Stars and Atoms...do they share a symmetry?
You are Unregistered, please register to gain Full access.    
Advertisements


The Side Room Off topic chat about pretty much anything other than music. Try to be respectful. Strong debate is welcomed, insults and trolling are not. This area is for over 18's only and may occasionally contain NSFW material, although it's not encouraged.

Reply
Thread Tools
Old 07-03-2017, 02:36 AM   #1
TheStumps
Radial Developer
TheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond repute
TheStumps's Avatar
Alaska
Age: 38
Posts: 147
MC Status: 2910
Thanks: 8
Thanked 58 Times in 36 Posts
Stars and Atoms...do they share a symmetry?

So I've been absent for a few weeks, and probably will still for a few, so I thought I'd blab about why I've been missing.

For a few years now I've been working on a project that came about from one of those thoughts that pops into your head that causes you to react, "No; that's crazy." and then, "...well...but what if...?"

A number of years back I was reading (...yet again) about Bhor and Einstein's long slew of debates over the incredibly small and the incredibly big and whether there was a gradient between the scales or not.
Einstein held there was, and Bhor held that there wasn't.
Because the standard model was so good, and Bhor and Co. so popular, and thereby the Copenhagen interpretation so widely accepted (not so much anymore, but it reigned king as an interpretation for decades and decades), and because there really wasn't any means to settle the debate by measure directly, and because both of them died before settling their dispute, it more or less fell off as a debate and was left leaning towards Bhor's position due mostly to the wide acceptance in collegiate training of the Copenhagen interpretation which aligned closely to Bhor's general way of thinking of the quantum level as distinct.

So, my idiot self is foolish enough to think things like, "Hey...there's more data available now to compare with...surely, we could compare the most basic of structural properties - their size proportions - and see if anything correlates or not."

Oh how naive I was to think it would be such a simple task.
Years of pouring over papers and research, I finally have just barely enough data collected to finally run a direct t test of unequal variance between atomic and star data.

I had greatly overestimated the data availability, as well I had greatly overestimated the field's consistency in estimating what's called an astrosphere radius (effectively this is the whole star system of a star; more or less).

But I stuck with it and just kept digging.

Now I finally have enough.
So what is this weird image we're looking at below?
Well, I took 95 atoms that have good data available and noted the nucleus' radius for each.
Then I took the covalent bond radius for each atom and marked that down.
Why the covalent bond radius?
Because it's the clearest indication of the end of the effective range of an atom...that is; a clear mark of where its 'system' ends. There's the atomic radius as well which extends a bit further, but that is debatable for many atoms and isn't exactly a measure of the where the atom has effect upon another atom (like the covalent bond radius measures), but where an electron may still occasionally might drift way off according to some calculations.

Then in a separate table I marked each star's radius, and then I marked the estimated astrosphere for that related star.
This took a long time to get a decent pile together (currently 22 stars) because this is a relatively new field of study.

Then I divided the radius of a nucleus of an atom by the radius of its covalent bond.
As well I divided the radius of a star by the radius of the astrosphere.

This produced the measure of how much of a percent of the whole system the power source at the center of the system accounted for (nucleus or star).

Once I had that, I now had my two sets of comparable data for the t test.

So what are the results?
Well...preliminary results are that it is really unlikely that they do not follow the same distribution of their proportions relative to their sizes.
In simple terms; it seems increasingly unlikely that they differ in regards to self-symmetry of sizes.
Even simpler terms...it seems that Stars and Atoms may very well be smaller and larger versions of each other (at least in regards to proportions).

I can't say Einstein or Bhor was right with this data, but I can say that it provokes an interesting tease that there's definitely a correlation far stronger than pure chance between these systems and that there does appear merit to investigating the curiosity further...work continues...

Anywhoo...here's the image of the resulting t test and histogram of results.
Code:
Content visible to registered users only.

