Does the Quantum Eraser Experiment show that consciousness creates reality?

page: 4
16
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 31 2014 @ 03:02 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

You do realize relativity links space and time. Time is motion and without time motion cannot exist. In relativity Einstein said light always travels at the same speed period no exceptions. Yet for that to remain true in all reference frames something has to change that something is time. Time will slow down to maintain the speed of light to any observer. This is why Einstein showed us the link between space and time. In Hamiltonian physics time was thought to be constant no exceptions it was the same everywhere and for everyone.In order for you to grasp relativity the first thing your going to need to understand is relativity tells us there are frames of reference that either speed up or slow down to make sure light always travels at the same speed to any observer. Without time relativity cant work its the basis of the theory. To claim Einstein thought time was an illusion is hilarious in and of itself.

Now any experiment that is run were we receive data proves time exists because any measurements we take are time dependent so pick any experiment you like and ill explain to you how it proves time exists. Now as far as physicists the argument is on three different theories of time "fixed timeline”, “dynamic timeline”, and “multiverse. Time needs to exist in all three but its properties are different. But if time is an illusion than change cant exist if change doesnt exist than how did anything ever occur in our universe? See you have no answer to this yet its a fundamental part of our universe changes occur and will continue to occur. Meaning there is things that already changed and things that will change. So how does this occur without time?




posted on May, 31 2014 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Again, you provide zero evidence just rambling about Einstein without any idea as to what you're talking about.

You again didn't answer any questions. If time exists what is the nature of time. Give me some scientific evidence that time exist. In the Wheeler-Dewitt equation time doesn't exist at all. You want to act like time must exist as an objective reality because this is what you want to believe.

I keep asking you for an experiment or published paper that supports this. Yes, time can be an illusion. There's no evidence that we measure something objective called time.

Have you ever heard of quantum mechanics? You said any experiment that we run is time dependent and that's just not the case. Have you ever heard of the delayed choice experiment, quantum eraser experiment or the delayed choice quantum entanglement experiment?

Some of these experiments show that a measurement in the future determines what measurement will occur in the past. You're basically sticking your head in the sand and saying time must be an objective reality because I want it to be so.

AGAIN, WHERE'S YOUR EVIDENCE?

It's like you're oblivious to quantum mechanics and the on going debate in physics about the nature of time.


But even Krausz works far from the frontier of time. There is a temporal realm called the Planck scale, where even attoseconds drag by like eons. It marks the edge of known physics, a region where distances and intervals are so short that the very concepts of time and space start to break down. Planck time—the smallest unit of time that has any physical meaning—is 10-43 second, less than a trillionth of a trillionth of an attosecond. Beyond that? Tempus incognito. At least for now.

Efforts to understand time below the Planck scale have led to an exceedingly strange juncture in physics. The problem, in brief, is that time may not exist at the most fundamental level of physical reality. If so, then what is time? And why is it so obviously and tyrannically omnipresent in our own experience? “The meaning of time has become terribly problematic in contemporary physics,” says Simon Saunders, a philosopher of physics at the University of Oxford. “The situation is so uncomfortable that by far the best thing to do is declare oneself an agnostic.”


Like I said you need to read a book about quantum mechanics and you need to realize that the debate about the existence of time and the nature of time is an on going debate in Science. Here's more:


The trouble with time started a century ago, when Einstein’s special and general theories of relativity demolished the idea of time as a universal constant. One consequence is that the past, present, and future are not absolutes. Einstein’s theories also opened a rift in physics because the rules of general relativity (which describe gravity and the large-scale structure of the cosmos) seem incompatible with those of quantum physics (which govern the realm of the tiny). Some four decades ago, the renowned physicist John Wheeler, then at Princeton, and the late Bryce DeWitt, then at the University of North Carolina, developed an extraordinary equation that provides a possible framework for unifying relativity and quantum mechanics. But the Wheeler-­DeWitt equation has always been controversial, in part because it adds yet another, even more baffling twist to our understanding of time.

“One finds that time just disappears from the Wheeler-DeWitt equation,” says Carlo Rovelli, a physicist at the University of the Mediterranean in Marseille, France. “It is an issue that many theorists have puzzled about. It may be that the best way to think about quantum reality is to give up the notion of time—that the fundamental description of the universe must be timeless.”


Now to Einstein. Einstein saw our experience of the distinction between past present and future as a persistent illusion. There was a paper published recently that went even further and they replace the time dimension to a dimension of space.


In two recent papers (one published and one to be published) in Physics Essays, Amrit Sorli, Davide Fiscaletti, and Dusan Klinar from the Scientific Research Centre Bistra in Ptuj, Slovenia, have described in more detail what this means.

No time dimension

They begin by explaining how we usually assume that time is an absolute physical quantity that plays the role of the independent variable (time, t, is often the x-axis on graphs that show the evolution of a physical system). But, as they note, we never really measure t. What we do measure is an object’s frequency, speed, etc. In other words, what experimentally exists are the motion of an object and the tick of a clock, and we compare the object’s motion to the tick of a clock to measure the object’s frequency, speed, etc. By itself, t has only a mathematical value, and no primary physical existence.

“Minkowski space is not 3D + T, it is 4D,” the scientists write in their most recent paper. “The point of view which considers time to be a physical entity in which material changes occur is here replaced with a more convenient view of time being merely the numerical order of material change. This view corresponds better to the physical world and has more explanatory power in describing immediate physical phenomena: gravity, electrostatic interaction, information transfer by EPR experiment are physical phenomena carried directly by the space in which physical phenomena occur.”

As the scientists added, the roots of this idea come from Einstein himself.

“Einstein said, ‘Time has no independent existence apart from the order of events by which we measure it,’” Sorli told PhysOrg.com. “Time is exactly the order of events: this is my conclusion.”


phys.org...

Let me repeat that Einstein quote again:

“Einstein said, ‘Time has no independent existence apart from the order of events by which we measure it,’” Sorli told PhysOrg.com. “Time is exactly the order of events: this is my conclusion.”

This is why I keep asking you for EVIDENCE that time has an objective existence. You keep rambling on about nothing and you don't provide any evidence.

Einstein saw reality as a four dimensional whole and our local experience of the past, present and future was just a persistent illusion. So my four dimensional now on the computer is no different than the four dimensional now of George Washington crossing the Delaware. The subjective separation from this four dimensional now as the past, present and future is just a persistent illusion of our three dimensional conscious experience. Einstein said this:


A human being is part of a whole, called by us the ‘Universe’ —a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts, and feelings, as something separated from the rest—a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.”


Like I said, I know you can't be a Teacher because you don't understand Relativity, quantum mechanics or the on going debate in the Scientific community about the nature of time.
edit on 31-5-2014 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 07:51 PM
link   
You really cant be this dense so you just like to argue dont you? Proof time exists is simple your hear in order for that to occur multiple events had to occur in sequence. Meaning they already happened for example your mother meeting your father is a sequence of events. Now please since you know so much about relativity explain why we have to include time into the equations if its just an illusion. If its an illusion we should get the exact same answer if we exclude time but we dont so how do you explain this small detail???



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 09:32 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

This is just laughable and a response steeped in ignorance. If you're a Teacher then I'm really Andy Kaufman. You said:


Proof time exists is simple your hear in order for that to occur multiple events had to occur in sequence.


This is just pure nonsense.

Proof time exists is simple??

That's just pure ignorance. Science is debating the nature of time and some Scientist even say time doesn't exist. It's an on going debate.


Rovelli, the advocate of a timeless universe, says the NIST timekeepers have it right. Moreover, their point of view is consistent with the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. “We never really see time,” he says. “We see only clocks. If you say this object moves, what you really mean is that this object is here when the hand of your clock is here, and so on. We say we measure time with clocks, but we see only the hands of the clocks, not time itself. And the hands of a clock are a physical variable like any other. So in a sense we cheat because what we really observe are physical variables as a function of other physical variables, but we represent that as if everything is evolving in time.

“What happens with the Wheeler-DeWitt equation is that we have to stop playing this game. Instead of introducing this fictitious variable—time, which itself is not observable—we should just describe how the variables are related to one another. The question is, Is time a fundamental property of reality or just the macroscopic appearance of things? I would say it’s only a macroscopic effect. It’s something that emerges only for big things.”


Again, there's no evidence that past, present and future is anymore than a persistent illusion. The question is, what is the nature of time. Is time something objective that's measured or is it just a way consciousness keeps track of events or is it something else all together.

This is an on going debate in science and you say:

Proof time exists is simple???

This just shows you don't understand what you're talking about. You "believe" time must exist in the way you "believe" it exists and at the end of the day, that's just a...."belief." It has nothing to do with science.


Efforts to understand time below the Planck scale have led to an exceedingly strange juncture in physics. The problem, in brief, is that time may not exist at the most fundamental level of physical reality. If so, then what is time? And why is it so obviously and tyrannically omnipresent in our own experience? “The meaning of time has become terribly problematic in contemporary physics,” says Simon Saunders, a philosopher of physics at the University of Oxford. “The situation is so uncomfortable that by far the best thing to do is declare oneself an agnostic.”

