|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jan 18, 2011 22:58:07 GMT 1
I made the not unreasonable assumption that what was being requested was an explanation of the holographic universe idea.
Hence whether or not I watched a particular program that mentioned it is totally irrelevant.
Put a bit of effort in, this is a rather feeble attempt at a post.............
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Jan 19, 2011 0:06:24 GMT 1
I made the not unreasonable assumption that what was being requested was an explanation of the holographic universe idea. Hence whether or not I watched a particular program that mentioned it is totally irrelevant. Put a bit of effort in, this is a rather feeble attempt at a post............. STA, despite your disdain of Horizon some very eminent cosmologists/physicists took part and I think we have to treat what they had to say with great respect and it explore properly. You have presented an explanation in response to my OP, which I am grateful for and am still thinking about, but unless you experienced what they had to say it's all a bit disjointed, don't you think? I think it's important that we all sing from the same hymn book, don't you?
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Jan 19, 2011 8:52:22 GMT 1
Why do you assume that someone has to have watched the Horizon program to know something about the Holographic principle? It's an idea that has been around for a few years, you asked for someone to try and explain. If you want a frame-by-frame analysis of Horizon, I have better things to do than go watch an episode of a TV program that I gave up on years ago as having fallen from its previous heights of good popular science. The point is how can you reasonably discuss a programme I saw if you have not seen it yourself? Why on earth not? Certain people on this board go into long, involved, undecipherable 'explanations' of physical phenomena without knowing what they are talking of! Why should ignorance inhinit loquacity for goodness sake?
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Jan 19, 2011 9:23:35 GMT 1
Well Abacus I have now watched the programme, and what a collection of distinguished physicists appeared on it!
On thing I particularly enjoyed was the universal admission by these eminent experts in their field that, although they can make beautiful predictions and the mathematics 'describes' precisely the operations of QM, they do not really have a clue what is going on. Although they seemed to accept of a photon (for example) being in two places at once, they had no ideea why that could possibly be the case - it just seemed to work without any understanding on their part! Similarly their puzzlement at QM whereby particles do not exist until they are observed!
This puzzlement, this admission of not knowing what is really going on in QM is absolutely necessary if these very bright people are to mantain their intellectaul integrity in the face of the contradictions the 'explanation' of QM necessarily contain
The 2-slit experiment that demonstrated that if we detect the photons before they go through one of the 2 slits totally destroys their 'wave-like' properties and they no longer create an interference pattern on the screen behind the slits, was exceptionally interesting.
For reality per se, I got the impression that they were pulling our leg. They talked of black-holes destroying 'information' and I must admit that I do not know what they are talking about! In my opinion, the programme fell flat at that point - they should have described what they meant. Perhaps someone who watched the programme could explain to me?
I also had no idea what they were talking of when they described the way that alll our information is stored at the edge o our universe and pulled out as necessary to create the hologram
Mind you, I was quite relieved when the main proponent of this idea said that if we think that we undertand what he was talking about thenwe haven't understood!
Loke many Horizon programmes I found the peripherals more interesting than the meat. The discovery of the sixteen basic elements that constitute all matter seemed particularly interesting.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Jan 19, 2011 10:36:29 GMT 1
Well, it's all just about theories of course, but it was this idea that puzzled me too and STA has yet to be of any help here. See, she refuses to watch the programme so how can she deal with the point I'm on about? I cannot understand why some people keep belittling Horizon when they have people on there that do know what they are talking about, even if it has to be dumbed down for the benefit of the rest of us.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Jan 19, 2011 10:42:53 GMT 1
Well, it's all just about theories of course, but it was this idea that puzzled me too and STA has yet to be of any help here. ;DHas she ever been any help anywhere? If she cannot explain something as inherently simple as differentiation satisfactorily how can she be trusted with complicated things? I noted the contempt with which your perfectly reasonable questions on the calculus were treated on that thread See, she refuses to watch the programme so how can she deal with the point I'm on about? I cannot understand why some people keep belittling Horizon when they have people on there that do know what they are talking about, even if it has to be dumbed down for the benefit of the rest of us. Do you honestly want her contribution, which is inevitably triumphalism and belittlement?
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Jan 19, 2011 13:22:09 GMT 1
Well, it's all just about theories of course, but it was this idea that puzzled me too and STA has yet to be of any help here. ;DHas she ever been any help anywhere? If she cannot explain something as inherently simple as differentiation satisfactorily how can she be trusted with complicated things? I noted the contempt with which your perfectly reasonable questions on the calculus were treated on that thread See, she refuses to watch the programme so how can she deal with the point I'm on about? I cannot understand why some people keep belittling Horizon when they have people on there that do know what they are talking about, even if it has to be dumbed down for the benefit of the rest of us. Do you honestly want her contribution, which is inevitably triumphalism and belittlement? Well, I keep hoping that we might eventually get through to her and that she will change her attitude a bit but there doesn't really seem to be much sign of this happening so far. I'm sure she could be more communicative if she really wanted to but for some reason she seems to think we have to make the effort to decode what she has to say rather than her 'dumbing down' the info. I know when something is dumbed downed it loses much of its accuracy but, after all, this is not an undergraduate class is it and all we really need is a fairly basic understand on which to build. STA seems to think we are obliged to digest everything at one go which is pretty unrealistic in my opinion. Surely, the usual way is to take in some of the info at a suitable level then if further explanation is needed go back and ask the instructor but STA doesn't seem to want this. I can't believe this is the way she teaches physics.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Jan 19, 2011 13:39:10 GMT 1
;DHas she ever been any help anywhere? If she cannot explain something as inherently simple as differentiation satisfactorily how can she be trusted with complicated things? I noted the contempt with which your perfectly reasonable questions on the calculus were treated on that thread Do you honestly want her contribution, which is inevitably triumphalism and belittlement? Well, I keep hoping that we might eventually get through to her and that she will change her attitude a bit but there doesn't really seem to be much sign of this happening so far. I'm sure she could be more communicative if she really wanted to but for some reason she seems to think we have to make the effort to decode what she has to say rather than her 'dumbing down' the info. I know when something is dumbed downed it loses much of its accuracy but, after all, this is not an undergraduate class is it and all we really need is a fairly basic understand on which to build. STA seems to think we are obliged to digest everything at one go which is pretty unrealistic in my opinion. Surely, the usual way is to take in some of the info at a suitable level then if further explanation is needed go back and ask the instructor but STA doesn't seem to want this. I can't believe this is the way she teaches physics. I do not believe she is either a physicist or a teacher, She has exposed too much ignorance for the former and would not last five minutes in the latter or perhaps she would, our education system is in such a disgraceful state. But never mind, I wonder if we have anyone on board that did understand the Horizon programme?
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Jan 19, 2011 14:03:10 GMT 1
Well, I keep hoping that we might eventually get through to her and that she will change her attitude a bit but there doesn't really seem to be much sign of this happening so far. I'm sure she could be more communicative if she really wanted to but for some reason she seems to think we have to make the effort to decode what she has to say rather than her 'dumbing down' the info. I know when something is dumbed downed it loses much of its accuracy but, after all, this is not an undergraduate class is it and all we really need is a fairly basic understand on which to build. STA seems to think we are obliged to digest everything at one go which is pretty unrealistic in my opinion. Surely, the usual way is to take in some of the info at a suitable level then if further explanation is needed go back and ask the instructor but STA doesn't seem to want this. I can't believe this is the way she teaches physics. I do not believe she is either a physicist or a teacher, She has exposed too much ignorance for the former and would not last five minutes in the latter or perhaps she would, our education system is in such a disgraceful state. But never mind, I wonder if we have anyone on board that did understand the Horizon programme? STA, what have you to say about that?
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jan 19, 2011 14:34:03 GMT 1
I tryn not to listen to the babblings of idiots, who have nothing better to do than keep trying to insult me.
ANy idiot should be able to see that just because you have some eminent cosmologists on a TV program, doesn;t ensure that it will be a good popular science program.
Hence rather than watching Horizon, I prefer to go to the actual scientific and journal papers ojn a topic, and see what they have to say about the Holographic principle.
Which means they are by eminent cosmologists, have passed peer review, have appeared in reputable journals etc etc, and are a better idea of what the physics is actually about than a few badly-edited snippets from Horizon.
Except I have already talked about the holographic principle, information storage, and capacity being proportional to surface area, rather than volume..........Except rather than DISCUSS, instead I just get all this crap about why don't I watch the program.
So, seems you don't actually want to discuss the holographic principle at all (why doesn't that surprise me), just try to hassle me as per your usual feeble attempts.
Not much originality in that so far, although I do note that no one has called me autistic yet -- who knows, someone might actually come up with an original attempted insult, rather than the boring and predictable -- I don't believe she's a physicist, she's no help, she just insults and belittles us, she can't explain anything, she can't write grammatical english (please add which ones I have forgotten, it would save the usual suspects a lot of typing if I just inserted the whole list for them right at the start.................)
Anyine care to compute how much time and space abacus and naymissus spend discussing my supposed failings, compared to how much time and space they spend discussing either maths or physics? Perhaps what they really want is for this whole section to be renamed the 'have a go at Speaks' section, rather than physics, maths and the universe.........................
