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: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Wrong thread
edit on 29-4-2014 by Visitor2012 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: NorEaster

I posted several links. There are many more I could post that say the exact same thing. They all refute what you're saying. They all support what I'm saying. Period.

If you believe what you're claiming is true, provide a link and/or some quoted text to support it, as I have done with the facts I have presented.

So far, all you're showing me is that you are incapable of accepting facts as they are presented as you prefer to hold on for dear life to what you have previously assumed to the point of making stuff up and presenting your imagination as fact. Its ridiculous.

For example, you keep saying stuff like, "Superposition has not been achieved in the lab". Even after I posted several links and quoted texts that completely refute that claim, you're sticking with that false statement. Honestly, I feel embarrassed for you; that this is the lack of intellect that society is producing these days. Prove me wrong. Please. Stop arguing your substance-less argument and post a link or something. Sh!t.

Im not going to argue with you anymore. Either you have a case, or you have a bunch of words with no corroboration. I've presented my case already, and its strong. Just so we're clear, I'm arguing that scientists were able to hold matter in a state of superposition in a lab for 39 minutes- a major breakthrough for quantum computing technology. I've presented evidence to corroborate that this is exactly what happened in the real world. You're arguing that this did not happen. That scientists have never been able to hold matter in a state of superposition, and that what that report is about isn't even about superposition, its about entanglement (even though entanglement wasn't mentioned once in that article LOL). However, you've presented no evidence. I presented evidence that you were wrong. And you still stick to your wrong interpretation (wtf?!). So now, its up to you to present evidence that you're right. Which you are not going to be able to do because you're wrong.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: NorEaster
a reply to: smithjustinb

oh, and there are no quantum computers.


Correct. There are no quantum computers available for consumers, unless you consider the "D-Wave Quantum Computer" that was bought by Amazon, Google, and the DOD to be an actual quantum computer. With the amount of skepticism surrounding the claims that this is an actual quantum computer, its hard to know if it is the real deal or not. So I'm skeptical myself.


There are no 1s and 0s being held in superposition


There are subatomic particles being held in superposition and then represented by their spin states as being both 1 and 0 simultaneously. This is a fact. I can provide 100 links that corroborate this. Stop denying the truth.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: smithjustinb

originally posted by: NorEaster
a reply to: smithjustinb

oh, and there are no quantum computers.


Correct. There are no quantum computers available for consumers, unless you consider the "D-Wave Quantum Computer" that was bought by Amazon, Google, and the DOD to be an actual quantum computer. With the amount of skepticism surrounding the claims that this is an actual quantum computer, its hard to know if it is the real deal or not. So I'm skeptical myself.


There are no 1s and 0s being held in superposition


There are subatomic particles being held in superposition and then represented by their spin states as being both 1 and 0 simultaneously. This is a fact. I can provide 100 links that corroborate this. Stop denying the truth.


Provide one that's ironclad, and that actually details exactly how these subatomic particles are being "observed" to be in this virtual state of superposition. I read all kinds of vague claims and tortured inferences, but nothing that can define how one can ever actually determine the actual existence of a superposition state to physically exist. The point of the superposition state (in theory) is that it isn't an actual state of physical existence. It's a state of suspended potential that ceases to exist once the actual "real" state is "chosen".

Find me something that's not pure crap that's being claimed by someone who's either lying or delusional, and I'll be eager to research exactly what's going on in that situation. That's all I want. If there is actual definitive proof that superposition isn't a pseudo-physics conceptual placeholder, then I'm interested in running that source down.

Thanks.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 05:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Zaanny

How does the particle KNOW you are observing it ?

Because, to "observe" it you have to affect it. It has to strike a sensor of some sort and that affects it. It is the manner in which it is observed which determines whether it will appear to behave as a particle or a wave, not that it is observed.


I don't think so, my understanding of the experiments done is that it is the observation or the possibility of observation that triggers the particle state. An experiment was completed with the same equipment that is normally used to view the photon but instead of the results being viewed they were automatically destroyed. The photons kept there wave form.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: smithjustinb
a reply to: NorEaster

I posted several links. There are many more I could post that say the exact same thing. They all refute what you're saying. They all support what I'm saying. Period.


What you provided were explanations of the theoretical basis of quantum computing, where entangled quibits (aligned as either 1s or 0s, with all but one quibit in each entanglement remaining unmeasured, and therefore allegedly available to switch "spin" state) are being loosely described as existing in a state of superposition, even though the actual state they are supposed to be in is in a state of quantum entanglement with the one quibit (per entanglement grouping) and therefore predictable (since that entangled state requires it to maintain a rigid relationship with all quibits that comprise its own entangled grouping).

Superposition isn't about realized physical states. It's about probability and potential. Ions that they've been able to entangle aren't in multiple states. If they are entangled as a defined collective, then they're each in whichever state it is that the entire entangled grouping is in. This is just what is imposed by the nature of what these terms were coined to describe.


If you believe what you're claiming is true, provide a link and/or some quoted text to support it, as I have done with the facts I have presented.

So far, all you're showing me is that you are incapable of accepting facts as they are presented as you prefer to hold on for dear life to what you have previously assumed to the point of making stuff up and presenting your imagination as fact. Its ridiculous.


Here you go. The description of the superposition concept is pretty definitive.


For example, you keep saying stuff like, "Superposition has not been achieved in the lab". Even after I posted several links and quoted texts that completely refute that claim, you're sticking with that false statement. Honestly, I feel embarrassed for you; that this is the lack of intellect that society is producing these days. Prove me wrong. Please. Stop arguing your substance-less argument and post a link or something. Sh!t.


I'm sorry that you aren't understanding the difference between the term "superposition" as used by Dirac and Zeilinger, and the way that your news article writer is using the term. An entanglement of ions suggests that each ion that is so entangled is forced into a specific state by the nature of the entanglement, and is not available to exist in multiple states. This is what quantum entanglement means. In fact, quantum entanglement creates a defined state that must be maintained by each ion so entangled, which is exactly opposite of what superposition suggests. I didn't invent the concept of either superposition or quantum entanglement, so don't get pissed at me.


Im not going to argue with you anymore. Either you have a case, or you have a bunch of words with no corroboration.


All I have is the actual definitions of superposition and quantum entanglement, and they're not at all compatible with one another within one system. One causes the other to be null and void by definition.


I've presented my case already, and its strong. Just so we're clear, I'm arguing that scientists were able to hold matter in a state of superposition in a lab for 39 minutes- a major breakthrough for quantum computing technology. I've presented evidence to corroborate that this is exactly what happened in the real world. You're arguing that this did not happen.


Reread your own article. These scientists claim to have maintained a quantum entanglement for 39 minutes, involving many thousands of phosphorus ions. That's pretty impressive, but the nature of quantum entanglement requires that each of those ions be in a fixed and entangled state over that 39 minute span. Superposition is a multiple state - which simply cannot exist as "real" - meaning a state that can be observed or measured or defined relative to the rest of physical reality.



That scientists have never been able to hold matter in a state of superposition, and that what that report is about isn't even about superposition, its about entanglement (even though entanglement wasn't mentioned once in that article LOL). However, you've presented no evidence. I presented evidence that you were wrong. And you still stick to your wrong interpretation (wtf?!). So now, its up to you to present evidence that you're right. Which you are not going to be able to do because you're wrong.


This sentence refers to a state of quantum entanglement.


A fragile quantum memory state has been held stable at room temperature for a "world record" 39 minutes - overcoming a key barrier to ultrafast computers.


It is the lead-off sentence of your news article.

Superposition (as a state) is "held" as long as no measurement is made. Look it up. It's not "fragile". It's virtual, and simply describes the unmeasured state of a particle. Once it's been measured or observed, that state of superposition "collapses" into a "real" state. That lead-off sentence could have just as accurately stated "A fragile quantum entanglement has been held stable at room temperature for a "world record" 39 minutes - overcoming a key barrier to ultrafast computers." Basically, it's the same statement, since a "quantum memory state" is a quantum entanglement of whatever you're manipulating (ions, photons, whatever) to provide your computer memory with a choice of two physical states (to be translated as 1s and/or 0s).

Seriously, I do know what I'm talking about here.
edit on 4/29/2014 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: NorEaster

originally posted by: smithjustinb
a reply to: NorEaster


This sentence refers to a state of quantum entanglement.


A fragile quantum memory state has been held stable at room temperature for a "world record" 39 minutes - overcoming a key barrier to ultrafast computers.


It is the lead-off sentence of your news article.

Superposition (as a state) is "held" as long as no measurement is made. Look it up. It's not "fragile". It's virtual, and simply describes the unmeasured state of a particle. Once it's been measured or observed, that state of superposition "collapses" into a "real" state. That lead-off sentence could have just as accurately stated "A fragile quantum entanglement has been held stable at room temperature for a "world record" 39 minutes - overcoming a key barrier to ultrafast computers." Basically, it's the same statement, since a "quantum memory state" is a quantum entanglement of whatever you're manipulating (ions, photons, whatever) to provide your computer memory with a choice of two physical states (to be translated as 1s and/or 0s).

Seriously, I do know what I'm talking about here.


This ATS thread is describing a process that can keep the wave pattern by constantly observing it.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The researchers achieve this using something called the quantum Zeno effect – a phenomenon whereby repeated measurements of a quantum system leave it in its original state.

The quantum Zeno effect is a situation in which an unstable particle, if observed
continuously, will never decay.

I don't think that this would work because the original observation would have broken the wave pattern. I think what they are saying if you continuously observe the wave pattern is maintained. Wondering if there is a connection with what you are saying here?



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 06:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Peter Brake

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Zaanny

How does the particle KNOW you are observing it ?

Because, to "observe" it you have to affect it. It has to strike a sensor of some sort and that affects it. It is the manner in which it is observed which determines whether it will appear to behave as a particle or a wave, not that it is observed.


I don't think so, my understanding of the experiments done is that it is the observation or the possibility of observation that triggers the particle state. An experiment was completed with the same equipment that is normally used to view the photon but instead of the results being viewed they were automatically destroyed. The photons kept there wave form.


Can we assume that consciousness is at the heart of all things, and is essentially a wave form, and when we are aware of it, we perceive it as matter. Like it turns into matter and when not it resumes its wave form. This could be how structural reality works, by being a persistent illusion. We know that basically there is nothing physical out there. So it sort of comes down to consciousness reacting within itself, and over time defines the rules of the game.
edit on 29-4-2014 by anonentity because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 06:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Peter Brake

This ATS thread is describing a process that can keep the wave pattern by constantly observing it.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The researchers achieve this using something called the quantum Zeno effect – a phenomenon whereby repeated measurements of a quantum system leave it in its original state.

The quantum Zeno effect is a situation in which an unstable particle, if observed
continuously, will never decay.

I don't think that this would work because the original observation would have broken the wave pattern. I think what they are saying if you continuously observe the wave pattern is maintained. Wondering if there is a connection with what you are saying here?


Quantum Zeno effect is (from what I've read) the impact that hyper-manipulation of a particle or sub-system can have on that particle (or sub-system) and its holon relationship with the larger system that provides it an environmental (relative) context. The constant interaction can disrupt its relationship with the rest of the environment (next larger holon system) and decouple that particle (or sub-system) from that next larger holon (environment) system.

That's a whole different kettle of fish.
edit on 4/29/2014 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 06:10 PM
link   
I don't know either, but could it be for every action there is an opposite, equal reaction?



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 06:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: anonentity

originally posted by: Peter Brake

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Zaanny

How does the particle KNOW you are observing it ?

Because, to "observe" it you have to affect it. It has to strike a sensor of some sort and that affects it. It is the manner in which it is observed which determines whether it will appear to behave as a particle or a wave, not that it is observed.


I don't think so, my understanding of the experiments done is that it is the observation or the possibility of observation that triggers the particle state. An experiment was completed with the same equipment that is normally used to view the photon but instead of the results being viewed they were automatically destroyed. The photons kept there wave form.


Can we assume that consciousness is at the heart of all things, and is essentially a wave form, and when we are aware of it, we perceive it as matter. Like it turns into matter and when not it resumes its wave form. This could be how structural reality works, by being a persistent illusion. We know that basically there is nothing physical out there. So it sort of comes down to consciousness reacting within itself, and over time defines the rules of the game.


There are definite problems with that point of view



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: NorEaster

originally posted by: anonentity

originally posted by: Peter Brake

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Zaanny

How does the particle KNOW you are observing it ?

Because, to "observe" it you have to affect it. It has to strike a sensor of some sort and that affects it. It is the manner in which it is observed which determines whether it will appear to behave as a particle or a wave, not that it is observed.


I don't think so, my understanding of the experiments done is that it is the observation or the possibility of observation that triggers the particle state. An experiment was completed with the same equipment that is normally used to view the photon but instead of the results being viewed they were automatically destroyed. The photons kept there wave form.