The trouble with time started a century ago, when Einstein’s special and general theories of relativity demolished the idea of time as a universal constant. One consequence is that the past, present, and future are not absolutes. Einstein’s theories also opened a rift in physics because the rules of general relativity (which describe gravity and the large-scale structure of the cosmos) seem incompatible with those of quantum physics (which govern the realm of the tiny). Some four decades ago, the renowned physicist John Wheeler, then at Princeton, and the late Bryce DeWitt, then at the University of North Carolina, developed an extraordinary equation that provides a possible framework for unifying relativity and quantum mechanics. But the Wheeler-­DeWitt equation has always been controversial, in part because it adds yet another, even more baffling twist to our understanding of time.


What is the nature of time? Does time exist below planck scales?

I'm sitting at my desk and I pick up a pen and then 1 second later I pick up a napkin. Does 1 second later have an objective reality or is 1 second later just a conscious description of the relationship between two different measurements?



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 10:51 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

This isnt a philosophical debate which is what you keep attempting to turn it in to. We can argue nothing is real this is what Buddhists believe. I showed you several times that we must use time in science. Its built in to the universe if you want to have a philosophical debate theirs no point they never get anywhere. Does time exist below the plank scale possibly but either way it doesnt matter. Whether future events pop into existence as the “now” reaches them or are there all along is irrelevant the effect is there. Your argument is because science doesnt know if all events have already occurred in another time slice that time doesnt exist. Well it does and in the end doesnt matter in the least which way it works we still have to take it in to account in our lives its not an illusion.

When speaking of time the only actual true presence of time(past,present & future) there is only past in a true sense.So lets define time In a universe where NOTHING changed, time would not exist.We know as you approach the speed of light temporal dimension and spatial dimension parallel to the axis of travel shrinks to/approaches zero as velocity approaches c.

Now finally by all means show me proof time is an illusion dont throw some philosophical debate physicists avoid these theirs no point. So there should be some proof time is an illusion wouldnt you think? Problem is theirs not but there is plenty that indeed it effects our lives and therefore is a physical force and is irrelevant if its observed or not. See your whole argument is the same as if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound? Again useless philosophical debate that cant be answered.So have fun with your games and quotes by would be scientists. What we need is proof of there theory other wise its useless conjecture. Now on Einstein here was his definition of time notice he doesnt say it doesnt exist. Ive attempted to explain this to you but you choose not to believe because its contrary to your beliefs.Einstine believed the "Now" doesnt exist there is only a past and future. Im done arguing about time especially since you are a poor debater who resorts to attacking a person when you cant argue your point.Einstein aimed for a reformulation of physics in which the order of theory itself would mirror the order of the world. If the world of phenomena showed no observable distinction between frames of reference then (so Einstein believed) neither should the theory: a symmetry in the phenomena should show up as a symmetry in the theory. "Apparent time" and "true time" were terms he would never utter. Heres a Quote please dont misunderstand this like you did his other.




Since there exists in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence.



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 11:32 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

You need to read the posts you're responding to. You said.


Now finally by all means show me proof time is an illusion dont throw some philosophical debate physicists avoid these theirs no point. So there should be some proof time is an illusion wouldnt you think?


Who said time is an illusion. In fact, I said this:


Einstein didn't say time is an illusion, he said the DISTINCTION between the past, present and the future was a persistent illusion. This is very profound and speaks to the oneness of the universe. I say this oneness is CONSCIOUSNESS.


Again, this is why I kept asking you for evidence that this isn't the case as you claimed. Yet, you just bloviate and say the same things without presenting a shred of evidence.

I said the scientific debate is on going and time could be an illusion, it could be non existent or it could be something else.

Again, these issues are still being debated. But you say:

Proof time exists is simple

No it's not and that's why there's still a debate on this subject throughout the scientific community. Einstein said this:


"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." - Albert Einstein

"People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." - Albert Einstein

"The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once." - Albert Einstein


You said this:


As ive tried to tell you over and over physics cant have everything occur at the same time so there has to be a past present and future. It cant be an illusion if it were you wouldnt be here to argue with me.


You said there has to be a past, present and future but you provide zero evidence to support this. I agree with Einstein that the distinction between past, present and future is just a persistent illusion.

If you have evidence that the past, present and future is separated by an objective quantity called time then present it.


Time, in this view, is not something that exists apart from the universe. There is no clock ticking outside the cosmos. Most of us tend to think of time the way Newton did: “Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably, without regard to anything external.” But as Einstein proved, time is part of the fabric of the universe. Contrary to what Newton believed, our ordinary clocks don’t measure something that’s independent of the universe. In fact, says Lloyd, clocks don’t really measure time at all.

“I recently went to the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Boulder,” says Lloyd. (NIST is the government lab that houses the atomic clock that standardizes time for the nation.) “I said something like, ‘Your clocks measure time very accurately.’ They told me, ‘Our clocks do not measure time.’ I thought, Wow, that’s very humble of these guys. But they said, ‘No, time is defined to be what our clocks measure.’ Which is true. They define the time standards for the globe: Time is defined by the number of clicks of their clocks.”


