1. Originally Posted by ~Spark
Who's to say that there isn't a pattern in particle emulation? Born's rule of the uncertainty principle allows us to predict a range of probabilities, we simply don't know whether there is a pattern between two similar particles. What is your example where you say "we have seen different in our own"?
You mean Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principal?

You have no idea what this principle is based off of. When you observe a quanta, it is forcibly affected. Even photons affect these particles, which means at any given money or any reason, these particles can and will RANDOMLY change velocity and/or direction of movement. This principle basically says when you measure the velocity of a quark, you will get the distance as well as velocity, however those variables will change. The only way to properly measure te particles velocity is in a particle accelerator with zero human interference, and even then scientists still must use thought-experiments rather than physical due to imprecise calculational output from said experiments.

---------- Post added at 05:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:11 PM ----------

EDIT: I found what you are referring to and it is simply theoretical based on the inability to prove such calculations have any affect from the entropic nature of quanta.

---------- Post added at 05:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:14 PM ----------

Also, that "law" is based off if predetermine calculable climates, you need a specific wave length, as well as the observable Hermian operator which is not observable in this context, the entire law is based around a controlled environment where the multiverse definitely is not controlled in any way shape or form.

2. Originally Posted by Lehsyrus
I thought about this once, while tripping. Then I came to the conclusion that multi-dimensional mimicry is impossible due to the randomization of particles in the universe, it must be the same for the omniverse unless a higher deity had control over this.
Yeah , i was thinking the same thing ...

3. Originally Posted by Lehsyrus

You mean Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principal?

You have no idea what this principle is based off of. When you observe a quanta, it is forcibly affected. Even photons affect these particles, which means at any given money or any reason, these particles can and will RANDOMLY change velocity and/or direction of movement. This principle basically says when you measure the velocity of a quark, you will get the distance as well as velocity, however those variables will change. The only way to properly measure te particles velocity is in a particle accelerator with zero human interference, and even then scientists still must use thought-experiments rather than physical due to imprecise calculational output from said experiments.

---------- Post added at 05:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:11 PM ----------

EDIT: I found what you are referring to and it is simply theoretical based on the inability to prove such calculations have any affect from the entropic nature of quanta.

---------- Post added at 05:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:14 PM ----------

Also, that "law" is based off if predetermine calculable climates, you need a specific wave length, as well as the observable Hermian operator which is not observable in this context, the entire law is based around a controlled environment where the multiverse definitely is not controlled in any way shape or form.
Not really, the uncertainty principle finds a range points in which a particle could be. You are mixing it up with the observer effect. Remember the equation?

it compares the standard deviations of of the position and the momentum of a body with planck's constant, which can give incredibly accurate results sometimes. Even gravitational wave interferometers work off of this estimation. The only downside being that if you know where the particle is, you probably don't know its momentum. And no, it doesn't only work in conditioned environments, all you need is enough similarly interacting particles to get your standard deviation.

All of the maths behind this is an approximation, borns rule uses a continous random variable normalization to estimate the location of a particle. It uses the spin of a particle to find its wavefunction, not wavelength...

But yes, if you're trying to tell me that my quoting of the uncertainty principal is wrongful because it is an inaccurate way to determine whether particles angular momentum and randomization are linked or not, you should probably stop quoting from the observer effect, it is 100 times worse for making approximations and failing to come to actual answers! Observer effect is like someone took a piss on uncertainty principle, stripped it of all its statistical value and gave it a new name. Give me some maths to look at so I can understand your point clearer.

Besides, we are going very far off the point.

At the end of the day, neither of us are right. Theoretically, your ideas make more sense. But I doubt you can put any mathematical proof to those claims. Mine has fairly considerable proof, but is missing some key aspects. Isn't physics fun.

4. ## The Following User Says Thank You to ~Spark For This Useful Post:

[MPGH]Lehsyrus (12-10-2012)

5. Originally Posted by ~Spark
Not really, the uncertainty principle finds a range points in which a particle could be. You are mixing it up with the observer effect. Remember the equation?

it compares the standard deviations of of the position and the momentum of a body with planck's constant, which can give incredibly accurate results sometimes. Even gravitational wave interferometers work off of this estimation. The only downside being that if you know where the particle is, you probably don't know its momentum. And no, it doesn't only work in conditioned environments, all you need is enough similarly interacting particles to get your standard deviation.

