In “New pursuit of Schrödinger’s cat” (Prospect , 21st September 2011) Philip Ball:
“Quantum theory is reliable but fraught with paradox. Philip Ball asks if scientists will now find an object existing in two places at once,”
At some scale, the quantum-ness of the microscopic world gives way to classical, Newtonian physics. Why? The generally accepted answer is the process of decoherence. Crudely speaking, interactions of a quantum entity with its teeming environment act like a measurement, collapsing superpositions into a well-defined state. So, large objects obey classical physics not because of their size per se but because they contain more particles and thus experience more interactions, so decohering instantly.
But that doesn’t fully resolve the issue—as shown by Schrödinger’s famous cat. In his thought experiment, Schrödinger imagined a cat that is poisoned, or not, depending on the outcome of a quantum event. The experiment is concealed inside a box. Since the outcome of the event is undetermined until observation collapses the wavefunction, quantum theory seemed to insist that, until the box is opened, the cat would be both alive and dead. Physicists used to evade that absurdity by insisting that somehow the bigness of the cat would bring about decoherence even without observation, so that it would be either alive or dead but not both.
Ball hopes Darwin will solve the problem.
It was thought for years that it was impossible for ‘big’ living systems, such as cats, to exhibit quantum coherence/entanglement, since the extreme thermal ‘noise’ of a living system was thought to present a impenetrable barrier for such quantum coherence/entanglement in living systems, yet now it is, very surprisingly, found that an ‘exception’ to quantum decoherence is found for living systems, despite the extreme ‘thermal noise’ of the living system. A remarkable ‘exception’ to quantum decoherence that allows living systems, such as cats, to be ‘cohered quantumly’ on a massive scale:
notes:
As well, Though decoherence is often used to try to limit quantum effects to ‘merely’ the atomic realm, i.e. ‘merely’ the foundation of reality itself, it is also found that quantum effects dictate the overall 3-Dimensional spatial structure of the entire universe itself:
notes:
,,, First I noticed that the earth demonstrates centrality in the universe in this video Dr. Dembski posted a while back;
,,, for a while I tried to see if the 4-D space-time of General Relativity was sufficient to explain centrality we witness for the earth in the universe,,,
,,, yet I kept running into the same problem for establishing the sufficiency of General Relativity to explain our centrality in this universe, in that every time I would perform a ‘mental experiment’ of trying radically different points of observation in the universe, General Relativity would fail to maintain centrality for the radically different point of observation in the universe. The primary reason for this failure of General Relativity to maintain centrality, for different points of observation in the universe, is due to the fact that there are limited (10^80) material particles to work with. Though this failure of General Relativity was obvious to me, I needed more proof so as to establish it more rigorously, so i dug around a bit and found this;
and also ‘serendipitously’ found this,,,
But if General Relativity is insufficient to explain the centrality we witness for ourselves in the universe, what else is? Universal Quantum wave collapse to each unique point of observation! To prove this point I dug around a bit and found this experiment,,,
This following experiment extended the double slit experiment to show that the ‘spooky actions’, for instantaneous quantum wave collapse, happen regardless of any considerations for time or distance i.e. The following experiment shows that quantum actions are ‘universal and instantaneous’:
,, and to make universal quantum Wave collapse much more ‘personal’ I found this,,,
Here is the key experiment that led Wigner to his Nobel Prize winning work on quantum symmetries:
i.e. In the experiment the ‘world’ (i.e. the universe) does not have a ‘privileged center’. Yet strangely, the conscious observer does exhibit a ‘privileged center’. This is since the ‘matrix’, which determines which vector will be used to describe the particle in the experiment, is ‘observer-centric’ in its origination! Thus explaining Wigner’s dramatic statement, “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.”
I find it extremely interesting, and strange, that quantum mechanics tells us that instantaneous quantum wave collapse to its ‘uncertain’ 3-D state is centered on each individual observer in the universe, whereas, 4-D space-time cosmology (General Relativity) tells us each 3-D point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe. These findings of modern science are pretty much exactly what we would expect to see if this universe were indeed created, and sustained, from a higher dimension by a omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal Being who knows everything that is happening everywhere in the universe at the same time. These findings certainly seem to go to the very heart of the age old question asked of many parents by their children, “How can God hear everybody’s prayers at the same time?”,,, i.e. Why should the expansion of the universe, or the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe, even care that you or I, or
anyone else, should exist? Only Theism offers a rational explanation as to why you or I, or anyone else, should have such undeserved significance in such a vast universe:
It was thought for years that it was impossible for ‘big’ living systems, such as cats, to exhibit quantum coherence/entanglement, since the extreme thermal ‘noise’ of a living system was thought to present a impenetrable barrier for such quantum coherence/entanglement in living systems, yet now it is, very surprisingly, found that an ‘exception’ to quantum decoherence is found for living systems, despite the extreme ‘thermal noise’ of the living system. A remarkable ‘exception’ to quantum decoherence that allows living systems, such as cats, to be ‘cohered quantumly’ on a massive scale:
notes:
As well, Though decoherence is often used to try to limit quantum effects to ‘merely’ the atomic realm, i.e. ‘merely’ the foundation of reality itself, it is also found that quantum effects dictate the overall 3-Dimensional spatial structure of the entire universe itself:
notes:
,,, First I noticed that the earth demonstrates centrality in the universe in this video Dr. Dembski posted a while back;
,,, for a while I tried to see if the 4-D space-time of General Relativity was sufficient to explain centrality we witness for the earth in the universe,,,
,,, yet I kept running into the same problem for establishing the sufficiency of General Relativity to explain our centrality in this universe, in that every time I would perform a ‘mental experiment’ of trying radically different points of observation in the universe, General Relativity would fail to maintain centrality for the radically different point of observation in the universe. The primary reason for this failure of General Relativity to maintain centrality, for different points of observation in the universe, is due to the fact that there are limited (10^80) material particles to work with. Though this failure of General Relativity was obvious to me, I needed more proof so as to establish it more rigorously, so i dug around a bit and found this;
and also ‘serendipitously’ found this,,,
But if General Relativity is insufficient to explain the centrality we witness for ourselves in the universe, what else is? Universal Quantum wave collapse to each unique point of observation! To prove this point I dug around a bit and found this experiment,,,
This following experiment extended the double slit experiment to show that the ‘spooky actions’, for instantaneous quantum wave collapse, happen regardless of any considerations for time or distance i.e. The following experiment shows that quantum actions are ‘universal and instantaneous’:
,, and to make universal quantum Wave collapse much more ‘personal’ I found this,,,
Here is the key experiment that led Wigner to his Nobel Prize winning work on quantum symmetries:
i.e. In the experiment the ‘world’ (i.e. the universe) does not have a ‘privileged center’. Yet strangely, the conscious observer does exhibit a ‘privileged center’. This is since the ‘matrix’, which determines which vector will be used to describe the particle in the experiment, is ‘observer-centric’ in its origination! Thus explaining Wigner’s dramatic statement, “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.”
I find it extremely interesting, and strange, that quantum mechanics tells us that instantaneous quantum wave collapse to its ‘uncertain’ 3-D state is centered on each individual observer in the universe, whereas, 4-D space-time cosmology (General Relativity) tells us each 3-D point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe. These findings of modern science are pretty much exactly what we would expect to see if this universe were indeed created, and sustained, from a higher dimension by a omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal Being who knows everything that is happening everywhere in the universe at the same time. These findings certainly seem to go to the very heart of the age old question asked of many parents by their children, “How can God hear everybody’s prayers at the same time?”,,, i.e. Why should the expansion of the universe, or the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe, even care that you or I, or
anyone else, should exist? Only Theism offers a rational explanation as to why you or I, or anyone else, should have such undeserved significance in such a vast universe:
continued:
The expansion of every 3D point in the universe, and the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe to each point of conscious observation in the universe, is obviously a extremely interesting congruence in science between the ‘materialistically based’ theory of relativity and the ‘theistically based’ theory quantum mechanics. A congruence that Physicists, and Mathematicians, seem to be having a extremely difficult time ‘unifying’ into a ‘theory of everything’.(Einstein, Penrose).
