Never mind QM. Try learning to bloody well read. If you look at my post you will see that I said no such thing. I said information is transferred but not that it is done instantaneously. In your post 45 you claimed that no information is transferred. Read it again . I can't make it any simpler; you are totally confused and that includes your understanding of the paper you cited.
Time is imagined
- Thread starter Frud11
- Start date
Never mind QM. Try learning to bloody well read. If you look at my post you will see that I said no such thing. I said information is transferred but not that it is done instantaneously. In your post 45 you claimed that no information is transferred. Read it again . I can't make it any simpler; you are totally confused and that includes your understanding of the paper you cited.
Read the book
Right. Don't answer any questions, especially since you can't...You appear to be hopelessly confused about the subject.
What you said was: "There is a transfer of information", after I said, essentially "the interaction with one of a pair of entangled photons is not the transfer of any information, because no energy is transferred". This looks like a pretty clear-cut disagreement.
So then saying:
" If you look at my post you will see that I said no such thing. I said information is transferred but not that it is done instantaneously."
Now you've used the word "instantaneously" for the very first time. What are you actually saying now? Information is transferred by interacting with an entangled photon, but not instantaneously?
What you said was: "There is a transfer of information", after I said, essentially "the interaction with one of a pair of entangled photons is not the transfer of any information, because no energy is transferred". This looks like a pretty clear-cut disagreement.
So then saying:
" If you look at my post you will see that I said no such thing. I said information is transferred but not that it is done instantaneously."
Now you've used the word "instantaneously" for the very first time. What are you actually saying now? Information is transferred by interacting with an entangled photon, but not instantaneously?
Last edited:
Forget it. Life is too short. You just can't be bothered to make the necessary effort to inform yourself and I am not prepared to quote whole chapters which you will be lost on you because you will not understand the context.
As to my use of the words not instantaneously, I expected you to understand what I meant. Read what I put in brackets in my post number 52
Last edited:
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I'm sorry but :roflmao:
Tell me, are you serious about this:
"If you believe it's real, prove that it is. Show us all where Time 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?"
In general, the quantum mechanics cannot work well with the time dependent functions, with compare to general relativity. But this is not reason for introducing of timeless physics, on the contrary. The quantum mechanics should learn, how to handle the time variable in its equations.
I couldn't agree more.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Explain why time disappears when there are no humans around.. :bugeye:
because time is imagination. but humans are not the only beings who experience time.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
So if there was no life there would be no time ?
that's right. without life, there would be nothing, so there could be no time, because time is change. nothing changes in nothing/unconsciousness.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
So you say that in the absence of life there is no change ?
What about the millions and millions of years before life arose on earth ?
How did the planets orbit the sun, hell.. how did the planets form ??
It's completely id...ic ! :bugeye:
you see, everything is alive (because everything changes). the only thing that would be completely dead (unchanging) is nothingness, but it does not exist.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Absurd. Sound is just vibration, and it will still be there regardless of whether there is anyone/thing to perceive it.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Yes, quite serious.Enmos said:
Can you answer any of the questions?
And I agree there would be no Time, if there was no life (observation by lifeforms). Time is observation of change by living things, so without life, there wouldn't be any time. The universe would keep expanding and changing, but if it wasn't being observed, except by "inanimate atoms", there would be no time.
Last edited: