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: 3
12
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 07:55 AM
link   
The light patterns might be due to the properties of space more so than the properties of the light itself. It may be possible to change the properties of space by changing geometric pattern of light.




posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: midicon


originally posted by: midicon
Anyway it would appear to be obvious that the detector affects the experiment.

The scientists thought the same - that the detector (camera) affected the experiment - so they had the camera film what was happening to see what was occurring and then before the results could be seen or known, the information was erased - guess what? - the pattern was interference (wave) - the wave did not become a particle prior to going through the slits.
edit on 24-4-2014 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: NorEaster

You sir, are full of phlogiston.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Itisnowagain




The scientists thought the same - that the detector (camera) affected the experiment - so they had the camera film what was happening to see what was occurring and then before the results could be seen or known, the information was erased - guess what? - the pattern was interference (wave) - the wave did not become a particle prior to going through the slits.


How can they film what was occuring without interfering with the experiment?



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: midicon
How can they film what was occuring without interfering with the experiment?

I don't think you understand.
The scientists film the slits and look at the film (information in camera) and on the screen is two lines.
Then the scientists film the slits but erase the information in the camera - then there is not two lines on the back screen (there is interference pattern).

The scientists did (like you) think that the camera will effect the result but.................the result changes/differs because the result filmed is seen or not seen. The result does not change because of the camera because they try it with the camera but just erase the information in the camera so no one knows which slit the proton went through.

If they use the camera without using the eraser (so the information will be known) it causes solid lines on the back board. If they use a camera where the information is removed (the recording is void) then there is interference pattern on the back board.
edit on 24-4-2014 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 12:43 PM
link   
I believe that yes you can actually have a different objective reality, but with limitations. Your objective reality must fall in line with the continuum of other objective realities as a function of the matrix of observers that limit eachother in what can be accepted as scientifically verifiable objectivity.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 12:45 PM
link   
If there are three people in a room, are they all seeing exactly the same view/scene?
Can more than one person see out of the eyes of one person?



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Itisnowagain

I watched those Youtube videos posted on this thread, I don't think any of them showed that experiment.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: midicon
If you go to youtube you will find at least one video about the eraser experiment.
Scientists aren't stupid - they did think that the apparatus maybe effecting the result so they came up with a way around it. It gets even weirder the more scientists delve deeper into this weirdness.
Edit:
Unfortunately I cannot find the one I saw years ago which I described in my earlier post, otherwise I would post it for you. Sorry.

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



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: midicon
You might like to read what it says on Wiki about it.


The delayed choice quantum eraser experiment investigates a paradox. If a photon manifests itself as though it had come by a single path to the detector, then "common sense" (which Wheeler and others challenge) says it must have entered the double-slit device as a particle. If a photon manifests itself as though it had come by two indistinguishable paths, then it must have entered the double-slit device as a wave. If the experimental apparatus is changed while the photon is in mid‑flight, then the photon should reverse its original "decision" as to whether to be a wave or a particle. Wheeler pointed out that when these assumptions are applied to a device of interstellar dimensions, a last-minute decision made on earth on how to observe a photon could alter a decision made millions or even billions of years ago.

Delayed choice experiments have uniformly confirmed the seeming ability of measurements made on photons in the present to alter events occurring in the past. On the other hand, if a photon in flight is interpreted as being in a so-called "superposition of states," i.e. if it is interpreted as something that has the potentiality to manifest as a particle or wave, but during its time in flight is neither, then there is no time paradox. Recent experiments have supported the latter view.[2][3]

Introduction:
In the basic double slit experiment, a beam of light (usually from a laser) is directed perpendicularly towards a wall pierced by two parallel slit apertures. If a detection screen (anything from a sheet of white paper to a CCD) is put on the other side of the double slit wall, a pattern of light and dark fringes will be observed, a pattern that is called an interference pattern. Other atomic-scale entities such as electrons are found to exhibit the same behavior when fired toward a double slit.[4] By decreasing the brightness of the source sufficiently, individual particles that form the interference pattern are detectable.[5] The emergence of an interference pattern suggests that each particle passing through the slits interferes with itself, and that therefore in some sense the particles are going through both slits at once.[6]:110 This is an idea that contradicts our everyday experience of discrete objects.

A well-known thought experiment, which played a vital role in the history of quantum mechanics (for example, see the discussion on Einstein's version of this experiment), demonstrated that if particle detectors are positioned at the slits, showing through which slit a photon goes, the interference pattern will disappear.[4] This which-way experiment illustrates the complementarity principle that photons can behave as either particles or waves, but not both at the same time.[7][8][9] However, technically feasible realizations of this experiment were not proposed until the 1970s.[10]

Which-path information and the visibility of interference fringes are hence complementary quantities. In the double-slit experiment, conventional wisdom held that observing the particles inevitably disturbed them enough to destroy the interference pattern as a result of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

However, in 1982, Scully and Drühl found a loophole around this interpretation.[11] They proposed a "quantum eraser" to obtain which-path information without scattering the particles or otherwise introducing uncontrolled phase factors to them. Rather than attempting to observe which photon was entering each slit (thus disturbing them), they proposed to "mark" them with information that, in principle at least, would allow the photons to be distinguished after passing through the slits. Lest there be any misunderstanding, the interference pattern does disappear when the photons are so marked. However, the interference pattern reappears if the which-path information is further manipulated after the marked photons have passed through the double slits to obscure the which-path markings. Since 1982, multiple experiments have demonstrated the validity of the so-called quantum "erasure."[12][13][14]

A simple quantum eraser experiment:
Figure 1. Experiment that shows delayed determination of photon path
A simple version of the quantum eraser can be described as follows: Rather than splitting one photon or its probability wave between two slits, the photon is subjected to a beam splitter. If one thinks in terms of a stream of photons being randomly directed by such a beam splitter to go down two paths that are kept from interaction, it would seem that no photon can then interfere with any other or with itself.

However, if the rate of photon production is reduced so that only one photon is entering the apparatus at any one time, it becomes impossible to understand the photon as only moving through one path, because when the path outputs are redirected so that they coincide on a common detector or detectors, interference phenomena appear.

In the two diagrams in Fig. 1, photons are emitted one at a time from a laser symbolized by a yellow star. They pass through a 50% beam splitter (green block) that reflects or transmits 1/2 of the photons. The reflected or transmitted photons travel along two possible paths depicted by the red or blue lines.

In the top diagram, the trajectories of the photons are clearly known: If a photon emerges from the top of the apparatus, it had to have come by way of the blue path, and if it emerges from the side of the apparatus, it had to have come by way of the red path.

In the bottom diagram, a second beam splitter is introduced at the top right. It can direct either beam toward either path. Thus, photons emerging from each exit port may have come by way of either path.

By introducing the second beam splitter, the path information has been "erased". Erasing the path information results in interference phenomena at detection screens positioned just beyond each exit port. What issues to the right side displays reinforcement, and what issues toward the top displays cancellation.

en.wikipedia.org...

The above boggles my mind - the video I saw explained it much clearer for me but I cannot locate it.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Itisnowagain

Thanks,I will have a look and see what I think.

I do know a little about the weirdness attributed to the quantum world...little being the operative word here.

And the scientists haven't helped, by introducing terms like 'strangeness', 'charm', or even 'spooky' action at a distance.

Although I do like those words...and they do seem fitting.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: midicon
The thing is.............. there are no things. Just tendencies.

Edit.
Atoms are not things. They are only tendencies-Heisenberg
edit on 24-4-2014 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 11:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: NorEaster


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... superposition being embraced by people who are certainly smart enough to know better.


Sorry, but this is just not true. Superposition, and other quantum theories are being embraced by people who are smart enough to use it to accomplish things like this:

BBC News

So, it looks like to me, you don't really have the lucidity or authority to judge what is sensical and non-sensical.




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



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 06:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: smithjustinb

originally posted by: NorEaster


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... superposition being embraced by people who are certainly smart enough to know better.


Sorry, but this is just not true. Superposition, and other quantum theories are being embraced by people who are smart enough to use it to accomplish things like this:

BBC News

So, it looks like to me, you don't really have the lucidity or authority to judge what is sensical and non-sensical.



um.....That story has nothing to do with Superposition. It has to do with the engineering of a contextually purified environment capable of maintaining the existence of a highly defined, manufactured quantum entanglement (sort of) consisting of quibits (10 billion phosphorous ions) "spinning" in a unified direction for 39 minutes. These ions weren't in a "pre-actual" virtual state of Superposition. They were in a unified state of "spin" alignment (for 39 minutes, before contextual contamination broke the party up). They are still trying to get the quibs to behave in any sense of what that might suggest. The idea of getting those quibs ever maintaining a controllable "state of Superposition" isn't even being attempted yet. Hell, they can't even get them to stand in line for any real length of time without completely manufacturing an artificial Reality confine that will allow them to stand in line - and only for a very brief period of time. So, what does that say about the plausibility of quantum entanglement and whatever the hell Superposition is, occurring spontaneously and naturally within the confines of Reality as a universal system? It makes it clear that neither is a natural state in any sense of what that term suggests.

I may not have any actual authority, but at least I'm capable of grasping the basic point of the news story that you offered as proof of my lack of lucidity. If it were me, I would've used a news story that actually made my point, but then, that's my own version of being "sensical".

edit on 4/25/2014 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: NorEaster


um.....That story has nothing to do with Superposition.


Wrong. From the article:

[

But in a quantum system, "qubits" are stored in a so-called "superposition state" in which they can be both 1s and 0 at the same time - enabling them to perform multiple calculations simultaneously.



Magnetic field pulses were used to tilt the spin of the nuclei and create superposition states - the qubits of memory.



When they raised the system to room temperature (just above 25C) the superposition states survived for 39 minutes.
]


It has to do with the engineering of a contextually purified environment capable of maintaining the existence of a highly defined, manufactured quantum entanglement (sort of) consisting of quibits (10 billion phosphorous ions) "spinning" in a unified direction for 39 minutes.


The word, "entanglement" did not appear once in the article.


The idea of getting those quibs ever maintaining a controllable "state of Superposition" isn't even being attempted yet.


This is simply wrong.


Hell, they can't even get them to stand in line for any real length of time without completely manufacturing an artificial Reality confine that will allow them to stand in line


Quantum Superposition has nothing to do with anything being "in line" or "aligned".


So, what does that say about the plausibility of quantum entanglement and whatever the hell Superposition is, occurring spontaneously and naturally within the confines of Reality as a universal system? It makes it clear that neither is a natural state in any sense of what that term suggests.


I dont see how that's relevant. The fact is, we can create states of superposition and use them for our benefit, and for our purposes, that's all that matters.


I may not have any actual authority, but at least I'm capable of grasping the basic point of the news story that you offered as proof of my lack of lucidity.


Sorry, but it looks like you need to do a little more research before you can say you have a basic grasp of what was reported. Here is a good link to get you started:

Quantum Superposition
edit on 25-4-2014 by smithjustinb because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-4-2014 by smithjustinb because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-4-2014 by smithjustinb because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: smithjustinb

I don't care what words the article's writer used. The idiot obviously has no idea what a quantum computer is based on if he/she thinks that the concept has to do with superposition. It has to do with the instantaneous "communication" that exists between entangled quantum units (generally photons). I've done months of relentless research into the whole quantum computer effort, and tore apart research study after research study to unpack the press interpretations that have been sent all over the Internet from each major peer reviewed study and experiment concerning the application of quantum entanglement as an information processing platform, and there's never any correlation between the theoretical hypothesis of superposition and the nuts and bolts effort of trying to create a stable means of leveraging quantum entanglement as a faster-than-light information transmission protocol.

There is serious work being pursued concerning neural-net data vaulting, but that's as close to superposition as anyone might reasonably be getting. At least, anyone that's not completely delusional.

Look up the theory of superposition, and wade through the idiotic misinterpretation that precedes the serious information on your Google results, and you'll discover that superposition originally referred to virtual positioning of particles - as in a range of possible potential positions that a particle might have settled into - that cease to exist as soon as the actual particle is discovered to be in the one (and only one) real position when it's been measured or observed. It's a messed up way to describe probability, but that's what physicists settled on to describe it, and as far as I'm concerned, they screwed up an entire generation of their own with the intentional vagueness of that entire "Copenhagen Interpretation" fiasco. They should have simply admitted that they couldn't figure out a way to predict particle behavior.



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 07:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: NorEaster
a reply to: smithjustinb

I don't care what words the article's writer used. The idiot obviously has no idea what a quantum computer is based on if he/she thinks that the concept has to do with superposition. It has to do with the instantaneous "communication" that exists between entangled quantum units (generally photons). I've done months of relentless research into the whole quantum computer effort, and tore apart research study after research study to unpack the press interpretations that have been sent all over the Internet from each major peer reviewed study and experiment concerning the application of quantum entanglement as an information processing platform, and there's never any correlation between the theoretical hypothesis of superposition and the nuts and bolts effort of trying to create a stable means of leveraging quantum entanglement as a faster-than-light information transmission protocol.


You wasted a lot of time then. Qubits have everything to do with superposition. Qubits are bits that, unlike regular memory bits, can be held in a state of 1 and 0 simultaneously. That is the definition of superposition. And that's what qubits do. The benefit of being able to have a bit of information in a state of superposition (Both 1 and 0 at the same time), is that the processor can process multiple calculations simultaneously. Have you ever tried to run an antivirus check on your computer? It goes through one file, does a check for various things, then it goes on to the next file and does the same checks until it goes through ever file on your hard drive. With superposition (holding states of 1 and 0 simultaneously a.k.a. qubits), this tedious processing is eliminated. With superposition applied to computing, the processor can now run through the entire antivirus check of every file on a hard drive in the time that it would normally take (with today's computers) to do the check on one file.

The only thing entanglement is used for in quantum computing is being able to indirectly observe the state of a particle in superposition (of simultaneous 1 and 0) without collapsing that superposition into a defined 1 or 0.

curiosity.discovery.com...

computer.howstuffworks.com...

Qubits= SUPERPOSITION!= 1 and 0 at same time= super fast computing= Quantum computers= superposition equals quantum computers.

You shouldn't be so quick to call people, "idiot". Because after you get proven wrong and them right, its only fair to call yourself one. And the longer you deny the facts, and the longer it takes for you to feel the slap of truth in the face, the worse it gets.
edit on 27-4-2014 by smithjustinb because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 07:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: smithjustinb

originally posted by: NorEaster
a reply to: smithjustinb

I don't care what words the article's writer used. The idiot obviously has no idea what a quantum computer is based on if he/she thinks that the concept has to do with superposition. It has to do with the instantaneous "communication" that exists between entangled quantum units (generally photons). I've done months of relentless research into the whole quantum computer effort, and tore apart research study after research study to unpack the press interpretations that have been sent all over the Internet from each major peer reviewed study and experiment concerning the application of quantum entanglement as an information processing platform, and there's never any correlation between the theoretical hypothesis of superposition and the nuts and bolts effort of trying to create a stable means of leveraging quantum entanglement as a faster-than-light information transmission protocol.


You wasted a lot of time then. Qubits have everything to do with superposition. Qubits are bits that, unlike regular memory bits, can be held in a state of 1 and 0 simultaneously. That is the definition of superposition. And that's what qubits do. The benefit of being able to have a bit of information in a state of superposition (Both 1 and 0 at the same time), is that the processor can process multiple calculations simultaneously. Have you ever tried to run an antivirus check on your computer? It goes through one file, does a check for various things, then it goes on to the next file and does the same checks until it goes through ever file on your hard drive. With superposition (holding states of 1 and 0 simultaneously a.k.a. qubits), this tedious processing is eliminated. With superposition applied to computing, the processor can now run through the entire antivirus check of every file on a hard drive in the time that it would normally take (with today's computers) to do the check on one file.

