Is the universe infinite?

Started by Mindship4 pages

Originally posted by alltoomany
35% of people born now are not born with wisdom teeth
Now there'll be even less wisdom in the world.

Originally posted by Mindset
Astner, are you still doing some ridiculously hard major?

I'm still on my master's thesis for another year, which centers around macroscaled quantum entanglement.

Originally posted by Astner
I'm still on my master's thesis for another year, which centers around macroscaled quantum entanglement.

damn, and I thought I was hardcore... 🙁

Astner is the alpha.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Well put.

It seems like an overly fancy way of saying "we don't really know."

Originally posted by Mindset
Astner is the alpha.

Come to think of it. Yeah, I am pretty darn alpha, aren't I?

Originally posted by Astner
I'm still on my master's thesis for another year, which centers around macroscaled quantum entanglement.
For eventual macroscale quantum teleporting?

What's the conventional wisdom these days regarding the wavefunction? Real, or just a mathematical metaphor?

Originally posted by Mindship
For eventual macroscale quantum teleporting?

What's the conventional wisdom these days regarding the wavefunction? Real, or just a mathematical metaphor?

eat

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
eat
😂

Note, though, I'm not asking about eigenstates.

Originally posted by Mindship
😂

Note, though, I'm not asking about eigenstates.

crybaby

Originally posted by Mindship
For eventual macroscale quantum teleporting?

No. It centers around using the concept of quantum entanglement for communication, and what effects might occur under different conditions created by similar systemized processes nearby.

So it could roughly be thought of as superluminal communication, but my professors would have me hanged for calling it that.

Originally posted by Mindship
What's the conventional wisdom these days regarding the wavefunction? Real, or just a mathematical metaphor?

The wave function works well to explain the behavior of particles under certain conditions, and that's why it's used. The same reasoning applies to the particle properties. We're not actually able to look at an elementary particle and determine what it really is, because the light it emits is caused by its vibrations.

Originally posted by Astner
No. It centers around using the concept of quantum entanglement for communication, and what effects might occur under different conditions created by similar systemized processes nearby.
What are you using that you're calling it macroscale?

Originally posted by Astner
So it could roughly be thought of as superluminal communication, but my professors would have me hanged for calling it that.
Maybe just call it "spooky action at a distance," ala Albert.

Originally posted by Astner
The wave function works well to explain the behavior of particles under certain conditions, and that's why it's used. The same reasoning applies to the particle properties. We're not actually able to look at an elementary particle and determine what it really is, because the light it emits is caused by its vibrations.
I was asking because, as I understand it, there's been some debate about the WF's "reality." Eg:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/11/the-insanely-weird-quantum-wave-function-might-be-real-after-all/

Originally posted by Mindship
For eventual macroscale quantum teleporting?

What's the conventional wisdom these days regarding the wavefunction? Real, or just a mathematical metaphor?

Originally posted by Mindship
😂

Note, though, I'm not asking about eigenstates.

Originally posted by Astner
No. It centers around using the concept of quantum entanglement for communication, and what effects might occur under different conditions created by similar systemized processes nearby.

So it could roughly be thought of as superluminal communication, but my professors would have me hanged for calling it that.

The wave function works well to explain the behavior of particles under certain conditions, and that's why it's used. The same reasoning applies to the particle properties. We're not actually able to look at an elementary particle and determine what it really is, because the light it emits is caused by its vibrations.

Originally posted by Mindship
What are you using that you're calling it macroscale?

Maybe just call it "spooky action at a distance," ala Albert.

I was asking because, as I understand it, there's been some debate about the WF's "reality." Eg:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/11/the-insanely-weird-quantum-wave-function-might-be-real-after-all/

I see...

Originally posted by Mindset
I see...

Originally posted by Mindship
What are you using that you're calling it macroscale?

The communication occurs through the detection of spins, so we're working with clusters of particles -- some with different spin -- for combinatory purposes.

Originally posted by Mindship
Maybe just call it "spooky action at a distance," ala Albert.

Or a connection through time, not space. Superluminal sounds better though, even if it would get me beaten hand hanged in the closest tree.

Originally posted by Mindship
I was asking because, as I understand it, there's been some debate about the WF's "reality." Eg:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/11/the-insanely-weird-quantum-wave-function-might-be-real-after-all/


This is a popular science article, and I couldn't find the source they referenced. I really have nothing to go by to state a personal interpretation

Originally posted by Astner
The communication occurs through the detection of spins, so we're working with clusters of particles -- some with different spin -- for combinatory purposes.
That's. Pretty. Darn. Cool...if not downright paradigm-challenging. Good luck with this, and let us know what happens.

If you want me to I can send you a copy once it's published. If you know your beyond the standard model physics then it shouldn't be too difficult to follow.

Originally posted by Astner
The communication occurs through the detection of spins, so we're working with clusters of particles -- some with different spin -- for combinatory purposes.

Or a connection through time, not space. Superluminal sounds better though, even if it would get me beaten hand hanged in the closest tree.

This is a popular science article, and I couldn't find the source they referenced. I really have nothing to go by to state a personal interpretation

I was told that communication using entanglement would be impossible. Don't you destroy the information as soon as you detect the spin?

If the known galaxy is apparently a huge black hole spinning smaller galaxies in a rotation. Those smaller galaxies also spinning discs.

And outside is just void. Then arguably the universe is infinite. An infinite void.

But where did the initial bang come from? That's when shit gets esoteric. And that's another story which requires lots of scotch.

Originally posted by Astner
If you want me to I can send you a copy once it's published. If you know your beyond the standard model physics then it shouldn't be too difficult to follow.
I'm guessing much of the text will involve math, which will leave me in the quantum dust. But I wouldn't mind reading the abstract (copy-paste to private message?). Thanks.