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.

 

Ask any question you want about Physics

page: 59
74
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I agree many classes dont cover interpretation of results and just tend to assume the Copenhagen interpretation to be correct. But there isnt really a conversation about possibilities unless you get two scientists together just talking. now imafungi to answer a question you asked me earlier when we measure an entangled pair we cant measure it without breaking entanglement. we cant change its state and expect the other to magically change. What we can do is look at one system and know the state of the other as to why distance doesnt seem to make the slightest difference their is the many worlds theory as pointed out. But their is also the fact that some believe time is irrelevant to our entangled pair and a third i can think of involves hilbert space meaning are two particles arent really that far apart in reality.

To my knowledge their isnt a definitive answer to any of these though each has some experimental data to back up the idea. So we could discuss them but deciding which is correct is impossible.But the key point i was trying to make we cant pass information this way because no matter what we do the entanglement is broken. What we can do however is know something about a system and we know our measurement will cause our other entangled pair to reveal its spin etc just as if it was measured.




posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
Well I prefer not to think we live in a computer, but the best explanation I have read is the following:
So you don't agree with the video but you're citing it anyway, is that what you mean?

I'm just saying I don't find the idea of living in a simulated reality very appealing, but my personal feelings about the theory don't make it untrue. It is the most plausible theory I have come across, many other aspects of QM also suggest we live in a digital simulated reality. The many worlds theory could also be true but I find that idea even more repulsive than living in a computer because it means countless versions of me exist in other time lines, having made the worst possible decisions in life and I feel bad for my other selves. Lol...



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Well ill make you feel bettet we arent living in a simulation several experments were done looking for the graininess of space. See when we look at smaller scales like quanta we should see a fuzziness in a computer simulation in our universe it isnt there at least according to the european space agency.



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 05:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
In this case I'm specifically denying that there's a requirement as you stated that "the correlation between entangled particles must occur at the speed of light or less" which is apparently your logic. As I said the MWI (Many worlds Interpretation) would allow this to happen, but I know of no absolute reason why "the correlation between entangled particles must occur at the speed of light or less", so I don't feel any compulsion to accept the MWI just because it allows a local explanation.


I admitted, to MBkennel, it is possible there may be structures and frameworks we were unaware of when making the 'nothing faster than light rule' so that is how we got to talking how might those structures exist, and how we got to talking about that they might exist in that the 'no faster then light classical structures' are 'projections' in a 'fake' 'slow' 'classical' space, which are results at smaller action in a net smaller space. Something like this, illusionary and hidden and compressed dimensions must be the case if faster than light entangle particle phenomenon occurs.


Yes but Bell's inequality doesn't require us to know what the hidden variables are, it's only testing for whether such variables may exist.


But I am saying, that its obviously a failed experiment or test, because using the term hidden variables is a misnomer. I am saying hidden variables must exist, because Bell and you do not know HOW entanglement physically works. HOW it works are hidden variables. There is still hidden information about that process that results in the results, even if his equations and predictions work, there are still hidden variables.






How do you rationalize this with Bell's inequality?


Because, bells inequality is about measuring at different angles and polarization's, if exact but opposite state pair particles are created when 'entangled particles' are created, then the results would be what bells received in his experiments. He assumed that 'exact and opposite state particles' were not created, under hidden variable idea, so he assumed that the only way exact and opposite state particles were to exist, would be if they were superposed and entangled, so he assumed under this assumption, that when he did the experiment, the fact that the particles always correlated to be exact opposite states must mean that his entanglement assumption is correct. Completely neglecting the rational assumption that when 2 particles are created, in the process called 'creation of particle pairs or entangled particles' 2 distinct and opposite stated particles are created.




The physicist in the OP video, Sean Carroll likes it, and while he may be in the minority, I think the minority may be growing. The way he puts it, it's just assuming the Schrodinger equation is actually correct, but it seems like a messy explanation. That doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong.


No, yea, the idea of superposition is wrong. If you take a bit of rope in your hand so about 7 inches is hanging over the edge of your hand and start to swing it in a circle mimicking a helicopter blade, I feel this is something you have mentioned before, it almost may look like a circle of solid. But we know there is only 1 exact dimensional bit of material. This is like superposition, this is like electron cloud. There is the substance, the material, then there is the 'crazy' way in which the material is forced to move at tremendous potentially regulatory speeds in very short spaces. Because our processing of realities time is not 1:1, we will always be 'chasing its tail'. Unless we corner it, which is all science is attempting to do, get as much information from all sides as we can, to try and posit how it might be 1:1. So that is why our models are 'smeared'. Are blurry. That is why you think 'an object can exist as 'superposition'. Two contradictory object states at once. AT 'ONCE'. Key word and concept. Once, implying 1:1, moment to moment, exact, pure. But what about the time it takes for an object to transition into another one, or change, yes there may be momentary superposition there I suppose, I suppose you can call a vibrating string a solitary object, as it is an object connected, but to define that vibrating strings characteristics as an object would be difficult, because at each 1:1 moment of time different parts of it are doing different things and they are constantly changing and moving. So define the object as a whole, define its parts, define how its sections change, where the causes of each change come from, and then define the whole again and again, etc.



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 10:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
Well ill make you feel bettet we arent living in a simulation several experments were done looking for the graininess of space. See when we look at smaller scales like quanta we should see a fuzziness in a computer simulation in our universe it isnt there at least according to the european space agency.

That experiment is flawed imo, I don't think there is any plausible way for us to detect the graininess of space because it's too small of a scale. The method they used makes the assumption that the graininess is pronounced enough to slow down photons traveling through it, it's not even clear that friction between space-time lumpiness and photons is something that can actually happen even if it was lumpy enough. Personally I still think space-time must be quantized for many different reasons, whether we live in a computer or not. There are far too many paradoxes in physics which cannot be resolved without quantized space-time. In any case that experiment was aimed at disproving loop quantum gravity and not the idea that we live in a computer. Space-time doesn't need to act like a quantum foam for us to live in a computer.
edit on 13/9/2014 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 12:34 AM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi


Hidden variables would be easy to detect with math because even if we dont know what they are we would still see their effect in experiments. and we would still be able to make predictions based off the sum total of interactions. Heres what i mean do an experiment a hundred times you may miss the correlation and may not see the pattern do it a thousand times you still may not see it. However run it millions of times and a pattern would show and we could predict the limits of the missing variables. This is essentially what bells theorem does if their is a missing variable rin the experiment enough and we can see its upper and lower limit. Problem is we run the experiments millions of times and still dont see a pattern its truly random. You and others can argue its wrong but you cant argue with the math if there is a pattern you run an experiment multiple times a pattern will always occur it has to. But the Universe is sneaky no matter how many times you run it no pattern ever shows up showing its truly random.

Now let me tell you of an experiment as further proof of the random nature of the universe. Lets say we take a laser and direct it through a beam splitter. We get two beams each half the intensity of the original. In terms of waves this is pretty easy to explain; some of the wave’s energy goes through, and some reflects off of the splitter. Now lets make a change to our experiment lets add two detectors in the two different paths. we should see our photons hitting both detectors at the same time. But lets slow down the photons to the point where we fire one at a time. Now our photons arent splitting they hit one or the other.meaning they chose one path or the other. This in itself tells us something strange is happening but lets try to force our experiment so we can make a prediction. So we think and decide where going to be clever after our beam goes through the first splitter will use two mirrors to bring them back together and run them though another splitter. This should cause our light to rejoin be split again and we should start to be able to make a prediction on which detector should be hit. But oddly we can set up whats called destructive interference by changing the distance of our mirrors. Will see the light enter the second splitter but nothing comes out the other end. so we dial down our experiment back down to sending one photon at a time in our experiment the detector has to detect it right? Because realize no mater which path our photon takes it will hit the detector and there is no other photons to cause interference.

But oddly when we fire one at time we still dont hit the detectors meaning that our single photon is still causing destructive interference with itself. But how can this be if there is only one. This is why we know light is a wave if it acted as a particle it would hit the detector. By the way most physics students conduct this exact experiment at some point during their education. Its usually the first time it starts to click for many students, especially when you figure out the results are impossible it like throwing a basketball at a hoop and having it disappear.



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 04:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr



Problem is we run the experiments millions of times and still dont see a pattern its truly random. But the Universe is sneaky no matter how many times you run it no pattern ever shows up showing its truly random.


