Rollin' Like Sisyphus

Physics As Performed By Abbott & Costello — Part 4

Posted in Who's On First? by Huckleberry on May 23, 2014

Like finding a needle in a vibrating haystack lit on fire.

Like finding a needle in a vibrating haystack lit on fire.


One of the most common mistakes people make is in conflating the concept of Observer Bias with the Uncertainty Principle. While the former is certainly a product of the latter, they are not the same thing. The Uncertainty Principle reveals a fundamental structural feature of our existence –you can’t know everything that you want to know when you want to know it.
A funny thing happens at the quantum level – the line that neatly separates matter and energy above the Planck level all but disappears below it, as what should be point-particles morph into waves. Within the function of that wave, a specific particle shuffles and shambles about. If you want to know where it is, you will know nothing else about it, such as its momentum. If you want to know some feature about its momentum, you can do that, but you will not know where in the fuzzy field of the waveform it is. And this feature is a cascade proportionality – the more you know about one aspect, the less you can determine about the other.
And it gets worse.
This feature of quantum mechanics means that everything we know about the physics of Large Things CAN and essentially IS rendered inviolable. The universe is not steady-state; at a fundamentally minute level it is in a constant state of flux, governed by four forces that don’t behave in a uniform way. These are the Strong and Weak nuclear forces, the electromagnetic force, and the big black box we call “gravity” because we have no other nomenclature suitable to explain it on the sub-atomic level.
While the Uncertainty Principle has undergone nearly countless experiments over the course of decades, it has been the one stable constant found in quantum mechanics. In all of these countless experiments, even ones that go to ridiculous lengths to remove the Observer and obviate Observer Bias, quantum-level sub-particles exist as fuzzy undefined waveforms until forced to behave as an entity with position or momentum.
Again and again and again without fail.
So what do we do with this?
The String Theorists in the House will snidely declare victory, asserting that the universe is comprised of tiny strings that are in a random state of oscillation. When forced to become SOMETHING, the string then vibrates in a specific pattern in concert with other nearby strings to then form a familiar sub-atomic particle – this is the mechanism theorized to be able to translate matter and energy across entangled particle pairs so that they can make the math work, and to still maintain the semblance of the principle of Conservation of Energy.
I am not a String Theorist and never have been.
I hope to speak no more about it from this point on, but in fairness to presenting the “nuts and bolts” that I promised, I was obligated to touch on it.
Now you’re probably wondering what all of this has to do with time, specifically how something in the future can inform the past.
Well.
If the fundamental structure of the universe is not steady-state, but instead one that is wavelike and ruled by probability, trying to pin down the position of that sub-atomic particle within the waveform isn’t just about its position in space, but in time as well, since the two concepts are inextricably linked by Einstein’s Relativity model. Just because it’s 3PM on Friday May 23, 2014 from YOUR perspective doesn’t mean that same perspective holds for the erratic particle.
And this will lead us to basic temporal mechanics, Backward Time Interpretation, more about the Wheeler experiment, and then my crazy crackpottery.
I know you can hardly wait.

Advertisements

3 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. El Borak said, on May 23, 2014 at 11:35

    Well, since you’ve been so kind as to translate all of this gibberish for us, allow me to return the favor.

    • Huckleberry said, on May 23, 2014 at 12:57

      I get it now.
      I understand.
      And hey, maybe I had the whole shift in formal debate thing all wrong.

  2. Doom said, on May 24, 2014 at 00:21

    The ol’ here but no other idea or direction/velocity choice, eh? :p Yeah, I do know of it, and understand (as much as I understand anything else, or really).

    I will add, after some point, we… really are making it up, on a wing a wit and a prayer (woe be to the Godless). Still… it entertains. As long as it is taken no more seriously than poetry, there is a chance. Taken as truth it is death. Still… I’m in it for the story, and to compare notes.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: