Th. physics // 4th dimension // heisenbergs u.p.

feihlination

feihlination

Active member
this vid will actually be referenced to later:

so this might need someone with a deeper knowledge, i know there are quite a few guys with just that on here, maybe somehow can explain to me this in a nutshell. i am not even sure if there is a problem.

//PART 1

#####################################################

so there is heisenbergs uncertainty principle. its basically says that you cannot predict BOTH location and momentum of a particle with 100% accuracy. ex post you can usually make accurate descriptions for BOTH because you can observe them. this is a fundamental characteristic of our universe.

//PART 2

#####################################################

we are 3-dimensional creatures living in a 4-dim universe (at the very least). with the 4th dim being time/duration (and analog to a 2-dim object only "seeing" a slice of the 3-dim world) we can only experience the current moment, a slice of the 4th dim. but there might be 4th-dim objects capable of observing every single state of our 3-dim world at once, like from big bang to big crunch/big rip. they dont experience time, so they could see every single particle's location and momentum at once.

my question now is, since time is an illusion, and our 4-dim space is a pile of 3-dim spaces already fixed, why cant we predict loc/mom of an particle, but only observe it? in other words, why can you remember the pig video (past) but not the cow video (future)?

discuss, inb4 your mom, cool... and interior

 
threads like this make me wish ns thinkers was still active. anyway, i'm bored right now and have some time, so i'll give you my thoughts. this may get long.
i don't entirely understand your question. but let's start here. the thing about the uncertainty principle is that, for all intents and purposes on the macroscale, it's pretty useless.
what i mean by that is, say we have a car. it's moving. now technically, on a microscopic level, heisenberg says that we can't determine both it's position and velocity at the same time (i.e. at time t, their product has a finite error, mathematically). but if you look at the equation, that error bound is so small that it's almost irrelevant on the scale that we're familiar with.
meaning, if you know the car's velocity, it's possible to know it's position to within like .00000000001 of an inch (i pulled that number out of my ass, but you get my point, actually it's probably smaller). not a scale that really matters when you're looking at a 20-foot car.
so it's a cool theory, but as far as its effects on our everyday lives, there really are none that we see. that's a big reason why it wasn't published until the early 1900s.
also, the problem with asking questions like this is that they don't really get to the point. it's really difficult to understand almost any modern physics without a pretty strong mathematical background (as in advanced math, i'm not talking calculus here).
the uncertainty principle, along with most of quantum mechanics in general, is substantiated with real high-level math. so it's tough to come up with reasoning for it (aka why it's true/what it's based on, which i think may be what you're asking) without touching on some graduate-level math topics. i'm almost done with an undergrad math degree, and i have no fucking idea what they're talking about half the time, on the wikipedia articles and stuff.
i think that's part of the reason i'm having trouble understanding your post. physics is much easier to understand through equations and theories than concepts, which is what you're trying to do. not a huge problem, just a little less clear.
if i'm completely missing your point, let me know. that's very possible, and maybe you already knew all this.
also, do you have any sources for this stuff? especially part 2, that's where i kinda got lost.
 
I was thinking about this a while ago, dimensions, and it was all cause I thought. If you can make a graph with four parts, +/+, +/-, -/+, -/-. Then could you add another variable and make it a 3d graph to envelope time as well. So that the line portrayed on this known and used four-part graph. Could also be portrayed as curving backwards, or forewords. But then I realized it is possible, but only digitally, because it is impossible For us as 3d figures to see 3d. We are only capable of seeing a shadow, a fragment of 3d which is 2d. If we were 4d beings then it would be entirely possible to utilize this type of graph because 3d shapes and figures are within our possible view. And to view things 4d we would have to be 5d figures. And so on and so on. But the point is, no matter how hard we try to represent things as 3d it is impossible for us to see the entire shape of something when we can only view the outline, and marks within a figure.
 
heiseinberg is a faggot for implying that something that cannot be known does not exist. thats all im gonna add. einstein was right. God does NOT play dice
 
If you know position you can't know velocity because velocity is a change in position over a change in time. An observation of position happens at an in instant and you can't have a change in time measured in only one instant. As soon as a particle is observed it's wave front of potential positions collapses giving it no velocity.
 
Nice try, but......

The uncertainty principle states that in order to accurately determine the position of a PARTICLE, you need to use a photon or other interaction with the particle. This photon in turn transfers momentum to the particle and changes the particle's momentum. So you might figure out the position, but the momentum is indeterminable. Higher energy photons determine position more accurately, but they also disturb the momentum more. This is a paradox that deals with subatomic particles, not the human mind.

And the reason you can't remember the cow video is because you haven't seen it yet. Its not in your brain. Time is actually not an illusion, its a well defined dimension and quantity of the universe. Time, space, and gravity are all very closely related phenomenon. Time is really just an interpretation of space, its expansion, and the matter around you. Its not an illusion.

If you want to remember that cow video that you haven't seen yet, you'd have to be able to glimpse a 5th dimension, in order to be able to cut through the 4th dimension. For example, we can cut through length, width, height, and experience time to some degree. If we could experience the 5th dimension, then we could cut through length, width, height, and time. Also, implying that measuring the momentum and position of every known particle in the universe would allow us to determine the future of the universe is naive - we don't have anywhere close to that understanding of science. We don't even know where about 95% of the matter/energy of our galaxy is.

One more thing..... You can't apply quantum mechanics to every day life. It just doesn't work. If you've ever seen what the bleep do we know then don't believe that shit, its based off false science. You shouldn't try it because it doesn't work.
 
wow u just embarassed urself pretty bad there...if u had a clue what einsteins quote was in reference to, u wouldnt have made such a stupid comment... but seriously go to a church and laugh at people of faith...thats what cool people like u and bill maher do...
 
This. In a nutshell, you've blown up a quantum 'weirdity' to the larger zoomed-out world, where quantum effects, for whatever reason, dont work.

Heres a cool thought for you to munch on though.

Say you had a computer that could take a snapshot of the entire universe and all the particles in it - everything, from the computer itself, to the atoms in your left index finger, to a piece of gravel buried deep under two miles of rock out on Pluto.

If this computer, unrealistic as such a device may be, was able to compute all the universes particles positions, velocity, and how they interact with every other particle in the universe (because strangely enough, all particles do interact with all other particles - even atoms in other galaxies exert a very very very very very small amount of gravitational force on the atoms in your body), you could create a computer model that exactly replicates our universe.

Now do what computer models do best - run the program, see the future. You wont just get the exact motion of planets, stars, etc, but if you think about it, it will predict human behavior as well. The thoughts running through your head, even now, are just chemical reactions running in a predictable pattern.
 
maybe i said it wrong. time is not an illusion, but the flow of time is an illusion.

maybe that is right?

a 4dim object could "see" my life from birth to death at once. i can only experience my life one moment at a time because i am not 4dimensional.
 
my sources are pretty much that "imaging the 10th" dimension vid. i dont know how legit this is, but it seems kinda serious and easy to comprehend for the first few dimensions (especially up to 4).
 
yeah, ur basicliy running into the idea of free will and the illusion that we are in control of what we do.

if u are of the mindset that you are in control.... let me ask you this... the though that went through your head 10 seconds ago... how could you have possibly done anything to have prevented that thought from going through your head? In a larger respect, how could you have possibly done anything differently than what you have done in the past?

yeah
 
i got this out of a semi-scientific magazine (german, bild der wissenschaft):

lets say our universe was 2D in space plus 1 time axis. and the universe was, lets say regular piece of paper (infinite small thickness of course).every nanosecond, another piece of paper is added on top of it, representing the next state of the universe and so on. so there is an infinite number of states, a pile of paper with the top layer representing the ending of the universe and the first one the big bang if you want. so the whole universe is fixed, and the flow of time is unique to 2D objects in this case. we as 3D objects would see a static pile of paper and we can pull out every one of them and observe every possible state of this 2D+1 universe (equal to looking into the future for a 2D object).

so, OUR universe and every single state that ever was, is and will ever be, is fixed somewhere (just add that 3rd spatial dimension) in the 4th dimension. so why do our brains just have "access" to the part that we call "past"??

 
interesting, also relates to that thing i read with the "fixed" universe/timeline.

i read another, different study a while ago, where they tested decision-making with computer tomographs. somehow it turned out, that the "decision" or something in the lines of that was made unconsciously a few seconds before participants could name their decision.

i will try to find the article, hold on.
 