The whole idea of bells theorem and entanglement theory is that a pattern does show up, a very explicit pattern, which states; When the activity of creating particle pairs occurs, which his referred to as 'the creation of entangled particles', we find by the end of both particle measurement, that the particles are measured to have opposite states/characteristics, deeming them to be called, pairs, or entangled particles.




Now let me tell you of an experiment as further proof of the random nature of the universe. Lets say we take a laser and direct it through a beam splitter. We get two beams each half the intensity of the original. In terms of waves this is pretty easy to explain; some of the wave’s energy goes through, and some reflects off of the splitter. Now lets make a change to our experiment lets add two detectors in the two different paths. we should see our photons hitting both detectors at the same time. But lets slow down the photons to the point where we fire one at a time. Now our photons arent splitting they hit one or the other.meaning they chose one path or the other. This in itself tells us something strange is happening but lets try to force our experiment so we can make a prediction.


There is nothing strange about this, purely classical. One photon, one baseball, runs into a material, it must go one way or another.




So we think and decide where going to be clever after our beam goes through the first splitter will use two mirrors to bring them back together and run them though another splitter. This should cause our light to rejoin be split again and we should start to be able to make a prediction on which detector should be hit. But oddly we can set up whats called destructive interference by changing the distance of our mirrors. Will see the light enter the second splitter but nothing comes out the other end. so we dial down our experiment back down to sending one photon at a time in our experiment the detector has to detect it right? Because realize no mater which path our photon takes it will hit the detector and there is no other photons to cause interference.

But oddly when we fire one at time we still dont hit the detectors meaning that our single photon is still causing destructive interference with itself.


um, or the single photon was absorbed somewhere else, or when contacting the splitter reflected in a direction that was not able to be detected by the detector. You are not saying you believe that when you fire 1 photon at a splitter and mirrors toward a detector, depending on the distance of the mirror, a photon can 'completely disappear from the experiment', not that 'we fail to detect it' but 'because we fail to detect it, it must have completely vanished from existence, it is not possible we just completely failed to detect 1 single photon shot into a contraption'.



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi


I was waiting for you to say that now all we have to do is move the mirrors a bit closer and we get constructive interference and the frequency changes meaning now our waves our combining. again we move it back and again no photons travel through. In your world apparently photons randomly change direction?

As far as Bells Theorem what im trying to explain is if a variable existed it would have to make an impact on an experiment. we may not be able to know the variable what we could set its limits therefore we would know its their. For example; 2, 2, 3, 6, 0, 6, 7, 9, 7, 7, 4, 9, 9, … is not random, but seems random. It would be really hard to predict the next term (7) if you don’t know the hidden variable. (BTW, the “hidden variable” is: this is the decimal expansion of square root of 5). But if we keep going we will eventually recognize there is a pattern even if we dont figure out the hidden variable because will start seeing a repeating pattern.

Than thereis another factor we flip this we see results from an experiment we can mathematically calculate what variables would be needed to get our results to make predictions the problem becomes they arent there. See when dealing with a hidden variable you need whats called a minimum definition a place holder if you will. No matter how many experiments we do we never see any patterns emerge.

In bells theorem when we play with the spin of lights with detectors we should see a pattern occur and start being able to make predictions we dont however. What your calling a pattern is us forcing the experiment to create a condition but when we do we dont always get the same results like we should. For example i can control conditions to get a result i want like loading dice so they always come up 6. In the QM world no matter how we try to load the dice we still end up with random numbers. Like in the above experiment i mentioned we control the conditions we are forcing light to take one of two paths period and when we fire a single photon it has two take one of the two paths. This is our loaded dice only thing is our Photon doesnt react the way its supposed to. How do we explain this QM.



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
In your world apparently photons randomly change direction?
If I put on my amateur psychology hat, I think the same stages that apply to loss of a loved one may apply to loss of one's belief that everything operates classically somehow.

The five stages are:
1. Denial
2. Anger
3. Bargaining
4. Depression
5. Acceptance

Some people are still in the denial stage, which is what I see in ImaFungi's reply that the results just can't be what they are, there must be some other explanation for the results, like the photon going off in another direction.

