It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Particle Wave Duality and Subjective Truth

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 02:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: tetra50
I am waving at your particles while i pass by looking at your particular wave wondering about your particulate wave matter, lol

sorry to be wonky…….
tetra


You shouldn't wave at people's particles without getting to know that person first.
edit on 23-4-2014 by smithjustinb because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 02:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Biigs
A wave is hard to deal with as a theory for solid substance. I dont think any particle is anything more than particular vibrations, a particle is just an easier way to think of it.

I think a lot of people have trouble understanding the more obvious truth about waves, most people like to point at a thing and call it a thing.


Sorry, Im having a hard time understanding what you are trying to say.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 02:43 AM
link   
Okay, in my experience, there was a clean energy cut between the particles, in yours, there is a constant force building up and releasing the particles. That's kind of beautiful, like breathing, not as mechanical. So it is still the source that matters, and not the monkey looking at it.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 02:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ninipe
Okay, in my experience, there was a clean energy cut between the particles, in yours, there is a constant force building up and releasing the particles. That's kind of beautiful, like breathing, not as mechanical. So it is still the source that matters, and not the monkey looking at it.


Sorry, I'm having a hard time understanding what you're saying.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 02:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: smithjustinb

originally posted by: tetra50
I am waving at your particles while i pass by looking at your particular wave wondering about your particulate wave matter, lol

sorry to be wonky…….
tetra


You shouldn't wave at people's particles without getting to know that person first.


smith:
I've been getting to know you for quite a while, reading your threads here on ATS. And I've replied, such as it is…..
I appreciate your mind, your questions and your quandaries…such as they are. Do not mistake my replies for anything but appreciation, for that is the spirit in which they are meant….my replies.

I like your mind, your exploration and wondering about physics, and everything else, as it applies to our lives everyday, for that's where I see you coming from and appreciate it.

This is tetra, but no fish, forever.
take care.
L



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 03:08 AM
link   
a reply to: tetra50

I was just messing with you. But thanks.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 03:46 AM
link   
a reply to: smithjustinb

What about me...........Not really up on the topic but love the title. Truth is very subjective facts however are not.


Sorry OP could not resist.
edit on 23-4-2014 by SubTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 03:50 AM
link   
I think it behaves in this way because until observed all possible outcomes are available
but once it is realized it will act accordingly with its preconceived reality. Such as it doesn't matter who does the observing whether it be me, you or a camera it will factor in the origin before it completes. Like in the double slit experiment the single particle once observed will factor in its point of origin trajectory and speed which will determine where it goes regardless who may be observing it.
edit on 23-4-2014 by JewelOfDenial because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 04:44 AM
link   
a reply to: smithjustinb


i'm having headache trying to understand them


i agree that everyone as individual probably has their own version of reality, objectively.

peace.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 04:49 AM
link   
I believe all matter is just an oscillation in the "universe".

Energy and matter, particles are just tiny vibrations in the ether of the universe. How much and in what range they vibrate denotes its apparent "physical" form.

Things get weird when we try and look too close because i dont believe they are really describable in our universe, things need to be made of other things, does a house care how many bricks its made from?



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: smithjustinb




My understanding is that a wave doesnt become a particle until observed. This was demonstrated in the famous double-slit experiment. In the double slit experiment, a photon exhibits a wave interference pattern as it passes through two slits. Once the photon becomes observed as it passes through the slits, it doesn't exhibit an interference pattern, it just shows up behind the slit it was fired through.


Isn't it a pity that we can't fire those photons more accurately? I wonder how deep those slits are and if their edges can affect the photons trajectory. It is always assumed that it's an either or and that the photon either goes through or doesn't. I can see how a banded pattern could appear when both sides of each slit are also affecting the experiment.

And also why is this somehow relevant to observation as if the act of observance affects the outcome? It has nothing to do with it.
You assume that because an experimenter opens another slit that somehow his observations are affecting things and not his actions.

