Quantum Physics

>>18461561
I love you right now. But I'm too drunk to contribute meaningfully to your thread.

Thank you for making a thread capable of branching the paranormal sciences into actual sciences.

>>18461583
Yeah this can be a great discussion but this is also like the #1 thing hardcore rationalists like to make fun of paranormal people for because sometimes people draw really far-fetched conclusions about it and people like Deepak Chopra have given that a bad name. Still, 2spookyactionatdistance4me.

>>18461561
I definitely think you can argue that quantum entanglement, while definitely doesn't PROVE telepathy is possible, is an indicator that it's not impossible, but of course whether or not quantum phenomena have any measurable effect on something as macroscopic as conscious activity is an open question

File: Untitled-1.jpg (437KB, 1112x1112px) Image search: [Google]

437KB, 1112x1112px

>>18461561
everyone here is dumb as fuck.
imagine
imagine this
imagine this okay. imagine theres two types of human on earth. the really mundane human that doesnt do shit. and the people that are kind of like, yeah.
people that aren't part of the script. these people fuck with shit i bet. this quantum entanglement business is elementary jargon used to keep us thinking that we're making technological advancements. in reality, advancenments have been made so far into the future, that the present itself has become a simulation. thus, there is no truth. thus
everything is fake and gay.

>>18461561
Alright this is going to be kind of edgy and simplistic but here's my take

This may be proof of a dimension beyond the 3 spatial ones we perceive. Take a piece of paper. Draw a line in the middle. Draw a dot two inches to the left of the line, then another dot two inches to the right of the line, like it's reflected in a mirror. Draw a straight line from one dot to the other. That would be the shortest possible path between the two, no?

Fold the piece of paper over the line. The two dots should be right on top of each other. Poke a hole with your pencil through the dots. You've gone from one to other, effectively, instantaneously by "warping" dimensions --- the straight line is the shortest path --in the limitation of two dimensions---. If you account for three dimensions, you can make a so-called "wormhole" or instantaneous travel by bending the second dimension. And so for a supposed 4th dimension as related to our three dimensions we can perceive.

>>18461620
how do you warp spacetime fabric?

>>18461561
Particles at a quantum level influence each other in impossible ways but that's because we don't understand how things work at the quantum level. We do more or less understand how things work on a practical scale, the quirks of quantum physics don't have much application outside of quantum physics. I believe in some paranormal stuff but using quantum mechanics as a basis is at risk of being pseudoscientific imo

>>18461622
Well, that's the question. Some force from the fourth dimension which gravity may perhaps only be a pale shadow of.

I don't have all the answers, I'm just waxing lyrical, but if there's a 4th spatial dimension, it stands to reason it can influence ours --- more strictly speaking, "ours" doesn't exist in the sense of "our 3-D world", since it would mean we live in 4 dimensions, we just can't perceive the 4th one.

>>18461620
there...are dimensions beyond the 3 spatial ones we perceive. that's a scientific, mathematical fact. a great deal of modern physics calculations depend upon the existence of n-dimensional geometry and calculations. go on wikipedia.

>>18461645
there are probably 10 or 11 dimensions

>>18461647
yeah, this was in the back of my head somewhere but I'm kind of out of the loop.

The question is, if they're acknowledged, why aren't they talked about more, or used to posit a solution to quantum entanglement?

>>18461655
they have been, they're talked about a lot, just...you know, not on 4Chan, or the Today Show

https://youtu.be/aSz5BjExs9o

>>18461663
>tedtalks
c'mon

anyway. thanks for the deets. I don't keep up on science, I'm more of a lunatic who goes on /x/ frequently.

>>18461666
well most academic papers are paywalled and that's a lot more digestible than a 50 page .pdf

>>18461666
this video is pretty good too, that guy's ted talk shouldn't be considered fact, there's a lot of competing theories about that, but most of what this video says is generally agreed upon by everyone:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rG6aIVGquOg

>>18461666
One last thing: this research on humans' innate ability to perceive 4D geometry via viewing VR representations of it is really interesting:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19815783

Just because it's not solved doesn't mean it's magic, you dumbfuck. Nothing in this world is magic so far, except your imagination. Why should it be any different now.

>>18461727
nobody said it was. you're yelling at an imaginary person right now.

>>18461561
The most interesting thing about quantum entanglement is that is proves the existence of faster-than-light communication. This means that it is possible for there to be some extra-temporal information that is not bound by linear time with which we can interact. Considering that our thoughts are the product of electro-chemical interactions, themselves an aspect of information operating on the quantum level, we really must widen our historical emphasis on the primacy of strict empiricism.

To add to what a previous anon mentioned about how to access/perceive the 4th dimension, as exampled by the paper dots example, to me it'd make sense that we can not access the 4th dimension, rather a 4th dimensional being or force would have to "fold" our 3rd dimension. We can only manipulate downwards…? Thoughts?

>>18461884
a 4th dimensional being could see and manipulate our dimension perfectly clearly, but we can't see its. 4th dimensional beings are speculative, but we wouldn't know one if it was staring us in the face, either.

>>18461899
You can move a piece of paper around a table. That's what the 3rd dimension would be like to a 4D being, though what that's like is damn hard to conceive of.

>>18461740
wise words

Quantum physics is awesome, but presuming higher dimensional 'beings' existing is kinda wrong. We don't really see any 2D beings around from a god perspective, why should there be 4D beings?

>>18461928
agreed, but speculation doesn't equal assumption, and sci-fi speculation often comes true

>>18461936
sci-fi speculations, only when it has a basis in science.
equating quantum physics with the paranormal is very wrong.
but then again, this being /x/, you may proceed.

>>18461928
2D beings are called "shadows." They are connected to 3D beings. Maybe we are the shadows of 4D beings in a similar way.

Full disclosure: that thought can become increasingly terrifying as you think about it.

>>18461953
again, no one has done that yet. define "paranormal", then we talk about whether or not what we're doing is...wrong? I'm not sure what you're even taking issue with here. People are just talking.

>>18461953
n-dimensional geometry is not quantum physics, btw. it's geometry.

>>18461976
this would make a good story

>>18461976
yer, i thought i was on /sci/ with my initial post.
the retards on /sci/ getting Q phycs wrong rubs me the wrong way.

anyways, we actually are 4D beings. snakes that stretch through the spacetime medium. our present perception might be what you refer to as shadows.
whats more terrifying is thinking is there probably are other beings that can manipulate this medium, that is if you believe advanced extraterrestrial exist.
its even in the realms of possibility with out own tech.

>>18461992
yeah, and the 4th dimension is being thrown around.
again, /x/.

>>18462027
but it arose organically because n-dimensional geometry is a potential explanation for the anomalous behavior of quantum particles

>>18462010
I disagree, if you had being that existed on a piece of paper, even if it could be observed from the 3rd dimension, it'd still be a 2d being, otherwise you're just saying every being is an every dimensional being which is not a useful distinction

>>18462037
its actually the only plausible explanation at this point.

Can I use quantum entanglement to suck nigger penis from across the room

>>18462010
but we are just shadows of our 4D selves...now THERE'S an idea.

File: ofcourse.jpg (52KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 600x400px

>>18462051

>>18462039
>every being is an every dimensional being
yes, this is what i an saying.
as long as a being exists in our reality, the being should be in all dims of our reality construct.
what you are suggesting is there is are different types of beings on each separate level of dimensions?

>>18462054
exactly.. our tangent present perception of 'now' is but a mere shadow of our past and future.
so then, its possible we already have our future fates sealed, but we just can't perceive it.
no free will. we are just effects of past causes.

>>18462054
Indeed... see >>18461976

>>18462066
no, just that it's useful to distinguish between what dimensions a given being is capable of directly experiencing or manipulating by the highest dimension they are capable of doing that in, which is why I think it's best to call us "3D" beings, and something which could move freely through the fourth dimension as a "4D" being. We see a shadow of the fourth dimension, but can't move freely through it.

File: arrival-movie-4-e1471529984165.png (455KB, 1497x787px) Image search: [Google]

455KB, 1497x787px

>>18462076
And suddenly, it turns into an "Arrival" thread... I hope my future self approves of this post.

>>18462081
Like how in a polynomial expression, its "degree" is the highest exponent to which a variable is raised?

>>18462076
this seems likely, but I think that it just disproves "free will" as it is currently defined and bound by the physics we know. when you start introducing the possibility that the 4th dimension can be manipulated (a 5D being), free will is something you can actually cogently talk about.

>>18462090
It's perhaps a mistake to imagine dimensions as being hierarchical, like we so often do. Maybe think of them more as like interdependent iterations of potential streams of movement. Maybe in relation to entropy, like the freedom of moving parts...

>>18462088
sure. it's just a semantic thing, not an ontological thing.

>>18462096
this is a really, really, good point

>>18462081
ok ic, it might be better to call it manifolds or something then.
4D usually doesn't necessarily mean time except by convention, and something real should reside in reality's dimensions.

>>18462090
>free will is something you can actually cogently talk about
only if our higher dimensional overlords allows it.

>>18462106
yeah that's why I've avoided even saying time, I'm just an armchair speculative physicist but I understand that making a 1:1 analogy between time and the 4th dimension is a misrecognition, I try to conceive of every dimension as spatial. I really like the point about not hierarchizing them, as each is interdependent of the other, but it still seems to me that the "higher" a dimension you are capable of perceiving, the more potential streams of movement you have

>>18462090
well on the bright side, all possible universes that can happen may happen, then we get to choose which to play out. maybe thats 'free will'.

>>18462122
well I think that's making a whole lot of assumptions. possible universes is a different question. the many worlds interpretation is just one interpretation of quantum mechanics, and pretty shaky and sci-fi to me, imho.

>>18462116
>the "higher" a dimension you are capable of perceiving
do you think its possible?
some suggest microtubules in the brain can.

Quantum mechanics seem odd because it's a partial theory. We need a guy like Ptolemy, Galileo, Newton or Einstein to make a general theory out of the fragments we have now. But it's possible that it will take centuries.

>>18462116
>the "higher" a dimension you are capable of perceiving, the more potential streams of movement you have

This definitely makes sense, but we also can't superimpose a human sense of intention upon this apparent increase of movement - awareness isn't agency unless there's some aspect of visualization involved, where we manifest a universe based on a quantum collapsing of wave functions, except we realize that there is a consciousness outside of our own that has already manifested the universe in which we are aware of ourselves... that's basically the 3D shadow of a 4D being thing, though, isn't it?

>>18462147
I think it would definitely be more possible with cybernetic enhancement, but right now, not really.

>>18462150
QM is only partial because it doesn't connect smoothly with Newtonian Physics. Einstein already knew about this problem, and spent the last half of his life in search of the "Unified Field" that would reconcile the two.

>>18462130
just two, the age old free will or no free will based on singular cause and effect or like you mentioned, many worlds interpretation.

i agree the many worlds interpretation is a clusterfuck. i honestly think the presumptions only holds at the quantum level, and at a larger scale things only happen along a discrete space.

>>18462152
wow, nice. I have literally never been able to have a conversation about this with anyone that was actually, you know, a conversation.

File: space.gif (2MB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 200x200px

>>18462161

that's why I like where >>18462116 is going...we haven't really gotten to what quantum effects actually represent. we probably can't.

>>18462169
dammit, I meant >>18462152

>>18462150
asides strings, MUH and E8 seem to be likely candidates though. I doubt it will be centuries.

>>18462157
Not with the newtonian principles but with the theory of relativity. Einstein indeed knew that the two is not 'compatible' but he was unsuccessful with the unified field theory even though he spent decades with the research of it.
Of course the unification might be impossible because there is something wrong with one of the existing theories or something needs to be discovered.

>>18462177
I kind of distrust Tegmark just because like Kaku his theories seem to be more designed to sound cool and sci-fi and get him on pop science shows more than anything else, but what do I know I don't teach at MIT

>>18462180
Isn't relativity contained within Newtonian principles, though (or at least not contradictory to them)?

Maybe human consciousness *itself* is the Unified Field...

>>18462152
Oh I think I misunderstood you a bit...yeah I guess I was still kind of assuming that the 4th dimension is somewhat time-like, or durational in some way...but I agree, I'm honestly at a loss as to how to start discussing issues of agency in dimensions of movement I can't possibly comprehend.

>>18462185
Nope. Newtonian physics are outdated. They have practical uses but that's it.

>>18462180
Theres a recent paper that suggests einsteins theory doesn't hold at certain situations, haven't read it though, but seems like a start. google 'emergent gravity' if youre interested.

>>18462183
i didn't know Tegmark was on shows, his papers relating physics to data science seems spot on though.

>>18462195
this emergent gravity stuff is fascinating but goes beyond anything I feel comfortable making comments about

>>18462185
In my opinion human consciousness is an illusion. A mixture of chemicals and informations of the past. This illusion also comes from that our brain is the most complex on Earth and we see that animals, for example, doesn't have consciousness. But an even more advanced brain might could see us just as predicatable as we see an ant.

>>18462195
There are always people who try challange the ToR but I think that Einstein was an exceptional mind and his theory still stands after 100 years. I might be wrong though.

>>18462186
>>18462195
What if time and gravity were emergent properties of consciousness, but didn't exist at all objectively? Obviously, both are measurable, but mathematically they seem to be functions of the dimension in which they are being measured. I'm probably way out of my depth here, but it seems worth mentioning.

>>18462195
Also I forgot I had read about the mathematical universe hypothesis in the past, it definitely conforms to a lot of my gut feelings, but also kind of reminds me of holonomic brain theory, which...idk. Requires a lot more time to think about.

>>18462214
nah that's great anon, I mean gravity is one of the most poorly understood phenomena out there yet seems to govern everything, and we know time is an illusion but it totally governs our experience of ourselves. I'm just wary of any of these "The Secret"-type misinterpretations that say that consciousness creates reality because I'm not sure consciousness is a real thing, or at least, it's a very poorly defined thing.

>>18462211
Well, yeah - we never observe the "present" in that all of our information is bound by c, empirically speaking. But that's the thing about entaglement that I find so exciting, because it provides a break to that limit possibly (see >>18461740). Epigenetic research suggests that we may have ancestral memories coded in DNA to some degree, but there's no reason to think that 100% of our perception is based on empirical input. I think it's a language issue, where the limits we're facing come down to the lack of our ability to adequately describe in words the level of complexity of the experiences we're having in terms of knowing stuff from larger and larger swaths of information streams (largely as a result of our ability to share information growing exponentially). Maybe we're capable of seeing patterns from beyond the boundaries of a single lifetime... this gets super metaphysical, but in the Aristotelian sense, that makes sense, as it's what comes "after physics" ;-)

>>18462220
I suspect that time is actually a strange-attractor in that sense, as it provides a linear framework for organizing information, but we misunderstand it as an absolute method for causality. Quantum mechanics break causality pretty often, after all, and phenomenological interpretations of events break down at that level.

>>18462231
which definitely suggests that acausal means of manipulating events can't be completely written off, even if they can't be "proven" in the traditional sense, as that traditional sense of proof stands on some pretty rickety supports, when you really break it down

>>18461583
You're welcome

>>18462224
Can you give me a link to the epigenetic research? A few months ago I read a study on butterflies. The catapillars carry their memories when they become butterflies. I have a strong belief we can do the same with our brain. Watching the movie Assasins Creed makes me believe it is possible.

>>18462083

thought this was from Noein

File: 0714101horns1.jpg (48KB, 675x525px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 675x525px

>>18463004
>Watching the movie Assasins Creed makes me believe it is possible.

>Thread on Quantum Mechanics
>Anon references "Assassin's Creed" movie to back up a point he's making