@Imafungi I think you could do the experiment yourself and satisfy yourself that none of the alternative explanations you offered are correct. Somehow you need to work your way to step 5 of accepting the results but you have a ways to go it seems. Physicists didn't want these strange results either, so they've been motivated to try alternate versions of the experiments to rule out other explanations. You can do the same thing. Add more detectors if you want to see if it's going in some other direction.



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Nice try but I am one of the most reasonable people who have ever existed. I am someone who is most cautious and has most care for the truth. I know you didnt read and/or understand what I wrote just from seeing you write "that none of the alternative explanations you offered are correct".



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr



I was waiting for you to say that now all we have to do is move the mirrors a bit closer and we get constructive interference and the frequency changes meaning now our waves our combining. again we move it back and again no photons travel through. In your world apparently photons randomly change direction?


HEY! Stop jumping back and forth between a beam and single photons sly guy!

Where we left off, and what I was discussing, was single photon experiments. The material you are sending the photons on, surely the distance the mirrors are from the emitter of light, has something to do with the electrons of the material, and their wave functions, so that at certain distances the light is scattered one way or another. Something about the material.



As far as Bells Theorem what im trying to explain is if a variable existed it would have to make an impact on an experiment.


So a beam is split into two beams.... So this means, a stampede of a billion photons is split into 2 stampedes of half a billion photons each. Then each beam hits a mirror and directs the beams towards one another. Some times the result of this is what? Detection of 'wave like splotches of light' at the end result detector is constructive interference, and 'no detection at all?' or just the inverse pattern of wave like splotches of light at the end result detector is destructive interference?




we may not be able to know the variable what we could set its limits therefore we would know its their. For example; 2, 2, 3, 6, 0, 6, 7, 9, 7, 7, 4, 9, 9, … is not random, but seems random. It would be really hard to predict the next term (7) if you don’t know the hidden variable. (BTW, the “hidden variable” is: this is the decimal expansion of square root of 5). But if we keep going we will eventually recognize there is a pattern even if we dont figure out the hidden variable because will start seeing a repeating pattern.

Than thereis another factor we flip this we see results from an experiment we can mathematically calculate what variables would be needed to get our results to make predictions the problem becomes they arent there. See when dealing with a hidden variable you need whats called a minimum definition a place holder if you will. No matter how many experiments we do we never see any patterns emerge.


The patterns is that when entangled pairs are made they are always measured to have opposite states/characteristics deeming them to be termed entangled particles? The pattern is if you move the mirror closer or further, you get different outcomes of detection?




In bells theorem when we play with the spin of lights with detectors we should see a pattern occur and start being able to make predictions we dont however. What your calling a pattern is us forcing the experiment to create a condition but when we do we dont always get the same results like we should.


Explain this, I thought entangled particles are always entangled particles, are they not? I thought entangled particles exist in a superposition state which FTL signals its other pair to become an exact and opposite state when its partner is measured? I thought that is the pattern. Are you saying there is no such thing as entangled particles? Or that sometimes we cant make them? and because sometimes we cant make them, therefore there is no pattern?



For example i can control conditions to get a result i want like loading dice so they always come up 6. In the QM world no matter how we try to load the dice we still end up with random numbers. Like in the above experiment i mentioned we control the conditions we are forcing light to take one of two paths period and when we fire a single photon it has two take one of the two paths. This is our loaded dice only thing is our Photon doesnt react the way its supposed to. How do we explain this QM.


Ok yay, back to 1 photon.

Photon has to take one of two paths. So is the photon an object that can be split in half or stretched? Or it is an object that takes one of two (infinite) paths? How does QM explain the light takes one of two paths?



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

Ok to simplify things when we have a beam we can see the possible paths for our photon correct? So assuming you agree where does our photon go when we fire them one at a time? You dont think are photons are wave. So how do we still get the same interference when we fire one at a time? We ahouldnt get interference it should take one path or the other. Instead our photon creates destructive interference with itself this is impossible if its a point in space.

However if it travels down both paths than we can explain the results. Make sense?? Now entangled particles arent a pattern they are a result we can cau se them and create the circumstances to make them occur like throwimg a rubber ball on the ground. We know the ball will bounce but if we do it and it disappears now we know something is happening.

