Time is imagined

If you don't feel then there are only three senses left. If all of them are absent, what happens to reality?
 
Reiku said:
If you don't feel then there are only three senses left. If all of them are absent, what happens to reality?
Click to expand...

It would remain existing unobserved by us, as it did before we existed.
 
figment of "our" imagination

While studying satellite imagery, Lou began to question what most had classified as camera errors. His query led him to a place no man had gone before. And many now fear to go. It's to a place where the universe, it is realized, is a figment of our imagination. And it's our acceptance of newly discovered truths which affords imagination the ability to construct the most accurate figment possible, to date. Because God becomes known through the understanding of his creation, and because man is created in the image he has of God, through the knowing of this discovery, man becomes.

<http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/preslectures/frank99/index.html>
 
Frud11 said:
There's absolutely nothing foolish about the wind (motion of air molecules), and time.

Except for: it's foolish to say that you can substitute time for the wind, or for anything, because there is only one kind of time--the one that always goes forwards. I don't think you can substitute for it in any dynamical equations, at least (you wouldn't get many marks in the exam).
Click to expand...

You can substitute it because it possesses all the attributes you use in your argument about time.

"If you believe it's real, prove that it is. Show us all where WIND is, and tell us what it looks like. How easy is it to store? What sort of containers does it come in? Where can I buy some? Does it look like a liquid, solid, or a gas?"

So, prove it's real..
 
Myles said:
I suggest you read a bit more about entanglement, as you clearly do not understand what is involved.
Click to expand...
Clearly.

Why don't you read a bit more too, and tell us about what I don't understand, instead of trying to rely on the standard, but non-existent argument: "you don't know what you're talking about"? Do you really want me to start posting stuff from online papers that shows information is not transferred, nor is any energy, because it would have to exceed c, for one?
 
me said:
it's foolish to say that you can substitute time for the wind, or for anything, because there is only one kind of time--the one that always goes forwards. I don't think you can substitute for it in any dynamical equations, at least (you wouldn't get many marks in the exam).
Click to expand...
enmos said:
You can substitute it because it possesses all the attributes you use in your argument about time.
Click to expand...
Duh...Wind has the same attributes as Time? I don't think so...
Where did you get that idea? It's like saying that temperature has the same attributes as water...:bugeye:
enmos said:
So, prove it's real..
Click to expand...
Prove what is real? The wind? Time? This forum?:shrug:
 
This forum is imaginary.

Nothing rational gets discussed--because nothing ever is discussed. It's all pseudo-rational BS, particularly in forums with the S word in front. Probably why so few scientists bother with them.
 
alanejackson said:
While studying satellite imagery, Lou began to question what most had classified as camera errors. His query led him to a place no man had gone before. And many now fear to go. It's to a place where the universe, it is realized, is a figment of our imagination. And it's our acceptance of newly discovered truths which affords imagination the ability to construct the most accurate figment possible, to date. Because God becomes known through the understanding of his creation, and because man is created in the image he has of God, through the knowing of this discovery, man becomes.

<http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/preslectures/frank99/index.html>
Click to expand...

Yes, I can see the relevance of that observation; just wish I had thought of it.
 
Frud11 said:
Clearly.

Why don't you read a bit more too, and tell us about what I don't understand, instead of trying to rely on the standard, but non-existent argument: "you don't know what you're talking about"? Do you really want me to start posting stuff from online papers that shows information is not transferred, nor is any energy, because it would have to exceed c, for one?
Click to expand...

JUst cite your source which claims that information is not transferred.
 
Clifton, Bub, and Halvorson (2003) have shown that one can derive the basic kinematic features of a quantum description of physical systems from three fundamental information-theoretic constraints:

* the impossibility of superluminal information transfer between two physical systems by performing measurements on one of them
* the impossibility of perfectly broadcasting the information contained in an unknown physical state (which, for pure states, amounts to ‘no cloning’)
* the impossibility of communicating information so as to implement a bit commitment protocol with unconditional security

More precisely, the analysis is carried out in an algebraic framework which allows a mathematically abstract characterization of a physical theory that includes, as special cases, all classical mechanical theories of both wave and particle varieties, and all variations on quantum theory, including quantum field theories (plus any hybrids of these theories, such as theories with superselection rules). Within this framework, the three information-theoretic constraints are shown to jointly entail three physical conditions that are taken as definitive of what it means to be a quantum theory in the most general sense, specifically that:

* the algebras of observables pertaining to distinct physical systems commute (a condition usually called microcausality or kinematic independence)
* any individual system's algebra of observables is noncommutative
* the physical world is nonlocal, in that spacelike separated systems can occupy entangled states that persist as the systems separate
Click to expand...
--plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/

Alice wants to teleport an unknown quantum state Yñ to Bob. They both agree to share an entangled pair of qubits, known as the ancillary pair. Alice then performs a joint Bell-state measurement on the teleportee (the photon she wants to teleport) and one of the ancillary photons, and randomly obtains one of the four possible Bell results. This measurement projects the other ancillary photon into a quantum state uniquely related to the original. Alice then transmits the result of her measurement to Bob classically, and he performs one of the four unitary operations to obtain the original state and complete the teleportation.

It is essential to understand that the Bell-state measurement performed by Alice projects the teleportee qubit and her ancillary photon into a state that does not contain any information about the initial state of the teleportee. In fact, the measurement projects the two particles into a state where only relative information between the two qubits is defined and known. No information whatsoever is revealed about Yñ. Similarly, the initial preparation of the ancillary photons in an entangled state provides only a statement of their relative properties. However, there is a very clear relation between the ancillary photon sent to Bob and the teleportee photon. In fact, Bob's photon is in a state that is related to Alice's original photon by a simple unitary transformation.

Consider a simple case. If Alice's Bell-state measurement results in exactly the same state as that used to prepare the ancillary photons (which will happen one time in four), Bob's ancillary photon immediately turns into the same state as Yñ. Since Bob has to do nothing to his photon to obtain Yñ, it might seem as if information has been transferred instantly - which would violate special relativity. However, although Bob's photon does collapse into the state Yñ when Alice makes her measurement, Bob does not know that he has to do nothing until Alice tells him. And since Alice's message can only arrive at the speed of light, relativity remains intact.

In the other three possible cases, Bob has to perform a unitary operation on his particle to obtain the original state, Yñ. It is important to note, however, that this operation does not depend at all on any properties of Yñ.
Click to expand...
--physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/1658
 
Frud 11

Quantum Teleportation

" It is important to stress that quantum teleportation does not mean some sort of instantaneous non local transportation, since part of the information needed to reconstruct the quantum system at its destination still has to be transferred classically ( that is, no faster than the speed of light )............

Source: Quantum for the Perplexed. Author: Jim Al- Khalili

I suggest you get a copy as it is one of the clearest guides to QM that I have come across. It clears up a lot of common misunderstandings.
 
Frud11 said:
Duh...Wind has the same attributes as Time? I don't think so...
Where did you get that idea? It's like saying that temperature has the same attributes as water...:bugeye:
Prove what is real? The wind? Time? This forum?:shrug:
Click to expand...

Are you actually this dense or is it just acting ?
 
Quantom Teleportation?

Sounds interesting.
 
Last edited:
Myles said:
It can only be done at the quantum level. You will have seen a sci-fi version in star trek. " Beam me up, Scottie "
Click to expand...
You still haven't said anything about the transfer of information. Quantum teleportation of a state, is not instantaneous transfer of information, like I keep saying.

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with this?

Myles said:
in the case of entangled photons, there is a transfer of information.
Click to expand...
What information? What is this transferred information?

The interaction between entangled states occurs because of observation (measurement); but there's no information, just pre-assigned meaning to that state; if no assignation (beforehand), then no entanglement.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Enmos said:
You can substitute it because it possesses all the attributes you use in your argument about time.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? I must be really dense...

Substitute "pizza" for "it". Pizza has all the attributes, etc
 
Frud11 said:
You still haven't said anything about the transfer of information. Quantum teleportation of a state, is not instantaneous transfer of information, like I keep saying.

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with this?
Click to expand...

Look at your post 45 where you categorically state that information is NOT transferred. I said you were wrong and provided evidence to support my claim. You have jumped in at the deep end and failed to understand the paper you quoted.

QM is not simple. Start at the beginning and build on a secure foundation. The book I suggested would get you off to a flying start, if you worked through. Anothe book I can recommend is the Quark and the Jaguar by Murray Gell-Mann ( winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics ). It's not quite as accesible as my first suggestion
 
Myles said:
I said you were wrong and provided evidence to support my claim.
Click to expand...
No, I've provided evidence that supports MY claim.
YOU have not provided any evidence in support of your (completely erroneous) claim.

What exactly is YOUR claim again? That entanglement can transfer information instantaneously, isn't it? Completely FALSE. You are the one who needs to read and understand QM, I'm sorry.

P.S. I would say that, unless some "expert" on the subject enters this thread, we're only going to ping and pong the same crap around, and get absolutely no further than: "you're wrong. I'm right", "no I'm right, your claim is invalid.." etc, etc.
 
Quantum Teleportation

" It is important to stress that quantum teleportation does not mean some sort of instantaneous non local transportation, since part of the information needed to reconstruct the quantum system at its destination still has to be transferred classically ( that is, no faster than the speed of light )............

Source: Quantum for the Perplexed. Author: Jim Al- Khalili
Click to expand...

What is this Jim Al-Khalili saying? That "part of the information" has to be transferred "classically"? Is he really implying that "part" of the information in entangled quantum states can be transferred "non-classically"...?? What could this mean? What kind of "information" is he implying (if that's what is implied)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top