The primary conflict of reconciling General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics appears to arise from the inability of either theory to successfully deal with the Zero/Infinity problem that crops up in different places of each theory:
Yet, the unification, into a ‘theory of everything’, between what is in essence the ‘infinite Theistic world of Quantum Mechanics’ and the ‘finite Materialistic world of the space-time of General Relativity’ seems to be directly related to what Jesus apparently joined together with His resurrection, i.e. related to the unification of infinite God with finite man. Dr. William Dembski in this following comment, though not directly addressing the Zero/Infinity conflict in General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, offers insight into this ‘unification’ of the infinite and the finite:
Also of related interest to this ‘conflict of reconciliation’ between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics is that a ‘uncollpased’ photon, in its quantum wave state, is mathematically defined as ‘infinite’ information:
Moreover there is actual physical evidence that lends strong support to the position that the ‘Zero/Infinity conflict’, we find between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, was successfully dealt with by Christ:
While I agree with a criticism, from a Christian, that was leveled against the preceding Shroud of Turin video, that God indeed needed no help from the universe in the resurrection event of Christ since all things are possible with God, I am none-the-less very happy to see that what is considered the number one problem of Physicists and Mathematicians in physics today, of a ‘unification into a theory of everything’ for what is in essence the finite world of General Relativity and the infinite world of Quantum Mechanics, does in fact seem to find a successful resolution for ‘unification’ within the resurrection event of Jesus Christ Himself. It seems almost overwhelmingly apparent to me from the ‘scientific evidence’ we now have that Christ literally ripped a hole in the finite entropic space-time of this universe to reunite infinite God with finite man. That modern science would even offer such a almost tangible glimpse into the mechanics of what happened in the tomb of Christ should be a source of great wonder and comfort for the Christian heart.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-copenhagen/#5
mike1962; what is your point? This?:
How does this “demonstrate centrality [of the earth] in the universe”? Please explain?
cantor; the 3:33 minute mark of the video pretty much says it all as far as ‘demonstrating centrality’ i.e. that image at the 3:33 minute mark is definitely not something we would expect to see from a a-priori assumption of the Copernican Principle, i.e. of the Earth inhabiting NO privileged position in the cosmos!!! As well, my preceding comment @1 laid out the reasons why the 4-D space time of General Relativity was insufficient to explain the centrality we see for the Earth in the video and why quantum wave collapse was necessary to be invoked to explain the centrality we witness for ourselves.
to clean up this:
mike1962; what is your point? This?:
If you are trying to hold, as Bohr did, that the wave packet is not ‘physically real’, then you are mistaken for the wave packet is now shown to be ‘physically real’ by the fact that we can now encode information into a photon when it is in its wave state:
Thus Bohr’s interpretation, or the Copenhagen interpretation, for whatever unstated reason you have linked to it, is falsified, at least in so far, for its denial of the wave packet being ‘physically real’!!
One would expect that the Earth would be at the center of that portion of the universe which is observable from Earth, no?