So now we can keep running are experiment to see when it occurs and what factors are involved is it s peed or spin or gravity and will see a pattern the more we do it. Problem is no matter how many times we run particular experments we end up with random results. This is what i meant by run an experent for days or weeks or months and after billions of them will see a pattern. From this you can at least determine tjw upper and lower limits even if we dont know what the missing variable is.

No matter how many times it is run a pattern never emerges and we cant even set limits on possibilitie because they arent there. Even things you believe to be random like dice often times are not no dice is perfect and these slight imperfections will show a bias in the results. We dont see anything at the quantum level.



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 08:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

Ok to simplify things when we have a beam we can see the possible paths for our photon correct?


Um, maybe. See the possible paths for our photon with a beam? Because you are sugesting the group testing of a beam (a lot of photons) is the best way to determine where (1 photon) can possibly go, after firing them out of the device. Perhaps you fail o take into account the potential of photons that are fired with a beam, that are not detected when run in the billion of photons, but when doing 1 photon at a time, sometimes the one it shoots is one of the 'undetectable' ones?



So assuming you agree where does our photon go when we fire them one at a time? You dont think are photons are wave.


I dont know if a single photon is a wave or not. I have tried to ask a very through question pertaining the nature of particle -wave and I have never got much intrigue into answering it. If a single photon is a wave, can it be cut in half? a half a photon wave?



So how do we still get the same interference when we fire one at a time?


You dont get the same interference when you fire one. Unless a single photon can be split into two, momentarily and then 'snap back' into one another when the environment presents itself. Can you show me one piece of evidence, explicit, just general, what I am asking for, a single shred of experimental evidence, that a single photon, interferes with itself?



We ahouldnt get interference it should take one path or the other. Instead our photon creates destructive interference with itself this is impossible if its a point in space.


I am waiting for you to answer what I have written and asked for above before I dig further inbetween our misunderstandings.



However if it travels down both paths than we can explain the results. Make sense?? Now entangled particles arent a pattern they are a result we can cau se them and create the circumstances to make them occur like throwimg a rubber ball on the ground. We know the ball will bounce but if we do it and it disappears now we know something is happening.

So now we can keep running are experiment to see when it occurs and what factors are involved is it s peed or spin or gravity and will see a pattern the more we do it. Problem is no matter how many times we run particular experments we end up with random results. This is what i meant by run an experent for days or weeks or months and after billions of them will see a pattern. From this you can at least determine tjw upper and lower limits even if we dont know what the missing variable is.


Um...ok.



No matter how many times it is run a pattern never emerges and we cant even set limits on possibilitie because they arent there. Even things you believe to be random like dice often times are not no dice is perfect and these slight imperfections will show a bias in the results. We dont see anything at the quantum level.


Randomness or lack of pattern does not disclaim the idea that hidden variables are hidden variables. Variables can be random. Hidden variables can be unpredictable variables that are hidden.



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

Hidden variables cannot be random the point of hidden variables is if we knew them we could predict the outcome. Hidden variables believe if we could measure every particle in the universe we could predict the outcome no matter how far into the future we go. Hidden variables say if we can determine every factor in your life we can exactly predict your future. The fact that you even say hidden variables could be random tells me you dont understand them.



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 11:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: ImaFungi

Hidden variables cannot be random the point of hidden variables is if we knew them we could predict the outcome. Hidden variables believe if we could measure every particle in the universe we could predict the outcome no matter how far into the future we go. Hidden variables say if we can determine every factor in your life we can exactly predict your future. The fact that you even say hidden variables could be random tells me you dont understand them.


If randomness can exist in the universe, that randomness can be hidden variables, if we do not know the nature of that randomness.

Why can hidden variables not be random? Just because we do not know them, does not mean they can not be random.

Mainly everytime we created a particle pair/entangled particles every time we measure entangled particles the pair of entangled particles each particle is the opposite state or at least has one characteristic about it that is opposite compared to its pair? Does this happen every time or sometimes? If this happens every time, it is not random. We dont know exactly how it happens. That is the concept of 'hidden variable'. Exactly how it happens, is the variable, which causes exactly what happens, to happen exactly as exactly what happens happens. Because we dont know that, it is hidden to us. That information is hidden. Those variables are hidden. Do you know how entangled particles are entangled, No, you dont, because that information is hidden, that information is variables.



