Theoretical physicist Sean Carroll, PhD, is challenged to explain the concept of dimensions to 5 different people; a child, a teen, a college student, a grad student, and an expert.
Decoherence doesn’t require a human knowing about it. Spacetime represents our reality and converts virtual quantum information to physical/real objects.
Observation/Measurement is dead. Spacetime determines if a quantum wave should be physical for our reality. Spacetime governs our reality, by handing out physical states. Time dilation demonstrates spacetime scaling reality.
The flight/path/state of a particle/wave is known before starting. If a spacetime object (detector) causes the particle to decohere but continue moving to a final panel, the particle/wave is given a physical state from the start. If the particle/wave is to pass two detectors before the final panel, the particle/wave starts as a wave ..the physical state is taken from it.
Are unobserved matter waves, virtual mass in a 4D format – without time (don’t age/decay)? When it is given time it becomes physical in 3D and the 4D is used for time? The temporal dimension is where the fabric of spacetime originates, anything there is 4D by default. It isn’t spatial but mass can live there as quantum waves ..virtual.
A physical state turns a wave physical before it starts moving. It won’t be a wave during its flight.
4D virtual mass is unobservable. A physical state from spacetime is transforming the 4D to 3D + time.
Dark matter is unobservable, but also doesn’t have the ability to be given a physical state.
Does observation/spacetime swap quantum waves by giving it a physical state and a timeline? The wave function can propagate, but the wave doesn’t age until given a physical state.
Does this explain why we can never see quantum waves ..they are 4D?
There is no reason for giving “observed” vs “unobserved” particles any special properties. At most a measurement can make the wave function for the position more narrow which seems more particle-like. At the end of the day it’s always described by a wave function. Wave- particle duality is a relic from a time where we were initially trying to understand QM.
Dark matter is observable through gravity. Otherwise we wouldn’t have observed it. I know that’s a tautology, but it seems it needs to be pointed out.
Sure there is, unobserved particles can tunnel, entangle, and be in superposition.
Dark Matter is not directly observable, you aren’t going to see a particle of it.
“Unobserved” / “observed” is not a well-defined property of a wave function. You cannot tell whether something was observed or not observed. Observation simply changes the state of a system to an eigenstate of some observable, which is just another state.
Decoherence is the difference between observed and unobserved
There’s no way to make a measurement so a particle is literally at one point, hence they are always in superposition over positions. It’s just a matter of how spread out.
And even if we did accept there was such a difference, the particle would be in this “observed” state for literally a point in time and go back to being unobserved. It wouldn’t make sense.
Observed particles are not in superposition (they are not in a state that is considered quantum weirdness), they have uncertainty because the quantum field still has an influence on it.
The observed state lasts from point a to b. It’s given a timeline. If it hits an object too large to be influenced by the quantum field it remains observed as it is part of that object now.
Einstein failed at a unified theory because he refused to believe anything could be without a physical state from spacetime.
I’ve often thought that the universe itself is incapable of storing a perfect memory of anything more than a tiny percentage of its contents–some laughably small fraction of its whole. Even with an amazingly efficient system, how much information could really be stored about what’s transpired in the past?
By this I mean: I’d like to know, for example, which oceans the molecule of water in my glass has been immersed in, which algae used it as part of their metabolic processes, which comet deposited it onto the proto earth, which nuclear furnace generated the oxygen that went into its formation, etc.
I’d like to know this for as much of the universe as possible, in as much detail as possible. How much of the universe would be required, and how much information could you store?
Here are my thoughts on how to solve this. Considering:
- There are some 1e83 atoms in the universe. Describing an atom at a macro level would mean you’d need to store its position and velocity over time, integrated into arbitrarily small time units, or perhaps only recording the changes in velocity when it accelerates (but even then you’d be discarding true information regarding its precise movements from heat and possibly inscrutable stochastic processes if it could even be attained at that scale without destructively altering the atom as it goes about its normal business).
The atom itself isn’t even atomic, as there are quarks and other strange particles, but you get the idea of “atom” for the thought experiment.
- You’d need some multiplicand of atoms to describe this information–very likely already requiring a few orders of magnitude of atoms per recorded atom.
This would be a reading and writing mechanism, again a few orders of magnitude per atom that somehow encodes information about the ones you’re observing. (I.e., computer memory requires some 1e25 atoms (500g of silicon) to manipulate 8e12 bits of information (1 TB)–criminally inefficient.)
- You’d need motive forces that would be so inclined as to construct this system, themselves constituting overhead rather than a storage mechanism. E.g., powerful creatures with space thumbs.
- You’d need to have constructed the system in such a way that it could transmit or collate that information despite the inflation and entropy of the universe, and be willing to discard or localize data (locally accessible but inaccessible from other parts of the universe) that simply couldn’t overcome time horizons.
- You’d need a non-destructive or at least not particularly invasive method of recording the state of each atom even when squeezed in among siblings (and we’ll assume such a thing is possible, although it almost certainly isn’t)
- In a Gödel-esque puzzle, as I vaguely understand the term from GEB, the system itself would necessarily fail to encode information about its own history
Thus in the best-case scenario, you’re talking about an encoding inefficiency that necessitates only being able to record the state of some smaller subsection of the rest of the universe, and that would require the entire rest of the universe being dedicated to that task, which is presumably unlikely.
The infant ape’s life was brief, dying before the age of two. Yet its discovery 13 million years later by a team led by Bay Area anthropologist Isaiah Nengo is casting light on a shadowy and pivotal period in pre-human history.
Characteristics of the fossil, the most complete extinct ape skull ever found, mark it as a new species in the great flowering of ape evolution, which later led to the emergence of humans. We didn’t descend from the little ape; rather, we have kin in common.
“Together, we have great-great-great-great grandparents that we all share,”
said Nengo, who lives in Ross, digs in Kenya and teaches at Cupertino’s DeAnza College. His research, published in Wednesday’s issue of the prestigious journal Nature, was funded by the San Francisco-based Leakey Foundation, founded to explore the origins of humanity.
Little is known about ancient apes, the ancestors of living apes and humans.
It was a time of great evolutionary success, with an explosion of genetic diversity. And then the apes mysteriously declined. Only a few remained, in restricted places: gibbons and orangutans in Asia and chimps, gorillas and the early human australopithecines in Africa.
In contrast, monkeys prevailed. And humans, for better or worse, are extraordinarily successful.
The 13 million-year-old fossil, now extinct, reveals what the common ancestor of all living apes and humans may have looked like. Dating back to the Miocene, its species has been named Nyanzapithecus alesi.
We branched off quite recently, only 6 to 7 million years ago.
The stunning discovery in 2014 came at the end of a long and disappointing day near the western shore of Kenya’s Lake Turkana in Africa’s Great Rift Valley, in a place full of volcanic rock and largely devoid of fossils, said Nengo.
Nengo was deeply invested in the success of the project at the Turkana Basin Institute. He had secured grant funding, assembled the team, coordinated the effort and was responsible for everything from fuel in trucks to water in jugs.
“We spent the whole day finding nothing. Zero. We were in a pretty bad mood,” he recalled. So the team gave up and went back to camp for dinner, walking the same familiar route they had always taken, back and forth, every day.
An assistant, John Ekusi, pulled out a cigarette. “We told him: ‘You’re going to kill us! Smoke it far away,’ ” Nengo said. So Ekusi walked ahead of the team, about 500 yards.
Phoebe Sarah Marks was born in Portsea, England in 1854. She changed her first name to Hertha when she was a teenager. After passing the Cambridge University Examination for Women with honors in English and mathematics, she attended Girton College at Cambridge University, the first residential college for women in England. Charlotte Scott also attended Girton at this time, and she and Marks helped form a mathematics club to “find problems for the club to solve and ‘discuss any mathematical question that may arise'” . Marks passed the Mathematical Tripos in 1880, although with a disappointing Third Class performance. Because Cambridge did not confer degrees to women at this time, just certificates, she successfully completed an external examination and received a B.Sc. degree from the University of London.
From 1881 to 1883, Marks worked as a private mathematics tutor, as well as tutoring other subjects. In 1884 she invented a draftsman’s device that could be used for dividing up a line into equal parts as well as for enlarging and reducing figures. She was also active in devising and solving mathematical problems, many of which were published in the Mathematical Questions and Their Solutions from the “Educational Times”. Tattersall and McMurran write that “Her many solutions indicate without a doubt that she possessed remarkable geometric insight and was quite a clever student of mathematics.”
Marks began her scientific studies by attending evening classes in physics at Finsbury Technical College given by Professor William Ayrton, whom she married in 1885. She assisted her husband with his experiments in physics and electricity, becoming an acknowledged expert on the subject of the electric arc. She published several papers from her own research in electric arcs in the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London and The Electrician, and published the book The Electric Arc in 1902. According to Tattersall and McMurran,