http://youtu.be/GLtNs4HCK1k?t=1m31s
Well cantor, for us to see the Cosmic Background Radiation itself, from our ‘position of centrality in the universe’, represents, for all practical purposes*(see notes), the ability to see the entire history of the ENTIRE universe since the creation of all the mass-energy in the universe, and even since the creation of space-time itself. It simply makes no sense, in the video you linked, when she says in the video, that we “may be able to see ‘more of the universe’ beyond the cosmic horizon”, for she is insinuating that we will be able to see past the 13.7 billion year ago circle she has drawn on her graph, but that would entail seeing before the beginning of space-time itself!!! This is more than a slight problem for the interpretation that she seems to be putting forth in the video (at least for the short bit of the video I watched). The universe is not expanding out into anything, as she seems to think, as a balloon might expand in the air, for there simply is not any ‘thing’ for the universe to expand into before the creation of space-time, mass-energy. Rather space is expanding, at a extremely finely-tuned rate (1 in 10^123), equally well for all 3-Dimensional points in the universe, as time travels into the future for each 3-D point in the universe. i.e. Since space and time have been shown to be inextricably linked by Einstein’s general theory of relativity (space-time) this means that space, for lack of a better word, is ‘created’ at each 3-Dimensional point in the universe as time travels into the future for each 3-D point. What one will see, from a radically different point of observation in the universe, will still be a 13.7 billion year point of centrality in the universe with all the same mass-energy that we now see, yet the 3-Dimensional spatial arrangement of the entire universe will be dramatically altered to reflect the observers new radical point of observation. The only way such dramatic restructuring of the entire 3-D universe is possible is if Quantum Wave collapse, of the entire universe, is indeed focused on each unique point of observation in the universe!! And this is indeed what the delayed choice experiment, as I referenced earlier, has confirmed precisely.
*Notes:
As well as the universe having a transcendent beginning, thus confirming the Theistic postulation in Genesis 1:1, the following recent discovery of a ‘Dark Age’ for the early universe uncannily matches up with the Bible passage in Job 38:4-11.
Of related interest:
still trying to understand what you are saying.
here are some excerpts from wikipedia. is everything they are saying wrong?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe
“…the observable universe consists of the galaxies and other matter that we can in principle observe from Earth in the present day, because light (or other signals) from those objects has had time to reach us since the beginning of the cosmological expansion”
“Assuming the universe is isotropic, the distance to the edge of the observable universe is roughly the same in every direction—that is, the observable universe is a spherical volume (a ball) centered on the observer, regardless of the shape of the universe as a whole”
“Every location in the universe has its own observable universe which may or may not overlap with the one centered on the Earth”
The word observable used in this sense does not depend on whether modern technology actually permits detection of radiation from an object in this region (or indeed on whether there is any radiation to detect). It simply indicates that it is possible in principle for light or other signals from the object to reach an observer on Earth. In practice, we can see light only from as far back as the time of photon decoupling in the recombination epoch, which is when particles were first able to emit photons that were not quickly re-absorbed by other particles, before which the Universe was filled with a plasma opaque to photons.
Well Cantor it really is not that hard to understand, and since I have the delayed choice experiment backing me up, I’m very comfortable with what I have previously written and see no reason to amend it one iota in light of what you have just stated!
I wasn’t asking you to amend anything. I was asking you
if the Wikipedia stuff I quoted is wrong. Is it?
cantor, you seem to have a ghost of the ‘eternal universe’ hanging around in your concepts of space and time. Where space was presupposed to be infinite in length, and time was presupposed to be infinite in duration. Yet Einstein showed that space and time are not such rigid entities as was once thought. And indeed he showed that space and time are inextricably wed into a 4-D space-time. Moreover this 4-D space-time, of this 3-Dimensional universe, is shown to be, far from the rigid constructs of old, to be a very ‘flexible’ construct. Indeed, in this following video, which was put together by two Australian University Physics Professors with a supercomputer, it is shown that the 3-Dimensions of this universe ‘fold and collapse’ into a tunnel shape, somewhat like a sheet of paper, as the ‘higher dimension’ of the speed of light is approached!
Here is the interactive website (with link to the math) related to the preceding video;
Pay particular attention to the 3:22 mark of the preceding video and note how it matches the ‘light at the end of the tunnel’ reported in very many Near Death Experiences;
As well, since we are talking about the flexibility of space, it should be interesting to point out the flexibility of time that occurs as a observer approaches the speed of light:
Music:
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. I was just asking you if the wikipedia article is incorrect.