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 12:19 AM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

Historically, in physics, hidden variable theories were espoused by some physicists who argued that the state of a physical system, as formulated by quantum mechanics, does not give a complete description for the system; i.e., that quantum mechanics is ultimately incomplete, and that a complete theory would provide descriptive categories to account for all observable behavior and thus avoid any indeterminism.


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 02:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: ImaFungi

Historically, in physics, hidden variable theories were espoused by some physicists who argued that the state of a physical system, as formulated by quantum mechanics, does not give a complete description for the system; i.e., that quantum mechanics is ultimately incomplete, and that a complete theory would provide descriptive categories to account for all observable behavior and thus avoid any indeterminism.


en.wikipedia.org...


Exactly, QM does not give a complete description for the system, QM is ultimately incomplete. Exactly, yes, that, is my point,

Then you mess up! I am not saying it may be possible to ever know or have complete theory! Which is exactly related to why there are variables hidden. The total knowledge of how the system works is not known! The total knowledge of how the system works is hidden! It may forever stay hidden! It may be random! (whatever you feel like defining the term random as, as I would be sure at least on your first try you would be wrong) GR is not a complete theory because it does not fully comprehend the nature of the gravity field/stress energy tensor, it only is familiar with it abstractly and at if even a slightly unclear distance. Same with so called entanglement, it is a hazy picture of our understanding of exactly what we can do, and our interpretation of what that means exactly what might exist might be like. You cannot give me a theory as to how the 'spooky action' of entanglement functions, we know it functions, the way in which it functions, which is unknown, is hidden, the way in which it functions is a variable.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 12:51 AM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

You seem to be having a logic disconnect you dont like QM because it states things are indeed indeterminate because they are truly random. Than when i show you an example through experiment you than say well the hidden variable could be random. So now where right back to QM which says the hidden variable is random. See QM states we can never know everything about a particle because its in random states. So to make this clear for you if your arguing against QM than you believe the universe isnt random but predetermined you cant flip back and forth just because you haven't a clue. I told you about an experiment that shows the universe can have one particle in different places at the same time. Unless you can think of any way this is possible QM is the only game in town.



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 01:39 AM
link   
And a very good post
a reply to: ImaFungi



posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 04:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: ImaFungi

You seem to be having a logic disconnect you dont like QM because it states things are indeed indeterminate because they are truly random.

Than when i show you an example through experiment you than say well the hidden variable could be random.


What part of entanglement is random?

Hidden variables can be random. If I say; "I am going to pick over the course of 10 trials, from a bag of 10 jelly beans, whatever number I want each time". I will say "I will never pick 10 during 1 trial, and I never will pick 0 during 1 trial...tell me how many jelly beans I will pick each trial". The number of jelly beans I pick each time, to you, is hidden information, hidden variable, according to you, it would also be random (and maybe according to me too).




So now where right back to QM which says the hidden variable is random. See QM states we can never know everything about a particle because its in random states.


But we know that when 2 entangled particles are created, when we measure them they always have at least one opposite state? This is why they are called entangled particles? Thats not random is it.



So to make this clear for you if your arguing against QM than you believe the universe isnt random but predetermined you cant flip back and forth just because you haven't a clue.


Well the tricky thing is the existence of the mind! Besides 'conscious' beings influence, I would say the universe is 100% determined.




I told you about an experiment that shows the universe can have one particle in different places at the same time. Unless you can think of any way this is possible QM is the only game in town.


No I cannot think of any way in which that is possible, I dont believe it is a true statement, interpretation or experiment. Unless you can cut a single particle in half, or if a single particle is a wave that is technically the size of 'incremental feet', which is the same concept of 'splitting it in half', then you record the particles existence at two different detectors at once. Yes, ok, but I can still have a classic understanding of 'finite' material existing. It seems like the mystery and oddness and weirdness is comprehending the nature of fundamental fields and waves and 'layers?' and how they oscillate and can maybe interact in 2 directions or infinite directions at once causing multiple effects surrounding that always change and how taught and energy dense the fields all are.



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join