...universe seems to know what is going to happen before it happens...

You can refer to the Einstein Podolski Rosen (EPR) thought-experiment, which suggested your query long ago

Hi Yuval,

The EPR thought-experiment was proven wrong (see Quantum Mysteries Part 2). Could you elaborate on your position (do you agree or not agree with the quote you posted?). What part of the EPR are you basing your position on?

S

The EPR I was referring to was suggested in the nineteen-fifties, and it's about two identical particles, travelling independently and in opposite directions, with the seemingly weird effect that, should you change the polarization of one, the other will change it's polarization remotely, as if it was told in advance, of your intention.

The problem is not if I agree with it or not, because I don't care either way. I only learn about it, and take it into account.

Quantum mechanics have enough magic to blow anyone's mind, at any given field. But if you refer to Schroedinger's "cat-in-the-box" thought experiment, you'd see that it's about the same.

I personally believe that QM is only trying to accurately describe nature's behaviour, not explain it. This it does with the brilliance and accuracy of eighteen decimal digits, following the comma, and this was so confirmed for the last 60 years.

As a matter of fact, it is so accurate, that every time we have a new technology to test the theory and it's descriptive math, we get more and more accurate results, confirming what was discovered (not invented!) in the nineteen thirties.

I may argue with opinions and interpretation, but never with repeatedly measured facts. This is not about interpretation. This is about repetitive, coherent, measurement.

Why on earth, argue with the Almighty about His Creation? Except it for what it is, instead of trying to forcibly draw it from ancient scriptures.

Aren't we sincere or devoted enough with our measurements?

QM is honest and innocent because it doesn't try to explain, only accurately describe.

Now, almost in the same subject, here's some web-magic:

"Next in Forum: PERPETUAL MOTION "

was right infront of my eyes, on this very page, top-right, and when clicked on it, I got:

"Problem!

You are attempting to access an item that is not valid or was removed.
We're sorry for the inconvenience.
Please continue from our home page. "

Now, isn't this perpetual?

Dear Admin, Please don't cut "perpetuals" unless it's really offensive.

We too, need our daily fun.

Hi Yuval,

That post was cut because the user put up the same post twice. Here's the link to the active one:

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/6335/Is-Natural-Frequency-Perpetual-Motion

So, have your daily fun...

In the mid-70's, Dr Marshall McLuhan pointed out that the only known accurate predictor of the future was the rear-view mirror. Interestingly, both theories employ the use of bicameral perception and a mirror.

It may be argued that bi-cameral perception is not required in the rear-view experience, since persons with one eye can also interpret the vision in the mirror. However, this is not the case. Only persons who have experienced/"learned" bicameral depth perception for a sustained period of time can continue that perceptual ability with one eye. The brain makes up for the sudden lack of bi-camerality by employing experiential theory to approximate the depth perception necessary for the best possible prediction.

So where does this leave us with regard to the Pockels cells and "decision-object" learning re wave/particulate light dispersion?

We have to ask ourselves was it the light that behaved differently, or the choice of detection that differed?

Mark

My apologies. Being unable to find the afore mentioned book, I am not able to give a good summary to this series. Unfortunately I didn't have one in my original document. It had something to do with Maxwell's equations for electricity & magnetism not being time specific. Here is what I remember: A wave is sent out traveling into the past. Another wave is sent out traveling into the future. Somehow these waves explain non-locality (I am not sure I ever understood it). If any of you have this explanation, then please post it here.

This link has a lot of background material, and some good possible explanations for some things (I have not formulated an opinion yet). I had also posted this in part 1.

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-einstein-quantum-physics.htm

S

...sent out traveling into the past. Another wave is sent out traveling into the future...

Traveling into the past or the future, in what sense?

Please describe a given system (a vibrating molecule, a particle orbital, a mechanical system, anything, in any scale, for that matter), in which you think, a component can be defined as traveling into the past or into the future.

Recent blogs have indicated a need for me to do more reading - a refresher course, so to speak. With my son in the FIRST robotics competition last week and income tax pulling at my coat tails, it has been difficult to find the time.

I had believed the theory that explains this is quantum electrodynamics (QED), so I was expecting one of you to jump up and save the day, but that hasn't happened, so I guess it's all up to me, and I will do the best I can. Perhaps it was Gribbin's own twist to the theory or something entirely separate.

Yuval wrote: "Traveling into the past or the future, in what sense?"

When we look at a galaxy through a telescope we are looking back into our past because the light from it started millions of years ago. It sent its photons (I will call them waves) into its future where they met up with us in our present, and we observed them. If it also sent waves into its past, then they would never have encountered us, and we would not be aware of them.

Getting back to the two holes experiment with the pockels cells; if a wave from our future came back to our present (at the speed of light) and had an effect on the outcome of the experiment by meeting up with a wave from our past (which was also traveling at the speed of light), it would appear to have happened instantaneaously, and we would say to ourselves "The universe seems to know what is going to happen before it happens."

There, I think I have done it, but I will keep looking for the book and give you more 'information' when I have it.

Regards,

S

I had forgot I had put a more complete explanation in my History of Light document, so read the forum thread History of Light.