Why does that merit an insulting response?
cantor, I meant nothing insulting to you by the statement, sorry if you felt that way. Einstein himself has a ‘ghost of a eternal universe’. The ‘eternal universe’ was the widely accepted view of the universe, in science, prior to the discovery of the Big Bang. A view in which the ‘material’ universe had ALWAYS existed. In fact this view of a ‘eternal universe’ is what led Albert Einstein, himself, into his self-admitted ‘Greatest Blunder’, in which he, instead of following the implications of his own equation, of a beginning for the universe, added a ‘fudge factor’ to reflect a static material universe, i.e. to reflect a ‘eternal universe’, which had always existed.
notes:
I find it very interesting that the materialistic belief of the universe being stable, and infinite in duration, was so deeply rooted in scientific thought that Albert Einstein (1879-1955), when he was shown his general relativity equation indicated a universe that was unstable and would ‘draw together’ under its own gravity, added a cosmological constant to his equation to reflect a stable universe rather than entertain the thought that the universe might of had a beginning.
of note: This was not the last time Einstein’s base materialistic philosophy had severely misled him. He was also severely misled in the Bohr–Einstein debates in which he was repeatedly proven wrong in challenging the ‘spooky action at a distance’ postulations of the emerging field of quantum mechanics. This following video highlights the Bohr/Einstein debate and the decades long struggle to ‘scientifically’ resolve the disagreement between them:
further notes:
The falsification for local realism (reductive materialism) was recently greatly strengthened:
of note: hidden variables were postulated by Einstein to remove the need for ‘spooky’ actions, as Einstein termed them — forces that act instantaneously at great distances, thereby breaking the most cherished rule of relativity theory, that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.
Further note:
==============
In conjunction with the mathematical, and logical, necessity of an ‘Uncaused Cause’ to explain the beginning of the universe, in philosophy it has been shown that,,,
I find this centuries old philosophical argument, for the necessity of a ‘First Mover’ accounting for change occurring at each moment, to be validated by quantum mechanics. This is since the possibility for the universe to be considered a self-sustaining ‘closed loop’ of cause and effect is removed with the refutation of the ‘hidden variable’ argument, as first postulated by Einstein, in entanglement experiments. As well, there also must be a sufficient transcendent cause (God/First Mover) to explain quantum wave collapse for ‘each moment’ of the universe.
Music:
Bornagain. Wow beautiful posts. I would like to correct one thing though where you wrote:
“Gödel, of course, did not actually believe in time travel, but he understood his paper to undermine the Einsteinian worldview from within.”
As you may know Godel went nuts in his later life going in and out of asylum and he DID in fact suspect that time travel could exist for us in our place in the universe. In fact at one point he was getting out star maps trying to calculate some kinds of relative distances etc
Godel believed in spirituality but not Christainity. One of the sad ironies of his life is that he spent many years trying to disrove the philosophies of the positivists of his time, and he succeeded, but in the end HE was acting like a positivist injecting his own strange paranoid biases into his work. While he was judging the other positivists for glorifying themselves while being in error, he TOO was in error when Godel tried his hand at the continuum hypothesis- eventually driving him nuts. So while I agree that the theory of QM is more evidence for the anthopic principle, we should not allow this to be misinterpreted as proof for positivism which is usually defined as the belief that “man is the measure of all things”- we are not.
Allow me to clearify what I mean and relate my point directly to the cat experiment-
My point is this: while it is the observer that determines whether or not the cat lives or dies, the cat still EXISTS alive or dead in both POSSIBLIY and probability. So the world around us still exists whether we observe it or not and therefore man is only the measure of things that he can measure- that is there is a REAL dialectical world that exists beyond and connected us and our choices- and as Godel showed even the things that we CAN measure, there is still some doubt as to how accurate our measurements are and can be. And this is confirmed within QM through the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle etc.