Advertisements


------------------

TheStumps is offline   Thanks Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2017, 03:12 AM   #2
Artificer
Digital Surfer
Artificer is a savage MCArtificer is a savage MCArtificer is a savage MCArtificer is a savage MCArtificer is a savage MCArtificer is a savage MCArtificer is a savage MCArtificer is a savage MCArtificer is a savage MCArtificer is a savage MCArtificer is a savage MC
Artificer's Avatar
Southern Hell
Posts: 529
MC Status: 29360
Thanks: 192
Thanked 587 Times in 347 Posts
Re: Stars and Atoms...do they share a symmetry?

If there ever comes a time when we get a true working model unifying fundamental forces, I think it'll show that gravity works the exact same on all scales, from the celestial to the quantum, and that's why everything is (super)symmetrical. I think it'll also show that time is an illusion and that gravity is what's multidimensional, something along the lines of D-branes meets Barbour.
Artificer is online now   Thanks Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2017, 12:54 PM   #3
totes antenna
TOO on fleek
totes antenna has a reputation beyond reputetotes antenna has a reputation beyond reputetotes antenna has a reputation beyond reputetotes antenna has a reputation beyond reputetotes antenna has a reputation beyond reputetotes antenna has a reputation beyond reputetotes antenna has a reputation beyond reputetotes antenna has a reputation beyond reputetotes antenna has a reputation beyond reputetotes antenna has a reputation beyond reputetotes antenna has a reputation beyond repute
totes antenna's Avatar
Skyway Patrol
Posts: 457
MC Status: 9810
Thanks: 184
Thanked 196 Times in 146 Posts
Re: Stars and Atoms...do they share a symmetry?

circles. spheres. get the memo
totes antenna is offline   Thanks Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2017, 01:21 PM   #4
A.M
IDMf SupporterIDMf Artist
A.M is a savage MCA.M is a savage MCA.M is a savage MCA.M is a savage MCA.M is a savage MCA.M is a savage MCA.M is a savage MCA.M is a savage MCA.M is a savage MCA.M is a savage MCA.M is a savage MC
A.M's Avatar
Age: 52
Posts: 9,075
MC Status: 171760
Thanks: 10,067
Thanked 3,435 Times in 2,563 Posts
Re: Stars and Atoms...do they share a symmetry?

I think you need to get out more.


Seriously though, this is something that's interested me for some time, too. I spent a short while reading up on Hermetism years ago and first encountered the whole "As above, so-below" concept it in detail, while studying writings on the Emerald Tablet of Hermes Trismegistus: "That which is Below corresponds to that which is Above, and that which is Above, corresponds to that which is Below, to accomplish the miracles of the One Thing." Granted, we're hardly talking science here..well, not as we understand it by today's standards..but it was highly thought of back in the 2nd century or there-about.

But what really interested me was the obvious parallels that can be drawn between something which is basically rooted in occultism, and the scientific questioning / comparing of both the micro and macro levels of reality.

I know some might think I'm talking through me ass here, but it seems to me we can never really deal in absolutes, due to the nature of our scientific understanding, which is constantly growing and being updated.

At best, we've learned to reflect on past observations made by others, and then updated those "discoveries" at some future point, as more new data becomes available.

It's an case of topping up our understanding of the world we live in and the mechanisms that make it work..but due to the very way our "understanding" works, we can never be said to know anything with complete certainty..everything we currently know are only very, very detailed approximations, if you follow my meaning..prone to revision at a later date.

My point in touching on this is that this, too, is a reflection of sorts of how things work on at the sub-atomic or quantum level, which is basically responsible for everything we see around us and experience in our daily lives. It seems we create order out of elemental chaos all the time..and we still don't really understand how it all works..but work it does.

Above us..in the depths of space..we're face with mysteries we have yet to understand..and below us there's things that shouldn't be and a view of reality that we are only just getting to grips with..and, perhaps, never really will fully. It seems the deeper we look in either direction, the further the horizons seem to be and the more we come to understand how little we really know.