All of the maths behind this is an approximation, borns rule uses a continous random variable normalization to estimate the location of a particle. It uses the spin of a particle to find its wavefunction, not wavelength...

But yes, if you're trying to tell me that my quoting of the uncertainty principal is wrongful because it is an inaccurate way to determine whether particles angular momentum and randomization are linked or not, you should probably stop quoting from the observer effect, it is 100 times worse for making approximations and failing to come to actual answers! Observer effect is like someone took a piss on uncertainty principle, stripped it of all its statistical value and gave it a new name. Give me some maths to look at so I can understand your point clearer.

Besides, we are going very far off the point.

At the end of the day, neither of us are right. Theoretically, your ideas make more sense. But I doubt you can put any mathematical proof to those claims. Mine has fairly considerable proof, but is missing some key aspects. Isn't physics fun.
Actually I had entirely forgotten about Born's rule when you mentioned "Uncertainty Principle".

The only issue between us both is that this is all still theoretical physics. I personally do not like Born's rule as it puts a limit on Quantum Mechanics (in a sense), where in some cases it is useful, however in a non-regulated situation the amount of random variables is far too great to make a complete calculation to the possible outcome.

Good chat.

6. ## The Following User Says Thank You to Lehsyrus For This Useful Post:

~Spark (12-10-2012)

7. Originally Posted by Lehsyrus

Actually I had entirely forgotten about Born's rule when you mentioned "Uncertainty Principle".

The only issue between us both is that this is all still theoretical physics. I personally do not like Born's rule as it puts a limit on Quantum Mechanics (in a sense), where in some cases it is useful, however in a non-regulated situation the amount of random variables is far too great to make a complete calculation to the possible outcome.

Good chat.

You too, very rare to meet someone on the internet with that level of knowledge on quantum mechanics.

8. Originally Posted by Lehsyrus

Heisenberg
DING DING DING DING DING.....

9. Originally Posted by ~Spark
You too, very rare to meet someone on the internet with that level of knowledge on quantum mechanics.
I honestly fell in love with Quantum Mechanics on an acid trip. Actually, that seems to be how I became interested in learning at all. I was watching a documentary on it with my friend who was in college (I was only fifteen) who was majoring in Physics. His homework was based around theoretical Physics so we decided to drop some acid and check it out, needless to say it was a mind-altering experience.

10. Found it

@Lehsyrus @~Spark

Top comment: "If the Multiverse﻿ Theory is correct, there is a universe where the Multiverse Theory is incorrect."

11. ## The Following User Says Thank You to 666HiddenMaster666 For This Useful Post:

[MPGH]Lehsyrus (12-11-2012)

12. Originally Posted by 666HiddenMaster666
Found it

@Lehsyrus @~Spark

Top comment: "If the Multiverse﻿ Theory is correct, there is a universe where the Multiverse Theory is incorrect."
Which means incorrect = correct and vice-versa, the multiverse is a confusing mistress indeed /mhm

13. Originally Posted by Lehsyrus

Which means incorrect = correct and vice-versa, the multiverse is a confusing mistress indeed /mhm
Mother Nature and her daughters
...
Women...

14. Originally Posted by 666HiddenMaster666

Mother Nature and her daughters
...
Women...
I fucked mother nature once.....

Let's just say we can now consider Poison Ivy an STD.

15. ## The Following User Says Thank You to Lehsyrus For This Useful Post:

666HiddenMaster666 (12-11-2012)

16. Originally Posted by gamerboy667
i like to think we are all the same person just living a different life, so if we rape someone we just raped another version of ourselves, same with killing etc.
"The Egg" by Andy Weir?

17. Originally Posted by 666FoundMaster666
"The Egg" by Andy Weir?
actually yes. but didn't know the name or author.

18. Yea, there is always that 'what if'. But normally it always just comes back to Science.

Page 4 of 4 First ... 234