11 replies to this topic

[Live Forever]

Here is the story: http://www.newscient...925405.700.html

From the article: With the right set-up, the theory suggested, the computer would sometimes get an answer out of the computer even though the program did not run. And now researchers from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign have improved on the original design and built a non-running quantum computer that really works.

Ok, so I kind of get it, but not all the way. In quantum mechanics, a superposition is when an object possesses two or more states. But, I can't seem to get my head around how that produces an answer. Anyone brighter care to explain it to me?

[maestro949]

It doesn't really produce an answer of any logical benefit. The whole thing is based on the flawed assumption that time is composed of moments. As soon as you try to measure something as it relates to time, you are outside the realm of reality. Time doesn't exist which is why most of our knowldege of the physical universe and calculations that attempt to use time in equations are FUBAR.

[Live Forever]

Aaah, ok. The story made it sound pretty convincing that it could be done.

[knite]

It doesn't really produce an answer of any logical benefit. The whole thing is based on the flawed assumption that time is composed of moments. As soon as you try to measure something as it relates to time, you are outside the realm of reality. Time doesn't exist which is why most of our knowldege of the physical universe and calculations that attempt to use time in equations are FUBAR.

uhh...? we can calculate most normal situations to very good degrees of accuracy, and even some extreme ones, the only real cases in which our understanding of the universe is "FUBAR" is at the most extreme events/objects in the universe. And "time doesnt exist" is a fairly bold statement.

[maestro949]

"Normal" and "extreme" are relative. I suspect what you consider is extreme is merely the waterline around the tip of the iceberg.

Time is a measurement tool. Nothing more, nothing less. It's not another dimension. Particles and the physical universe have no knowledge of it. Time is just something our imaginations conjure up so we can communicate event relationships and attempt to predict.

[knite]

the bare fact of the matter is that there is far more evidence toward time existing, than there is for its non-existence. everything is relative, which is why it is necessary to be careful in choosing your point of view, the thing that makes the "extremes" extreme is because they are only normal in a very small portion of the point of views one could take. what you suspect has nothing to do with what is fact, which we have no knowledge of. the only flaw that logically comes about from our way of thinking about time is that of thinking about it as a series of moments, which it is obviously not. the way we see time is more like the plot points on a graph which show you the general curve.

[maestro949]

the bare fact of the matter is that there is far more evidence toward time existing, than there is for its non-existence.

There is? Where? Because under "non-extreme" situations we can predict how long it will take particles to be in two different places (to some level of precision)? And even then, that measurement is only relative to some other measurement, e.g. how long it took light to travel between two well known points. And that's the paradox. You can't even define time, without using it in the definition. It it only relative to... itself.

everything is relative, which is why it is necessary to be careful in choosing your point of view, the thing that makes the "extremes" extreme is because they are only normal in a very small portion of the point of views one could take.

Predicting that there's more that we don't know than what we do know seems to me to be a case of taking care to er on the side of caution.

what you suspect has nothing to do with what is fact,

Agreed, and I never claimed it did. It's a hypothesis that goes something like "We only have a small fraction of data and understanding in regards to how the laws of the universe work." In my opinion, to suggest otherwise is where the real boldness lies.

which we have no knowledge of. the only flaw that logically comes about from our way of thinking about time is that of thinking about it as a series of moments, which it is obviously not.  the way we see time is more like the plot points on a graph which show you the general curve.

I agree that thinking about time as a series of moments is flawed. Now is not a moment just as 18 minutes ago was not a moment. The concept of 18 minutes ago can't even be defined due to the paradoxical nature of the definition of time. The fact we both understand what is meant when I say that an event happened 18 minutes ago is only because we can imagine the event as relative to the state of the physical universe at that instance. i.e. your plot points are the mere measurements of the physical state between objects and time is simply the conceptual label you give that snapshot of the various objects. Comparing 18 minutes ago (which now is 25 minutes ago btw ) and what was now 7 minutes ago is simply a looking at the state of objects between the two. The fact that they are different has nothing to do with time but rather the physical laws of the universe that made the objects move from one place to another, i.e. the objects have direction, not time.

Edited by maestro949, 02 March 2006 - 09:27 AM.

