exchemist Posted June 12, 2017 Report Share Posted June 12, 2017 (edited) A bit more on track, does anyone care if I expand on this symmetric time theory? There may be evidence actually for it in nature. The Wheeler delayed choice experiment means that a measurement made in the future can alter the state it was in, in the past. It is seen as a strange retrocausal effect in quantum mechanics which Wheeler identified and later was confirmed by two or three other experiments which refined it. I believe those experiments came to be called quantum eraser.Does this have anything to do with the Uncertainty Principle? I have just read through the Wiki article on the topic and it does not seem crop up once. Or are you moving on to a different topic now? Edited June 12, 2017 by exchemist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exchemist Posted June 12, 2017 Report Share Posted June 12, 2017 It's not that this experiment involves complimentary variables explicitly, the point of stating there was evidence for time-symmetric theories was that the idea of a retrocausality to quantum mechanics is actually taken seriously by many scientists who understand the implications of the delayed choice. What was stated earlier is that there was a curious statistical interpretation where the time-symmetric theory can understand interactions in spacetime. This is taken further into Cramers Transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics would does explicitly use conjugate variables and a wave function.You mean conjugate variables I presume. But what does any of this stuff have to do with the uncertainty principle? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exchemist Posted June 12, 2017 Report Share Posted June 12, 2017 Compiimentary and conjugate are pretty much the same idea's. Complimentarity says there are some variables in the system which cannot be measured simultaneously. The Uncertainty Principle is deeply related to this clearly, as it also uses conjugate values. A famous one is energy and time [math]2E \cdot t \geq \hbar[/math]It may be related, I suppose, in the sense you mention, but it has no necessary effect on it - and I certainly cannot see the basis for any such effect. You have left the deltas out of your formula, as I expect you realise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Polymath Posted June 15, 2017 Report Share Posted June 15, 2017 40 crank points for use of the term "sheeple". :)Because that's what most of us are. We believe something, without seeing it for ourselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exchemist Posted June 15, 2017 Report Share Posted June 15, 2017 Because that's what most of us are. We believe something, without seeing it for ourselves. Anyone who will not accept information on trust, from sources they have learnt they can rely on, will be unable to function in the world. Such a person is doomed to live life as an idiot, or in a psychiatric institution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Polymath Posted June 15, 2017 Report Share Posted June 15, 2017 Anyone who will not accept information on trust, from sources they have learnt they can rely on, will be unable to function in the world. Such a person is doomed to live life as an idiot, or in a psychiatric institution. Yes, because all of the idiots are oh so skeptical of new information. Most people are smart, they're up for grabs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exchemist Posted June 15, 2017 Report Share Posted June 15, 2017 (edited) Yes, because all of the idiots are oh so skeptical of new information. Most people are smart, they're up for grabs.Now you are - unsurprisingly - contradicting yourself. First you say that people who do not insist on seeing things for themselves are sheeple and now you say people should accept "new information" - which presumably they have not seen for themselves - or risk being idiots. What you mean, I suggest, is that people should insist on seeing things for themselves, except when it comes to a crank theory propounded by you, when they are idiots if they do not accept it without challenge. Edited June 15, 2017 by exchemist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Polymath Posted June 15, 2017 Report Share Posted June 15, 2017 (edited) Now you are - unsurprisingly - contradicting yourself. First you say that people who do not insist on seeing things for themselves are sheeple and now you say people should accept "new information" - which presumably they have not seen for themselves - or risk being idiots. What you mean, I suggest, is that people should insist on seeing things for themselves, except when it comes to a crank theory propounded by you, when they are idiots if they do not accept it without challenge. wtf are you on about. I said people should be skeptical about all information, & even physicists & people with a superficial diploma, certification, or college degree. If you don't fully understand something, don't form a cement belief. Our beliefs influence our decisions, & we can be led astray to serve another's needs - & that's exactly what 99.9999% of us do several times a day. College professors aren't always right, the curriculum always uses outdated texts - even texts that have been recently debunked. I'd recommend just using the deep-web to learn - to compare & contrast conflicting answers to your inquiries, think for yourself, question everything, do science for yourself. I don't believe doing so even requires a high school diploma. Edited June 15, 2017 by Super Polymath Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.