[MD] Quantum Physics

[PhaedrusWolff at carolina.rr.com]

> > [Chin]
> > I can’t claim a study in Quantum Physics, as most of what I have 
> > gotten has come from word of mouth from folks looking for 
> financial 
> > advice who were familiar with it, and as you say, stumbling 
> across a 
> > little on the web. 
> >
> > Some assumptions I have gained;
> >
> > There is no such thing in quantum physics as solid matter. All 
> solid 
> > matter would be probability patterns that are hard to compress. 
> >
> >   
> [Laird]
> Yes, strictly speaking. Though probabilistic quanta can emerge as 
> a 
> representation we think of as solid matter... quantum collapse 
> into our 
> 3 dimensions. They're challenging our deterministic yes/no type 
> descriptions.
> 

Chin -- Even into a fourth dimension? -- or at least a fourth 
dimension of looking at things? 

> > [Chin]
> > The same micro particles which pass through us pass through all 
> of us, 
> > the trees and the moon I point at ;),
> >
> >   
> [Laird]
> Now this is an interesting one. Is this suggesting that the quanta 
> that 
> make up our atomic particles interchange rather freely 
> (probabilistically), but the atomic structures we experience 
> remain 
> stable (at least to the limit of atomic decay?)
> 

Chin -- My best answer to this would be “I don’t know.” The lady I 
spoke with didn’t get down to explaining quanta itself, but the atoms 
or even the cells we are made up do not stay attached to us. For 
instance, she said we replace our skin every day, our liver once a 
week. 

> > [Chin]
> > One interesting thought I came across which is a better theory 
> of 
> > creation than anything else I have heard. Electrons rubbing 
> together 
> > (friction) created gravity, and gravity pulled the gasses into 
> what we 
> > now know as planets and stars. With Hawking Radiation from the 
> Black 
> > Holes, this may be more re-creation than creation, as the 
> universe can 
> > only be described as infinite. 
> >   
> [Laird]
> Entanglement. I haven't read enough yet, but I'm sure somebody 
> somewhere 
> has put together a theory describing a "critical mass" of 
> entanglement - 
> that once so many quanta become entangled, they eventually freak 
> out, do 
> some crazy stuff, and untangle.
> 
> So imagine all quanta except one are entangled. That one last 
> straggler 
> entangles with the rest. There's only one possible change for the 
> quanta 
> to experience, since they're all hooked to everything everywhere. 
> Boom! 
> They detangle, and in our 3D (+time) terms we call it the Big 
> Bang. The 
> quanta immediately start entangling again in countless little 
> strings 
> and webs (patterns!). And in a matter of (a LOT of) time they'll 
> all 
> entangle again and go Boom! Recreation, indeed. I like it. VERY 
> much 
> Scott Adams' "God's Debris" analogy, but much more palatable as 
> quanta 
> than as particles of God.

Chin -- That’s a whole lot better than the one I had. :o)

Actually though, I was talking about an experiment I had heard of two 
astronauts were doing back in 2003, and I couldn’t elaborate because I 
don’t even remember the names of the astronauts. Per their 
experiments, the electrons, iron particles, or whatever rubbing 
together actually created a magnetic field, gravity, as per their 
theory, or maybe I should say hypothesis, the gravity pulled the gases 
together. Everything was in a gaseous state before the formation of 
the planets and stars, and as the gases were pulled in, they continued 
to spin. The spinning built the strength of gravity, such as with now, 
the spinning of the earth also helps to create the gravity from the 
iron core. The gravity just simply pulled in all the gases as far as 
it could reach. 

Too simplistic I know, but this is not dummying down, it is the best I 
can explain it from CRS memory. The theory of gravity came from 
watching the science channel, and if I come across it again, I’ll try 
to pay more attention now that I have someone to share it with. Much 
of the rest of my “assumptions” came from speaking with a physicist 
who I worked with in setting up her nest egg, and there is no way I 
could convey the beauty of what she offered in those conversations. 
What I came away with was a sense of what she 
called “interconnection.” Per her explanation of the world of quantum 
physics, everything is physically connected to everything, 
intelligently connected. There is an actual physical interconnection 
between us and everything around us. 

I have doubts that I could possibly ever come close to putting 
together everything she said through a Google search, or as an 
observer of physics. We’ve lost contact, as I guess she moved on from 
the discussion boards on finance due to the fact she managed to set 
herself up with a portfolio she could understand and didn’t need any 
more attention other than rebalancing it occasionally. 

This lady touched me in a way that left me with a feeling of peace I 
doubt I could ever have felt from anything else I could ever do. She 
spoke in terms about quantum physics that was both scientific and 
spiritual. Even though I recognized how beautiful what she was saying 
was, I didn’t have the good sense to write down what she said in our 
telephone conversation, nor save the emails. I guess at the time, I 
didn’t realize how trusting she would have been of my financial 
advice, or if that be the case, how fickle life is and our last 
conversation would have actually been our last. 