Even more unsettling is the realization that you had no other choice but to type this reply out.

Lets be honest though, however creepy this is, there are still things in quantum physics that may indeed prove that there are indeed things that happen absolutely at random, so it may not indeed be possible to predict the future in such a simulation. I'm of the opinion that we're living in a multiverse, with millions of universes branching off when these random events can go a number of ways. We're talking a million universes splitting off every fraction of a second, so the multiverse field is probably near infinite, but recent discoveries and theories in physics seem to be suggesting that we do indeed live in this chaotic maelstrom.
 
Read Blink by Malcom Gladwell for creepy stuff like this about the human subconscious and the decisions we make without knowing we've made a decision.

In the famous initial example he starts off with, in a research experiment about gambling money based on a card game where the rules are left for the participant to figure out, it took about 50 turns before people had an inkling of perception that red cards are more risky than blue cards. Your palms start sweating and your heart rate increases when you are dealt a red card within 20 turns. Your mind realizes whats going on before YOU realize whats going on.

Creepy.
 
I didn't read the full thread and i don't know how to answer your question, but I just learned something about Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principal, and want to know something.
An electron actually has about a 1meter area that i could be in around the center of the atom, but the the potability that it would be that far away is really really low. Also when it changes locations, it does so instantly. So, Im wondering if in theory, if some how all your electrons happened to fall on this probability of being 1 meter away to a specific place, you could be transported there. and it wouldn't mater if there was a wall in the way or anything, you would just appear on the other side of it. The chances of this happening is really small, like billions and trillions to 1, but in theory could it happen?
 
i remember that in stephen hawkings "brief history of time" (or whatever its called in english), he covers that in his quantum-mechanics chapter.

there is a possibility greater than 0 that if i run towards a wall that all of my atoms are found on the other side of the wall.

its pretty uncertain that one atom does it, yet alone a few trillion (my body) or even in the correct order.

BUT i have a question:

lets say the probability that an electron is found 1 metre away from the neutron is 1:(1 billion), stays that probability the same when you put the neutron into a cubic box which is smaller than 1 cubic metre ?
 
Alright, first of all the idea that taking a picture of the universe at any moment in its complete state of being is of any direct use at this time in predicting the future is kind of a silly concept, because that would imply that we would have quantam computers, ridiculously advanced instrumentation, and a perfect understanding of all of the universe's physical laws in order to accurately predict anything that could happen. Realistically, right now we are still updating our values for an electron mass or even a charge quanta, and without an exact knowledge of that value we can't predict anything.

Second of all, the reason you will never be able to teleport through a wall or be present at every point on the globe is that the wavelength of your body is smaller than the size of your body. The wave properties of a human being essentially do not exist due to our physical size. You need to be dealing with subatomic particles to invoke quantam effects. They DO NOT work outside of the quantam world, so stop trying. Also, its not only electrons that have wave properties, but every single subatomic particle.

Third of all, an electron has a 90% probability of being within its orbital. It can technically be anywhere in space, but its probably not going to end up a continent away from its nucleus. You see, the interesting thing about subatomic particles is they behave in truly random ways. We can't measure the location of an electron, but we can probabilistically predict where it is. Its important to remember that its not because of the uncertainty principle that we can't measure the position/location of an electron, but because it is a wave function that could be anywhere. The idea of a probabilistic wave function as the location of an electron isn't just for the sake of our models, its what they ACTUALLY do. I can't see us ever living in a deterministic universe because of this - chaos does exist in the universe, especially at the subatomic level.

Also, electrons have no attraction to neutrons except for potential strong/weak force interactions, but you'd need a proton for the electron to orbit it. And putting it in a box would change its wave function if you also changed its frequency and/or wavelength and/or velocity. The atom wouldn't be changed by being in the box, unless other conditions were changed.
 