[knite]

And even then, that measurement is only relative to some other measurement, e.g. how long it took light to travel between two well known points. And that's the paradox. You can't even define time, without using it in the definition. It it only relative to... itself.

the definition of any measurement includes itself, a kilogram is measured as the mass of a completely arbitrarily sized cylinder, just as a second is measured by a particle of light between traveling two points, which requires distance, which is measured by some other reference to itself. just because our measurements include these things, does that mean that the universe has no distance, mass, or time? does the universe exist at all in that case?

I agree that thinking about time as a series of moments is flawed. Now is not a moment just as 18 minutes ago was not a moment. The concept of 18 minutes ago can't even be defined due to the paradoxical nature of the definition of time. The fact we both understand what is meant when I say that an event happened 18 minutes ago is only because we can imagine the event as relative to the state of the physical universe at that instance. i.e. your plot points are the mere measurements of the physical state between objects and time is simply the conceptual label you give that snapshot of the various objects. Comparing 18 minutes ago (which now is 25 minutes ago btw ) and what was now 7 minutes ago is simply a looking at the state of objects between the two. The fact that they are different has nothing to do with time but rather the physical laws of the universe that made the objects move from one place to another, i.e. the objects have direction, not time.

time changes. as you approach the speed of light, time slows down. this is proven experimentally. What would slow down all the actions of particles etc, near the speed of light, if time did not exist? some property all particles share? hmm... i wonder what that property could be? well if they all share it, then likely it is universal....hmm have we defined that as something already?

[maestro949]

the definition of any measurement includes itself, a kilogram is measured as the mass of a completely arbitrarily sized cylinder, just as a second is measured by a particle of light between traveling two points, which requires distance, which is measured by some other reference to itself. just because our measurements include these things, does that mean that the universe has no distance, mass, or time? does the universe exist at all in that case?

measurements don't exist. matter does. so to answer your questions distance = no. mass = no. time = no. I'll throw in volume too. While I'm at it, just to aggravate the mathamaticians, I'll also say that numbers don't exist either, except maybe the imaginary ones [tung]. The universe has matter and perhaps anti matter. Each spec of matter has relevence to every other spec and we can measure what is relevent between those specs but to say that those measurements exist and can under go change is nonsensical. Can 4 millimeters become 3 millimeters? Not without the context of matter. Same goes for time.

time changes. as you approach the speed of light, time slows down. this is proven experimentally. What would slow down all the actions of particles etc, near the speed of light, if time did not exist? some property all particles share? hmm... i wonder what that property could be? well if they all share it, then likely it is universal....hmm have we defined that as something already?

forces slow down the particles as they are accelerated. not time. the appearance of time seems to move more slowly from the perspective of someone moving near the speed of light than someone who isn't but this is just a matter of perspective, i.e. events that happen relative to each other. to truly prove that time exists you would have to prove there are discrete slices of time exist and then further demonstrate that it can actually be slowed, stopped and even reversed. I have yet to see such proof.

[knite]

While I'm at it, just to aggravate the mathamaticians, I'll also say that numbers don't exist either, except maybe the imaginary ones .

because e doesnt show up anywhere outside of their heads? pi? the golden ratio? cmon.

ill give it to you that without any matter/energy none of these things would be relevant, but its easily arguable that if you could somehow observe a place where there was no matter or energy, and you yourself had neither, that the universe doesnt exist.

[maestro949]

because e doesnt show up anywhere outside of their heads? pi? the golden ratio? cmon.

You've got me there. I've always been convinced that the universe does have it's own numbering system and mathematical models. We dance around them with our own counting techniques and stumble across some of the universe's ordinals (for example e & pi as you point out). How bizarre is it that e^i*pi + 1 = 0! Obviously whoever created the universe had a sense of humor.

ill give it to you that without any matter/energy none of these things would be relevant, but its easily arguable that if you could somehow observe a place where there was no matter or energy, and you yourself had neither, that the universe doesnt exist.

It's fun playing with such theories but the fact that we are carrying on this conversation is evidence enough for me that the universe exists. What still isn't resolved and may never be is what is the empty space that all this energy and matter floats in and light and radiation "wave" in. Nobody knows today, not even all the great minds of the past could come up with something conclusive. Is there dark matter, ether, dimensions? What is magnetism, gravity, etc, etc. Who knows. None of our scientific tools can tell us.

[knite]

indeed, how can one say that energy and matter are the only relevant things when there is this non-energy non-matter gap between them.

Edited by knite, 11 March 2006 - 02:16 PM.