Radiant Machines

[Captain Cosmere]

@Captain cosmere: That's really not fair. What he's describing is fairly complicated. It takes time to understand, no matter what you do. Once again, though, I must say that the common idea of photons is wildly misleading. In this case, it is far better to think simply in terms of waves. The answer you get will make a lot more sense.

Just being whimsical, my friend, no offense intended. Also, "fairly complicated"?!

If it were much more complicated, my head might actually explode.

I do agree that it would be preferable to not attempt to incorporate any kind of "actual" quantum mechanics into these novels, even if it was done "successfully". Success might placate the more serious readers out there (i.e. people who would actually understand your previous post without a complex tutorial or perhaps a doctorate), but it would leave the rest of us scratching our heads. I'm fine with an easily described (if not entirely accurate) approximation. But then, I'm not the most scientific guy in the world either.

[Catalyst21 he/him]

Just being whimsical, my friend, no offense intended. Also, "fairly complicated"?!

If it were much more complicated, my head might actually explode.

Yes, but the question is, Would it actually explode if no one is there to observe it? If the observer was then killed, would your head then un-explode?

[happyman he/him]

Just being whimsical, my friend, no offense intended. Also, "fairly complicated"?!

If it were much more complicated, my head might actually explode.

I do agree that it would be preferable to not attempt to incorporate any kind of "actual" quantum mechanics into these novels, even if it was done "successfully". Success might placate the more serious readers out there (i.e. people who would actually understand your previous post without a complex tutorial or perhaps a doctorate), but it would leave the rest of us scratching our heads. I'm fine with an easily described (if not entirely accurate) approximation. But then, I'm not the most scientific guy in the world either.

I'm not the original poster, and I would describe things rather differently. I'd much rather refer you to better sources on the web for "Redshift" than try to actually explain myself (Wikipedia probably has a good basic description). However, I do like to see civil dialogue and people trying to learn, so I encourage both whenever I can.

[Tritlo he/him]

Hmm, this is a good thread.

The Flamespren experiment was definitively a quantum mechanics reference, and of Quantum entanglement especially. As I understand it, when two particles are Quantumly entangled, then by measuring the state of one, you know the state of the other. It's pretty simply explained at http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

It also involved a spren variant of Heisenberg's principle, so that when one spren was measured, it's size was set in stone and no longer in a state of flux, as they normally appear to be. As the two were quantumly entangled, it too affixed the state of the other, or that's how I understood it.

I do however think that Brandon is more giving science a nod than painstakingly having every detail fit. As someone said earlier, the story comes first, though he certainly has been quite accurate to this point. This makes the books more believable, and makes discussing the science behind the magic more fun, as we fans could actually come to logical conclusions based on the hard set rules, rather than having to get all our info from Brandon. Also, I agree with the Captain, having these small examples in the extra chapters is fun, but if Brandon has to give lengthy explanations it would kind of ruin it for a lot of fantasy readers who are not so scientifically inclined. I personally love these little snippets, but I do like lengthy, almost non relevant explanations in books (It's what makes Discworld so good, and this short set-in-middle-earth Russian novels which goes on at length about how things looked from the other side http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Ringbearer).

LLAP!

[CrazyRioter she/her]

actually the flamespren experiment doesn't have anything to do with entanglement, but the spanreed fabrials work in a way that clearly is meant to mimic quantum entanglement.

[Tritlo he/him]

Heh. I just read that interlude again. Somehow I remembered it as being two sprens in different rooms. The measurement and the size seem to be quantumly entangled though, but that might just be my confirmation bias.

[Tritlo he/him]

The spanreeds though, they definitively sound as they are quantumly entangled, though quantumly entangled objects wouldn't transmit information, because you can't decide which state it collapses into. This is however subject to some debate in physics, and I think we won't solve that particular problem on this thread.

[happyman he/him]

The spanreeds though, they definitively sound as they are quantumly entangled, though quantumly entangled objects wouldn't transmit information, because you can't decide which state it collapses into. This is however subject to some debate in physics, and I think we won't solve that particular problem on this thread.

Spanreeds are, alas, almost nothing like Quantum Entanglement. It may seems like such to those who don't know the details, but in practice they have nothing in common.

I'm going to describe Quantum Entanglement technically here. It's a tricky subject, so be warned. In Quantum Mechanics, everything is described by a wavefunction, which obeys a wave equation. The tricky part is that wavefunctions don't have to describe a single particle; often, they describe a whole system. Quantum entanglement is simply when a multi-particle system described by a wavefunction cannot be decomposed into independent single-particle wavefunctions. With care, these multi-particle wavefunctions can span macroscopic distances and often do; for instance, the description of electrons inside a metal is a classical entangled system. However, Entanglement does not make two electrons "the same electron," or any such thing. It just causes statistical correlations that drive our macroscopic minds batty.

[Aeshdan he/him]

Heh. I just read that interlude again. Somehow I remembered it as being two sprens in different rooms. The measurement and the size seem to be quantumly entangled though, but that might just be my confirmation bias.

I think it's a reflection of the Nahel bond. When the ardent defined the spren, it assumed a human form. I think that the act of defining the spren's form created an extremely weak bond between ardent and spren. (It was not powerful enough to do much more than give it the correct shape.)