Can we assume that consciousness is at the heart of all things, and is essentially a wave form, and when we are aware of it, we perceive it as matter. Like it turns into matter and when not it resumes its wave form. This could be how structural reality works, by being a persistent illusion. We know that basically there is nothing physical out there. So it sort of comes down to consciousness reacting within itself, and over time defines the rules of the game.


There are definite problems with that point of view

I don't see why, Einstein couldn't refute the fact that when discussing quantum, if he wasn't looking at the moon he couldn't prove it was there. You observe the photon it becomes matter, you don't observe it ,its a wave form. Therefore it could well be consciousness reacting with consciousness, which at this level messes with reality.
edit on 29-4-2014 by anonentity because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: anonentity

originally posted by: NorEaster

originally posted by: anonentity

originally posted by: Peter Brake

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Zaanny

How does the particle KNOW you are observing it ?

Because, to "observe" it you have to affect it. It has to strike a sensor of some sort and that affects it. It is the manner in which it is observed which determines whether it will appear to behave as a particle or a wave, not that it is observed.


I don't think so, my understanding of the experiments done is that it is the observation or the possibility of observation that triggers the particle state. An experiment was completed with the same equipment that is normally used to view the photon but instead of the results being viewed they were automatically destroyed. The photons kept there wave form.


Can we assume that consciousness is at the heart of all things, and is essentially a wave form, and when we are aware of it, we perceive it as matter. Like it turns into matter and when not it resumes its wave form. This could be how structural reality works, by being a persistent illusion. We know that basically there is nothing physical out there. So it sort of comes down to consciousness reacting within itself, and over time defines the rules of the game.


There are definite problems with that point of view

I don't see why, Einstein couldn't refute the fact that when discussing quantum, if he wasn't looking at the moon he couldn't prove it was there. You observe the photon it becomes matter, you don't observe it ,its a wave form. Therefore it could well be consciousness reacting with consciousness, which at this level messes with reality.


Or, somehow the act of observing (sending out waves) a particular known or unknown structure (wave pattern) of matter then creates a connection of the true reality.
edit on 29-4-2014 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 10:34 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

Yes with this model of reality, it would back the major philosophers claim that for the Universe to exist it must have an observer. The observer and the Universe of the observer, must have something that connects to make the observation possible. By that fact its not to much of a leap to assume both must be conscious. In other words both are the same stuff, but one must be in a different state or the observation couldn't happen. Much like an ice berg, being in a different state than the sea around it, instead of being the sea its being reacted on by the sea, and vice versa. But in reality its still the sea.
The human Observer being a self aware individually named packet of consciousness, that has developed over time tied to a finite human body, is what makes the greater observation possible. When it gets to the point of observation when a photon is a wave or a particle, might be where the observation cant work because there isn't enough difference between the Universe and the Observer for any objective summation. There must be a point where the Observer and the greater Universe interact as they are both essentially the same thing, except for the fact that the Observers consciousness has been altered.If this model is valid then by the time the human observer (Packet of information) is different enough to maintain the state of Observer then it begs the question is a body of any further use, when this type of consciousness (packeted consciousness ) has formed.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 10:57 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

No offense, but get over yourself. WTF? You don't really believe the whole universe and everything in it only exists because of you, do you? There is a word for the condition you're suffering from: god-complex.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 11:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ninipe
a reply to: anonentity

No offense, but get over yourself. WTF? You don't really believe the whole universe and everything in it only exists because of you, do you? There is a word for the condition you're suffering from: god-complex.


No offence taken , I guess you didn't understand, never mind.



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 12:01 AM
link   
a reply to: NorEaster


Ok superposition has indeed been duplicated in a lab so im confused as to wht you are saying otherwise. More in the field of Quantum teleportation than computing however. But here stick with the scientific papers science writers are really bad at explaining things. Any way also you make the claim entanglement does not allow for superpositioning to occur i believe is what you were trying to say it got kind of difficult yo follow your reasoning in the middle there. But entanglement is just a state of particles there linked this does not mean however that they cant be in all possible states. So you really confused me on that. Any way heres some experiments on superposition principle it can indeed be done in a lab.




Teleportation of quantum states
Phys. Rev. A 49, 1473 – Published 1 February 1994

Lev Vaidman
PDFExport CitationCiting Articles (400)


ABSTRACT
AUTHORS
REFERENCES
ABSTRACT
The recent result of Bennett et al. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1895 (1993)] of teleportation of an unknown quantum state is obtained in the framework of nonlocal measurements proposed by Aharonov and Albert [Phys. Rev. D 21, 3316 (1980); 24, 359 (1981)]. The latter method is generalized to the teleportation of a quantum state of a system with continuous variables.
journals.aps.org...







