Total Posts:134|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Consensus Reality

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 3:57:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Because the mind physically alters the quantum world, this entire reality is a consensus reality. A commonly agreed upon reality.

It is true that one single conscious observer alters quantum particles, so realize that the entire world is observing, and what we collectively think, is what we get.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 4:03:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 3:58:54 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Quick: Everybody wish for a unicorn to fall on the White House!

Read: George Orwell's Nineteen EightyFour
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 4:05:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 4:03:51 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 4/10/2010 3:58:54 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Quick: Everybody wish for a unicorn to fall on the White House!

Read: George Orwell's Nineteen EightyFour

Done already.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 5:11:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
While there is some sense in asking whether collective reality is collective hallucination, it doesn't really work out to what you're trying to propose. The mind doesn't modify particles, quantum or others, into anything. It works the other way around; particles modify the mind, or in a technical sense, modify and trigger our senses which send off a signal in our mind.

If collective will could really change reality in the sort of sense you're talking about, then many of the wars, the attacks, the events, and etc., would never occur, unless of course you're saying its some sort of every-human-must-think-the-same-thing-at-the-same-tie, which is a convenient excuse.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 5:21:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 5:11:54 PM, Volkov wrote:
While there is some sense in asking whether collective reality is collective hallucination, it doesn't really work out to what you're trying to propose. The mind doesn't modify particles, quantum or others, into anything. It works the other way around; particles modify the mind, or in a technical sense, modify and trigger our senses which send off a signal in our mind.

"[In quantum mechanics], if the outcome of an event has not been observed, it exists in a state of 'superposition', which is akin to being in all possible states at once."

In physics, the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observation will make on the phenomenon being observed.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

If collective will could really change reality in the sort of sense you're talking about, then many of the wars, the attacks, the events, and etc., would never occur,

This is precisely the root of all the wars and violence in the world. All the wars and violence are merely a symptom, a symptom of man's psychologically unsound, and unsane mind.

unless of course you're saying its some sort of every-human-must-think-the-same-thing-at-the-same-tie, which is a convenient excuse.

I'm not making excuses for anything. However, what you say is true. If all the people engaged in conflict began to think positive and peaceful thoughts, they wouldn't be fighting each other would they?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 5:34:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 5:21:52 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
In physics, the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observation will make on the phenomenon being observed.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The observer effect is a lot different from what you're talking about, Geo. All the observer effect states is that when attempting to measure something, that measurement can only work by affecting whatever it is you're trying to observe. It gives a prime example right there: electrons can only be observed by making photons interact with it. You can only measure electrons by affecting its state. That's the observer effect.

What you're trying to put forward is conscious and direct ways to change matter simply by will of mind. That is nowhere near the observer effect.

This is precisely the root of all the wars and violence in the world. All the wars and violence are merely a symptom, a symptom of man's psychologically unsound, and unsane mind.

I don't find wars and violence either psychologically unsound or a product of an "unsane" mind. Humans are naturally violent creatures when faced with situations whereby their selves or what they love is in trouble, or when they believe they can get out of a zero-sum relationship. Nothing unsound about that.

I'm not making excuses for anything. However, what you say is true. If all the people engaged in conflict began to think positive and peaceful thoughts, they wouldn't be fighting each other would they?

But that doesn't alter the state of matter - that's just a state of emotion. Much different things.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 5:46:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 5:21:52 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/10/2010 5:11:54 PM, Volkov wrote:
While there is some sense in asking whether collective reality is collective hallucination, it doesn't really work out to what you're trying to propose. The mind doesn't modify particles, quantum or others, into anything. It works the other way around; particles modify the mind, or in a technical sense, modify and trigger our senses which send off a signal in our mind.

"[In quantum mechanics], if the outcome of an event has not been observed, it exists in a state of 'superposition', which is akin to being in all possible states at once."

In physics, the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observation will make on the phenomenon being observed.

This only relates to the requirement to make accurate measurements. To make the accurate measurement one must preclude another measure of accuracy to arrive at it - and it's the instruments used that alter it, not the humans specifically themselves. :P Measuring an electron is done by hitting it with a photon, so really the photon is the one doing the changing, not us. :D
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 6:02:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 5:34:46 PM, Volkov wrote:
The observer effect is a lot different from what you're talking about, Geo. All the observer effect states is that when attempting to measure something, that measurement can only work by affecting whatever it is you're trying to observe. It gives a prime example right there: electrons can only be observed by making photons interact with it. You can only measure electrons by affecting its state. That's the observer effect.