Enter Einstin:
“Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.”
Enter Christ:
“Because thou hast seen… thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed.”
-John 20:29
But you are right in pointing out how Qm shows how integral and central the role of the observer is in defining any event. hence I agree that is evidence for the anthropic principle.
Wikipedia states:
Are the above statements wrong? Yes or no.
.
cantor, the 3-Dimensional spatial geometry of the entire universe contorts dramatically for radically different points of observation in the universe, as confirmed by the delayed choice experiment. There are no ‘overlapping space-times’. There are only different points of ‘observational centrality’ within the same space-time. The temporal 3-Dimensional material realm gives way to complete spatial flexibility in regards to the higher eternal dimensions of light and especially in regards to the highest transcendent/eternal dimension of information/universal consciousness (i.e. Logos/God)
So if the same video had been produced by the inhabitants of the planet Zircon, 5 billion light-years distant from Earth, it would have shown the planet Zircon, not Earth, at the center at the 3:33 minute mark?
.
cantor,,, exactly!!! Or even 13.7 billion light years distance. The only thing that will change for the observer, wherever they are in the universe, will be that the 3-Dimensional spatial geometry on the entire universe will be drastically contorted to reflect a 13.7 billion year old universe from that observer’s perspective. Same space-time, same mass-energy, drastically different 3-D spatial geometry! And as weird as that sounds, it is, none-the-less, born out by the delayed choice experiment which shows that quantum wave collapse of photons in the universe is completely ‘observer-centric’.,,, And yet, as weird at it is, it makes perfect sense when one realizes that the temporal material realm, that we currently live in, is basically at the bottom of the pecking order as far as the ‘higher dimensionality’ of the other realms we are dealing with are concerned:
notes:
and to make this much more ‘personal’ for the observer:
Here is the key experiment that led Wigner to his Nobel Prize winning work on quantum symmetries:
i.e. In the experiment the ‘world’ (i.e. the universe) does not have a ‘privileged center’. Yet strangely, the conscious observer does exhibit a ‘privileged center’. This is since the ‘matrix’, which determines which vector will be used to describe the particle in the experiment, is ‘observer-centric’ in its origination! Thus explaining Wigner’s dramatic statement, “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.”
from the ‘more than you probably want to know’ file:
It is also interesting to note that ‘higher dimensional’ mathematics had to be developed before Einstein could elucidate General Relativity, or even before Quantum Mechanics could be elucidated;
Of related note; there is a mysterious ‘higher dimensional’ component that is ‘anomalous’ to life:
Though Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini rightly find it inexplicable for ‘random’ Natural Selection to be the rational explanation for the scaling of the physiology, and anatomy, of living things to four-dimensional parameters, they do not seem to fully realize the implications this ‘four dimensional scaling’ of living things presents. This 4-D scaling is something we should rightly expect from a Intelligent Design perspective. This is because Intelligent Design holds that ‘higher dimensional transcendent information’ is more foundational to life, and even to the universe itself, than either matter or energy are. This higher dimensional ‘expectation’ for life, from a Intelligent Design perspective, is directly opposed to the expectation of the Darwinian framework, which holds that information, and indeed even the essence of life itself, is merely an ’emergent’ property of the 3-D material realm.
Of related interest, this following article is interesting for it draws attention to the fact that humans ‘just so happen’ to be near the logarithmic center of the universe, between Planck’s length and the cosmic horizon of the cosmic background radiation (10^-33 cm and 10^28 cm respectively) .
So the 3:33 minute mark in the video is definitely what we would expect to see, for a video made from observations from Earth.
And at the 3:33 minute mark in a video made from observations on Zircon, we would expect to see Zircon at the center.
In other words, the arbitrary planet Zircon’s position is just as privileged as Earth’s in this regard.
.