Display Settings:AbstractSend to:
Science. 1998 Oct 23;282(5389):706-9.
Unconditional quantum teleportation
Furusawa A1, Sorensen JL, Braunstein SL, Fuchs CA, Kimble HJ, Polzik ES.
Author information
Abstract
Quantum teleportation of optical coherent states was demonstrated experimentally using squeezed-state entanglement. The quantum nature of the achieved teleportation was verified by the experimentally determined fidelity Fexp = 0.58 +/- 0.02, which describes the match between input and output states. A fidelity greater than 0.5 is not possible for coherent states without the use of entanglement. This is the first realization of unconditional quantum teleportation where every state entering the device is actually teleported.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...





ABSTRACT
Quantum teleportation is analyzed for states of dynamical variables with continuous spectra, in contrast to previous work with discrete (spin) variables. The entanglement fidelity of the scheme is computed, including the roles of finite quantum correlation and nonideal detection efficiency. A protocol is presented for teleporting the wave function of a single mode of the electromagnetic field with high fidelity using squeezed-state entanglement and current experimental capability.
journals.aps.org...



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 02:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: NorEaster
That lead-off sentence could have just as accurately stated "A fragile quantum entanglement has been held stable at room temperature for a "world record" 39 minutes


Except it didn't. It said,


the superposition states survived for 39 minutes.


It didn't say entanglement. It said superposition. Plain as day. Why are you imagining that it didn't say that?


Reread your own article. These scientists claim to have maintained a quantum entanglement for 39 minutes


No. You reread it. Reread it until you agree with me. Because, until you agree with me, you're not understanding what actually happened.

Read the definition of qubit from wikipedia:


In quantum computing, a qubit/ˈkjuːbɪt/ or quantum bit is a unit of quantum information—the quantum analogue of the classical bit. A qubit is a two-state quantum-mechanical system, such as the polarization of a single photon: here the two states are vertical polarization and horizontal polarization. In a classical system, a bit would have to be in one state or the other, but quantum mechanics allows the qubit to be in a superposition of both states at the same time, a property which is fundamental to quantum computing.




Once it's been measured or observed, that state of superposition "collapses" into a "real" state.


Thus, the one and only need for your favorite quantum property. Entanglement:


Quantum computers also utilize another aspect of quantum mechanics known as entanglement. One problem with the idea of quantum computers is that if you try to look at the subatomic particles, you could bump them, and thereby change their value. If you look at a qubit in superposition to determine its value, the qubit will assume the value of either 0 or 1, but not both (effectively turning your spiffy quantum computer into a mundane digital computer). To make a practical quantum computer, scientists have to devise ways of making measurements indirectly to preserve the system's integrity. Entanglement provides a potential answer. In quantum physics, if you apply an outside force to two atoms, it can cause them to become entangled, and the second atom can take on the properties of the first atom. So if left alone, an atom will spin in all directions. The instant it is disturbed it chooses one spin, or one value; and at the same time, the second entangled atom will choose an opposite spin, or value. This allows scientists to know the value of the qubits without actually looking at them.


By measuring the entangled particle in superposition and not the particle in superposition itself, the fragile state of the particle in superposition does not collapse into a definite 1 or 0, but remains in a state of 1 and 0 at the same time, or a superposition. This was achieved and observed indirectly (through entanglement) for 39 minutes. The article says it. The science literature says it. Everywhere says it. You say that's not what happened. Your imagining your own version of what we're discussing.



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 03:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: NorEaster

Provide one that's ironclad, and that actually details exactly how these subatomic particles are being "observed" to be in this virtual state of superposition.


The double slit experiment demonstrates the actuality of superposition. Superposition can't be directly observed, but can be indirectly observed.



posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: smithjustinb

originally posted by: NorEaster
That lead-off sentence could have just as accurately stated "A fragile quantum entanglement has been held stable at room temperature for a "world record" 39 minutes


Except it didn't. It said,


the superposition states survived for 39 minutes.


I'll only say it one more time. The tech press is playing it fast and loose with terminology, as usual. What they're describing as 'superposition' is NOT what the term actually means. At least, it's not how Dirac, Heisenberg or Schrodinger used the term.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join