LSS: We don't know as much as we think we do, but we're learning something new every day. I'm just waiting for the day when some expert in quantum mechanics publishes a paper in which he echos those words uttered by Dr. David Bowman, "My God, it's full of stars!"

Last edited by deadmau7; 07-03-2017 at 02:46 PM..

------------------
A.M is offline   Thanks Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2017, 12:45 AM   #5
TheStumps
Radial Developer
TheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond repute
TheStumps's Avatar
Alaska
Age: 38
Posts: 147
MC Status: 2910
Thanks: 8
Thanked 58 Times in 36 Posts
Re: Stars and Atoms...do they share a symmetry?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Artificer View Post
If there ever comes a time when we get a true working model unifying fundamental forces, I think it'll show that gravity works the exact same on all scales, from the celestial to the quantum, and that's why everything is (super)symmetrical. I think it'll also show that time is an illusion and that gravity is what's multidimensional, something along the lines of D-branes meets Barbour.
In my view, time is a function; not a thing itself.
It's a shorthand for a sequence of states in between two states.
Because all time is, is a measure of the sequences of the motion of matter.
Our ability to retain a memory of a state preceding one we newly observe creates our need for measuring time, but matter itself has no concern about such concepts. Matter simply perpetually reacts. Every action is itself a reaction.
Time is a mathematical function useful to condense the quantification of an operation of matter in serial without the need to define each distinct subset of states along the way; which would be horribly inefficient in terms of mathematics. For example, acceleration = change in velocity/time.
That use of time isn't applying a real object's property; it's a concept of all states along the way of that velocity. This allows us to only plug in the start velocity and end velocity and summarize it as the change in velocity - handy.

I'm not sure if gravity works the exact same way on all scales or not. We know that we have the Higgs on the quantum level, but what seems to be the case is that gravitational force is exponential in some manner - that it gets more apparent the larger in scale we go, and more fine and less noticeable the smaller we go.

However, to me, this isn't odd. To me, I've always thought of gravity as a measure of displacement, and consequently, a form of pressure.
If I drop a grain of sand into water, then the measurable effect upon the water is rather much like looking for gravity at the quantum level. It's there and you can find it, but it's incredibly fine and you have to use increasingly sensitive tools to discern it.
However, if I drop a bowling ball into that water, it's rather more easy to measure the displacement.

I often think that, while functional, it might be misleading to approach gravity as a thing unto itself and more beneficial to conceptually approach it as a property of displacement of space caused by an object in space; noting that small objects with very high velocity will cause noticeable displacement due to relative mass - which is just like saying that if we shoot that grain of sand at rocket speed through that water, it will be very much more easy to discern the momentary displacement that it will cause.


I don't think what string I found to pull on (original post) will exactly lead to a unifying theory, but I think - if it holds over time with more data - that it creates a motivation to ask why such a symmetry exists, considering that the mechanics of their functions are clearly different.
This is something that I often puzzle over regarding this data over the years.
I tend to chew on two questions that I have yet to find an answer to regarding it; assuming the position of validity of the data: 1) considering the differences, by what means are they driven to the same symmetry? 2) what, if any, predictions can this data make?

Number 1 is interesting, but number 2 is rather important, as without some form of prediction the data is merely novel, but lacks function.

------------------

TheStumps is offline   Thanks Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2017, 02:01 AM   #6
TheStumps
Radial Developer
TheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond repute
TheStumps's Avatar
Alaska
Age: 38
Posts: 147
MC Status: 2910
Thanks: 8
Thanked 58 Times in 36 Posts
Re: Stars and Atoms...do they share a symmetry?

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.M View Post
I think you need to get out more.


Seriously though, this is something that's interested me for some time, too. I spent a short while reading up on Hermetism years ago and first encountered the whole "As above, so-below" concept it in detail, while studying writings on the Emerald Tablet of Hermes Trismegistus: "That which is Below corresponds to that which is Above, and that which is Above, corresponds to that which is Below, to accomplish the miracles of the One Thing." Granted, we're hardly talking science here..well, not as we understand it by today's standards..but it was highly thought of back in the 2nd century or there-about.