So, get back to the point -- I have given a brief description of the holographic stuff, which bits don't you understand (and just saying none of it doesn't exactly help..................). Then we can DISCUSS it if anyone is actually interested.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jan 19, 2011 14:44:34 GMT 1
This is the same utter bollocks you cam out with before, and its still bollocks! As I keep saying, all these complaints that people have no idea how something could be the case are just garbled versions of the fact that we can't give an explanation of the sort you require, we can't give an explanation that is intuitive, because our ideas of intuition are based on the behaviour opf everyday objects , which behave classically. And that's it -- it's no mystery, no sign of anything deeper or more significant, just a basic reflection of our evolutionary limitations.
Contradictions? Only if you either don't understand anything about quantum theory, or if you are lying. The seeming contradictions aren't, and are, yet again, just a product of our classical concepts as to what is sensible or not, what is contradictory or not.
Having no idea why being two places in once could be the case? What nonsense, given that in theoretical physics terms, such things are simple and straightforward.
Seemed to accept a photon being in two places at once -- they'd be vloody daft if they didn't given the experimental evidence! WHY do you keep misprepresenting basic quantum theory as if it is strange, inexplicable etc etc, apart from the usual reason why charlatans and quantum woo-woo merchants want to try and sell that impression to the punters..........
If you knew ANY physics, you'd know that the real mysterious are much more fun than this repeated quantum is strange nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jan 19, 2011 15:15:20 GMT 1
It's actually quite easy. The defining property of a black hole is that it is a one-way barrier -- stuff can fall in, but not get out. Once stuff has fallen in, all that we can see from the outside is the total MASS of what has fallen in (given by the gravitational field of the blackhole), the total angular momentum of what went in (given by the spin of the blackhole), and the total electric charge (given by the charge of the blackhole, hence electric and magnetic fields).
Every other detail about the stuff that has fallen is is lost.
In quantum terms, we do get stuff out of a black hole, but that is Hawking radiation, with a blackbody spectrum that just depends on the temperature, which depends on the mass.
So, all that information as to the detailed make-up of the matter that formed the blackhole has seemingly been lost. Except the laws of quantum physics and the way wave functions evolve say that this is not possible.
Hence we have a problem! Either information is not lost, so where did that information that went into the blackhole go, or information can be lost (quantum measurement looses information), so what physical processes can loose the information.
So, for example, Penrose reckons that gravity answers these questions, in that it does the seeming collapse of the wavefunction stuff, and does the job of loosing information, both in the seeming wavefunction collapse, and in black holes.
Except understanding ANY of this means knowing what is mean by unitary evolution in quantum theory, or roughly what information means in the quantum context, or some idea of the actual issues involved in quantum evolution and the seeming collapse of the wavefunction.
And that is not to mention the holographic stuff.....................
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Jan 19, 2011 15:36:23 GMT 1
STA, again I have to remind you that we are not undergraduates and therefore require a level of explanation that we can relate to in a fairly easy way. How can you expect to us to understand details of any scientific theory when we don't even grasp the general principles? What you have to do is use a top-down approach, i.e. provide us with a general idea of the theory and if we need more information give it to us when asked. What you seem to want to do is force feed us with a lot of technical stuff we are simply not equipped to deal with. It takes time to learn about scientific ideas STA, please try to have more patience. Isn't it more effective to learn stuff when you are puzzled by something and ask someone to explain it to you in bits and pieces? That way you gradually build up a picture of the subject matter, not by trying to digest all of the information at once! The pity is the ideas you are trying to teach us about will never sink in unless you are prepared to adapt yourself a little more, so it will be a waste of your time and effort as well as ours, so don't you think it's worth trying a slightly different approach in future? The experts in the Horizon programme had to dumb down their explanations of various scientific principles and no doubt left a lot out but, nevertheless, it whetted people's appetites for the subject matter. Why don't you try the same approach?
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Jan 19, 2011 16:02:41 GMT 1
@sta
Your #26 post raised a question for me; do you get a 'red shift' in emissions from an EM transmitter as it falls into a black hole?
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jan 19, 2011 16:13:16 GMT 1
Except when I tell you you don't understand something, or have got something wrong, you accuse me of being insulting and belittling! This has happened OVER and OVER again.
So, don't talk crap and try and teach me how to teach -- it's just a smokescreen, because you refuse to listen when I tell you you have misunderstood or got something wrong.
Instead, we just have the pair of stock responses:
1) how dare you belittle us b y telling me I have got it wrong, I don't believe you understand it anyway.......
2) It's all your fault for being a crap teacher......................
WHat is still conspicuous by its almost total absence is ANY attempt on your part to actualy engage in a discussion, to ASK, to say -- I don't think I've quite got what you physicists mean by 'information'.............and so on.
Stop wasting time berating me, and DISCUSS the actual physics for once...................
|
|