[Wispsy he/him]

So all spren can be bound? What of honour is the spren lol and axies is goin around makin a bound with all of it! Lol

[name_here]

The thing with the Double Slit experiement is that it doesn't actually matter whether you look at the data or not, if you have a machine that collects the data at the slits then the pattern on the final screen will resemble a particle stream. That's not the case with Spren, they only become fixed if the measurements are written.

Actually, it's odd that it only happens if the measurements are written down, not just made. I have this theory that Honor is/was blind to ink, hence why Vorinism involves burning prayers. That might be connected.

[happyman he/him]

The thing with the Double Slit experiement is that it doesn't actually matter whether you look at the data or not, if you have a machine that collects the data at the slits then the pattern on the final screen will resemble a particle stream. That's not the case with Spren, they only become fixed if the measurements are written.

Thank you for putting in words part of why I didn't like the Quantum Mechanics analogy! In real Quantum Mechanics, it doesn't matter what you did with the measurement once you have taken it---the physical effects will continue to be real. With the Spren, writing the measurement down is what changed the behavior---and that is not the same as measuring it.

Now I don't know what to make of that odd result, but it's probably a more fruitful direction for theorists to look in.

[name_here]

So, let's take a closer look at the experiement.

Constants: All measurements were made with callipers of .1 inch percision

All writing and speaking occured in Alethi

All measurements were made on a flamespren, which appeared to be the same one across all experiments. There was also a control flamespren

All recordings were made by Ardents, with no observed evidence of Radient powers or Stormlight consumption

Writing performed on ink and paper

No measurements were taken between when one was made and recorded

Results: Writing values within the range that had not been directly measured had no detectable effect

When a measurement was written, further measurements were identical to within the percision of the instrument. The control was uneffected

Measurements spoken out loud had no detectable effect

Writing a measurement from a room where direct observation of the spren was impossible had the same effect as writing while looking at it directly

Erasing a measurement caused the Spren to begin fluctuating again

Still unknown: Does this work in other languages? What happens when you take two measurements and record them both? Does the percision of the instrument matter? What happens if your instrument is wildly inaccurate?

[Wispsy he/him]

Another question, is it only ink it works with or could one write in the dirt with the same effect? How long after the measurement is taken can it be written down and still have the same effect?

[Aeshdan he/him]

Another question, is it only ink it works with or could one write in the dirt with the same effect? How long after the measurement is taken can it be written down and still have the same effect?

I think that it will work with any medium, as long as you are deliberately writing the size of the spren. (Based on inference from Elantris, where as long as you Intended to produce an Aon, you could use any medium.)

[Aeshdan he/him]

What happens when you take two measurements and record them both?

You can't. If you write down the first measurement, it will stay that length and you will get two identical measurements. If you get two different measurements, you'll know that one of them is wrong, and we already know that you have to use a measurement you believe to be correct or nothing happens.

[ulyssessword he/him]

Writing performed on ink and paper

It was recorded with chalk on a writing board (presumably slate). This probably isn't significant, but slate and chalk are both stone, which has holy properties to the Shin.

Edited December 20, 2011 by ulyssessword

[Wispsy he/him]

Ye but aons in dirt stayed active if it got wiped off (I think) but I don't think that would happen for spren also how much change would it be before it counted as being erased? One particle seems too little but.....brought me into a whole new thought, legibility, who is it that has to be able to read it? One answer to that is just the person who wrote it, but that means it could be totally illegible as long as the person knew what they were writing (you would not believe some people's hand writing) which makes it more of a cognitive thing from that person not a physically written down description, but it doesn't occur when one just measures the spren without writing it! But something to think on perhaps. It might be possible that the physical aspect is purely there for cognitive reinforcement, as in war breaker but I'm not sure how I feel about that, would mean any1 with practice could go around manipulating spren. Y thinking about it :/

On the two measurements at once I meant more two people can measure it and get slightly different results, not a huge amount but if they both slightly diff and they both record them and believe it to be accurate what would that do to ye spren? First come first serve?

Edited December 21, 2011 by Wispsy

[CrazyRioter she/her]

or, since they aren't fixed until you write down the measurement and they fluctuate, what would happen if you took a measurement, waited a couple of seconds, then took another and then wrote down both? Would they be fixed at the last measurement taken or the last written? What if you wrote the second measurement down before the first?

[Wispsy he/him]

If you wrote the second before the first then the first would just be invalid cos u would just have taken a measurement then taken a new measurement and written that down !

[Aeshdan he/him]

If you wrote the second before the first then the first would just be invalid cos u would just have taken a measurement then taken a new measurement and written that down !

This is what I meant when I said "if you get two different measurements" earlier.

[Wispsy he/him]

An but that is not the only way to take two measurements!

[Ari he/him]

or, since they aren't fixed until you write down the measurement and they fluctuate, what would happen if you took a measurement, waited a couple of seconds, then took another and then wrote down both? Would they be fixed at the last measurement taken or the last written? What if you wrote the second measurement down before the first?

I assume you'd fix the Spren in whichever measurement you wrote down first.