But what really interested me was the obvious parallels that can be drawn between something which is basically rooted in occultism, and the scientific questioning / comparing of both the micro and macro levels of reality.

I know some might think I'm talking through me ass here, but it seems to me we can never really deal in absolutes, due to the nature of our scientific understanding, which is constantly growing and being updated.

At best, we've learned to reflect on past observations made by others, and then updated those "discoveries" at some future point, as more new data becomes available.

It's an case of topping up our understanding of the world we live in and the mechanisms that make it work..but due to the very way our "understanding" works, we can never be said to know anything with complete certainty..everything we currently know are only very, very detailed approximations, if you follow my meaning..prone to revision at a later date.

My point in touching on this is that this, too, is a reflection of sorts of how things work on at the sub-atomic or quantum level, which is basically responsible for everything we see around us and experience in our daily lives. It seems we create order out of elemental chaos all the time..and we still don't really understand how it all works..but work it does.

Above us..in the depths of space..we're face with mysteries we have yet to understand..and below us there's things that shouldn't be and a view of reality that we are only just getting to grips with..and, perhaps, never really will fully. It seems the deeper we look in either direction, the further the horizons seem to be and the more we come to understand how little we really know.

LSS: We don't know as much as we think we do, but we're learning something new every day. I'm just waiting for the day when some expert in quantum mechanics publishes a paper in which he echos those words uttered by Dr. David Bowman, "My God, it's full of stars!"
Ancient views often built off a sort of mechanistic view. Indeed, "Karma" and the ancient Hebrew variation of it as well, were views based on interpreting all things as cogs in a giant machine of which an equal representative existed cosmically. Thereby one could not break out of ones place in the machine of reality unless they wished to change the cosmos themselves. The Hebrew variation was a little more forgiving as rather than being tied to a specific person, it was more the role that was of value. It didn't matter if that specific tree existed and was treated a certain way, so long as A tree existed there and was treated that way.

Eventually this led to the mechanistic view of the 16th and 17th centuries of Europe where everything was viewed as a machine, including the human body. Thus, we ended up with musical scores written which (correctly; well, for the time's ability anyway) defined the movement of the planets, and the wild popularity of automotons - which were just breath-takingly amazing accomplishments which shook the culture to its knees philosophically and scientifically.
It wasn't until the rise of the mathematics of infinity, considered at the time to be the work of madmen, that the entire mechanistic viewpoint of science started to unravel and eventually fall from favor.

I try not to take the results of the data too far, and keep in mind that quite clearly the physics of the two scales are definitely different - we are very much of merit for having confidence in that stance considering the shear quantity of runs physically with both system scales we have at this point.

What I think most often here is that we're looking at either 1) a fundamental condition of space (here I mean the concept of area) in relation to the effective range of any given energy source in free space, or 2) we're looking at some medium (sort of like the old "aether" of old physics) as of yet undefined which scales in resistance per unit measure relatively equally.

Option 2 is taboo at this point (though if you expressed this data 'back when', then it probably would have been paraded - wrongly or rightly - as proof of an aether), which leaves us to more easily investigate option 1, which itself is perplexing enough to satisfy curiosity for quite some time (unless option 2 is actually correct, in which case option 1 would lead to an endless chase).

My thoughts are a mixture, and probably not easily digestible in mainstream; I consider space itself to be a medium itself. We just don't think of it as one because absolutely everything is within it.
My mental image is akin to imagining the universe as a warm vat of gelatin and matter is increasing scales of that gelatin twisted up. A "knot" of gelatin is an "object". The larger the twist, the larger the displacement, or draw, in tension/pressure that it has around it.
The lightest object possible is the smallest twist possible (e.g. light) which then can travel the easiest through the gelatin due to almost not being a twist at all, so it has the least restrictions upon its movement through the gelatin.
If you were made of twists of this gelatin, sitting on a twist of gelatin inside of an area dominated in displacement by another much larger twist of gelatin itself inside of another area dominated in displacement by another much, much larger twist of gelatin filled with more 10^1 with more 0's of twists of gelatin than there are seconds in your gelatin universe' existence, then it would be very easy to see the part of the gelatin which is not twisted up into knots as a pure void.
Yet, just like the gelatin, we know that space isn't a pure void and does indeed have some thing of itself in itself always - instead, we now refer to space as a near-perfect void, and are equally aware that it itself (space) has friction inherently in itself with nothing else involved.

If space itself has friction, that tends to beg the mind to question the position that space is not a medium, in form, itself.

Given the recent developments of the Higgs, it may be that there is a role played by the Higgs field in the property of space in both friction and as a very fine medium. Time will tell.

Last edited by TheStumps; 08-03-2017 at 02:25 AM..

------------------

TheStumps is offline   Thanks Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2017, 03:48 PM   #7
Blingley
Madacu Sad Gent
Blingley is a savage MCBlingley is a savage MCBlingley is a savage MCBlingley is a savage MCBlingley is a savage MCBlingley is a savage MCBlingley is a savage MCBlingley is a savage MCBlingley is a savage MCBlingley is a savage MCBlingley is a savage MC
Blingley's Avatar
Posts: 1,829
MC Status: 7236529
Thanks: 236
Thanked 796 Times in 528 Posts
Re: Stars and Atoms...do they share a symmetry?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheStumps View Post
Code:
Content visible to registered users only.
:notafinga: "The result is not significant at p < 0.01"

------------------
Blingley is offline   Thanks Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2017, 08:04 PM   #8
A.M
IDMf SupporterIDMf Artist
A.M is a savage MCA.M is a savage MCA.M is a savage MCA.M is a savage MCA.M is a savage MCA.M is a savage MCA.M is a savage MCA.M is a savage MCA.M is a savage MCA.M is a savage MCA.M is a savage MC
A.M's Avatar
Age: 52
Posts: 9,075
MC Status: 171760
Thanks: 10,067
Thanked 3,435 Times in 2,563 Posts
Re: Stars and Atoms...do they share a symmetry?

Personally,..and this may well offend your intellect..I'm of the mind that nothing is as it appears..that our present understandings of both science and spirituality (not religion) will one day reach a stage where the two will be seen and accepted as two very real sides of the one coin, so to speak.

That we are not actually here in this reality as we currently understand it..that is more to us that we don't full grasp right now..and that the "awaking" of our conscious minds to this understanding will be the next major step forward in our evolution as a species.

Trust me, I fully understand that all this sounds anything but scientific, but the on-going advances made in the area of Quantum science in general, leads me to suspect this is what will eventually happen, as we find our current models need to be modified in order to allow for new discoveries and data.

A step in that direction is the on-going "are we real or just simulated" debate, a topic they chose for the theme of the 2016 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate - Is the Universe a Simulation? It's a bit on the long side, but really well worth watching to the end.

Whenever I think or talk about this subject, the line from Edgar Allan Poe poem "A Dream Within a Dream" comes to mind - "All that we see or seem, is but a dream within a dream."

------------------
A.M is offline   Thanks Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2017, 09:46 PM   #9
TheStumps
Radial Developer
TheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond repute
TheStumps's Avatar
Alaska
Age: 38
Posts: 147
MC Status: 2910
Thanks: 8
Thanked 58 Times in 36 Posts
Re: Stars and Atoms...do they share a symmetry?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blingley View Post
:notafinga: "The result is not significant at p < 0.01"
Correct. 0.33 is > 0.01.

------------------

TheStumps is offline   Thanks Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2017, 10:47 PM   #10
thom
Savage Mad Cunt
thom is a savage MCthom is a savage MCthom is a savage MCthom is a savage MCthom is a savage MCthom is a savage MCthom is a savage MCthom is a savage MCthom is a savage MCthom is a savage MCthom is a savage MC
thom's Avatar
Nouvelle Franse
Posts: 3,542
MC Status: 151360
Thanks: 1,766
Thanked 3,027 Times in 1,817 Posts
Re: Stars and Atoms...do they share a symmetry?

