Goldenages

Another interpretation is, that this new born, entangled particles do have a lack of information about how to behave. They simply do not "know" the physical laws of the universe until they get in contact with other particles who already behave according to the laws of classical physics. In an experiment we call this the measurement, but of course even without any measurement every new particle gets in contact with other particles very quickly (unless we shield them carefully). So there is no conscious observer necessary, any interaction with the already existing world will do. If we remove the factor time, i.e a property unknown to new particles, their behaviour suddenly makes perfect sense. If there is no time, there is no distance, and it makes no sense to talk about "instantaneous" or "faster than something". Those qualities simply are not appropriate. regards Andi

Well, when one stops making debt and starts spending only the amount of money thats available, yes, suddenly some services which have been "for free" are not available any more. Its an argument the lefts bring all the time, e.g. Great Britain was on the way to become a third world country when Margaret Thatcher hit the button for the emergency brakes. And of course some groups lost their "vested" rights, i.e., to take money from others. It takes some time til things are settled again and real growth kicks in. So the left can always claim that times are better when socialists rule (after the free market has generated wealth) - at least to the point til the house of cards, funded on debt, crashes. And it will crash, sometimes earlier like in Venezuela, sometimes later like we will see in Europe. regards Andi

Yes, but not to obscure conspiration theories. regards Andi

1.) Where was he coming from? 2.) No. In order to rebut Einstein one has to rebut the facts he found about reality. regards Andi

Shure. And yes, every planet, solar system and galaxy, even every car on the street and every plane in the air has its own pace of time. But since all of them move at a fraction of c it does not matter. Things become interesting at 50 or let´s say 75% c. For the age of the universe they look into the sky and look as far as they can. We can look ~14 billion lightyears in any direction - so the universe is ~14 billion years old. (But it does not end there. Spacetime beyond is moving away from us with greater than light speed.) Right. And yes - a photon, moving at c, does not move - from it´s point of view. If a photon had consciousness it would observe every thing at once. From the Big Bang til the end of time. Just a single glance. What a divine view, hmm? They started in the 70ies. It took years just to adapt the site, its a project of whole Europe and thus "progress" is slow. And then its only a testreactor. In Germany nearby Munich they test a reactor in form of a torus, meant to keep the fusion constant (the project ITER mentioned above is a pulsed reactor). But they do not get any money. regards Andi

I do agree, not regarding the relativistic theory, but regarding energy: Germany alone spent 500 billion Euro for wind generators and solar panels. A technology that never can work as advertised. The whole EU spends 4 billion Euro per year for research in nuclear fusion. For a technolgy thats crucial for mankind. Yes they are holding back productive science. regards Andi

Time slowes down the closer you come to c. When you reach c, time stands still. If we could go beyond c, time would go backwards. There are, for example, particles called Myons, whose lifetime normally is very short (a fraction of a fraction of a second), but is considerably longer - exactly according Einstein´s equations - when they move with high speed close to c, however still below. Not only time slowes down the faster you move, also the mass increases. Regardless how small the mass of a particle, at the point where it would reach c its mass would be infinite, and the necessary energy to reach c would be infinite. So as far as we know nothing with mass can reach c, and thus nothing can be sent into the past. For the accelerator at CERN they need the power of several power stations just to accelerate a few atoms at 99% c. Worm holes are mathematical objects, the experts discuss wether they can exist or not, and wether they shorten the way through spacetime or allow a way into the past - I do not know. Black holes seem to exist, most probably there is one in the center of our galaxy, Sagittarius A. Whats going on there and what can be done with it - well, to find it out we have to go there. regards Andi

Well, I fully agree that some scientists are on the payroll of the state, just have a look at those who claim that CO2 is toxic and will destroy our planet. It is obvious why they do it. But I cannot see any reason why a government should be interested in a cover up concerning the speed of light or relativistic effects. You just can´t get taxes out of this Regarding Einstein: He is the benchmark and THE genius, and there are a lot of people out there - scientists and others - who think hey, if I can prove Einstein wrong in one way or another, then I must be much smarter than him. Some physicists recieve dozens of mails every week where somebody explains why Einstein is wrong. But, as a matter of fact, Einstein was wrong in some of his thoughts. He was one of the fathers of QM, unintentionally, and always stated that QM must be wrong in a fundamental way, he especially disliked the probabilistic character and could never adapt to the fact that entangled particles seems to outmanouver space and time. And Einstein was wrong here, a fact that, however, does not derogate his merit in other fields. So I can not understand the flurry. regards Andi

From what is known today it is a fundamental problem. Sending information faster than the speed of light basically means sending information backwards into time. Would there be faster than light information causality in our world could not exist. We would observe actions taking place before a cause happens, and we would observe news from the future. Yes to remain sceptical is the first duty of any reasonable mind. However it is very unlikely that Einsteins relativistic theory will be proven wrong in any fundamental claim. If we look at the progress from Newton to Einstein, Einstein is more precise than Newton, includes Newton and enormously extendes the area of knowledge. But nothing Newton said is refuted by Einstein. So any substantial progress in our knowledge - and we know that there still is a lot unknown - will, and i will hold any bet, rest on Einstein and include his claims. Construction sites are our ignorance about the nature of time. Funny enough, Einstein does not tell us anything about a flow of time, his spacetime (the four coordinates that define a point) just exists as a whole. Another site is the fundamental properties of space(time) and the fabric its made of. While, as far as we know, nothing with mass can move faster than c within space, spacetime itself can expand at any rate. reagrds Andi

Here is a simplified version of whats going on when you want to send information instantaneuosly: Lets say our entangled particles can have 4 conditions: A, B, C, and D. Before the measurements the condition is unknown. Not only to us, the condition is undefined, as Bell proved. Lets say you want to send me an "A". Now there is no way to influence your particle such that your measurement will result in an "A", the chance is 1:4, it could be any of A,B,C,D, you know it earliest when you have done your measurement. Things become even more complicated on the receiving end. Because the correlated state for an "A" of your particle can be also an "A" for mine, but with a certain probability it could be a "D". So if somebody manages to send information with this setup, I will bend my knee instantaneuosly. And I seriously doubt that the state is behind this tricky happenings regards Andi

Lets assume we create an entangled pair of particles, I keep one and you take the second. Now you start measuring the state of yours, and the state of mine is correlated instantaneuosly. But: The correlation is stochastic. To find out the exact correlation we have to meet again and compare our results, and with that hindsight we are able to find out whats happened. regards Andi

Yes, but as far as I know nobody claimes this. Genes encrypt information, thats all. You need e.g. a lot of information to build a Boeing 747, but of course there is no correlation between the sheer amount of information and intelligence. Einstein postulates that nothing with mass can reach the speed of light. So photons move with the speed of light, they carry energy, but their rest mass is zero. Also spacetime itself can expand faster than light - according inflation theory it did so right after the Big Bang. We see a universe with a radius of ~14 billions lightyears. This does not necessarily means that the universe ends there - it just means that spacetime beyond moves away relativ to us with more than the speed of light, so obviously no light can reach us from there. You can not transfer information faster than light, sorry, even not with quantum mechanics and entanglement etc. Have a look at the Non-cloning theorem and Non - communication theorem. You can use quantum entanglement for safe ciphering of information, but any information itself will move slower than the speed of light. Einstein claims are proven every time they switch on the accelerator in CERN. But yes, neither QM nor SGR tell us the whole story, and we still do not know how they fit together, or how, exactly, the Einstein universe emerges from QM. regards Andi

I find it interesting that the idea is alive, and at least some try to make it real. But there are good reasons to be sceptical. It all depends on how bad the situation becomes in the common nations - when people start eating zoo animals they won´t keep their fingers off the rich and wealthy neighbours, especially when they are small and unarmed. regards Andi

I did not vote you down. Why should I? I do not disagree with your post. regards Andi

Interesting: https://freeprivatecities.com/ Searching for the valley of John Galt? regards Andi

Hello rainlead, very good summary. I might add that lefts, since they consider themselves on the "good" side, have no limits in using coercive power or even force to pursue their goals. The use of force is justified by alleged higher moral values (humanity, mother earth etc.). So there is no reason for lefts to argue with opponents, an opponents view is per definition immoral, reason for disgust, and reason for more state power. regards Andi

The victims did not sow anything. The 8 year old girl in Manchester did not sow anything. They are victims not only of Islam, but also of coward and incapable politicians. Trump wants a muslim ban? You bet he is absolutely right. regards Andi

I am sorry. So I will close here. regards Andi

It means that you can not reach the exact same starting point if you want to run the same experiment several times. I speak about the maximum achievable precision, which always will be limited by Heisenbergs uncertainty. Yes, its small, and yes, normally this does not matter. But if someone wants to know every decimal behind the comma, and certainly this is was needs to be known precisely when we postulate a determined universe, we will fail. An experiment everbody can do is the Double Pendulum, and try his luck in getting the same motion twice. And we are not talking about maximum precision here, and we are very far away from complex systems such as weather, uncounted numbers of atoms in a universe, heat, true chaos or minds. Nevertheless already predictions for a simple Double Pendulum will fail after the split of a second its released. So how many similar, by many magnitudes more complex systems might be in the universe? regards Andi

What I am trying is to make some reasonable thoughts about the possibility of so called free will. While we know little about how a brain work, we know a lot about matter and the laws that rule it. To conclude that both the universe and the mind are deterministic (meaning just unwinding, no sidesteps allowed) because of Newton´s laws, is the same mistake a man makes whose only tool is a hammer - he will see every problem as nail. Why do you choose just Newton for a theory of mind, while Newton is not even able to explain spacetime or electricity? For shure you won´t call electricity a mystical thing Shure matter behaves deterministic, given you put the very same input in any given formula. But we know that nature exclude this. Assuming that our minds follow one or many algorithms, and knowing that some algorithms offer different outputs when inputs differ only so slightly, we have an explanation for thinking, for diverse conclusions and the choice between them, thus for free will. Its not that complicated. Its far more complicated to construct a deterministic universe, given what we know about physics. regards Andi

Yes. But that is not what I am referring to. I am referring to the Uncertainty Principle. Nature does not allow mathematical precision. While this effect is small, it is there, and destroys any forecast for complex arrangements. So Newtons universe exists only in Newtons theory. If one still wants to postulate that the universe is determined, it is necessary to invent something such as omniscient Gods who know more than nature. It can be calculated. But your results may vary No, I take some well researched theories and draw conclusions. Should some genius appear and prove that there are some hidden variables which determine speed and position of particles with mathematical precision, I certainly will change my mind. So far John Bell proved there are none. But how and why would creative things be necessary or possible, since the whole universe is already on celluloid and just unwinds like a clockwork? In which way is the gear of a watch creative? I walk in the park, and my eyes see a lion. Now I assume my brain delivers outputs by chance. So any behaviour is possible as result of the cause "lion". I could proceed. I could start singing. I could grab my cellphone to call my mother. I could have a nap. ....... Now I walk in the park and get the cause "lion", but lets assume my behaviour is preprogrammed from evolution. Lets say I stop, turn 180 degrees, and run. Every time I get the cause "lion" I stop, turn 180 degrees, and run. I certainly do not need a mind for this, and its an easy thing to programm a machine for that. Furthermore, it will not be very successful from an evolution point of view, cause lions learn and after my third attempt to flee, a second lion would wait right behind me. So our minds must be between chance and determinism. Makes it more sense now? regards Andi

Using the idea that evidence and logic (i.e. no miracles exist, only the unknown) are the guidelines excludes the possibility that evidence and logic flies directly into ones face. No, I said, the multiverse theory is a reasonable speculation, very interesting, but by far too early to draw any conclusions. And I doubt that this theories could stand a strike with occam´s razor. It would rather be a massacre I totally agree. If you find any evidence for God, I will be the first one who accepts his existence, and will be the first one who asks him some questions. To compare mathematics with God is daring. Math replaced God (to a certain extent) not because its contrary to God, but because its way closer to reason and evidence. Well, the more you know the more you learn what it still unknown. Nobody said that things are easy or that the universe is simpel, but it does not make sense to complain, does it? I did not turn, I spread my wisdom about what science tells, and draw my own (naiv) conclusions. My conclusion is that without time (or any equivalent) our world would not be possible. regards Andi

I absolutely agree regards Andi

Well, I say you are not However I prefer hard data whenever possible, and while there are many things unknown, those data indicate freewill. Yes. No supernatural events. The points are the "same antecedent state" - it can not be achieved with absolute mathematical precision. There is a barrier because the laws of physics become probabilities whenever you try to achieve absolute precision. While this does not matter for everyday life, it does matter for this topic. Second point is, that those inaccuracies of nature add, making a complex process unpredictable. A billard player can foresee, lets say, the path of 5 balls. Even when knowing all influences of less then perfect balls and a less then perfect table down to quantum level, even when considering every atom of air that touches the ball, even then the billard game will leave Newton´s clockwork and behave in an unforseeable way. Laws of physics are deterministic on a "normal" level. I would hold every bet that the speed of light was the same a million years ago, and will be the same in one million years. The forces that bond atoms together do not change in billion of years, and actually that is a very good thing - e.g. we want metal today to be as strong as tomorrow. If the Big Bang started again and we wait another 14 billion years, we would see a very similar universe as we see now, with galaxies, black holes, planets and so on. But in no way would our solar system exist. In no way evolution would take the same path. regards Andi

The Newton universe is deterministic. Incidence angle equal emergent angle. Actio equal reactio. Since accuracy of every measurement is limited (and not only the measurement, reality itself has a certain inaccuracy) this chain of clockwork happenings soon becomes unpredictable. It does not really influence your billard game. But it excludes the possibility that everthing is predicted from the Big Bang til the far end. Then we have chaotic systems, such as the double pendulum. Part of the chaos theory is the "deterministic chaos". Infinite small changes in the initial position lead to different results, predictions are only possible within a certain range of probability. From wiki: It is reasonable to assume that our minds do not create results based on chance. First, in order to behave in a random way, there is no complex and energy consuming mind necessary. Second, we are pretty much able to predict behaviour of persons we know. It is unlikely that this is just the result of a random output. Especially when the same facts are processed by educated minds that follow logical rules. Our minds are no clockworks, since they consist of matter, and matter does not behave like a clockwork, at least when you play something more complicated than billard. Both the universe and our minds are many magnitudes more complicated than billard. Furthermore, in order to behave like a clockwork, reflexes are fully sufficient, again evolution would never had favoured energy consuming and complicated minds. So the free will of our minds is somewhere between chance and clockwork. regards Andi