No. Not at all. If that were the case, it wouldn't be called the OBSERVER effect. You said that electrons can only be observed by making photons interact with it, but I'm not talking about what makes them visible.

I'm talking about non-locality. Quantum particles exist in a state of superposition which is a state of infinite potential, and it's only when quantum particles are observed are they actually defined and have an actual coordinate in space.

I will admit that I am committing the composition fallacy by applying what's true of the quantum to what's true of the macro. However, I think that this idea applies to both micro and macro, but in different ways.

I don't find wars and violence either psychologically unsound or a product of an "unsane" mind. Humans are naturally violent creatures when faced with situations whereby their selves or what they love is in trouble, or when they believe they can get out of a zero-sum relationship. Nothing unsound about that.

Those are reactions out of fear. Violence is certainly not in our nature. I consider myself as a person with a sound and sane mind (obviously not perfect) and you don't see me acting violent towards anyone.

You also commit the fallacy of assuming the conclusion in your premise by saying that people act violent because others act violent towards them. But WHY are people acting violent in the first place?! As Tsarion says, "Are you going to just keep studying the leaf? Where is it's roots?"

But that doesn't alter the state of matter - that's just a state of emotion. Much different things.

The state of the matter depends first, on the state of the mind. It is undeniable that the state of mind determines a persons actions. If all those people engaged in conflict, changed their state of mind, they wouldn't be engaged in violence.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 6:15:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 6:02:15 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I'm talking about non-locality. Quantum particles exist in a state of superposition which is a state of infinite potential, and it's only when quantum particles are observed are they actually defined and have an actual coordinate in space.

But, that still doesn't fit in with the observer effect, nor with what you're talking about. The observer effect is about how a measurement effects what its measuring; but our senses, our mind, does not affect quantum particles in such a way, because our senses are for reception, not projection. We can't will into existence a unicorn, we can only see one.

You also commit the fallacy of assuming the conclusion in your premise by saying that people act violent because others act violent towards them. But WHY are people acting violent in the first place?! As Tsarion says, "Are you going to just keep studying the leaf? Where is it's roots?"

Actually, I said why conflicts happen; zero-sumness is bad, and people generally find a way to get out of it. Also, when threatened, they react in a way that's quite natural - they defend themselves any way they can. Them's the roots. Violence is certainly apart of our nature, Geo. Every human, and I mean every single individual, has a violent streak in them. It just varies from person to person on what will set it off.

The state of the matter depends first, on the state of the mind. It is undeniable that the state of mind determines a persons actions. If all those people engaged in conflict, changed their state of mind, they wouldn't be engaged in violence.

But that isn't changing the state of matter.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 6:18:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 6:02:15 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/10/2010 5:34:46 PM, Volkov wrote:
The observer effect is a lot different from what you're talking about, Geo. All the observer effect states is that when attempting to measure something, that measurement can only work by affecting whatever it is you're trying to observe. It gives a prime example right there: electrons can only be observed by making photons interact with it. You can only measure electrons by affecting its state. That's the observer effect.

No. Not at all. If that were the case, it wouldn't be called the OBSERVER effect. You said that electrons can only be observed by making photons interact with it, but I'm not talking about what makes them visible.

I'm talking about non-locality. Quantum particles exist in a state of superposition which is a state of infinite potential, and it's only when quantum particles are observed are they actually defined and have an actual coordinate in space.

It's called the observer effect because scientists are required. It's an offshoot from the uncertainty principle; that one cannot both know the momentum and position of a particle with accuracy. The more you wish to measure one aspect, the less accurate the other measure becomes as a direct result. One can observe them all you like, it's when you try to get a *specific measure* that interference occurs.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 7:01:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 6:18:01 PM, Puck wrote:
It's called the observer effect because scientists are required. It's an offshoot from the uncertainty principle; that one cannot both know the momentum and position of a particle with accuracy. The more you wish to measure one aspect, the less accurate the other measure becomes as a direct result. One can observe them all you like, it's when you try to get a *specific measure* that interference occurs.

Ok, then what about wave-particle duality? Things act like a wave when unobserved. But when observed, they act as particles.

