never quite crunch down to the centre. Information about this matter would not destroyed, but would be highly scrambled so that, as it is released through Hawking radiation, it would be in a vastly different form, making it almost impossible to work out what the swallowed objects once were.
In that context he was speaking of blackholes, not the big bang.
Where else do we have evidence of singularities existing?
Evolution and abiogenesis are recognized as two separate fields of study I consider pre and post bang cosmology to effectively be two separate fields. In both instances, at some point we may possess the knowledge to unite the fields, but at this point IMO we do not.
This is my understanding of science as well, amigo.
If Hawking is correct, there could even be no singularity at the core of the black hole. Instead, matter would be only temporarily held behind the apparent horizon, which would gradually move inward owing to the pull of the black hole, but would never quite crunch down to the centre. Information about this matter would not destroyed, but would be highly scrambled so that, as it is released through Hawking radiation, it would be in a vastly different form, making it almost impossible to work out what the swallowed objects once were.
In that context he was speaking of blackholes, not the big bang.
Where else do we have evidence of singularities existing?
The term singularity is also used to describe the conditions at the time of the Big Bang. Although both produce some very unusual conditions, I do not believe we can conclude the two are equal.
The term singularity is also used to describe the conditions at the time of the Big Bang. Although both produce some very unusual conditions, I do not believe we can conclude the two are equal.
Fair enough. I don't know enough about either to extrapolate more than what we've discussed already in this thread. So, like you I cannot conclude that they are equal. Personally, due to my limited understanding, cannot conclude that they are not equal.
How about neutrinos? There is a giant telescope under Antarctic to measure neutrinos. I tried to find a video on you tube on the telescope but could not do so. Neutrinos, underground physics from the Sun. There is something for you nerds to ponder.
With Hawking's discoveries, we know that things do and can escape "black holes". This stuff is called Hawking Radiation.
Because I cannot rule out the Big Bang "singularity" similarities with "black hole" singularities, I wonder if what the Big Bang emitted was this Hawking Radiation stuff...
Physicist do say that Hawking Radiation is unlike anything else....
How about neutrinos? There is a giant telescope under Antarctic to measure neutrinos. I tried to find a video on you tube on the telescope but could not do so. Neutrinos, underground physics from the Sun. There is something for you nerds to ponder.
I'll bite.
Neutrino's are cool. So small that they pass through everything about as well as a baseball would pass through the voids of outerspace....
How about neutrinos? There is a giant telescope under Antarctic to measure neutrinos. I tried to find a video on you tube on the telescope but could not do so. Neutrinos, underground physics from the Sun. There is something for you nerds to ponder.
I'll bite.
Neutrino's are cool. So small that they pass through everything about as well as a baseball would pass through the voids of outerspace....
Apparently, there are billions of those puppies passing through us every minute. I had never heard of them before until I saw show on them at the Museum of The Rockies Taylor Planetarium. That's another far out area physics is dealing with.
I used to work with an associate professor of theoretical quantum physics (Sacto. St.)...interesting guy to have BS sessions with...before I got to know him, I figured him for a crankster biker dude...
With Hawking's discoveries, we know that things do and can escape "black holes". This stuff is called Hawking Radiation.
Because I cannot rule out the Big Bang "singularity" similarities with "black hole" singularities, I wonder if what the Big Bang emitted was this Hawking Radiation stuff...
Physicist do say that Hawking Radiation is unlike anything else....
When you start talking about black holes and their relationship to Universes (plural), you are opening up a whole new can of worms.
In simplest terms, the Universe consists of three things, Matter, energy, and space/time. However, we know that E=MC^2, so matter is just a phase of energy. Therefore the entire universe is made up of two sides of an equation, E=Space/Time. Now where E is positive, and Space/time is it's negative counter part, we end up with a universe with net zero energy, which would be consistent with the laws of the conservation of energy.
When we contemplate a black hole, it is a massive reservoir of negative energy (by convention, gravitational energy is negative), Now for hawking radiation to escape a black hole, the total energy of the system (mass is a for of positive energy) must approach zero, with a slightest of edges going to the positive energy. As the Hawking's radiation escape, some mass is lost, and with it some negative potential energy (lost gravity). This process continues all the way down to planck scale, so the blackhole never losses it's Event Horizon, nor reaches a point here E exceeds Gravity enough to cause the system to enter a re-inflationary stage. However if it did reach a re inflationary state, it could create some interesting possibilities. The density of a black hole warps time and space. So what happens when this containment is lost? Radiation begins to leave at the speed of light. As the mass of the blackhole shrinks space expands. As light moves through this rapidly expanding, unwarping, space, this light could be perceived as changing it's position at a rate faster then the cosmic speed limit. All that stuff crushed together at near infinite pressures, would it once again be reduces to form of primary particles? Primary particles, space and time expanding faster then the speed of light, could this be what the early universe looked like?
How about neutrinos? There is a giant telescope under Antarctic to measure neutrinos. I tried to find a video on you tube on the telescope but could not do so. Neutrinos, underground physics from the Sun. There is something for you nerds to ponder.
I'll bite.
Neutrino's are cool. So small that they pass through everything about as well as a baseball would pass through the voids of outerspace....
It's not that they are small, it's that they only interact with the very short range strong nuclear force.
So, the duality of light is more than a duality then?
The duality of light is an unfortunate fiction. Goes back to how we do science. We observe events and build a model (theory) which allows us to predict future events. We set up experiments to gather more refined observations and see if that matches our predictions. If not, the model is wrong or incomplete.
