Page 19 of 19 FirstFirst ... 9171819
Results 181 to 185 of 185

Thread: Laws of Nature... emergent property of matter or immaterial rules imposed upon matter?

  1. Top | #181
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    3,066
    Archived
    14,025
    Total Posts
    17,091
    Rep Power
    50
    Take a penny and cut it in half. Take one half to Florida and the other half to Australia. Put the penny halfs on very sensitive scales. The half penny that weighs more than half the weight of a penny will have an effect that is different than the half penny that weighs less than half the weight of a penny.

    There is no force or communication between the two. The deciding factor of the future consequences is made at the time of separation yielding only the appearance there is a force.

    In other words, I have absolutely no idea. So, am I wrong? Eh, let's just say my being absolute by saying "every..." is scientifically premature.

  2. Top | #182
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    2,460
    Archived
    4,797
    Total Posts
    7,257
    Rep Power
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    Take a penny and cut it in half. Take one half to Florida and the other half to Australia. Put the penny halfs on very sensitive scales. The half penny that weighs more than half the weight of a penny will have an effect that is different than the half penny that weighs less than half the weight of a penny.

    There is no force or communication between the two. The deciding factor of the future consequences is made at the time of separation yielding only the appearance there is a force.
    Ooh, smart answer, Einstein.

    (And no, I'm actually not being sarcastic. We're reliving an argument between the top physicists of the 1930s. You're Einstein; I'm Bohr.)

    In other words, I have absolutely no idea. So, am I wrong? Eh, let's just say my being absolute by saying "every..." is scientifically premature.
    According to the current consensus among physicists, yes, you're wrong. The end product of the Bohr-Einstein debate was that Einstein figured out a way to settle the question experimentally instead of by debate. The experiment is difficult; the technology to do it didn't exist until the 1980s, long after both men were dead. But by now it's been carried out many times. Bohr always wins.

    Here are the gory details.

    Or if you want, I can try my hand at explaining why the consensus is for Bohr, if you're up for a little trigonometry.

  3. Top | #183
    Veteran Member PyramidHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    RI
    Posts
    1,533
    Archived
    4,389
    Total Posts
    5,922
    Rep Power
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    Oh the insanity of language! I can no more (literally) write Boyle's law on paper than I can write the moon on paper. The term, "moon" refers to the moon. The term, "Boyle's law" doesn't refer to the description, "the relationship between temperature and pressure"; rather, it refers to the relationship between temperature and pressure.
    Really. So you were one of those students who left the exam question blank when it said "please write Boyle's law". You must have been a lot of fun. Almost every Google result for Boyle's law starts with "Boyle's law states..." Things that exist in nature, like the moon, cannot be stated. STATEMENTS are stated, and a description is a kind of statement.

  4. Top | #184
    Quantum Hot Dog Kharakov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    .
    Posts
    3,054
    Archived
    3,383
    Total Posts
    6,437
    Rep Power
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Bomb#20 View Post
    Ooh, smart answer, Einstein.

    (And no, I'm actually not being sarcastic. We're reliving an argument between the top physicists of the 1930s. You're Einstein; I'm Bohr.)

    In other words, I have absolutely no idea. So, am I wrong? Eh, let's just say my being absolute by saying "every..." is scientifically premature.
    According to the current consensus among physicists, yes, you're wrong. The end product of the Bohr-Einstein debate was that Einstein figured out a way to settle the question experimentally instead of by debate. The experiment is difficult; the technology to do it didn't exist until the 1980s, long after both men were dead. But by now it's been carried out many times. Bohr always wins.

    Here are the gory details.

    Or if you want, I can try my hand at explaining why the consensus is for Bohr, if you're up for a little trigonometry.
    Can you explain how Bell's theorem rules out originating points in spacetime as local variables for entanglement?

    In other words, if 2 particles are entangled does Bell's theorem define the originating spacetime point (where the entanglement began) as a local variable?

    Is spacetime considered to be a non-local variable if a whole new "spacetime branch" (MWI) comes into existence at every entanglement?

  5. Top | #185
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    3,066
    Archived
    14,025
    Total Posts
    17,091
    Rep Power
    50
    That sounds reasonable, pyramidhead.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •