[TUT317]

Geodesics do follow contours but the contours of space are strains on space as a result of mass displacing it. The bigger the mass the farther reaching the deformation: thus, masses far apart interact. For the most part quantum theory explains subatomic interactions; but when it goes meta-physical (e.g., Schrodinger's cat, entanglement and conscientiousness influencing measurements) it is going off track,

Hi Zanderbaxa,

The problem with Schrodinger's cat is that consciousness is a prerequisite for the experiment. The other problem being that no one really knows what consciousness is. By the way, cat lovers need not fear as no cats were harmed in this experiment.

For the purpose of this experiment consciousness is taken to mean observation. How do we justify the connection between quantum and consciousness? With great difficulty when it comes a purely scientific explanation.

The physicist/philosopher John Wheeler said something along the lines of there is no quantum phenomenon until it is registered phenomenon. Somehow we seem to live in a participatory universe.

Tut

[zanderbaxa]

That would imply the universe is here for us. What we see may be our construction. That is getting very close to religion.

[sean_s]

How do we justify the connection between quantum and consciousness?

We do not do that.That is not the task of science.

Science has a few well defined,yet largely ignored by modern science "boundaries", known as axioms.

The most prominent ones are:
Axiom of falsifiability : Any scientific statement, should be counterable at least with a Gedankenexperiment. The idea that quantum mechanics is presenting that the charm number, or the abcd number of abcd type particle is constant, and then there is a limit of what can be observed, that makes it conflicting with the interest of science

Axiom of incompleteness: A set of statements will always contain one statement which can not be proven with the statements of the same set alone. Any stattement of the state can be this "unprovable statement", there is no preference. But people are misusing it, to find a "ultimate", non falsifiable, non provable theory of everything. These are the events when things become religion or worse, cult.

Observations are what which decides the difference between truth and false.

A statement is true if and only if it stand some test. Different branches apply different tests. Before QM, GR etc, experiments were taken as the standard form of test, but again it was an arbitrary standard, from a POV of symbolic logic, but it was one which could not be largely misused.

Nowadays, having symbolic logic itself as the test, a limit on observations, and the notion that the theory is valid, because it can't be tested yet is used to explain other observations has one big loophole. It can be misused.

When Fresnel predicted the diffraction of light waves by sphere, it was a theoretical work, and it ALL it's consequences (not predictions, which is the final statement from a series of consequences) were put into test, which stood the tests. But when Darwin presented his evolution theory, the experimental results of the comparison of human brain and gorilla brain was misused. Only the similarities were put to support the claim, only the dissimilarities were put to unsupport it.

The good thing of Darwin, was again falsifiability. Indeed it is falsified, and in some cases the theory of adopting to new environments are accepted, rather than natural selection. However, the reasoning of modern physics, which denies to look for new clarifications, and assert that all clarification must start with Einstein / the dogmas QM - is sickening

[zanderbaxa]

I agree with you. It seems that science got off track with Einstein: Especially with mind-experiments used to prove further assumptions and speculations. Hubble's constant is nothing special. Expansion and acceleration of objects, on the surface of a sphere, (as it expands) is normal. I also have a problem with the explanation of electro-magnetic-waves; they are not recursive interactions of electric and magnetic fields.

[sean_s]

Einstein, 50% is a myth, creation of media hypes created at the backdrop of the war. I personally think, he was hyped more than his genius as a symbol against Germany.

50% is true genius. And for that genius, he got his noble prize. Einstein did not get his nobel prize for relativity, but for his works on photo-electric emissions. His contemporaries realized that :)

Electronic, and magenitc fields obey the same equations, experimentally shown, with the theory itself not putting a limit on the observation <-- which is why that is more on scientific grounds than relativity. Therefore, it is speculated that they have a common origin. Maxwells theory does NOT speculate what the origin is, QM does: QM says it is photon. Then people, at least I personally, again get in trouble with the concepts.

[zanderbaxa]

Again I agree, though I suspect his so-called genius. Gravity is similar to water. Even though a mass displaces the water the mass can still move in the water. If the medium around a star is displaced by the mass of the star, the star can still be moving in space, in water a moving mass will create a drag-force. Does a star moving in space create a drag-force? How would we detect that force? Gravity is not an external force that warps space. Mass is embedded in space. Therefore its presence in space is a displacement of space, not an external force applied to space. And time does not enter, except as a parameter of movement.
Time is a concept. It is the number of times a periodic event occurs. Looking back or forward when there were no objects, there was still time; because our concept of time is a projection of events. Events do not have to be objects or acts upon object. Events can be occurrences in the same space. During those times there were no conceivers (of which we know), so there was no time. Intervals between events the and now are projrctions, not nreality.
Sure: Einstein postulated time as a dimension; but that was a flaw. For one, calculating the distance between two points require all units under the radical to have the same units ( ) but time is not length. The way around it is to multiply time be a velocity ( ) to get length. That is an arbitrary flaw in logic. His field equations (utilizing tensors) is basically an arcane use of mathematics to confuse us and indicate reality as a complex object. Another is his notion of light. Electro-magnetic-waves are not recursive interactions of electric and magnetic fields.