Like I said, if you have evidence that time is an objective quantity that we measure then you can write the New York Times and get this evidence published so all of Science can stop debating the true nature of time.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 12:58 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

I explained what he meant to you one persons past can be another future space time is 4 dimensional and its not the same for everyone. If you understand relativity you understand there is no NOW. There is only future events and past events and the future events may have already occurred for some other observer. Now Your under the impression we have some unseen control over the universe well we dont. It was around long before we got here. So our observations are irrelevant when talking about the universe. Now we can continue debating if time exists bottom line is its unavoidable even if its something that has other effects unknown to us we see its effects on the universe separate events so they cant all happen at the same time. After all if all events happened at the sometime nothing can exist.

So if we acknowledge change occurs we have to acknowledge time in some way shape or form is linked with it. As i said read Einsteins papers he discusses time. In fact his theory brought up something he didnt like and thats predetermination. It means events have taken place before and likely you arent in the now but the past.

Some physicists like to use the multiworlds theory to get around this problem. After all if i travel at the speed of light and return to earth 5 years later. I can see how you died or if you got married and if you had kids. but i only aged 5 years and jumped in to the future. This was what Einstein wrestled with until his death and what he meant by time is an illusion there is no now. Has nothing to do with consciousness at all you are misinterpreting his work. Our consciousness has no effect on the universe only effects what we can perceive and understand.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

You keep making these statements without showing ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE to support what you're saying. You said:


Now we can continue debating if time exists bottom line is its unavoidable even if its something that has other effects unknown to us we see its effects on the universe separate events so they cant all happen at the same time. After all if all events happened at the sometime nothing can exist.

So if we acknowledge change occurs we have to acknowledge time in some way shape or form is linked with it.


You're not making any sense because you're not providing an experiment or any scientific evidence that backs up what you're saying. You're basically saying time must exist in the way I think it must exist because you believe it must be this way.

This is why I keep asking for some evidence that time must be the way that you believe it to be so we can call up the Journal Nature and the New York Times and we can get the headline:

SCIENTIST NEED TO STOP DEBATING THE NATURE OF TIME BECAUSE AN POSTER ON ATS MESSAGE BOARD BELIEVES TIME MUST EXIST.

Again, this is just silly. The fact is, there's no evidence that time is an objective quantity that we measure and this is why you have the on going debate in science.


“It’s quite mysterious why we have such an obvious arrow of time,” says Seth Lloyd, a quantum mechanical engineer at MIT. (When I ask him what time it is, he answers, “Beats me. Are we done?”) “The usual explanation of this is that in order to specify what happens to a system, you not only have to specify the physical laws, but you have to specify some initial or final condition.”


You need to call up Seth Lloyd and tell him what time is because time must exist in the way that you think it exist and not because of any scientific evidence but because this is what you believe.


“I recently went to the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Boulder,” says Lloyd. (NIST is the government lab that houses the atomic clock that standardizes time for the nation.) “I said something like, ‘Your clocks measure time very accurately.’ They told me, ‘Our clocks do not measure time.’ I thought, Wow, that’s very humble of these guys. But they said, ‘No, time is defined to be what our clocks measure.’ Which is true. They define the time standards for the globe: Time is defined by the number of clicks of their clocks.”


Like I said, I keep asking you for evidence that time must exist. You keep acting like it must exist but you're not providing any evidence.

I'm not saying time doesn't exist, I'm saying it's an open question and an on going debate. But if you want to break news to a Scientific Journal that time must exist in the way you think it must exist then I'm waiting to see your evidence.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Time exists but not in the way current science understands.

Anything that will ever happen already did. It's just that the we perceive reality in the past.

And time travel? Memories. There's no provable way of showing just what a memory is. But I came up with a theory that it's just rudimentary time travel to be able to remember an experience. Two identical twins identical in every aspect start having different memories the second they gain consciousness. Some people may have "photographic" memory while others will have a hard time remembering their 16th birthday.

If you were able to travel deep into your memories you could conceivably alter your present reality. Everything you do is based on memories of the past, both conscious and unconscious. The second you can successfully alter an existing memory, you've created an alternate reality in that person's brain. Now, the brain will see two sides of the same coin without even knowing it. But that's getting into mk ultra # and I don't quite know who might be reading this lol



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic


So in a sense we cheat because what we really observe are physical variables as a function of other physical variables, but we represent that as if everything is evolving in time.


Einstein himself said "time is what clocks measure". He meant this literally and this is a profound and serious statement.

Whether time 'exists' or not {I truly dislike senseless arguments over 'existence' without a whole slew of clarifying preconditions} , the phenomenon that makes clocks measure something which humans have found useful for thousands of years, and we perceive things in a certain direction is real.
edit on 6-6-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
16
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join