(Thread IKs:
sharknado slashfic)
|
 fology
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 03:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 15:34 |
|
|
SniperWoreConverse posted:PBS spacetime seems to think that neither space nor time are intrinsically meaningful, could be merely interpretations of an undetermined n-dimensional reality & animal brains landed on this 3x1 system of perception as an evolutionary "eh good enough" hack job I'm very interested in these ideas and I've been thinking along these lines for a while. Two things: 1. AdS / CFT duality is interesting because it demonstrates a duality between n dimensional spacetime (with gravity) and n-1 dimensional quantum field theory. Which meant that if you inhabited that n dimensional spacetime, there's no test you could conduct that would tell if it "really was" n dimensional spacetime, or you actually lived in the n-1 dimensional CFT. And your brain could very well model it as n dimensional spacetime when it's "actually" all ripples on the n-1 dimensional surface. This is a very clear demonstration of the appearance of spacetime emerging from a different system. Kind of like how your computer can simulate a 3D space, but that space is actually a representation of the state of a series of transistors. There's nothing "spacelike" about a collection of transistors! But we can interpret them that way. 2. This is more of a crackpot idea. Quantum field theory is our current cutting edge physical model, and we know that it breaks down when we try to model things at really small scales- we know that new physics must take over there. It also breaks down when we try to use its techniques to model quantum gravity. It seems that incorporating gravity into the theory will require modifying our assumptions. The sussy bit seems to be something around our assumptions of how spacetime looks at small scales. It's interesting to note that, like all quantum models, QFT isn't derived from other, more basic quantum systems like you might sometimes do in classical physics. Instead you start by postulating a from scratch a new set of axioms which define the system you are studying (you just hope that the system you thus define is a useful model of some parts of our observations, and it is). Part of that seems to be the assumption of the "equal time commutation relations" https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/95796/equal-time-commutation-relations-in-canonical-quantization-of-relativistic-free And THAT's where I think we smuggle in assumptions about spacetime, causal structure, locality, and the structure of spacetime being smooth to arbitrarily small scales. I think (it's possible) that resolving quantum gravity requires rethinking this. I think there might be some sort of model of a quantum system that is more like the collection of transistors in your computer, that when viewed a certain way looks like things propagating through 4D spacetime. Wheeee posted:empirical science is really fuckin good at a lot of things Very good at a lot of things like building bridges! But people leap from that to it providing a complete and total ontology of existence, up to and including (I've been told this in conversations / debates) that we aren't allowed to ask questions like where it all came from, why it all exists, why SO(3)xSU(2)xU(1) and not some other group, because that can't be answered empirically and physical empiricism is the only allowed epistemology. https://twitter.com/SandiaWisdom/status/1636184036946370560?s=20
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 03:28
|
|
|
Dr. Jerrold Coe posted:which is worse, oof-ology or U-F-O-ology U-F-ology
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 03:30
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/nasajpl/status/1636069464113332227?s=46&t=b23kGbnuFi54qJQa-UIGzw
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 03:35
|
|
|
SniperWoreConverse posted:PBS spacetime seems to think that neither space nor time are intrinsically meaningful, could be merely interpretations of an undetermined n-dimensional reality & animal brains landed on this 3x1 system of perception as an evolutionary "eh good enough" hack job reminds me of this recent paper https://www.sciencealert.com/your-heartbeat-shapes-your-perception-of-time-study-finds
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 03:46
|
|
|
PBS spacetime rules. top 10 youtube channels
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 03:52
|
|
|
This is rad
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 03:54
|
|
|
SniperWoreConverse posted:PBS spacetime seems to think that neither space nor time are intrinsically meaningful, could be merely interpretations of an undetermined n-dimensional reality & animal brains landed on this 3x1 system of perception as an evolutionary "eh good enough" hack job If you go down the rabbit hole to see where the holographic principle comes from and start to grasp the very neat mathematical solution from string theory via Maldacena it makes it very difficult to think our perception of spacetime is even close to a representation of fundamental reality. I had the same experience when the math of special relativity clicked too. When your examples involve removing degrees of freedom and time/space start flipping axes it’s just  From my limited capacity to understand all this poo poo I would just describe all of our reality as emerging from incredibly complex celestial music, maybe?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 04:10
|
|
|
Tekne posted:this man must be a bird whisperer to repeatedly capture such great pictures 
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 04:14
|
|
|