Those headset mics they wear onstage. So racist.

I have worked as a pa tech in such events and I have never seen a brown madonna mic.

#blacklivematter
thom is offline   Thanks Reply With Quote
Thanks to thom
A.M (10-03-2017)
Old 10-03-2017, 11:56 PM   #11
TheStumps
Radial Developer
TheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond repute
TheStumps's Avatar
Alaska
Age: 38
Posts: 147
MC Status: 2910
Thanks: 8
Thanked 58 Times in 36 Posts
Re: Stars and Atoms...do they share a symmetry?

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.M View Post
Personally,..and this may well offend your intellect..I'm of the mind that nothing is as it appears..that our present understandings of both science and spirituality (not religion) will one day reach a stage where the two will be seen and accepted as two very real sides of the one coin, so to speak.

That we are not actually here in this reality as we currently understand it..that is more to us that we don't full grasp right now..and that the "awaking" of our conscious minds to this understanding will be the next major step forward in our evolution as a species.

Trust me, I fully understand that all this sounds anything but scientific, but the on-going advances made in the area of Quantum science in general, leads me to suspect this is what will eventually happen, as we find our current models need to be modified in order to allow for new discoveries and data.

A step in that direction is the on-going "are we real or just simulated" debate, a topic they chose for the theme of the 2016 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate - Is the Universe a Simulation? It's a bit on the long side, but really well worth watching to the end.

Whenever I think or talk about this subject, the line from Edgar Allan Poe poem "A Dream Within a Dream" comes to mind - "All that we see or seem, is but a dream within a dream."
Quantum science seems bizarre, indeed, but a very large amount of that is amplified by overstating what can be stated; a point that Dirac was very specific about pointing out very early in his text (which used to be a required read at one point).
Dirac, quite rightly, made a point over several chapters to discuss what it is that can be claimed about a result and what cannot.
For example, the requirement to consider a photon's polarization as a superposition of the photon's polarization due to an inability to determine which state it is at until measured cannot then be claimed as a reality of state in itself. That is, to Dirac, we cannot say that the polarization is in a superposition state in a physical presence. We can only speak of it conceptually, and this is because we cannot point to that superposition directly and claim that it was directly observed.
What we can do is measure before and after and calculate by means of employing a superposition of the polarization of the photon.

Similarly, we run into the same issue with wave collapse. The Schrodinger wave collapse cannot be claimed to be literal as there is no direct evidence of it being so. What we can claim is that our math of probabilities produces a result which accounts for an area of propagation up until the point of measure where the probability of all other possibilities obviously stop being a potential. What we cannot actually claim is that due to the successfulness of this methodology that a given particle literally is smeared around reality and only pulls together into a finite point upon measurement. And we cannot make that claim, rather simply, because that given particle will almost immediately interact with some other particle - most likely a photon - upon existing, and will from that point forward continually interact with countless other particles. Each particle is itself a measurement in the form of reaction with and unto the particle of our consideration, so even before we ourselves ever bother to measure that particle, it has already been effectively measured more times than we can assign a meaningful value to by the constituents of the universe itself.

More folks, I believe, need to attend to the reading of Dirac and not get carried away with the Copenhagen interpretation which treats reality as a 1 to 1 with what our math is capable of accomplishing inherently therefore describing actual behavior of reality in absolutely every process of the math; regardless of a lack of measurement or observation of those behaviors.
That I CAN quantify something in some way does not inherently guarantee anything about how something actually functions or propagates.

As Dirac points out, the fineness of the quantum scale is the entire reason for our troubles with the quantum scale, and it is the case that we cannot observe it in anyway without disturbing it due to our massive and clumsy size by comparison to the quantum scale.
Many quantum claims in pop-science are made from a perspective of mixing up our measurement of the quantum world as being how the quantum world literally functions as a reality.

