conceptualizing infinity

Hi

I like the discussion here, however, I am a bit short of time so I will
pick out 2 points only.

Quote:

---

No 2 objects can occupy the same space simultaneously but 1 object can occupy 2 different locations at the same period in time (or appear to.)

---

That's a strange remark. What's an object? Myself, I am an object, and
at the same time, a part of myself is at the floor while another is up in the air
:)
That's a simple pictures, but actually shows some thruth:

Define object. Then, define how you describe the object: Are you using
wave-function for the quantum object? Are you using a quantum field? Note
that Quantum Field Theory is more fundamental since Quantum Theory, since
the quanta emerge from the field.

In this qm-sense the object actually is everywhere (based on the Kopenhagener
interpretation of the wave function \psi: propabililty |\psi|^2), however,
when you measure it, it is somewhere with a particular uncertainty (Heisenberg).
Since you don't know where it is (exactly), how can you say it is at several
positions at the same time?

Even more - it is still not clear whether electrons are point-like. It is still not
clear how quarks and gluons actually "look" like - the more energy you pull to
be able to resolve space more clearly, the more you see that quarks and
gluons consist of quarks and gluons...

Quote:

---

I've never really understood the explanations as to why entanglement isn't evidence of information moving faster than light. If that is so isn't it also so that an electron particle is occupying 2 locations simultaneously?

---

In simple words: because you don't know of entanglement until you compare
results. You only can compare results without violating causality. I have written
something more here[1]. As a consequence of the famous experiment,
quantum cryptology[2] gets its foundation - and _not_ violation of causality.

Cheers :)

[1] http://antionline.com/showpost.php?p...9&postcount=10
[2] http://www.idquantique.com/ (see papers herein)

Quote:

---

If that doesn't melt your eyes out of their sockets ...... Einstein didn't even like it, lol!

---

Albert hated the idea. The uncertainty principle underlies the idea of entanglement. And it was tough for Einstein to accept that a local system could affect a remote system. Especially when it happens across the galaxy. But I think even he succumbed to it's logic as Earth time progressed. Reminds my of a favourite quote:

"The more success the quantum mechanics has, the sillier it looks." - A. Einstein.

Einstein was alive with Born Schrodinger and Heisenberg etc and worked with some of them.

Too add a pun or twist on the original post. If a measurement device was "infinitely" precise. There would be no uncertainty in measurement of momentum and position. ;) And it is easy to get caught up with another mirror copy of myself enjoying a hot cup of coffeed floating around time and space in an infinite reality, however we are talking about single "particle" that is a weeeeee bit tiny. If all the particles (million of billions) that make up me ended up at the exact same "time" in a particular "position" and at the same "momentum" that would be highly... impobable. Perhaps infinitely improbable. :)

We could all jump on the Heart of Gold and swish around the universe. (referece to the improbability drive space ship stolen by Zaphod)

Heh, or the bistromatic. That'd be even better. (Sorry for interrupting a serious discussion)

Cheers,
cgkanchi

Quote:

---

No 2 objects can occupy the same space simultaneously...

---

I'm a bit rusty on my multidimensional theory, but isn't it possible for 2 objects to occupy the same space provided their molecules vibrate at the same frequency? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Quote:

---

I'm a bit rusty on my multidimensional theory, but isn't it possible for 2 objects to occupy the same space provided their molecules vibrate at the same frequency? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

---

Not directed at me but some thoughts;

It seems that if two objects are vibrating at the same frequency they would cancel one another. It would have be different frequencies?

But in the case of mechanics, two objects cannot be in the same quantim state at the same time. And thus two objects cannot occupy the same "space".

This deals only with matter. Speaking of frequency and my opening statement. Light and radiation can pass thru matter. The key is Thru. But looking at particles in the quantum or classical sense; no two object can occupy the same space. That is have the same quantum state or "spin".

At the molecular level this is especially true. In a popular sense regarding the ideal of alternate dimensions; one could tune to the "frequency" of the dimension they cannot see. Those dimensions still exist within our physical universe. They are just undetectable by our senses. An example could be molecules moving faster than we can detect with out eyes. We cannot "detect" light moving through space as we are, but we can see its effect on objects.

For instance the light reflected from this table. Which happens to be in the wavelength or "frequency" our eyes detect via the retina and the receptors there as "white". Although we cannot see it moving, nor does it occupy space in the sense matter does, as it travels from fluorescent tube to the table.

Objects need to be at opposing frequencies to cancel one another...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoadClosed

Not directed at me but some thoughts;
But in the case of mechanics, two objects cannot be in the same quantim state at the same time. And thus two objects cannot occupy the same "space".
(...)
That is have the same quantum state or "spin"

---

Well, this is only true for fermions (simplified spoken). An unlimited number of
bosons can share the same quantum state - which is even visible on a
macroscopic level - the boson-einstein condensate. Superconductivity goes
along the same line, however here, fermions are involved. The (still not
proven, but generally accepted) BCS-theory says that fermions build bosonic
structures (cooper pairs), which then can condensate, ie. they will share the
same (lowest-energy) quantum state.


as per "molecules". Molecules, consists of atoms, themselves consisting of
tiny electrons and a nucleus, which itself consists of protons and neutrons,
themselves consisting of quarks and gluons - essentially, a "molecule" is empty.

The only reason a "molecule" cannot "occupy the space" of another "molecule"
is the interaction of their components -
at large length scale (low energy), this is the electromagnetic force,
at small length scale (high energy) this is the strong force (essentially).
If you accelerate molecules (ie you pump energy in the system), they
eventually will "occupy the same space" when colliding :)



Cheers

Quote:

---

BCS-theory says that fermions build bosonic
structures (cooper pairs), which then can condensate, ie. they will share the
same (lowest-energy) quantum state.

---

I read a great deal of the theory when it was tested in Boulder. Kind of forgot about that. I need to look at it again. It creates a "special" material by super cooling paricles using a laser. Back to the physics lab of Colodado State. I thought it created a sort of mass but they didn't occupy the same space. In my argument however I used "quantum state". I shall return. ;)


//EDIT oh and I was refering to fermions.

... well my ****ing head hurts now. Don't have much time but..

;)


As usual when I go back and read somthing, and given the reading of other articles in the mean time I learn something new.

bosnian particles are special. The condensate uses bosnian particles only. Most likely because they use a photon? There is nothing in quantum mechanics that says this cannot happen, in fact it predicts it. This is something new. It is a new form of matter, and the word new is key here. **** when I look at it more I get freaked out. Due to the nature of this substance it could OVERCOME gravity! In the years that have passed more has been made and it's getting easier to store. Can't wait to see what it's used for in the future say... 20 years.

Hi

Quote:

---

Due to the nature of this substance it could OVERCOME gravity!

---

Interesting thought. How so? (Are you refering to the floating magnet?[1] :))

Quote:

---

In the years that have passed more has been made and it's getting easier to store. Can't wait to see what it's used for in the future say... 20 years.

---

Right :)

Cheers

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pO2eDJBr50E