repetitive forms in nature

[René]

Coincidence? Photographs of repetitive forms in nature. A jellyfish, an atomic explosion and red ink in water.

[Dune]

Cool comparison. There might be some underlying physical structuring at work.

[René]

For the atomic explosion and the ink in the water, it is likely that similar principles are involved, such as expansion, deceleration and diffusion. But the jellyfish...? I don't know.

[WAS]

For the atomic explosion and the ink in the water, it is likely that similar principles are involved, such as expansion, deceleration and diffusion. But the jellyfish...? I don't know.

Maybe it's similar for the jelly fish as well. Even if you drop a small drop of ink into water, the same phenomenon appears. Perhaps the same physics are applied to the growth of a jelly fish out of it's ephyra stage. Natural undulation and physical properties on the "jelly" of the jelly fish.

[Hetzen]

They all show the process of movement of one material contained by another.
The ink drop has velocity downwards leaving a trail that disperses through the water medium like you say. The nuke has velocity in all directions, the ground reflects and directs half the blast, creating a vacuum that air flows back into containing the upward dust stack, then mushrooms above it. The jellyfish has developed the sack to blast water water downwards like a jet, if you coloured it, it would look like the nuke blast upside down.

I read a while back that fluid properties of super cold elements could explain dark matter. An interesting article..
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2018/01/superfluid-dark-matter-gets-seriously.html

[WAS]

That's a interesting article. I'm still on the fence about dark matter. Imo it seems much more rational to use quantum physics and science to explain why galaxies and nebula behave the way they do, as well as massive gravitational forces that bend space/time and warp our perspective of the universe.

We have literally not instrument to detect dark matter, and no understanding of how to detect it. We just assume the lack of anything is the explanation for the characteristics applied to super massive objects and gasses we can't explain. It seems much more logical it is our infintile understanding of quantum dynamics which control our universe down to the data stored in a seemingly inert rock (not like computer data but a type of universal data that drives everything)

[Hetzen]

That's why science is great. It self corrects itself.

[René]

"...physicists think that quantum mechanics can be used to describe systems at all scales — meaning it's universal."

https://www.quantamagazine.org/frauchiger-renner-paradox-clarifies-where-our-views-of-reality-go-wrong-20181203/

[Hetzen]

My head hurts!  

Getting quantum mechanics to play well with general relativity hasn't been solved for getting on to 90 years now.

[WAS]

At least with quantum theory we have a basis to work from, we know the pieces are there. It's just getting there. It's like all "quantum computers" are hardly anything but. They're all modularized concepts demonstrating certain functions of what a whole quantum computer would be. A true quantum computer... would be... well, it seems impossible. The shear power would be astronomical, and I'm not talking "computing" power. If there was some sort of output, not some sort of arbitrary input device... you could literally rewrite the universe.

According to quantum theory, everything we're thinking here, is uniquely coded in quantum space, it exists forever, uniquely ours. At the same time, that data is in a finite pool which can be drawn from. Such as any possible result that has been, or theoretically could be.

[Hetzen]

QM has suffered from interpretation of what the maths mean. Which is what Rene's article is about.

[WAS]

I know, and there are many, many theories therein.

Take quantum computing result verification, the article above asserts that a quantum computer, fed random operations, couldn't be verified. As far as I know we've now been able to verify up to 10-qubits through random operations. For example, the math can't start without first being observed, and the chaos before observation could be finite. There is literally an entire missing part of the formula, hence the theory.

With the way things are evolving, we may be able to actually run this experiment in some time.

All we have is interpretations of a partial formula no definition yet.

Also to assume it has no rule being the quantum, seems just inherently negligent in my interpretation. We do have many studies too on its possible influence over the atomic world, which would be the basis of the physical.

Also find the article negligent in scientific body because it is an attack of what-ifs, of a known problem, based on "I used to be like you", and swaying opinion, with zero result.