It may well be that a photon is neither a wave or a particle but something else which has both those qualities.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 09:30 AM
link   
To me the objective world is set. So if two people are looking at a chair the structure is still the same for both since both are human. I say the senses of aliens and other species could be different the wave structure is the same but how the subjects equipment(brain) interprets the wave is determined to that species.

We as humans will see the same structure but subjectively, because we are free to, can call it or imagine it something different . The form does persist whether we are there or not. We are in a wave of probability regarding our personal choices but it does not effect the set objective reality to do that will take physical action.

The physical reality will process regardless if we are here to observe it or not. We do however build information from this seemingly autonomous objective world and can do what we see fit with it regarless of the mathematical laws hence our subjective dreamworld. So I simply think of it this way we have a private dreamworld and public dream world(objective reality). All is done mathematically which is just the same as saying it's done mentally.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 10:29 AM
link   
There's a superseding principle that exists and persists in spite of one experiment's indications may or may not suggest That principle is system coherence. Basically, what it insists is that a single system - micro, macro, or wherever such a system lies between the two extremes - must be physically consistent within itself. It must remain physically consistent within itself. This isn't an opinion. It's a physical system requirement.

Einstein started 100 years of foolishness by deciding to focus on the perception of an intelligent observer and how that observer can be affected by his/her position within (and or relative to) any given physical system. I suppose it would've been okay for him to do so if he'd been better at communicating to the rest of the world, but alas, he sucked at communicating, and here we are with an entire scientific field of study (physics) that's gone completely off the rails. Of course, it didn't help that Heisenberg didn't have the testicles to admit that there's no possible way to predict system behavior to any real specificity once you've gotten to a level of relative contextual vacuity that allows for widely variable cause-effect results, so he invented the "Uncertainty Principle" and declared Quantum Mechanics to be akin to mystical chaos. Hell, by that time, even Schrodinger's mockery of Heisenberg was mistaken for elucidation of what was essentially Heisenberg's surrender to his own inability to accomplish dominance over the "quantum realm".

And still, the fundamental requirement that any system, or holon structure of entangled systems, submit to a strict coherence has not changed. All that's changed is humanity's increasing confusion concerning what's real, what's possible, what's impossible, and how to separate each out accurately and responsibly. It takes a lot of research to just eliminate the bullsh*t that's become "settled science" in this matter.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 08:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: midicon
a reply to: smithjustinb




My understanding is that a wave doesnt become a particle until observed. This was demonstrated in the famous double-slit experiment. In the double slit experiment, a photon exhibits a wave interference pattern as it passes through two slits. Once the photon becomes observed as it passes through the slits, it doesn't exhibit an interference pattern, it just shows up behind the slit it was fired through.


Isn't it a pity that we can't fire those photons more accurately? I wonder how deep those slits are and if their edges can affect the photons trajectory. It is always assumed that it's an either or and that the photon either goes through or doesn't. I can see how a banded pattern could appear when both sides of each slit are also affecting the experiment.


What you're saying could be true except the fact that when there is a detector at the slits, there is NEVER a wave interference pattern and when there's not, there is ALWAYS a wave interference pattern. So its pretty obvious that it is, in fact, the presence of a detector that makes the difference.


And also why is this somehow relevant to observation as if the act of observance affects the outcome? It has nothing to do with it.


It most definitely has everything to do with it.


You assume that because an experimenter opens another slit that somehow his observations are affecting things and not his actions.


You seem to have 0 understanding of what the double slit experiment is and what it proves. I posted several videos in another reply above this one. You should check them out. Then we can have a discussion if you would like.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 02:28 AM
link   
a reply to: smithjustinb

I do understand the double slit experiment but I will watch those videos...I did watch one.

Anyway it would appear to be obvious that the detector affects the experiment.

And lastly...just because something is not understood completely doesn't mean we have to fill that gap in our knowledge with new age bunkum.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 02:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: midicon
a reply to: smithjustinb

I do understand the double slit experiment but I will watch those videos...I did watch one.

Anyway it would appear to be obvious that the detector affects the experiment.