Nuclearmonkee posted:If you go down the rabbit hole to see where the holographic principle comes from and start to grasp the very neat mathematical solution from string theory via Maldacena it makes it very difficult to think our perception of spacetime is even close to a representation of fundamental reality. I'm totally ignorant of all that stuff and I find it very easy to imagine that our lovely monkey brains can't represent actual reality with any kind of accuracy Reality emerges from consciousness imo I think therefore I am in a literal, practical sense
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 04:16
|
|
|
Rickshaw posted:(I've been told this in conversations / debates) that we aren't allowed to ask questions like where it all came from, why it all exists, why SO(3)xSU(2)xU(1) and not some other group, because that can't be answered empirically and physical empiricism is the only allowed epistemology. This line of reasoning drives me nuts when I’m trying to learn this poo poo and things are just dismissed out of hand and then I only get far enough to question the dismissal much later. my best example was learning Feynman diagrams and then understanding only later “hey wait a minute all this only works if you reverse arrows of time over here but then we also say that’s impossible” have to erase preconceived notions and simply follow where observation, math, and intuition lead. We already know we don’t understand how it works and some people seem extremely threatened at the prospect of just accepting much of what we think we know can easily be wrong or misleading. Nuclearmonkee has issued a correction as of 04:22 on Mar 16, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 04:18
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:I'm totally ignorant of all that stuff and I find it very easy to imagine that our lovely monkey brains can't represent actual reality with any kind of accuracy right. pretty obvious. you ever think an ant can see the underlying structure of the universe? the ant can see hours old complex scent trails made from other ants butts, what makes you think you can do any better
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 04:33
|
|
|
I can only identify one scent from one butt
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 04:36
|
|
|
Nuclearmonkee posted:If you go down the rabbit hole to see where the holographic principle comes from and start to grasp the very neat mathematical solution from string theory via Maldacena it makes it very difficult to think our perception of spacetime is even close to a representation of fundamental reality. A few years back I did this but just with plain ol' general relativity. I had to think long and hard about what Einstein was saying, and then there was a definite click moment where all my assumptions about geometry changed. I at first felt that 3D euclidean geometry was a baked-in part of how reality worked, this shook me out of that. You never really probe space directly- you form a mental model from the photons that arrive at your eyes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 04:52
|
|
|
Bugs Bunny+Marvin Martian team up movie lookin good
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 05:00
|
|
|
nuoooo Trip's sister!
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 05:01
|
|
|
I will call them oof ohhs and none of you can stop me
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 05:01
|
|
|
Oof marOnes (hand gestures)
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 05:06
|
|
|
obviously its pronounced unidentified foe give money to the space force
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 05:07
|
|
|
noooo....not Cuba!
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 05:14
|
|
|
Nuclearmonkee posted:From my limited capacity to understand all this poo poo I would just describe all of our reality as emerging from incredibly complex celestial music, maybe? Neoplatonism/Neoconfucianism will have the last laugh
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 05:47
|
|
|
Rickshaw posted:I'm very interested in these ideas and I've been thinking along these lines for a while. Two things: I'm not particularly well versed in physics, but doesn't QFT hold pretty well for small scales and it's relatively that has trouble there?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 05:51
|
|
|
For this type of stuff I think it's worth spending a little time studying Kant. He laid out an argument for 3+1 dimensionality being an artifact of the structures in which perception and rationality take place but not necessarily a proper map of the neumena underlying phenomena and contemporary philosophy hasn't really resolutely moved on beyond that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 05:55
|
|
|
my question is, what would it look like for a second axis of time to exist and would it cause weird orbs
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 06:02
|
|
|
I think a 2nd axis of time would necessarily have to present itself as a 2nd type of entropy. So probably no funny looking orbs beyond n+1 dimensional hyperspheres.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 06:03
|
|
|
We should all be content with the hyperorbs we have and not grow too greedy nor dig too deep lest we encounter entities that are better left asleep.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 06:05
|
|
|
SniperWoreConverse posted:PBS spacetime seems to think that neither space nor time are intrinsically meaningful, could be merely interpretations of an undetermined n-dimensional reality & animal brains landed on this 3x1 system of perception as an evolutionary "eh good enough" hack job Haven't watched this yet but it sounds an awful lot like Hofmann's theory. Neat!
