Elite roleplay: Q&A and OOC

Syn
20 Jan 2017, 4:44pm
Lilith2980
Markus OmniTardises? What the hek is that?


Well, I can see that you and me are just not going to get along...


Hey hey hey, give me a break 'ere! Anything made 30 years before my birth, nah, I haven't watched! Butt! If you be willing to give a guy like me the chance, I'll be your ever lasting pupil.
Red Jester (Heathen)
20 Jan 2017, 4:47pm
Markus Omni
Lilith2980
Markus OmniTardises? What the hek is that?



Well, I can see that you and me are just not going to get along...



Hey hey hey, give me a break 'ere! Anything made 30 years before my birth, nah, I haven't watched! Butt! If you be willing to give a guy like me the chance, I'll be your ever lasting pupil.


Dr Who started 30 years before you were born, but you can pick it up from anywhere and still enjoy it, philistine
Stryker Aune
20 Jan 2017, 4:59pm
Science debate!

Me so happy!

Nsite

Time travel is possible- quantum mechanics is barely understood but since the discovery of the HB particle there is more evidence that it is possible than isn't as supported by the standard model.



Interesting. Looks like I have some reading to do. Could you kindly provide the source you received this from?


Nsite


Stryker I know you're a smart dude but the whole argument of quantum mechanics, string theory, and even the multiverse hypothesis all support the likelihood of 'more' life out there than less. Elon Musk's recent commentary on simulation almost has me somewhat convinced that We're all just the experiment of some greater intelligence out there.



That's the fun thing about a hypotheses. Testing them and using the data to support or reject the null hypothesis. It's what science is about.

Nsite

Even Einstein and basic relativity denotes the possibility of time travel (Forwards) as a reality- but entangled particles that react like waves when not observed, and act as particles when observed is the one aspect of quantum mechanics that has me a) baffled, and b) absolutely convinced that anyone who claims they have even a basic grasp of quantum mechanics really hasn't got a grasp of reality. Even the greatest quantum physicists in the world articulate they really have no clue.



There are four people that I believe really understood quantum mechanics, better then anyone else. Three of them are dead. The fourth is Stephen Hawking's. Much of his work, has shown that time travel is not possible (at least, backwards).

You must be referring to the Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. It is confusing, but well characterized by scientific experimentation. In fact we make us if this in some applications. I have studied this personally, and so I will try to clarify what is going on.

Einsteins theory of relativity ( E = MC^2 ) is quite reduced and simplified, which in itself is beautiful. But there is a lot more going on here that isn't shown. The jist is this. All matter, has a particle / wave duality. What happens is, as mass increases, the wave nature decrease. So, you me, everyone exists as both a wave, and as solid object, but because we has so much mass, we don't "see" the wave portion. As mass decreases, the wave nature starts to dominate. Massless objects like light (a photon is NOT a particle. It is considered a "wave packet" ) are exclusively characterized by a wave form.

So what give about the electron? You can beam a stream of them at an object, and they will bounce off (particle). Its how the scanning electron microscope works. Or, you can send a beam of them through a diffraction gradient, and they show patterns of intensity (waves). Its how the detector on an X-Ray crystallography works to characterize materials.

So small masses have this duality thing going on. Strange, but even more so, uncertainty principle describes a problem with tiny masses. If you want to measure the location of an electron, you have to use something just as small. An electron. But when when you do that, you have to measure it as a physical particle. You loose information on its "Speed" which would be in the wave state. And vise versa. This is the "uncertainty" You know one, or the other, but not both.

This is very important, because how can a particle bond to another particle without electromagnetism, or gravitational forces? I'm speaking directly to, how do atoms combine together to form molecules. Well, the simple answer is this. The electrons. But as particles, it doesn't work. But as waves....Well, you can harmonize waves to overlap, and add to one another. This gave rise to.....

Schrodingers Wave Functions This is a very complicated statistical analysis used to describe what the hell is going on with an election at various energy states. What this does, is it gives us an idea of what the orbital (in which the elections most probable location is) are doing and acting. Now there are some serious approximations going on here, and this is also, just theory, but it gives rise to...

Molecular Orbital Theory which we use to describe how and why atoms are bonding to one another. We use this to understand why some atoms bond to one another, and others don't, and the energies associated with it.

(Because i'm narcissistic, I'll toot my own horn, but as a mid term exam, I had to work the Schrodinger Wave Function for the N=2 energy state and solve for the 1p orbital set)

Quantum mechanics is an umbrella field. There are aspects and areas of it we know more about then others. I agree, any person that claims to have a complete understanding of it, is delusional. But to say that any one person having some small understanding in various aspects of it is delusional, is quite frankly insulting.

I could say the same thing about the film industry. Just because I don't understand the editing process, doesn't mean anyone who does, or even those that have a basic understanding, is a witch doctor.

I'm not a quantum physicist by trade, but I did have to study aspects of it.


Nsite

What they have articulated however is that in almost every hypothesis, the 4th dimension proves that moving through space and time without limitation 'could' be possible if some 'thing' could move beyond the 4th dimension.




You willing to stake your reputation on that? Prove is a very dirty word. Scientist refrain from using it because at some point, the likely hood of it being refuted and shown to be incorrect is extremely high.

Take string theory. It's in scientific dispute as we speak. If the scientist that work on it said it "proved" anything, they would be stung up by their heels. We can be an unforgiving lot sometimes.

Prove is used by politicians to push an agenda.

We use wishy washy verbiage, like. "Scientist have shown..." Or, "From the results we concluded that...." But we don't use "prove." In fact, I've gotten to the point in my life when I see the word "prove" I automatically reject what was "proven."

There is a lot of interesting stuff about the higher dimensions. Much of it is in flux. between being accepted and refuted. But yes, like folding space.

Nsite

Multiverse supports the notion of 12 possible dimensions, and it hasn't been 'disproven' either, in fact it's gaining traction. The reality is even in our galaxy, comprised of 400 billion stars, the likeliness of another you, exactly as you are today, is mathematically more probable than not.




I never said that it wasn't...

But I will say this. The statistical probability of finding another "me" is so astronomically remote, that it might as well be 0. I would be curious to see the science behind this claim. If you could provide me with the peer reviewed scientific publication that you got this information from, I would be interested in reading it. Otherwise its just smoke being blown up your ass. Be careful, there are many "scientists" who are charlatans trying to push a philosophical view, rather then anything credible. But I'll leave that up to you to decide.

Nsite

As far as the pip-boy is concerned... Wrong game.



Hear Hear!


Nsite

And Stryker.. He said George Lucas and you mentioned Star Trek... Blasphemy bro... Sickening...



I'll be open to the idea of a multi-verse, if you'll be open to the idea that Star Trek is cool, although campy.


This was really nice!

Kudos!

Last edit: 20 Jan 2017, 11:02pm
User4296
20 Jan 2017, 7:39pm
Muninn
Markus Omni
Lilith2980
Markus OmniTardises? What the hek is that?




Well, I can see that you and me are just not going to get along...




Hey hey hey, give me a break 'ere! Anything made 30 years before my birth, nah, I haven't watched! Butt! If you be willing to give a guy like me the chance, I'll be your ever lasting pupil.



Dr Who started 30 years before you were born, but you can pick it up from anywhere and still enjoy it, philistine


You could even start at the relatively recent restart in 2005 with Chris Eccleston, though David Tennant (2005 - 2010) had a fantastic run.
Red Jester (Heathen)
20 Jan 2017, 8:02pm
John "Xeknos" Mathurin
Muninn
Markus Omni
Lilith2980
Markus OmniTardises? What the hek is that?





Well, I can see that you and me are just not going to get along...





Hey hey hey, give me a break 'ere! Anything made 30 years before my birth, nah, I haven't watched! Butt! If you be willing to give a guy like me the chance, I'll be your ever lasting pupil.




Dr Who started 30 years before you were born, but you can pick it up from anywhere and still enjoy it, philistine



You could even start at the relatively recent restart in 2005 with Chris Eccleston, though David Tennant (2005 - 2010) had a fantastic run.


Yes! Watch it from 2005 to now, sooooooo gooooooood
Reverend TZW
20 Jan 2017, 8:58pm
I've seen every Dr Who, not every episode, but every incarnation of The Doctor.

Tom Baker comes close in Third Place. I met him in a sleepy Sussex village shop one Sunday afternoon. Couldn't believe my eyes. Scarf and all.

William Hartnell, the first one was nearly the best.

Chris Eccleston takes First Place, with his delivery of the best line I've ever heard in a Dr. Who.

Here it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svi-fBXZzqI
Syn
20 Jan 2017, 9:09pm
Moving out
Getting a new job
Working at a culinary school
Buying a computer to finally play ED
Still need to read the other peoples logbooks
Will be writing ED stories and other miscellaneous
Getting that damn six pack I've always dreamed of having

And now I'll add on watching Dr. Who episodes.. maybe on Netflix


Yeah, this summer is going to be quite the fun memorable, radical change for me

Last edit: 20 Jan 2017, 10:30pm
User23543
20 Jan 2017, 9:17pm
No love for Peter Capaldi?

I'll admit my love for his Doctor has more to do with Malcolm Tucker than him being a good Doctor.
Jemine Caesar
20 Jan 2017, 11:03pm
David Tennant.

Yes please.
User1355
21 Jan 2017, 8:37am
SonofMacPhistoNo love for Peter Capaldi?

I'll admit my love for his Doctor has more to do with Malcolm Tucker than him being a good Doctor.


If only he did the Doctor in his Malcolm Tucker persona!

I might actually enjoy the show if he did!
Nsite
21 Jan 2017, 9:26am
Stryker AuneScience debate!

Me so happy!

Nsite

Time travel is possible- quantum mechanics is barely understood but since the discovery of the HB particle there is more evidence that it is possible than isn't as supported by the standard model.



Interesting. Looks like I have some reading to do. Could you kindly provide the source you received this from?


Nsite


Stryker I know you're a smart dude but the whole argument of quantum mechanics, string theory, and even the multiverse hypothesis all support the likelihood of 'more' life out there than less. Elon Musk's recent commentary on simulation almost has me somewhat convinced that We're all just the experiment of some greater intelligence out there.




That's the fun thing about a hypotheses. Testing them and using the data to support or reject the null hypothesis. It's what science is about.

Nsite

Even Einstein and basic relativity denotes the possibility of time travel (Forwards) as a reality- but entangled particles that react like waves when not observed, and act as particles when observed is the one aspect of quantum mechanics that has me a) baffled, and b) absolutely convinced that anyone who claims they have even a basic grasp of quantum mechanics really hasn't got a grasp of reality. Even the greatest quantum physicists in the world articulate they really have no clue.




There are four people that I believe really understood quantum mechanics, better then anyone else. Three of them are dead. The fourth is Stephen Hawking's. Much of his work, has shown that time travel is not possible (at least, backwards).

You must be referring to the Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. It is confusing, but well characterized by scientific experimentation. In fact we make us if this in some applications. I have studied this personally, and so I will try to clarify what is going on.

Einsteins theory of relativity ( E = MC^2 ) is quite reduced and simplified, which in itself is beautiful. But there is a lot more going on here that isn't shown. The jist is this. All matter, has a particle / wave duality. What happens is, as mass increases, the wave nature decrease. So, you me, everyone exists as both a wave, and as solid object, but because we has so much mass, we don't "see" the wave portion. As mass decreases, the wave nature starts to dominate. Massless objects like light (a photon is NOT a particle. It is considered a "wave packet" ) are exclusively characterized by a wave form.

So what give about the electron? You can beam a stream of them at an object, and they will bounce off (particle). Its how the scanning electron microscope works. Or, you can send a beam of them through a diffraction gradient, and they show patterns of intensity (waves). Its how the detector on an X-Ray crystallography works to characterize materials.

So small masses have this duality thing going on. Strange, but even more so, uncertainty principle describes a problem with tiny masses. If you want to measure the location of an electron, you have to use something just as small. An electron. But when when you do that, you have to measure it as a physical particle. You loose information on its "Speed" which would be in the wave state. And vise versa. This is the "uncertainty" You know one, or the other, but not both.

This is very important, because how can a particle bond to another particle without electromagnetism, or gravitational forces? I'm speaking directly to, how do atoms combine together to form molecules. Well, the simple answer is this. The electrons. But as particles, it doesn't work. But as waves....Well, you can harmonize waves to overlap, and add to one another. This gave rise to.....

Schrodingers Wave Functions This is a very complicated statistical analysis used to describe what the hell is going on with an election at various energy states. What this does, is it gives us an idea of what the orbital (in which the elections most probable location is) are doing and acting. Now there are some serious approximations going on here, and this is also, just theory, but it gives rise to...

Molecular Orbital Theory which we use to describe how and why atoms are bonding to one another. We use this to understand why some atoms bond to one another, and others don't, and the energies associated with it.

(Because i'm narcissistic, I'll toot my own horn, but as a mid term exam, I had to work the Schrodinger Wave Function for the N=2 energy state and solve for the 1p orbital set)

Quantum mechanics is an umbrella field. There are aspects and areas of it we know more about then others. I agree, any person that claims to have a complete understanding of it, is delusional. But to say that any one person having some small understanding in various aspects of it is delusional, is quite frankly insulting.

I could say the same thing about the film industry. Just because I don't understand the editing process, doesn't mean anyone who does, or even those that have a basic understanding, is a witch doctor.

I'm not a quantum physicist by trade, but I did have to study aspects of it.


Nsite

What they have articulated however is that in almost every hypothesis, the 4th dimension proves that moving through space and time without limitation 'could' be possible if some 'thing' could move beyond the 4th dimension.





You willing to stake your reputation on that? Prove is a very dirty word. Scientist refrain from using it because at some point, the likely hood of it being refuted and shown to be incorrect is extremely high.

Take string theory. It's in scientific dispute as we speak. If the scientist that work on it said it "proved" anything, they would be stung up by their heels. We can be an unforgiving lot sometimes.

Prove is used by politicians to push an agenda.

We use wishy washy verbiage, like. "Scientist have shown..." Or, "From the results we concluded that...." But we don't use "prove." In fact, I've gotten to the point in my life when I see the word "prove" I automatically reject what was "proven."

There is a lot of interesting stuff about the higher dimensions. Much of it is in flux. between being accepted and refuted. But yes, like folding space.

Nsite

Multiverse supports the notion of 12 possible dimensions, and it hasn't been 'disproven' either, in fact it's gaining traction. The reality is even in our galaxy, comprised of 400 billion stars, the likeliness of another you, exactly as you are today, is mathematically more probable than not.





I never said that it wasn't...

But I will say this. The statistical probability of finding another "me" is so astronomically remote, that it might as well be 0. I would be curious to see the science behind this claim. If you could provide me with the peer reviewed scientific publication that you got this information from, I would be interested in reading it. Otherwise its just smoke being blown up your ass. Be careful, there are many "scientists" who are charlatans trying to push a philosophical view, rather then anything credible. But I'll leave that up to you to decide.

Nsite

As far as the pip-boy is concerned... Wrong game.




Hear Hear!


Nsite

And Stryker.. He said George Lucas and you mentioned Star Trek... Blasphemy bro... Sickening...




I'll be open to the idea of a multi-verse, if you'll be open to the idea that Star Trek is cool, although campy.


This was really nice!

Kudos!


That feeling when you get bitch-slapped by someone who is FAAAAAAR more intelligent than you are... (Rubs face, grabs a pip-boy to see if there are any medi-pacs near by, finds one, and tosses it to dog-meat who is currently flying his Conda because the pain was that bad). Hey! I can admit Star Trek is cool- and I am not saying by any means I believe in a Multiverse. Although the theory is really interesting.

In all seriousness..

You're absolutely right, prove was definitely the wrong word- Like you said, I am obviously no scientist, and I understand the stress and importance of language here. But I am willing to stake my rep on the notion that the most intelligent minds in the history of our species have articulated the notion of the 4th dimension as not only plausible, but probable. Many of which whom have introduced tremendous amounts of data in practice that cement their theories and put the 'impossible' notion of time travel into a severely sheltered box.