As Pirsig found enlightenment through self-reflection, it seems she 
found enlightenment through her work, and I may find it through the 
two of them, and the dialect which continues here and elsewhere. It is 
not the MOQ per se I care about here, and I don’t think the MOQ was 
all Pirsig was passing on to us, but an opportunity to look at the 
world differently, and continue to discuss. Of course, I can’t know 
this, but unless Pirsig has gotten completely away from his other 
personality, Phaedrus, a final systematic philosophy would not be what 
he was reaching for. 

Sorry I couldn’t offer anything in the way of understanding as far as 
Quantum physics is concerned. 

----- Original Message -----
From: Laird Bedore <lmbedore at vectorstar.com>
Date: Friday, December 1, 2006 11:00 am
Subject: Re: [MD] Quantum Physics
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org

> 
> > [Chin]
> > I can’t claim a study in Quantum Physics, as most of what I have 
> > gotten has come from word of mouth from folks looking for 
> financial 
> > advice who were familiar with it, and as you say, stumbling 
> across a 
> > little on the web. 
> >
> > Some assumptions I have gained;
> >
> > There is no such thing in quantum physics as solid matter. All 
> solid 
> > matter would be probability patterns that are hard to compress. 
> >
> >   
> [Laird]
> Yes, strictly speaking. Though probabilistic quanta can emerge as 
> a 
> representation we think of as solid matter... quantum collapse 
> into our 
> 3 dimensions. They're challenging our deterministic yes/no type 
> descriptions.
> 
> > [Chin]
> > The same micro particles which pass through us pass through all 
> of us, 
> > the trees and the moon I point at ;),
> >
> >   
> [Laird]
> Now this is an interesting one. Is this suggesting that the quanta 
> that 
> make up our atomic particles interchange rather freely 
> (probabilistically), but the atomic structures we experience 
> remain 
> stable (at least to the limit of atomic decay?)
> 
> 
> > [Chin]
> > The atom is made up of empty space, with nothing we could call 
> solid, 
> > as the protons and neutrons are sometimes particles and 
> sometimes 
> > waves, and as far as we can know, sometimes nothing. The 
> vastness of 
> > this space compared to the size of the proton offers nothing in 
> the 
> > way of a material substance. 
> >
> >   
> [Laird]
> Oh yes. Even in the classical atomic model there's such an 
> amazingly 
> massive void, not only within, but also between attached 
> particles. 
> Quantum theory explains this interestingly - Preserving the 
> electron 
> energy levels from classic particle physics for the moment (so I 
> can 
> explain it), we observe that when two atoms come into contact, 
> their 
> outer energy levels cannot cross dimensionally past each other, 
> even if 
> only one electron exists in the ridiculously vast surface of the 
> energy 
> level. Classical physics sees this as a mystery, sometimes passed-
> off as 
> an electromagnetic force field effect, but with no feasible energy 
> source (and not much care for the second law of thermodynamics). 
> Quantum 
> theory says that the electron is everywhere across the energy 
> level's 
> probabilistic field at the same time, and that only when the 
> surface of 
> the energy field is "prodded" by another atom does the electron's 
> quantum state collapse into a definitive point in 3D space 
> (conveniently 
> at the 'right' point, blocking the unwelcome intrusion).
> 
> Interesting that the sci-fi idea of a "force field" is inherent in 
> quantum physics!
> 
> 
> > [Chin]
> > One interesting thought I came across which is a better theory 
> of 
> > creation than anything else I have heard. Electrons rubbing 
> together 
> > (friction) created gravity, and gravity pulled the gasses into 
> what we 
> > now know as planets and stars. With Hawking Radiation from the 
> Black 
> > Holes, this may be more re-creation than creation, as the 
> universe can 
> > only be described as infinite. 
> >   
> [Laird]
> Entanglement. I haven't read enough yet, but I'm sure somebody 
> somewhere 
> has put together a theory describing a "critical mass" of 
> entanglement - 
> that once so many quanta become entangled, they eventually freak 
> out, do 
> some crazy stuff, and untangle.
> 
> So imagine all quanta except one are entangled. That one last 
> straggler 
> entangles with the rest. There's only one possible change for the 
> quanta 
> to experience, since they're all hooked to everything everywhere. 
> Boom! 
> They detangle, and in our 3D (+time) terms we call it the Big 
> Bang. The 
> quanta immediately start entangling again in countless little 
> strings 
> and webs (patterns!). And in a matter of (a LOT of) time they'll 
> all 
> entangle again and go Boom! Recreation, indeed. I like it. VERY 
> much 
> Scott Adams' "God's Debris" analogy, but much more palatable as 
> quanta 
> than as particles of God.
> 
> 
> > [Chin]
> > Quantum physics is complicated, but more so, it questions what I 
> have 
> > called our predetermined prejudices, and one of the 