Think of it as an ocean of waves whereby our minds construct ice sculptures from the ocean. In it's true and actual state, everything is a wave. When we look at it, we begin to see form.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 7:07:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 7:01:29 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/10/2010 6:18:01 PM, Puck wrote:
It's called the observer effect because scientists are required. It's an offshoot from the uncertainty principle; that one cannot both know the momentum and position of a particle with accuracy. The more you wish to measure one aspect, the less accurate the other measure becomes as a direct result. One can observe them all you like, it's when you try to get a *specific measure* that interference occurs.

Ok, then what about wave-particle duality? Things act like a wave when unobserved. But when observed, they act as particles.

That's not entirely accurate. My observation (or lack of) of an electron will not turn it into a particle or wave. It has properties of both, and exhibits properties of both.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 7:13:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 7:01:29 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/10/2010 6:18:01 PM, Puck wrote:
It's called the observer effect because scientists are required. It's an offshoot from the uncertainty principle; that one cannot both know the momentum and position of a particle with accuracy. The more you wish to measure one aspect, the less accurate the other measure becomes as a direct result. One can observe them all you like, it's when you try to get a *specific measure* that interference occurs.

Ok, then what about wave-particle duality? Things act like a wave when unobserved. But when observed, they act as particles.

What about it? Double slit experiment on light showed light particles act like a wave, while still retaining discrete properties of a particle. It's called wave–particle duality - and there is evidence of it being an aspect of photons, electrons, neutrons and protons.

In terms of the observer effect, it's again simple a result of trying to measure it. To measure the particle in a wave state causes the wave to collapse i.e. to measure it accurately it must be measured in a non wave state.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 8:06:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 7:01:29 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Ok, then what about wave-particle duality? Things act like a wave when unobserved. But when observed, they act as particles.

just a side note, but if that were the case, we wouldn't know about any of the wave properties since we would have to do some observation to find out :P
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2010 8:23:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 8:06:00 PM, belle wrote:
At 4/10/2010 7:01:29 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Ok, then what about wave-particle duality? Things act like a wave when unobserved. But when observed, they act as particles.

just a side note, but if that were the case, we wouldn't know about any of the wave properties since we would have to do some observation to find out :P

That poses no problem since I believe that the observer is the observed, or as Carl Sagan said: "We are a way for the cosmos to know itself."

However, I see what you're saying. The double-slit experiment is what allowed us to view the after-effects of an unobserved and an observed quantum particle. The after-effects involved seeing either an interference patter (produced by a wave), or a basic patter (produced by a particle).
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2010 12:09:16 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 3:57:14 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Because the mind physically alters the quantum world, this entire reality is a consensus reality. A commonly agreed upon reality.

It is true that one single conscious observer alters quantum particles, so realize that the entire world is observing, and what we collectively think, is what we get.

But surely this observer effect is only true of quantim particles not 'normal reality', I don't even believe in it for quantum particles but thats purely on faith so not really worthy of consideration.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2010 12:13:17 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/11/2010 12:09:16 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 4/10/2010 3:57:14 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Because the mind physically alters the quantum world, this entire reality is a consensus reality. A commonly agreed upon reality.

It is true that one single conscious observer alters quantum particles, so realize that the entire world is observing, and what we collectively think, is what we get.

But surely this observer effect is only true of quantim particles not 'normal reality',

Yeah, I admitted that I wrongly applied it to macro reality. However, I still think that a similar concept applies to macro reality as well.

I don't even believe in it for quantum particles but thats purely on faith so not really worthy of consideration.

I remember now, you were the one who said they didn't believe in QM a while back. I found that rather peculiar. Why is it that you reject quantum physics as opposed to other sciences that you haven't directly experienced?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2010 12:18:58 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/11/2010 12:13:17 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

I remember now, you were the one who said they didn't believe in QM a while back. I found that rather peculiar. Why is it that you reject quantum physics as opposed to other sciences that you haven't directly experienced?

Oh yea I did say that, as part of some roundabout way to try and bring some sort of understanding to Godsands I believe.

It is simply because I don't understand it, it's been explained to me and I don't get it. Mind you I've not invested much time in trying to understand it. It's also just amusing to mock it and refer to high level physicists as wizards in pointy hats. I don't reject it as such, because it is not my place to do so, I am not worthy enough to be allowed a genuine opinion on it. I'll get of this thread and maybe go educate myself! Or sleep.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2010 7:52:37 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
"Things act like a wave when unobserved."'

Umm, technically you don't have any idea what things act like when they are unobserved because you aren't observing them...

In any case, as others have said I think it is pretty clear you don't understand what the observer effect states or how it can be applied. You are making it way more complicated than it really is and in doing so completely misapplying it. In quantum mechanics, a basic statement of superposition would be:

"Unless you know exactly what state x is in, then x can be in any state possible for x"

Which is almost a statement of the obvious...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2010 5:37:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/11/2010 7:52:37 AM, Floid wrote:
"Things act like a wave when unobserved."'

Umm, technically you don't have any idea what things act like when they are unobserved because you aren't observing them...

Then you obviously never heard of the double-slit experiment. We can see how something acts as a wave when unobserved by observing the after-effects that produce an interference pattern.

In any case, as others have said I think it is pretty clear you don't understand what the observer effect states or how it can be applied. You are making it way more complicated than it really is and in doing so completely misapplying it. In quantum mechanics, a basic statement of superposition would be:

"Unless you know exactly what state x is in, then x can be in any state possible for x"

Which is almost a statement of the obvious...

If that were the case, they wouldn't call it anything. Superposition states that a quantum particle exists in ALL possible states at once.

You say that I am making it more complicated, but that's just it. Quantum physics is complicated, and as Richard Feynman said, "If you think you understand quantum theory, you don't understand quantum theory."

Like I said though, I already admitted that I improperly applied the quantum to the macro, but nonetheless, I think a similar effect is true of macro reality as well.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2010 5:54:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/11/2010 5:37:07 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/11/2010 7:52:37 AM, Floid wrote:
"Things act like a wave when unobserved."'

Umm, technically you don't have any idea what things act like when they are unobserved because you aren't observing them...

Then you obviously never heard of the double-slit experiment. We can see how something acts as a wave when unobserved by observing the after-effects that produce an interference pattern.

We don't observe and so observe? Observing =/= measuring. Measurement is what initiates the observer effect - in this case it would be locating the photons within the wave itself since they can exist within a range of the wave pattern. Double slit and wave particle duality is not about the observer effect. It's about light, passing through slits as a wave (the wave pattern) and being absorbed at the other end (the particle).
omelet
Posts: 416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2010 9:46:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/11/2010 5:54:02 PM, Puck wrote:
Double slit and wave particle duality is not about the observer effect. It's about light, passing through slits as a wave (the wave pattern) and being absorbed at the other end (the particle).
In many versions of the double slit experiment, a detection device is placed at one of the slits. The act of observing whether it went through one of the slits or not collapses the waveform and we end up with the expected 2 bands on the screen rather than an interference pattern. This is a common element of the double-slit experiment, and probably what he was referring to.

At 4/11/2010 5:37:07 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Like I said though, I already admitted that I improperly applied the quantum to the macro, but nonetheless, I think a similar effect is true of macro reality as well.
You think? It's one of the quirkiest things about the quantum world, and based off of absolutely no evidence at all, you have a HUNCH that it applies to the macro universe as well? There's absolutely no reason to think that the observer effect applies to the macro-scale universe. This is why people don't take you seriously.
omelet
Posts: 416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2010 9:49:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/10/2010 3:57:14 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
It is true that one single conscious observer alters quantum particles, so realize that the entire world is observing, and what we collectively think, is what we get.
"Observer" in the QM sense has NOTHING AT ALL to do with being conscious or able to think. If a photon hits a rock, the rock is an observer. This is the single most irritating misconception about QM.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2010 12:57:24 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/11/2010 9:46:05 PM, omelet wrote:
At 4/11/2010 5:54:02 PM, Puck wrote:
Double slit and wave particle duality is not about the observer effect. It's about light, passing through slits as a wave (the wave pattern) and being absorbed at the other end (the particle).
In many versions of the double slit experiment, a detection device is placed at one of the slits. The act of observing whether it went through one of the slits or not collapses the waveform and we end up with the expected 2 bands on the screen rather than an interference pattern. This is a common element of the double-slit experiment, and probably what he was referring to.

Fair nuff. :)
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2010 4:56:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
"Then you obviously never heard of the double-slit experiment. We can see how something acts as a wave when unobserved by observing the after-effects that produce an interference pattern."