Einstein went to his grave unable to articulate the mathematical problem of singularity and as it relates to materialism and the standard model. I do believe he said specifically, "I must confess that I was unable to find an explination for the atomomistic character of nature. One must find a way to avoid the space-time continuum altogether, though I haven't the slightest idea what kind of elementary concept could be used in such a theory." He went on to articulate that there is no distinction between past, present, and future- that it is an illusion, and a convincing one. The problem with perception, is that these words could very well contradict his own mathematical sentiments that we can only move forward in time, (which I also tend to agree with I might add, as well as you). But then again...
 
Now, this isn't a debate, (and I mean this with incredible regard and sincerity Stryker) because you have me beat in both semantics and understanding I am sure, so I am simply here to share in an effort to understand better- I definitely can learn from you in this area, and I actually get 'excited' at the prospect if you would do me the privilege. Although my field is storytelling, these principles have captivated me my entire life- I was just never intelligent enough to understand the complexity- So please don't take it as an insult as I am speaking in much broader terms. I don't understand nearly as much as you do, and hats off to you for all of your points and the way you presented them. I am actually thoroughly impressed my man. I hope our conversation continues. I did not mean to be insulting. Truly.

But since you touched on it (thankfully), about the baffling nature of the electrons you spoke of, in relation to Schrodingers Wave Functions I will say (with the subjects I have been studying, on my own mind you, so the margin for bad information here is probably statistically a lot higher) that the argument for time travel (both backwards and forwards) seems to be more obliged in recent and current experimentation and it actually is one of the cornerstones of my understanding FOR the argument of time in the idealistic sense- with no constraints either forward or backwards.

Due to the expanse in the relative understanding of quantum mechanics, a lot of the data seems to point in that direction currently, referring specifically to the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiment by Scully done in the late nineties and theorized by Wheeler far earlier. (and I'd link you the journal but I cant figure out how lol). I feel that my argument in relation to their experiments and findings still remains in tact- let me try and extrapolate:

All of what you said in regards to losing information based on the application of measurement or what is being measured (time or position) seems right from my neophyte research up to a point, and did challenge Shridubger's theory somewhat (due to as you noted the nature of being unable to measure both simultaneously at the time). The expanded understanding of entangled pairs, however, has allowed far more complicated experiments which have manifested since; they (smarties such as yourself) have been able to measure speed and path by splitting a photon into an entangled pair. The odd nature of the duality you speak of still seems to prose more questions than answers in relation to space-time. Inexplicably once again, an entangled pair with a traceable origin will not cause interference (a wave packet as you stated), whereas the unobserved pairs measured will not illicit a clumped pattern (or as I was trying to say, as a particle would), when measuring their behavior, or trying to predict it. The experiment shows that there simply is no difference between these two sets of data, none, other than the act of being observed. Essentially, the photon is 'choosing' how to display itself. You mentioned a beam/gradient example- hasn't this notion in relation to their display pattern been challenged in recent years? And why would that speak in favor of 'time travel'? Getting there.

The delayed particle experiment reiterates the notion that a photon and how it chooses to display itself does so not based on 'time' but rather more so in relation to 'space' (simplified analogy). Strangely, there is a shift in the information regardless of when it was observed- whether in the past, present, or the future (getting there lol). This is theorized as well as recorded in said experiment by the split and entangled pair that is registered first, and always in the shortest amount of time- consistently mirroring it's estranged counterpart- which, by the way, is philosophically on a different path through time.

The nature of this experiment presents several control factors that make it impossible to dictate which photon will go to which detector (there are many) when the experiment is started- and they accomplished this by firing two sets of photons simultaneously, first split by crystal (entangled), and further redirected to a series of sensors. Some of these will allow the photon's origin to be traceable (observed Photons), others will make it impossible to determine (unobserved); all of which will ultimately measure a display pattern as clumps (particle pattern) or interference (wave packets). They achieved this by firing the first set through  to a half silvered mirror which will reflect the photon 50 percent of the time, the other 50 percent allowing the photon to pass through. The photon that is reflected goes to a prism where it's origin cannot be traced. Those that pass through the mirror are further directed and refracted into two different detectors, one that allows the photon to be traced, the other that doesn't. For redundancy and refinement of the experiment, the second set of photons has the reverse principle applied- once they pass through the mirror they are redirected to a detector where they can be traced, and the reflected photon goes to the a prism where they are redirected, one traceable, one not, once again. In both instances, how the particle chose to display itself did so in relation to whether or not its origin could be traced. The split counterpart is always directed to the same sensor. Oddly enough, the entangled pair that was measured 8ns sooner than any of the other measurements, and before its counterpart ever hits the silver mirror or detectors further down the line (in an effort to measure time) correlated correctly to its other half in literal anticipation of its results. They (lol, they, yeah I know ) 'knew' whether or not they would be measured essentially, before the measurement ever took place. And the data is consistent across the board.