That's simply not the case. We cannot know it to that degree. We are far too large to be able to observe and measure the quantum scale without influencing it. We can get really, really close, but it's like the speed of light - you can't actually get there.
We can with macro objects, because the measure and observation is smaller than the object and event being measured or observed, but we are a middle point between the macro and micro, and thus for the quantum, we are far, far too large to not impact it. It's like the wind poking its head down to observe the behavior of sand; its description of sand would be accurate, but accurate as what is sand under what conditions with all conditions including an inherent condition of wind always blowing on the sand.

So the quantum layer, to me, isn't wild and crazy - it's just really, really fine and a pain in the ass to work with.


Regarding simulation:
I have a few ways of looking at this.
1) If we are a simulation, then we can only do with what we have in this simulation so we might as well treat it as a reality since our simulation is our reality regardless if it is or is not a simulated one.

2) If we are a simulation, then logically, we run into infinite regression issues as what is simulating us can itself be simulated, and so can that simulator be simulated, and so on... What is the absolute floor?

3) Simulation is unlikely considering that it only arrives as proposal for two primary reasons: Inflation operates at a scale of infinity and particle wave propagation requires a collapse. These two constructions are exactly at odds with each other since Inflation involves the atomic layers to explain the propagation of our universe in regards to the uniformity (among a grand many other aspects), so we cannot have atoms, and thereby their constituents, running off into infinity since that's literally impossible according to wave collapse - there must be a finite point at some point, but according to the successfulness of Inflation, there simply isn't a wave collapse.
One approach to solve both is to treat the universe as a simulated/holographic universe in which case we can bypass the entire problem because Inflation can then run Infinitely off while wave collapse continues on the small scale because of a holographic 'event horizon' within that Infinity.

On the other hand; you could EQUALLY solve the entire problem by just never having wave collapse at all.
Just take the first part of Schrodinger's equation and stop right there. Don't follow it onward to a wave collapsing end.
The only problem that this produces is that you THEN have to wrestle with the notion that other universe states simultaneously exist, according to the math.

I don't see this as a problem. Either other universes do exist, in which case we don't care because we can't observe them anyway, or our math is a tool for deduction and not a literal representation of reality and therefore Schrodinger's equation of wave collapse is referring to probability as a concept and not actuality so removing the collapse from the equation implies ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about actual reality anyway.

I mean; if we take the Copenhagen interpretation or the Multiverse interpretation literally (as they ascribe in taking the results of their math), then we are left to a logical result that simply by either removing or keeping wave collapse in Schrodinger's equation we are literally altering the fabric of reality.

I'm sorry; but that is hubris beyond sensibility to my mind.

It's quite a bit more sensible to take the Dirac approach and state that what we are altering is our perspective of reality; not reality itself.

------------------

TheStumps is offline   Thanks Reply With Quote
Thanks to TheStumps
A.M (11-03-2017)
Old 11-03-2017, 12:46 AM   #12
A.M
IDMf SupporterIDMf Artist
A.M is a savage MCA.M is a savage MCA.M is a savage MCA.M is a savage MCA.M is a savage MCA.M is a savage MCA.M is a savage MCA.M is a savage MCA.M is a savage MCA.M is a savage MCA.M is a savage MC
A.M's Avatar
Age: 52
Posts: 9,075
MC Status: 171760
Thanks: 10,067
Thanked 3,435 Times in 2,563 Posts
Re: Stars and Atoms...do they share a symmetry?

Thanks for the detailed reply, but it was total unnecessary, as I'm fully aware of the complexities involved in studying the micro world from our place here in the macro realm..and our current level of understanding of the quantum world in general.

I don't think the folks at Google, NASA and D Wave Computers would totally agree with you, though. They're fully convinced already there are multiple universes, but that's something you would have to read up on yourself, if you haven't done so already.

