4 ms·

By our current understanding the quantum fields still exist and have non-zero energy even in the void of deep space. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_e

by 21 9y ago

By our current understanding the quantum fields still exist and have non-zero energy even in the void of deep space. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy Particles will still be created and annihilated there and will interact with your system, so you cannot have no events.

lisper 9y ago
And the reason you cannot have no events is that these events are what create (or, of you prefer, define) time.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  That's... one view. Do you have any actual evidence for it?
  - lisper 9y ago
    http://blog.rongarret.info/2014/10/parallel-universes-and-arrow-of-time.html http://blog.rongarret.info/2014/10/parallel-universes-and-ar...
    - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
      That's a bunch of handwaving and "physics woo", not evidence. OK, you can make an argument for it, within at least some interpretations of QM. That doesn't mean the position is correct, though, and certainly doesn't mean that it deserves the degree of certainty with which you stated it.
      - lisper 9y ago
        I don't know what you would expect evidence for such a claim to look like. Did you follow the chain of references back to this paper? http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167278998000451 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167278998... https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9605039 https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9605039
        AnimalMuppet 9y ago
        No, I didn't follow the chain of references back to there, nor, now that I'm looking for it, do I see any such references. The reference that I did see was to here: http://blog.rongarret.info/2014/09/are-parallel-universes-real.html http://blog.rongarret.info/2014/09/are-parallel-universes-re... And that page has what I would regard as an appropriate level of skepticism for it's own position. It says things like "IMO". It says what it thinks is correct, but it recognizes that it could be wrong. (Reasonable enough, when you're saying that the Copenhagen interpretation of QM is wrong. That may in fact be correct, but dogmatism is not warranted yet, and may never be.) The links you present show a paper that puts forward a theory. Again, I'm not saying it's wrong, and it seems to make some things easier to understand. But where's the experiment that tests a prediction of this paper, which other interpretations of QM can't explain? Without that, it's just a nice theory. There are lots of those.
        lisper 9y ago
        > where's the experiment that tests a prediction of this paper I am nonplussed by this question. Did you even bother to read the first post I referred you to? Because that is all about a (thought) experiment.
        AnimalMuppet 9y ago
        A thought experiment, built on a foundation of assuming which interpretation of QM is correct. That's not the same as an actual experiment, you know. Yes, we can gain insight from a thought experiment. If the underlying assumptions are correct, we can even learn something true about reality. It's that "if" that I'm questioning. And without an actual experiment, you don't know. And with that assumption for a foundation, your experiment becomes a way to experimentally distinguish which interpretation of QM is correct. I'm not saying that such an experiment is impossible, but it's going to be really hard.
        lisper 9y ago
        > A thought experiment, [i]s not the same as an actual experiment, you know. Yes, obviously. But special relativity was developed almost exclusively on the basis of thought experiments. So basing a scientific conclusion on a thought experiment has a venerable history. BTW, the EPRG experiment is not a thought experiment. That experiment has actually been done (despite the fact that the outcome was never in doubt, which is why it is not particularly noteworthy). > And with that assumption for a foundation, your experiment becomes a way to experimentally distinguish which interpretation of QM is correct. No, it's not possible to experimentally determine which interpretation is correct. But this is not unusual in science. There are an infinite number of theories that are consistent with any finite data set. To choose among them you need some criterion other than consistency with the data.
      - colordrops 9y ago
        I hate the term "woo". It's not much different from "libtard". How about attacking the particulars of an argument or discussion rather than ad hominem labeling.

by 21 9y ago

lisper 9y ago

And the reason you cannot have no events is that these events are what create (or, of you prefer, define) time.

AnimalMuppet 9y ago
That's... one view. Do you have any actual evidence for it?
- lisper 9y ago
  http://blog.rongarret.info/2014/10/parallel-universes-and-arrow-of-time.html http://blog.rongarret.info/2014/10/parallel-universes-and-ar...
  - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
    That's a bunch of handwaving and "physics woo", not evidence. OK, you can make an argument for it, within at least some interpretations of QM. That doesn't mean the position is correct, though, and certainly doesn't mean that it deserves the degree of certainty with which you stated it.
    - lisper 9y ago
      I don't know what you would expect evidence for such a claim to look like. Did you follow the chain of references back to this paper? http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167278998000451 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167278998... https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9605039 https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9605039
      - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
        No, I didn't follow the chain of references back to there, nor, now that I'm looking for it, do I see any such references. The reference that I did see was to here: http://blog.rongarret.info/2014/09/are-parallel-universes-real.html http://blog.rongarret.info/2014/09/are-parallel-universes-re... And that page has what I would regard as an appropriate level of skepticism for it's own position. It says things like "IMO". It says what it thinks is correct, but it recognizes that it could be wrong. (Reasonable enough, when you're saying that the Copenhagen interpretation of QM is wrong. That may in fact be correct, but dogmatism is not warranted yet, and may never be.) The links you present show a paper that puts forward a theory. Again, I'm not saying it's wrong, and it seems to make some things easier to understand. But where's the experiment that tests a prediction of this paper, which other interpretations of QM can't explain? Without that, it's just a nice theory. There are lots of those.
        lisper 9y ago
        > where's the experiment that tests a prediction of this paper I am nonplussed by this question. Did you even bother to read the first post I referred you to? Because that is all about a (thought) experiment.
        AnimalMuppet 9y ago
        A thought experiment, built on a foundation of assuming which interpretation of QM is correct. That's not the same as an actual experiment, you know. Yes, we can gain insight from a thought experiment. If the underlying assumptions are correct, we can even learn something true about reality. It's that "if" that I'm questioning. And without an actual experiment, you don't know. And with that assumption for a foundation, your experiment becomes a way to experimentally distinguish which interpretation of QM is correct. I'm not saying that such an experiment is impossible, but it's going to be really hard.
        lisper 9y ago
        > A thought experiment, [i]s not the same as an actual experiment, you know. Yes, obviously. But special relativity was developed almost exclusively on the basis of thought experiments. So basing a scientific conclusion on a thought experiment has a venerable history. BTW, the EPRG experiment is not a thought experiment. That experiment has actually been done (despite the fact that the outcome was never in doubt, which is why it is not particularly noteworthy). > And with that assumption for a foundation, your experiment becomes a way to experimentally distinguish which interpretation of QM is correct. No, it's not possible to experimentally determine which interpretation is correct. But this is not unusual in science. There are an infinite number of theories that are consistent with any finite data set. To choose among them you need some criterion other than consistency with the data.
    - colordrops 9y ago
      I hate the term "woo". It's not much different from "libtard". How about attacking the particulars of an argument or discussion rather than ad hominem labeling.