So it has wave like effects. That doesn't mean that the we are observing a wave and not sets of individual particles.

You say that I am making it more complicated, but that's just it. Quantum physics is complicated, and as Richard Feynman said, "If you think you understand quantum theory, you don't understand quantum theory."

I said you were making the observer effect way more complicated than what it is... lets stay on topic. But if you want to invoke Richard Feynam, I would suggest reading "QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter" (which is a transcription of a series of lectures he gave). I think it would help clear up a lot of your misunderstanding of the topic, including the double slit experiments.
omelet
Posts: 416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2010 12:09:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/12/2010 4:56:54 AM, Floid wrote:
"Then you obviously never heard of the double-slit experiment. We can see how something acts as a wave when unobserved by observing the after-effects that produce an interference pattern."

So it has wave like effects. That doesn't mean that the we are observing a wave and not sets of individual particles.
"In 1974, technology became able to perform the experiment by releasing a single electron at a time. Again, the interference patterns showed up. But when a detector is placed at the slit, the interference once again disappears. The experiment was again performed in 1989 by a Japanese team that was able to use much more refined equipment." - http://physics.about.com...

If you're just saying that maybe the particles are just particles that are acting like a wave, isn't that what all waves are? It's not like waves of light are made of anything besides photons, which are particles.
DevinKing
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2010 7:11:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/11/2010 5:37:07 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
If that were the case, they wouldn't call it anything. Superposition states that a quantum particle exists in ALL possible states at once.


--Just because you turn the lights off in your room, doesn't mean that the furnature is suddenly in every possible configuration. Rather, the furnature could be in any of the possible configurations (but no more than one at a time). Otherwise, the furnature(or particles) would be violating the basic law of conservation of mass. Besides, IMO the statement: "it could be in any possible state" is redundant and completely unnescesary.

You say that I am making it more complicated, but that's just it. Quantum physics is complicated, and as Richard Feynman said, "If you think you understand quantum theory, you don't understand quantum theory."


--No one said that it wasn't complicated.
After demonstrating his existence with complete certainty with the proposition "I think, therefore I am", Descartes walks into a bar, sitting next to a gorgeous priest. The priest asks Descartes, "Would you like a drink?" Descartes responds, "I think not," and then proceeds to vanish in a puff of illogic.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2010 7:22:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/12/2010 7:11:55 PM, DevinKing wrote:
--Just because you turn the lights off in your room, doesn't mean that the furnature is suddenly in every possible configuration. Rather, the furnature could be in any of the possible configurations (but no more than one at a time). Otherwise, the furnature(or particles) would be violating the basic law of conservation of mass. Besides, IMO the statement: "it could be in any possible state" is redundant and completely unnescesary.

its not literally in all positions (as in there are multiple particles in each position it could be in) rather it is in some strange state (superposition) which consists in the combination or synthesis of every possible position for the particle. its f*cking weird as hell.

the thing that causes the wave function to collapse though isn't consciousness so much as it being "hit" by something... which is required for us to observe it. interactions with each other force particles to be in definite locations when they wouldn't otherwise be because they are in a position which is all positions.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
omelet
Posts: 416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2010 7:28:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/12/2010 7:11:55 PM, DevinKing wrote:
At 4/11/2010 5:37:07 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
If that were the case, they wouldn't call it anything. Superposition states that a quantum particle exists in ALL possible states at once.


--Just because you turn the lights off in your room, doesn't mean that the furnature is suddenly in every possible configuration. Rather, the furnature could be in any of the possible configurations (but no more than one at a time). Otherwise, the furnature(or particles) would be violating the basic law of conservation of mass. Besides, IMO the statement: "it could be in any possible state" is redundant and completely unnescesary.
No, that's not how it works. I'll have to admit, until recently I thought this as well. But it's simply not true.

Again, a good example is the double-slit experiment, though there are many examples.

Consider an electron being fired at a double slit apparatus. If it goes through the left slit, it will hit a certain area of the sheet on the other side. If it goes through the right slit, it will hit a certain other area. However, if nothing measures which slit it goes through, then it doesn't hit either of those areas; the probability distribution of where it lands is an interference pattern that doesn't make sense for either of the two intuitive possibilities. This is because the electron doesn't actually take a certain path - it has a very complex superposition of possible paths, and because of the way quantum mechanics works, those paths end up resolving in a way that creates an interference pattern.