------------------
A.M is offline   Thanks Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2017, 01:04 AM   #13
TheStumps
Radial Developer
TheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond reputeTheStumps has a reputation beyond repute
TheStumps's Avatar
Alaska
Age: 38
Posts: 147
MC Status: 2910
Thanks: 8
Thanked 58 Times in 36 Posts
Re: Stars and Atoms...do they share a symmetry?

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.M View Post
Thanks for the detailed reply, but it was total unnecessary, as I'm fully aware of the complexities involved in studying the micro world from our place here in the macro realm..and our current level of understanding of the quantum world in general.

I don't think the folks at Google, NASA and D Wave Computers would totally agree with you, though. They're fully convinced already there are multiple universes, but that's something you would have to read up on yourself, if you haven't done so already.
I have, but my take on multiple universe theory is that if there are it's about as useful as an ant proposing a teacup flying around the Earth's orbit.
Functionally useless.
If assuming multiple universes exist provides a useful set of mathematics to accomplish production, then great.
That doesn't, however, convert into verification of multiple universes to me at all - no more than does treating inflation as if infinite is convincing that inflation is actually infinite (which we actually have a better chance of verifying that position than multiple universes).

Sorry for the length; I felt it required not from a position of assuming you didn't know about these things, but of need to explain from what I draw my positions.

One great book on multiple universes is Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality by Max Tegmark. I disagree with many conclusions he arrives at, but it's by far one of the most sensible and well thought out positions I've seen on Multiverse theories.

I even find Level 1 and 2 Multiverses at least reasonable; if still entirely unverifiable.
Level 3 and 4 Multiverses, however, are a bit too far and only required as a reality to solve satisfaction of the mind between mathematical functionality and requiring that math to literally describe a reality 1 to 1 - leaving no room for math to be a conventional, convenient, and useful tool of humans.

------------------

TheStumps is offline   Thanks Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2017, 01:18 AM   #14
A.M
IDMf SupporterIDMf Artist
A.M is a savage MCA.M is a savage MCA.M is a savage MCA.M is a savage MCA.M is a savage MCA.M is a savage MCA.M is a savage MCA.M is a savage MCA.M is a savage MCA.M is a savage MCA.M is a savage MC
A.M's Avatar
Age: 52
Posts: 9,075
MC Status: 171760
Thanks: 10,067
Thanked 3,435 Times in 2,563 Posts
Re: Stars and Atoms...do they share a symmetry?

Thanks for the recommendation; I familiar with Max Tegmark's work, though I've yet to read that one. Must make a point of checking it out.

------------------
A.M is offline   Thanks Reply With Quote
Thanks to A.M
TheStumps (11-03-2017)
Old 11-03-2017, 06:33 AM   #15
Numerical
IDMf Artist
Numerical is a savage MCNumerical is a savage MCNumerical is a savage MCNumerical is a savage MCNumerical is a savage MCNumerical is a savage MCNumerical is a savage MCNumerical is a savage MCNumerical is a savage MCNumerical is a savage MCNumerical is a savage MC
Numerical's Avatar
Austin
Age: 39
Posts: 10,756
MC Status: 45941831
Thanks: 6,623
Thanked 5,673 Times in 3,575 Posts
Re: Stars and Atoms...do they share a symmetry?

Advertisements

Numerical is offline   Thanks Reply With Quote
Thanks to Numerical
A.M (11-03-2017)
Reply


Thread Tools

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[T R I P - H O P] ATOMS OF AN ADDICT - The Fervor ATOMS OF AN ADDICT Listening Booth 16 17-11-2013 04:20 AM
TECHNO - DJ-Svjatoy (UA), Fatanaptica - Atoms sanexmusic Industrial / EBM / Power Electronics 0 16-10-2013 11:07 AM
LF A friend to share WIP's with, give advice, share ideas, etc. Via skype Epoch Sound Design, Mixing, & Studio Techniques 2 18-01-2013 03:11 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:16 PM.


Electronic Music Forums

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.