And lastly...just because something is not understood completely doesn't mean we have to fill that gap in our knowledge with new age bunkum.



Im not filling in any gaps. What I've stated as fact is facts. What I've speculated, I've stated as speculation and am recognizing it as not known by using disclaimers such as, "maybe" and "could it be that..".

The fact about this subject is, the ability for the position of a particle to be known is what causes it to particleize. If there is any way that the position cannot be known (such as with the absence of a detector), it will position itself as a wave, and in true form, be unknowable objectively. This is proven science.

If you cannot know it, you cannot know it is one way of putting it, I think.
edit on 24-4-2014 by smithjustinb because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-4-2014 by smithjustinb because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 05:48 AM
link   
a reply to: smithjustinb




The fact about this subject is, the ability for the position of a particle to be known is what causes it to particleize. If there is any way that the position cannot be known (such as with the absence of a detector), it will position itself as a wave, and in true form, be unknowable objectively. This is proven science.


As I stated in my previous post I will watch those videos. It has been a long time since I first came across the 'double slit' experiment and I am always willing to have another bash at thinking about it.


That first sentence of yours isn't constructed properly doesn't make sense.

For us to know the position a particle then we must introduce a detector which will somehow affect the experiment.

You know what I am saying here...it is not difficult.

I don't think the particle positions itself as anything...it is what it is.

If the particle is a wave then it is we who cause it to collapse...not by the act of observation itself but by the physical reality of the experiment.



edit on 24-4-2014 by midicon because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 06:18 AM
link   
a reply to: smithjustinb

@If that is the case, then could it be said that my reality is objectively different than yours? -

To 1 it seems like the Existence reality observer mechanisms present (the brain along with the senses combined) calculate reality to be perceived. With this in mind… it seems possible that yes OP many are perceiving reality as best their observer reality calculator will allow.

So as some acknowledge the metaphysical associations to the physical and tap into realms of EXISTENCE and encounter-interact w/ inhabitants there that are not observable & or contactable with the physical eyes & senses acknowledged here to 1 it is not out of box to postulate your OP data that yes it may be all based on the level of awareness associated with the being(s) interested in seeing more then the norm and their perception of reality…
Good question


NAMASTE*******



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 07:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: smithjustinb

The fact about this subject is, the ability for the position of a particle to be known is what causes it to particleize. If there is any way that the position cannot be known (such as with the absence of a detector), it will position itself as a wave, and in true form, be unknowable objectively. This is proven science.


If you were to really dig deep into the technical aspects of the particle versus wave "mystery", you would discover that what is sold to the lay community as "settled science:" is, in fact, only the most successfully marketed technobabble concerning something that literally no one in the scientific community can actually detail with any amount of certainty or specificity. Your own statement suggests exactly what I'm asserting here:


If there is any way that the position cannot be known (such as with the absence of a detector), it will position itself as a wave, and in true form, be unknowable objectively.


In fact, your entire sentence is completely nonsensical, and yet it's no less absurd than 99.99999% of Quantum Theory and Quantum Mechanics that has been accepted as wisdom and built upon - with ridiculous net results like multiverses, String Theory, reverse causation, and superposition being embraced by people who are certainly smart enough to know better.

If you have no idea what bases the "science" you're working with, you can't possibly interpret data concerning whatever it is that you're observing with any degree of lucidity, let alone accuracy. Do a Google search on the native and the digital watch, and learn about how modern physics and modern cosmology has sent science into a complete death spiral as a result of its refusal to hit reset on what's become of fundamental scientific inquiry as it related to the discipline of critical analysis.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 07:29 AM
link   
a reply to: midicon

If you're trying to say that the detector changes the wave into a particle, due to its physical properties, you'd be wrong. What changes the wave to a particle is that you are able to know where it is going. Your ability to know. That made the wave change to a particle. Not the magnetic properties or some other physical property of any element of the experiment.

Even Einstein didn't want to believe it at first, but eventually, he had to admit it was true. It may sound like, "new age mumbo jumbo", but this time, its not.




top topics



 
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join