> predetermined 
> > prejudices it questions is SOM, such as in A cannot be both B 
> and not 
> > B (shortened) – something cannot come from nothing – and there 
> must be 
> > a cause. 
> >
> >   
> [Laird]
> It's interesting seeing the myriad different approaches that 
> scientists 
> are taking to quantum physics. They're all seeing the world in a 
> slightly different way, and all catching a sideways glance of 
> something 
> kinda missing, and all trying different approaches to resolve it. 
> Slowly, all of our assumptions are being questioned, especially 
> SOM. The 
> fundamental concepts of quantum theory not only dismiss SOM, but 
> (to use 
> SOM's own determinism) "prove" SOM incomplete and flawed. But 
> mass-understanding and acceptance is a long way off. Just look at 
> all 
> the "Children of Abraham" for an idea on timescales. :)
> 
> 
> > [Chin]
> > What we think we know, we may not. Einstein said, “Common sense 
> is the 
> > collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen,” but then 
> when it 
> > came to making something out of nothing, the instruments he and 
> Bohr 
> > were using appeared to be measuring themselves, it seems his own 
> > common sense got in the way. 
> >
> > But, when Bohr brought his findings to the US, they seemed to 
> work, 
> > and Hiroshima would be proof. I don’t know science is value 
> free, at 
> > least not the scientists, because all two of the physicists I 
> have had 
> > the honor to meet were quite concerned with how their work would 
> be 
> > used. Saying politics is value free might fit a bit better. ;o)
> >
> >   
> [Laird]
> Ah, SOM is value-free. Science can, is, and will continue to 
> slowly 
> transcend SOM, as quantum theory has shown. Since ideas have not 
> yet 
> evolved to self-sustaining, self-changing states (they're still a 
> bit 
> dependent on us to 'think'), we'll see the SOM evacuation start 
> with the 
> scientists. :)
> 
> Politics are ALL value, it's just such a huge melting-pot of value 
> that 
> nothing but brown sludge can come out. :P  But it's too easy for 
> us to 
> piss on politics (largely a social endeavor) when 'looking down' 
> on it 
> from the intellectual level.
> 
> 
> > [Chin]
> > I know, such brilliance has probably left you speechless. I 
> tried to 
> > tone it down some, but it’s hard to get something this 
> complicated 
> > down to a Tenth Grade Level (most definitely pun intended;) 
> >   
> [Laird]
> From the sudden pause of messages on the list, it looks like it 
> left a 
> lot of people speechless! ;o) Hell, it's hard to think through 
> these 
> ideas... abstractions of abstractions of abstractions of ab..... 
> Some 
> dumbing down helps us keep perspective of how our discussions can 
> connect with the 'real world' around us.
> 
> 
> > [Chin]
> > Will Rogers once said something to the nature of the most 
> ignorant 
> > individual is an educated man outside the field in which he was 
> > educated. I may resemble that remark ;),
> >
> >
> >   
> [Laird]
> And that's why I still scream play calls at the television on 
> Sundays. 
> Nobody can hear me but the neighbors, and I'm sure my play calls 
> would 
> be crap (but they can't be any worse than what the Buccaneers 
> coaches 
> are calling)... We have a relentless desire to expand our 
> experience and 
> I can't fault anybody for trying, even if no one else notices. :)
> 
> -Laird
> 
> >   
> >> [Laird]
> >> I found the intro link I was looking for. It's an attempt to 
> >> describe 
> >> Hilbert space in terms a non-quantum-physicist can grasp. 
> Despite 
> >> the 
> >> title, it still requires a fairly strong command of mathematic 
> >> principles.
> >> http://www.qedcorp.com/pcr/pcr/hilberts.html
> >>
> >> After I read this the first time, I stared at the ceiling for 
> >> quite some 
> >> time. As my imagination wandered, I got the sensation that some 
> >> 'crystallization' was taking place. First I was imagining the 
> >> orthogonal 
> >> dimensions of Hilbert space unfolding into a 3D (euclidian) 
> visual 
> >> representations, then further into nonlinear dimension 
> morphing. 
> >> Excited, I tried to write down something describing my 
> imaginings, 
> >> but 
> >> nothing intelligible came out.
> >>
> >> The link is actually a portion of a larger quantum mechanics 
> >> discussion 
> >> circa 1996 (http://www.qedcorp.com/pcr/pcr/mmq.html). It sounds 
> >> really 
> >> interesting, but it's way over my head. I'm currently searching 
> >> for a 
> >> normal-person-friendly definition of "quantum collapse", but 
> it's 
> >> evading me. These Q-people are ruthless with their lingo!
> >>
> >> Skipping ahead to page 3 
> >> (http://www.qedcorp.com/pcr/pcr/mmq3.html) it 
> >> looks like they're discussing quantum interaction between ideas 
> >> and the 
> >> physical brain. Lots of mention of William James too. My head 
> >> hurts just 
> >> glancing over it, but it sounds intriguing. Anybody have any 
> >> insight on 
> >> this stuff?
> >>
> >> -Laird
> >>
> >>
> >>     
> 
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>