Wow, that's a lot, sorry to ramble.

TLDR -

The decision to run the experiment actually causes the information to change, and that causal force extends backwards in time, now officially in a measurable light. John Wheeler (who suggested the notion of the Delayed Choice protocol) hypothesized this and asked his students to imagine a photon billions of LY away traveling across the universe- on it's way it had to pass by a dense gravitational force where gravitational lensing would take place, where light would bend around the galaxy. Billions of years later upon reaching the earth, an astronomer uses a binocular type detector and focuses half of it on the left side of the galaxy, the other on the right. How the astronomer chooses to measure this light would mean the photon could have only taken one path and would display a 'clump' or particle pattern. Basically, how we choose to observe in the present, determines how that photon behaved billions of years ago. And this challenges everything about a materialistic understanding of the universe- (one which would try to articulate time travel is not possible, at least not backwards) it only makes sense in a notion where all parts are equa-distance in space-time in respect to the source (in this case, some 'thing' that can travel beyond that dimensionality, experiencing time in not just the 4th dimension, but the 5th- where it is capable of seeing all possibilities- NOW WE'VE DONE IT!!).

Lastly, I don't believe Steven Hawking believes that time travel is not possible- I believe, much like Einstein, who was able to write 4 world changing theories in a single year, yet spent 28 years after trying to find a solution to his own masterpiece, Hawking is married to many of his notions of time and gravity, and by adopting such a notion in relation to what some Quantum Mechanics articulates about time, it would disprove many of his ingenious propositions- one of the more contemporary what happens to the transformation of data when crossing an event horizon.

I guess I do sympathize more with idealism in this sense, or the probability distribution of QM as it supports the notion of 'real'. If we generate reality, for instance through observation, it would argue that not only is time travel possible, but required- especially if the materialism notion of the universe were to fall apart.

WAAAAY TL;DR: Time travel is possible- and even weirder, is it could be hypothesized that it is a billion times more likely that what we are experiencing right this moment is more of a recreation and experiment in the past, than anything we objectively could conceptualize as 'real' in the present, or tangible movement into a 'future'.

Just my 2 credits.

Much RESPECT dude. Seriously.

And just playing around about the Pip-Boy, couldn't resist. I've learned from getting into this argument with you all- I have no desire to go there.... ever ever again.

Pretty cool, however, conversations like this one happen here.

Kudos.

Last edit: 21 Jan 2017, 10:10am
User23543
21 Jan 2017, 3:15pm
Marra Morgan
SonofMacPhistoNo love for Peter Capaldi?

I'll admit my love for his Doctor has more to do with Malcolm Tucker than him being a good Doctor.



If only he did the Doctor in his Malcolm Tucker persona!

I might actually enjoy the show if he did!


Right? If the Doctor could curse like Malcolm, he'd run the universe!
User1355
21 Jan 2017, 5:20pm
SonofMacPhisto
Marra Morgan
SonofMacPhistoNo love for Peter Capaldi?

I'll admit my love for his Doctor has more to do with Malcolm Tucker than him being a good Doctor.




If only he did the Doctor in his Malcolm Tucker persona!

I might actually enjoy the show if he did!



Right? If the Doctor could curse like Malcolm, he'd run the universe!


User23543
21 Jan 2017, 5:32pm
Oh my word.

Glorious
Nsite
21 Jan 2017, 6:06pm
I leaked... lol.

Post a reply

You must be signed in to post here.
Anything you want to ask about roleplay. Questions, answers, out-of-character talk...