The only thing entanglement is used for in quantum computing is being able to indirectly observe the state of a particle in superposition (of simultaneous 1 and 0) without collapsing that superposition into a defined 1 or 0.

curiosity.discovery.com...

computer.howstuffworks.com...

Qubits= SUPERPOSITION!= 1 and 0 at same time= super fast computing= Quantum computers= superposition equals quantum computers.

You shouldn't be so quick to call people, "idiot". Because after you get proven wrong and them right, its only fair to call yourself one. And the longer you deny the facts, and the longer it takes for you to feel the slap of truth in the face, the worse it gets.


I'm sorry, but there is a lot of foolishness being passed off as settled science, and the idea of 1s and 0s being suspended in a virtual state of superposition as if that were a data vault is pretty absurd. That wasn't achieved, and how would they even know it was achieved if the state they were seeking to impose was inherently unmeasurable anyway?

The experiment that you cited in your article referred to the unified spinning of ions and had nothing to do with suspending those ions in some virtual state of superposition. These were measured physical states that they were maintaining. These were not virtual states of superposition, where each ion was existing in multiple states as if in anticipation of being selected to spin one way or the other at command. Read your own article. The "breakthrough" had to do with getting those ions to act as an entangled group for an extended period of time. There was nothing in a virtual state of superposition during that experiment.

Just because some idiot tosses a term like superposition out in an article doesn't mean that the event being cited had anything to do with putting a real, material item, with actual physical properties and an actual relative point of proximity, into a state of being a virtual (non-actual) potential. That would require the direct alteration of that item's being state, and if you can't grasp the fact that such an achievement is literally impossible, then we've got nowhere for this exchange to go from here. I don't care what some science reporter writes. Words are cheap and a lot is being written that is just plain wrong these days.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 07:38 AM
link   
a reply to: smithjustinb

oh, and there are no quantum computers. There are no 1s and 0s being held in superposition within the quibit filing system of any computer. These things don't exist. They're being imagined by some physicists as perhaps being possible. That said, no one can figure out how to even being the mechanical processes that would be required. Hell, they can even define those processes yet.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 08:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Ophiuchus 13

Many who count on visual perceived data for reality observation understanding, use an atom based intelligence to perceive reality. Due to the environment suits being made of atoms overall (except for those meta parts) How can the atom based perception perceive a realm not made of atoms or can it?

So if the eyes that generate the perception of reality observed here are made of atoms they will see in the atom spectrum.
Then how does the mind machine/brain, also made of atoms perceive a realm w/o atoms? not the metaphysical-conscious or soul/spirit/internal energy for this is a different form of observation possibly.

This is why 1 feels what many are “allowed” to see is associated with an ongoing LEARNING process Overseen or Guided by higher energies which may perceive reality more outside the understood level of awareness by those being observed…

EX. (hypothetical ex)


There is a region of EXISTENCE where there are energies grouped. These energies emit LIGHT patterns no matter if shadow type beings or LIGHT type beings they ALL* emit a pattern or flicker/charge. Some no matter species flicker fast some slow some dull others dim yet all emitting signals.
AN outside observer recognizes that there are behaviors associated with the many LIGHT patterns associated with each manifested species. A Human or Grey can flicker or emit similar patterns when experiencing similar circumstances positive or negative. Eliminating segregation barriers between species. Now consider all… And you see many LIGHTS within their gathered Soul/Spirit/Internal energies groups. Now the outside observers of this lit reality can determine which patterns group that requires assistances/help if too dim or dull or could begin to group all energies based on the patterns emitted. -you would have mixed integrated species groups based on their emit energies-
The outside observers reality understanding would be different from the observed… Yet all realities are making up part of the WHOLE* even if these multiple perspectives of reality are not understood objectively…



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join