The double solution theory, a new interpretation of Wave Mechanics

[BlackHoley]

Where?

You said

''In any respect, the only thing we are certain of, is the existence of space/time.''

This is what we started talking about today. I asked you what exactly was meant by this statement, because there is only one thing I am sure of in science and that is never to be 100% certain about a thing.

 

[Undefined]

Your bolding and redding and taking stuff out of context are par for the course. But does not make the misinterpretations valid that you are attempting to portray.

I posted the whole Einstein address to OnlyMe when he asked for the whole context.

You have been doing nothing BUT taking other's work out of context and/or not even understanding its import with your 'me too' crap.

Hypocrisy is not a good look, especially for your (as you called her) VERY RELIGIOUS wifey's chosen one, paddo. Think of her shame next time you open your troll hypocrite insensible trap, mate. For HER sake if not for your own. Do/learn better, paddo.

Did you read and understand why the ABSTRACTION came about, as Einstein explained there in red and black so you can't ignore it anymore?

Or will you come back with more EXCUSES to ignore what Einstein just told you therein? Only silly ass trolls would do that, again.

Will you be a silly ass troll again, paddo and do that again?

 

[AlexG]

RealityCheck is trolling again.

 

[arfa brane]

Perhaps we "need" to be certain about the existence of space and time, because that's what we can measure.
We don't measure any other physical quantity directly; all measurements have a basis of intervals of space and time.

If you define physical as (equivalent to) being measurable, there we have it. And the corollary is that both are therefore mathematical.

 

[BlackHoley]

Perhaps we "need" to be certain about the existence of space and time, because that's what we can measure.

In quantum mechanics, we can measure only observables. Time isn't an observable, so how can we measure it?

 

[AlexG]

Time isn't an observable, so how can we measure it?

Interval is observable and measurable.

 

[BlackHoley]

Interval is observable and measurable.

And what is an interval?

Please don't reply ''time...'' Can you actually tell us, what an interval may consist of, how do we measure an interval?

 

[BlackHoley]

Because... an interval is not time, per se. Time is the tool you measure an interval; like a displacement of a bowling ball.

 

[AlexG]

An interval is the period between two or more cyclical events. We measure it with clocks.

 

[BlackHoley]

An interval is the period between two or more cyclical events. We measure it with clocks.

Excellent, yes.

Time is what clocks measure. Now... there can only be agreement, no one actually observes time. There can only be agreement there are changes in events (they don't need to be cyclic). So an interval is a measure of the changes in events, the clock on the wall helps you keep track of it.

That's a big difference in my eyes, to saying we can be certain of it, because we can measure it. That's not at all what is happening, is it?

 

[AlexG]

(they don't need to be cyclic)

The events don't, the clock does. You seem to be saying if you can't see it, it doesn't exist, even if you can measure it.

 

[BlackHoley]

The events don't, the clock does. You seem to be saying if you can't see it, it doesn't exist, even if you can measure it.

Not at all, what I am saying is we need to be careful about what we say are ''certainties.''

Also, I was arguing the absoluteness of the statement

''maybe we ''need'' to be certain about space and time since we can measure it.''

Clearly this statement, is bold and moving, but holds no water in reality.

 

[BlackHoley]

And no.. we don't ''measure'' it.

Clocks are supposed to measure time, we established this. But clocks are an invention, they are designed to change in such a way to appease of sense of time.

 

[AlexG]

But clocks are an invention, they are designed to change in such a way to appease of sense of time.

No, they are designed in such a way to measure a regular cyclical period. By your argument, atoms don't exist since we can't observe them without the use of an invention.

 

[arfa brane]

Clearly this statement, is bold and moving, but holds no water in reality.

I was aware when I posted it that it only shifts the posts to what measurement is.
"The collapse of the wavefunction", just doesn't do it for me.

But I think I aimed it also at this concept of certainty, what are we certain about, and why. Evolution says a species is fit for the purpose, so this "sense" of intervals of time and space must be something we "need" in order to be fit for this evolutionary purpose (supposedly to survive, reproduce and continue to evolve).

Hence, our sense of being able to measure both space and time is an advantage to our survival, but that's all. So we are "certain" about it in a necessary way.

What then, are we doing when we observe a simple pendulum "in motion"? We see it moving in one, then the opposite direction. We see it has two mutually exclusive limits of motion. What we don't see is the continuous path (the swinging weight doesn't "leave anything behind it" in space).

Dumb question #1: why don't we see the continuous path?

 

[BlackHoley]

I was aware when I posted it that it only shifts the posts to what measurement is.
"The collapse of the wavefunction", just doesn't do it for me.

It's such a deep subject, but there are many reasons physicists believe in measurables, they constitute what is known as Hermitian Matrices. If it isn't Hermitian, then it isn't an observable.

 

[Undefined]

An interval is the period between two or more cyclical events. We measure it with clocks.

Great! Can you explain that "two or more" events thingy to Grumpy, Alex? I've been trying to do so without getting through yet.

By the by, only ONE need be the '"cyclic" (periodic oscillation, rotation etc) 'standard observation/event/motion' to which any other motion, whether periodic or not, can then be compared to that standard.

Thanks for your clear understanding on this one, Alex! Cheers.

 

[BlackHoley]

Dumb question #1: why don't we see the continuous path?

Because we are stuck in the present. Continuous paths, are the same as world lines in physics, we can't observe an entire world line, we can see events within the world line.

 

[Undefined]

Hi arfa.

Perhaps we "need" to be certain about the existence of space and time, because that's what we can measure.
We don't measure any other physical quantity directly; all measurements have a basis of intervals of space and time.

If you define physical as (equivalent to) being measurable, there we have it. And the corollary is that both are therefore mathematical.

As Maxila and others have been pointing out, empirically observable/confirmable real things are energy and space, and the motion/changes of that energy component features in/across the space component is what is real composite energy-space' (or real energy-space UNIFIED FIELD), not abstract 'space-time' math model/analysis construct.

Cheers.

 

[BlackHoley]

No, they are designed in such a way to measure a regular cyclical period. By your argument, atoms don't exist since we can't observe them without the use of an invention.

No, this is why I corrected you, because you sound like the ludicrous Copenhagen statement that things don't exist until they are measured. This isn't the same kind of argument, there is no physical observation of time at all. There is however a particle regardless of whether a human measures it, particles observe each other all the time. What is relative to time which one can measure it? Apart from the clock on the wall which is an invention to measure itself a notion of change, is nothing but a machine. What is really measuring time?