Wave theory allowed predictions that matched observations at the time perfectly. Then came photoelectric effect and wave theory couldn't account for that. However there wasn't a model that could account for all the stuff wave theory could predict AND the photoelectric effect. So they were stuck with two incomplete models and called it "duality."
Then came the quantum electrodynamics model with which you could predict ALL observations. The trouble is that to predict events on a large scale, every day size to us, you have to do an unbelievably large number of calculations. We know how but can't do it. But we can calculate such with wave theory and the answers are good enough for, say, designing a rifle scope. The wave model is an approximation which is very handy for getting stuff done.
That's where general education goes horribly wrong IMHO. They firmly stick things like Newtonian physics in your head and then try to explain Einsteinian physics as a separate deal when it really amounts to a refinement of an earlier approximation. You get wave theory so stuck in your head it's hard to admit it's an incomplete (wrong) model and accept the "bizarre" alternative model that is quantum electrodynamics.
It is only when some classical object such as the photon passing through a wine glass, water, or a sensor, that causes it to slow below the full speed of C that time actually passes for the photon, causing it to move from a timeless state, to a state of existing in time.
So, can a photon actually slow below the full speed of light (in vacuo) or is it that the propagation through a media appears to be at less than C?
Quantum Mechanics and String Theory are insanely complex fields of study that is beyond my ability to grasp. However, some simple experiments that have been conducted in studying this has blown my mind.
I wonder if any of you guys have looked into this at all, and am curious as to what it means....
Ignore the title of this video, I only post this because it has a great visual explanation of the Two-Slit Experiment.
This experiment showed that matter only exists as a result of observation. I still don't understand how observation creates matter, only that it does.
Not only does observation create matter, but it gives that matter a history and a backstory. Crazy!
So, if all matter, and reality, exists only as a result of observation, then.....ummm.... what or who is the original observer? It would have to be something or someone outside of matter and material reality.... wouldn't it?
You hurt my head with this, I'm gonna go converse with Kawi to ease the pain.
With Hawking's discoveries, we know that things do and can escape "black holes". This stuff is called Hawking Radiation.
Because I cannot rule out the Big Bang "singularity" similarities with "black hole" singularities, I wonder if what the Big Bang emitted was this Hawking Radiation stuff...
Physicist do say that Hawking Radiation is unlike anything else....
When you start talking about black holes and their relationship to Universes (plural), you are opening up a whole new can of worms.
In simplest terms, the Universe consists of three things, Matter, energy, and space/time. However, we know that E=MC^2, so matter is just a phase of energy. Therefore the entire universe is made up of two sides of an equation, E=Space/Time. Now where E is positive, and Space/time is it's negative counter part, we end up with a universe with net zero energy, which would be consistent with the laws of the conservation of energy.
When we contemplate a black hole, it is a massive reservoir of negative energy (by convention, gravitational energy is negative), Now for hawking radiation to escape a black hole, the total energy of the system (mass is a for of positive energy) must approach zero, with a slightest of edges going to the positive energy. As the Hawking's radiation escape, some mass is lost, and with it some negative potential energy (lost gravity). This process continues all the way down to planck scale, so the blackhole never losses it's Event Horizon, nor reaches a point here E exceeds Gravity enough to cause the system to enter a re-inflationary stage. However if it did reach a re inflationary state, it could create some interesting possibilities. The density of a black hole warps time and space. So what happens when this containment is lost? Radiation begins to leave at the speed of light. As the mass of the blackhole shrinks space expands. As light moves through this rapidly expanding, unwarping, space, this light could be perceived as changing it's position at a rate faster then the cosmic speed limit. All that stuff crushed together at near infinite pressures, would it once again be reduces to form of primary particles? Primary particles, space and time expanding faster then the speed of light, could this be what the early universe looked like?
This experiment showed that matter only exists as a result of observation. I still don't understand how observation creates matter, only that it does.
Not only does observation create matter, but it gives that matter a history and a backstory. Crazy!
So, I'm running at top speed with my eyes closed. There is a large tree in my path. Since I have my eyes closed, I do not observe it so it doesn't really exist and I can keep running straight. If I open my eyes and observe it, it becomes matter and I run into it and badly damage myself.
This gives credibility to those who can text while driving. If they don't observe the car ahead, it doesn't exist they can't hit it. Texting while driving is safe driving.
Observing isn't equivalent to vision. Unfortunely, those electromagnetic forces are still going to apply, eyes closed or not.
And there is even more esoteric things out there, like whatever dark matter is, which gravity proves exists, but not what it is, and dark energy, which expansion speed of the universe suggests, based on current measurements.
It is only when some classical object such as the photon passing through a wine glass, water, or a sensor, that causes it to slow below the full speed of C that time actually passes for the photon, causing it to move from a timeless state, to a state of existing in time.
So, can a photon actually slow below the full speed of light (in vacuo) or is it that the propagation through a media appears to be at less than C?
speed of light in air, water, diamond, etc. is slower then in vacuum. Known as index of refraction and is why when you look at a fish in water, it's real location is different then what you see, or something in the water looks like it is bend at the surface.
It is the factor of how much light is slowed down. Also, particles, like an electron, can go faster then the speed of light in some medium, like water. Just can't go faster then speed of light in a vacuum.
A little bit of a conundrum there. A photon hits glass, for some reason instantly slows down, then goes instantly back to full speed when leaving glass. Perhaps the photon gets absorbed by an electron in a glass molecule raising the electron to a higher energy state. Then a tiny bit later an identical photon is emitted by the electron when it falls back to a lower state. So propagating through the glass it seems like one photon slowing down and speeding up, no?
)of events interacting. A single event standing alone can seem quite different. ![[Linked Image]](http://www.intechopen.com/source/html/9886/media/image3.jpg)