As to:
Yes, but the big caveat being is that it is conscious ‘observation’ that brings centrality in the universe, not the 4-D space-time of general relativity. Conscious observation is usually completely ignored when trying to determine the structure of the universe, such as it was in the video you referenced earlier, and in the wiki article you cited.
i.e.
verses and music:
Music:
In your original comment on this subject you said “the image at the 3:33 minute mark is definitely not something we would expect to see“.
The point is, it is something we would expect to see, according to the “traditional” (if I may use that term) explanation of both Wikipedia and Professor Margoniner, even if you disagree with their explanation.
.
Cantor, to quote my original comment in full:
The main point being, cantor, is that to someone, who like me, had been told for their whole life that the Earth was nothing but an insignificant speck of dust lost in a vast ocean of space (Carl Sagan; Pale Blue Dot), this centrality of the earth came at a very great surprise to me. To further find that this centrality of the universe is focused specifically on each individual observer in the universe was, and is, a source of great comfort to me, for it let’s me know, without a doubt, that the God who created and sustains this universe, as unimaginably awesome as He is, cares for me, and each of us, more than I, or any of us, can possibly imagine right now.,,, As far as disagreeing with what you termed the ‘traditional explanation’, I would say that the point of disagreement as to the cause of centrality is far from a trivial point of disagreement. Indeed I would say that it is a point of disagreement that reflects either a fairly callous disregard for the truth of Theism or a fairly blatant lack of curiosity to seek the complete truth of a matter.
Thinking this comment over:
No it is not, for it impossible to maintain centrality for radically different points of observation in the universe using solely the 4-Dimensional space-time of General Relativity as your basis for determining centrality. The main reason why this will not work is that you have finite material resources to work with:,,, i.e. In the language of partial differential equations this means an impossibility of a large data global existence result for all initial data in General Relativity.
I assume that both the Wikipedia author and Professor Margoniner subscribe to the “a-priori assumption of the Copernican Principle, i.e. of the Earth inhabiting NO privileged position in the cosmos!!!“, and yet the image at 3:33 is not unexpected in their view, even if you disagree with their explanation.
~
So your answer to my original question:
…is “yes”. Yes?
_
cantor, if you are satisfied with their answer, since you seem to be, since you keep trying to defend it, so be it. Personally, I consider it to be very shoddy science, even pseudo-science, since they have failed, completely, to take quantum mechanics into account for their explanation.
further note on this reference:
Of course the photons don’t know. Yet God, who created the photon, and even time itself, does know. As a interesting side note to this, I fairly recently found this site:
Humbling huh? At least it should be for those atheists who claim to have put their trust in ‘science’ instead of God!
music:
Whether or not I am “satisfied” with their answer, nothing I posted could reasonably be construed as “defending” it.
You are missing the very simple point which I am making, which is this: even if they are using “shoddy pseudo-science” to reach it, their conclusion is this:
… and therefore the 3:33 in your video is not unexpected to them, contrary to what you stated in your original post.
.
And yet it should be at least somewhat ‘unexpected’ to them from the starting presumptions they are working with, and they don’t even realize it, so go figure. Exactly what is your point??? That people can be easily misled??? ,,, Now if you questioned the delayed choice experiment which I have used to solidify my position, empirically, over their position then that would be interesting!,,
Myself, I find that the Cosmic Background radiation, which gives the Earth relative centrality, was actually very ‘unexpected’ to very many people of atheistic/materialistic bent, and for me that established point of history is very interesting:
My point was and is exactly this: “the 3:33 in your video is not unexpected to them, contrary to what you stated in your original post.”
.
I don’t recall ever referencing ‘them’ in my original post or any other of my posts. In fact only you have ever referenced them and I have merely consistently maintained that their explanation is bunk. If you prefer their explanation to the correct Theistic one, that I have laid out for you, so be it, but I have explained the problems with their model, and laid out the correct solution, to the best of my limited ability, so I am done!
Here’s what you said:
I can be forgiven if by “we” I assumed you meant the mainstream scientific community
What makes you think I prefer “their” explanation?
.