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 07:34
|
|
|
Dr. Jerrold Coe posted:which is worse, oof-ology or U-F-O-ology hey, you guys talkin' about yoo-apps in here?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 07:37
|
|
|
Please, that was my father's name. Call me ooh-wapps.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 07:48
|
|
|
I call them mmmmbops
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 07:55
|
|
|
Apparently Coulthart is saying that Eric Davis just gave testimony to congress?? Also, here's some classic flying saucer footage from god's own country (Somerset) and god's own decade (the 90s) https://www.reddit.com/r/HighStrangeness/comments/11sir5p/classic_flying_saucer_caught_on_video_in_1998_by/
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 12:20
|
|
|
Barry Foster posted:Apparently Coulthart is saying that Eric Davis just gave testimony to congress?? congress my orbs, where the gently caress are the hearings already
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 12:30
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:my question is, what would it look like for a second axis of time to exist and would it cause weird orbs no i think it would cause triangles 
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 13:01
|
|
|
*bunch of lab coats looking at wreckage* "ahem yes, 1 uaptech please" Nhwl: yeah that's-- hey wait a minute2! You can't be in here! Jrooti: They're just 3 dimensions of space stacked up on each other! Wearing 1 dimension of time as a trench coat! Radar: drat crazy kids, first hats, then this? What'll they think of next?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 13:12
|
|
|
Nuclearmonkee posted:From my limited capacity to understand all this poo poo I would just describe all of our reality as emerging from incredibly complex celestial music, maybe? [Laughs in Michael Newton]
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 15:43
|
|
|
Just a Moron posted:I'm not particularly well versed in physics, but doesn't QFT hold pretty well for small scales and it's relatively that has trouble there? Yes and no, the unrenormalized wave equation of say QED does have ultraviolet divergences. It's just that we can renormalize the theory to make it "ultraviolet complete," i.e., remove the divergences. Renormalization is a formal way of saying "we're going to ignore whatever physics exists above a certain energy cutoff," (below a certain length scale), and it's valid for making predictions at energies below the cutoff because we know the way the interactions behave means that the interactions above the cutoff become less and less important and we can fix them all at once with one empirical measurement. Gravity is particularly difficult because this process does not work, it is not renormalizable. I think that's telling us that the basic model we build up to describe quantum fields (fields over infinitely smooth infinitely divisible spacetime manifold) is the problem. String theory for example resolves this by modifying the picture at very small scales: not infinitely small 0D particles, but instead 1D objects. That's still firmly in the world of perturbative physics, and we know that string theory is supposed to be the low-energy limit of a deeper theory. Strongly coupled field theories are not obliged to have particle-like excitations, for example, so none of this is fundamental AFAICT. I guess what I'm toying with is that there might be a different way, maybe with less explicit spacetime, where spatial relations only emerge (perhaps as entanglement relations), describing something more like ER=EPR, and probably without the assumption of an infinitely smooth spacetime background. Assuming a fixed spacetime background in QFT / string theory is obviously already suspect, but it's fine since we're only talking about perturbations to the ground state, hence why gravity in this picture is just gravitons. That all needs to change. I'm kind of rambling. Check out this great quote on wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_divergence#Proliferation_in_perturbative_theory
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 15:48
|
|
|
Perry Mason Jar posted:[Laughs in Michael Newton] Yikes how did Michael feel about that Ladies and gentlemen,
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 15:49
|
|
|
Good Soldier Svejk posted:Things I believe about Lue: So he's an idiot who forgot how compartmentalization works, then got butthurt he wasn't billeted to a skunk works project?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 16:01
|
|
|
Nuclearmonkee posted:From my limited capacity to understand all this poo poo I would just describe all of our reality as emerging from incredibly complex celestial music, maybe?  Barry Foster posted:Haven't watched this yet but it sounds an awful lot like Hofmann's theory. Neat! I thought this too, but it seems they're clinging very tightly to the primacy of matter and don't really consider consciousness-prime models 
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 16:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 15:34 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/SarahCAndersen/status/1636027119674294272?s=20
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2023 16:24
|
|