Slight change of subject here so apologies in advance, but do you think the universe will end with a big rip/crunch? I know it depends on the density parameter of the universe that in turn depends on the shape of the universe, but IMO the big rip seems like the most plausible, based on red-shift.
 
You're saying that time is in illusion but it is the 4th dimension. This is contradictory. If time is in fact an illusion then it doesn't exist. If it is another dimension then an object will be able to travel through it.
 
Redshift makes it look like that, but we're cosmologically in first grade. The first step towards knowing the immediate future of the universe is to solve the dark energy/matter problem, which would account for the expansive force on galaxies and the universe. Once we find this we can extrapolate on what will happen, we'll never be totally sure though. IMO the big bang theory, and the big rip/crunch will all be thrown out or revised in the next 50 years or so. We don't know enough to be able to make any guesses about the fate of the universe. If you want more information on this kind of stuff I suggest you check out the PLANCK mission, its a UBC satellite that took the highest resolution picture of the CMB to date. This data should give us a lot of information on the initial state of the universe, its structure, and its future.
 
my threads

OT: if i remember correctly (which i doubt) you cant observe exact position and momentum because 1 it takes time for the observation to occur, if a particle has momentum its position is changing with time, so even the nanoseconds it may take for you to observe a particles position (and if you could calculate its exact momentum) it has moved, therefore changing both its position and momentum, making it possible to get a very accurate reading, but theoretically never exact.
 
bitch i went to catholic school for 10 years i dont need your bullshit. you really believe that one entity created this entire earth rather than the expansion, evolution and growth of nature that is clearly evident every day of your life? go watch glenn beck reruns dumbass.
 
AGAIN:

the FLOW of time is an illusion, sorry for that. my question was more in the direction that we just experience "time" as flowing, where this is unique to us living in the 3rd dimension. we can only see a slice of the 4th dimension at a time.

SO IF SOMEONE KNOWS THE ANSWERS --> GO!

1) is my future fixed? could some "creature" overseeing the 4th dimension tell me if i become a famous athlete or if i die in an inexplicably strange polar bear attack?

--> equal to existence of destiny?

this really bothers me since i wrote an essay in hs about how heisenbergs u.p. destroys deterministic universe theories and destiny. free will is maybe also not what we think it is, so destiny might very well be a factor.

2) if its fixed, why is it that our mind divides past and future as we can only "predict" the future and remember the past? i know about the time-arrows, but idk....

somehow i feel like were not that far away from explaining the world. all these things influence each other. dimensions, free will/destiny, death/afterlife, and so on...
 
1) The existence of creatures in higher dimensions is debatable - for example, as shown in the 10 dimension movie, 2-D beings couldnt exist as far as we know. Even if some being could exist and experience dimensions differently than us, theres the whole issue of "is our universe actually a multiverse" - basically, we would have any numbers of possible futures, each its own self contained universe in which, say, a coin toss went the other way. You would have near infinite possible futures, but to the higher dimensional being, it would be hard to say which path 'you' will experience... technically, you would experience all of them.

2) Mystery of consciousness, need to do about 100 more years of neuroscience research and study, brb.

Humanity has come close to "complete understanding" of the world many times... and its always just led to another level of mystery. Atoms to subatomic particles to quarks/bosons/leptons... every time you find the 'elementary particle' you just come up with something smaller. Its possible that our universe may not have such a thing... which is sort of a interesting thought.
 
Do you believe in fate or destiny?? Say you go to a party, there is a really fine looking girl that you notice. Is it fate that you saw her? Is it destiny that you will hook up with her that night?

Good thing you have free will so you CAN hook up with her. You may or may not depending on what you decide.

Depending on your definitions and the way you interpret these words, YOU can change your future or let fate and/or destiny do its thing.

I definitely believe that fate plays an important role in our everyday life.

For example: at 8:05 AM you finish eating breakfast, pick up your keys, and get in your car. At 8:07 you are driving down the street you live on and pass an intersection. A car runs the stop sign and hits your car.

I believe it was fate that your car got hit by this other person that ran the stop sign. You could have changed your fate by taking an extra 30 seconds fixing your hair/clothing before you left that morning you would have missed that car. As soon as you left your drive way there was a determined amount of time before both you and the other person go to the intersection at the same time.
 
but from a theoretical standpoint i would hope that its either/or.

either there is destiny and NO free will or no fixed future and a completely free will

on a semi-related note

free-willy1.jpg
 
you winded yourself out of the question (or was your answer that it is indeed fixed but there might be noone to see it/tell me?)

if the universe is only 4-dimensional, which is the only experimentally verifiable version right now, then there wont be infinite futures for me, but ONE. so again, is it fixed?
 
Again, from a purely scientific standpoint, what you think is a 'decision' is just a cascade of chemical events that has an inevitable conclusion - we dont understand how they work, but in theory, if we did, we could predict human behavior. Choice could very well be an illusion if there are no random events in the universe - just like spilling marbles onto a table, if you know every particles speed, direction, etc, you can say with absolute certainty where every marble will end up - the universe may only have one inescapable destined future.
 
You should read about String theory. The work put into that attempts to explain your question about destiny and time and such
 
There isn't one clear answer, the Holographic universe theory argues against the big bang and suggests quite a bit about "destiny"
 
i didnt read everyones replies, but i learned in school that we cant actually observe a particle moving. we only know its position at one moment, and then its position at another moment. we have no way of observing how or when it moves from one spot to the other. thats why when we talk about orbitals and shit, all it is is a probability of where the electrons of an atom might be at any given time. i dunno if this makes sense or if this is even what youre talking about but whatever
 
So I watched that 10 dimension video above and I'd like someone to hear me out. I may sound ignorant in this but if the 10th dimension is anything in all spaces that could ever be, wouldn't the 11th be what couldn't be? Like chaos? (Outcomes that couldn't have happened)
 
I agree, i'm a chemist really but i did a-level [ages 16-18] physics so i know a bit about dark matter and shit. Has anyone discovered what dark matter is exactly? + have they detected anything yet? I would google it but sifting through 1 million pages to find a paragraph is annoying.
 
i read a book right now and it only says that its somehow very hypothetical but then again very necessary and that up to 90% or so of ALL matter in our universe is dark matter/energy.

dont forget black dwarfs, dark stars or the dark flow.

as the other guy said, before we find a better explanation/evidence for this, all that "dark" stuff is kinda hard to grasp
 
Brown/black dwarfs have been ruled out as far as I know - MACHOs (Massive Compact Halo Objects) have been ruled out, but WIMPS (weakly interacting massive particles) are another candidate - neutrinos were originally a candidate for dark matter, but they were ruled out too. My astronomy prof told us that the only current viable option was a theoretical particle called an Axion, which hadn't been detected but was predicted by the standard model. There's a telescope at CERN that is attempting to detect axions, if that happens then we'll be a little closer probably.

And you can't just ask people to tell you if the universe is deterministic or not; we have no idea and anyone that says they know is lying. I won't ever believe in a deterministic view of anything; it doesn't do anything for you. If you resign your life to a predetermined path instead of going out and getting what you want, you won't get anywhere. In the end, I think this is MORE important than the question of determinism.

And to the guy talking about the holographic universe.... If you took that from the Michael Talbot book you can GTFO. Metaphysical bullshit has no place in discussions of real physics.
 
Goddamn...the uncertainty principle, for example, just says that you can't 100% say that a meteorite will crash into your house, ignite your dog, which runs to the neighbors yard, and burns down their house, etc. etc. The odds might be super fucking slim, but we can only predict based on what we know already, so the probability is not quite 100%. Anything "impossible" can actually happen, because it hasn't happened yet. Example 2: You put a cat in a box. You gas the cat. Result? Well, actually, the cat is NEITHER dead nor alive UNTIL YOU OBSERVE DIRECTLY. Get it yet? You can be playing poker and a card can flip over and show newschoolers on it. Impossible, you say? You can't 100% assume it is because it breaks the uncertainty principle. It just says anything can happen regardless of what we think can or cannot. BOOM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top